Split (1)

train · 1.05M rows

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
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? In the Greek Koine language the expression "kyrios Iesous" also appears in Philippians 2:11, which I have noted below. 1 Corinthians 12:3 (NASB) > > " Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking [a]by the Spirit > of God says, “Jesus is [b]accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is > Lord,” except [c]by the Holy Spirit." > > > ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 12:3 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU) > > 3" διο γνωριζω υμιν οτι ουδεις εν πνευματι θεου λαλων λεγει αναθεμα > ιησους και ουδεις δυναται ειπειν κυριος ιησους ει μη εν πνευματι > αγιω." > > > Philippians 2:11 (NASB) > > 11" And that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to > the glory of God the Father." > > > ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 2:11 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU) > > 11 "και πασα γλωσσα εξομολογησηται οτι κυριος ιησους χριστος εις > δοξαν θεου πατρος." > > > In both verses in the Koine language Phil.2:1 and 1 Cor.12:3 the word " kyrios" is without the definite article, so the word kyrios is a title that a person may be addressed. Therefore it is incorrect to translate "KYRIOS IESOUS" into "Jehovah Jesus" ,anyway it sounds absurd.	The [Roman Imperator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator) was able to force his will on Rome because, in the [Roman Imperial cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome) the Imperator was divinely selected by the gods of Rome and through apotheosis they and their families would become gods (divus) upon their deaths. Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. [This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/roman_religion_gallery_06.shtml) > > Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods. On his death, Julius Caesar was officially recognised as a god, the Divine ('Divus') Julius, by the Roman state. And in 29 BC Caesar's adopted son, the first Roman emperor Augustus, allowed the culturally Greek cities of Asia Minor to set up temples to him. This was really the first manifestation of Roman emperor-worship. While worship of a living emperor was culturally acceptable in some parts of the empire, in Rome itself and in Italy it was not. There an emperor was usually declared a 'divus' only on his death, and was subsequently worshipped (especially on anniversaries, like that of his accession) with sacrifice like any other gods... > > > So while the Roman Imperators were too bashful to declare themselves to be gods ("divus") while living, they were honored as gods after their death, maintaining national loyalty. So to declare the Jewish Messiah to be the son of God, Lord, etc. was a revolutionary act, putting the risen Messiah in dangerous competition with the Imperators. It has already been pointed out that Koine lexica identify multiple ways that KURIOS is used, even within the NT, so we must immediately dispense with the notion that the word, "by definition", means "YHVH". That's patently false and I won't address that further here except to point to [this example](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) which I don't think has been raised yet: > > [Jhn 4:19 KJV] 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir [IE: KURIOS], I perceive that thou art a prophet. > > > She would not have said "YHVH, I can tell you are a prophet" as that would make no sense. Context ------- If we look at the context Paul is discussing the "manifestations of the spirit/breath of God": > > [1Co 12:1 DBY] But concerning spiritual [manifestations], brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant. > > > He reminds them how before they were rescued they were "so open minded that their brains would fall out" (like the "Funny Mentalists" [that ape](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooMLnrRGCqs) the [spiritual manifestations given in the last days of the Jewish covenants](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) to [divinely endorse the apostles](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%2012.12)). IE: prophecies that don't come true, healings that require pretending you don't have symptoms, "tongues" that are gibberish, etc. They would ignorantly be led in paths of darkness by the spirit that is operating still among the disobedient: > > [1Co 12:2 DBY] Ye know that when ye were [of the] nations [ye were] led away to dumb idols, in whatever way ye might be led. > > > [Eph 2:1-3 DBY] 1 and you, being dead in your offences and sins -- 2 in which ye once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience: 3 among whom we also all once had our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, doing what the flesh and the thoughts willed to do, and were children, by nature, of wrath, even as the rest: > > > Or rather, "...according to the ruler of the authority of the air of the breath that now operates in the disobedient...". > > [1Co 12:3 DBY] I give you therefore to know, that no one, speaking in [the power of the] Spirit of God, says, Curse [on] Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in [the power of the] Holy Spirit. > > > So Paul is "[giving them to know](https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=except%20it%20be%20given&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1)" that if anyone professes to be a prophet speaking as a manifestation of the breath of God and their "prophecy" says that Jesus is or should be under YHVH's "ban" then they are not truly speaking by the breath of God but rather by the breath of the ruler of the KOSMOU (which I tentatively take to be either the high priest (as the ) or the Satan - probably the high priest who acted as and under the control of the Satan). The "ban" is the curse that God promised would fall on those who did not return to the God of their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jakob) but instead rejected their Messiah: > > [Mal 4:4-6 NASB] 4 "Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. 5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers [IE: "Abraham, Isaac..."], so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." > > > It was not enough to be physically descended from Abraham; they had to be "of the faith of Abraham": > > [Mat 3:7, 9 ASV] 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ... 9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. > > > [Rom 4:11 ASV] 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; > > > KURIOS ------ So that is the prevailing context of our verse. So in this context, what does KURIOS mean? IF it refers to the title that Jesus received because of his obedience to God to such a degree that he went all the way to his death at the "hands" of the Jews via Pilate: > > [Phl 2:8-11 ASV] 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [IE: to God] even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name [IE: the "title"] which is above every name [IE: the "title"]; 10 that in the name [IE: the "title"] of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. > > > IF it refers to the title "YHVH" then it still says that God "gave him the title": > > [Exo 23:21 ASV] 21 Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. > > > [1Ki 9:3 ASV] 3 And Jehovah said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually. > > > [1Ki 11:36 ASV] 36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a lamp alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. > > > [2Ki 21:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of Asherah, that he had made, in the house of which Jehovah said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever; > > > [2Ch 33:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of the idol, which he had made, in the house of God, of which God said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: > > > So what does that mean? That means that when David sat down in his throne he was sitting on YHVH's throne: > > [1Ki 1:17 ASV] 17 And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by Jehovah thy God unto thy handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. > > > [1Ki 1:30 ASV] 30 verily as I sware unto thee by Jehovah, the God of Israel, saying, Assuredly \\Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; verily so will I do this day. > > > And so on... Solomon, because he sat in YHVH's throne (and wielded his scepter) the God of Israel presided through Solomon. Hence, Psalm 45 addresses Solomon: > > [Psa 45:6 ASV] 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. > > > Solomon is a type of "the Ruler of Peace" (IE: the Messiah): > > [Rev 3:21 KJV] 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. > > > So no matter how you slice it Jesus is only KURIOS to the degree that he draws his authority from his God and Father: > > [Jhn 5:43 KJV] 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. > > > KURIOS is above every other title that is applied legitimately to men but he answers to HIS God, which is also the one who begat him. > > [2Co 11:31 KJV] 31 The God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. > > > [Eph 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: > > > [1Pe 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, > > > [1Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. > > >
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	LORD - > > "The title, Lord, is the translation of three Greek words Kurios is by far the most frequent word used. It means authority and lordship as the result of ownership “Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's” (1 Cor. 6:20)."-<http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=445> > > > "Kύριος" as mentioned above it a title to show that the one who is addressed as "Lord" has or hold some kind of power or authority. Being as you used 1 Cor. 12:3 with this address therein. Others example of Jesus being given power by Jehovah are:- > > NWT Acts 10:36 "He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all." > > > NWT Romans 6:23 "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." > > > NWT 2 Corinthians 11:31 "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the One who is to be praised forever, knows I am not lying." > > > NWT Philippians 2:11 "...every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. > > > Here is from whom Jesus receives his Lordship:- > > NWT Matthew 28:18 "Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been *given me* in heaven and on the earth. > > > NWT Acts 2:36 "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.” > > > NWT Ephesians 5:19, 20 "Speak to one another with psalms, praises to God, and spiritual songs, singing and accompanying yourselves with music in your hearts to Jehovah, 20 always giving thanks to our God and Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." > > > NWT Acts 16:31, 32 "They said: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of Jehovah to him together with all those in his house." > > > To help us to have further insight of "Lord" is the related title by which Jesus in scripture is called; "Despotes." > > Despotes , another word used, but only twice used of Christ. (See 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4.) It is derived from deo , to bind, and pous , the foot. It has the meaning of unlimited despotic authority, which surely the Lord is entitled to."-<http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=445> > > > Below "Owner" = "Despotes." > > NWT 2 Peter 2:1 "However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves." > > > NWT Jude 4 "My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only *owner* and Lord, Jesus Christ. > > > Jesus in the above is both "Lord" and "Owner" of Christian as he bought us with his life blood as our Ransom, thus is is most worthy to be called our "Lord."	The word κύριος is the chosen word to represent יהוה / YHWH in the LXX nearly every time it appears in the Hebrew Text. Thus, it does offer a plausible objetion to this usage as only meaning 'lord' or 'master' as in a general sense, when one would speak to a ruler of any sort in the Greek world. It is also noteworthy that יהוה in the Hebrew transliteration does not occur in the NT scriptures except for in names and praise such as ἀλληλούΐα. So in order to know if Jesus is being equated with YHWH through the term κύριος in 1 Cor. 12:3, you would need to find and develop a context surrounding this usage in this section of Corinthians and the book as a whole and then see how our author, Paul, uses the term κύριος in it. > > 1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. > > > 1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. > > > 1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord (κυριος). > > > 1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. > > > The subject mater seems to relate back to a similar context in this book: > > 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. > > > And this contextually answers to Paul's point of introduction in this Epistle: > > 1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. > > > And this is a partial quote of the content of > > Zec\_10:12 καὶ κατισχύσω αὐτοὺς ἐν κυρίῳ θεῷ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ κατακαυχήσονται, λέγει κύριος. > > > Zec 10:12 And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God; and they shall boast in his name, saith the Lord. > > > Even more compelling as to the reference Paul is tying into the concept of 1 Corinthians and in the statement made in our focus verse is the 'glory in the Lord' is: > > Jer 9:23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory/boast in his wisdom, and let not the strong man boast in his strength, and let not the rich man boast in his wealth; > > > Jer 9:23 (9:22) Τάδε λέγει κύριος Μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ, > > > Jer 9:24 but let him that boasts boast in this, the understanding and knowing that I am the Lord that exercise mercy, and judgment, and righteousness, upon the earth; for in these things is my pleasure, saith the Lord. > > > Jer 9:24 (9:23) ἀλλ’ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἐν τούτοις τὸ θέλημά μου, λέγει κύριος. > > > And this part of Jeramiah is the exact point Paul makes concerning the wise in: > > 1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: > > > 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. > > > 1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: > > > 1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: > > > 1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. > > > NEVERTHELESS the Name of the LORD / κύριος in reference in Jer 9:23-24 and in Zec 10:12 of the LXX which Paul has been building his case on in this Epistle is in the Hebrew Text יהוה / YHWH...every time! It would make a confusing mess if in Paul's quote of Hebrew Scripture he meant Jesus...or would it? > > 1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. > > > Jer 9:24 *but let him that glories glory in this, the \\understanding* and knowing that I am the Lord/κύριος/ יהוה / YHWH\\ that exercise mercy, and judgment, and righteousness, upon the earth; for in these things is my pleasure, saith the Lord. > > > Hope this helps
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	The Greek word κύριος means "Master-Lord-Ruler". It has no connection to "Yahveh", which in Greek is translated (excluding pronouns and articles) using forms of the verb "εἰμὶ" (to be) . Also, the audience of the epistle has a Greek cultural background, where the word "κύριος" (lord) is not used in place of the word "θεός" (god). However, Paul, being a former Pharisee, uses the word "κύριος" extensively when refering to Jesus, as for a religious Jew this is a reserved way of refering to "Yahveh". He would call Jesus either "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" (Jesus the Annointed; "Christ" is a transliteration of "Χριστός", a Greek word). The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is the Son of God sent by God to earth as the Messiah that brings salvation to the human kind. From a Jewish standpoint, calling Jesus Lord is calling him God, and calling Jesus Annointed is calling him Messiah. In this verse, Paul proclaims that one cannot recognize that Jesus is more than a man if not by enlightment by the Holy Spirit. Even though the word does not mean or imply "God" in Greek, it is obvious that it used in this way, since what Paul teaches is that Jesus is God.	The [Roman Imperator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator) was able to force his will on Rome because, in the [Roman Imperial cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome) the Imperator was divinely selected by the gods of Rome and through apotheosis they and their families would become gods (divus) upon their deaths. Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. [This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/roman_religion_gallery_06.shtml) > > Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods. On his death, Julius Caesar was officially recognised as a god, the Divine ('Divus') Julius, by the Roman state. And in 29 BC Caesar's adopted son, the first Roman emperor Augustus, allowed the culturally Greek cities of Asia Minor to set up temples to him. This was really the first manifestation of Roman emperor-worship. While worship of a living emperor was culturally acceptable in some parts of the empire, in Rome itself and in Italy it was not. There an emperor was usually declared a 'divus' only on his death, and was subsequently worshipped (especially on anniversaries, like that of his accession) with sacrifice like any other gods... > > > So while the Roman Imperators were too bashful to declare themselves to be gods ("divus") while living, they were honored as gods after their death, maintaining national loyalty. So to declare the Jewish Messiah to be the son of God, Lord, etc. was a revolutionary act, putting the risen Messiah in dangerous competition with the Imperators. It has already been pointed out that Koine lexica identify multiple ways that KURIOS is used, even within the NT, so we must immediately dispense with the notion that the word, "by definition", means "YHVH". That's patently false and I won't address that further here except to point to [this example](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) which I don't think has been raised yet: > > [Jhn 4:19 KJV] 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir [IE: KURIOS], I perceive that thou art a prophet. > > > She would not have said "YHVH, I can tell you are a prophet" as that would make no sense. Context ------- If we look at the context Paul is discussing the "manifestations of the spirit/breath of God": > > [1Co 12:1 DBY] But concerning spiritual [manifestations], brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant. > > > He reminds them how before they were rescued they were "so open minded that their brains would fall out" (like the "Funny Mentalists" [that ape](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooMLnrRGCqs) the [spiritual manifestations given in the last days of the Jewish covenants](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) to [divinely endorse the apostles](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%2012.12)). IE: prophecies that don't come true, healings that require pretending you don't have symptoms, "tongues" that are gibberish, etc. They would ignorantly be led in paths of darkness by the spirit that is operating still among the disobedient: > > [1Co 12:2 DBY] Ye know that when ye were [of the] nations [ye were] led away to dumb idols, in whatever way ye might be led. > > > [Eph 2:1-3 DBY] 1 and you, being dead in your offences and sins -- 2 in which ye once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience: 3 among whom we also all once had our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, doing what the flesh and the thoughts willed to do, and were children, by nature, of wrath, even as the rest: > > > Or rather, "...according to the ruler of the authority of the air of the breath that now operates in the disobedient...". > > [1Co 12:3 DBY] I give you therefore to know, that no one, speaking in [the power of the] Spirit of God, says, Curse [on] Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in [the power of the] Holy Spirit. > > > So Paul is "[giving them to know](https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=except%20it%20be%20given&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1)" that if anyone professes to be a prophet speaking as a manifestation of the breath of God and their "prophecy" says that Jesus is or should be under YHVH's "ban" then they are not truly speaking by the breath of God but rather by the breath of the ruler of the KOSMOU (which I tentatively take to be either the high priest (as the ) or the Satan - probably the high priest who acted as and under the control of the Satan). The "ban" is the curse that God promised would fall on those who did not return to the God of their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jakob) but instead rejected their Messiah: > > [Mal 4:4-6 NASB] 4 "Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. 5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers [IE: "Abraham, Isaac..."], so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." > > > It was not enough to be physically descended from Abraham; they had to be "of the faith of Abraham": > > [Mat 3:7, 9 ASV] 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ... 9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. > > > [Rom 4:11 ASV] 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; > > > KURIOS ------ So that is the prevailing context of our verse. So in this context, what does KURIOS mean? IF it refers to the title that Jesus received because of his obedience to God to such a degree that he went all the way to his death at the "hands" of the Jews via Pilate: > > [Phl 2:8-11 ASV] 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [IE: to God] even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name [IE: the "title"] which is above every name [IE: the "title"]; 10 that in the name [IE: the "title"] of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. > > > IF it refers to the title "YHVH" then it still says that God "gave him the title": > > [Exo 23:21 ASV] 21 Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. > > > [1Ki 9:3 ASV] 3 And Jehovah said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually. > > > [1Ki 11:36 ASV] 36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a lamp alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. > > > [2Ki 21:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of Asherah, that he had made, in the house of which Jehovah said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever; > > > [2Ch 33:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of the idol, which he had made, in the house of God, of which God said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: > > > So what does that mean? That means that when David sat down in his throne he was sitting on YHVH's throne: > > [1Ki 1:17 ASV] 17 And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by Jehovah thy God unto thy handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. > > > [1Ki 1:30 ASV] 30 verily as I sware unto thee by Jehovah, the God of Israel, saying, Assuredly \\Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; verily so will I do this day. > > > And so on... Solomon, because he sat in YHVH's throne (and wielded his scepter) the God of Israel presided through Solomon. Hence, Psalm 45 addresses Solomon: > > [Psa 45:6 ASV] 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. > > > Solomon is a type of "the Ruler of Peace" (IE: the Messiah): > > [Rev 3:21 KJV] 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. > > > So no matter how you slice it Jesus is only KURIOS to the degree that he draws his authority from his God and Father: > > [Jhn 5:43 KJV] 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. > > > KURIOS is above every other title that is applied legitimately to men but he answers to HIS God, which is also the one who begat him. > > [2Co 11:31 KJV] 31 The God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. > > > [Eph 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: > > > [1Pe 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, > > > [1Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. > > >
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	The Greek word κύριος means "Master-Lord-Ruler". It has no connection to "Yahveh", which in Greek is translated (excluding pronouns and articles) using forms of the verb "εἰμὶ" (to be) . Also, the audience of the epistle has a Greek cultural background, where the word "κύριος" (lord) is not used in place of the word "θεός" (god). However, Paul, being a former Pharisee, uses the word "κύριος" extensively when refering to Jesus, as for a religious Jew this is a reserved way of refering to "Yahveh". He would call Jesus either "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" (Jesus the Annointed; "Christ" is a transliteration of "Χριστός", a Greek word). The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is the Son of God sent by God to earth as the Messiah that brings salvation to the human kind. From a Jewish standpoint, calling Jesus Lord is calling him God, and calling Jesus Annointed is calling him Messiah. In this verse, Paul proclaims that one cannot recognize that Jesus is more than a man if not by enlightment by the Holy Spirit. Even though the word does not mean or imply "God" in Greek, it is obvious that it used in this way, since what Paul teaches is that Jesus is God.	This is a theological assertion by Paul, to the effect that only through Holy Spirit can one understand the divinity of Christ. Jesus Himself says the same, when He asserts that the Prophet David perceived through Holy Spirit His Lordship (Matthew 22:45), interpreting in this way the Psalmic expression "Lord told to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand" (Psalm 110:1); who can be above the only prophetic king in the world who is under direct protection of one true God, for only his kingdom on earth is free from worship of idols? No other king, no other prophet, for prophets do not call each other "Lord"; perhaps an angel? But no angel or archangel or super-archangel sits at the right hand of Lord, as an indication of equality with Him and bearing the same name for in Greek, which was the basic language of Christian preaching, both are called κύριος in this psalm). Thus, as in Matthew's Gospel Jesus asserts His own divinity revealed to David through the Holy Spirit, here also, Paul asserts the same: that the divinity of Christ is revealed to humans through the Spirit, and moreover, without Spirit's instruction and guidance nobody can discern it. Thus, Father reveals His Son's divinity through His Spirit, as in case of Peter, who discerned the unique Sonship of Jesus not by any human effort ("flesh and blood"), but "by My Father in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17), implicatively, through the Holy Spirit; and similarly, the Holy Spirit's guidance reveals to Thomas the divinity of Christ at the sight of His resurrection, when Thomas worships Him with appellation: "my Lord, my God" (John 20:28).
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? In the Greek Koine language the expression "kyrios Iesous" also appears in Philippians 2:11, which I have noted below. 1 Corinthians 12:3 (NASB) > > " Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking [a]by the Spirit > of God says, “Jesus is [b]accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is > Lord,” except [c]by the Holy Spirit." > > > ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 12:3 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU) > > 3" διο γνωριζω υμιν οτι ουδεις εν πνευματι θεου λαλων λεγει αναθεμα > ιησους και ουδεις δυναται ειπειν κυριος ιησους ει μη εν πνευματι > αγιω." > > > Philippians 2:11 (NASB) > > 11" And that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to > the glory of God the Father." > > > ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 2:11 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU) > > 11 "και πασα γλωσσα εξομολογησηται οτι κυριος ιησους χριστος εις > δοξαν θεου πατρος." > > > In both verses in the Koine language Phil.2:1 and 1 Cor.12:3 the word " kyrios" is without the definite article, so the word kyrios is a title that a person may be addressed. Therefore it is incorrect to translate "KYRIOS IESOUS" into "Jehovah Jesus" ,anyway it sounds absurd.	This is a theological assertion by Paul, to the effect that only through Holy Spirit can one understand the divinity of Christ. Jesus Himself says the same, when He asserts that the Prophet David perceived through Holy Spirit His Lordship (Matthew 22:45), interpreting in this way the Psalmic expression "Lord told to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand" (Psalm 110:1); who can be above the only prophetic king in the world who is under direct protection of one true God, for only his kingdom on earth is free from worship of idols? No other king, no other prophet, for prophets do not call each other "Lord"; perhaps an angel? But no angel or archangel or super-archangel sits at the right hand of Lord, as an indication of equality with Him and bearing the same name for in Greek, which was the basic language of Christian preaching, both are called κύριος in this psalm). Thus, as in Matthew's Gospel Jesus asserts His own divinity revealed to David through the Holy Spirit, here also, Paul asserts the same: that the divinity of Christ is revealed to humans through the Spirit, and moreover, without Spirit's instruction and guidance nobody can discern it. Thus, Father reveals His Son's divinity through His Spirit, as in case of Peter, who discerned the unique Sonship of Jesus not by any human effort ("flesh and blood"), but "by My Father in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17), implicatively, through the Holy Spirit; and similarly, the Holy Spirit's guidance reveals to Thomas the divinity of Christ at the sight of His resurrection, when Thomas worships Him with appellation: "my Lord, my God" (John 20:28).
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	LORD - > > "The title, Lord, is the translation of three Greek words Kurios is by far the most frequent word used. It means authority and lordship as the result of ownership “Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's” (1 Cor. 6:20)."-<http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=445> > > > "Kύριος" as mentioned above it a title to show that the one who is addressed as "Lord" has or hold some kind of power or authority. Being as you used 1 Cor. 12:3 with this address therein. Others example of Jesus being given power by Jehovah are:- > > NWT Acts 10:36 "He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all." > > > NWT Romans 6:23 "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." > > > NWT 2 Corinthians 11:31 "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the One who is to be praised forever, knows I am not lying." > > > NWT Philippians 2:11 "...every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. > > > Here is from whom Jesus receives his Lordship:- > > NWT Matthew 28:18 "Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been *given me* in heaven and on the earth. > > > NWT Acts 2:36 "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.” > > > NWT Ephesians 5:19, 20 "Speak to one another with psalms, praises to God, and spiritual songs, singing and accompanying yourselves with music in your hearts to Jehovah, 20 always giving thanks to our God and Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." > > > NWT Acts 16:31, 32 "They said: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of Jehovah to him together with all those in his house." > > > To help us to have further insight of "Lord" is the related title by which Jesus in scripture is called; "Despotes." > > Despotes , another word used, but only twice used of Christ. (See 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4.) It is derived from deo , to bind, and pous , the foot. It has the meaning of unlimited despotic authority, which surely the Lord is entitled to."-<http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=445> > > > Below "Owner" = "Despotes." > > NWT 2 Peter 2:1 "However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves." > > > NWT Jude 4 "My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only *owner* and Lord, Jesus Christ. > > > Jesus in the above is both "Lord" and "Owner" of Christian as he bought us with his life blood as our Ransom, thus is is most worthy to be called our "Lord."	This is a theological assertion by Paul, to the effect that only through Holy Spirit can one understand the divinity of Christ. Jesus Himself says the same, when He asserts that the Prophet David perceived through Holy Spirit His Lordship (Matthew 22:45), interpreting in this way the Psalmic expression "Lord told to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand" (Psalm 110:1); who can be above the only prophetic king in the world who is under direct protection of one true God, for only his kingdom on earth is free from worship of idols? No other king, no other prophet, for prophets do not call each other "Lord"; perhaps an angel? But no angel or archangel or super-archangel sits at the right hand of Lord, as an indication of equality with Him and bearing the same name for in Greek, which was the basic language of Christian preaching, both are called κύριος in this psalm). Thus, as in Matthew's Gospel Jesus asserts His own divinity revealed to David through the Holy Spirit, here also, Paul asserts the same: that the divinity of Christ is revealed to humans through the Spirit, and moreover, without Spirit's instruction and guidance nobody can discern it. Thus, Father reveals His Son's divinity through His Spirit, as in case of Peter, who discerned the unique Sonship of Jesus not by any human effort ("flesh and blood"), but "by My Father in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17), implicatively, through the Holy Spirit; and similarly, the Holy Spirit's guidance reveals to Thomas the divinity of Christ at the sight of His resurrection, when Thomas worships Him with appellation: "my Lord, my God" (John 20:28).
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	This is a theological assertion by Paul, to the effect that only through Holy Spirit can one understand the divinity of Christ. Jesus Himself says the same, when He asserts that the Prophet David perceived through Holy Spirit His Lordship (Matthew 22:45), interpreting in this way the Psalmic expression "Lord told to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand" (Psalm 110:1); who can be above the only prophetic king in the world who is under direct protection of one true God, for only his kingdom on earth is free from worship of idols? No other king, no other prophet, for prophets do not call each other "Lord"; perhaps an angel? But no angel or archangel or super-archangel sits at the right hand of Lord, as an indication of equality with Him and bearing the same name for in Greek, which was the basic language of Christian preaching, both are called κύριος in this psalm). Thus, as in Matthew's Gospel Jesus asserts His own divinity revealed to David through the Holy Spirit, here also, Paul asserts the same: that the divinity of Christ is revealed to humans through the Spirit, and moreover, without Spirit's instruction and guidance nobody can discern it. Thus, Father reveals His Son's divinity through His Spirit, as in case of Peter, who discerned the unique Sonship of Jesus not by any human effort ("flesh and blood"), but "by My Father in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17), implicatively, through the Holy Spirit; and similarly, the Holy Spirit's guidance reveals to Thomas the divinity of Christ at the sight of His resurrection, when Thomas worships Him with appellation: "my Lord, my God" (John 20:28).	As I understand it, the Jewish people say Adonai (which can be translated Lord) when reading the Tetragrammaton, but I don't think it's ever written as a substitute; only spoken. (Not researched sorry). I think this book is written in the early Christian culture, which was diverging from the Jewish culture, so it may be that 'the new way' is to write it. There is no Tetragrammaton in Greek, so perhaps writing Lord like this is the Greek equivalent. --- Looking through the uses of κύριος in the new testament: <http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2962&t=KJV> Throughout the book of Matthew it's mostly used to refer to Jesus, secondly to God the father, and thirdly used in parables (probably still referring to God): In the below examples, κύριος is followed by G2962 (the strongs number). * God - Mat 1:24 - Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord G2962 had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: * Jesus - Mat 8:2 - And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, G2962 if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. * Parable - Mat 10:24 - The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. G2962 I read through the first page of the above link, and couldn't find any other uses of the word. I checked a few verses on each of the remaining pages. From what I've seen, the word κύριος is only used to refer to God the father, or Jesus throughout the New Testament. If anyone has the time and inclination to go through all the verses and double check, even if there are one or two that do not refer to God or Jesus, I think it's plain that the writers of the New Testament are saying that Jesus and God the Father are one, as they both share the same title 'The Lord' throughout the collection of books.
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	The Greek word κύριος means "Master-Lord-Ruler". It has no connection to "Yahveh", which in Greek is translated (excluding pronouns and articles) using forms of the verb "εἰμὶ" (to be) . Also, the audience of the epistle has a Greek cultural background, where the word "κύριος" (lord) is not used in place of the word "θεός" (god). However, Paul, being a former Pharisee, uses the word "κύριος" extensively when refering to Jesus, as for a religious Jew this is a reserved way of refering to "Yahveh". He would call Jesus either "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" (Jesus the Annointed; "Christ" is a transliteration of "Χριστός", a Greek word). The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is the Son of God sent by God to earth as the Messiah that brings salvation to the human kind. From a Jewish standpoint, calling Jesus Lord is calling him God, and calling Jesus Annointed is calling him Messiah. In this verse, Paul proclaims that one cannot recognize that Jesus is more than a man if not by enlightment by the Holy Spirit. Even though the word does not mean or imply "God" in Greek, it is obvious that it used in this way, since what Paul teaches is that Jesus is God.	As I understand it, the Jewish people say Adonai (which can be translated Lord) when reading the Tetragrammaton, but I don't think it's ever written as a substitute; only spoken. (Not researched sorry). I think this book is written in the early Christian culture, which was diverging from the Jewish culture, so it may be that 'the new way' is to write it. There is no Tetragrammaton in Greek, so perhaps writing Lord like this is the Greek equivalent. --- Looking through the uses of κύριος in the new testament: <http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2962&t=KJV> Throughout the book of Matthew it's mostly used to refer to Jesus, secondly to God the father, and thirdly used in parables (probably still referring to God): In the below examples, κύριος is followed by G2962 (the strongs number). * God - Mat 1:24 - Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord G2962 had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: * Jesus - Mat 8:2 - And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, G2962 if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. * Parable - Mat 10:24 - The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. G2962 I read through the first page of the above link, and couldn't find any other uses of the word. I checked a few verses on each of the remaining pages. From what I've seen, the word κύριος is only used to refer to God the father, or Jesus throughout the New Testament. If anyone has the time and inclination to go through all the verses and double check, even if there are one or two that do not refer to God or Jesus, I think it's plain that the writers of the New Testament are saying that Jesus and God the Father are one, as they both share the same title 'The Lord' throughout the collection of books.
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	This is a theological assertion by Paul, to the effect that only through Holy Spirit can one understand the divinity of Christ. Jesus Himself says the same, when He asserts that the Prophet David perceived through Holy Spirit His Lordship (Matthew 22:45), interpreting in this way the Psalmic expression "Lord told to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand" (Psalm 110:1); who can be above the only prophetic king in the world who is under direct protection of one true God, for only his kingdom on earth is free from worship of idols? No other king, no other prophet, for prophets do not call each other "Lord"; perhaps an angel? But no angel or archangel or super-archangel sits at the right hand of Lord, as an indication of equality with Him and bearing the same name for in Greek, which was the basic language of Christian preaching, both are called κύριος in this psalm). Thus, as in Matthew's Gospel Jesus asserts His own divinity revealed to David through the Holy Spirit, here also, Paul asserts the same: that the divinity of Christ is revealed to humans through the Spirit, and moreover, without Spirit's instruction and guidance nobody can discern it. Thus, Father reveals His Son's divinity through His Spirit, as in case of Peter, who discerned the unique Sonship of Jesus not by any human effort ("flesh and blood"), but "by My Father in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17), implicatively, through the Holy Spirit; and similarly, the Holy Spirit's guidance reveals to Thomas the divinity of Christ at the sight of His resurrection, when Thomas worships Him with appellation: "my Lord, my God" (John 20:28).	The [Roman Imperator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator) was able to force his will on Rome because, in the [Roman Imperial cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome) the Imperator was divinely selected by the gods of Rome and through apotheosis they and their families would become gods (divus) upon their deaths. Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. [This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/roman_religion_gallery_06.shtml) > > Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods. On his death, Julius Caesar was officially recognised as a god, the Divine ('Divus') Julius, by the Roman state. And in 29 BC Caesar's adopted son, the first Roman emperor Augustus, allowed the culturally Greek cities of Asia Minor to set up temples to him. This was really the first manifestation of Roman emperor-worship. While worship of a living emperor was culturally acceptable in some parts of the empire, in Rome itself and in Italy it was not. There an emperor was usually declared a 'divus' only on his death, and was subsequently worshipped (especially on anniversaries, like that of his accession) with sacrifice like any other gods... > > > So while the Roman Imperators were too bashful to declare themselves to be gods ("divus") while living, they were honored as gods after their death, maintaining national loyalty. So to declare the Jewish Messiah to be the son of God, Lord, etc. was a revolutionary act, putting the risen Messiah in dangerous competition with the Imperators. It has already been pointed out that Koine lexica identify multiple ways that KURIOS is used, even within the NT, so we must immediately dispense with the notion that the word, "by definition", means "YHVH". That's patently false and I won't address that further here except to point to [this example](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) which I don't think has been raised yet: > > [Jhn 4:19 KJV] 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir [IE: KURIOS], I perceive that thou art a prophet. > > > She would not have said "YHVH, I can tell you are a prophet" as that would make no sense. Context ------- If we look at the context Paul is discussing the "manifestations of the spirit/breath of God": > > [1Co 12:1 DBY] But concerning spiritual [manifestations], brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant. > > > He reminds them how before they were rescued they were "so open minded that their brains would fall out" (like the "Funny Mentalists" [that ape](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooMLnrRGCqs) the [spiritual manifestations given in the last days of the Jewish covenants](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) to [divinely endorse the apostles](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%2012.12)). IE: prophecies that don't come true, healings that require pretending you don't have symptoms, "tongues" that are gibberish, etc. They would ignorantly be led in paths of darkness by the spirit that is operating still among the disobedient: > > [1Co 12:2 DBY] Ye know that when ye were [of the] nations [ye were] led away to dumb idols, in whatever way ye might be led. > > > [Eph 2:1-3 DBY] 1 and you, being dead in your offences and sins -- 2 in which ye once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience: 3 among whom we also all once had our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, doing what the flesh and the thoughts willed to do, and were children, by nature, of wrath, even as the rest: > > > Or rather, "...according to the ruler of the authority of the air of the breath that now operates in the disobedient...". > > [1Co 12:3 DBY] I give you therefore to know, that no one, speaking in [the power of the] Spirit of God, says, Curse [on] Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in [the power of the] Holy Spirit. > > > So Paul is "[giving them to know](https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=except%20it%20be%20given&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1)" that if anyone professes to be a prophet speaking as a manifestation of the breath of God and their "prophecy" says that Jesus is or should be under YHVH's "ban" then they are not truly speaking by the breath of God but rather by the breath of the ruler of the KOSMOU (which I tentatively take to be either the high priest (as the ) or the Satan - probably the high priest who acted as and under the control of the Satan). The "ban" is the curse that God promised would fall on those who did not return to the God of their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jakob) but instead rejected their Messiah: > > [Mal 4:4-6 NASB] 4 "Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. 5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers [IE: "Abraham, Isaac..."], so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." > > > It was not enough to be physically descended from Abraham; they had to be "of the faith of Abraham": > > [Mat 3:7, 9 ASV] 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ... 9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. > > > [Rom 4:11 ASV] 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; > > > KURIOS ------ So that is the prevailing context of our verse. So in this context, what does KURIOS mean? IF it refers to the title that Jesus received because of his obedience to God to such a degree that he went all the way to his death at the "hands" of the Jews via Pilate: > > [Phl 2:8-11 ASV] 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [IE: to God] even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name [IE: the "title"] which is above every name [IE: the "title"]; 10 that in the name [IE: the "title"] of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. > > > IF it refers to the title "YHVH" then it still says that God "gave him the title": > > [Exo 23:21 ASV] 21 Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. > > > [1Ki 9:3 ASV] 3 And Jehovah said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually. > > > [1Ki 11:36 ASV] 36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a lamp alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. > > > [2Ki 21:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of Asherah, that he had made, in the house of which Jehovah said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever; > > > [2Ch 33:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of the idol, which he had made, in the house of God, of which God said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: > > > So what does that mean? That means that when David sat down in his throne he was sitting on YHVH's throne: > > [1Ki 1:17 ASV] 17 And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by Jehovah thy God unto thy handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. > > > [1Ki 1:30 ASV] 30 verily as I sware unto thee by Jehovah, the God of Israel, saying, Assuredly \\Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; verily so will I do this day. > > > And so on... Solomon, because he sat in YHVH's throne (and wielded his scepter) the God of Israel presided through Solomon. Hence, Psalm 45 addresses Solomon: > > [Psa 45:6 ASV] 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. > > > Solomon is a type of "the Ruler of Peace" (IE: the Messiah): > > [Rev 3:21 KJV] 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. > > > So no matter how you slice it Jesus is only KURIOS to the degree that he draws his authority from his God and Father: > > [Jhn 5:43 KJV] 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. > > > KURIOS is above every other title that is applied legitimately to men but he answers to HIS God, which is also the one who begat him. > > [2Co 11:31 KJV] 31 The God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. > > > [Eph 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: > > > [1Pe 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, > > > [1Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. > > >
16,798	What does the Greek word κύριος mean in 1 Cor. 12:3? Is the phrase «κύριος Ἰησοῦς» to be understood as "Jesus is Yahveh" (where κύριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton), or "Jesus is the lord" (where κύριος simply means "master," "lord")? > > [1 Cor. 12:3](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1074003) > > > So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. (New Living Translation) > > > διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Textus Receptus) > > >	2015/02/20	[ "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16798", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com", "https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2577/" ]	The word κύριος is the chosen word to represent יהוה / YHWH in the LXX nearly every time it appears in the Hebrew Text. Thus, it does offer a plausible objetion to this usage as only meaning 'lord' or 'master' as in a general sense, when one would speak to a ruler of any sort in the Greek world. It is also noteworthy that יהוה in the Hebrew transliteration does not occur in the NT scriptures except for in names and praise such as ἀλληλούΐα. So in order to know if Jesus is being equated with YHWH through the term κύριος in 1 Cor. 12:3, you would need to find and develop a context surrounding this usage in this section of Corinthians and the book as a whole and then see how our author, Paul, uses the term κύριος in it. > > 1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. > > > 1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. > > > 1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord (κυριος). > > > 1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. > > > The subject mater seems to relate back to a similar context in this book: > > 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. > > > And this contextually answers to Paul's point of introduction in this Epistle: > > 1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. > > > And this is a partial quote of the content of > > Zec\_10:12 καὶ κατισχύσω αὐτοὺς ἐν κυρίῳ θεῷ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ κατακαυχήσονται, λέγει κύριος. > > > Zec 10:12 And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God; and they shall boast in his name, saith the Lord. > > > Even more compelling as to the reference Paul is tying into the concept of 1 Corinthians and in the statement made in our focus verse is the 'glory in the Lord' is: > > Jer 9:23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory/boast in his wisdom, and let not the strong man boast in his strength, and let not the rich man boast in his wealth; > > > Jer 9:23 (9:22) Τάδε λέγει κύριος Μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ, > > > Jer 9:24 but let him that boasts boast in this, the understanding and knowing that I am the Lord that exercise mercy, and judgment, and righteousness, upon the earth; for in these things is my pleasure, saith the Lord. > > > Jer 9:24 (9:23) ἀλλ’ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἐν τούτοις τὸ θέλημά μου, λέγει κύριος. > > > And this part of Jeramiah is the exact point Paul makes concerning the wise in: > > 1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: > > > 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. > > > 1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: > > > 1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: > > > 1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. > > > NEVERTHELESS the Name of the LORD / κύριος in reference in Jer 9:23-24 and in Zec 10:12 of the LXX which Paul has been building his case on in this Epistle is in the Hebrew Text יהוה / YHWH...every time! It would make a confusing mess if in Paul's quote of Hebrew Scripture he meant Jesus...or would it? > > 1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. > > > Jer 9:24 *but let him that glories glory in this, the \\understanding* and knowing that I am the Lord/κύριος/ יהוה / YHWH\\ that exercise mercy, and judgment, and righteousness, upon the earth; for in these things is my pleasure, saith the Lord. > > > Hope this helps	The [Roman Imperator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator) was able to force his will on Rome because, in the [Roman Imperial cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome) the Imperator was divinely selected by the gods of Rome and through apotheosis they and their families would become gods (divus) upon their deaths. Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. [This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/roman_religion_gallery_06.shtml) > > Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods. On his death, Julius Caesar was officially recognised as a god, the Divine ('Divus') Julius, by the Roman state. And in 29 BC Caesar's adopted son, the first Roman emperor Augustus, allowed the culturally Greek cities of Asia Minor to set up temples to him. This was really the first manifestation of Roman emperor-worship. While worship of a living emperor was culturally acceptable in some parts of the empire, in Rome itself and in Italy it was not. There an emperor was usually declared a 'divus' only on his death, and was subsequently worshipped (especially on anniversaries, like that of his accession) with sacrifice like any other gods... > > > So while the Roman Imperators were too bashful to declare themselves to be gods ("divus") while living, they were honored as gods after their death, maintaining national loyalty. So to declare the Jewish Messiah to be the son of God, Lord, etc. was a revolutionary act, putting the risen Messiah in dangerous competition with the Imperators. It has already been pointed out that Koine lexica identify multiple ways that KURIOS is used, even within the NT, so we must immediately dispense with the notion that the word, "by definition", means "YHVH". That's patently false and I won't address that further here except to point to [this example](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) which I don't think has been raised yet: > > [Jhn 4:19 KJV] 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir [IE: KURIOS], I perceive that thou art a prophet. > > > She would not have said "YHVH, I can tell you are a prophet" as that would make no sense. Context ------- If we look at the context Paul is discussing the "manifestations of the spirit/breath of God": > > [1Co 12:1 DBY] But concerning spiritual [manifestations], brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant. > > > He reminds them how before they were rescued they were "so open minded that their brains would fall out" (like the "Funny Mentalists" [that ape](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooMLnrRGCqs) the [spiritual manifestations given in the last days of the Jewish covenants](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/2/16/s_1020016) to [divinely endorse the apostles](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Cor%2012.12)). IE: prophecies that don't come true, healings that require pretending you don't have symptoms, "tongues" that are gibberish, etc. They would ignorantly be led in paths of darkness by the spirit that is operating still among the disobedient: > > [1Co 12:2 DBY] Ye know that when ye were [of the] nations [ye were] led away to dumb idols, in whatever way ye might be led. > > > [Eph 2:1-3 DBY] 1 and you, being dead in your offences and sins -- 2 in which ye once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience: 3 among whom we also all once had our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, doing what the flesh and the thoughts willed to do, and were children, by nature, of wrath, even as the rest: > > > Or rather, "...according to the ruler of the authority of the air of the breath that now operates in the disobedient...". > > [1Co 12:3 DBY] I give you therefore to know, that no one, speaking in [the power of the] Spirit of God, says, Curse [on] Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in [the power of the] Holy Spirit. > > > So Paul is "[giving them to know](https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=except%20it%20be%20given&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1)" that if anyone professes to be a prophet speaking as a manifestation of the breath of God and their "prophecy" says that Jesus is or should be under YHVH's "ban" then they are not truly speaking by the breath of God but rather by the breath of the ruler of the KOSMOU (which I tentatively take to be either the high priest (as the ) or the Satan - probably the high priest who acted as and under the control of the Satan). The "ban" is the curse that God promised would fall on those who did not return to the God of their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jakob) but instead rejected their Messiah: > > [Mal 4:4-6 NASB] 4 "Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. 5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers [IE: "Abraham, Isaac..."], so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." > > > It was not enough to be physically descended from Abraham; they had to be "of the faith of Abraham": > > [Mat 3:7, 9 ASV] 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ... 9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. > > > [Rom 4:11 ASV] 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; > > > KURIOS ------ So that is the prevailing context of our verse. So in this context, what does KURIOS mean? IF it refers to the title that Jesus received because of his obedience to God to such a degree that he went all the way to his death at the "hands" of the Jews via Pilate: > > [Phl 2:8-11 ASV] 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [IE: to God] even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name [IE: the "title"] which is above every name [IE: the "title"]; 10 that in the name [IE: the "title"] of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. > > > IF it refers to the title "YHVH" then it still says that God "gave him the title": > > [Exo 23:21 ASV] 21 Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. > > > [1Ki 9:3 ASV] 3 And Jehovah said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually. > > > [1Ki 11:36 ASV] 36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a lamp alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. > > > [2Ki 21:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of Asherah, that he had made, in the house of which Jehovah said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever; > > > [2Ch 33:7 ASV] 7 And he set the graven image of the idol, which he had made, in the house of God, of which God said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: > > > So what does that mean? That means that when David sat down in his throne he was sitting on YHVH's throne: > > [1Ki 1:17 ASV] 17 And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by Jehovah thy God unto thy handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. > > > [1Ki 1:30 ASV] 30 verily as I sware unto thee by Jehovah, the God of Israel, saying, Assuredly \\Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; verily so will I do this day. > > > And so on... Solomon, because he sat in YHVH's throne (and wielded his scepter) the God of Israel presided through Solomon. Hence, Psalm 45 addresses Solomon: > > [Psa 45:6 ASV] 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. > > > Solomon is a type of "the Ruler of Peace" (IE: the Messiah): > > [Rev 3:21 KJV] 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. > > > So no matter how you slice it Jesus is only KURIOS to the degree that he draws his authority from his God and Father: > > [Jhn 5:43 KJV] 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. > > > KURIOS is above every other title that is applied legitimately to men but he answers to HIS God, which is also the one who begat him. > > [2Co 11:31 KJV] 31 The God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. > > > [Eph 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: > > > [1Pe 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, > > > [1Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. > > >
24,826	I've programmed a couple simple games so far, in C++ as that's my language of choice, all using open source, cross platform libraries, they're great. I'd like to understand how are cross platform libraries written, this is why i want to write a game for windows only without using a library that provides an abstract layer for the technical side of things like input. However i have some general questions. First of all, is the windows.h library still used (there's so many new technologies and libraries comming in, i can't tell which are outdated since i'm new to this) for the low level communication between a C++ application and Windows? This means handling input, multithreading, etc. Similarly, is winsock.h still the library for network programming under Windows? I know it's very old, though so are OS standards, i'm confused. Are all the libraries that handle networking just wrappers that use winsock.h? Are these libraries maintained by Microsoft, do i need to manualy update them, do they come with the compiler or the OS. Do cross platform libraries like SFML or Qt use windows.h or do they go lower than that? I know you can get input straight from reading interrupts, but how do you handle f.e. multithreading. Do Unix systems also provide a library for interfacting with the OS? Does this include things like sockets? Are these libraries used in cross platform libraries? All of the libraries, no matter the OS, were written first, so there is a way to get to the OS directly without using them, but are low level "tricks" like these used, or do people just use the API provided by the OS for cross platform libraries and then compile apropriate parts of the code depending on the target platform.	2012/03/01	[ "https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/24826", "https://gamedev.stackexchange.com", "https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/12406/" ]	all your questions have same short answer, "YES". windows.h is still used. also people still use "winsock.h", but there is "winsock2.h" which has provide same API as the "Berkeley sockets" (the one used in linux/unix/etc.) so the later is more common. in windows working with devices is very restricted, it's either using windows API or using DirectX API. Infact DirectX was introduced to let people use devices directly. so all the libraries should use one of those two. on linux however things are a little bit different. there is a direct access to every device. But all devices usually have some libraries to handle them. for example almost everyone uses OpenAL for audio management.	Your question is so complicated, but I'll try to answer for some of sub-questions. Yes, windows.h is still used in cross platform librares. E.g. [SMFL](http://www.sfml-dev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37521&sid=50e612976a419cba20304b8cb4ece8da): > > [...]You can't use OpenGL on Windows without windows.h included > first[...] > > > Unix-like system often get more low-level libraries than Windows. Just look at Linux where you can edit kernel. If you want to dive into some cross-platform programming just download some open-sourced library and read it's source. You can start with SMFL.
18,524	Inspired by the question [When do college students learn rigorous proofs?](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/18494/when-do-college-students-learn-rigorous-proofs), I became curious when pupils in secondary schools learn about proofs, what kinds of proofs they are, how rigorously they are taught, do they learn any formal logic before or simultaneously with learning proofs? I am not focussed on American schools, I would like to learn how proofs are tackled around the world.	2020/07/02	[ "https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/18524", "https://matheducators.stackexchange.com", "https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/users/7930/" ]	I can start with how it was/is done in Russia. Logic was taught in Russian gymnasiums as a separate subject in late 19th century. When Bolsheviks came to power they pulled logic out of the curriculum. Logic was reinstated in Soviet schools in late 1940s only to be abolished again by the end of 1950s when Khruschev took over. AFAIK, there is no separate logic course in modern Russian schools, at least it is not mandated by the federal ministry of education, some specialized schools may teach it as an elective. There is a separate course of logic in universities, I don't know whether it is mandatory for everyone, or depends on a major. Proofs are common in Russian algebra and geometry courses (both subjects are mandatory, start from 7th grade and continue until the senior 11th grade). Most commonly they are direct proofs based on the material learned earlier, so their application is obvious and does not require much of an explanation how the proof works. Traditionally, proofs in Russian schools are of "free text" variety, not a two-column system used in many U.S. schools. Terms direct, inverse, converse and contrapositive are introduced in 7th grade geometry in relation to theorems, not to abstract logical propositions. There is a simple explanation of why contrapositive theorem is equivalent to the original one, similar to the [one shown in Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition#Simple_proof_by_contradiction). This fact is harnessed when using proof by contradiction. Older textbooks may have a separate, albeit tiny, section dedicated to proofs, like [Kiselev's Planimetry](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0977985202), which was used in Tsarist Russia, then was updated in 1938 and was used until 1956, when it was replaced with "New Math" textbooks. These new textbooks proved disastrous, so many teachers continued to covertly use Kiselev's textbook. The textbook was re-issued in 2004 and again in 2013. Here are relevant pages from the English translation, which includes problems; in Russian edition problems comprise a separate problem book. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/X41wP.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/X41wP.jpg) [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMoNU.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMoNU.jpg) Other methods that feel more or less self-evident, are sometimes used: proof by construction, proof by exhaustion, Dirichlet's box principle. 9th grade algebra course introduces proof by mathematical induction, although in some textbooks it is marked as optional.	Here in Australia (NSW specifically) the highest level of high school maths in Year 12 has a topic on the logic and methods of proof. This includes general concepts of proof (symbolic logic, truth tables, the contrapositive, proof by contradiction, proof be counterexample, etc.) and some specific methods of proof. I think the best way to get a feel for what the questions are like is just to show you some. Here are two questions from previous exams using these concepts. I have also included a link to a small section of a textbook as an introduction of the logic of proof. [![Question 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FYkRD.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FYkRD.png) [![Question 2](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BBx0V.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BBx0V.png) <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HOej3PvDFn0MUCM3hBRrR2Ly2MizryCP/view?usp=sharing>
6,283,931	I'm currently developing a site in Django that I'd like to implement some sort of quasi-realtime update system for. Since this site is intended for mobile devices, I was wondering what the performance comparison was between periodically polling the server for changes (say, every 5 seconds) and using some sort of Websocket implementation ala <http://codysoyland.com/2011/feb/6/evented-django-part-one-socketio-and-gevent/>. With respect to battery life, is the difference negligible? Code-wise, it seems an AJAX implementation would also be simpler.	2011/06/08	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6283931", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/364897/" ]	The answer is "it depends". If you're targeting a mobile device with a known good websockets implementation then go that way. At the moment, that's probably only iPhone/iPad with iOS4.2 or later which might have a good implementation. For everyone else, you're going to be doing polling anyway, so I'd say go down that route. I've done several near-real time services (<10s latency) that work fine using polling. I wouldn't use it for a chat engine, but for most everything else it's fine.	battery wise I don't think either will make a big difference. I would use socket.io though since you just use socket.io and it will try to use websockets and if the browser does not support them fall back to ajax requests
352	I am very new to indoor rock climbing, I want to climb barefoot, I heard some people advise against it, Anybody here has any experience or can give any suggestions on barefoot indoor rock climbing?	2012/02/20	[ "https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/352", "https://sports.stackexchange.com", "https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/218/" ]	You definitely can do it, and it is fine where you have clean, dry climbing surfaces. I have had no problems doing it on occasion in the summer when I have not had my rock boots, but I wouldn't want to do it. I don't know how practical it is to train this way though, as if you decide to climb outdoors it will not be as useful as having learnt the skills with proper rock boots. Rock boots require a slightly different technique, but are much grippier and you remove the risk of catching a toe on something!	its way easier in the gym to go bare foot. Shoes just make you unaware of how your body should move. Especially roofs it is easier and the big to can toe hook a lot of holds your shoes cant. High feet that require the foot to claw are way easier bare foot. I would say 80 percent of climbs are easier bare foot and the other twenty are better with one shoe and one bare foot. The same is true for outdoor climbing. shoes have made peoples feet weak and they have lost touch with what there feet can do on climbs.
1,173,663	I have a search page that I'm implementing as part of an ASP.NET + MVC + jquery site. The search query scores each result that is returned as part of the results set. i.e. Higher score for closer match. Because the results set can change, and because the algorithm that scores the matches is somewhat intensive, I only want to load the results once and to find a way to click through the pages of results. I figured that I would make a page that contained all of the search results (each result has its own ) and just show/hide a subset by clicking on buttons associated with jquery code. I think I can see how to do this before I start trying to make it work (I'm still fairly new to jquery), but thought I'd first see if anyone has any better ideas. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Edit: Francisco's suggestion was just what I needed. I implemented it with some minor changes and created some jquery buttons to navigate to first/prev/next/last page along with a 'Viewing results n-m out of N' label. Thanks for all the suggestions.	2009/07/23	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1173663", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/101306/" ]	Your ASP Classic App is failing because all threads are blocked. I suggest running [Process Monitor](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx) on the web server to see what handles are taken up where. I don't see a lot of repetition in your stack trace that would indicate a problem with a particular dll.	Given the information provided it sounds like a problem with the application itself rather than IIS. Have you made sure there aren't any crazy tight loops or excessive/extremely heavy DB loads, possibly some PInvoke calls or just something out of the ordinary for a webapp that are killing the application/runtime and causing the pool to die?
1,173,663	I have a search page that I'm implementing as part of an ASP.NET + MVC + jquery site. The search query scores each result that is returned as part of the results set. i.e. Higher score for closer match. Because the results set can change, and because the algorithm that scores the matches is somewhat intensive, I only want to load the results once and to find a way to click through the pages of results. I figured that I would make a page that contained all of the search results (each result has its own ) and just show/hide a subset by clicking on buttons associated with jquery code. I think I can see how to do this before I start trying to make it work (I'm still fairly new to jquery), but thought I'd first see if anyone has any better ideas. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Edit: Francisco's suggestion was just what I needed. I implemented it with some minor changes and created some jquery buttons to navigate to first/prev/next/last page along with a 'Viewing results n-m out of N' label. Thanks for all the suggestions.	2009/07/23	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1173663", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/101306/" ]	Your ASP Classic App is failing because all threads are blocked. I suggest running [Process Monitor](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx) on the web server to see what handles are taken up where. I don't see a lot of repetition in your stack trace that would indicate a problem with a particular dll.	I think you should try some tools likes fiddler and other things.With that you can have exact idea what is taking time to load your site. From the log it seems that there is problem with the application itself. So don't use excessive loops, cache data from db and use and also don't store large object in session or application.
37,052,242	I'm creating an Android app in Visual Studio. When I create the aligned APK to side load on my device (from the Tools -> Android -> Publish Android App), it installs and runs, but doesn't seem to have the very latest changes. The series of events I've experienced is as follows: * Installed a version of the app on my device * Updated a color on the login page and set the application theme (among other things) * Re-installed the app * Saw the new theme but not the new color on the login page * Made a random text change on the login page as a test * Re-installed the app * Saw the color change but not the random text change?! Any suggestions on what I might be doing wrong?	2016/05/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37052242", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/401173/" ]	I have experienced similar issues, my go to for fixing this issue has been the following * Clean all projects. * Build all projects (especially the project containing the xcml files). * Delete (remove application) from the device. If for some reason this doesn't solve the problem, typically a full restart of Xamarin Studio or Visual Studio does.	In my case, I had a similar problem with connected device, and no one proposed solution like Clean\Rebuild\Restart\Reinstall\etc could help me. At the same time on the AVD everything worked perfectly, latest code deployed ok. I found that asked issue depended on selected settings in the [USB Developer] section on the connected device (mine was Xiaomi smartphone). Because some vendors provide us with too many security settings... What I found, you have to turn on both USB Debugging & USB debugging (Security settings), and [turn off MIUI Optimization](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47239251/install-failed-user-restricted-android-studio-using-redmi-4-device) (it's true for Xiaomi vendor, but you can check your device for similar options). Hope this helps.
37,052,242	I'm creating an Android app in Visual Studio. When I create the aligned APK to side load on my device (from the Tools -> Android -> Publish Android App), it installs and runs, but doesn't seem to have the very latest changes. The series of events I've experienced is as follows: * Installed a version of the app on my device * Updated a color on the login page and set the application theme (among other things) * Re-installed the app * Saw the new theme but not the new color on the login page * Made a random text change on the login page as a test * Re-installed the app * Saw the color change but not the random text change?! Any suggestions on what I might be doing wrong?	2016/05/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37052242", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/401173/" ]	I have experienced similar issues, my go to for fixing this issue has been the following * Clean all projects. * Build all projects (especially the project containing the xcml files). * Delete (remove application) from the device. If for some reason this doesn't solve the problem, typically a full restart of Xamarin Studio or Visual Studio does.	I have a similar weird problem where old code from only a single project doesn't get updated. All other projects do get updated/deployed. It only happens on a single emulator, only in Debug mode, and only for that one project. Cleaning+rebuilding the entire solution did not work. However, telling VS to rebuild the individual project does. Why doesn't rebuilding the solution rebuild the project? I have no freakin' clue, but I can consistently reproduce this issue and workaround.
35,915	If a plane without any deicing equipment has water moisture on the wings (say, from sitting overnight) and that plane is then flown to an altitude which will have temperatures below freezing, what is the risk of that initial moisture causing icing concerns? For the sake of hard examples: * Plane: Piper Cherokee 140 * Air temperature on ground: 40°F (4°C) * Air temperature at cruise altitude (3500ft): 28°F (-2°C) * No visible moisture in the air, the only moisture is the moisture on the wings prior to takeoff. Questions: 1. Will this be a problem? 2. If it is a problem, what is the best course of action to protect against the icing concern?	2017/02/28	[ "https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/35915", "https://aviation.stackexchange.com", "https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/13937/" ]	Taking off with wet wings is not a problem, the airflow is going to blow the water off long before it reaches the freezing point. There's no concerns here. Given the scenario what I would be concerned about would be ice elsewhere on the airframe. 40°F (4°C) could mean that the aircraft was frozen overnight, and there could be ice left over where the sun didn't melt it off. That kind of ice wouldn't necessarily impact the airflow on the wing, but it would make the airplane heavier and therefore impact performance. A simple visual check on the walk-around will confirm this. If there is ice left then deal with it even if it's not on the wing or tail, if it's just wet then get in and fly.	> > Will this be a problem? > > > As GdD mentions, this wont be a problem as most of the moisture will blow off by the time you get to the runway. I have had this occur on occasion on the Warriors and Archers I trained in, it was never an issue. > > What is the best course of action to protect against the icing concern? > > > Straight moisture is never an issue but you should always confirm that this moisture is not the result of ice underneath. Here in the northeast there were some mornings where moisture on the wings froze over night if temperatures dropped enough. During sunrise this typically melted off but for an early morning departure this needs to be tended to. The best course of action is to either wait it out, usually by the time the sun is up over the horizon the ice will be melted off, or have the aircraft de-iced. Even small airports usually keep some de-ice fluid on hand.
35,915	If a plane without any deicing equipment has water moisture on the wings (say, from sitting overnight) and that plane is then flown to an altitude which will have temperatures below freezing, what is the risk of that initial moisture causing icing concerns? For the sake of hard examples: * Plane: Piper Cherokee 140 * Air temperature on ground: 40°F (4°C) * Air temperature at cruise altitude (3500ft): 28°F (-2°C) * No visible moisture in the air, the only moisture is the moisture on the wings prior to takeoff. Questions: 1. Will this be a problem? 2. If it is a problem, what is the best course of action to protect against the icing concern?	2017/02/28	[ "https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/35915", "https://aviation.stackexchange.com", "https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/13937/" ]	Taking off with wet wings is not a problem, the airflow is going to blow the water off long before it reaches the freezing point. There's no concerns here. Given the scenario what I would be concerned about would be ice elsewhere on the airframe. 40°F (4°C) could mean that the aircraft was frozen overnight, and there could be ice left over where the sun didn't melt it off. That kind of ice wouldn't necessarily impact the airflow on the wing, but it would make the airplane heavier and therefore impact performance. A simple visual check on the walk-around will confirm this. If there is ice left then deal with it even if it's not on the wing or tail, if it's just wet then get in and fly.	With 20,000+ hours in everything from L19 Bird Dogs to Gulfstreams I though I should offer these thoughts/facts. The most remarkable and pertinent being my own experience with moisture freezing on takeoff. Ambient temperature was +2 C according to ATIS. Light rain had soaked the top of the wings on the King Air 200 I was flying. Immediately after flap retraction the airplane began to roll to the right. This was corrected with left aileron and we decided to return to land. On final the copilot looked out at the right wing and observed patches of frozen water droplets on the top of the right wing. As we landed back into the +2 C air, much of the frozen droplets blew off, however some still remained on the aft, inboard sections of both wings. I consequently contacted a source at NASA’s Icing Research unit at Cleveland Hopkins and he confirmed that the low pressure created on top of the wings as it accelerates on takeoff May cool the wing and water droplets to the point of freezing during takeoff BEFORE they are blown off. On critical wing surfaces we find on today’s aircraft this could have a negative effect on lift and cause control issues due to loss of lift. Since this experience 25 years ago or so I have ALWAYS addressed any moisture present on lifting surfaces when he ambient temperature sits within a couple degrees of freezing either with anti-ice treatment or manually removing the moisture. Once you’re airborne with a rolling airplane it might just be too late.
35,915	If a plane without any deicing equipment has water moisture on the wings (say, from sitting overnight) and that plane is then flown to an altitude which will have temperatures below freezing, what is the risk of that initial moisture causing icing concerns? For the sake of hard examples: * Plane: Piper Cherokee 140 * Air temperature on ground: 40°F (4°C) * Air temperature at cruise altitude (3500ft): 28°F (-2°C) * No visible moisture in the air, the only moisture is the moisture on the wings prior to takeoff. Questions: 1. Will this be a problem? 2. If it is a problem, what is the best course of action to protect against the icing concern?	2017/02/28	[ "https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/35915", "https://aviation.stackexchange.com", "https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/13937/" ]	> > Will this be a problem? > > > As GdD mentions, this wont be a problem as most of the moisture will blow off by the time you get to the runway. I have had this occur on occasion on the Warriors and Archers I trained in, it was never an issue. > > What is the best course of action to protect against the icing concern? > > > Straight moisture is never an issue but you should always confirm that this moisture is not the result of ice underneath. Here in the northeast there were some mornings where moisture on the wings froze over night if temperatures dropped enough. During sunrise this typically melted off but for an early morning departure this needs to be tended to. The best course of action is to either wait it out, usually by the time the sun is up over the horizon the ice will be melted off, or have the aircraft de-iced. Even small airports usually keep some de-ice fluid on hand.	With 20,000+ hours in everything from L19 Bird Dogs to Gulfstreams I though I should offer these thoughts/facts. The most remarkable and pertinent being my own experience with moisture freezing on takeoff. Ambient temperature was +2 C according to ATIS. Light rain had soaked the top of the wings on the King Air 200 I was flying. Immediately after flap retraction the airplane began to roll to the right. This was corrected with left aileron and we decided to return to land. On final the copilot looked out at the right wing and observed patches of frozen water droplets on the top of the right wing. As we landed back into the +2 C air, much of the frozen droplets blew off, however some still remained on the aft, inboard sections of both wings. I consequently contacted a source at NASA’s Icing Research unit at Cleveland Hopkins and he confirmed that the low pressure created on top of the wings as it accelerates on takeoff May cool the wing and water droplets to the point of freezing during takeoff BEFORE they are blown off. On critical wing surfaces we find on today’s aircraft this could have a negative effect on lift and cause control issues due to loss of lift. Since this experience 25 years ago or so I have ALWAYS addressed any moisture present on lifting surfaces when he ambient temperature sits within a couple degrees of freezing either with anti-ice treatment or manually removing the moisture. Once you’re airborne with a rolling airplane it might just be too late.
243	Human beings are inclined to "praise" the unknown, and are often afraid of the unknown. This inclination has led to the creation of mythology and many gods. To this date we are still carrying this habit on our daily lives. * "Oh, look at these [crop circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle), aliens must have created them!" * "Oh, he can bend the spoon! He must have [psychic power](https://youtu.be/x_NuZDaR46I?t=131)!" * "Nah, earth must be [standing over the oxen horns](http://www.photoshopmagazin.com/yarisma/3556/calisma/17303?m=ajax), otherwise it would fall down!" * "It makes sense! You adjust your balance with [the wrist band exerting bioenergy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)! Here I come!" * "I can gain 6 pack with this [Nano-Ultra-Mega-AB-Shaper.](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6%20pack%20weeks&tbm=isch) It has "nano", so it must be working, no?" * "Since we are surrounded by energy, some chosen ones might bend it right? We call it [reiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki)!" * "Since you have a BS degree. You must be a heck of a genius! Now can you please answer this question of geography/history/so on?" (I usually encounter such questions from ignorant people. They regard me as Mr. Know it all, as they don't know what university infact is.) * and most striking example of all is [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). To further exemplify my claim, Wikipedia quotes [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) as a variant of [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). > > The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes > an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a > variant of an argument from ignorance.[[9]](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0805074791)[[10]](http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) Such an argument is > sometimes reduced to the following form: > > > * There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. > * Therefore the cause must be supernatural. > > > One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of > one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because > current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be > God who caused life to start." > > > But this answer is rather specific and not satisfying for me. I think there lies a cognitive bias that drives human beings to prefer to praise/fear the unknown over showing reasoning and critical thinking when we are faced to the unknown. Update: [This scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA) from The Gods Must Be Crazy is spot on! Don't miss it :) ### Questions * Does scientific research support the claims made above about the importance of this tendency to praise or fear the unknown? * Is there an exact term for this tendency? Is [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) the right term for this? * What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency?	2012/02/02	[ "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/77/" ]	In the book ["Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief"](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0393064492), Wolpert (2007) discusses the evolutionary origins of belief. Although I haven't read it yet, [abc news reviewed the book](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5817998&page=1#.TysB0LEgfB0). > > Wolpert argues that our wide range of beliefs, some of which are > clearly false, grew out of a uniquely human trait. Alone in the animal > world, humans understand cause and effect, and that, he says, led > ultimately to the invention of tools, the rapid rise of sophisticated > technology, and of course, beliefs. Even the earliest humans > understood that many events that shaped their lives resulted from > specific causes. Therefore, there must be a cause behind every event. > > > ... > > > We want to believe there is a reason for it all, and that leaves > us predisposed to believe in some things for which there is little or > no evidence. If a certain belief makes sense out of an otherwise > senseless event, then it must be true, right? > > >	I think this is slightly tautologous, because we all turn to "belief" to explain the things that we don't understand. Scientists turn to their beliefs just as much as religious people, because belief is the thing that covers those thigs we don't understand. The real question is why do people - of all sorts - not use their beliefs as a starting point to explore and understand. Belief is the idea that everything is explicable within our existing worldview - in fact, wider than this, within the limits of our ontology - and belief is the expression of this to events we do not yet understand. One example in cosmology is the idea of "Dark Matter". This is an extension of belief that everythign is explicable to say that there is something we do not understand. Naming it Dark Matter does nothing about explaining it, just defines it as something that is not yet understood. Defining God as He Whom Explains That Which We Do Not Understand is the same process. The real challenge is to progress into understanding that. (and, to make my position clear, I do believe in God, but not a God of the gaps)
243	Human beings are inclined to "praise" the unknown, and are often afraid of the unknown. This inclination has led to the creation of mythology and many gods. To this date we are still carrying this habit on our daily lives. * "Oh, look at these [crop circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle), aliens must have created them!" * "Oh, he can bend the spoon! He must have [psychic power](https://youtu.be/x_NuZDaR46I?t=131)!" * "Nah, earth must be [standing over the oxen horns](http://www.photoshopmagazin.com/yarisma/3556/calisma/17303?m=ajax), otherwise it would fall down!" * "It makes sense! You adjust your balance with [the wrist band exerting bioenergy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)! Here I come!" * "I can gain 6 pack with this [Nano-Ultra-Mega-AB-Shaper.](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6%20pack%20weeks&tbm=isch) It has "nano", so it must be working, no?" * "Since we are surrounded by energy, some chosen ones might bend it right? We call it [reiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki)!" * "Since you have a BS degree. You must be a heck of a genius! Now can you please answer this question of geography/history/so on?" (I usually encounter such questions from ignorant people. They regard me as Mr. Know it all, as they don't know what university infact is.) * and most striking example of all is [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). To further exemplify my claim, Wikipedia quotes [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) as a variant of [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). > > The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes > an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a > variant of an argument from ignorance.[[9]](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0805074791)[[10]](http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) Such an argument is > sometimes reduced to the following form: > > > * There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. > * Therefore the cause must be supernatural. > > > One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of > one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because > current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be > God who caused life to start." > > > But this answer is rather specific and not satisfying for me. I think there lies a cognitive bias that drives human beings to prefer to praise/fear the unknown over showing reasoning and critical thinking when we are faced to the unknown. Update: [This scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA) from The Gods Must Be Crazy is spot on! Don't miss it :) ### Questions * Does scientific research support the claims made above about the importance of this tendency to praise or fear the unknown? * Is there an exact term for this tendency? Is [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) the right term for this? * What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency?	2012/02/02	[ "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/77/" ]	In the book ["Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief"](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0393064492), Wolpert (2007) discusses the evolutionary origins of belief. Although I haven't read it yet, [abc news reviewed the book](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5817998&page=1#.TysB0LEgfB0). > > Wolpert argues that our wide range of beliefs, some of which are > clearly false, grew out of a uniquely human trait. Alone in the animal > world, humans understand cause and effect, and that, he says, led > ultimately to the invention of tools, the rapid rise of sophisticated > technology, and of course, beliefs. Even the earliest humans > understood that many events that shaped their lives resulted from > specific causes. Therefore, there must be a cause behind every event. > > > ... > > > We want to believe there is a reason for it all, and that leaves > us predisposed to believe in some things for which there is little or > no evidence. If a certain belief makes sense out of an otherwise > senseless event, then it must be true, right? > > >	This is speculative, but most humans are uncomfortable with not knowing, this is the root, for example, of premature cognitive commitments and of curiosity. So many people tend to adopt any available explanation to settle the discomfort of not knowing. I think a potentially more interesting question is why so many people have trouble exchanging a belief for a better explanation, anyone who has tried explaining the reasoning behind atheism to a religious person has run into this - they accept your arguments, but continue to believe as before.
243	Human beings are inclined to "praise" the unknown, and are often afraid of the unknown. This inclination has led to the creation of mythology and many gods. To this date we are still carrying this habit on our daily lives. * "Oh, look at these [crop circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle), aliens must have created them!" * "Oh, he can bend the spoon! He must have [psychic power](https://youtu.be/x_NuZDaR46I?t=131)!" * "Nah, earth must be [standing over the oxen horns](http://www.photoshopmagazin.com/yarisma/3556/calisma/17303?m=ajax), otherwise it would fall down!" * "It makes sense! You adjust your balance with [the wrist band exerting bioenergy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)! Here I come!" * "I can gain 6 pack with this [Nano-Ultra-Mega-AB-Shaper.](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6%20pack%20weeks&tbm=isch) It has "nano", so it must be working, no?" * "Since we are surrounded by energy, some chosen ones might bend it right? We call it [reiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki)!" * "Since you have a BS degree. You must be a heck of a genius! Now can you please answer this question of geography/history/so on?" (I usually encounter such questions from ignorant people. They regard me as Mr. Know it all, as they don't know what university infact is.) * and most striking example of all is [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). To further exemplify my claim, Wikipedia quotes [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) as a variant of [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). > > The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes > an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a > variant of an argument from ignorance.[[9]](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0805074791)[[10]](http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) Such an argument is > sometimes reduced to the following form: > > > * There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. > * Therefore the cause must be supernatural. > > > One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of > one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because > current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be > God who caused life to start." > > > But this answer is rather specific and not satisfying for me. I think there lies a cognitive bias that drives human beings to prefer to praise/fear the unknown over showing reasoning and critical thinking when we are faced to the unknown. Update: [This scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA) from The Gods Must Be Crazy is spot on! Don't miss it :) ### Questions * Does scientific research support the claims made above about the importance of this tendency to praise or fear the unknown? * Is there an exact term for this tendency? Is [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) the right term for this? * What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency?	2012/02/02	[ "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/77/" ]	In the book ["Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief"](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0393064492), Wolpert (2007) discusses the evolutionary origins of belief. Although I haven't read it yet, [abc news reviewed the book](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5817998&page=1#.TysB0LEgfB0). > > Wolpert argues that our wide range of beliefs, some of which are > clearly false, grew out of a uniquely human trait. Alone in the animal > world, humans understand cause and effect, and that, he says, led > ultimately to the invention of tools, the rapid rise of sophisticated > technology, and of course, beliefs. Even the earliest humans > understood that many events that shaped their lives resulted from > specific causes. Therefore, there must be a cause behind every event. > > > ... > > > We want to believe there is a reason for it all, and that leaves > us predisposed to believe in some things for which there is little or > no evidence. If a certain belief makes sense out of an otherwise > senseless event, then it must be true, right? > > >	I like to debate these ideas, and will share my thoughts here. But I don't know if this is really appropriate for what this site was intended for based on the "warnings" I see above. The editors should feel free to delete my comments if they run too speculative for the intent of this site.... This is all speculation despite my common writing style of talking as if it were fact.... I approach these questions from the idea that the human brain is a reinforcement learning machine. It's fairly easy to create broad explanations for theses sorts of questions by tying everything back to this idea. I'm using reinforcement learning machine in the sense of the AI machine learning use of the term, which falls fairly directly from the behaviorists ideas of classical and operant conditioning. I am an engineer and computer scientist so I talk from that perspective. Fear, in this sense, is just (at the broadest levels) avoidance behaviors. We learn to use any behavior that allows us to stay away from the things that punish us - that cause reduced expectations of future rewards. Thoughts are just behaviors of the brain as well, which are also subject to all the same conditioning effects of our external actions. So we will naturally, be conditioned to try and avoid thoughts that produce reduced expectations of future rewards. Let me side-bar for a moment and point out something many people who have not studded reinforcement learning fail to understand. These sorts of machines don't just learn when a "bad" event happens. They don't just learn when they are hit with a stick. There's an indirect learning at work which creates a far greater complexity to the process. They are at their core, reward prediction machines. They constantly predict expected future rewards. (Basic TD learning). The "stick" events, train their prediction system. It accumulates statistics based on every time something bad or good happens, and uses that to predict expected future rewards. Behaviors, then, our conditioned not by the sticks and carrots, but by the prediction system. Any behavior which causes a drop in the expected future rewards by the internal prediction system, is punished (it's odds of being repeated in the future drops). So the behaviors that emergent from such indirect learning, are all about tricking the prediction system into predicting a better future for the agent. The complexity of the behaviors that will emerge, then are tied directly to how good the prediction system is at predicting the future. AI program attempting to use reinforcement learning often fail to look very intelligent due to the fact that they have failed, to implement high quality reward prediction system, which is itself, trained by reinforcement. So, back to fear now. Humans understand and use cause and effect. This is a direct fall out, of having a brain that conditions behaviors based on predictions of future rewards. The behaviors that emerge from such training will use cause and effect to their advantage to control our perceived view of the future based on the things we can change now, to effect the future though that causality chain. We don't like getting hurt. So we learn the signs in the environment that predict something bad will happen, and we change our behavior to prevent it. We see our hand moving towards a fire, and the brain is able to predict the a hand near a fire is a predictor of future pain (from being burned). We move our hand away from the fire, and it make our "predictor" produce a reduced expectation of a burn, so that action of moving the hand away from the fire is reinforced, even though we did not get burned (this time). We learn behaviors to stay away from fires in this way. Of course, there are other conflicting rewards for being near fires (like the food that results from cooking), so we end up balancing our behaviors and simply become careful around fire, vs running in fear from it. But, in life, we are often caught off guard. We are hurt by something that we had not seen before, or that we simply failed to predict. We learn that we can use cause and effect to avoid most of these bad things in life, like keeping our hand away from wire keeps us from being burned. But when we come across a new situation, stimulus signals very different from what we have dealt with in the past, we find the odds of being hurt goes up. When dealing with a new environment we have not experienced, we do not yet now know to leverage the causality of the environment to prevent the bad things, or to acquire the good things. Our prediction system knows, that if we wander into an something we are unfamiliar with, or odds of being hurt rises. It can use this as a cause and effect prediction. That is, the less we know about our current environment, the higher the odds that something will hurt us. Because our reward prediction system can predict this correlation between an unknown environment, and higher rewards, the system can learn behaviors, to avoid the unknown. We will be conditioned to stay in the "safe and known environment", and stay out of the "new and unknown". This attraction to the familiar, on one side, simply become behaviors to avoid the unknown on the others. This translates to a simple "fear" of the unknown. Now, this all works well, because our internal prediction systems are able to pick up the sensory clues from the environment to guild our actions. But, we can just as easily learn, to fool our prediction system. If the brain senses something dangerous like a fire, it will raise it's predictions of being burnt in the future. But we can also learn to close our eyes, and block the brain from seeing the danger. However, the brain is smart enough to not fall for that trick. Once it sees the fire, it understand the danger. And it understands that when we close our eyes, the fire and the danger are "still there" despite not being able to see it. However, it's not prefect, and this sort of trick does work some. So, when we see something really bad, we have a learned response to just look away, to close our eyes, or turn our head, exactly because this "trick" does work. It takes the stimulus away from our reward prediction hardware, and as such, makes the future look a little better than it did before. So the system can learn behaviors, to trick its prediction system, which is only harmful in the long run, but the low level system is not advanced enough to understand that. It's where are intelligence shows it's limits. The reward prediction system is not always smart enough to recognize it's being "tricked". When it can recognize the trick, it will not fall for it. It will likely return higher expectations of future bad things happening, because it's being deceived so it can't do it's job a well. But when the trick is good enough, that it does not recognize it's a trick, such "tricks" will emerge in our learned behaviors. All this adds up to the simple result that we learn to fear the unknown, because we learned that the more unknown there is in the world, the higher the odds of being hurt in the future becomes. But then we find the tricks. Language behaviors are a large part of what humans do. We not only learn to deal with the environment by using our hands and body to manipulate our environmental. We also learn to talk about our environment. The better we understand some aspect of our environment, the more words and language we have to talk about it. We use our langue to guide our actions, and we now that the more we can talk about our environment, the more we are likely to be able to guide our actions in a "safe" direction. When faced with an unknown, just talking about it, helps us better determine how to act in the situation. But it also triggers our prediction system to reduce the odds of future dangers. We just the act of talking, "tricks" our prediction system, into making us "feel better" about the future. Our talk might be nonsense (for a given situation), but if the talk is good enough to fool the prediction system, it still makes us feel better. So we develop these behaviors of rationalizing about an known, just because it tricks our internal reward prediction system into making the future look brighter for us. The better the "story" we put together in our random talking, the better the trick works. Superstitions, mythology, rationalizing, all emerge from such a behavior learning system just because it is able to trick the internal reward prediction system. The learning system can't tell the difference between a behavior learned that address the real danger (like learning to move our hand away from a fire), and from the tricks that only subverts the prediction system into predicting a bright future, rather than doing what needs to actually create a real brighter future. Humans have a very advanced prediction system. It can pick up very subtle and complex clues from the sensory environment, and produce a highly accurate prediction of the rewards, and dangers, we are likely to run into. But it is only a learning machine, with finite limits. It can be tricked. And where it can be tricked, behaviors will automatically emerge to trick the prediction system, instead of actually addressing the truth of why it was predicting something bad to start with. The mythologies of religions are just learned behaviors that trick our own internal brain into predicting a better future for us. Just making up a name for an unknown cause, like "God" is itself a trick. Having a name for such a thing, makes us feel like we have mastered some important aspect of the unknown. That we "know the cause". But just making up a name is nothing more than a language trick to fool our internal reward prediction system. Our behavior selection system, and our prediction system are one and the same. They work hand in hand, to both predict the future, and decide how to react to it (what behaviors to produce from second to second over our lives). The more advanced our behaviors become, the more advanced our prediction system becomes. As we learn more advanced language behaviors, we gain an improved prediction system, that is harder to "trick" with our own language behaviors. The better we understand that we are "tricking" ourselves into feeling better, the less the tricks work to actually make us feel better. As we learn they are just tricks, our prediction system is learning at the same time, to reduce our odds of a brighter future every time it detects such a trick is being used. So we have a natural and obvious reason to fear the unknown. That which we don't understand, is more likely to hurt us. We explore and study and experiment in life so as to reduce the dangers of the unknown (aka increase the rewards). But we also play tricks on ourselves, to make the unknown seem less unknown than it really is. But the better we understand they are tricks, the less they work, and the less we are inclined to use them. So why do we "praise" the unknown? Well, we don't praise the unknown. We praise God, not just "the unknown". Again, it's just a trick we use to make ourselves feel better. When we were kids, we learned to trust our parents and care-givers. They were far wiser than we were, and the best way to protect ourselves, was to obey them - to turn ourselves over to their desires. If they tell us not to play with fire, and we ignored them, we got burned so we learned to value of following the desires of a "higher power" - the more experienced adults in our lives. As we grow up, we gain our own experience, and learn that the other adults are not really a "higher power" anymore. We learn we must face the world on our own, and make our own decisions. But we still yearn for that simpler time, when there was always a far wiser force in our life to tell us what needed to be done. Praising God is all just part of that trick of allowing ourselves to believe we still have wise parents in our lives to protect us from the dangers. It's a trick to make our prediction system feel we are safer, than we really are. Now, that said, religions have evolved over thousands of years. The customs, and rules, and beliefs, in a religion have an "intelligence" about them, that comes from a 1000 years of experience. They carry with them an evolved wisdom of the ages. So when a religion says you should not kill someone, that's a belief that has survived 1000's of years of testing. The beliefs that did not work out as well, were removed from the religion, and new beliefs were added or modified over time. So the set of beliefs and customs that make up a religion is a real type of higher intelligence. So if mixed in all those beliefs, there is a "praising God" behavior, we can also understand what is really being praised is the traditions of the religion itself. The religion asks people to turn over themselves to the traditions of the religion, just like we turned ourselves over to the wisdom of our parents when we were kids. But they make up this mythological figure they call "god" and assign him to be the root cause of everything, just because it's a great trick, to make us feel more secure about not knowing the cause of of so many things, while at the same time, giving this mythical "god" the credit for creating the time tested customs of the religion itself (the bible is the word of god and all that). The "God" at work there is just the evolution of religious memes. It's just another process of evolution. The evolution of time tested learned behaviors. But it is a higher power, and there are valid reasons for people to respect (act according to) the traditions of such a time tested set of memes. It is actual in our interest to not kill, or steal, or lie, etc. So I can't think of any examples where we praise the unknown. But there are standard religious memes for praising the time tested wisdom of the religion, but doing it indirectly with a "trick" by making the people believe there is a "god" that created the rules. It's all a very complex set of learned behaviors that help people maximize their future rewards. So of the behaviors actually work to make the future better (like by not killing people we reduce the odds of others killing us), but other parts of it are just tricks we have learned to manipulate our own reward prediction system, that is, commonly talked about as, "our feelings". They are tricks to make us feel better. Now, also, don't get me wrong about the importance of feeling better. It's what we are hard wired to do. It's our sole purpose in life - it's what we are. We are machines build for the purpose of trying to make ourselves feel better. Our low level innate rewards are wired in us by the process of evolution so that what makes us feel better, is likely to help our species survive. So at the higher more boldly abstract level, we can be seen as a survival machine (though I would argue that exists more at the level of the species than the individual). At the level of the individual, we have in effect, just been giving the "job" of making ourselves feel better, and not worrying about the bigger picture of whether that helps us to survive of not. That is beyond our pay grade. It's the job of the process of evolution, to wire us "correctly" so that the things that make us feel better, work well to help us survive. And because evolution has, in general, done a good job of that, most human behaviors do tend to lean towards maximizing our survival odds. But evolution is not perfect, and it's constantly exploring alternatives, which is why we find so many human behaviors that seem anti-survival.
243	Human beings are inclined to "praise" the unknown, and are often afraid of the unknown. This inclination has led to the creation of mythology and many gods. To this date we are still carrying this habit on our daily lives. * "Oh, look at these [crop circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle), aliens must have created them!" * "Oh, he can bend the spoon! He must have [psychic power](https://youtu.be/x_NuZDaR46I?t=131)!" * "Nah, earth must be [standing over the oxen horns](http://www.photoshopmagazin.com/yarisma/3556/calisma/17303?m=ajax), otherwise it would fall down!" * "It makes sense! You adjust your balance with [the wrist band exerting bioenergy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)! Here I come!" * "I can gain 6 pack with this [Nano-Ultra-Mega-AB-Shaper.](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6%20pack%20weeks&tbm=isch) It has "nano", so it must be working, no?" * "Since we are surrounded by energy, some chosen ones might bend it right? We call it [reiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki)!" * "Since you have a BS degree. You must be a heck of a genius! Now can you please answer this question of geography/history/so on?" (I usually encounter such questions from ignorant people. They regard me as Mr. Know it all, as they don't know what university infact is.) * and most striking example of all is [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). To further exemplify my claim, Wikipedia quotes [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) as a variant of [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). > > The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes > an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a > variant of an argument from ignorance.[[9]](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0805074791)[[10]](http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) Such an argument is > sometimes reduced to the following form: > > > * There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. > * Therefore the cause must be supernatural. > > > One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of > one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because > current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be > God who caused life to start." > > > But this answer is rather specific and not satisfying for me. I think there lies a cognitive bias that drives human beings to prefer to praise/fear the unknown over showing reasoning and critical thinking when we are faced to the unknown. Update: [This scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA) from The Gods Must Be Crazy is spot on! Don't miss it :) ### Questions * Does scientific research support the claims made above about the importance of this tendency to praise or fear the unknown? * Is there an exact term for this tendency? Is [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) the right term for this? * What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency?	2012/02/02	[ "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/77/" ]	In the book ["Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief"](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0393064492), Wolpert (2007) discusses the evolutionary origins of belief. Although I haven't read it yet, [abc news reviewed the book](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5817998&page=1#.TysB0LEgfB0). > > Wolpert argues that our wide range of beliefs, some of which are > clearly false, grew out of a uniquely human trait. Alone in the animal > world, humans understand cause and effect, and that, he says, led > ultimately to the invention of tools, the rapid rise of sophisticated > technology, and of course, beliefs. Even the earliest humans > understood that many events that shaped their lives resulted from > specific causes. Therefore, there must be a cause behind every event. > > > ... > > > We want to believe there is a reason for it all, and that leaves > us predisposed to believe in some things for which there is little or > no evidence. If a certain belief makes sense out of an otherwise > senseless event, then it must be true, right? > > >	I'm going to focus on your third question: > > What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency? > > > I use the word "focus" because, well, I can't answer that. But I can introduce you a field of research that may be able to answer that for you. It's [cognitive science of religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion): > > Cognitive science of religion is the study of religious thought and behavior from the perspective of the cognitive and evolutionary sciences. The field employs methods and theories from a very broad range of disciplines, including: cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive anthropology, artificial intelligence, neurotheology, developmental psychology, and archaeology. Scholars in this field seek to explain how human minds acquire, generate, and transmit religious thoughts, practices, and schemas by means of ordinary cognitive capacities. > > > Other resources to research on this topic: * [International Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion (IACSR)](http://www.iacsr.com/) * [Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion](https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/JCSR)
243	Human beings are inclined to "praise" the unknown, and are often afraid of the unknown. This inclination has led to the creation of mythology and many gods. To this date we are still carrying this habit on our daily lives. * "Oh, look at these [crop circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle), aliens must have created them!" * "Oh, he can bend the spoon! He must have [psychic power](https://youtu.be/x_NuZDaR46I?t=131)!" * "Nah, earth must be [standing over the oxen horns](http://www.photoshopmagazin.com/yarisma/3556/calisma/17303?m=ajax), otherwise it would fall down!" * "It makes sense! You adjust your balance with [the wrist band exerting bioenergy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)! Here I come!" * "I can gain 6 pack with this [Nano-Ultra-Mega-AB-Shaper.](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6%20pack%20weeks&tbm=isch) It has "nano", so it must be working, no?" * "Since we are surrounded by energy, some chosen ones might bend it right? We call it [reiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki)!" * "Since you have a BS degree. You must be a heck of a genius! Now can you please answer this question of geography/history/so on?" (I usually encounter such questions from ignorant people. They regard me as Mr. Know it all, as they don't know what university infact is.) * and most striking example of all is [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). To further exemplify my claim, Wikipedia quotes [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) as a variant of [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). > > The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes > an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a > variant of an argument from ignorance.[[9]](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0805074791)[[10]](http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) Such an argument is > sometimes reduced to the following form: > > > * There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. > * Therefore the cause must be supernatural. > > > One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of > one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because > current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be > God who caused life to start." > > > But this answer is rather specific and not satisfying for me. I think there lies a cognitive bias that drives human beings to prefer to praise/fear the unknown over showing reasoning and critical thinking when we are faced to the unknown. Update: [This scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA) from The Gods Must Be Crazy is spot on! Don't miss it :) ### Questions * Does scientific research support the claims made above about the importance of this tendency to praise or fear the unknown? * Is there an exact term for this tendency? Is [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) the right term for this? * What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency?	2012/02/02	[ "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/77/" ]	This is speculative, but most humans are uncomfortable with not knowing, this is the root, for example, of premature cognitive commitments and of curiosity. So many people tend to adopt any available explanation to settle the discomfort of not knowing. I think a potentially more interesting question is why so many people have trouble exchanging a belief for a better explanation, anyone who has tried explaining the reasoning behind atheism to a religious person has run into this - they accept your arguments, but continue to believe as before.	I think this is slightly tautologous, because we all turn to "belief" to explain the things that we don't understand. Scientists turn to their beliefs just as much as religious people, because belief is the thing that covers those thigs we don't understand. The real question is why do people - of all sorts - not use their beliefs as a starting point to explore and understand. Belief is the idea that everything is explicable within our existing worldview - in fact, wider than this, within the limits of our ontology - and belief is the expression of this to events we do not yet understand. One example in cosmology is the idea of "Dark Matter". This is an extension of belief that everythign is explicable to say that there is something we do not understand. Naming it Dark Matter does nothing about explaining it, just defines it as something that is not yet understood. Defining God as He Whom Explains That Which We Do Not Understand is the same process. The real challenge is to progress into understanding that. (and, to make my position clear, I do believe in God, but not a God of the gaps)
243	Human beings are inclined to "praise" the unknown, and are often afraid of the unknown. This inclination has led to the creation of mythology and many gods. To this date we are still carrying this habit on our daily lives. * "Oh, look at these [crop circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle), aliens must have created them!" * "Oh, he can bend the spoon! He must have [psychic power](https://youtu.be/x_NuZDaR46I?t=131)!" * "Nah, earth must be [standing over the oxen horns](http://www.photoshopmagazin.com/yarisma/3556/calisma/17303?m=ajax), otherwise it would fall down!" * "It makes sense! You adjust your balance with [the wrist band exerting bioenergy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)! Here I come!" * "I can gain 6 pack with this [Nano-Ultra-Mega-AB-Shaper.](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6%20pack%20weeks&tbm=isch) It has "nano", so it must be working, no?" * "Since we are surrounded by energy, some chosen ones might bend it right? We call it [reiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki)!" * "Since you have a BS degree. You must be a heck of a genius! Now can you please answer this question of geography/history/so on?" (I usually encounter such questions from ignorant people. They regard me as Mr. Know it all, as they don't know what university infact is.) * and most striking example of all is [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). To further exemplify my claim, Wikipedia quotes [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) as a variant of [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). > > The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes > an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a > variant of an argument from ignorance.[[9]](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0805074791)[[10]](http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) Such an argument is > sometimes reduced to the following form: > > > * There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. > * Therefore the cause must be supernatural. > > > One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of > one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because > current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be > God who caused life to start." > > > But this answer is rather specific and not satisfying for me. I think there lies a cognitive bias that drives human beings to prefer to praise/fear the unknown over showing reasoning and critical thinking when we are faced to the unknown. Update: [This scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA) from The Gods Must Be Crazy is spot on! Don't miss it :) ### Questions * Does scientific research support the claims made above about the importance of this tendency to praise or fear the unknown? * Is there an exact term for this tendency? Is [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) the right term for this? * What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency?	2012/02/02	[ "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/77/" ]	I like to debate these ideas, and will share my thoughts here. But I don't know if this is really appropriate for what this site was intended for based on the "warnings" I see above. The editors should feel free to delete my comments if they run too speculative for the intent of this site.... This is all speculation despite my common writing style of talking as if it were fact.... I approach these questions from the idea that the human brain is a reinforcement learning machine. It's fairly easy to create broad explanations for theses sorts of questions by tying everything back to this idea. I'm using reinforcement learning machine in the sense of the AI machine learning use of the term, which falls fairly directly from the behaviorists ideas of classical and operant conditioning. I am an engineer and computer scientist so I talk from that perspective. Fear, in this sense, is just (at the broadest levels) avoidance behaviors. We learn to use any behavior that allows us to stay away from the things that punish us - that cause reduced expectations of future rewards. Thoughts are just behaviors of the brain as well, which are also subject to all the same conditioning effects of our external actions. So we will naturally, be conditioned to try and avoid thoughts that produce reduced expectations of future rewards. Let me side-bar for a moment and point out something many people who have not studded reinforcement learning fail to understand. These sorts of machines don't just learn when a "bad" event happens. They don't just learn when they are hit with a stick. There's an indirect learning at work which creates a far greater complexity to the process. They are at their core, reward prediction machines. They constantly predict expected future rewards. (Basic TD learning). The "stick" events, train their prediction system. It accumulates statistics based on every time something bad or good happens, and uses that to predict expected future rewards. Behaviors, then, our conditioned not by the sticks and carrots, but by the prediction system. Any behavior which causes a drop in the expected future rewards by the internal prediction system, is punished (it's odds of being repeated in the future drops). So the behaviors that emergent from such indirect learning, are all about tricking the prediction system into predicting a better future for the agent. The complexity of the behaviors that will emerge, then are tied directly to how good the prediction system is at predicting the future. AI program attempting to use reinforcement learning often fail to look very intelligent due to the fact that they have failed, to implement high quality reward prediction system, which is itself, trained by reinforcement. So, back to fear now. Humans understand and use cause and effect. This is a direct fall out, of having a brain that conditions behaviors based on predictions of future rewards. The behaviors that emerge from such training will use cause and effect to their advantage to control our perceived view of the future based on the things we can change now, to effect the future though that causality chain. We don't like getting hurt. So we learn the signs in the environment that predict something bad will happen, and we change our behavior to prevent it. We see our hand moving towards a fire, and the brain is able to predict the a hand near a fire is a predictor of future pain (from being burned). We move our hand away from the fire, and it make our "predictor" produce a reduced expectation of a burn, so that action of moving the hand away from the fire is reinforced, even though we did not get burned (this time). We learn behaviors to stay away from fires in this way. Of course, there are other conflicting rewards for being near fires (like the food that results from cooking), so we end up balancing our behaviors and simply become careful around fire, vs running in fear from it. But, in life, we are often caught off guard. We are hurt by something that we had not seen before, or that we simply failed to predict. We learn that we can use cause and effect to avoid most of these bad things in life, like keeping our hand away from wire keeps us from being burned. But when we come across a new situation, stimulus signals very different from what we have dealt with in the past, we find the odds of being hurt goes up. When dealing with a new environment we have not experienced, we do not yet now know to leverage the causality of the environment to prevent the bad things, or to acquire the good things. Our prediction system knows, that if we wander into an something we are unfamiliar with, or odds of being hurt rises. It can use this as a cause and effect prediction. That is, the less we know about our current environment, the higher the odds that something will hurt us. Because our reward prediction system can predict this correlation between an unknown environment, and higher rewards, the system can learn behaviors, to avoid the unknown. We will be conditioned to stay in the "safe and known environment", and stay out of the "new and unknown". This attraction to the familiar, on one side, simply become behaviors to avoid the unknown on the others. This translates to a simple "fear" of the unknown. Now, this all works well, because our internal prediction systems are able to pick up the sensory clues from the environment to guild our actions. But, we can just as easily learn, to fool our prediction system. If the brain senses something dangerous like a fire, it will raise it's predictions of being burnt in the future. But we can also learn to close our eyes, and block the brain from seeing the danger. However, the brain is smart enough to not fall for that trick. Once it sees the fire, it understand the danger. And it understands that when we close our eyes, the fire and the danger are "still there" despite not being able to see it. However, it's not prefect, and this sort of trick does work some. So, when we see something really bad, we have a learned response to just look away, to close our eyes, or turn our head, exactly because this "trick" does work. It takes the stimulus away from our reward prediction hardware, and as such, makes the future look a little better than it did before. So the system can learn behaviors, to trick its prediction system, which is only harmful in the long run, but the low level system is not advanced enough to understand that. It's where are intelligence shows it's limits. The reward prediction system is not always smart enough to recognize it's being "tricked". When it can recognize the trick, it will not fall for it. It will likely return higher expectations of future bad things happening, because it's being deceived so it can't do it's job a well. But when the trick is good enough, that it does not recognize it's a trick, such "tricks" will emerge in our learned behaviors. All this adds up to the simple result that we learn to fear the unknown, because we learned that the more unknown there is in the world, the higher the odds of being hurt in the future becomes. But then we find the tricks. Language behaviors are a large part of what humans do. We not only learn to deal with the environment by using our hands and body to manipulate our environmental. We also learn to talk about our environment. The better we understand some aspect of our environment, the more words and language we have to talk about it. We use our langue to guide our actions, and we now that the more we can talk about our environment, the more we are likely to be able to guide our actions in a "safe" direction. When faced with an unknown, just talking about it, helps us better determine how to act in the situation. But it also triggers our prediction system to reduce the odds of future dangers. We just the act of talking, "tricks" our prediction system, into making us "feel better" about the future. Our talk might be nonsense (for a given situation), but if the talk is good enough to fool the prediction system, it still makes us feel better. So we develop these behaviors of rationalizing about an known, just because it tricks our internal reward prediction system into making the future look brighter for us. The better the "story" we put together in our random talking, the better the trick works. Superstitions, mythology, rationalizing, all emerge from such a behavior learning system just because it is able to trick the internal reward prediction system. The learning system can't tell the difference between a behavior learned that address the real danger (like learning to move our hand away from a fire), and from the tricks that only subverts the prediction system into predicting a bright future, rather than doing what needs to actually create a real brighter future. Humans have a very advanced prediction system. It can pick up very subtle and complex clues from the sensory environment, and produce a highly accurate prediction of the rewards, and dangers, we are likely to run into. But it is only a learning machine, with finite limits. It can be tricked. And where it can be tricked, behaviors will automatically emerge to trick the prediction system, instead of actually addressing the truth of why it was predicting something bad to start with. The mythologies of religions are just learned behaviors that trick our own internal brain into predicting a better future for us. Just making up a name for an unknown cause, like "God" is itself a trick. Having a name for such a thing, makes us feel like we have mastered some important aspect of the unknown. That we "know the cause". But just making up a name is nothing more than a language trick to fool our internal reward prediction system. Our behavior selection system, and our prediction system are one and the same. They work hand in hand, to both predict the future, and decide how to react to it (what behaviors to produce from second to second over our lives). The more advanced our behaviors become, the more advanced our prediction system becomes. As we learn more advanced language behaviors, we gain an improved prediction system, that is harder to "trick" with our own language behaviors. The better we understand that we are "tricking" ourselves into feeling better, the less the tricks work to actually make us feel better. As we learn they are just tricks, our prediction system is learning at the same time, to reduce our odds of a brighter future every time it detects such a trick is being used. So we have a natural and obvious reason to fear the unknown. That which we don't understand, is more likely to hurt us. We explore and study and experiment in life so as to reduce the dangers of the unknown (aka increase the rewards). But we also play tricks on ourselves, to make the unknown seem less unknown than it really is. But the better we understand they are tricks, the less they work, and the less we are inclined to use them. So why do we "praise" the unknown? Well, we don't praise the unknown. We praise God, not just "the unknown". Again, it's just a trick we use to make ourselves feel better. When we were kids, we learned to trust our parents and care-givers. They were far wiser than we were, and the best way to protect ourselves, was to obey them - to turn ourselves over to their desires. If they tell us not to play with fire, and we ignored them, we got burned so we learned to value of following the desires of a "higher power" - the more experienced adults in our lives. As we grow up, we gain our own experience, and learn that the other adults are not really a "higher power" anymore. We learn we must face the world on our own, and make our own decisions. But we still yearn for that simpler time, when there was always a far wiser force in our life to tell us what needed to be done. Praising God is all just part of that trick of allowing ourselves to believe we still have wise parents in our lives to protect us from the dangers. It's a trick to make our prediction system feel we are safer, than we really are. Now, that said, religions have evolved over thousands of years. The customs, and rules, and beliefs, in a religion have an "intelligence" about them, that comes from a 1000 years of experience. They carry with them an evolved wisdom of the ages. So when a religion says you should not kill someone, that's a belief that has survived 1000's of years of testing. The beliefs that did not work out as well, were removed from the religion, and new beliefs were added or modified over time. So the set of beliefs and customs that make up a religion is a real type of higher intelligence. So if mixed in all those beliefs, there is a "praising God" behavior, we can also understand what is really being praised is the traditions of the religion itself. The religion asks people to turn over themselves to the traditions of the religion, just like we turned ourselves over to the wisdom of our parents when we were kids. But they make up this mythological figure they call "god" and assign him to be the root cause of everything, just because it's a great trick, to make us feel more secure about not knowing the cause of of so many things, while at the same time, giving this mythical "god" the credit for creating the time tested customs of the religion itself (the bible is the word of god and all that). The "God" at work there is just the evolution of religious memes. It's just another process of evolution. The evolution of time tested learned behaviors. But it is a higher power, and there are valid reasons for people to respect (act according to) the traditions of such a time tested set of memes. It is actual in our interest to not kill, or steal, or lie, etc. So I can't think of any examples where we praise the unknown. But there are standard religious memes for praising the time tested wisdom of the religion, but doing it indirectly with a "trick" by making the people believe there is a "god" that created the rules. It's all a very complex set of learned behaviors that help people maximize their future rewards. So of the behaviors actually work to make the future better (like by not killing people we reduce the odds of others killing us), but other parts of it are just tricks we have learned to manipulate our own reward prediction system, that is, commonly talked about as, "our feelings". They are tricks to make us feel better. Now, also, don't get me wrong about the importance of feeling better. It's what we are hard wired to do. It's our sole purpose in life - it's what we are. We are machines build for the purpose of trying to make ourselves feel better. Our low level innate rewards are wired in us by the process of evolution so that what makes us feel better, is likely to help our species survive. So at the higher more boldly abstract level, we can be seen as a survival machine (though I would argue that exists more at the level of the species than the individual). At the level of the individual, we have in effect, just been giving the "job" of making ourselves feel better, and not worrying about the bigger picture of whether that helps us to survive of not. That is beyond our pay grade. It's the job of the process of evolution, to wire us "correctly" so that the things that make us feel better, work well to help us survive. And because evolution has, in general, done a good job of that, most human behaviors do tend to lean towards maximizing our survival odds. But evolution is not perfect, and it's constantly exploring alternatives, which is why we find so many human behaviors that seem anti-survival.	I think this is slightly tautologous, because we all turn to "belief" to explain the things that we don't understand. Scientists turn to their beliefs just as much as religious people, because belief is the thing that covers those thigs we don't understand. The real question is why do people - of all sorts - not use their beliefs as a starting point to explore and understand. Belief is the idea that everything is explicable within our existing worldview - in fact, wider than this, within the limits of our ontology - and belief is the expression of this to events we do not yet understand. One example in cosmology is the idea of "Dark Matter". This is an extension of belief that everythign is explicable to say that there is something we do not understand. Naming it Dark Matter does nothing about explaining it, just defines it as something that is not yet understood. Defining God as He Whom Explains That Which We Do Not Understand is the same process. The real challenge is to progress into understanding that. (and, to make my position clear, I do believe in God, but not a God of the gaps)
243	Human beings are inclined to "praise" the unknown, and are often afraid of the unknown. This inclination has led to the creation of mythology and many gods. To this date we are still carrying this habit on our daily lives. * "Oh, look at these [crop circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle), aliens must have created them!" * "Oh, he can bend the spoon! He must have [psychic power](https://youtu.be/x_NuZDaR46I?t=131)!" * "Nah, earth must be [standing over the oxen horns](http://www.photoshopmagazin.com/yarisma/3556/calisma/17303?m=ajax), otherwise it would fall down!" * "It makes sense! You adjust your balance with [the wrist band exerting bioenergy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)! Here I come!" * "I can gain 6 pack with this [Nano-Ultra-Mega-AB-Shaper.](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6%20pack%20weeks&tbm=isch) It has "nano", so it must be working, no?" * "Since we are surrounded by energy, some chosen ones might bend it right? We call it [reiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki)!" * "Since you have a BS degree. You must be a heck of a genius! Now can you please answer this question of geography/history/so on?" (I usually encounter such questions from ignorant people. They regard me as Mr. Know it all, as they don't know what university infact is.) * and most striking example of all is [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). To further exemplify my claim, Wikipedia quotes [God of the Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) as a variant of [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). > > The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes > an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a > variant of an argument from ignorance.[[9]](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0805074791)[[10]](http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) Such an argument is > sometimes reduced to the following form: > > > * There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. > * Therefore the cause must be supernatural. > > > One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of > one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because > current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be > God who caused life to start." > > > But this answer is rather specific and not satisfying for me. I think there lies a cognitive bias that drives human beings to prefer to praise/fear the unknown over showing reasoning and critical thinking when we are faced to the unknown. Update: [This scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA) from The Gods Must Be Crazy is spot on! Don't miss it :) ### Questions * Does scientific research support the claims made above about the importance of this tendency to praise or fear the unknown? * Is there an exact term for this tendency? Is [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) the right term for this? * What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency?	2012/02/02	[ "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com", "https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/77/" ]	I'm going to focus on your third question: > > What does scientific research tell us about why humans have this tendency? > > > I use the word "focus" because, well, I can't answer that. But I can introduce you a field of research that may be able to answer that for you. It's [cognitive science of religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion): > > Cognitive science of religion is the study of religious thought and behavior from the perspective of the cognitive and evolutionary sciences. The field employs methods and theories from a very broad range of disciplines, including: cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive anthropology, artificial intelligence, neurotheology, developmental psychology, and archaeology. Scholars in this field seek to explain how human minds acquire, generate, and transmit religious thoughts, practices, and schemas by means of ordinary cognitive capacities. > > > Other resources to research on this topic: * [International Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion (IACSR)](http://www.iacsr.com/) * [Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion](https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/JCSR)	I think this is slightly tautologous, because we all turn to "belief" to explain the things that we don't understand. Scientists turn to their beliefs just as much as religious people, because belief is the thing that covers those thigs we don't understand. The real question is why do people - of all sorts - not use their beliefs as a starting point to explore and understand. Belief is the idea that everything is explicable within our existing worldview - in fact, wider than this, within the limits of our ontology - and belief is the expression of this to events we do not yet understand. One example in cosmology is the idea of "Dark Matter". This is an extension of belief that everythign is explicable to say that there is something we do not understand. Naming it Dark Matter does nothing about explaining it, just defines it as something that is not yet understood. Defining God as He Whom Explains That Which We Do Not Understand is the same process. The real challenge is to progress into understanding that. (and, to make my position clear, I do believe in God, but not a God of the gaps)
508,289	This British article titled "[Two stabbings near Crumpsall Park overnight in separate incidents just 200 metres apart](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-stabbings-near-crumpsall-park-16367917)" says: > > He was taken to hospital with serious injuries. Police described his condition today as serious but stable. > > > In the second sentence, what does 'today' modify, 'described' or 'condition'? If it modifies the noun 'condition', what's the part of speech of 'today'?	2019/08/14	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/508289", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/27275/" ]	In the example today is a clause-level adjunct that modifies the entire clause: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dPbcb.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dPbcb.png) Words do not modify words; syntactic constituents modify other syntactic constituents. Do not get hung up on word order. Temporal adjuncts in English have flexible placement: they can come before, after, or at appropriate spots within the clause they modify. So today could be placed before police, after police, after serious, or after condition, and the sentence would have the same underlying grammatical structure. If it was necessary to draw a distinction between the time of description and the time that the description referred to, then the sentence would have been phrased differently. Meaning is as vague as it's allowed to be in the context.	> > In the second sentence, what does 'today' modify, 'described' or 'condition'? > > > It modifies condition. > > If it modifies the noun 'condition', what's the part of speech of 'today'? > > > An adverb. [Adverbs modifying nouns is a thing](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/414344/171986). (See [pp. 42 ff. here](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/PaynHuddPull.pdf) for more details.) Essentially, the described [obj.] as [adj.] is replacing the described [obj.] to be [adj.] construction where the referent of the adv. today is much clearer. We still want to be able to express the time of that state of being, so we just modify the noun directly with the adverb. People do it naturally and are easily and correctly understood and so continue to do it, even though we all 'know' from school that adverb(ial)s should 'only' modify verbs, adjs., and other advs.
508,289	This British article titled "[Two stabbings near Crumpsall Park overnight in separate incidents just 200 metres apart](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-stabbings-near-crumpsall-park-16367917)" says: > > He was taken to hospital with serious injuries. Police described his condition today as serious but stable. > > > In the second sentence, what does 'today' modify, 'described' or 'condition'? If it modifies the noun 'condition', what's the part of speech of 'today'?	2019/08/14	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/508289", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/27275/" ]	"[Today](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/today?s=t)" is an adverb modifying the main verb "described." "Today" being used as an adjective is extremely rare. Examples of it being used as an adjective would be: > > "The today look in clothing styles is..." > > > and > > "That look is very today." > > > In a sentence like "I started a new job today" or "Today, I started a new job," which is how it's used in your sentence, it's an adverb modifying the main verb (i.e., the verb the subject performs in the main clause). Here's a hint: If you can aptly move the modifier to both the beginning and the end of the sentence and have the sentence still make sense, it's an adverb as adverbs modifying the main verb can go either place, as well as other places, unlike adjectives, which always appear next to the noun they modify or after a linking verb. In your sentence, you can move "today" to not just the beginning of the sentence and the end of the sentence and still have it mean the same thing, but you can also move it just before "described" and just after "described," the verb its modifying. To modify "condition," "today" would appear before "condition" as it, not fitting into any of the categories, is not a [postpostive adjective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositive_adjective).	> > In the second sentence, what does 'today' modify, 'described' or 'condition'? > > > It modifies condition. > > If it modifies the noun 'condition', what's the part of speech of 'today'? > > > An adverb. [Adverbs modifying nouns is a thing](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/414344/171986). (See [pp. 42 ff. here](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/PaynHuddPull.pdf) for more details.) Essentially, the described [obj.] as [adj.] is replacing the described [obj.] to be [adj.] construction where the referent of the adv. today is much clearer. We still want to be able to express the time of that state of being, so we just modify the noun directly with the adverb. People do it naturally and are easily and correctly understood and so continue to do it, even though we all 'know' from school that adverb(ial)s should 'only' modify verbs, adjs., and other advs.
508,289	This British article titled "[Two stabbings near Crumpsall Park overnight in separate incidents just 200 metres apart](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-stabbings-near-crumpsall-park-16367917)" says: > > He was taken to hospital with serious injuries. Police described his condition today as serious but stable. > > > In the second sentence, what does 'today' modify, 'described' or 'condition'? If it modifies the noun 'condition', what's the part of speech of 'today'?	2019/08/14	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/508289", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/27275/" ]	In the example today is a clause-level adjunct that modifies the entire clause: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dPbcb.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dPbcb.png) Words do not modify words; syntactic constituents modify other syntactic constituents. Do not get hung up on word order. Temporal adjuncts in English have flexible placement: they can come before, after, or at appropriate spots within the clause they modify. So today could be placed before police, after police, after serious, or after condition, and the sentence would have the same underlying grammatical structure. If it was necessary to draw a distinction between the time of description and the time that the description referred to, then the sentence would have been phrased differently. Meaning is as vague as it's allowed to be in the context.	It is possible for today to attach to a preceding noun phrase --------------------------------------------------------------- The attachment of "today" in that sentence is syntactically ambiguous, just as the attachment of a prepositional phrase like "on this day" would be syntactically ambiguous. My first interpretation was the same as lly's: I felt like "today" modifies "condition" instead of "described". I suppose "today" could modify the clause, as jlovegren suggests, but I do not think that is the only possibility. Here is an example of a sentence where I think it's clear that today is not a clause-level adjunct: > > "I mean that Mr. Vane's son is responsible for his condition to-day." > > > ([Mr. Crewe's Career](https://books.google.com/books?id=yt-bCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT351&lpg=PT351&dq=%22for+his+condition+today%22), by Winston Churchill (not the politician), 1908) This doesn't mean the same thing as "Today, Mr. Vane's son is responsible for his condition." In the quoted sentence from Churchill, the word today is not used to locate the time when the son is responsible; it is used to locate the time of Mr. Vane's condition. In other words, the meaning of the sentence is closer to "Mr. Vane's son is responsible for his current condition" than to "Mr. Vane's son is currently responsible for his condition." Another example where today is not a clause-level modifier: > > So, in the future, our normal condition today will be considered disabled. > > > ([The Realities of 'Reality' - Part II: Making Sense of Why Modern Science Advances](https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=%22condition+today+will+be+considered%22) (Volume 1), by Fritz Dufour, 2018) Obviously "today" in this sentence could not be functioning as a clause-level adjunct, because the clause is talking about the distant future. And a third example, this time in a clause with a past-tense verb: > > The situation today was not predictable a generation or two ago, and the future too is largely unknown. > > > ([Youth On Religion: The Development, Negotiation and Impact of Faith and Non-Faith Identity](https://books.google.com/books?id=f0ksAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22today+was+not+predictable%22), by Nicola Madge, Peter Hemming, and Kevin Stenson, first published 2014, p. 217) ### Parts of speech I think it might not have been a good idea to combine this question with the part-of-speech question. The part of speech of "today" seems complicated. My impression is that it functions like a noun phrase that functions like a prepositional phrase. (Hopefully that's not incomprehensible.) Or perhaps it could be said to function as a pronoun "fused" with a preposition. Prepositional phrases sometimes function like adverb(ial) phrases, but I don't know whether there's anything particularly adverbial about today in your sentence. Etymologically, today obviously has the form of a prepositional phrase: the first part is from the preposition to, and the second part is from the noun day. The word functions like a noun phrase in sentences like "today is a good day", and it clearly has a deictic meaning: these facts support the categorization of the word as a pronoun. ("Today" can also be used as just a regular noun, but I don't think that use is relevant.) Like the noun phrases "that day" or "the day I went on my trip", "today" can be used adverbially ("I saw the city [that day/the day I went on my trip/today]". Noun phrases used this way have been described as "bare NP adverbs of time" ("[Bare NP Adverbs](https://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/%7Erlarson/larson85bnps.pdf)", Richard K. Larson). It's clear that there is no adverb or (explicit) preposition in the phrase that day, so if the usage is truly analogous, I'm not sure whether even this usage of today warrants classifying the word as an adverb or preposition rather than as a pronoun. In the sentence "Police described his condition today as serious but stable," it does seem to be possible to replace "today" with the NP "that day" and get another grammatical sentence: "Police described his condition that day as serious but stable". So I think that today is a pronoun in that sentence, but I'm not sure how to describe the syntactic function. It might involve a syntactic structure that is also used when adverbs modify nouns. Your [previous question about home](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385396/can-home-be-an-adjective-as-well-as-an-adverb-or-a-noun?noredirect=1&lq=1) seems relevant, as it touches on similar issues.
508,289	This British article titled "[Two stabbings near Crumpsall Park overnight in separate incidents just 200 metres apart](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-stabbings-near-crumpsall-park-16367917)" says: > > He was taken to hospital with serious injuries. Police described his condition today as serious but stable. > > > In the second sentence, what does 'today' modify, 'described' or 'condition'? If it modifies the noun 'condition', what's the part of speech of 'today'?	2019/08/14	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/508289", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/27275/" ]	"[Today](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/today?s=t)" is an adverb modifying the main verb "described." "Today" being used as an adjective is extremely rare. Examples of it being used as an adjective would be: > > "The today look in clothing styles is..." > > > and > > "That look is very today." > > > In a sentence like "I started a new job today" or "Today, I started a new job," which is how it's used in your sentence, it's an adverb modifying the main verb (i.e., the verb the subject performs in the main clause). Here's a hint: If you can aptly move the modifier to both the beginning and the end of the sentence and have the sentence still make sense, it's an adverb as adverbs modifying the main verb can go either place, as well as other places, unlike adjectives, which always appear next to the noun they modify or after a linking verb. In your sentence, you can move "today" to not just the beginning of the sentence and the end of the sentence and still have it mean the same thing, but you can also move it just before "described" and just after "described," the verb its modifying. To modify "condition," "today" would appear before "condition" as it, not fitting into any of the categories, is not a [postpostive adjective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositive_adjective).	It is possible for today to attach to a preceding noun phrase --------------------------------------------------------------- The attachment of "today" in that sentence is syntactically ambiguous, just as the attachment of a prepositional phrase like "on this day" would be syntactically ambiguous. My first interpretation was the same as lly's: I felt like "today" modifies "condition" instead of "described". I suppose "today" could modify the clause, as jlovegren suggests, but I do not think that is the only possibility. Here is an example of a sentence where I think it's clear that today is not a clause-level adjunct: > > "I mean that Mr. Vane's son is responsible for his condition to-day." > > > ([Mr. Crewe's Career](https://books.google.com/books?id=yt-bCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT351&lpg=PT351&dq=%22for+his+condition+today%22), by Winston Churchill (not the politician), 1908) This doesn't mean the same thing as "Today, Mr. Vane's son is responsible for his condition." In the quoted sentence from Churchill, the word today is not used to locate the time when the son is responsible; it is used to locate the time of Mr. Vane's condition. In other words, the meaning of the sentence is closer to "Mr. Vane's son is responsible for his current condition" than to "Mr. Vane's son is currently responsible for his condition." Another example where today is not a clause-level modifier: > > So, in the future, our normal condition today will be considered disabled. > > > ([The Realities of 'Reality' - Part II: Making Sense of Why Modern Science Advances](https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=%22condition+today+will+be+considered%22) (Volume 1), by Fritz Dufour, 2018) Obviously "today" in this sentence could not be functioning as a clause-level adjunct, because the clause is talking about the distant future. And a third example, this time in a clause with a past-tense verb: > > The situation today was not predictable a generation or two ago, and the future too is largely unknown. > > > ([Youth On Religion: The Development, Negotiation and Impact of Faith and Non-Faith Identity](https://books.google.com/books?id=f0ksAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22today+was+not+predictable%22), by Nicola Madge, Peter Hemming, and Kevin Stenson, first published 2014, p. 217) ### Parts of speech I think it might not have been a good idea to combine this question with the part-of-speech question. The part of speech of "today" seems complicated. My impression is that it functions like a noun phrase that functions like a prepositional phrase. (Hopefully that's not incomprehensible.) Or perhaps it could be said to function as a pronoun "fused" with a preposition. Prepositional phrases sometimes function like adverb(ial) phrases, but I don't know whether there's anything particularly adverbial about today in your sentence. Etymologically, today obviously has the form of a prepositional phrase: the first part is from the preposition to, and the second part is from the noun day. The word functions like a noun phrase in sentences like "today is a good day", and it clearly has a deictic meaning: these facts support the categorization of the word as a pronoun. ("Today" can also be used as just a regular noun, but I don't think that use is relevant.) Like the noun phrases "that day" or "the day I went on my trip", "today" can be used adverbially ("I saw the city [that day/the day I went on my trip/today]". Noun phrases used this way have been described as "bare NP adverbs of time" ("[Bare NP Adverbs](https://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/%7Erlarson/larson85bnps.pdf)", Richard K. Larson). It's clear that there is no adverb or (explicit) preposition in the phrase that day, so if the usage is truly analogous, I'm not sure whether even this usage of today warrants classifying the word as an adverb or preposition rather than as a pronoun. In the sentence "Police described his condition today as serious but stable," it does seem to be possible to replace "today" with the NP "that day" and get another grammatical sentence: "Police described his condition that day as serious but stable". So I think that today is a pronoun in that sentence, but I'm not sure how to describe the syntactic function. It might involve a syntactic structure that is also used when adverbs modify nouns. Your [previous question about home](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385396/can-home-be-an-adjective-as-well-as-an-adverb-or-a-noun?noredirect=1&lq=1) seems relevant, as it touches on similar issues.
508,289	This British article titled "[Two stabbings near Crumpsall Park overnight in separate incidents just 200 metres apart](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-stabbings-near-crumpsall-park-16367917)" says: > > He was taken to hospital with serious injuries. Police described his condition today as serious but stable. > > > In the second sentence, what does 'today' modify, 'described' or 'condition'? If it modifies the noun 'condition', what's the part of speech of 'today'?	2019/08/14	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/508289", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/27275/" ]	In the example today is a clause-level adjunct that modifies the entire clause: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dPbcb.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dPbcb.png) Words do not modify words; syntactic constituents modify other syntactic constituents. Do not get hung up on word order. Temporal adjuncts in English have flexible placement: they can come before, after, or at appropriate spots within the clause they modify. So today could be placed before police, after police, after serious, or after condition, and the sentence would have the same underlying grammatical structure. If it was necessary to draw a distinction between the time of description and the time that the description referred to, then the sentence would have been phrased differently. Meaning is as vague as it's allowed to be in the context.	"[Today](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/today?s=t)" is an adverb modifying the main verb "described." "Today" being used as an adjective is extremely rare. Examples of it being used as an adjective would be: > > "The today look in clothing styles is..." > > > and > > "That look is very today." > > > In a sentence like "I started a new job today" or "Today, I started a new job," which is how it's used in your sentence, it's an adverb modifying the main verb (i.e., the verb the subject performs in the main clause). Here's a hint: If you can aptly move the modifier to both the beginning and the end of the sentence and have the sentence still make sense, it's an adverb as adverbs modifying the main verb can go either place, as well as other places, unlike adjectives, which always appear next to the noun they modify or after a linking verb. In your sentence, you can move "today" to not just the beginning of the sentence and the end of the sentence and still have it mean the same thing, but you can also move it just before "described" and just after "described," the verb its modifying. To modify "condition," "today" would appear before "condition" as it, not fitting into any of the categories, is not a [postpostive adjective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositive_adjective).
12,875	I am interested in songs by the same composer/ song writer that talk about political ideals affecting the country's masses. May I know some?	2022/09/17	[ "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/12875", "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com", "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/12573/" ]	The song is about the effects of drugs. According to the website [Story of Song](https://storyofsong.com/story/master-of-puppets/), > > “Master of Puppets” was written by all members of Metallica and is a song about the eventual side effects drugs will have on an individual’s life. In an 198[6] interview with Thrasher magazine, lead singer James Hetfield explained the meaning behind the track: ““Master of Puppets” deals pretty much with drugs. How things get switched around, instead of you controlling what you’re taking and doing its drugs controlling you. Like, I went to a party here in S.F., there were all these freaks shooting up and geezin’ and this other girl was real sick.” It is Metallica’s most played song of all time. > > > The original Thrasher interview is available on the Thrasher website: "[Metallica](https://www.thrashermagazine.com/articles/magazine/august-1986/)", Interview by Pushead, Thrasher Magazine (vol. 6, no. 8, August 1986): pp. 64–71. Thrasher quotation, page 71 [![Quotation from Thrasher Magazine](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nHUz.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nHUz.jpg) Rolling Stone, in the March 2, 2016 article "[Metallica Talk 30 Years of ‘Master of Puppets’](https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/metallica-master-puppets-album-227269/): ‘We Were Just Kids’", corroborates: > > a nuanced showstopper about drug addiction > > >	Master of puppets - it is not about drugs. They used drugs to speak up. Master of puppets talks about the person who is above you. Your parents, teacher, boss etc. You can't do nothing about it. > > Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings Twisting your mind and > smashing your dreams Blinded by me, you can't see a thing Just call my > name, 'cause I'll hear you scream > > > Musicians speak their mind out. Master and puppets is truth. One plays a role as master and a puppet.
12,875	I am interested in songs by the same composer/ song writer that talk about political ideals affecting the country's masses. May I know some?	2022/09/17	[ "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/12875", "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com", "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/12573/" ]	The song is about the effects of drugs. According to the website [Story of Song](https://storyofsong.com/story/master-of-puppets/), > > “Master of Puppets” was written by all members of Metallica and is a song about the eventual side effects drugs will have on an individual’s life. In an 198[6] interview with Thrasher magazine, lead singer James Hetfield explained the meaning behind the track: ““Master of Puppets” deals pretty much with drugs. How things get switched around, instead of you controlling what you’re taking and doing its drugs controlling you. Like, I went to a party here in S.F., there were all these freaks shooting up and geezin’ and this other girl was real sick.” It is Metallica’s most played song of all time. > > > The original Thrasher interview is available on the Thrasher website: "[Metallica](https://www.thrashermagazine.com/articles/magazine/august-1986/)", Interview by Pushead, Thrasher Magazine (vol. 6, no. 8, August 1986): pp. 64–71. Thrasher quotation, page 71 [![Quotation from Thrasher Magazine](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nHUz.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nHUz.jpg) Rolling Stone, in the March 2, 2016 article "[Metallica Talk 30 Years of ‘Master of Puppets’](https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/metallica-master-puppets-album-227269/): ‘We Were Just Kids’", corroborates: > > a nuanced showstopper about drug addiction > > >	While one could certainly argue that all music (like other forms of art) is subject to interpretation, even in spite of the artists' original intent, there are lines in "Master of Puppets" that are hard to interpret as being about anything other than drugs: Taste me you will see More is all you need (i.e., addiction) Needlework the way, never you betray (i.e., injecting drugs intravenously) Chop your breakfast on a mirror (i.e., chopping lines of cocaine) Fix me! (i.e., getting one's "fix" of a drug they're addicted to)
12,875	I am interested in songs by the same composer/ song writer that talk about political ideals affecting the country's masses. May I know some?	2022/09/17	[ "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/12875", "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com", "https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/12573/" ]	While one could certainly argue that all music (like other forms of art) is subject to interpretation, even in spite of the artists' original intent, there are lines in "Master of Puppets" that are hard to interpret as being about anything other than drugs: Taste me you will see More is all you need (i.e., addiction) Needlework the way, never you betray (i.e., injecting drugs intravenously) Chop your breakfast on a mirror (i.e., chopping lines of cocaine) Fix me! (i.e., getting one's "fix" of a drug they're addicted to)	Master of puppets - it is not about drugs. They used drugs to speak up. Master of puppets talks about the person who is above you. Your parents, teacher, boss etc. You can't do nothing about it. > > Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings Twisting your mind and > smashing your dreams Blinded by me, you can't see a thing Just call my > name, 'cause I'll hear you scream > > > Musicians speak their mind out. Master and puppets is truth. One plays a role as master and a puppet.
10,347,625	If I wanted to do large amounts of data fitting using matrices that were too large to fit in memory what tools/libraries would I look into? Specifically, if I was running on data from a website normally using php+mysql how would you suggest making an offline process that could run large matrix operations in a reasonable amount of time? Possible answers might be like "you should use this language with these distributed matrix algorithm to map reduce on many machines". I imagine that php isn't the best language for this so the flow would be more like some other offline process reads the data from the database, does the learning, and stores back the rules in a format that php can make use of later (since the other parts of the site are built in php). Not sure if this is the right place to ask this one (would have asked it in the machine learning SE but it never made it out of beta).	2012/04/27	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10347625", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1011513/" ]	There are lots of things that you need to do if you want to process large amounts of data. One way of processing web scale data is to use Map/Reduce and maybe you can look at [Apache Mahout](http://mahout.apache.org/) Which is a scalable machine learning package containing * Collaborative Filtering * User and Item based recommenders * K-Means, Fuzzy K-Means clustering * And many more. Specifically what you want to do might be available in some opensource project, such as [Weka](http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/) but you might need to migrate/create code to do a distribute job. Hope the above gives you an idea.	Machine Learning is a wide field and can be used for many different things (for instance supervised predictive modelling and unsupervised data exploration). Depending on what you want to achieve and on the nature and dimensions of your data, finding scalable algorithms that are both interesting both in terms of the quality of the model they output and the scalability to leverage large training sets and the speed and memory consumption at prediction time is a hard problem that cannot be answered in general. Some algorithm can be scalable because they are online (i.e. learn incrementally without having to load all the dataset at once), other are scalable because they can be divided into subtasks that can be executed in parallel). It all depends on what you are trying to achieve and on which kind of data you collected / annotated in the past. For instance for text classification, simple linear models like logistic regression with good features (TF-IDF normalization, optionally bi-grams and optionally chi2 feature selection) can scale to very large dataset (millions of documents) without the need for any kind of cluster parallelization on a cluster. Have a look at liblinear and vowpal wabbit for building such scalable classification models.
69,251,543	I'm building a mobile app which uses Firebase products and Google Sign in. I don't have GCP project except the Firebase. And I want to use Google Fitness API but permission screen says "App is not verified by Google". I'm trying to [verify the application by Google](https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/9110914?hl=en). Problem is, Google is keep sending an email that my cloud project looks like a development project. They've sent that maybe 5 times now. I've been emailing with them more than a month now. I send them demo video of how we use scopes, I've filled missing information about the app. And I did all the steps above from [OAuth Consent Screen](https://console.cloud.google.com/apis/credentials/consent) section of Google Cloud Console. > > Hi, Thanks for your patience while we reviewed your project. > > > It looks like your project \project name (id: \projectId) is a development or > staging app. Development/staging projects, or projects which are not > yet live to the public, are not eligible for verification. Please > respond to this email to let us know if your app is still in > development. > > > Question is, what causes your GCP project to look like a development/staging app? [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9E9hy.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9E9hy.png)	2021/09/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/69251543", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9779791/" ]	Application verification can be very tricky. They are normally very good about responding if you ask for more information. This may seam obvious at first but check that you are looking at the correct project they are mentioning. The image you show is of a project that is set to production but is it in fact \project name (id: \projectId). Second check any redirect URIs you have added, they cant be localhost, or HTTP. If one of your redirect uris is a .dev domain. Email them back and remind them that a .dev is your production domain and is not a development domain. This issue should [have been fixed in their guidelines](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67105384/why-google-oauth-client-appears-in-development), but lets double check this one anyway. Third check the everything under App domain. Home page link, Privacy policy then check all the Authorized domains. Nothing can be localhost, they must all be HTTPS. If that doesn't work email them back and tell them it is in production and send them an image and ask for more information	I solved this issue by removing localhost from authorized domains on firebase. Since every Firebase project is Google Cloud Project, having localhost as Authorized Domain on my Firebase account was causing this error. Steps are simple: Authentication -> Sign in method -> Delete localhost from authorized domains. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KYmdX.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KYmdX.png)
21,547,805	I have a sqlite database in asset folder of my android project. I made it with sqlite database browser and use it in my project. It contains some table with 4 columns. This is working great in my apk file. But problem is if someone want he can easily break my apk file and get my real database also. Now my question is how can I protect my database? Is there any way to set password or encrypt my database. I searched this type of problem in stackoverflow.com and found some way. But I think those ways are for, when I creating database with code. If I create database or put data with my program I would make my own encryption method also (like shuffling characters). But, again I am saying, my database is pre made and I want to protect this? In this situation can you help me please? Sorry for bad English.	2014/02/04	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21547805", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2692143/" ]	You can integrate Proguard in your android app. Here is official documentation for this [Proguard](http://developer.android.com/tools/help/proguard.html) It will save your apk file from attack. You can also encrypt your data in SQLite. You can apply AES Encryption to data beforing storing it to database and decrypt data in your code files before accessing it. Yo can also use [SQL Cipher](http://sqlcipher.net/sqlcipher-for-android/) to protect your database Check this [Link](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13854425/how-to-avoid-reverse-engineering-of-an-apk-file) it will help you	You can protect your database with help of following libraries. And make sure you use Pro-Guard to protect your code which has encryption keys. * [SQL Cipher for Android](http://sqlcipher.net/sqlcipher-for-android/) but its paid library. * [SQLite Encript](https://github.com/lendylongli/android-sqlite-encrypt) * [Android Database SQLCipher](https://github.com/sqlcipher/android-database-sqlcipher) Edit You should check [this blog](http://steven.bitsetters.com/2007/11/20/android-password-safe/) and [OI Safe](http://www.openintents.org/safe) also .. :)
21,547,805	I have a sqlite database in asset folder of my android project. I made it with sqlite database browser and use it in my project. It contains some table with 4 columns. This is working great in my apk file. But problem is if someone want he can easily break my apk file and get my real database also. Now my question is how can I protect my database? Is there any way to set password or encrypt my database. I searched this type of problem in stackoverflow.com and found some way. But I think those ways are for, when I creating database with code. If I create database or put data with my program I would make my own encryption method also (like shuffling characters). But, again I am saying, my database is pre made and I want to protect this? In this situation can you help me please? Sorry for bad English.	2014/02/04	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21547805", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2692143/" ]	You can protect your database with help of following libraries. And make sure you use Pro-Guard to protect your code which has encryption keys. * [SQL Cipher for Android](http://sqlcipher.net/sqlcipher-for-android/) but its paid library. * [SQLite Encript](https://github.com/lendylongli/android-sqlite-encrypt) * [Android Database SQLCipher](https://github.com/sqlcipher/android-database-sqlcipher) Edit You should check [this blog](http://steven.bitsetters.com/2007/11/20/android-password-safe/) and [OI Safe](http://www.openintents.org/safe) also .. :)	`SQLCipher` is an SQLite extension that provides transparent 256-bit AES encryption of database files. Try the [SQLCipher](https://guardianproject.info/code/sqlcipher/).
21,547,805	I have a sqlite database in asset folder of my android project. I made it with sqlite database browser and use it in my project. It contains some table with 4 columns. This is working great in my apk file. But problem is if someone want he can easily break my apk file and get my real database also. Now my question is how can I protect my database? Is there any way to set password or encrypt my database. I searched this type of problem in stackoverflow.com and found some way. But I think those ways are for, when I creating database with code. If I create database or put data with my program I would make my own encryption method also (like shuffling characters). But, again I am saying, my database is pre made and I want to protect this? In this situation can you help me please? Sorry for bad English.	2014/02/04	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21547805", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2692143/" ]	You can integrate Proguard in your android app. Here is official documentation for this [Proguard](http://developer.android.com/tools/help/proguard.html) It will save your apk file from attack. You can also encrypt your data in SQLite. You can apply AES Encryption to data beforing storing it to database and decrypt data in your code files before accessing it. Yo can also use [SQL Cipher](http://sqlcipher.net/sqlcipher-for-android/) to protect your database Check this [Link](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13854425/how-to-avoid-reverse-engineering-of-an-apk-file) it will help you	`SQLCipher` is an SQLite extension that provides transparent 256-bit AES encryption of database files. Try the [SQLCipher](https://guardianproject.info/code/sqlcipher/).
17,173	I move my laptop computer on the bed, and between the bed and the desk often, with some USB devices plugged in. I ended up breaking many USB cables by rotating them many times. So, as a countermeasure, I began to buy long, flat cables that is difficult to break this way, and prefer Bluetooth versions if available. But not every device comes with a replaceable cable. Is there an easy way to rotate them back, or prevent them being rotated in the first place? Note that they tend to "remember" their shape to some degree if not moved for long enough. Edit: I don't really care much about the lifespan of such devices, as they are usually small and cheap (that doesn't even have a replaceable cable). But there is much hassle to replace them. I don't want a way to deal with this situation that takes much more time accumulated...	2017/07/29	[ "https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/17173", "https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com", "https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/21659/" ]	Move everything to its new position. Unplug one end of one USB cable. Gently pinch the other end of the flat cable between two of your fingers. Slide your fingers to the far end of the cable to keep it flat and untwisted. Then plug it back in. Repeat this for each cable. I don't know how much wear-and-tear this will cause your USB inputs. Hopefully, if you unplug and replug them slowly, they will last for years and years.	Once you break the shielding surrounding all the wires it's very difficult to repair. It breaks well before the wires generally. Just try to untwist gently, daily and they'll last a little longer
17,173	I move my laptop computer on the bed, and between the bed and the desk often, with some USB devices plugged in. I ended up breaking many USB cables by rotating them many times. So, as a countermeasure, I began to buy long, flat cables that is difficult to break this way, and prefer Bluetooth versions if available. But not every device comes with a replaceable cable. Is there an easy way to rotate them back, or prevent them being rotated in the first place? Note that they tend to "remember" their shape to some degree if not moved for long enough. Edit: I don't really care much about the lifespan of such devices, as they are usually small and cheap (that doesn't even have a replaceable cable). But there is much hassle to replace them. I don't want a way to deal with this situation that takes much more time accumulated...	2017/07/29	[ "https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/17173", "https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com", "https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/21659/" ]	Computer cable preparation and maintenance When the cables are new, use a permanent felt-tip marker to mark the connector, cable relief, and a bit of the cable with a narrow continuous stripe. Mark both ends of the cable in this way. As soon as you notice the mis-match of the line on the cable, you will also see how much and in what direction you must un-twist the connector to re-align the cable and connector. [![cable alignment index](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mTyjZm.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mTyjZ.png) Here's another thing you can do. Before you mark and use your cables, put a tiny drop of Krazy-Glue™ where the cable goes into the sleeve-like cable relief and also where the cable relief goes into the connector. Let it cure for several hours before you use it. This will greatly strengthen your connectors and extend their useful life.	Once you break the shielding surrounding all the wires it's very difficult to repair. It breaks well before the wires generally. Just try to untwist gently, daily and they'll last a little longer
83,484	1. What ubuntu applications provide support? (guides, how to's, status) 2. Also, specifically, details on support for syncing music to iPhone's and iPod's with the latest OS version: * Can you sync music to apple devices using >iOS4? (iPhone & iPod) * What applications allow you to do this and how? (guides, how to's, status) ### What has already been established is: * Apple does not support Linux and has no plans to. * [libimobiledevice](http://www.libimobiledevice.org) provides some support, however it currently does not support music/video synchronization with devices `>iOS4`. Go to [libimobiledevice](http://www.libimobiledevice.org) and scroll to the section titled "[Status](http://www.libimobiledevice.org/#status)" to see if your device version is supported.	2011/11/28	[ "https://askubuntu.com/questions/83484", "https://askubuntu.com", "https://askubuntu.com/users/32580/" ]	This a constantly moving target. If you find a tool that works, Apple breaks it in a 'security update' (they sometimes use the term subjectively). For some iPods, try replacing the firmware with [Rockbox](http://www.rockbox.org/). For iPhones stick with Windows or a Mac, or try setting up a Windows guest OS with [VirtualBox](https://www.virtualbox.org/) in Ubuntu. Apple will never allow this kind of interoperability to happen, long-term. You are going to have to accept their rules for their devices, or find a device that you can root and load with alternate firmware.	Apples support of Linux is non-existing. There is not a single version of iOS that supports Ubuntu. Please file a bug with Apple. Also, Apple frequently uses obfuscation techniques, which are likely to break the music database on iDevices. RE: I just want to add here that I have filed numerous bug reports with Apple, also mentioning that I refuse to have Windows and therefore have Linux Ubuntu installed on my laptop as well as owing iPhone3, iPhone4, iPhone5 and an iMac and that it's quite frustrating that I can't use my Ubuntu to at least manage my music and so on... They have never replied a single letter, never mind any explanation and all that ignorance is pretty frustrating to the point that I will probably switch to Android device next time I`m getting a new phone.
2,372	Suppose I put an ant in a tiny racecar on every face of a soccer ball. Each ant then drives around the edges of her face counterclockwise. The goal is to prove that two of the ants will eventually collide (provided they aren't allowed to stand still or go arbitrarily slow). My brother told me about this result, but I can't quite seem to prove it. Instead of a soccer ball, we should be able to use any connected graph on a sphere (provided that there are no vertices of valence 1). We may as well assume there are no vertices of valence 2 either, since you can always just fuse the two edges. I (and some people I've talked to) have come up with a number of observations and approaches: * Notice that if two ants are ever on the same edge, then they will crash, so the problem is discrete. You can just keep track of which edge each ant is on, and let the ants move one at a time. Then the goal is to show that there is no way for the ants to move without crashing unless some ant only moves a finite number of times. * You can assume all the faces are triangles. If there is a face with more than three edges, then you can triangulate it and make the ants on the triangles move in such a way that it looks exactly the same "from the outside". If there is a 1-gon, it's easy to show the ants will crash. If there is a 2-gon, it's easy to show that you can turn it into an edge without changing whether or not there is a crash. * One approach is to induct on the number of faces. If there is a counterexample, I feel like you should either be able to fuse two adjacent faces or shrink one face to a point to get a smaller counterexample, but I can't get either of these approaches to work. * If you have a counterexample on a graph, I think you get a counterexample on the dual graph. Have the dual ant be on the next edge along which a (non-dual) ant will pass through the given vertex. * It feels like there might be a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem.	2009/10/24	[ "https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2372", "https://mathoverflow.net", "https://mathoverflow.net/users/1/" ]	The post consists of initial ideas on top and the proof at the bottom. --- I think the key idea is to perform the process opposite to what you describe about subdividing into triangles. Indeed, our problem can be thought of a plane graph where all ants are moving in the counterclockwise direction except one on the outer circle which goes clockwise. Now notice that it seems you can actually combine several areas into one, it should look the same or worse on the outside, and you get at the end two ants on the same circle moving in the opposite directions. "The same or worse" part is conjectural, but the intuition is that assuming you have just two circles with common edge, "the best" you can do is to let one go through the edge then immediately after that let the next one proceed. If you think about how that affects the outside world, it's very similar to having a single ant going around the whole stuff. --- The proof. Let's introduce some notation. First, I'll be considering ants on the plane which together form something with an outer circle. Now let's assume the ants have decided upon the schedule and they started their driving. The outer ant is drunk driver that goes in a clockwise direction. We will prove that the crash will necessarily occur before the drunk driver makes a full cycle. > > Crucial lemma. Suppose I have two areas A and B combined by an edge and a schedule of driving that includes drunk driver making a full cycle. Then it's possible to choose one of the areas, A or B, and the modification of route of drunk driver that makes a full cycle around the chosen area. > > > The lemma is established by drawing a picture (update: an answer that refers to a paper with the solution was posted. the answer is the same so you can read the corresponding description there). After you have the lemma, you're done, because you see that there must be a simple face (minimal area) with a sober and drunk ants which must crash.	Say there are n faces. The phase space on which the ants are moving are on is T^n, and the ants movement is described by a curve on T^n that has speed bounded from below in any direction. Hence, it suffices to show that if you cut T^n along the collision loci, you reduce the dimension of the H^1. This is a purely combinatiorial claim, which (it seems - I did not check all the details) you can prove by induction.
2,372	Suppose I put an ant in a tiny racecar on every face of a soccer ball. Each ant then drives around the edges of her face counterclockwise. The goal is to prove that two of the ants will eventually collide (provided they aren't allowed to stand still or go arbitrarily slow). My brother told me about this result, but I can't quite seem to prove it. Instead of a soccer ball, we should be able to use any connected graph on a sphere (provided that there are no vertices of valence 1). We may as well assume there are no vertices of valence 2 either, since you can always just fuse the two edges. I (and some people I've talked to) have come up with a number of observations and approaches: * Notice that if two ants are ever on the same edge, then they will crash, so the problem is discrete. You can just keep track of which edge each ant is on, and let the ants move one at a time. Then the goal is to show that there is no way for the ants to move without crashing unless some ant only moves a finite number of times. * You can assume all the faces are triangles. If there is a face with more than three edges, then you can triangulate it and make the ants on the triangles move in such a way that it looks exactly the same "from the outside". If there is a 1-gon, it's easy to show the ants will crash. If there is a 2-gon, it's easy to show that you can turn it into an edge without changing whether or not there is a crash. * One approach is to induct on the number of faces. If there is a counterexample, I feel like you should either be able to fuse two adjacent faces or shrink one face to a point to get a smaller counterexample, but I can't get either of these approaches to work. * If you have a counterexample on a graph, I think you get a counterexample on the dual graph. Have the dual ant be on the next edge along which a (non-dual) ant will pass through the given vertex. * It feels like there might be a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem.	2009/10/24	[ "https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2372", "https://mathoverflow.net", "https://mathoverflow.net/users/1/" ]	This is known as Klyachko's Car Crash Theorem. It was proved in order to prove a theorem about finitely presented groups. In fact, the result allows the ants to move at arbitrary nonzero speeds so long as they make infinitely many loops around their 2-cell. The conclusion is that there's either a collision between ants in the interior of an edge, or else there is a `complete collision', which means that there's a collision at a vertex of all ants from adjacent edges. EDIT: Oh, it's actually important that there are two complete collisions, which is somewhat harder to prove than one (a collision in the middle of an edge is also a complete collision.) You can read an expository article by Colin Rourke [here](http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/ftp/klyachko.ps).	Say there are n faces. The phase space on which the ants are moving are on is T^n, and the ants movement is described by a curve on T^n that has speed bounded from below in any direction. Hence, it suffices to show that if you cut T^n along the collision loci, you reduce the dimension of the H^1. This is a purely combinatiorial claim, which (it seems - I did not check all the details) you can prove by induction.
2,372	Suppose I put an ant in a tiny racecar on every face of a soccer ball. Each ant then drives around the edges of her face counterclockwise. The goal is to prove that two of the ants will eventually collide (provided they aren't allowed to stand still or go arbitrarily slow). My brother told me about this result, but I can't quite seem to prove it. Instead of a soccer ball, we should be able to use any connected graph on a sphere (provided that there are no vertices of valence 1). We may as well assume there are no vertices of valence 2 either, since you can always just fuse the two edges. I (and some people I've talked to) have come up with a number of observations and approaches: * Notice that if two ants are ever on the same edge, then they will crash, so the problem is discrete. You can just keep track of which edge each ant is on, and let the ants move one at a time. Then the goal is to show that there is no way for the ants to move without crashing unless some ant only moves a finite number of times. * You can assume all the faces are triangles. If there is a face with more than three edges, then you can triangulate it and make the ants on the triangles move in such a way that it looks exactly the same "from the outside". If there is a 1-gon, it's easy to show the ants will crash. If there is a 2-gon, it's easy to show that you can turn it into an edge without changing whether or not there is a crash. * One approach is to induct on the number of faces. If there is a counterexample, I feel like you should either be able to fuse two adjacent faces or shrink one face to a point to get a smaller counterexample, but I can't get either of these approaches to work. * If you have a counterexample on a graph, I think you get a counterexample on the dual graph. Have the dual ant be on the next edge along which a (non-dual) ant will pass through the given vertex. * It feels like there might be a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem.	2009/10/24	[ "https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2372", "https://mathoverflow.net", "https://mathoverflow.net/users/1/" ]	I want to use the hairy ball theorem in the following way. Assume for simplicity that we start at time 0 and each ant returns to its original location at time 1. Suppose no two ants ever meet; then by compactness there is ε > 0 such that no two ants are pass through the same point at times closer than ε. Let's deform each face slightly inward near its vertices so that it becomes a smooth embedding of a disc into S^2. Also assume that ants move along the boundary with positive speed (so that time defines an homeomorphism from S^1 = [0, 1] / {0, 1} to the boundary of this disc). For each face define a vector field on the boundary by p -> Rt(p)v(p), where v(p) is the unit tangent vector to the disc at p, t(p) is the time that the ant is at point p, and Ra is rotation (clockwise around the outward vector) by 2πa radians. This vector field extends over the disc. Extend it to the rest of the sphere by making it drop off to 0 rapidly outside the disc. The sum of all these vector fields is nonzero everywhere except possibly near the vertices, because along any edge, the angle between the vectors coming from the two faces is bounded below in terms of ε. If one could control what happens near the vertices, this would contradict the hairy ball theorem.	Say there are n faces. The phase space on which the ants are moving are on is T^n, and the ants movement is described by a curve on T^n that has speed bounded from below in any direction. Hence, it suffices to show that if you cut T^n along the collision loci, you reduce the dimension of the H^1. This is a purely combinatiorial claim, which (it seems - I did not check all the details) you can prove by induction.
2,372	Suppose I put an ant in a tiny racecar on every face of a soccer ball. Each ant then drives around the edges of her face counterclockwise. The goal is to prove that two of the ants will eventually collide (provided they aren't allowed to stand still or go arbitrarily slow). My brother told me about this result, but I can't quite seem to prove it. Instead of a soccer ball, we should be able to use any connected graph on a sphere (provided that there are no vertices of valence 1). We may as well assume there are no vertices of valence 2 either, since you can always just fuse the two edges. I (and some people I've talked to) have come up with a number of observations and approaches: * Notice that if two ants are ever on the same edge, then they will crash, so the problem is discrete. You can just keep track of which edge each ant is on, and let the ants move one at a time. Then the goal is to show that there is no way for the ants to move without crashing unless some ant only moves a finite number of times. * You can assume all the faces are triangles. If there is a face with more than three edges, then you can triangulate it and make the ants on the triangles move in such a way that it looks exactly the same "from the outside". If there is a 1-gon, it's easy to show the ants will crash. If there is a 2-gon, it's easy to show that you can turn it into an edge without changing whether or not there is a crash. * One approach is to induct on the number of faces. If there is a counterexample, I feel like you should either be able to fuse two adjacent faces or shrink one face to a point to get a smaller counterexample, but I can't get either of these approaches to work. * If you have a counterexample on a graph, I think you get a counterexample on the dual graph. Have the dual ant be on the next edge along which a (non-dual) ant will pass through the given vertex. * It feels like there might be a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem.	2009/10/24	[ "https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2372", "https://mathoverflow.net", "https://mathoverflow.net/users/1/" ]	A quick comment on the idea of "a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem". Any such very slick proof will surely only use the fact that the Euler characteristic is non-zero, and so should apply just as well to surfaces of higher genus (at least two). For instance, if I understand it correctly, then Reid's answer above would work just as well on a higher-genus surface, by the Poincare--Hopf Theorem. But the theorem does not hold on surfaces of higher genus. What follows would probably be better with pictures, but I'll try to describe it without and hope for the best. For instance, it's easy to divide a torus into two rectangles such that there are "traffic schedules" with no crashes. (OK, the Euler characteristic of a torus is zero, but bear with me.) (Also, what is to ants as a traffic schedule is to cars?) Now consider the surface of genus two as an octagon with sides identified, as usual. You can divide this into two rectangles and two pentagons in a way that mimics two copies of the torus picture in the previous paragraph: the surface is the union of two tori with boundary, and each torus is divided into a rectangle and a pentagon. Schedule each torus as before (stretching one of the ants' route over the fifth side of the pentagon). As only one ant from each torus traverses the fifth side of the pentagon, it is easy to arrange that the ants from different tori do so at different times. Does that make sense, or does anyone want a picture? EDIT: Oh, and of course it follows that the theorem is also false on any orientable surface of even higher genus, as they all cover the surface of genus two.	Say there are n faces. The phase space on which the ants are moving are on is T^n, and the ants movement is described by a curve on T^n that has speed bounded from below in any direction. Hence, it suffices to show that if you cut T^n along the collision loci, you reduce the dimension of the H^1. This is a purely combinatiorial claim, which (it seems - I did not check all the details) you can prove by induction.
2,372	Suppose I put an ant in a tiny racecar on every face of a soccer ball. Each ant then drives around the edges of her face counterclockwise. The goal is to prove that two of the ants will eventually collide (provided they aren't allowed to stand still or go arbitrarily slow). My brother told me about this result, but I can't quite seem to prove it. Instead of a soccer ball, we should be able to use any connected graph on a sphere (provided that there are no vertices of valence 1). We may as well assume there are no vertices of valence 2 either, since you can always just fuse the two edges. I (and some people I've talked to) have come up with a number of observations and approaches: * Notice that if two ants are ever on the same edge, then they will crash, so the problem is discrete. You can just keep track of which edge each ant is on, and let the ants move one at a time. Then the goal is to show that there is no way for the ants to move without crashing unless some ant only moves a finite number of times. * You can assume all the faces are triangles. If there is a face with more than three edges, then you can triangulate it and make the ants on the triangles move in such a way that it looks exactly the same "from the outside". If there is a 1-gon, it's easy to show the ants will crash. If there is a 2-gon, it's easy to show that you can turn it into an edge without changing whether or not there is a crash. * One approach is to induct on the number of faces. If there is a counterexample, I feel like you should either be able to fuse two adjacent faces or shrink one face to a point to get a smaller counterexample, but I can't get either of these approaches to work. * If you have a counterexample on a graph, I think you get a counterexample on the dual graph. Have the dual ant be on the next edge along which a (non-dual) ant will pass through the given vertex. * It feels like there might be a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem.	2009/10/24	[ "https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2372", "https://mathoverflow.net", "https://mathoverflow.net/users/1/" ]	This is known as Klyachko's Car Crash Theorem. It was proved in order to prove a theorem about finitely presented groups. In fact, the result allows the ants to move at arbitrary nonzero speeds so long as they make infinitely many loops around their 2-cell. The conclusion is that there's either a collision between ants in the interior of an edge, or else there is a `complete collision', which means that there's a collision at a vertex of all ants from adjacent edges. EDIT: Oh, it's actually important that there are two complete collisions, which is somewhat harder to prove than one (a collision in the middle of an edge is also a complete collision.) You can read an expository article by Colin Rourke [here](http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/ftp/klyachko.ps).	The post consists of initial ideas on top and the proof at the bottom. --- I think the key idea is to perform the process opposite to what you describe about subdividing into triangles. Indeed, our problem can be thought of a plane graph where all ants are moving in the counterclockwise direction except one on the outer circle which goes clockwise. Now notice that it seems you can actually combine several areas into one, it should look the same or worse on the outside, and you get at the end two ants on the same circle moving in the opposite directions. "The same or worse" part is conjectural, but the intuition is that assuming you have just two circles with common edge, "the best" you can do is to let one go through the edge then immediately after that let the next one proceed. If you think about how that affects the outside world, it's very similar to having a single ant going around the whole stuff. --- The proof. Let's introduce some notation. First, I'll be considering ants on the plane which together form something with an outer circle. Now let's assume the ants have decided upon the schedule and they started their driving. The outer ant is drunk driver that goes in a clockwise direction. We will prove that the crash will necessarily occur before the drunk driver makes a full cycle. > > Crucial lemma. Suppose I have two areas A and B combined by an edge and a schedule of driving that includes drunk driver making a full cycle. Then it's possible to choose one of the areas, A or B, and the modification of route of drunk driver that makes a full cycle around the chosen area. > > > The lemma is established by drawing a picture (update: an answer that refers to a paper with the solution was posted. the answer is the same so you can read the corresponding description there). After you have the lemma, you're done, because you see that there must be a simple face (minimal area) with a sober and drunk ants which must crash.
2,372	Suppose I put an ant in a tiny racecar on every face of a soccer ball. Each ant then drives around the edges of her face counterclockwise. The goal is to prove that two of the ants will eventually collide (provided they aren't allowed to stand still or go arbitrarily slow). My brother told me about this result, but I can't quite seem to prove it. Instead of a soccer ball, we should be able to use any connected graph on a sphere (provided that there are no vertices of valence 1). We may as well assume there are no vertices of valence 2 either, since you can always just fuse the two edges. I (and some people I've talked to) have come up with a number of observations and approaches: * Notice that if two ants are ever on the same edge, then they will crash, so the problem is discrete. You can just keep track of which edge each ant is on, and let the ants move one at a time. Then the goal is to show that there is no way for the ants to move without crashing unless some ant only moves a finite number of times. * You can assume all the faces are triangles. If there is a face with more than three edges, then you can triangulate it and make the ants on the triangles move in such a way that it looks exactly the same "from the outside". If there is a 1-gon, it's easy to show the ants will crash. If there is a 2-gon, it's easy to show that you can turn it into an edge without changing whether or not there is a crash. * One approach is to induct on the number of faces. If there is a counterexample, I feel like you should either be able to fuse two adjacent faces or shrink one face to a point to get a smaller counterexample, but I can't get either of these approaches to work. * If you have a counterexample on a graph, I think you get a counterexample on the dual graph. Have the dual ant be on the next edge along which a (non-dual) ant will pass through the given vertex. * It feels like there might be a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem.	2009/10/24	[ "https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2372", "https://mathoverflow.net", "https://mathoverflow.net/users/1/" ]	This is known as Klyachko's Car Crash Theorem. It was proved in order to prove a theorem about finitely presented groups. In fact, the result allows the ants to move at arbitrary nonzero speeds so long as they make infinitely many loops around their 2-cell. The conclusion is that there's either a collision between ants in the interior of an edge, or else there is a `complete collision', which means that there's a collision at a vertex of all ants from adjacent edges. EDIT: Oh, it's actually important that there are two complete collisions, which is somewhat harder to prove than one (a collision in the middle of an edge is also a complete collision.) You can read an expository article by Colin Rourke [here](http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/ftp/klyachko.ps).	I want to use the hairy ball theorem in the following way. Assume for simplicity that we start at time 0 and each ant returns to its original location at time 1. Suppose no two ants ever meet; then by compactness there is ε > 0 such that no two ants are pass through the same point at times closer than ε. Let's deform each face slightly inward near its vertices so that it becomes a smooth embedding of a disc into S^2. Also assume that ants move along the boundary with positive speed (so that time defines an homeomorphism from S^1 = [0, 1] / {0, 1} to the boundary of this disc). For each face define a vector field on the boundary by p -> Rt(p)v(p), where v(p) is the unit tangent vector to the disc at p, t(p) is the time that the ant is at point p, and Ra is rotation (clockwise around the outward vector) by 2πa radians. This vector field extends over the disc. Extend it to the rest of the sphere by making it drop off to 0 rapidly outside the disc. The sum of all these vector fields is nonzero everywhere except possibly near the vertices, because along any edge, the angle between the vectors coming from the two faces is bounded below in terms of ε. If one could control what happens near the vertices, this would contradict the hairy ball theorem.
2,372	Suppose I put an ant in a tiny racecar on every face of a soccer ball. Each ant then drives around the edges of her face counterclockwise. The goal is to prove that two of the ants will eventually collide (provided they aren't allowed to stand still or go arbitrarily slow). My brother told me about this result, but I can't quite seem to prove it. Instead of a soccer ball, we should be able to use any connected graph on a sphere (provided that there are no vertices of valence 1). We may as well assume there are no vertices of valence 2 either, since you can always just fuse the two edges. I (and some people I've talked to) have come up with a number of observations and approaches: * Notice that if two ants are ever on the same edge, then they will crash, so the problem is discrete. You can just keep track of which edge each ant is on, and let the ants move one at a time. Then the goal is to show that there is no way for the ants to move without crashing unless some ant only moves a finite number of times. * You can assume all the faces are triangles. If there is a face with more than three edges, then you can triangulate it and make the ants on the triangles move in such a way that it looks exactly the same "from the outside". If there is a 1-gon, it's easy to show the ants will crash. If there is a 2-gon, it's easy to show that you can turn it into an edge without changing whether or not there is a crash. * One approach is to induct on the number of faces. If there is a counterexample, I feel like you should either be able to fuse two adjacent faces or shrink one face to a point to get a smaller counterexample, but I can't get either of these approaches to work. * If you have a counterexample on a graph, I think you get a counterexample on the dual graph. Have the dual ant be on the next edge along which a (non-dual) ant will pass through the given vertex. * It feels like there might be a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem.	2009/10/24	[ "https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2372", "https://mathoverflow.net", "https://mathoverflow.net/users/1/" ]	This is known as Klyachko's Car Crash Theorem. It was proved in order to prove a theorem about finitely presented groups. In fact, the result allows the ants to move at arbitrary nonzero speeds so long as they make infinitely many loops around their 2-cell. The conclusion is that there's either a collision between ants in the interior of an edge, or else there is a `complete collision', which means that there's a collision at a vertex of all ants from adjacent edges. EDIT: Oh, it's actually important that there are two complete collisions, which is somewhat harder to prove than one (a collision in the middle of an edge is also a complete collision.) You can read an expository article by Colin Rourke [here](http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/ftp/klyachko.ps).	A quick comment on the idea of "a very slick solution using the hairy ball theorem". Any such very slick proof will surely only use the fact that the Euler characteristic is non-zero, and so should apply just as well to surfaces of higher genus (at least two). For instance, if I understand it correctly, then Reid's answer above would work just as well on a higher-genus surface, by the Poincare--Hopf Theorem. But the theorem does not hold on surfaces of higher genus. What follows would probably be better with pictures, but I'll try to describe it without and hope for the best. For instance, it's easy to divide a torus into two rectangles such that there are "traffic schedules" with no crashes. (OK, the Euler characteristic of a torus is zero, but bear with me.) (Also, what is to ants as a traffic schedule is to cars?) Now consider the surface of genus two as an octagon with sides identified, as usual. You can divide this into two rectangles and two pentagons in a way that mimics two copies of the torus picture in the previous paragraph: the surface is the union of two tori with boundary, and each torus is divided into a rectangle and a pentagon. Schedule each torus as before (stretching one of the ants' route over the fifth side of the pentagon). As only one ant from each torus traverses the fifth side of the pentagon, it is easy to arrange that the ants from different tori do so at different times. Does that make sense, or does anyone want a picture? EDIT: Oh, and of course it follows that the theorem is also false on any orientable surface of even higher genus, as they all cover the surface of genus two.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	The voltage or current you apply at one end of a pair of wires can be detected directly at the other end. It's like pulling on one end of a tight string -- you can feel the pull at the other end. When communicating wirelessly there is no quality of the source that can be directly felt or measured at the other end. It's like you're standing in one end of a pool. You can hold your hand at any height and the water at the other end is unchanged -- the height of your hand is undetectable. If you move your hand up and down rapidly, however, you can make a wave that propagates to the other side of the pool where it can be felt and measured.	True square waves do not exist because they require an infinite frequency range, in the real world they will always get rounded off a bit. Copper and fiber have an awful lot more frequency range than anything you can send over a radio signal and thus they don't get rounded off as much.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	tl; dr: RF needs a carrier, cable can use baseband. Both are band-limited, RF systems using carriers more so. A perfect square wave has infinite harmonics. A good square wave has a large number of them. Because of this, square waves use a lot of bandwidth for the information they carry. They’re very inefficient. This limits their use to lower speed signaling, even on cables. Look at serdes protocols like PCI Express or Gbit Ethernet. You will see that they don’t use square waves, but more optimized baseband coding to squeeze more throughput out of the cable. Similarly, a square wave on an RF carrier is very inefficient use of spectrum (though it’s possible - primitive on-off keying does exactly that.) That said, it’s possible to send very-high bandwidth digital data over RF. The challenge is to do that efficiently, within the limits of the spectrum being used, and over a carrier that a receiver can work with and robustly recover the data. And finally, wireless systems can’t represent a DC connection or low frequency directly. You can only get an approximate derivative of the changes in flux strength at the receiver side. For RF work need to use a coding system that would behave well as if it were AC coupled onto a wire. Using a carrier overcomes this problem. That said, look into TEMPEST. This is a group of passive espionage techniques that extract information from emissions leaked digital and analog equipment - that is, from baseband waves (square and otherwise) that find their way into RF.	True square waves do not exist because they require an infinite frequency range, in the real world they will always get rounded off a bit. Copper and fiber have an awful lot more frequency range than anything you can send over a radio signal and thus they don't get rounded off as much.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	The physics of antennas plays a large part. To understand this, you must consider the Fourier transform of your signal. For a simple binary NRZ code, where 0 is 0V and 1 is some voltage, Most of the Fourier energy is contained within the frequency range 0-B/2, where B is your bitrate. But antennas are frequency-selective: at the high end, an efficient non-directional antenna has an effective signal collecting area that declines as the square of frequency. At the low end, efficiency suffers if the antenna is much less than a wavelength in dimension. The entire story is much more complicated than above, but any attempt to ameliorate the frequency dependence in some parameters increases the frequency dependence in other parameters. However, an antenna where the ratio of the highest to lowest frequency of operation is small can have nearly constant parameters over that narrow frequency range. Unfortunately, the NRZ signal has a infinite ratio, since the lowest frequency is zero! Any attempt to send a NRZ signal directly through a pair of antennas will yield an extremely distorted signal. The usual cure is to modulate a wave that has a frequency, f, that is at least several times your bitrate. This moves the Fourier energy up to a band, perhaps f±B/2, with a small ratio of highest to lowest frequency. Then, antennas are well behaved, and you may recover the received data with a demodulator.	The voltage or current you apply at one end of a pair of wires can be detected directly at the other end. It's like pulling on one end of a tight string -- you can feel the pull at the other end. When communicating wirelessly there is no quality of the source that can be directly felt or measured at the other end. It's like you're standing in one end of a pool. You can hold your hand at any height and the water at the other end is unchanged -- the height of your hand is undetectable. If you move your hand up and down rapidly, however, you can make a wave that propagates to the other side of the pool where it can be felt and measured.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	The voltage or current you apply at one end of a pair of wires can be detected directly at the other end. It's like pulling on one end of a tight string -- you can feel the pull at the other end. When communicating wirelessly there is no quality of the source that can be directly felt or measured at the other end. It's like you're standing in one end of a pool. You can hold your hand at any height and the water at the other end is unchanged -- the height of your hand is undetectable. If you move your hand up and down rapidly, however, you can make a wave that propagates to the other side of the pool where it can be felt and measured.	None of them are actually a square wave. They all are approximations. It would take a noise free channel with infinite bandwidth to transmit a true square wave.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	Due to the sharp edges, a square wave has a wide spectrum with lots of harmonics. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h3ZbP.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h3ZbP.png) You could send that over the air with an antenna, but: 1- Signal shape will be distorted at the receiver due to limited bandwidth 2- It will use a lot more bandwidth than it needs to. For radio transmission you want to use as little bandwidth as you can, and not emit any energy at frequencies you don't use, to leave other frequencies available for other users, other channels, etc. So it would have terrible spectrum utilization. This is why digital signals are excellent sources of electromagnetic interference and noise, and a poor way to make an actual useful transmitter. So, pretty good if you want to make a wideband radio jammer, but not an actual transmitter. 3- It would have very poor SNR at the receiver 4- Unlike cables, radio doesn't go down to DC, so if the digital data doesn't contain the same amounts of zeros and ones, the result would be shifted That's why a much better choice is to use a modulation and encoding suited for radio transmission. A simple encoding would be AM-modulating a carrier, for example.	True square waves do not exist because they require an infinite frequency range, in the real world they will always get rounded off a bit. Copper and fiber have an awful lot more frequency range than anything you can send over a radio signal and thus they don't get rounded off as much.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	The physics of antennas plays a large part. To understand this, you must consider the Fourier transform of your signal. For a simple binary NRZ code, where 0 is 0V and 1 is some voltage, Most of the Fourier energy is contained within the frequency range 0-B/2, where B is your bitrate. But antennas are frequency-selective: at the high end, an efficient non-directional antenna has an effective signal collecting area that declines as the square of frequency. At the low end, efficiency suffers if the antenna is much less than a wavelength in dimension. The entire story is much more complicated than above, but any attempt to ameliorate the frequency dependence in some parameters increases the frequency dependence in other parameters. However, an antenna where the ratio of the highest to lowest frequency of operation is small can have nearly constant parameters over that narrow frequency range. Unfortunately, the NRZ signal has a infinite ratio, since the lowest frequency is zero! Any attempt to send a NRZ signal directly through a pair of antennas will yield an extremely distorted signal. The usual cure is to modulate a wave that has a frequency, f, that is at least several times your bitrate. This moves the Fourier energy up to a band, perhaps f±B/2, with a small ratio of highest to lowest frequency. Then, antennas are well behaved, and you may recover the received data with a demodulator.	True square waves do not exist because they require an infinite frequency range, in the real world they will always get rounded off a bit. Copper and fiber have an awful lot more frequency range than anything you can send over a radio signal and thus they don't get rounded off as much.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	Along with all the bandwidth and other considerations mentioned, the main reason you don't transmit your data directly is that everyone would be transmitting at the same frequency. Take [Ethernet.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet) It uses two (or more) pairs of twisted wires to carry two separate channels of information (your Ethernet card sends data on one pair and receives it on the other pair.) If you just directly broadcast the signals from each pair, then you couldn't separate them. The wires confine the signals do that they go pretty much only where they are intended to go. If you just modulate each onto a carrier, you can separate them - but then you have know which carrier frequency is used for what. That would work for a few channels, but would get difficult really quick as you add more channels (users.) WiFi gets around that by having multiple channels and using some intelligence to decide who uses which carrier frequency for what and for how long. It also has WiFi routers which coordinate the end users and actively tries to avoid interference from other routers and users.	The voltage or current you apply at one end of a pair of wires can be detected directly at the other end. It's like pulling on one end of a tight string -- you can feel the pull at the other end. When communicating wirelessly there is no quality of the source that can be directly felt or measured at the other end. It's like you're standing in one end of a pool. You can hold your hand at any height and the water at the other end is unchanged -- the height of your hand is undetectable. If you move your hand up and down rapidly, however, you can make a wave that propagates to the other side of the pool where it can be felt and measured.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	Due to the sharp edges, a square wave has a wide spectrum with lots of harmonics. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h3ZbP.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h3ZbP.png) You could send that over the air with an antenna, but: 1- Signal shape will be distorted at the receiver due to limited bandwidth 2- It will use a lot more bandwidth than it needs to. For radio transmission you want to use as little bandwidth as you can, and not emit any energy at frequencies you don't use, to leave other frequencies available for other users, other channels, etc. So it would have terrible spectrum utilization. This is why digital signals are excellent sources of electromagnetic interference and noise, and a poor way to make an actual useful transmitter. So, pretty good if you want to make a wideband radio jammer, but not an actual transmitter. 3- It would have very poor SNR at the receiver 4- Unlike cables, radio doesn't go down to DC, so if the digital data doesn't contain the same amounts of zeros and ones, the result would be shifted That's why a much better choice is to use a modulation and encoding suited for radio transmission. A simple encoding would be AM-modulating a carrier, for example.	None of them are actually a square wave. They all are approximations. It would take a noise free channel with infinite bandwidth to transmit a true square wave.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	tl; dr: RF needs a carrier, cable can use baseband. Both are band-limited, RF systems using carriers more so. A perfect square wave has infinite harmonics. A good square wave has a large number of them. Because of this, square waves use a lot of bandwidth for the information they carry. They’re very inefficient. This limits their use to lower speed signaling, even on cables. Look at serdes protocols like PCI Express or Gbit Ethernet. You will see that they don’t use square waves, but more optimized baseband coding to squeeze more throughput out of the cable. Similarly, a square wave on an RF carrier is very inefficient use of spectrum (though it’s possible - primitive on-off keying does exactly that.) That said, it’s possible to send very-high bandwidth digital data over RF. The challenge is to do that efficiently, within the limits of the spectrum being used, and over a carrier that a receiver can work with and robustly recover the data. And finally, wireless systems can’t represent a DC connection or low frequency directly. You can only get an approximate derivative of the changes in flux strength at the receiver side. For RF work need to use a coding system that would behave well as if it were AC coupled onto a wire. Using a carrier overcomes this problem. That said, look into TEMPEST. This is a group of passive espionage techniques that extract information from emissions leaked digital and analog equipment - that is, from baseband waves (square and otherwise) that find their way into RF.	Along with all the bandwidth and other considerations mentioned, the main reason you don't transmit your data directly is that everyone would be transmitting at the same frequency. Take [Ethernet.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet) It uses two (or more) pairs of twisted wires to carry two separate channels of information (your Ethernet card sends data on one pair and receives it on the other pair.) If you just directly broadcast the signals from each pair, then you couldn't separate them. The wires confine the signals do that they go pretty much only where they are intended to go. If you just modulate each onto a carrier, you can separate them - but then you have know which carrier frequency is used for what. That would work for a few channels, but would get difficult really quick as you add more channels (users.) WiFi gets around that by having multiple channels and using some intelligence to decide who uses which carrier frequency for what and for how long. It also has WiFi routers which coordinate the end users and actively tries to avoid interference from other routers and users.
540,088	Like ethernet cable, optical fiber. We have a square wave signal, do we just send that squre-wave signal directly down along the cable? If we do send it directly, why we can not send the square-wave signal directly into the air wireless channel? What is the reason behind? Is it because the cable or wire are more stable but wireless is very unstable?	2020/12/31	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/540088", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/272591/" ]	The physics of antennas plays a large part. To understand this, you must consider the Fourier transform of your signal. For a simple binary NRZ code, where 0 is 0V and 1 is some voltage, Most of the Fourier energy is contained within the frequency range 0-B/2, where B is your bitrate. But antennas are frequency-selective: at the high end, an efficient non-directional antenna has an effective signal collecting area that declines as the square of frequency. At the low end, efficiency suffers if the antenna is much less than a wavelength in dimension. The entire story is much more complicated than above, but any attempt to ameliorate the frequency dependence in some parameters increases the frequency dependence in other parameters. However, an antenna where the ratio of the highest to lowest frequency of operation is small can have nearly constant parameters over that narrow frequency range. Unfortunately, the NRZ signal has a infinite ratio, since the lowest frequency is zero! Any attempt to send a NRZ signal directly through a pair of antennas will yield an extremely distorted signal. The usual cure is to modulate a wave that has a frequency, f, that is at least several times your bitrate. This moves the Fourier energy up to a band, perhaps f±B/2, with a small ratio of highest to lowest frequency. Then, antennas are well behaved, and you may recover the received data with a demodulator.	None of them are actually a square wave. They all are approximations. It would take a noise free channel with infinite bandwidth to transmit a true square wave.
34,489,320	I've seen a lot of different topics and suggestions on aligning and inputting buttons/text, but the ways I've seen seem kind of risky. What is the optimal way, for example, to add two buttons, stack them together, and have them be 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally on all devices?	2015/12/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34489320", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5484801/" ]	The optimal way would be using storyboard for implementation and use of constraints in a proper way. For example, as you suggested you want bottom space to be 10% of device height so it can be done with the multiplier in constraints also the horizontal center can be easily done with the same, so you could look for a good tutorial of Auto Layout and constraints for better understanding.	Your best bet is to use [Auto Layout](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AutolayoutPG/index.html). It takes a bit of learning but once you get used to it you can add constraints pretty quickly and easily in Interface Builder. I can't recommend any particular guide but there are a lot of good ones to be found with a quick Internet search. Here is an example of constraints that seem to be what you are looking for: [![Auto Layout Constraints](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Portrait](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Landscape](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)
34,489,320	I've seen a lot of different topics and suggestions on aligning and inputting buttons/text, but the ways I've seen seem kind of risky. What is the optimal way, for example, to add two buttons, stack them together, and have them be 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally on all devices?	2015/12/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34489320", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5484801/" ]	Use your Storyboard and add [Auto Layout](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AutolayoutPG/index.html) to your elements. Here is an example: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gAQCd.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gAQCd.png) I have added auto layout * Left * Right * Top * Bottom If I want to change the distance between the buttons, I just choose the auto layout constraint that I have created between the buttons and changes the constant value to it. If I say that "Button 4" constant to the top shall be 40, then it´s always 40 no matter what size the phone has. If I change the constant between the buttons to 10 then it´s the same for all sizes.	Your best bet is to use [Auto Layout](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AutolayoutPG/index.html). It takes a bit of learning but once you get used to it you can add constraints pretty quickly and easily in Interface Builder. I can't recommend any particular guide but there are a lot of good ones to be found with a quick Internet search. Here is an example of constraints that seem to be what you are looking for: [![Auto Layout Constraints](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Portrait](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Landscape](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)
34,489,320	I've seen a lot of different topics and suggestions on aligning and inputting buttons/text, but the ways I've seen seem kind of risky. What is the optimal way, for example, to add two buttons, stack them together, and have them be 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally on all devices?	2015/12/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34489320", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5484801/" ]	Learn Auto Layout if you haven't yet. Use constraints for achieving the following: > > 1. For centrally Horizontal on all devices: Use Center X with SuperView. > 2. For having them 10% from bottom, use multiplier value say 0.10 . > > >	Your best bet is to use [Auto Layout](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AutolayoutPG/index.html). It takes a bit of learning but once you get used to it you can add constraints pretty quickly and easily in Interface Builder. I can't recommend any particular guide but there are a lot of good ones to be found with a quick Internet search. Here is an example of constraints that seem to be what you are looking for: [![Auto Layout Constraints](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Portrait](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Landscape](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)
34,489,320	I've seen a lot of different topics and suggestions on aligning and inputting buttons/text, but the ways I've seen seem kind of risky. What is the optimal way, for example, to add two buttons, stack them together, and have them be 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally on all devices?	2015/12/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34489320", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5484801/" ]	Your best bet is to use [Auto Layout](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AutolayoutPG/index.html). It takes a bit of learning but once you get used to it you can add constraints pretty quickly and easily in Interface Builder. I can't recommend any particular guide but there are a lot of good ones to be found with a quick Internet search. Here is an example of constraints that seem to be what you are looking for: [![Auto Layout Constraints](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVDZX.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Portrait](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9SaD.png) [![iPhone 4-inch Landscape](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmzIQ.png)	For iOS 9, an even simpler Auto Layout approach would be to use [UIStackView](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIStackView_Class_Reference/). As you can see, no constraints are needed for the buttons embedded in the stack view, as the stack view lays out the buttons for you. All you have to constrain is the location of the stack view itself. Here's an example of two vertically stacked buttons, 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally for all devices. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)
34,489,320	I've seen a lot of different topics and suggestions on aligning and inputting buttons/text, but the ways I've seen seem kind of risky. What is the optimal way, for example, to add two buttons, stack them together, and have them be 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally on all devices?	2015/12/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34489320", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5484801/" ]	The optimal way would be using storyboard for implementation and use of constraints in a proper way. For example, as you suggested you want bottom space to be 10% of device height so it can be done with the multiplier in constraints also the horizontal center can be easily done with the same, so you could look for a good tutorial of Auto Layout and constraints for better understanding.	For iOS 9, an even simpler Auto Layout approach would be to use [UIStackView](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIStackView_Class_Reference/). As you can see, no constraints are needed for the buttons embedded in the stack view, as the stack view lays out the buttons for you. All you have to constrain is the location of the stack view itself. Here's an example of two vertically stacked buttons, 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally for all devices. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)
34,489,320	I've seen a lot of different topics and suggestions on aligning and inputting buttons/text, but the ways I've seen seem kind of risky. What is the optimal way, for example, to add two buttons, stack them together, and have them be 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally on all devices?	2015/12/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34489320", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5484801/" ]	Use your Storyboard and add [Auto Layout](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AutolayoutPG/index.html) to your elements. Here is an example: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gAQCd.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gAQCd.png) I have added auto layout * Left * Right * Top * Bottom If I want to change the distance between the buttons, I just choose the auto layout constraint that I have created between the buttons and changes the constant value to it. If I say that "Button 4" constant to the top shall be 40, then it´s always 40 no matter what size the phone has. If I change the constant between the buttons to 10 then it´s the same for all sizes.	For iOS 9, an even simpler Auto Layout approach would be to use [UIStackView](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIStackView_Class_Reference/). As you can see, no constraints are needed for the buttons embedded in the stack view, as the stack view lays out the buttons for you. All you have to constrain is the location of the stack view itself. Here's an example of two vertically stacked buttons, 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally for all devices. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)
34,489,320	I've seen a lot of different topics and suggestions on aligning and inputting buttons/text, but the ways I've seen seem kind of risky. What is the optimal way, for example, to add two buttons, stack them together, and have them be 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally on all devices?	2015/12/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34489320", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5484801/" ]	Learn Auto Layout if you haven't yet. Use constraints for achieving the following: > > 1. For centrally Horizontal on all devices: Use Center X with SuperView. > 2. For having them 10% from bottom, use multiplier value say 0.10 . > > >	For iOS 9, an even simpler Auto Layout approach would be to use [UIStackView](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIStackView_Class_Reference/). As you can see, no constraints are needed for the buttons embedded in the stack view, as the stack view lays out the buttons for you. All you have to constrain is the location of the stack view itself. Here's an example of two vertically stacked buttons, 10% from the bottom of the screen, and centered horizontally for all devices. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izHwx.png)
240,852	Is it possible to have a picklist in data extensions in Marketing Cloud, for example a field called City then users can filter using a drop down and select from London, Manchester or Birmingham?	2018/11/28	[ "https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/240852", "https://salesforce.stackexchange.com", "https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/users/39342/" ]	Unfortunately this isn’t supported as natively as you might want. Even on objects synchronised from Sales Cloud, fields that are pick lists in SC are only provided as text fields in MC. You will need to do some custom configuration, where you create a separate DE, holding all the options for your pick list fields, and reference it in e.g. Cloud Pages, using [LookupOrderedRows](https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.noversion.mc-programmatic-content.meta/mc-programmatic-content/lookuporderedrows.htm) to populate drop down input field options. If this is the use case you are in need of supporting, I can elaborate more on the solution if needed. If you need the pick list values to be available within MC, e.g. when working with Data Extensions in Contact Builder - I’m afraid there is not much we can do there.	Bit of an update since 2018... picklists weren't available for a long time in Marketing Cloud and unfortunately still are not out-of-the-box (OOTB). However, meanwhile, it is possible through certain third-party solutions (like [this one](https://deselect.io/?utm_source=sfse&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=sf-se-27)) to define picklists in an extra admin panel and then use these picklist values when filtering your data. will probably help to make sure data entries/filtering happens more accurately. A bit of explanation on how that works can be found [here](https://deselect.io/how-to-use-picklists-in-salesforce-marketing-cloud/?utm_source=sfse&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=sf-se-26). Essentially it's an extra "semantic" layer which will still use text as a field format underlying it in SFMC. Since many customers now sync SF CRM (service cloud or sales cloud) to SFMC, that helps in making sure values are used consistently (for reporting, preparing campaign data,...) For an overview of (OOTB) SFMC supported field formats (known as "data types"), look [here](https://help.salesforce.com/articleView?id=mc_es_data_extension_data_types.htm&type=5).
91,276	OTM (out-of-the-money) options are cheap but even decent move can yield dramatic returns that eclipses ATM (at-the-money) or ITM (in-the-money) options, but what I don't understand is that delta and gamma is supposed to be low for OTM so what causes the giant leap in returns when price approaches the strike? Often, it doesn't even need to touch the strike but a large swing can drive up the premium. Near expiry options (1 week let's say) are also priced cheaper, but does it contribute to the high leverage?	2018/02/24	[ "https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/91276", "https://money.stackexchange.com", "https://money.stackexchange.com/users/68407/" ]	I have a feeling you're looking at large percentage increases which is very different that absolute increases. Delta and Gamma measure absolute changes in value per dollar of change in the underlying, not percentage changes. If a option that costs 5 cents goes up another 5 cents, that's a 100% increase, but a $1 option that goes up 5 cents is only a 5% increase. If the 5 cent option goes down 2 cents, though, it's a 40% drop. So yes, you can see huge swings in relative returns just because the prices are so small relative to ITM options, but those swings go both ways. The other problem is that the reason those options are so cheap is because there's very little chance that they'll be worth anything at expiration. Note that this has nothing to do with leverage, where returns are multiplied because you borrow money to multiply the amount of money invested, it's just the mathematical phenomenon of larger percentage changes when the denominator is smaller.	> > but what I don't understand is that delta and gamma is supposed to be low for OTM so what causes the giant leap in returns when price approaches the strike > > > yeah delta and gamma and absolute returns don't exist in a vacuum gamma is a measurement of the rate of change of the delta, and delta is the measurement of rate of change of the option price relative to the underlying asset. gamma increases the closer in the money you get, and so does delta (because of gamma) until it gets to a value of 1 I guess thats the answer?
68,263,847	I have two .NET Core 5.0 Razor Page Model projects, almost identical, reside in the same solution. Have not been running for almost 4 months. Now when I wish to make some changes. One of the project cannot run in debug mode. I am always getting the following error [![Error when launch with debug](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mMOBj.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mMOBj.png) > > {"tag":"dap.receive","timestamp":1625537078095,"metadata":{"connectionId":0,"message":{"type":"request","command":"launch","arguments":{"WebRoot":"xxxx\ApmtWeb\wwwroot","rootPath":"xxxx\ApmtWeb\wwwroot","\_\_workspaceFolder":"xxxx\ApmtWeb\wwwroot","runtimeExecutable":"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe","runtimeArgs":[],"sourceMaps":true,"url":"http://localhost:5031/","trace":{"logFile":"yyyy\Temp\visualstudio-js-debugger.txt"},"port":54798,"launchUnelevated":false,"projectGuid":"cca052fc-e9e7-44d5-8299-28928d665223","userDataDir":"yyyy\Microsoft\VisualStudio\16.0\_e9805624\WebTools\F17440DA\_BBDA0153","breakOnLoad":true,"smartStep":true,"skipFiles":[],"showAsyncStacks":true,"timeout":10000,"cleanUp":"onlyTab","name":"Visual Studio launch configuration override","type":"pwa-msedge","request":"launch","continueOnDisconnect":true},"seq":2}},"level":0} > > > The xxxx and yyyy were obscured due to privacy My launch settings > > "ApmtWeb": { > "commandName": "Project", > "dotnetRunMessages": "true", > "launchBrowser": true, > "applicationUrl": "http://localhost:5031", > "environmentVariables": { > "ASPNETCORE\_ENVIRONMENT": "Development" > } > } > > > I am able to see my web page if I manually type in the URL http://localhost:5031, before the above error shows and forcing it to shutdown. There is not such setting inside my entire solution as http://localhost:54798, and I can't find any reference to 54798 even if I do a global search.	2021/07/06	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/68263847", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1861864/" ]	It is not necessary to delete the whole .vs folder, just go to .vs/project/ and delete the debuggerConfiguration -... json file. It is important to close any browser windows that have remained open before running the project again, otherwise it will recreate the debuggerConfiguration -... json file but it still gives an error. [.vs/project/](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzYhJ.png)	You can also disable the debugging of JS by VS, vis the Options menu so you just debug in Chrome (F12). Unchecking this feature, press F5, then stop it, the check it again also fixes the problem. Such black magic :/ [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jmMZ3.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jmMZ3.png)
68,263,847	I have two .NET Core 5.0 Razor Page Model projects, almost identical, reside in the same solution. Have not been running for almost 4 months. Now when I wish to make some changes. One of the project cannot run in debug mode. I am always getting the following error [![Error when launch with debug](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mMOBj.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mMOBj.png) > > {"tag":"dap.receive","timestamp":1625537078095,"metadata":{"connectionId":0,"message":{"type":"request","command":"launch","arguments":{"WebRoot":"xxxx\ApmtWeb\wwwroot","rootPath":"xxxx\ApmtWeb\wwwroot","\_\_workspaceFolder":"xxxx\ApmtWeb\wwwroot","runtimeExecutable":"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe","runtimeArgs":[],"sourceMaps":true,"url":"http://localhost:5031/","trace":{"logFile":"yyyy\Temp\visualstudio-js-debugger.txt"},"port":54798,"launchUnelevated":false,"projectGuid":"cca052fc-e9e7-44d5-8299-28928d665223","userDataDir":"yyyy\Microsoft\VisualStudio\16.0\_e9805624\WebTools\F17440DA\_BBDA0153","breakOnLoad":true,"smartStep":true,"skipFiles":[],"showAsyncStacks":true,"timeout":10000,"cleanUp":"onlyTab","name":"Visual Studio launch configuration override","type":"pwa-msedge","request":"launch","continueOnDisconnect":true},"seq":2}},"level":0} > > > The xxxx and yyyy were obscured due to privacy My launch settings > > "ApmtWeb": { > "commandName": "Project", > "dotnetRunMessages": "true", > "launchBrowser": true, > "applicationUrl": "http://localhost:5031", > "environmentVariables": { > "ASPNETCORE\_ENVIRONMENT": "Development" > } > } > > > I am able to see my web page if I manually type in the URL http://localhost:5031, before the above error shows and forcing it to shutdown. There is not such setting inside my entire solution as http://localhost:54798, and I can't find any reference to 54798 even if I do a global search.	2021/07/06	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/68263847", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1861864/" ]	It is not necessary to delete the whole .vs folder, just go to .vs/project/ and delete the debuggerConfiguration -... json file. It is important to close any browser windows that have remained open before running the project again, otherwise it will recreate the debuggerConfiguration -... json file but it still gives an error. [.vs/project/](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzYhJ.png)	When I learned from one of the comments that this is a VS bug, I immediately tried the following: 1. Close solution 2. Remove all .vs directories from your project 3. Launch solution again Worked for me. Saved me from actually reinstalling VS ;-)
720,895	I want to expand my home network with the ASUS RT-N66U. I want several workstations in one part of the house to be wired, but the other workstations in another part of the house to be wireless, while at the same time, being able to access all the machines (e.g. printer) in the network via LAN. Obviously, connecting the LAN side of the main switch to the WAN socket of the wireless router doesn't do anything because this means that I won't be able to access anything that isn't connected to the wireless router. I've followed the instructions [here](https://superuser.com/questions/104043/extend-network-by-connecting-a-wireless-router-to-a-wired-router), but after doing so, I get an error message saying that the router isn't connected to WAN whenever I try to access something on the internet. To sum up everything, here is my setup: ASUS RT-N66U connected to a switch's LAN port via the ASUS router's WAN slot. The switch is connected to the modem And here is my problem: Although I can use the internet, I am having trouble connecting to a printer that is wired up to the switch. How can I make it so that I can connect to the internet and access all other machines in my home network.	2014/02/24	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/720895", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/302791/" ]	Looks pretty straightforward to me. Use the ASUS RT-N66U as the main router (default configuration) for your network by connecting its WAN port to your internet connection (I suppose Cable or DSL modem but was not specified). Then connect all of your switches to any of the RT-N66U LAN ports. If your switches don't have auto-detect ports you need to use the uplink port or a crossover cable. This configuration will create a single LAN composed of all your wired and wireless devices. Here I assumed that you already had something like a wired router for all your devices and that you don't mind replacing it by the ASUS RT-N66U but it was not specified in your question.	I know this is an old thread but was an issue for me just recently. The way I got around it was that the ASUS router needs to be in Wireless router mode. Connect the ASUS router's WAN port direct to your cable/fibre modem that was supplied. Do not connect this side to the switch as this will cause routing problems. If like me the router is far away from your modem try using home plugs this will extend it's reach. I use Devolo and they seem to be very good. Then once connected and you have an established internet connection connect one of the LAN ports to your switch. And hey presto. Should all be working. Took me a long while to figure that out! Hope this helps someone.
416,473	I am translating a text from Russian. I need to render an expression that originally says something like "she flung her eyes open even wider" - but I am not sure this is the right English usage. Is it? And if it is not, what us the best way to convey the meaning? She could just "fling her eyes open" if they were shut or ajar. But they were already open. "Widened her eyes" seems to lose the atmosphere. (For those who understand Russian: the original is "она распахнула глаза ещё шире").	2017/10/31	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/416473", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/238346/" ]	In this instance it is a modest way to acknowledge and accept a compliment.	When the girl praises the boy for asking permission, the boy is trying to say "I"m not always so dutiful. This instance is actually a bit of an exception to my normal behavior". It was a "good day", presumably on a "normal" day, he would have behaved differently.
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	Nick Cox [(Stata Journal 2006, p403)](http://stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=gr0025) calls this sort of plot a 'cycle plot', but notes that: > > Cycle plots have been discussed under other names in the literature, including cycle-subseries plot, month plot, seasonal-by-month plot, and seasonal subseries plot. > > > (followed by a load of refs to textbooks and papers) Many of these are clearly specific to seasonality, i.e. periods of one year. I still like the suggestion of 'periodic plot/chart' that I made in a comment to the question, but it appears the questioner's original suggestion of 'cycle plot/chart' is in fact the more standard generic term.	What you've illustrated is a time series column (or bar) graph. The two graphs are of differing time resolution or differing time aggregation. There may be industry specific terms for these types of charts. In finance, for example, the [open-high-low-close chart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-high-low-close_chart) is a very common time series plot: ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2eiG2.png) When the x axis is time, as in your example, it's often common to illustrate the points as a line graph, instead of bars/columns. The reason for this is to put the visual emphasis on the change from one period to the next. You might also consider graphing period-over-period. For example a [year-over-year](http://spotfire.tibco.com/community/blogs/stn/archive/2009/01/28/create-a-year-over-year-comparison-chart.aspx) would show how the numbers for a given month (typically, although could be month or day) compare to the numbers of the prior year for the same month. ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrlo1.png) But I realize your question was about naming, not all the other cool graphs you can do ;)
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	I'd suggest "diurnal" or "circadian" rhythm chart. For weekly, the latter would be "circaseptan", "circamensual" for "monthly", and "circannual" for "yearly".	Short, simple, descriptive: time series plot. Edit: In light of the discussion, I'd vote for histogram as well. At least, thats the generic name for this kind of chart, where the hours of the day are a natural division of stacks.
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	Nick Cox [(Stata Journal 2006, p403)](http://stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=gr0025) calls this sort of plot a 'cycle plot', but notes that: > > Cycle plots have been discussed under other names in the literature, including cycle-subseries plot, month plot, seasonal-by-month plot, and seasonal subseries plot. > > > (followed by a load of refs to textbooks and papers) Many of these are clearly specific to seasonality, i.e. periods of one year. I still like the suggestion of 'periodic plot/chart' that I made in a comment to the question, but it appears the questioner's original suggestion of 'cycle plot/chart' is in fact the more standard generic term.	I'd suggest "diurnal" or "circadian" rhythm chart. For weekly, the latter would be "circaseptan", "circamensual" for "monthly", and "circannual" for "yearly".
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	Nick Cox [(Stata Journal 2006, p403)](http://stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=gr0025) calls this sort of plot a 'cycle plot', but notes that: > > Cycle plots have been discussed under other names in the literature, including cycle-subseries plot, month plot, seasonal-by-month plot, and seasonal subseries plot. > > > (followed by a load of refs to textbooks and papers) Many of these are clearly specific to seasonality, i.e. periods of one year. I still like the suggestion of 'periodic plot/chart' that I made in a comment to the question, but it appears the questioner's original suggestion of 'cycle plot/chart' is in fact the more standard generic term.	The type of chart you've drawn is known as a Histogram <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histogram>
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	I'd suggest "diurnal" or "circadian" rhythm chart. For weekly, the latter would be "circaseptan", "circamensual" for "monthly", and "circannual" for "yearly".	Your charts are a diurnal hourly-average bar chart, and a one-week daily-average bar chart, respectively.
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	Nick Cox [(Stata Journal 2006, p403)](http://stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=gr0025) calls this sort of plot a 'cycle plot', but notes that: > > Cycle plots have been discussed under other names in the literature, including cycle-subseries plot, month plot, seasonal-by-month plot, and seasonal subseries plot. > > > (followed by a load of refs to textbooks and papers) Many of these are clearly specific to seasonality, i.e. periods of one year. I still like the suggestion of 'periodic plot/chart' that I made in a comment to the question, but it appears the questioner's original suggestion of 'cycle plot/chart' is in fact the more standard generic term.	Your charts are a diurnal hourly-average bar chart, and a one-week daily-average bar chart, respectively.
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	What you've illustrated is a time series column (or bar) graph. The two graphs are of differing time resolution or differing time aggregation. There may be industry specific terms for these types of charts. In finance, for example, the [open-high-low-close chart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-high-low-close_chart) is a very common time series plot: ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2eiG2.png) When the x axis is time, as in your example, it's often common to illustrate the points as a line graph, instead of bars/columns. The reason for this is to put the visual emphasis on the change from one period to the next. You might also consider graphing period-over-period. For example a [year-over-year](http://spotfire.tibco.com/community/blogs/stn/archive/2009/01/28/create-a-year-over-year-comparison-chart.aspx) would show how the numbers for a given month (typically, although could be month or day) compare to the numbers of the prior year for the same month. ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrlo1.png) But I realize your question was about naming, not all the other cool graphs you can do ;)	Short, simple, descriptive: time series plot. Edit: In light of the discussion, I'd vote for histogram as well. At least, thats the generic name for this kind of chart, where the hours of the day are a natural division of stacks.
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	What you've illustrated is a time series column (or bar) graph. The two graphs are of differing time resolution or differing time aggregation. There may be industry specific terms for these types of charts. In finance, for example, the [open-high-low-close chart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-high-low-close_chart) is a very common time series plot: ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2eiG2.png) When the x axis is time, as in your example, it's often common to illustrate the points as a line graph, instead of bars/columns. The reason for this is to put the visual emphasis on the change from one period to the next. You might also consider graphing period-over-period. For example a [year-over-year](http://spotfire.tibco.com/community/blogs/stn/archive/2009/01/28/create-a-year-over-year-comparison-chart.aspx) would show how the numbers for a given month (typically, although could be month or day) compare to the numbers of the prior year for the same month. ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrlo1.png) But I realize your question was about naming, not all the other cool graphs you can do ;)	The type of chart you've drawn is known as a Histogram <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histogram>
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	What you've illustrated is a time series column (or bar) graph. The two graphs are of differing time resolution or differing time aggregation. There may be industry specific terms for these types of charts. In finance, for example, the [open-high-low-close chart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-high-low-close_chart) is a very common time series plot: ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2eiG2.png) When the x axis is time, as in your example, it's often common to illustrate the points as a line graph, instead of bars/columns. The reason for this is to put the visual emphasis on the change from one period to the next. You might also consider graphing period-over-period. For example a [year-over-year](http://spotfire.tibco.com/community/blogs/stn/archive/2009/01/28/create-a-year-over-year-comparison-chart.aspx) would show how the numbers for a given month (typically, although could be month or day) compare to the numbers of the prior year for the same month. ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nrlo1.png) But I realize your question was about naming, not all the other cool graphs you can do ;)	Your charts are a diurnal hourly-average bar chart, and a one-week daily-average bar chart, respectively.
8,462	We're creating a chart showing traffic by time of day over a given period. So the y-axis is traffic, the x-axis is midnight, 1am, 2am, etc. It could also be days of the week. What's the generic name for this type of chart? I've come up with "cycle chart". Is that the standard? Is there one? ![example](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDu3k.png) Update: Just to add a bit more clarity, what's being shown in the top chart is not one day, it's an aggregation of many days. E.g. over the last month, 6am has on average been lower than noon. Similarly, in the bottom chart, over the last year, traffic dips on Saturdays.	2011/03/18	[ "https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8462", "https://stats.stackexchange.com", "https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1531/" ]	I'd suggest "diurnal" or "circadian" rhythm chart. For weekly, the latter would be "circaseptan", "circamensual" for "monthly", and "circannual" for "yearly".	The type of chart you've drawn is known as a Histogram <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histogram>
71,641,455	I am using AWS Cognito with MFA and I can't use an actual user with a session to test the routes in with supertest testcases. What is the best practice for testing authenticated routes without getting a valid token? I tried to login with an actual user, but I can't do that because I have MFA required. I ended up having an environment variable, to check if we are in a test environment and then create the routs without authentication. I don't know if there are better ways.	2022/03/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/71641455", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6738115/" ]	As far as I know, there isn't. The whole point of MFA is to be secure - if there was a backdoor, they'd be no point. You could also create a user pool just for testing which doesn't require MFA in your application and alternate between your production user pool with MFA enabled & your testing user pool with MFA disabled. The easiest way I've seen, however, as you've described, to disable MFA for end to end tests is disabling authentication as a whole based on a local secure configuration setting.	Maybe you could use something like [oauth2-mock-server](https://www.npmjs.com/package/oauth2-mock-server) in your tests? Seems to do exactly what you are looking for.
147,799	Would it be proper to use a [valediction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valediction) ("complimentary close") in a newspaper or magazine message wholly devoted to congratulating the media's readers with the New Year or some other holiday? An example message from the staff of a made-up media: > > Dear readers! > > > From the bottom of our hearts we... > > > Yours sincerely, Russian Industrial News' editorial staff. > > > Or are valedictions more fit for personal communication? P.S. In Russia, such congratulatory newspaper messages are ended with a no-frills bottom-positioned line like "Editorial staff of [name of media]." I became curious whether this would work in an English-language media, or should one add something to embellish the ending.	2014/01/24	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147799", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/48335/" ]	The verb will in the past meant wish. This sense is mostly lost in contemporary speech, but can be seen in the saying "where there is a will there is a way". The modal will we normally use today, is related to this old sense, but still different. This old sense of will is similar to (and cognate with) the Latin volo, volere, which you probably have in Romanian as well. In terms of what the above sentences mean, you could read them as: For I might wish that all men were even as I myself. (1 Corinthians 7:7) I wish to God my name were not so terrible to the enemy as it is. (2H4 I.ii.219-220) If you're translating these to Romanian in your head, use the subjunctive.	Yes, they mean the same thing: they express a "wish". If you substitute wish for would, you will see the construction clearly. [would](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/would) vb.: (one meaning) I wish: Would that he were here. You can see it in another (slightly) familiar phrase > > Would that I could, but I can't, so I shan't. > > > This form implies a wishful or idealized alternative to an undesired reality. In other words, the speaker wishes for a different set of circumstances or outcome than the real situation he or she is in, and is called The subjunctive mood. The [subjunctive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood) is a grammatical mood found in many languages. Subjunctive forms of verbs are typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred – the precise situations in which they are used vary from language to language. It is an older form in English, used less frequently today, but seen often enough in early translations of the Bible and other early writings, as well as very formal writing.
147,799	Would it be proper to use a [valediction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valediction) ("complimentary close") in a newspaper or magazine message wholly devoted to congratulating the media's readers with the New Year or some other holiday? An example message from the staff of a made-up media: > > Dear readers! > > > From the bottom of our hearts we... > > > Yours sincerely, Russian Industrial News' editorial staff. > > > Or are valedictions more fit for personal communication? P.S. In Russia, such congratulatory newspaper messages are ended with a no-frills bottom-positioned line like "Editorial staff of [name of media]." I became curious whether this would work in an English-language media, or should one add something to embellish the ending.	2014/01/24	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147799", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/48335/" ]	Would in both cases indicates a desire or intent, but the Shakespearean instance is more forceful. I'm no [hermeneutician](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/), but the Corinthians verse opens with θέλω, which is straightforwardly translated as I want or I wish. Merriam-Webster lists this use of would as archaic, whereas OALD simply calls it "[literary](http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/would#would__194)": > > would that… (literary): used to express a strong wish > > > References to God (or the devil) intensify. Would to God [that] on its own can stand as an old-fashioned interjection, and in such cases the would cannot always be directly substituted with want or wish (How I hoped she would leave him. Would to God!).	Yes, they mean the same thing: they express a "wish". If you substitute wish for would, you will see the construction clearly. [would](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/would) vb.: (one meaning) I wish: Would that he were here. You can see it in another (slightly) familiar phrase > > Would that I could, but I can't, so I shan't. > > > This form implies a wishful or idealized alternative to an undesired reality. In other words, the speaker wishes for a different set of circumstances or outcome than the real situation he or she is in, and is called The subjunctive mood. The [subjunctive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood) is a grammatical mood found in many languages. Subjunctive forms of verbs are typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred – the precise situations in which they are used vary from language to language. It is an older form in English, used less frequently today, but seen often enough in early translations of the Bible and other early writings, as well as very formal writing.
147,799	Would it be proper to use a [valediction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valediction) ("complimentary close") in a newspaper or magazine message wholly devoted to congratulating the media's readers with the New Year or some other holiday? An example message from the staff of a made-up media: > > Dear readers! > > > From the bottom of our hearts we... > > > Yours sincerely, Russian Industrial News' editorial staff. > > > Or are valedictions more fit for personal communication? P.S. In Russia, such congratulatory newspaper messages are ended with a no-frills bottom-positioned line like "Editorial staff of [name of media]." I became curious whether this would work in an English-language media, or should one add something to embellish the ending.	2014/01/24	[ "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147799", "https://english.stackexchange.com", "https://english.stackexchange.com/users/48335/" ]	Would in both cases indicates a desire or intent, but the Shakespearean instance is more forceful. I'm no [hermeneutician](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/), but the Corinthians verse opens with θέλω, which is straightforwardly translated as I want or I wish. Merriam-Webster lists this use of would as archaic, whereas OALD simply calls it "[literary](http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/would#would__194)": > > would that… (literary): used to express a strong wish > > > References to God (or the devil) intensify. Would to God [that] on its own can stand as an old-fashioned interjection, and in such cases the would cannot always be directly substituted with want or wish (How I hoped she would leave him. Would to God!).	The verb will in the past meant wish. This sense is mostly lost in contemporary speech, but can be seen in the saying "where there is a will there is a way". The modal will we normally use today, is related to this old sense, but still different. This old sense of will is similar to (and cognate with) the Latin volo, volere, which you probably have in Romanian as well. In terms of what the above sentences mean, you could read them as: For I might wish that all men were even as I myself. (1 Corinthians 7:7) I wish to God my name were not so terrible to the enemy as it is. (2H4 I.ii.219-220) If you're translating these to Romanian in your head, use the subjunctive.
15,372,492	I want to make a tab menu as in this link <https://www.justinmind.com/usernote/tests/10582408/10582411/10582413/index.html#/screens/74bd08d4-2de1-4149-b45e-c648c36ccdd5> I have mazed from searching through out every simillar questions in deferent sites without any useful answer , I can not remove the bottom-line of tabs and with or change its color and make border surround other tabs and make its background white as designed at the link above	2013/03/12	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/15372492", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1905122/" ]	You should check out this answer: <https://stackoverflow.com/a/3904011/2140191> In your /res/layout folder should be a file with the layout (custom look) for your tabs. This websites gives a tutorial about customization of tabs: <http://joshclemm.com/blog/?p=136>	The one in the link does not seem to be tabs. I think it's a customized layout. One way to go about this is have a three label field with white background and line drawn in between may be using view with background gray. On click even u can animate and change the content.
20,468	I'm trying to open <https://read.amazon.com> on the latest version of Tor but I get a black screen. It works fine on Tor versions below 7. I'm wondering if I tweak the browser to get the web page to open. Any insight is appreciated.	2019/10/20	[ "https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/20468", "https://tor.stackexchange.com", "https://tor.stackexchange.com/users/27964/" ]	It appears to be a url redirection issue. When I open the <https://read.amazon.com> link on Firefox, it redirects to <https://www.amazon.com/ap/signin?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_kweb&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fread.amazon.com%2F&openid.mode=checkid_setup&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.identity=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.claimed_id=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&pageId=amzn_kcr> . The black screen in Tor Browser is as a result of this redirect not happening. I suggest you copy the [redirected url](https://www.amazon.com/ap/signin?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_kweb&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fread.amazon.com%2F&openid.mode=checkid_setup&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.identity=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.claimed_id=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&pageId=amzn_kcr) and paste it into Tor. It will render seamlessly. Here's a screenshot of the pages side-by-side; on Firefox and on Tor Browser respectively. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zitnM.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zitnM.png)	When you say "but I get a black screen", do you mean that you get the page that says "This application requires Javascript. Please turn on Javascript in your browser's preferences/settings and try again."? If so, you would need to enable JavaScript (which may decrease your privacy/security). If you are OK with the risk and want to disable JavaScript on that page, you would click the NoScript button, and then on the line the says "amazon.com" on the right, you would click click the "S" on the left. Here is a video about how to use NoScript: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhJTwCFFzrE&t=174>
37,280,954	Is it possible to use BitBucket with Microsoft Team Services for Continuous Integration? We want to automate the deployment processes.	2016/05/17	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37280954", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1470682/" ]	Yes, but you must use a third party like Zapier (<https://zapier.com/zapbook/bitbucket/visual-studio-online/>). This feature is submitted in Uservoice to be included natively : <https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/330519-team-services/suggestions/10674648-enable-ci-build-support-for-bitbucket-git-reposito>	This [TechNet article](https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/34313.visual-studio-team-services-connecting-a-bitbucket-repository.aspx), dated May 2016, seems to suggest you can actually setup a connection to your BitBucket repository. It basically says to go through the following steps: 1. In VSTS, create a Visual Studio build definition 2. During creation, select Remote Git repository 3. In BitBucket, copy the same URL repo used when cloning from command line 4. In VSTS repository tab, create a new connection and fill Server URL with the one from BB Is that what you're after when you say "use BitBucket with Microsoft Team Services for Continuous Integration" ? HTH EDIT: same is suggested in Option 2 at [this MSDN blog post](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dmx/2016/10/13/integrating-vsts-with-bitbucket/) and in another blog [post](http://rasmustc.com/blog/CI-VSTS-Bitbucket-And-Xamarin/)
18,953	The Saturn V had an initial production run of 15 vehicles (plus 3 test articles). Twelve were used for Apollo 4, 6, and 8-17, one was used for Skylab, the components of the other two are on display in various locations. I've heard there was originally going to be a second production run of the Saturn V, probably including the uprated F-1A engines among other improvements. Was this ever officially considered? If it was, when was it cancelled?	2016/11/04	[ "https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18953", "https://space.stackexchange.com", "https://space.stackexchange.com/users/13208/" ]	No additional production run was ever ordered, so there was nothing to cancel. The various upgrades considered never went beyond the proposal stage into detailed designs, so there was nothing to order.	What is true is that there were no orders for a second batch of Saturn V Rockets. There were some attempts to raise budget for further Launchers in the budget plans for 67, 68 and 69. But all were denied by the Congress. The denial of two further rockets, that should be produced in 1969, by the lawmakers on August 1, 1968 let to the end of the Saturn V production and in the end to the resignation of James Webb as NASA Administrator. Nevertheless, the Saturn V production line was not closed then and in the integrated program plan (IPP) that Tom Pain and George Muller developed in 1969, the Saturn V played a vital role. It was only in March 1970, that Tom Pain closed the production definitely, in somewhat that could be described as a "panic" reaction on the 20% cut that the White House made on the 1971 NASA Budget request.
18,953	The Saturn V had an initial production run of 15 vehicles (plus 3 test articles). Twelve were used for Apollo 4, 6, and 8-17, one was used for Skylab, the components of the other two are on display in various locations. I've heard there was originally going to be a second production run of the Saturn V, probably including the uprated F-1A engines among other improvements. Was this ever officially considered? If it was, when was it cancelled?	2016/11/04	[ "https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18953", "https://space.stackexchange.com", "https://space.stackexchange.com/users/13208/" ]	Russell is correct; no second run was ever officially ordered, which is why we never saw more Saturn Vs lift off. However, when you ask if it was ever considered, know that it certainly was - in a big way! I suggest you look into Saturn MLV and ELV studies... MLV stood for 'Modified Launch Vehicle' while ELV stood for 'Evolved (or Earth) Launch Vehicle.' These launchers would have been improved Saturns with greater payload capacity, better economy, or both. Saturns SA-501 through SA-512 were all three-stage Saturn Vs used for Apollo missions, while SA-513 was a two-stage vehicle (not [INT-21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_INT-21)!) that launched Skylab. SA-514 and -515 were to launch another Apollo mission and a backup Skylab, respectively. The 'second run' would begin with standard Saturn Vs marked SA-516 onwards, with perhaps some two-stage launches and the eventual introduction of INT-21. But the MLV variants would begin at SA-522 with the Saturn MLV-V-1A: stretched stages, six F-1s and seven S-II J-2s. SA-526 would introduce the first of the F-1A powered Saturns, the MLV-V-1, which would eventually use J-2S and J-2T. SA-536 would see the MLV-V-3 launcher with the high-pressure HG-3 upper stage engine, and later evolve into the V-3B with toroidal upper stage engines. These later variants would approach 170t to LEO and 75t to TLI. Between these milestones, it is likely that solid booster assisted Saturns such as the MLV-V-4(S) would arise. 120in and 156in strap ons could boost payloads to around 160 tonnes. After this, some studies get crazy. Launchers such as the ELV models of the Saturn V-25(S)U would use 260in diameter solid boosters and stretched stages to lift 250 tonne NERVA stages to LEO for mars exploration. The V-4/260 would also use 260in solids, but with massive 23m fairings and auxiliary tanks to lift over 360 tonnes. My favourite design involves a vehicle consisting of four stretched Saturn Vs joined under a single fairing to allow payloads of 520 tonnes and over! Many, is not all, of these improved designs would likely never be intended to fly. A true second run would probably only see more standard Saturn Vs, joined by a few INT-21s, MLV-V-1s and various solid-boosted models. Sometime during the production run the rockets would no longer feature fins. But of course, consideration does not mean real, in-depth planning. It seems the second run was canned around 1968, when Apollos 18 to 20 were also scrapped. Much of this appears to be designer dreaming without a goal to be achieved before the next decade was out...	What is true is that there were no orders for a second batch of Saturn V Rockets. There were some attempts to raise budget for further Launchers in the budget plans for 67, 68 and 69. But all were denied by the Congress. The denial of two further rockets, that should be produced in 1969, by the lawmakers on August 1, 1968 let to the end of the Saturn V production and in the end to the resignation of James Webb as NASA Administrator. Nevertheless, the Saturn V production line was not closed then and in the integrated program plan (IPP) that Tom Pain and George Muller developed in 1969, the Saturn V played a vital role. It was only in March 1970, that Tom Pain closed the production definitely, in somewhat that could be described as a "panic" reaction on the 20% cut that the White House made on the 1971 NASA Budget request.
8,524,369	Often I hear people around me who like to discussion about writing in assembly language and which is one of those reasons I'm also want to learn to write it. Currently I'm learning assembly and C together. So, my question is when do you ever need to write assembly in real code? Is it just good to learn? Are there are any real uses of it when writing code in C? Any helpful comments or answers will be appreciated!	2011/12/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8524369", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1086635/" ]	I was going to write a long post but decided to summarize instead: 1. embedded code, boot loaders, compiler backends 2. yes, it will help you understand and debug your compiled code 3. the only time I have used it in c is for reading the real time clock register	It's rare. I've never had to in 23 years + of career. But I work in the Client Server DB application space mainly, there are jobs where you'll use it a lot, or at least need to know how processors actually work. However it was the first thing I learned, not counting basic digital electronics, and I'd say the learning has been a great help over my career and hobby programming.
8,524,369	Often I hear people around me who like to discussion about writing in assembly language and which is one of those reasons I'm also want to learn to write it. Currently I'm learning assembly and C together. So, my question is when do you ever need to write assembly in real code? Is it just good to learn? Are there are any real uses of it when writing code in C? Any helpful comments or answers will be appreciated!	2011/12/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8524369", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1086635/" ]	Despite the fact that writing code in assembly became increasingly rare, it is still very good to learn assembly simply to understand how things work under the hood. Modern optimizing compilers of C/C++ let you write code in C that translates into assembly instructions of very high quality, often surpassing what you could write manually at the expense of making the result less readable (e.g by inserting empty instructions to optimize the use of CPU's pipeline). If you write a compiler for a new architecture, a very low-level library, or an embedded system with strict resource constraints, you may need to use assembly. For everything else, C and C++ will do as well or better.	It's rare. I've never had to in 23 years + of career. But I work in the Client Server DB application space mainly, there are jobs where you'll use it a lot, or at least need to know how processors actually work. However it was the first thing I learned, not counting basic digital electronics, and I'd say the learning has been a great help over my career and hobby programming.
8,524,369	Often I hear people around me who like to discussion about writing in assembly language and which is one of those reasons I'm also want to learn to write it. Currently I'm learning assembly and C together. So, my question is when do you ever need to write assembly in real code? Is it just good to learn? Are there are any real uses of it when writing code in C? Any helpful comments or answers will be appreciated!	2011/12/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8524369", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1086635/" ]	I was going to write a long post but decided to summarize instead: 1. embedded code, boot loaders, compiler backends 2. yes, it will help you understand and debug your compiled code 3. the only time I have used it in c is for reading the real time clock register	I had many occasions when I needed to write asm code at work, where in C either you couldn't do certain things at all (e.g. access special CPU registers or use CPU's system instructions), or compiled C code was too slow or too big (the compiler wasn't good enough). Still, the fraction of the asm code or time spend writing it was pretty insignificant. Learning asm is good. It makes you "see" through your C code, predict what instructions and how many it turns into, roughly estimate speed of parts of code. In the process you learn a number of optimization and other tricks and a few cool algorithms/methods that you can then transfer into your C code. Just look at those numerous questions about C pointers or conversion of numbers between binary and decimal or arbitrary precision arithmetic. Knowing asm helps with these and other things.
8,524,369	Often I hear people around me who like to discussion about writing in assembly language and which is one of those reasons I'm also want to learn to write it. Currently I'm learning assembly and C together. So, my question is when do you ever need to write assembly in real code? Is it just good to learn? Are there are any real uses of it when writing code in C? Any helpful comments or answers will be appreciated!	2011/12/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8524369", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1086635/" ]	I was going to write a long post but decided to summarize instead: 1. embedded code, boot loaders, compiler backends 2. yes, it will help you understand and debug your compiled code 3. the only time I have used it in c is for reading the real time clock register	Professional use of assembly language is quite common in the embedded world. There are lots of applications around us where microcontrollers do simple but useful things. For example, have a look at the [tinyAVR family of microcontrollers from Atmel](http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/devices.asp?category_id=163&family_id=607&subfamily_id=791&source=left_nav), especially the ATtiny13 with its ridiculously small 1kB program memory and no RAM at all except for the 32 8-bit CPU registers. It's amazing though, what these chips are [capable of](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-kF-MkP0A). That chip costs about one dollar when bought in large quantities. So when you produce a large quantity of a device that needs simple (or even not quite simple) logic, the savings in hardware production costs far outweigh the overhead of hand-crafting the code in assembler to make it work on an extremely limited platform.
8,524,369	Often I hear people around me who like to discussion about writing in assembly language and which is one of those reasons I'm also want to learn to write it. Currently I'm learning assembly and C together. So, my question is when do you ever need to write assembly in real code? Is it just good to learn? Are there are any real uses of it when writing code in C? Any helpful comments or answers will be appreciated!	2011/12/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8524369", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1086635/" ]	I was going to write a long post but decided to summarize instead: 1. embedded code, boot loaders, compiler backends 2. yes, it will help you understand and debug your compiled code 3. the only time I have used it in c is for reading the real time clock register	I've done it twice in 2011 so far, and I mostly work on Java line of business apps. Came in handy for whipping up a quick setup.exe to wrap a JRE and app install. Could have done that in C, but it's quicker to grab and setup an assembler than a compiler and for such a simple app the write time is comparable either way... Also used it to work on a problem interfacing with a USB device. Was failing for unknown reasons via JNA, so I wrote it in assembly to make sure I knew where every bit was going and when.
8,524,369	Often I hear people around me who like to discussion about writing in assembly language and which is one of those reasons I'm also want to learn to write it. Currently I'm learning assembly and C together. So, my question is when do you ever need to write assembly in real code? Is it just good to learn? Are there are any real uses of it when writing code in C? Any helpful comments or answers will be appreciated!	2011/12/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8524369", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1086635/" ]	Despite the fact that writing code in assembly became increasingly rare, it is still very good to learn assembly simply to understand how things work under the hood. Modern optimizing compilers of C/C++ let you write code in C that translates into assembly instructions of very high quality, often surpassing what you could write manually at the expense of making the result less readable (e.g by inserting empty instructions to optimize the use of CPU's pipeline). If you write a compiler for a new architecture, a very low-level library, or an embedded system with strict resource constraints, you may need to use assembly. For everything else, C and C++ will do as well or better.	I had many occasions when I needed to write asm code at work, where in C either you couldn't do certain things at all (e.g. access special CPU registers or use CPU's system instructions), or compiled C code was too slow or too big (the compiler wasn't good enough). Still, the fraction of the asm code or time spend writing it was pretty insignificant. Learning asm is good. It makes you "see" through your C code, predict what instructions and how many it turns into, roughly estimate speed of parts of code. In the process you learn a number of optimization and other tricks and a few cool algorithms/methods that you can then transfer into your C code. Just look at those numerous questions about C pointers or conversion of numbers between binary and decimal or arbitrary precision arithmetic. Knowing asm helps with these and other things.
8,524,369	Often I hear people around me who like to discussion about writing in assembly language and which is one of those reasons I'm also want to learn to write it. Currently I'm learning assembly and C together. So, my question is when do you ever need to write assembly in real code? Is it just good to learn? Are there are any real uses of it when writing code in C? Any helpful comments or answers will be appreciated!	2011/12/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8524369", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1086635/" ]	Despite the fact that writing code in assembly became increasingly rare, it is still very good to learn assembly simply to understand how things work under the hood. Modern optimizing compilers of C/C++ let you write code in C that translates into assembly instructions of very high quality, often surpassing what you could write manually at the expense of making the result less readable (e.g by inserting empty instructions to optimize the use of CPU's pipeline). If you write a compiler for a new architecture, a very low-level library, or an embedded system with strict resource constraints, you may need to use assembly. For everything else, C and C++ will do as well or better.	Professional use of assembly language is quite common in the embedded world. There are lots of applications around us where microcontrollers do simple but useful things. For example, have a look at the [tinyAVR family of microcontrollers from Atmel](http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/devices.asp?category_id=163&family_id=607&subfamily_id=791&source=left_nav), especially the ATtiny13 with its ridiculously small 1kB program memory and no RAM at all except for the 32 8-bit CPU registers. It's amazing though, what these chips are [capable of](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-kF-MkP0A). That chip costs about one dollar when bought in large quantities. So when you produce a large quantity of a device that needs simple (or even not quite simple) logic, the savings in hardware production costs far outweigh the overhead of hand-crafting the code in assembler to make it work on an extremely limited platform.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.