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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2,916,044 | I'm wondering if there is any news about a "Android Dev Phone 3"? Is an updated hardware of the "Android Dev Phone 2" that is coming soon? (probably an unlocked version of the Nexus One) | 2010/05/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2916044",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1406/"
] | The Nexus One IS the unlocked version of the Nexus One! It's sim unlocked and the bootloader is unlocked. | "The Nexus One is no longer available for direct purchase from Google, but will be made available through a partner for sale to registered developers. Please check back for more updates regarding developer availability."
<http://www.google.com/support/android/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=166508> |
312,683 | After asking the question *[Can we have a code only reason for deletion?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312678/can-we-have-a-code-only-reason-for-deletion)*, it seems to be clear that code-only answers should not be deleted.
**Why** are code-only answers in the low quality review queue, if they should not be deleted?
---
There are a lot of similar questions, but they are not asking the same thing.
For example, *[What to do with code-only answers in Low Quality Posts queue?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300694/what-to-do-with-code-only-answers-in-low-quality-posts-queue)*. | 2015/12/17 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312683",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | >
> Why are code only answers in the low quality review queue, if they should not be deleted?
>
>
>
Because people flag them ;) Not everybody knows when to and when not to flag a post.
>
> Someone must be approving the flags?
>
>
>
When an answer is flagged as VLQ the answer goes into the LQ queue, the flag is not reviewed before it enters the queue (that is what the queue itself is for).
Some additional info: [flagging a post as VLQ is saying "this post is crap, "cannot be salvaged and it should be deleted right away".](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/306133/1843331) | Code-only answers is not a reason for deletion, but still a reason for improvement. They are in low quality queue because it is strongly suggested that they're should be improved with additional explanation. |
312,683 | After asking the question *[Can we have a code only reason for deletion?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312678/can-we-have-a-code-only-reason-for-deletion)*, it seems to be clear that code-only answers should not be deleted.
**Why** are code-only answers in the low quality review queue, if they should not be deleted?
---
There are a lot of similar questions, but they are not asking the same thing.
For example, *[What to do with code-only answers in Low Quality Posts queue?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300694/what-to-do-with-code-only-answers-in-low-quality-posts-queue)*. | 2015/12/17 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312683",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Generally, they get into the LQP queue because someone is silly enough to flag them as VLQ or NAA. Sometimes the automated heuristics shove them in, presumably because they're very short or something.
In any case, there are a few ways they can then leave the queue:
* Recommend Deletion/Delete consensus. This is almost always wrong for code-only answers.
* Looks OK consensus. This is often the right choice. If unanimous or nearly so, declines the flag(s); otherwise, just disputes.
* Edit (from queue, or outside of queue in case of VLQ flag specifically I believe). This is occasionally the right thing to do if the explanation isn't difficult to add, or is already basically present. Always disputes the flag(s).
* ♦ mod action. Visibility in the mod queue is delayed by something like half an hour to allow a chance at community response.
As you can see, a flag can be handled either by a ♦ mod or by one or more 2k+ users. Unfortunately, the semantics are a bit different between these two handling queues, leading to confusion at times, but here the relevant point is twofold:
* *Someone* has to check those flags to see if there is the slightest bit of merit, and often that someone is you.
* Sometimes these flags will be declined by a ♦ instead of by the 2kers. | >
> Why are code only answers in the low quality review queue, if they should not be deleted?
>
>
>
Because people flag them ;) Not everybody knows when to and when not to flag a post.
>
> Someone must be approving the flags?
>
>
>
When an answer is flagged as VLQ the answer goes into the LQ queue, the flag is not reviewed before it enters the queue (that is what the queue itself is for).
Some additional info: [flagging a post as VLQ is saying "this post is crap, "cannot be salvaged and it should be deleted right away".](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/306133/1843331) |
312,683 | After asking the question *[Can we have a code only reason for deletion?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312678/can-we-have-a-code-only-reason-for-deletion)*, it seems to be clear that code-only answers should not be deleted.
**Why** are code-only answers in the low quality review queue, if they should not be deleted?
---
There are a lot of similar questions, but they are not asking the same thing.
For example, *[What to do with code-only answers in Low Quality Posts queue?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300694/what-to-do-with-code-only-answers-in-low-quality-posts-queue)*. | 2015/12/17 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312683",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Generally, they get into the LQP queue because someone is silly enough to flag them as VLQ or NAA. Sometimes the automated heuristics shove them in, presumably because they're very short or something.
In any case, there are a few ways they can then leave the queue:
* Recommend Deletion/Delete consensus. This is almost always wrong for code-only answers.
* Looks OK consensus. This is often the right choice. If unanimous or nearly so, declines the flag(s); otherwise, just disputes.
* Edit (from queue, or outside of queue in case of VLQ flag specifically I believe). This is occasionally the right thing to do if the explanation isn't difficult to add, or is already basically present. Always disputes the flag(s).
* ♦ mod action. Visibility in the mod queue is delayed by something like half an hour to allow a chance at community response.
As you can see, a flag can be handled either by a ♦ mod or by one or more 2k+ users. Unfortunately, the semantics are a bit different between these two handling queues, leading to confusion at times, but here the relevant point is twofold:
* *Someone* has to check those flags to see if there is the slightest bit of merit, and often that someone is you.
* Sometimes these flags will be declined by a ♦ instead of by the 2kers. | Code-only answers is not a reason for deletion, but still a reason for improvement. They are in low quality queue because it is strongly suggested that they're should be improved with additional explanation. |
320 | We all love [Network Engineering Stack Exchange](http://networkengineering.stackexchange.com), but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.
The [Site Self-Evaluation review queue](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/review/site-eval) is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter.
Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.
Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? **Post an answer below to share your thoughts** and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users! | 2014/02/10 | [
"https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Final Results
=============
* [https url filtering on Cisco ASA 5520](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5662/https-url-filtering-on-cisco-asa-5520)
**Net Score: 4** (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 0)
---
* [ProCurve CPU at 100% for several minutes after reboot](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5765/procurve-cpu-at-100-for-several-minutes-after-reboot)
**Net Score: 3** (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 1)
---
* [PPPoE w/ NAT config broken](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5644/pppoe-w-nat-config-broken)
**Net Score: 3** (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)
---
* [Is the shaping-rate on a CoS scheduler per-port or aggregate on a Juniper EX?](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5650/is-the-shaping-rate-on-a-cos-scheduler-per-port-or-aggregate-on-a-juniper-ex)
**Net Score: 3** (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 0)
---
* [Why does Cisco ios save and display access list entries out of order?](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5576/why-does-cisco-ios-save-and-display-access-list-entries-out-of-order)
**Net Score: 2** (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 2)
---
* [Trying to configure HP Procurve VLANs to segment Unifi guest traffic to another network](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5570/trying-to-configure-hp-procurve-vlans-to-segment-unifi-guest-traffic-to-another)
**Net Score: 2** (Excellent: 2, Satisfactory: 5, Needs Improvement: 0)
---
* [VPN , DMZ services port forwarding ASA](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5753/vpn-dmz-services-port-forwarding-asa)
**Net Score: -1** (Excellent: 1, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 2)
---
* [Cisco ASA exempt](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5510/cisco-asa-exempt)
**Net Score: -4** (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 4)
---
* [Juniper Netscreen: OSPF in Untrust zone](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5723/juniper-netscreen-ospf-in-untrust-zone)
**Net Score: -5** (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 1, Needs Improvement: 5)
---
* [NAT with VPN Site to Site and Remote LANs with same IP address](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5504/nat-with-vpn-site-to-site-and-remote-lans-with-same-ip-address)
**Net Score: -7** (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 0, Needs Improvement: 7)
--- | I think we need to be careful with both questions and answers in "best practices" Q&As.
(There are a lot of these -- here's an [ad hoc list](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/search?q=best+practices)).
In some cases, there are published best practices (see [IETF BCPs](http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/bcplist.html), for example). In other cases, it might be helpful to cite a source (a Cisco design guide, or Doyle/Carroll, etc.).
If the answers are of the form "well, I do this in my network: ...." then it is possible or perhaps likely that we are not talking about an authoritative or consensus-based best practice, OR, the question needs to be worded more precisely, so that a particular or individual solution (i.e., not a consensus "best practice") is the correct way to answer. In that case, the wording of the question (or answer) might be inexact -- with a throw-away usage of "best practices" used to obscure imprecision.
From some discussion, see [Best-Practices versus Subjective](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/37682/best-practices-versus-subjective%20%22best%20practices%22) .
With regard to the site review, this is fundamentally about precision and helpfulness in answers (and asking and/or editing questions so they are conducive to good answers). I think stackexchange sites work best when they encourage both good questions and good answers -- otherwise, they contribute to noise instead of providing clarity. |
57,171 | An air suspension fork on one of my bikes starts showing its age: noticeable play, scratches on stanchions etc. It has not become less smooth and does not leak air so far, however.
I am starting to wonder how safe it is to continue using it, and what will happen when it "fails".
Possible outcomes of a non-catastrophic suspension fork failure that I can imagine are:
1. All air leaks out and it compresses fully, becoming very short
2. All air leaks out and it expands fully, becoming at its full extension
3. Air air blows out, making stanchions loose in the legs
4. The fork just locks at random compression position.
5. Stanchions become so loose with so much play that it becomes noticeable at braking and steering.
What of these options are real, both for air forks and coil forks? Are there other failure scenarios resulting from a fork's old age but not a crash? | 2018/09/19 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/57171",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/26917/"
] | If compatibility is what you're after, you should know that it's not always necessary to use the same group. Many times, you can mix and match different groups, even different manufacturers.
As far as I know, all 10-speed Campy geartrain components should be compatible with each other. [You have to consider the capacity of both derailleurs](https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ca-g.html#capacity) relative to your gearing, but you have to do that even if using the same group for everything. | EDIT 2023: Compatibility was not a major issue when I originally wrote this answer but since then electronic shifting and some details in mechanical levers have changed things. See the [other answer](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/87706/10595) and [this FAQ](https://www.velotech-cycling.ltd.uk/campagnolo_faq.shtml) for details.
---
No, the components are identified by name and year even if they aren't changed every year. Spare parts do have exact part numbers, and most of the small parts are shared between multiple groupsets and year models.
Compatibility is generally not a problem, all series after the old "pointy ergo" 9-speed from 90s have same freehub bodies and actuation ratios. |
57,171 | An air suspension fork on one of my bikes starts showing its age: noticeable play, scratches on stanchions etc. It has not become less smooth and does not leak air so far, however.
I am starting to wonder how safe it is to continue using it, and what will happen when it "fails".
Possible outcomes of a non-catastrophic suspension fork failure that I can imagine are:
1. All air leaks out and it compresses fully, becoming very short
2. All air leaks out and it expands fully, becoming at its full extension
3. Air air blows out, making stanchions loose in the legs
4. The fork just locks at random compression position.
5. Stanchions become so loose with so much play that it becomes noticeable at braking and steering.
What of these options are real, both for air forks and coil forks? Are there other failure scenarios resulting from a fork's old age but not a crash? | 2018/09/19 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/57171",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/26917/"
] | If compatibility is what you're after, you should know that it's not always necessary to use the same group. Many times, you can mix and match different groups, even different manufacturers.
As far as I know, all 10-speed Campy geartrain components should be compatible with each other. [You have to consider the capacity of both derailleurs](https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ca-g.html#capacity) relative to your gearing, but you have to do that even if using the same group for everything. | As mentioned, Campagnolo doesn't have a groupset model number system that is public-facing, unlike Shimano. Thus, differentiation between different iterations (given the number of speeds) is more complex and requires detailed knowledge. If you are selling, provide as much information as you can. Many forums (e.g. Paceline) have Campagolo aficionados. Otherwise, some local shops might have Campy knowledge and experience, although many don't have deep knowledge because Campy never had a strong OEM presence, and few people use it.
Campy has its internal reference numbers that a bike store ordering components should be able to access, but these aren't widely referenced. I believe they aren't as immediately obvious like Shimano's model numbers (e.g. FC-R8000 means an R8000 crankset).
Since the 10-speed systems, Shimano has had two iterations at each speed (e.g. Shimano Dura Ace 7800 and 7900 were both 10s, then 9000 and 9100 were 11s). The second iteration (e.g. 7900 and 9100) is an update to the first iteration. Occasionally, there are some minor changes for reliability in the first iteration (e.g. there's a distinction (e.g. the 9001 shifters were a small update to the 9000 levers; I believe the cable routing was improved to reduce cable breakage). Campagnolo follows a similar pattern. This answer won't focus on 9s or earlier groups, as I have limited knowledge (this is before I started cycling).
10 speed groups
---------------
The first 10s version gave Record (the top group then) carbon fiber shift levers and a rear derailleur parallelogram. The rest of the groups were all aluminum.
The second set of iterations at 10s started in the mid 2000s. This set was fairly complex. It added more carbon bits to Record (spring carrier, RD pulley cage, FD cage), and it gave Chorus some carbon bits (lever blades). It also introduced the quick shift (QS) front derailleurs and, for the lower groups, the Escape shift mechanism (the predecessor to the Powershift. There's some discussion at this [Roadbikereview forum](https://www.roadbikereview.com/threads/quick-shift-ultrashift-qs-escape-powershift-etc.236410/) thread. Later, they also trickled down carbon further; for example, groups as low as Centaur got (some) carbon lever blades, and an option for carbon cranks. I can't remember exactly when, but at some point, the levers started to be referred to as Ultrashift levers; I think the lever body shape changed (and probably the internal components also).
Thus, I think that Quick Shift is the main differentiator for 10s groups. Pre-Quick Shift makes it (I believe) 2003 or earlier. Alternatively, material may provide some clues. Saying "Chorus 10s with alloy lever blades" would date it in the early 2000s or late 1990s, not the mid 2000s. I think Ultrashift may not apply, or that it might apply to lower-end 10s groups via trickle down when the top groups were on 11s.
11 speed groups
---------------
After that, Campagnolo introduced 11s. For 11s groups, the second iteration happened about 2015. Actually, pre- and post-2015 shifting components are not officially compatible, as discussed somewhat in [this thread](https://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2370671&postcount=5) on the Paceline forum. Thus, you may hear of people referring to pre- and post-2015 components for Chorus, Record, and Super Record. For cranksets, they went to 4-arm cranks in 2015, which mirrored Shimano's move and caused some aesthetic complaints.
Hence, if you say "Chorus 11s", you might need to specify if it's pre- or post-2015.
Campagnolo Athena was an 11s group (with an electronic shifting option) introduced around 2010. Potenza was an 11s group introduced around 2016, and it replaced Athena, and was then discontinued. Referring to either group in a modern context is sufficient information on its own. Campagnolo Daytona was a 9s group at the Centaur level (around Shimano 105). Due to trademark disputes, it was renamed Centaur. I think there wasn't a 10s Daytona group, and that there were both 9s and 10s Centaur groups.
For interest, [Velotech](https://www.velotech-cycling.ltd.uk/campagnolo_faq.shtml) in the UK is a Campag (the UK nickname) service center, and it has a detailed FAQ last updated in 2021. Vecchio's in Boulder, CO, and Branford Bike in Seattle, WA may be considered unofficial US Campy service centers. You may also know some local shops.
EPS (electronic shifting)
-------------------------
Fortunately, this is easier. v1, v2, and v3 all are 11s, so make sure to say the version number. Of interest, Athena had an EPS group, but the entire groupset was discontinued, and Campagnolo then limited EPS to Super Record.
v4 is the 12s Super Record version, and there aren't further revisions at the time of writing. It's limited to Super Record for now.
12 and 13 speed
---------------
At the time of writing, there has not been time for an update of the 12s groups. Campy introduced 12s components in 2019, and the Ekar 1x13 group in 2020.
I have no insider information, but manufacturers have generally observed a 4-5 year update cycle. Thus, I'd expect some sort of update to the 12s groups in 2023 or 2024. They filed patents for a semi-wireless electronic group recently, so it seems like they might update the EPS groups to be wireless from the shifters to the derailleurs at some point. They presumably have the technical capability to build a 2x13s groupset, but I'm not sure if they will update their 12s groups in this round of revisions.
---
For nostalgia, the photo below is the very first generation of 10s Record shifters. It has "Carbon BB system" printed on the lever body by the point of the hood. That's a reference to the square taper BB having a carbon shell to save weight (Chorus never got this feature at any time).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8Ehf.jpg)
And below is the mid-2000s version of the Record levers, which got the carbon spring carrier in the lever (plus carbon RD pulley cage and carbon FD cage).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fsgqs.jpg) |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The "Claim" makes little sense from a purely theoretical basis:
People forget what fiduciary action is. The leadership of a corporation whose stock you hold is legally bound to make you money when that is permissible, reasonable and within their charter. If they are getting away with behaving outside those bounds, they are nonetheless doing so on behalf of their owners. Mitt Romney aside, they are not people, they have no will of their own, their will is your will.
The purpose of a corporation is to earn for its stockholders, to be as valuable as possible in the long run. If you buy stock in the corporation, it is then acting on your behalf. By choosing agents you already know to be corrupt, with no intention of directly acting to reform them, you are choosing to profit from evil doing.
Where you buy the stock is irrelevant. In itself the stock represents approval of the company and acceptance of its leadership. What is relevant is how long you hold it, and what you do with any increase in its value.
I understand that in practice, people see investing as loaning money, and one does not accept the moral burdens of one's creditors. But that is not really what is going on, and I think we would all do better to see fiduciary agency as what it is. | Firstly, the possible objection you raise does not really hold up since the market should price in such perceived liquidity issues, forcing the initial offer price of company Y to be as attractive as company Z.
There is a third scenario which you do not mention. Buying shares in evil company X allows you to do two things :
* Invest dividends receivable into organizations which counter the activities of company X
* Attend annual meetings and vote on company proposals in such a way as to encourage company X to change its ways, or at least minimize its negative impact.
**EDIT**
Following our comments, here is my view of the situation.
Both companies will achieve full funding, it is just that the owners of evil company Y may need to give up more *equity* (a larger share) to prospective share holders than will good company Z. Both companies will be able to fully their planned activities.
Let's say company Y and company Z have similar prospects and similar funding requirements. Let's say the owners of both companies wish to issue 30% of equity in the IPO in order to achieve full funding. Now the underwriters say, wait a second company Y, your poor reputation may result in fewer buyers for your shares so we are going to demand a 15% discount (or something similar). To cover this shortfall the owners of company Y would be forced to issue 34.5% of equity ( 34.5% = 30% + 15% of 30% ) while company Z only needs 30% of equity. This makes the owners of company Y slightly less well off (retaining just 65.5% of equity compared to company Z's owners retaining 70%) but in no way does this change their company's prospects for success.
Evil company Y and good company Z will each succeed according to their own merits and their market value will ultimately depend on this success. They will both be fully funded following the IPOs.
I am assuming Y and Z are competitors within the same industry. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The argument seems to lump all behaviors into one of three groups: moral, immoral, or neutral. It also assumes a tremendous amount of isolation. All of the decisions are based on dollars. Very little went to the question of what it means to own stock in X in the first place.
I do not see any reason why a person needs to be "consistent" in their attitude towards a company's products and their stock, though consistency does make defending a moral position much simpler. I can think of a few positions where morality makes sense, even when it appear inconsistent when viewed in a vacuum:
* I may not like company X's process to produce widgets, so I don't buy them, but they provide me the best ROI for the creation of wealth for me to use for good.
* I may not like Company X's process to produce widges, but they're part of the SP500, and its hard to invest in "SP500 - Company X," so the strain of avoiding company X on the stock market limits the energy I have to do good with the results of my investments.
* I'll use company X's widgets, because they're the best on the market, but I wont take ownership of the company (which is what stock implies).
* I have company X's stock because I'm engaging in a hostile corporate takeover to change their practices.
In all of those cases, the larger complex of interactions starts to make the measure of morality more complicated. | If, as you stated, "Company X is evil", then you should not buy shares in that company, because to do so would ally you with evil.
However, your claim and argument are very loosely, even sloppily worded.
"various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets", in the Scenario suddenly transforms to "Since Company X is evil" in the Argument.
These two things are not even remotely alike, and draws my attention to the practical matter of opportunity.
But first, let's take a look at at "evil". It is a four letter Anglo-Saxon word, and for nearly a thousand years its meaning has been generally agreed upon.
Have a look at Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil>
Note: "complete opposite of good" and "profound immorality". Also, "supernatural".
In a practical sense, there is no "Company X" with (a) shares that can be purchased by citizens of North America, and (b) is "evil" in any general sense.
The only Company X's that would meet your conditions are companies that are "evil" in a very particular, and very political sense. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The answer to the main question is **yes**. It is immoral for **an individual** to buy stock from a company that, **he knows**, does "immoral" things.
The "claim" is false. It is **not morally permissible** to go through third parties to try to escape **personal** responsibility!
If you happen to own the stock of said immoral company, you need to sell it immediately. I disagree that such action is morally "neutral."
Since the person buying your stock is already immoral (by default), you would decrease the total existing immorality by one (you are no longer immoral). If enough people do likewise, the **number of immoral people** holding the company's stock **will decrease**. If they end up selling less and less widgets, they will soon be out of business. | First of all, I apologize if I **sound** **dogmatic**, but under the light of the Marxian analysis, the selling or buying stock **itself** is the **abbreviated** **production process** as is G ( gold ( **input=investment** )) --> W (=Work=Production process) --->G' ( **Increased** gold **after** selling the products ). So **it does not matter** if the subjective company is evil or not. It is jut a **natural conduct** under the capitalistic mode of the production ( Capital Vol 3 ). Simply saying it is **[\*\*fetishism](http://www.essaysforstudent.com/essays/Exchange-Value-And-Commodity-Fetishism/27640.html)**\*\* to acquire **more money** ( or more simply saying **pursuing more money under whatever circumstance it is**. ). G ( Gold ) ---> G' ( **more** gold ). Only under the capitalistic mode of the production the stock market ( same with currency market, bond market, etc etc ) is the place where people **pursuit** abbreviating the **work-production-process** ( since here is **the source of the wealth, but it takes time** ) to obtain **more money**, thus called fetishism to **money** the **[mammon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon)**. So to me, if the nature of the company of the target stock is evil or not **does not matter at all.**
PS：Here, I would like to clarify by bringing about an **example**.
About the **[fetishism](http://www.essaysforstudent.com/essays/Exchange-Value-And-Commodity-Fetishism/27640.html)** to the money the mammon. I mean here money ( or whatever the form it can be ( such as interest )) become the **commodity**.
**Example**: **[Option](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_%28finance%29)** of stocks. Of option, there is a **[call option](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_option)** of for example, **Dow Index**. And there is a counterpart, **[the Put](http://www.theoptionsguide.com/options-premium.aspx)** to the Dow Index call option. If the target price of the call option of Dow Index is 18,000, then more and more the Dow goes up near to 18,000, the less and less the premium of the counterpart Put will be. If the Dow hits above 18,000, the call option holder can exercise the right, while the holder of the Put owes incalculable debt. ***Then is there a problem of evil or good here?*** None. Just the matter of lose or win. Here the money can be the **commodity**. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The answer to the main question is **yes**. It is immoral for **an individual** to buy stock from a company that, **he knows**, does "immoral" things.
The "claim" is false. It is **not morally permissible** to go through third parties to try to escape **personal** responsibility!
If you happen to own the stock of said immoral company, you need to sell it immediately. I disagree that such action is morally "neutral."
Since the person buying your stock is already immoral (by default), you would decrease the total existing immorality by one (you are no longer immoral). If enough people do likewise, the **number of immoral people** holding the company's stock **will decrease**. If they end up selling less and less widgets, they will soon be out of business. | If, as you stated, "Company X is evil", then you should not buy shares in that company, because to do so would ally you with evil.
However, your claim and argument are very loosely, even sloppily worded.
"various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets", in the Scenario suddenly transforms to "Since Company X is evil" in the Argument.
These two things are not even remotely alike, and draws my attention to the practical matter of opportunity.
But first, let's take a look at at "evil". It is a four letter Anglo-Saxon word, and for nearly a thousand years its meaning has been generally agreed upon.
Have a look at Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil>
Note: "complete opposite of good" and "profound immorality". Also, "supernatural".
In a practical sense, there is no "Company X" with (a) shares that can be purchased by citizens of North America, and (b) is "evil" in any general sense.
The only Company X's that would meet your conditions are companies that are "evil" in a very particular, and very political sense. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The "Claim" makes little sense from a purely theoretical basis:
People forget what fiduciary action is. The leadership of a corporation whose stock you hold is legally bound to make you money when that is permissible, reasonable and within their charter. If they are getting away with behaving outside those bounds, they are nonetheless doing so on behalf of their owners. Mitt Romney aside, they are not people, they have no will of their own, their will is your will.
The purpose of a corporation is to earn for its stockholders, to be as valuable as possible in the long run. If you buy stock in the corporation, it is then acting on your behalf. By choosing agents you already know to be corrupt, with no intention of directly acting to reform them, you are choosing to profit from evil doing.
Where you buy the stock is irrelevant. In itself the stock represents approval of the company and acceptance of its leadership. What is relevant is how long you hold it, and what you do with any increase in its value.
I understand that in practice, people see investing as loaning money, and one does not accept the moral burdens of one's creditors. But that is not really what is going on, and I think we would all do better to see fiduciary agency as what it is. | If, as you stated, "Company X is evil", then you should not buy shares in that company, because to do so would ally you with evil.
However, your claim and argument are very loosely, even sloppily worded.
"various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets", in the Scenario suddenly transforms to "Since Company X is evil" in the Argument.
These two things are not even remotely alike, and draws my attention to the practical matter of opportunity.
But first, let's take a look at at "evil". It is a four letter Anglo-Saxon word, and for nearly a thousand years its meaning has been generally agreed upon.
Have a look at Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil>
Note: "complete opposite of good" and "profound immorality". Also, "supernatural".
In a practical sense, there is no "Company X" with (a) shares that can be purchased by citizens of North America, and (b) is "evil" in any general sense.
The only Company X's that would meet your conditions are companies that are "evil" in a very particular, and very political sense. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | Firstly, the possible objection you raise does not really hold up since the market should price in such perceived liquidity issues, forcing the initial offer price of company Y to be as attractive as company Z.
There is a third scenario which you do not mention. Buying shares in evil company X allows you to do two things :
* Invest dividends receivable into organizations which counter the activities of company X
* Attend annual meetings and vote on company proposals in such a way as to encourage company X to change its ways, or at least minimize its negative impact.
**EDIT**
Following our comments, here is my view of the situation.
Both companies will achieve full funding, it is just that the owners of evil company Y may need to give up more *equity* (a larger share) to prospective share holders than will good company Z. Both companies will be able to fully their planned activities.
Let's say company Y and company Z have similar prospects and similar funding requirements. Let's say the owners of both companies wish to issue 30% of equity in the IPO in order to achieve full funding. Now the underwriters say, wait a second company Y, your poor reputation may result in fewer buyers for your shares so we are going to demand a 15% discount (or something similar). To cover this shortfall the owners of company Y would be forced to issue 34.5% of equity ( 34.5% = 30% + 15% of 30% ) while company Z only needs 30% of equity. This makes the owners of company Y slightly less well off (retaining just 65.5% of equity compared to company Z's owners retaining 70%) but in no way does this change their company's prospects for success.
Evil company Y and good company Z will each succeed according to their own merits and their market value will ultimately depend on this success. They will both be fully funded following the IPOs.
I am assuming Y and Z are competitors within the same industry. | If, as you stated, "Company X is evil", then you should not buy shares in that company, because to do so would ally you with evil.
However, your claim and argument are very loosely, even sloppily worded.
"various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets", in the Scenario suddenly transforms to "Since Company X is evil" in the Argument.
These two things are not even remotely alike, and draws my attention to the practical matter of opportunity.
But first, let's take a look at at "evil". It is a four letter Anglo-Saxon word, and for nearly a thousand years its meaning has been generally agreed upon.
Have a look at Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil>
Note: "complete opposite of good" and "profound immorality". Also, "supernatural".
In a practical sense, there is no "Company X" with (a) shares that can be purchased by citizens of North America, and (b) is "evil" in any general sense.
The only Company X's that would meet your conditions are companies that are "evil" in a very particular, and very political sense. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | Firstly, the possible objection you raise does not really hold up since the market should price in such perceived liquidity issues, forcing the initial offer price of company Y to be as attractive as company Z.
There is a third scenario which you do not mention. Buying shares in evil company X allows you to do two things :
* Invest dividends receivable into organizations which counter the activities of company X
* Attend annual meetings and vote on company proposals in such a way as to encourage company X to change its ways, or at least minimize its negative impact.
**EDIT**
Following our comments, here is my view of the situation.
Both companies will achieve full funding, it is just that the owners of evil company Y may need to give up more *equity* (a larger share) to prospective share holders than will good company Z. Both companies will be able to fully their planned activities.
Let's say company Y and company Z have similar prospects and similar funding requirements. Let's say the owners of both companies wish to issue 30% of equity in the IPO in order to achieve full funding. Now the underwriters say, wait a second company Y, your poor reputation may result in fewer buyers for your shares so we are going to demand a 15% discount (or something similar). To cover this shortfall the owners of company Y would be forced to issue 34.5% of equity ( 34.5% = 30% + 15% of 30% ) while company Z only needs 30% of equity. This makes the owners of company Y slightly less well off (retaining just 65.5% of equity compared to company Z's owners retaining 70%) but in no way does this change their company's prospects for success.
Evil company Y and good company Z will each succeed according to their own merits and their market value will ultimately depend on this success. They will both be fully funded following the IPOs.
I am assuming Y and Z are competitors within the same industry. | It can be worse than immoral. It can be immoral and hypocritical, for example when an organisation like the Church of England invests money in a company whose whole purpose is to cynically exploit the poorest citizens of the country with all means, legal or illegal, as the "payday loan" company Wonga.
And I mean "invest money". If you just buy or sell shares of a company on the stock market, the company itself is very little affected by that purchase. However, in this case the Church of England actually gave money to this evil company so they could build their business. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The "Claim" makes little sense from a purely theoretical basis:
People forget what fiduciary action is. The leadership of a corporation whose stock you hold is legally bound to make you money when that is permissible, reasonable and within their charter. If they are getting away with behaving outside those bounds, they are nonetheless doing so on behalf of their owners. Mitt Romney aside, they are not people, they have no will of their own, their will is your will.
The purpose of a corporation is to earn for its stockholders, to be as valuable as possible in the long run. If you buy stock in the corporation, it is then acting on your behalf. By choosing agents you already know to be corrupt, with no intention of directly acting to reform them, you are choosing to profit from evil doing.
Where you buy the stock is irrelevant. In itself the stock represents approval of the company and acceptance of its leadership. What is relevant is how long you hold it, and what you do with any increase in its value.
I understand that in practice, people see investing as loaning money, and one does not accept the moral burdens of one's creditors. But that is not really what is going on, and I think we would all do better to see fiduciary agency as what it is. | The answer to the main question is **yes**. It is immoral for **an individual** to buy stock from a company that, **he knows**, does "immoral" things.
The "claim" is false. It is **not morally permissible** to go through third parties to try to escape **personal** responsibility!
If you happen to own the stock of said immoral company, you need to sell it immediately. I disagree that such action is morally "neutral."
Since the person buying your stock is already immoral (by default), you would decrease the total existing immorality by one (you are no longer immoral). If enough people do likewise, the **number of immoral people** holding the company's stock **will decrease**. If they end up selling less and less widgets, they will soon be out of business. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The argument seems to lump all behaviors into one of three groups: moral, immoral, or neutral. It also assumes a tremendous amount of isolation. All of the decisions are based on dollars. Very little went to the question of what it means to own stock in X in the first place.
I do not see any reason why a person needs to be "consistent" in their attitude towards a company's products and their stock, though consistency does make defending a moral position much simpler. I can think of a few positions where morality makes sense, even when it appear inconsistent when viewed in a vacuum:
* I may not like company X's process to produce widgets, so I don't buy them, but they provide me the best ROI for the creation of wealth for me to use for good.
* I may not like Company X's process to produce widges, but they're part of the SP500, and its hard to invest in "SP500 - Company X," so the strain of avoiding company X on the stock market limits the energy I have to do good with the results of my investments.
* I'll use company X's widgets, because they're the best on the market, but I wont take ownership of the company (which is what stock implies).
* I have company X's stock because I'm engaging in a hostile corporate takeover to change their practices.
In all of those cases, the larger complex of interactions starts to make the measure of morality more complicated. | The answer to the main question is **yes**. It is immoral for **an individual** to buy stock from a company that, **he knows**, does "immoral" things.
The "claim" is false. It is **not morally permissible** to go through third parties to try to escape **personal** responsibility!
If you happen to own the stock of said immoral company, you need to sell it immediately. I disagree that such action is morally "neutral."
Since the person buying your stock is already immoral (by default), you would decrease the total existing immorality by one (you are no longer immoral). If enough people do likewise, the **number of immoral people** holding the company's stock **will decrease**. If they end up selling less and less widgets, they will soon be out of business. |
17,690 | **Scenario.**
I have decided that I should not buy widgets from Company X because I do not want to support various immoral things Company X does to produce said widgets.
**Claim.** It is nonetheless morally permissible for me to buy stock in Company X, as long as I am buying that stock from a third party (ie, not from Company X itself or any subsidiary).
**Argument.**
First, let's ask: what should I do if I happen to already own stock in Company X? As a shareholder, I regularly receive money from Company X as dividends. Since Company X is evil, this money I receive seems "tainted." What can I do?
*Action:* Sell the stock to someone else (or give it to them for free).
*Result:* Someone else now receives the "tainted" dividends. This seems to be a morally neutral outcome.
OR
*Action:* Refuse the dividends, or give the stock back to Company X, or sell the stock back to Company X at a discounted value. (Assume for the sake of argument that Company X is not interested in buying the stock for its true value.)
*Result:* Company X gets to keep more of their money. This is like giving them free money (even worse than buying their widgets!).
**Comment.** When Company X first went public and put its stock for sale, it was immoral to buy that stock (since Company X would receive the money). Some people bought the stock, anyway, and that's a done deal. Now, I argue, there is no moral difference between one person owning the stock and a different person owning the stock, and it is morally negative to return the stock back to Company X. Therefore, it is permissible for me to buy stock from a third party.
**Possible objection.** Suppose 50% of people scrupulously refuse to buy stock in Company X, even from third parties, and 50% act out of self-interest and do not worry about supporting evil companies. When Company Y (also evil) goes public, the scrupulous 50% refuse to buy stock; the self-interested 50%, who would have been willing to buy, are then more likely to instead buy stock in non-evil Company Z (also going public), since there are twice as many potential buyers of that stock should they decide to sell it in the future. Thus, while buying stock in Company X from a third party does not benefit Company X, it does benefit rising new evil companies that have yet to go public.
Thoughts?
EDIT. I think most people's (myself included) gut reaction is to say that **buying** Company X stock or **holding** Company X stock that one already happens to own is morally negative, while **selling** it is morally positive. As an objection to this position, consider the following:
*Scenario.* 50% of investors decide to be scrupulous and follow this position, while 50% follow self-interest only.
*Result.* Whatever Company X stock is currently held by the scrupulous 50% will eventually be sold to people among the self-interested 50%, because every scrupulous person will feel obligated to **sell** (positive) and not **hold** (negative) or **buy** (negative).
*Comment.* When scrupulous people were shareholders of Company X, they had more power to demand change in Company X's behavior. Now the shareholders are self-interested people who are less likely to demand change. Thus, the outcome is morally negative. | 2014/10/19 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17690",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/10476/"
] | The "Claim" makes little sense from a purely theoretical basis:
People forget what fiduciary action is. The leadership of a corporation whose stock you hold is legally bound to make you money when that is permissible, reasonable and within their charter. If they are getting away with behaving outside those bounds, they are nonetheless doing so on behalf of their owners. Mitt Romney aside, they are not people, they have no will of their own, their will is your will.
The purpose of a corporation is to earn for its stockholders, to be as valuable as possible in the long run. If you buy stock in the corporation, it is then acting on your behalf. By choosing agents you already know to be corrupt, with no intention of directly acting to reform them, you are choosing to profit from evil doing.
Where you buy the stock is irrelevant. In itself the stock represents approval of the company and acceptance of its leadership. What is relevant is how long you hold it, and what you do with any increase in its value.
I understand that in practice, people see investing as loaning money, and one does not accept the moral burdens of one's creditors. But that is not really what is going on, and I think we would all do better to see fiduciary agency as what it is. | The argument seems to lump all behaviors into one of three groups: moral, immoral, or neutral. It also assumes a tremendous amount of isolation. All of the decisions are based on dollars. Very little went to the question of what it means to own stock in X in the first place.
I do not see any reason why a person needs to be "consistent" in their attitude towards a company's products and their stock, though consistency does make defending a moral position much simpler. I can think of a few positions where morality makes sense, even when it appear inconsistent when viewed in a vacuum:
* I may not like company X's process to produce widgets, so I don't buy them, but they provide me the best ROI for the creation of wealth for me to use for good.
* I may not like Company X's process to produce widges, but they're part of the SP500, and its hard to invest in "SP500 - Company X," so the strain of avoiding company X on the stock market limits the energy I have to do good with the results of my investments.
* I'll use company X's widgets, because they're the best on the market, but I wont take ownership of the company (which is what stock implies).
* I have company X's stock because I'm engaging in a hostile corporate takeover to change their practices.
In all of those cases, the larger complex of interactions starts to make the measure of morality more complicated. |
356,827 | If I want to build up a sentence like;
"If you don't have a gift idea and want to pay much."
Does this "not" make both verbs (have - want) negative? It seems like it works but I still have doubts about it. Or what is the correct form of this grammar ? | 2016/11/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/356827",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31739/"
] | **Sensory Memory**. Smell is called [olfactory memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfactory_memory), touch is called [haptic memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_memory), hearing is called [echoic memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory), and image is called [iconic memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconic_memory). Oddly, there doesn't seem to be a term for taste memory. Another term of interest is [eidetic memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory). Eidetic memory (unlike the link's description) can be applied to all the senses, and it refers to the strong, sometimes overwhelming and debilitating, welling up of memories caused by some recent stimulus. I have a good friend with this condition. | There is the term [**involuntary memory**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_memory) that is the *memory that occurs when cues encountered in everyday life evoke recollections of the past without conscious effort.*
This is most notably described by Marcel Proust in his novel [*Remembrance of Things Past*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Lost_Time). Notably, he describes an incident where the taste of a madeleine cake dipped in tea brings forth memories of his youth.
However, this specific scenario (though not necessarily the entire range of *involuntary memory*) occurs when a taste (in this case) brings back other memories, vs something bringing back the memory of a taste/smell. |
10,341,714 | my question is quite simple :
does google have an in app purchase service which , after the purchasing process is complete , will download the purchased content ?
if not , is there any other alternative?
the reason for this is to make the app as small as possible instead of having all of the purchased content within the app .
a possible solution for this would be to use the extension library and download only a partial chunk from there , but that's too complex and for most devices the entire extension will be downloaded while downloading the app itself through the market. | 2012/04/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10341714",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/878126/"
] | What I've frequently seen is to provide your extra content as another app download in the playstore, which then uses IPC to communicate/transfer that extra content to the main app.
I've seen video players, for example, request that you download a secondary app to get specific codecs. Once the user has downloaded the codec app, and it has transferred its codecs to the video player app, the user can remove the codec app.
In your case, you'd have an extra step of performing a managed in-app purchase before your app would agree to communicate with the extra-content app.
It's a clunky user experience, but other than paying for a dedicated web host to serve your extra content, it is the only option at this point. | Yes.
It is also fully documented on android's developer repository, complete with guides on how to set it up, etc. Obviously if you utilize google they will take a cut. But if you made your own, you would still have to give a portion to your credit card processor. Best of luck:
<http://developer.android.com/guide/market/billing/index.html>
Amazon's android app market also offers a similar service.
**EDIT**
"---after the purchasing process is complete will download the purchased content" :: NO <-- to that part. You have to handle that with your own webserver. Only the original app content is hosted on Google Play for you. |
112,979 | What's the difference between white sugar and (pure) refined sugar and which one is better for baking?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p0hjS.jpg) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vmWkg.jpg) | 2020/12/04 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3362/"
] | These are technical terms that are meaningful only in the original Thai. The English translations are meaningless and have no relevance to cooking.
<http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2552/E/132/15.PDF>
So you should say 'น้ำตาลทรายขาว' ('white sugar') and 'น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ' ('refined sugar')
น้ำตาลทรายขาว is further divided into 3 classes.
This results in 4 grades:
1. น้ำตาลทรายขาว grade 3 99.0% sucrose by ISS standard, 0.2% max reducing sugars
2. น้ำตาลทรายขาว grade 2 99.5%, 0.1% max reducing sugars
3. น้ำตาลทรายขาว grade 1 99.5%, 0.1% max reducing sugars
4. น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ 99.8%, 0.04% max reducing sugars
Max humidity and conductivity ash each then then 0.1% for น้ำตาลทรายขาว, and 0.04% for น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ.
These numbers are almost certainly useless to the cook.
The FAO has more useful standard names:
<http://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/338/CXS_212e_u.pdf>
* white sugar - 99.7% pure sucrose
* Plantation or mill white sugar - 99.5% pure sucrose
* icing sugar - white sugar which has been finely powdered
* soft white sugar - Fine grain purified moist sugar, white in colour with a
sucrose plus invert sugar content of not less than 97.0%
* Soft brown sugar Fine grain purified moist sugar, light to dark brown in
colour with a sucrose plus invert sugar content of not less
than 88.0% m/m
* Raw cane sugar Partially purified sucrose, which is crystallised from
partially purified cane juice, without further purification,
but which does not preclude centrifugation or drying, and
which is characterised by sucrose crystals covered with a
film of cane molasses.
Both น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ and น้ำตาลทรายขาว are in fact highly refined.
Tesco Lotus charges 22THB for น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ and 21THB for น้ำตาลทรายขาว
However if you refer to
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SADhb.png)
น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ this is 22THB/kg
and this is 34THB/kg
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cIGW1.png)
I believe that legally this is also 'น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ' under Thai classification
Caster sugar may also be referred to as 'superfine' sugar. This is quite different from powdered/icing sugar as it is a process of making small crystals, not of grinding sugar to a powder. The smaller crystal size makes it very good for baking as it blends with butter etc. more easily than larger crystals.
Highly refined sugars as all those mentioned here are not necessarily good in that there are lots of flavours in sugar cane (all Thai sugar is obviously cane sugar), and personally I prefer to make for example banana bread (which is cake, not bread) using completely unrefined aren sugar made from arenga pinnata, which is around 0.5% ash, typically slightly fermented, and contains numerous impurities. The taste of the cake is far better than using highly refined sucrose. I'd probably use dark brown sugar if it were cheaper, but where I live aren is the cheapest so I use that.
In Thailand, Indonesia and probably quite a few other neighbouring countries sugar prices are highly regulated, and the terms น้ำตาลทรายขาว and น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ are likely to reflect political issues both as a key grower and exporter, but also consumer prices. Unregulated sugars for rich consumers could be much more expensive.
It does follow that น้ำตาลทรายขาวบรสิทธุ is slightly higher quality than น้ำตาลทรายขาว, in that the goal of both is simply to be pure sucrose (which actually varies slightly because cane sugar and beet sugar, due to different carbon isotopes), and if you were to choose only one, you might as well have the one with the smallest crystals and highest purity (in that order). But the purity is much less important than crystal size. | Interestingly Tesco don’t seem to have *any* white sugar under their own label in UK stores.
They sell a white British beet sugar and a white cane sugar under the brands ‘Silver Spoon’ and ‘Trade Aid UK’ respectively, but as both of the packets you show are illustrated with sugar canes that is unlikely to be the distinction here.
In the UK market white sugar comes in three types by grain size: ‘granulated’, ‘caster’ and ‘icing’.
Of those, ‘caster’ is generally recommended
>
> Caster sugar has more finely ground crystals than granulated sugar, which means that it can dissolve faster than granulated sugar in creamed mixtures, whips, and more. Caster sugar is often called for in recipes for delicate baked goods like meringues, souffles, and sponge cakes.
>
>
> Because of its ability to dissolve easily, caster sugar is also frequently used for sweetening drinks. Many bartenders use caster sugar in place of simple syrup when making cocktails. [Source](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/2584/what-is-caster-sugar.html)
>
>
>
There is not enough detail in your images for us to tell if grain size is the difference between these two sugars, but if it *is*, the smaller would be better for baking. Remember however that if you are measuring by volume rather than weight, you may need to adjust as finer granules will pack tighter.
Tesco in the UK are usually quite good at answering customer’s queries via Twitter or email and should be able to answer more definitively. |
44,057 | Are there some differences in sentences
>
> *You've got to be strong*.
>
>
>
and
>
> *You should be strong.*
>
>
>
Are they the same? | 2014/12/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/44057",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/3431/"
] | There are things we *need* to do, and there are things we *should* do. Think of "needs" as requirements, while "shoulds" are recommendations.
So, if you want to convey that it is absolutely essential to remain strong, use one of these:
>
> We need to be strong.
>
> We must be strong.
>
> We've got to be strong.
>
>
>
On the other hand, if you are recommending that we remain strong, use one of these:
>
> We should be strong.
>
> We ought to be strong.
>
>
>
And if you want to express confidence that our strength will not falter:
>
> We will remain strong.
>
> We shall remain strong.
>
>
> | Their meanings are the same, but their use contexts are slightly different.
While both mean roughly the same thing ('you need to become stronger'), 'you've got to' is more impassioned and more personal (and slightly more informal) than 'you should'. |
44,057 | Are there some differences in sentences
>
> *You've got to be strong*.
>
>
>
and
>
> *You should be strong.*
>
>
>
Are they the same? | 2014/12/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/44057",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/3431/"
] | There are things we *need* to do, and there are things we *should* do. Think of "needs" as requirements, while "shoulds" are recommendations.
So, if you want to convey that it is absolutely essential to remain strong, use one of these:
>
> We need to be strong.
>
> We must be strong.
>
> We've got to be strong.
>
>
>
On the other hand, if you are recommending that we remain strong, use one of these:
>
> We should be strong.
>
> We ought to be strong.
>
>
>
And if you want to express confidence that our strength will not falter:
>
> We will remain strong.
>
> We shall remain strong.
>
>
> | They're not the same.
>
> You've got to be strong.
>
>
>
This means that you *need* to be strong, that is that strength is a mandatory requirement for the situation.
This expression is often used in reference to emotional strength needed to weather a current or expected crisis, though of course it can refer to physical strength.
>
> You should be strong.
>
>
>
This could be interpreted in more than one way depending on the context. It could mean that strength is desirable but perhaps not necessary if you have other qualities that apply. For example you could win a fight using brute strength or by using superior speed to knock out your opponent before they have a chance to use their superior strength. In my experience this expression is much less likely to be applied to emotional strength: you might say "You've got to be strong to cope with a divorce", but you wouldn't say "You should be strong to cope with a divorce." |
50,649 | I want to stack x number of photos to incrase the exposure of the final image. But I need to do it manually, I mean, using Photoshop but without using wizards.
My approach would be using a layer for each photo and aplying an alpha for each layer. I want every photo has the same weight in the final image, so it must be the same alpha.
My question is this:
If I apply eg. 50% opacity to each one, every photo will have the same weight, but I'll can see the empty background because every one are semi-transparent. To avoid this, should I have a photo with 100% opacity? If so, that photo will have more weight on the final image, something I don't want...
Do you get my point? Any idea?
Thanks in advance! | 2014/05/30 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/50649",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/28339/"
] | When you set the opacity of a layer 50%, what you get is 50% of that layer, and 50% of all the layers underneath it combined.
For this reason you should set the bottom layer to 100%, then layer above that to 50%. Now you have a perfect balance of the two layers. The layer above that should be set to 33%, meaning your image is one-third that layer and two thirds of an even blend of the bottom two layers. The next layer above that should be set to 25% and so on.
Unfortunately you can only specify opacity in whole numbers so you start to introduce a bias that gets worse the more layers you add. One solution to this is to stack as many layers as you can, and then merge those layers and make the result 100%, then start again by placing the next layer on top of that at 50%.
Needless to say you should set your image to 16-bit mode when stacking to avoid rounding errors. | Do you mean like a multiple exposure? If so you want to not have a blank background layer but instead only have photo layers. To do that you can select your x images and open them as layers. I don't have LR or PS in front of me on this computer but in LR you can select multiple images and open them as layers in the same document. Similarly this can be done with a multiple selection from Bridge too. I found this tutorial on doing it directly from PS: [enter link description here](http://digitalchemy.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/photoshop-import-multiple-images-into-one-layered-document/ "Import Multiple Images into one Layered Document")
Once you have done that you will no longer have a blank white bottom layer. After that you can play with the opacity to make the effect you want. If you have more than 2 images 50% is probably not what you want but I am sure you can play around and get what you want once you have the images in layers.
The more I think about it the more I seem to remember that the bottom layer does not need a changes in opacity just the ones above it. |
7,552 | I don't see why we shouldn't have Coffee.SE at least an option for people to vote up as an SE community we advertise for on P.SE
Can anybody (perhaps Robert Cartaino the diamond that deleted the post) tell me why it was removed? If not, I intend to just add it back, I think we definitely should be advertising Coffee.SE on P.SE..
[10k link to see the original but deleted coffee.SE community ad](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7177/35276) | 2015/08/20 | [
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7552",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/users/35276/"
] | If we cannot have a coffee ad, then we cannot use the current site icon either.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zjmuv.png)
All or nothing. | I don't agree with the decision to delete the ad. [Coffee is a fundamental portion of the lives of many programmers](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7547/is-every-day-coffee-day). We discuss it in [The Whiteboard](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/21/the-whiteboard) often.
[@RobertCartarino states:](https://coffee.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97/what-should-a-community-ad-for-coffee-stackexchange-look-like/100#comment1149_100)
>
> @fredley The community-driven advertisements/bulletins have to be at least roughly aligned with the topic of the community. This advertisement is not appropriate for Programmers SE.
>
>
>
I don't agree with this statement on both counts:
1. I don't agree that it isn't roughly aligned with with the topic of the community.
* This community is about issues that directly concern Programmers as idea people and thinkers, and *many* of us would not have ideas nor be able to think without coffee.
2. I don't agree that it should have to be roughly aligned with the topic of the community.
* Programmers are people in addition being bots that transform coffee and pizza into code. We have lives just like everyone else.
* If we, as a community, have overwhelming support for an ad to another community, we should be made available to that community.
Recently, [@abbyhairboat](https://coffee.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1156) wrote:
>
> Why limit the hunt to Seasoned Advice?
>
>
> Sure, they get coffee questions, and that's why you've got a community promotion ad up there. But what if we try thinking beyond "where are the coffee questions and how do we get them here?", and instead, think: "where are the coffee people and how do we get them here?".
>
>
> **What kind of people are coffee Q&A people? Millions of people drink coffee, but what we're looking for here is coffee hobbyists, not just drinkers.** People who like to experiment with brewing methods, spend money on gear, and optimize for various qualities. They aren't just coffee drinkers - they're coffee tinkerers. So people who might be drawn to this site are tinkerers in other fields who dabble in coffee (among many other likely hobbies).
>
>
>
This statement applies just as much here as it does to Seasoned Advice.
We should be able to have this Community Ad.
-------------------------------------------- |
7,552 | I don't see why we shouldn't have Coffee.SE at least an option for people to vote up as an SE community we advertise for on P.SE
Can anybody (perhaps Robert Cartaino the diamond that deleted the post) tell me why it was removed? If not, I intend to just add it back, I think we definitely should be advertising Coffee.SE on P.SE..
[10k link to see the original but deleted coffee.SE community ad](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7177/35276) | 2015/08/20 | [
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7552",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/users/35276/"
] | Culturally, caffeine and pizza are part of being a programmer. While it doesn't make for [good main site questions](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/286216/40980) (10k link) coffee, tea and other caffeine delivery mechanisms are a [documented part](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/I/ISO-standard-cup-of-tea.html) of what it is to be a programmer for a significant period of time.
As noted, this is such a culturally significant part of the desk of a programmer, that it is part of the site's design. Think geek has [coffee mugs](http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/mugs-travel/) as a major section of the site.
As noted on the [Community Promotion Ads - 2015](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7070/) you will note the wording:
>
> This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things
>
>
> * ...
> * anything else your community would genuinely be interested in
>
>
> The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join.
>
>
>
If the community is honestly interested in the culture of caffeine intake, then promoting that stack exchange site is well and good. Its an advert on the side of the page - not a main site question.
If, however, the powers that be suggest that this *shouldn't* be the case, I would urge them to get the requisite 125 reputation, participate on the main site and the community here, and vote on the answer. I would similarly encourage them to do the audit of *all* of the other graduated sites and ask themselves why Health.SE is advertised on Gaming and Cooking and Space.SE on Skeptics and then ask if its really worth the trouble of going against the community when it has reached a consensus of what other things they want to advertise given the guidelines we are provided with. | I don't agree with the decision to delete the ad. [Coffee is a fundamental portion of the lives of many programmers](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7547/is-every-day-coffee-day). We discuss it in [The Whiteboard](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/21/the-whiteboard) often.
[@RobertCartarino states:](https://coffee.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97/what-should-a-community-ad-for-coffee-stackexchange-look-like/100#comment1149_100)
>
> @fredley The community-driven advertisements/bulletins have to be at least roughly aligned with the topic of the community. This advertisement is not appropriate for Programmers SE.
>
>
>
I don't agree with this statement on both counts:
1. I don't agree that it isn't roughly aligned with with the topic of the community.
* This community is about issues that directly concern Programmers as idea people and thinkers, and *many* of us would not have ideas nor be able to think without coffee.
2. I don't agree that it should have to be roughly aligned with the topic of the community.
* Programmers are people in addition being bots that transform coffee and pizza into code. We have lives just like everyone else.
* If we, as a community, have overwhelming support for an ad to another community, we should be made available to that community.
Recently, [@abbyhairboat](https://coffee.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1156) wrote:
>
> Why limit the hunt to Seasoned Advice?
>
>
> Sure, they get coffee questions, and that's why you've got a community promotion ad up there. But what if we try thinking beyond "where are the coffee questions and how do we get them here?", and instead, think: "where are the coffee people and how do we get them here?".
>
>
> **What kind of people are coffee Q&A people? Millions of people drink coffee, but what we're looking for here is coffee hobbyists, not just drinkers.** People who like to experiment with brewing methods, spend money on gear, and optimize for various qualities. They aren't just coffee drinkers - they're coffee tinkerers. So people who might be drawn to this site are tinkerers in other fields who dabble in coffee (among many other likely hobbies).
>
>
>
This statement applies just as much here as it does to Seasoned Advice.
We should be able to have this Community Ad.
-------------------------------------------- |
7,552 | I don't see why we shouldn't have Coffee.SE at least an option for people to vote up as an SE community we advertise for on P.SE
Can anybody (perhaps Robert Cartaino the diamond that deleted the post) tell me why it was removed? If not, I intend to just add it back, I think we definitely should be advertising Coffee.SE on P.SE..
[10k link to see the original but deleted coffee.SE community ad](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7177/35276) | 2015/08/20 | [
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7552",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/users/35276/"
] | No problem, I restored the ad (actually, I see another copy has already been posted).
Typically I will remove ads and comments soliciting users for ***proposals*** unless they are *directly* related to the subject of the site. With thousands of proposals vying for attention, supporters can sometimes get a bit overzealous in blanketing sites with their "soft spam" campaign, so we don't allow that. But I think we can afford to be a more open to a bit of cross-promotion between established *communities* simply trying to reach out to their fellow core audiences. I just got those wire crossed. | I don't agree with the decision to delete the ad. [Coffee is a fundamental portion of the lives of many programmers](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7547/is-every-day-coffee-day). We discuss it in [The Whiteboard](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/21/the-whiteboard) often.
[@RobertCartarino states:](https://coffee.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/97/what-should-a-community-ad-for-coffee-stackexchange-look-like/100#comment1149_100)
>
> @fredley The community-driven advertisements/bulletins have to be at least roughly aligned with the topic of the community. This advertisement is not appropriate for Programmers SE.
>
>
>
I don't agree with this statement on both counts:
1. I don't agree that it isn't roughly aligned with with the topic of the community.
* This community is about issues that directly concern Programmers as idea people and thinkers, and *many* of us would not have ideas nor be able to think without coffee.
2. I don't agree that it should have to be roughly aligned with the topic of the community.
* Programmers are people in addition being bots that transform coffee and pizza into code. We have lives just like everyone else.
* If we, as a community, have overwhelming support for an ad to another community, we should be made available to that community.
Recently, [@abbyhairboat](https://coffee.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1156) wrote:
>
> Why limit the hunt to Seasoned Advice?
>
>
> Sure, they get coffee questions, and that's why you've got a community promotion ad up there. But what if we try thinking beyond "where are the coffee questions and how do we get them here?", and instead, think: "where are the coffee people and how do we get them here?".
>
>
> **What kind of people are coffee Q&A people? Millions of people drink coffee, but what we're looking for here is coffee hobbyists, not just drinkers.** People who like to experiment with brewing methods, spend money on gear, and optimize for various qualities. They aren't just coffee drinkers - they're coffee tinkerers. So people who might be drawn to this site are tinkerers in other fields who dabble in coffee (among many other likely hobbies).
>
>
>
This statement applies just as much here as it does to Seasoned Advice.
We should be able to have this Community Ad.
-------------------------------------------- |
7,552 | I don't see why we shouldn't have Coffee.SE at least an option for people to vote up as an SE community we advertise for on P.SE
Can anybody (perhaps Robert Cartaino the diamond that deleted the post) tell me why it was removed? If not, I intend to just add it back, I think we definitely should be advertising Coffee.SE on P.SE..
[10k link to see the original but deleted coffee.SE community ad](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7177/35276) | 2015/08/20 | [
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7552",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/users/35276/"
] | If we cannot have a coffee ad, then we cannot use the current site icon either.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zjmuv.png)
All or nothing. | Culturally, caffeine and pizza are part of being a programmer. While it doesn't make for [good main site questions](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/286216/40980) (10k link) coffee, tea and other caffeine delivery mechanisms are a [documented part](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/I/ISO-standard-cup-of-tea.html) of what it is to be a programmer for a significant period of time.
As noted, this is such a culturally significant part of the desk of a programmer, that it is part of the site's design. Think geek has [coffee mugs](http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/mugs-travel/) as a major section of the site.
As noted on the [Community Promotion Ads - 2015](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7070/) you will note the wording:
>
> This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things
>
>
> * ...
> * anything else your community would genuinely be interested in
>
>
> The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join.
>
>
>
If the community is honestly interested in the culture of caffeine intake, then promoting that stack exchange site is well and good. Its an advert on the side of the page - not a main site question.
If, however, the powers that be suggest that this *shouldn't* be the case, I would urge them to get the requisite 125 reputation, participate on the main site and the community here, and vote on the answer. I would similarly encourage them to do the audit of *all* of the other graduated sites and ask themselves why Health.SE is advertised on Gaming and Cooking and Space.SE on Skeptics and then ask if its really worth the trouble of going against the community when it has reached a consensus of what other things they want to advertise given the guidelines we are provided with. |
7,552 | I don't see why we shouldn't have Coffee.SE at least an option for people to vote up as an SE community we advertise for on P.SE
Can anybody (perhaps Robert Cartaino the diamond that deleted the post) tell me why it was removed? If not, I intend to just add it back, I think we definitely should be advertising Coffee.SE on P.SE..
[10k link to see the original but deleted coffee.SE community ad](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7177/35276) | 2015/08/20 | [
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7552",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/users/35276/"
] | No problem, I restored the ad (actually, I see another copy has already been posted).
Typically I will remove ads and comments soliciting users for ***proposals*** unless they are *directly* related to the subject of the site. With thousands of proposals vying for attention, supporters can sometimes get a bit overzealous in blanketing sites with their "soft spam" campaign, so we don't allow that. But I think we can afford to be a more open to a bit of cross-promotion between established *communities* simply trying to reach out to their fellow core audiences. I just got those wire crossed. | Culturally, caffeine and pizza are part of being a programmer. While it doesn't make for [good main site questions](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/286216/40980) (10k link) coffee, tea and other caffeine delivery mechanisms are a [documented part](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/I/ISO-standard-cup-of-tea.html) of what it is to be a programmer for a significant period of time.
As noted, this is such a culturally significant part of the desk of a programmer, that it is part of the site's design. Think geek has [coffee mugs](http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/mugs-travel/) as a major section of the site.
As noted on the [Community Promotion Ads - 2015](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7070/) you will note the wording:
>
> This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things
>
>
> * ...
> * anything else your community would genuinely be interested in
>
>
> The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join.
>
>
>
If the community is honestly interested in the culture of caffeine intake, then promoting that stack exchange site is well and good. Its an advert on the side of the page - not a main site question.
If, however, the powers that be suggest that this *shouldn't* be the case, I would urge them to get the requisite 125 reputation, participate on the main site and the community here, and vote on the answer. I would similarly encourage them to do the audit of *all* of the other graduated sites and ask themselves why Health.SE is advertised on Gaming and Cooking and Space.SE on Skeptics and then ask if its really worth the trouble of going against the community when it has reached a consensus of what other things they want to advertise given the guidelines we are provided with. |
40,700,752 | I want to develop an Alexa skill that is able to receive free text input from the user that doesn't necessarily map to an intent. Is this possible? | 2016/11/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/40700752",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7583/"
] | No, that is not possible. The closest thing is the 'literal' slot (input) type but that is now deprecated on the original USA region and was never supported on the other regions. | I have found that the custom slots return far more than the provided samples. |
131,414 | I would like to know if Android devices make active or passive scan when looking for the AP to connect. I've already made a test using Wireshark and wifi sniffer and it seems that while an iPhone sends Probe Request frames to discover available APs (active scan), my Android device sometimes sends Probe Request frame, but most of the times it does not send Probe Request frames at all, but waits for the AP to send a Beacon frame (passive scan).
I've been looking for some official info/documentation concerning this topic, but haven't found anything useful yet. I would be very grateful if someone could provide me with the answer to this question. | 2015/12/13 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/131414",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/141177/"
] | The only "official" explanation I found is in [this comment](https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/a5ec95cdb1a7d2024249277dff1f99d0046c9b56) (dated July 2009) in the Git repositories on android:
>
> wifi: **WifiManager.startScan() will now do passive scans by default**.
>
>
> Active scans will only happen if an hidden AP is in use, or if the new method
> *WifiManager.startScanActive()* is called.
>
>
>
The existence of an hidden function to start an active scan (reported [here](https://github.com/mozilla/MozStumbler/issues/40)) suggests that the normal scanning function is indeed passive. This is to be taken with a grain of salt, though, as the Android documentation doesn't explicitly tell if the function *WifiManager.startScan()* is passive or not.
Also related: this two posts on SO ([post 1](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3439811/do-android-devices-scan-actively-for-wifi-networks?rq=1), [post 2](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24670963/how-to-active-scan-wifi-in-android)) report that the scanning activity is passive (post 1) and that since android 4.3 it not even possible to call the active scan method (post 2) - but there is no link to official sources. | I have been searching for the official document for an exact answer too. But I couldn't find any. Hence I'm writing this base my own assumption.
I believe a client device(mobile in this case) does both the active and passive scan.
My reasons are as below:
1. When a mobile activates the WiFi interface, it needs to scan for the beacons by nearby AP so that the available SSIDs will be listed for connection. This is a passive scanning mode.
2. A mobile which has been connected to several SSIDs before will bust the probe request frames(with all the SSIDs) to nearby AP and if the SSID match, the AP will respond to the probe request and the connection/authentication process will begin. This is an active scanning mode.
3. Special case for the AP with hidden SSID. When the user manually connecting to the hidden SSID, the mobile device will generate a probe request and broadcast it to the nearby AP. When the SSID matched any of the AP, it will follow by connection/authentication process. This is an active scanning mode too. |
35,253,597 | I like to retrieve 2014-2015 tweets based on some search key for data mining.
I am using twitter4j(java) and calling API GET search/tweets.I am getting only last week tweets.Can anyone please suggest me the solution? | 2016/02/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35253597",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3244108/"
] | [gnip](https://gnip.com/)
You got to pay for data older than about a week. | Via Gnip, you can order a one-time data pull (called a Historical PowerTrack One-Time Job). You provide the rule, and a data file will be sent back to you with download directions.
You can learn more about Historical PowerTrack [here](http://bit.do/GSWHPT) and [here](http://support.gnip.com/apis/historical_api/) |
43,771 | After using SO, for sometimes, I realize that I got some problems.
[Zen masters fighting each other](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2505697/how-to-code-feature-on-checking-visitor-ip-address-in-php) on one of my question. Every side have their own arguments and everybody seem right. Frankly, this confuses me: **How can I choose somebody's answer where I don't know the right answer?**
Therefore I would like to propose the feature *I choose this, because* for a user who asked. So at least he/she can explain why he has chosen the particular answer. Maybe it's silly, but as somebody who's getting helps from others' answers, I would like to know everybody get what they deserve. Usually in this kind of situation, I just upvote every good answer and check the one I think the right one.
Second feature:
Every hot question always got plenty answers and comments. If a debate starts among the answerers, it could become hectic. Right now there is only the possibility to sort answers based on **oldest, newest votest**. So, is it possible to make a new sort based on timeline what make comment and answer collide. I believe it will be more easy to read. This feature can only be seen by the person who creates the question, or also for public. | 2010/03/24 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43771",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/144744/"
] | Well, you can use <http://meta.stackoverflow.com> | Regarding your *second feature* (Btw, it's best to ask separate issues in separate questions), there is a timeline view of your question:
>
> <https://stackoverflow.com/posts/2505697/timeline>
>
>
>
See here for more information:
>
> [Feedback Request: New Timeline Question View](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36303/feedback-request-new-timeline-question-view)
>
>
> |
43,771 | After using SO, for sometimes, I realize that I got some problems.
[Zen masters fighting each other](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2505697/how-to-code-feature-on-checking-visitor-ip-address-in-php) on one of my question. Every side have their own arguments and everybody seem right. Frankly, this confuses me: **How can I choose somebody's answer where I don't know the right answer?**
Therefore I would like to propose the feature *I choose this, because* for a user who asked. So at least he/she can explain why he has chosen the particular answer. Maybe it's silly, but as somebody who's getting helps from others' answers, I would like to know everybody get what they deserve. Usually in this kind of situation, I just upvote every good answer and check the one I think the right one.
Second feature:
Every hot question always got plenty answers and comments. If a debate starts among the answerers, it could become hectic. Right now there is only the possibility to sort answers based on **oldest, newest votest**. So, is it possible to make a new sort based on timeline what make comment and answer collide. I believe it will be more easy to read. This feature can only be seen by the person who creates the question, or also for public. | 2010/03/24 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43771",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/144744/"
] | The "**I choose this because**" feature is already there. Simply write a comment to the answer that you accepted with your reasoning, and possibly also on the answers that you decided not to accept. Also, you can upvote all of the answers which are helpful in solving your problem.
Regarding the "**sort based on timeline what make comment and answer collide**", the feature actually [exists](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/2505697/timeline). Do keep in mind, though, that SO is not meant to be Yet Another BB, and dicussion is not really what it is meant for. For the same reason, questions which are likely to spawn much discussion and arguments are usually closed as "subjective and argumentative".
Your question seems to be somewhat special. It sure is a valid technical question, but still a few other users have managed to get them self into into some sort of discussion/dispute. If you feel that someone is "over the line", attacking the other party, please to flag the comment, and a moderator will have a look at it. | Regarding your *second feature* (Btw, it's best to ask separate issues in separate questions), there is a timeline view of your question:
>
> <https://stackoverflow.com/posts/2505697/timeline>
>
>
>
See here for more information:
>
> [Feedback Request: New Timeline Question View](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36303/feedback-request-new-timeline-question-view)
>
>
> |
131,956 | When I do sports betting and the moneyline is -110, 110, I must win at least ~52.4% of the time to break even. The 2.4% goes to the bookmaker as their vigorish (or "rake", or "juice").
My stock broker says that stock trading is free. How can this be? Logically, they must somehow be getting some vigorish to keep their lights on. How much is the vigorish in the stock market? And what is the minimum percentage of stock bets I have to win in order to break even? | 2020/10/15 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/131956",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/103306/"
] | The point is: you get enough shares to DEMAND a seat on the board. Board members are representatives of shareholders and generally "a few shares of a public company" is nothing. Zero. No One cares about you. This is like asking McDonalds to change the menu because you would possibly buy one of the new burgers. No, not relevant.
5% of the shares is a blocking minority - then you can DEMAND.
Otherwise you need to convince larger shareholders that you are a good proxy for them. Have fun with that one. "I don't mind sitting in board meetings" is as entitled as it gets (you want a board seat, this is not "I do not mind", that is required) without a LOOOOT of credentials that make someone else say "hey, that guy could be a good board member instead of the other guy we use for years". | >
> Do I just call or email the CEO and mention that I am a shareholder who wants to become a director?
>
>
>
You could certainly try!
But, no, your few shares themselves won't do it except be a nice story that the executive team and board might find amusing enough to entertain.
The CEO is typically appointed by the board, and may also be a board member, so you have to see what you can find out about every company. The board doesn't have to be multiple people, the single member on the board and the single member on the executive team can be the same person. For publicly traded companies this is uncommon, but the little known secret is that the market doesn't actually care. You might find yourself in a position where you get on a board. Being a board member for companies that *need* board members is actually a pretty lucrative trade. The level of independence and autonomy would be your niche, as there are "nominees" that dont really do anything but help a company gain clout and confidence, and there are not-quite-nominees. But there are also activist investors, who really do want control of the company.
The people that are typically on the board and elected to be there are people in that profession and with a lot of shares. |
3,329,428 | I read cheyenne server is going to implement it ( <http://web.syllable.org/news/2010-01-02-22-16-WebSockets-for-Cheyenne-web-server.html> ) , but for learning purpose I'd like more to see the shortest sample code of a websocket server and a websocket client in rebol / rebol or rebol / rebol view or rebol / javascript.
like this example in java <http://blog.jwebsocket.org/2010/06/17/jwebsocket-instead-of-xhr-and-comet/>
or this example in php <http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2010/07/websocket-charting-demo-with-html5-and-javascript/>
Could also Rebol include such protocol natively in some future like for the rest (http, ftp,...) ? | 2010/07/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3329428",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2687173/"
] | I write this by looking at this java example: <http://github.com/adamac/Java-WebSocket-client/blob/master/src/com/sixfire/websocket/WebSocket.java>
and tested only with this ws chat server <http://www.codeproject.com/KB/webservices/c_sharp_web_socket_server.aspx>
it supports framing (0x00 - - 0xFF), when you pick the port it returns the last , if no msg then returns none.
currently it does not support data frames (0x80 - 0xFE) and no support for utf8.
Take it as an example. | I looked at this recently and writing a ws:// protocol does not look like it will take long, and looks to be quite straight forward. Perhaps you could try writing it yourself.
Well, since I wrote this, Endo has released his ws:// protocol
<http://www.moldibi.com/rebol/ws.html> |
38,128,166 | And how are we going to use Velocity with Spring after Spring 5.0? | 2016/06/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38128166",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/637382/"
] | It looks like Jürgen Höller wants to get rid of Velocity alltogether, because it "dates back to 2010".
Support for it was deprecated in Spring 4.3, and will probably be removed in Spring 5.
<https://jira.spring.io/browse/SPR-13795> | In the accepted answer from @Olivier Croisier he states that the reason for depracating velocity was that it "dates back to 2010". While this doesn't seem a particularly valid reason to get rid of something (The C language dates back to 1972) that was actually Jurgen Hoeller's reason given in the issue description that Olivier links to!
In further comments added to that issue, that appear after @Olivier Croisier's answer was given, there is further elaboration. It seems Spring wishes to limit the 3rd-party adaptors that they provide to only two implementations and suggest that the other 3rd-parties develop their adaptors themselves.
The impression I get is that velocity was neither popular or modern enough to be selected as one of the two. |
122,443 | I was wondering on how I'm able to join all of these separate objects into one, and be able to apply one material using a UV texture with a color grid? is there any tutorials on youtube? Im only used to maya UV texturing. thanks. | 2018/11/11 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/122443",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/62097/"
] | To join the objects, select them and then press CTRL + J.
but I imagine you only need a color grid material for all the objects in the scene and not really having them joined.
the easiest and fastest way to achieve this requires using and external addon.
<http://renderhjs.net/textools/blender/>
Once you have the addon installed you can just select all the objects in the scene (no need to join them) and assuming you already UV unwrap them, then in the UV window under the **TexTools** tab just press **Checker Map**. if you keep pressing **Checker Map** it will scroll between various grids
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KsM40.gif) | In order to accomplish this, the easiest way is through the 'Texture Atlas' add-on.
1. Open user preferences Ctrl + Alt + U. Go to 'Addons' tab on the top bar. Search for 'Texture Atlas' and check the box to enable it.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q36eF.png)
2. Once you have it enabled you should see a section for Texture Atlas under render settings tab of the properties panel. Create a new texture atlas (in the image below its named 'cannon'), select all the objects that you want to make a UV texture for and click 'Add selected'
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p7UGc.png)
3. Next, click on either 'Auto unwrap' (to let the program create the UV layout) or 'StartManualUnwrap' (to do it yourself manually).
4. Once the unwrapping is done, don't forget to click 'FinishManualUnwrap'. When you do this, the objects will still be separate but share the same UV layout.
5. If you want all the objects to share the same material, you can select all of them and press Ctrl + L. You will get an option to link materials When you click on materials, all the objects will have the same material of the last selected object (shown in light orange) |
207,556 | Why did the directors kill off QuickSilver in *Avengers: Age of Ultron*?
Pointless to have a "main" character killed off after one movie. | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/207556",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/113114/"
] | This is what Marvel producer Kevin Feige said about the death [here](http://www.mtv.com/news/2150560/avengers-age-of-ultron-quicksilver/):
>
> "It adds stakes to the ending of the film," he said, adding that it also serves as a way "to show repercussions to Ultron's actions, and also in a way to solidify Scarlet Witch's character, and Wanda's arc in the movie and where we'll see her in the next films."
>
>
> | So official answer is that Marvel could only use the two characters, Scarlet Witch and Quick Silver, for one movie, and had to give ONE of them back to Fox. Since they decided that Scarlet Witch fit into the MCU storyline, so they killed off Quicksilver and gave him a way into the MCU. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | Yes. This is definitely possible, requiring no modifications or drivers on the PC. As the OP mentions, the USB identification on the phone end is ultimately done in software (in this file <https://github.com/android/kernel_msm/blob/android-msm-2.6.35/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c>), and it could be modified to identify itself as a standard USB keyboard.
This change would require a couple of things.
1. A modified kernel with a patched USB driver
2. An Android app that could talk to some interface exposed by the modified USB driver.
There is a paper that was published in 2010 titled [*Exploiting smart-phone USB connectivity for fun and profit*](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1920261.1920314). It describes using a phone to brute-force desktop login screens. The method they used involved making the phone appear as a USB keyboard. | At a minimum, this would require both software on the phone and on the PC. The 2 pieces of software would have to communicate with each other. Nothing like this, that I know of currently, exists.
And for the PC to think that the device is truly a keyboard, it would require a new driver that would tell the PC that the device is a keyboard, and how "to use it as a keyboard".
I am not saying that it is not possible, because just about anything is possible when it comes to things like this. What I am saying though, is that nothing like this exists, currently.
USB is both hardware and software, if it was software alone, then the same USB driver would work for all android devices on Windows, and this is not the case. USB mass-storage and MTP are handled by the drivers on the PC, not the device. What devices support both MTP and USB mass-storage and at the same time? I have found articles stating that devices can support UMS and MTP, but only support UMS if there is an external sdcard. You cannot mount the external sdcard with MTP and with UMS. MTP is for the internal storage. And I haven't read anything that can confirm or deny that you can use both at the same time.
You don't have to install drivers for keyboards, if they follow the "default" spec because windows already has the drivers for it. There are keyboards that come with their own drivers. As I said, it would be possible. I am not sure about how it would be done. It would, almost certainly, require a custom kernel at the very least for it to act like a keyboard and no additional drivers to be needed on the PC side.
Additionally, I agree with @davidbb that it is possible and I have already said that it is. The problem with a question asking if something is possible, does not ever solve the problem. It would be like me saying "is it possible for me to run ios applications natively on windows?". This is theoretically possible, but there is nothing that does this now and there is not something that a "normal user" (or even an advanced user) can do to make this happen. This site is geared for users, so saying you just need to write a modified kernel is not an answer that is going to benefit anyone. So the real answer to the question is no, because there is not a modified kernel out there. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | This doesn't exactly answer your question, but it might help in your use case.
Maybe you want to have a look at [InputStick](http://inputstick.com). It'll be a USB thumb drive that you pair to Android via Bluetooth. Plugged into a computer it emulates a generic USB HID to send keyboard strokes. An advanced Java API will also allow to specify i.e. device descriptors to emulate non-standard functions. It could provide a nice example that it's defined in software rather than hardware.
For reference, the developer also is working on example programs, such as a Demo Password Manager. | At a minimum, this would require both software on the phone and on the PC. The 2 pieces of software would have to communicate with each other. Nothing like this, that I know of currently, exists.
And for the PC to think that the device is truly a keyboard, it would require a new driver that would tell the PC that the device is a keyboard, and how "to use it as a keyboard".
I am not saying that it is not possible, because just about anything is possible when it comes to things like this. What I am saying though, is that nothing like this exists, currently.
USB is both hardware and software, if it was software alone, then the same USB driver would work for all android devices on Windows, and this is not the case. USB mass-storage and MTP are handled by the drivers on the PC, not the device. What devices support both MTP and USB mass-storage and at the same time? I have found articles stating that devices can support UMS and MTP, but only support UMS if there is an external sdcard. You cannot mount the external sdcard with MTP and with UMS. MTP is for the internal storage. And I haven't read anything that can confirm or deny that you can use both at the same time.
You don't have to install drivers for keyboards, if they follow the "default" spec because windows already has the drivers for it. There are keyboards that come with their own drivers. As I said, it would be possible. I am not sure about how it would be done. It would, almost certainly, require a custom kernel at the very least for it to act like a keyboard and no additional drivers to be needed on the PC side.
Additionally, I agree with @davidbb that it is possible and I have already said that it is. The problem with a question asking if something is possible, does not ever solve the problem. It would be like me saying "is it possible for me to run ios applications natively on windows?". This is theoretically possible, but there is nothing that does this now and there is not something that a "normal user" (or even an advanced user) can do to make this happen. This site is geared for users, so saying you just need to write a modified kernel is not an answer that is going to benefit anyone. So the real answer to the question is no, because there is not a modified kernel out there. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | Yes. This is definitely possible, requiring no modifications or drivers on the PC. As the OP mentions, the USB identification on the phone end is ultimately done in software (in this file <https://github.com/android/kernel_msm/blob/android-msm-2.6.35/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c>), and it could be modified to identify itself as a standard USB keyboard.
This change would require a couple of things.
1. A modified kernel with a patched USB driver
2. An Android app that could talk to some interface exposed by the modified USB driver.
There is a paper that was published in 2010 titled [*Exploiting smart-phone USB connectivity for fun and profit*](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1920261.1920314). It describes using a phone to brute-force desktop login screens. The method they used involved making the phone appear as a USB keyboard. | This doesn't exactly answer your question, but it might help in your use case.
Maybe you want to have a look at [InputStick](http://inputstick.com). It'll be a USB thumb drive that you pair to Android via Bluetooth. Plugged into a computer it emulates a generic USB HID to send keyboard strokes. An advanced Java API will also allow to specify i.e. device descriptors to emulate non-standard functions. It could provide a nice example that it's defined in software rather than hardware.
For reference, the developer also is working on example programs, such as a Demo Password Manager. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | Yes. This is definitely possible, requiring no modifications or drivers on the PC. As the OP mentions, the USB identification on the phone end is ultimately done in software (in this file <https://github.com/android/kernel_msm/blob/android-msm-2.6.35/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c>), and it could be modified to identify itself as a standard USB keyboard.
This change would require a couple of things.
1. A modified kernel with a patched USB driver
2. An Android app that could talk to some interface exposed by the modified USB driver.
There is a paper that was published in 2010 titled [*Exploiting smart-phone USB connectivity for fun and profit*](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1920261.1920314). It describes using a phone to brute-force desktop login screens. The method they used involved making the phone appear as a USB keyboard. | Have you tried [Unified Remote](http://www.unifiedremote.com/). This is a great tool to use phone as keyboard and mouse. It doesn't use USB but wifi instead. There is an app on phone and computer that work together. Works great for me. Also if you get full version you get integration with many common applications. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | Yes. This is definitely possible, requiring no modifications or drivers on the PC. As the OP mentions, the USB identification on the phone end is ultimately done in software (in this file <https://github.com/android/kernel_msm/blob/android-msm-2.6.35/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c>), and it could be modified to identify itself as a standard USB keyboard.
This change would require a couple of things.
1. A modified kernel with a patched USB driver
2. An Android app that could talk to some interface exposed by the modified USB driver.
There is a paper that was published in 2010 titled [*Exploiting smart-phone USB connectivity for fun and profit*](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1920261.1920314). It describes using a phone to brute-force desktop login screens. The method they used involved making the phone appear as a USB keyboard. | I was searching for something similar and found <https://github.com/pelya/android-keyboard-gadget>. Seems the same thing can be used in your case.
In brief, what I got is you have to write the USB driver in the Android kernel to detect the device as HID. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | Yes. This is definitely possible, requiring no modifications or drivers on the PC. As the OP mentions, the USB identification on the phone end is ultimately done in software (in this file <https://github.com/android/kernel_msm/blob/android-msm-2.6.35/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c>), and it could be modified to identify itself as a standard USB keyboard.
This change would require a couple of things.
1. A modified kernel with a patched USB driver
2. An Android app that could talk to some interface exposed by the modified USB driver.
There is a paper that was published in 2010 titled [*Exploiting smart-phone USB connectivity for fun and profit*](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1920261.1920314). It describes using a phone to brute-force desktop login screens. The method they used involved making the phone appear as a USB keyboard. | It's now >six
years later and
somewhere in between someone created the [Keepass2 USB Keyboard
Plugin](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Keepass2%20USB%20Keyboard) for [Keepass2Android](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=keepass2android.keepass2android).
Wanted to add this
information here for the sake of completeness and because I found
this question *unanswered* and the aforementioned plugin while
searching for exactly something like that.
I haven't tested it myself yet... |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | This doesn't exactly answer your question, but it might help in your use case.
Maybe you want to have a look at [InputStick](http://inputstick.com). It'll be a USB thumb drive that you pair to Android via Bluetooth. Plugged into a computer it emulates a generic USB HID to send keyboard strokes. An advanced Java API will also allow to specify i.e. device descriptors to emulate non-standard functions. It could provide a nice example that it's defined in software rather than hardware.
For reference, the developer also is working on example programs, such as a Demo Password Manager. | Have you tried [Unified Remote](http://www.unifiedremote.com/). This is a great tool to use phone as keyboard and mouse. It doesn't use USB but wifi instead. There is an app on phone and computer that work together. Works great for me. Also if you get full version you get integration with many common applications. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | This doesn't exactly answer your question, but it might help in your use case.
Maybe you want to have a look at [InputStick](http://inputstick.com). It'll be a USB thumb drive that you pair to Android via Bluetooth. Plugged into a computer it emulates a generic USB HID to send keyboard strokes. An advanced Java API will also allow to specify i.e. device descriptors to emulate non-standard functions. It could provide a nice example that it's defined in software rather than hardware.
For reference, the developer also is working on example programs, such as a Demo Password Manager. | I was searching for something similar and found <https://github.com/pelya/android-keyboard-gadget>. Seems the same thing can be used in your case.
In brief, what I got is you have to write the USB driver in the Android kernel to detect the device as HID. |
20,006 | I have an http proxy, which works OK, but there are some address on my lan which provides some web services.
I want to configure my device so that for some range of addresses the proxy is bypassed.
I have tried with 10.0.0.0/8, but it doesn't work! | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/20006",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/1863/"
] | This doesn't exactly answer your question, but it might help in your use case.
Maybe you want to have a look at [InputStick](http://inputstick.com). It'll be a USB thumb drive that you pair to Android via Bluetooth. Plugged into a computer it emulates a generic USB HID to send keyboard strokes. An advanced Java API will also allow to specify i.e. device descriptors to emulate non-standard functions. It could provide a nice example that it's defined in software rather than hardware.
For reference, the developer also is working on example programs, such as a Demo Password Manager. | It's now >six
years later and
somewhere in between someone created the [Keepass2 USB Keyboard
Plugin](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Keepass2%20USB%20Keyboard) for [Keepass2Android](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=keepass2android.keepass2android).
Wanted to add this
information here for the sake of completeness and because I found
this question *unanswered* and the aforementioned plugin while
searching for exactly something like that.
I haven't tested it myself yet... |
31,015,417 | We're developing our custom Android ROM and we're interested to provide Over-The-Air (OTA) updates to our clients. Can someone point me a detailed step-to-step on how to create an OTA update for a custom Android Open-Source Project (AOSP)? I've already read the Google [**documentation**](https://source.android.com/devices/tech/ota/index.html) but I haven't understood it very well.
PS: at current moment we're able to compile our custom Android OS ROM with success, and flash it to the device with no problem. | 2015/06/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/31015417",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1299275/"
] | Not really the official way, but [this project](https://github.com/tgalal/inception) does a similar thing. | to create an OTA update for your custom ROM, you need target file, when you create your rom, inside
>
> out/target/product/device\_name/obj/PACKAGE/target-something/
>
>
>
you will have the 'target.zip' file. you have to use this file to create your OTA package. you have to pass the target.zip file to a script called
>
> ota\_from\_target\_files.py
>
>
>
this script is usually at
>
> builds/tools/releasetools/ota\_from\_target\_files.py
>
>
>
you can use this script to create both Full OTA updates and Incremental OTA updates.
when you created your OTA package, you can sideload it or place it in your Updater backend to install your new ROM using updater application. |
6,449 | Based on my understanding, Product owner, Scrum Master and Development team are the major roles in a Scrum team. I have to setup a .Net Scrum team with 5-8 members. I don't have enough knowledge about Scrum. Can any one please give a solution for this problems?
* What are the key roles that should be in a Scrum team?
* Who conducts the code reviews in a Scrum team?
* Do Scrum Teams have a role called team lead, and tech lead? | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/6449",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/4546/"
] | Core Roles in Scrum
-------------------
>
> What are the key roles that should be in a Scrum team?
>
>
>
Scrum defines only three [core roles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_%28development%29#Core_roles) for the framework.
1. A Product Owner, whose role is somewhat of an amalgamation of a traditional Product Manager and a Project Sponsor, but has a lot more interaction with the Development Team than a more traditional role would require.
2. A Scrum Master, who is the process referee that ensures that the methodology is followed. A Scrum Master is also responsible for coaching the team and the organization on how to make the most of Scrum's processes and artifacts.
>
> The scrum master acts as a coach, guiding the team to ever-higher levels of cohesiveness, self-organization, and performance. While a team’s deliverable is the product, a scrum master’s deliverable is the self-organizing team.
>
>
> Sims, Chris; Johnson, Hillary Louise (2011-02-15). The Elements of Scrum (p. 74). Dymaxicon. Kindle Edition.
>
>
>
3. A Development Team, which is a cohesive, self-organizing, cross-functional group that contains all the skills necessary to deliver on the project goals.
>
> Scrum teams are highly collaborative; they are also self-organizing. Team members have total authority over how the work gets done. The team alone decides which tools and techniques to use, and which team members will work on which tasks.
>
>
> Sims, Chris; Johnson, Hillary Louise (2011-02-15). The Elements of Scrum (Kindle Locations 976-978). Dymaxicon. Kindle Edition.
>
>
>
Code Reviews
------------
>
> Who conducts the code reviews in a Scrum team?
>
>
>
Code reviews are a practice, not a framework requirement, and not one that is universally embraced. For example, see [Code Reviews Considered Hurtful](http://www.extremeprogramming.org/stories/pair7.html).
Nevertheless, some Scrum teams *do* adopt code reviews, either because they are identified as helpful during a Sprint Retrospective or because they are required by the parent organization. Unless the parent organization provides a mandate, how code reviews are handled are an issue for a self-organizing development team to work out for themselves.
Ultimately, the goal is high-quality, maintainable code. If the development team finds code reviews helpful in meeting their accepted "definition of done," that's great. If not, perhaps test-driven development or some other practice will work equally well (or better!) for a particular team.
Your job isn't to task someone with doing code reviews; your job is to referee the process to ensure that the team is continuously inspecting and adapting its practices.
Titles for Development Team Members
-----------------------------------
>
> Do Scrum Teams have a role called team lead, and tech lead?
>
>
>
The Scrum framework promotes collective code ownership, and the team succeeds or fails as a group. As a result, titles that differentiate team members are antithetical to the tenets of Scrum, although they are nevertheless used by the parent organization in job descriptions and Human Resources files.
Look at it this way: if you designate Bob as the team lead, then you are assigning responsibility for specific deliverables to Bob. Why should Alice take on Bob's responsibilities?
Likewise, if you formally make Alice "the QA person," why should Alice take collective ownership of code or work on architecture stories? Doubtless she was brought into the team to ensure that there was some specialized QA knowledge available to the team, but "cross-functional" doesn't mean siloed responsibilities within the project.
Team members will have titles within the organization, which occasionally reflect the skills they bring to a project team. However, it's *up to the team* to self-organize and distribute responsibility within the team. As a Scrum Master, you should only step in if it's obvious that the team is failing to self-organize--which you measure by whether or not the team is meeting its Sprint Goals and the "definition of done."
*Assigning* leadership roles within the team is not an agile practice, and is certainly not Scrum. If you find yourself in a position where this is necessary, then you should certainly revisit your overall process, and try to identify what is impeding the self-organization of the Development Team. | To quote [the Scrum Guide](http://www.scrum.org/Scrum-Guides), "Scrum recognizes no titles for Development Team members other than Developer, regardless of the work being performed by the person; there are no exceptions to this rule;" In that regard, it would be counter-productive to restrict developers into specific duties. The idea is that the development team will self-organize to accomplish tasks and overcome obstacles as needs arise (and as resources become available).
As for code reviews, there are many methods for conducting code reviews (see chapter 3 of [Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Reviews](https://static1.smartbear.co/smartbear/media/pdfs/best-kept-secrets-of-peer-code-review_redirected.pdf)). It is up to you and your team to conduct and evaluate the code review method(s) that best complement your team's culture (although a separate quality assurance branch may collect and analyze metrics that can assist in evaluating the effectiveness of a code review method). If you have developers who are better with client code, it may be a benefit for them to review client code for better defect detection. It may also be a benefit for developers not familiar with the client code to review it so that they become more familiar with the client-side in case they need to step-in and do client programming in the future. A benefit of agile and scrum is that the development team can self-organize to test various code review methods for effectiveness. Regardless, the development team should be responsible for reviewing the code created by the development team. There can also be an external quality assurance team that further reviews the code, but that is not at all necessary for a basic implementation of code reviews or scrum. |
6,449 | Based on my understanding, Product owner, Scrum Master and Development team are the major roles in a Scrum team. I have to setup a .Net Scrum team with 5-8 members. I don't have enough knowledge about Scrum. Can any one please give a solution for this problems?
* What are the key roles that should be in a Scrum team?
* Who conducts the code reviews in a Scrum team?
* Do Scrum Teams have a role called team lead, and tech lead? | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/6449",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/4546/"
] | To quote [the Scrum Guide](http://www.scrum.org/Scrum-Guides), "Scrum recognizes no titles for Development Team members other than Developer, regardless of the work being performed by the person; there are no exceptions to this rule;" In that regard, it would be counter-productive to restrict developers into specific duties. The idea is that the development team will self-organize to accomplish tasks and overcome obstacles as needs arise (and as resources become available).
As for code reviews, there are many methods for conducting code reviews (see chapter 3 of [Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Reviews](https://static1.smartbear.co/smartbear/media/pdfs/best-kept-secrets-of-peer-code-review_redirected.pdf)). It is up to you and your team to conduct and evaluate the code review method(s) that best complement your team's culture (although a separate quality assurance branch may collect and analyze metrics that can assist in evaluating the effectiveness of a code review method). If you have developers who are better with client code, it may be a benefit for them to review client code for better defect detection. It may also be a benefit for developers not familiar with the client code to review it so that they become more familiar with the client-side in case they need to step-in and do client programming in the future. A benefit of agile and scrum is that the development team can self-organize to test various code review methods for effectiveness. Regardless, the development team should be responsible for reviewing the code created by the development team. There can also be an external quality assurance team that further reviews the code, but that is not at all necessary for a basic implementation of code reviews or scrum. | >
> What are the key roles that should be in a Scrum team?
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Product Owners, Developers and Quality Assurance people are key to the success of .NET stack based projects. Note that, I have not mentioned Scrum Master role. I will explain it later.
If the team is developing a Web API, ASP.NET MVC website, Desktop or .NET Xamarin Mobile application, Product Owners, Developers and Quality Assurances staff is all you need. However, if you are developing Cloud based .NET solution then you will need DevOps engineer role as well who will manage Cloud. If you are using CICD, then DevOps engineer is even more necessary to setup CICD pipelines.
Developers could have a person with Architect role (at least 7 years of .NET experience). Architect will be a person who will help Product Owners to design the feature right, help them in Story Points and support developers in design decisions.
Similarly, Quality Assurances could have staff skilled for Automated Testing like xUnit, Selenium and JUnit.
Scrum Master role is really not useful unless the person is an accomplished Software Product Manager. Instead of hiring a Scrum Master hire an Agile Coach who supports team. If all Scrum Master is doing to gather people at specific time on Zoom, Skype or a place in an office then he/she should better be replaced by Google Calendar alerts. Software teams hurt the most if top man is not an accomplished software professional. Someone has to manage JIRA or similar ticketing system. Scrum Master could be used as a follow up role on tickets, road-map, releases, milestones, and deliverable.
>
> Who conducts the code reviews in a Scrum team?
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Architect or usually 2 other team members review code.
>
> Do Scrum Teams have a role called team lead, and tech lead?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Developers should be a combination of Interns, Junior Developers, Senior Developers, Technical Leads and Architects.
Usually there are small teams of 1 Intern, 1 Junior Developer, 2 Senior Developers and 1 Tech Lead. If you have 2 such teams, then 1 Architect to mediate discussion between these two teams.
Each team should have 1 Product Owner. If there are more than 1 Product Owner then one will be Lead Product Owner. Product Owner is the single most critical role. He creates stories and prioritize backlog. If Developers are not getting stories, they will not be able to develop and QA will not be able to test them properly. It is better to have 2 Product Interns with each of Product Owners to facilitate accurate story writing.
If work is intense, then each 5 developer team should have 1 QA person and 1 Site Reliability Engineer or DevOps engineer. |
6,449 | Based on my understanding, Product owner, Scrum Master and Development team are the major roles in a Scrum team. I have to setup a .Net Scrum team with 5-8 members. I don't have enough knowledge about Scrum. Can any one please give a solution for this problems?
* What are the key roles that should be in a Scrum team?
* Who conducts the code reviews in a Scrum team?
* Do Scrum Teams have a role called team lead, and tech lead? | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/6449",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/4546/"
] | Core Roles in Scrum
-------------------
>
> What are the key roles that should be in a Scrum team?
>
>
>
Scrum defines only three [core roles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_%28development%29#Core_roles) for the framework.
1. A Product Owner, whose role is somewhat of an amalgamation of a traditional Product Manager and a Project Sponsor, but has a lot more interaction with the Development Team than a more traditional role would require.
2. A Scrum Master, who is the process referee that ensures that the methodology is followed. A Scrum Master is also responsible for coaching the team and the organization on how to make the most of Scrum's processes and artifacts.
>
> The scrum master acts as a coach, guiding the team to ever-higher levels of cohesiveness, self-organization, and performance. While a team’s deliverable is the product, a scrum master’s deliverable is the self-organizing team.
>
>
> Sims, Chris; Johnson, Hillary Louise (2011-02-15). The Elements of Scrum (p. 74). Dymaxicon. Kindle Edition.
>
>
>
3. A Development Team, which is a cohesive, self-organizing, cross-functional group that contains all the skills necessary to deliver on the project goals.
>
> Scrum teams are highly collaborative; they are also self-organizing. Team members have total authority over how the work gets done. The team alone decides which tools and techniques to use, and which team members will work on which tasks.
>
>
> Sims, Chris; Johnson, Hillary Louise (2011-02-15). The Elements of Scrum (Kindle Locations 976-978). Dymaxicon. Kindle Edition.
>
>
>
Code Reviews
------------
>
> Who conducts the code reviews in a Scrum team?
>
>
>
Code reviews are a practice, not a framework requirement, and not one that is universally embraced. For example, see [Code Reviews Considered Hurtful](http://www.extremeprogramming.org/stories/pair7.html).
Nevertheless, some Scrum teams *do* adopt code reviews, either because they are identified as helpful during a Sprint Retrospective or because they are required by the parent organization. Unless the parent organization provides a mandate, how code reviews are handled are an issue for a self-organizing development team to work out for themselves.
Ultimately, the goal is high-quality, maintainable code. If the development team finds code reviews helpful in meeting their accepted "definition of done," that's great. If not, perhaps test-driven development or some other practice will work equally well (or better!) for a particular team.
Your job isn't to task someone with doing code reviews; your job is to referee the process to ensure that the team is continuously inspecting and adapting its practices.
Titles for Development Team Members
-----------------------------------
>
> Do Scrum Teams have a role called team lead, and tech lead?
>
>
>
The Scrum framework promotes collective code ownership, and the team succeeds or fails as a group. As a result, titles that differentiate team members are antithetical to the tenets of Scrum, although they are nevertheless used by the parent organization in job descriptions and Human Resources files.
Look at it this way: if you designate Bob as the team lead, then you are assigning responsibility for specific deliverables to Bob. Why should Alice take on Bob's responsibilities?
Likewise, if you formally make Alice "the QA person," why should Alice take collective ownership of code or work on architecture stories? Doubtless she was brought into the team to ensure that there was some specialized QA knowledge available to the team, but "cross-functional" doesn't mean siloed responsibilities within the project.
Team members will have titles within the organization, which occasionally reflect the skills they bring to a project team. However, it's *up to the team* to self-organize and distribute responsibility within the team. As a Scrum Master, you should only step in if it's obvious that the team is failing to self-organize--which you measure by whether or not the team is meeting its Sprint Goals and the "definition of done."
*Assigning* leadership roles within the team is not an agile practice, and is certainly not Scrum. If you find yourself in a position where this is necessary, then you should certainly revisit your overall process, and try to identify what is impeding the self-organization of the Development Team. | >
> What are the key roles that should be in a Scrum team?
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Product Owners, Developers and Quality Assurance people are key to the success of .NET stack based projects. Note that, I have not mentioned Scrum Master role. I will explain it later.
If the team is developing a Web API, ASP.NET MVC website, Desktop or .NET Xamarin Mobile application, Product Owners, Developers and Quality Assurances staff is all you need. However, if you are developing Cloud based .NET solution then you will need DevOps engineer role as well who will manage Cloud. If you are using CICD, then DevOps engineer is even more necessary to setup CICD pipelines.
Developers could have a person with Architect role (at least 7 years of .NET experience). Architect will be a person who will help Product Owners to design the feature right, help them in Story Points and support developers in design decisions.
Similarly, Quality Assurances could have staff skilled for Automated Testing like xUnit, Selenium and JUnit.
Scrum Master role is really not useful unless the person is an accomplished Software Product Manager. Instead of hiring a Scrum Master hire an Agile Coach who supports team. If all Scrum Master is doing to gather people at specific time on Zoom, Skype or a place in an office then he/she should better be replaced by Google Calendar alerts. Software teams hurt the most if top man is not an accomplished software professional. Someone has to manage JIRA or similar ticketing system. Scrum Master could be used as a follow up role on tickets, road-map, releases, milestones, and deliverable.
>
> Who conducts the code reviews in a Scrum team?
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Architect or usually 2 other team members review code.
>
> Do Scrum Teams have a role called team lead, and tech lead?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Developers should be a combination of Interns, Junior Developers, Senior Developers, Technical Leads and Architects.
Usually there are small teams of 1 Intern, 1 Junior Developer, 2 Senior Developers and 1 Tech Lead. If you have 2 such teams, then 1 Architect to mediate discussion between these two teams.
Each team should have 1 Product Owner. If there are more than 1 Product Owner then one will be Lead Product Owner. Product Owner is the single most critical role. He creates stories and prioritize backlog. If Developers are not getting stories, they will not be able to develop and QA will not be able to test them properly. It is better to have 2 Product Interns with each of Product Owners to facilitate accurate story writing.
If work is intense, then each 5 developer team should have 1 QA person and 1 Site Reliability Engineer or DevOps engineer. |
11,688 | My dog is 16 and for the past year she has been having many accidents inside due to her age. I clean it up as soon as it happens, but if I'm not home, it's apparently left long enough for a stain to set, so now my tiles have this terrible grayish stain build up, and I need to clean it. I've tried a baking soda and peroxide mix with no luck, same with vinegar. Any ideas? | 2016/03/13 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/11688",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/6837/"
] | I know this sounds crazy, but a brilliant solvent for urine is … urine.
Seriously!
Next time she has an accident while you're there, pull on your rubber gloves and use a thin absorbent sponge cloth to mop up all the fresh urine. Then use the sponge cloth to re-wet a historic stained area.
Initially, just work on an area the size of the sponge cloth - this'll show you whether the technique is successful, and will also ensure your "cleaning fluid" is concentrated.
Place a kitchen towel over the top of the area you've just dampened, place the sponge over the kitchen towel, and put another kitchen towel over the sponge. Leave this soggy sponge sandwich in place for at least an hour, with an upturned bucket over the top to keep smells in and feet out.
After it's had a really good soak, don the rubber gloves again, and use the complete "sandwich" as a wiping cloth - you should hopefully see the bottom kitchen towel is a *much* darker colour than the upper - a delightful mix of dissolved old urine and fallout from daily traffic across the tiles.
Dispose of the kitchen towels, rinse out the sponge cloth and use it with detergent (e.g. washing up liquid) and water to clean the urine-treated area. Sprinkle some baking soda over the top to absorb any lingering smells (and to discourage any – ahem – further treatment :)
Incidentally, this technique is also fantastic for getting bird deposits off cars without damaging the paintwork.
P.s. Here in the UK the sponge cloths are sold under the Spontex brandname and look like [this](http://www.spontex.co.uk/content-files/product/images/1/1/5ee040f03f0e4fcca3be61497563e3b3.jpg). | As with any product that you would put on your carpet, flooring, or furniture, please test for colorfastness. To test for colorfastness, mix a small amount of the solution and place on a hidden area of your carpet. Wait 24 hours or until carpet is dry before proceeding to full treatment.
We recommend extreme caution when treating fine fabrics and upholstery. You must be extra careful in checking for colorfastness. Do not skip this step, thinking, "Oh, I'm sure it will be fine." It may not. You must test a hidden area and wait 24 hours before proceeding to a full treatment.
Odor Remover
16 oz. (2 cups) hydrogen peroxide
2 tsp. baking soda
2 small drops liquid dishwashing soap (Dawn, Palmolive, etc.)
Place all ingredients in a glass jar or bowl. Gently stir do not beat or shake, until baking soda is dissolved. If urine is fresh, be sure to blot up any excess urine with dry paper towels or a dry washcloth before the next step.
Pour mixture over urine spot, making sure to cover the entire spot. Allow mixture to completely soak the area being treated. Do not rub or scrub. Let sit for 24 hours without disturbing. After 24 hours, take clean paper towels or a clean, white washcloth and blot up any remaining liquid. Again, do not rub or scrub. Allow area to air dry completely. If you are treating carpet, you can vacuum over the area when dry.
Makes 16 oz. (2 cups) of solution.
Tips:
The solution is most active for one hour after mixing. Be sure to apply the solution within this time period for maximum effectiveness.
Do not enclose the mixture in an airtight container, or you could have a big mess on your hands. The reason for this is because when the ingredients are combined they release oxygen (Remember making "volcanoes" out of baking soda and vinegar when you were a little kid? Similar principle here.).
Two alternate methods of applying the solution are using a spray bottle or a garden watering can. A spray bottle works best for applying the solution to hard surfaces like concrete or linoleum, or to vertical surfaces like walls or shower tile. This is not the best method for carpet. Just be sure to thoroughly spray the area you are treating. A garden watering can is best for medium to large areas, indoors or outdoors.
For really tough odors, you may have to treat the area more than once. Carpet, furniture, and mattresses typically require 1-2 treatments. Concrete, wood, tile, and other hard surfaces usually need 3-5 treatments (1 treatment per day).
For concrete and other hard surfaces, you want to make enough of the recipe to completely cover the stain. Pour or spray the solution on and let it soak. Do not mop or wipe up. Let it sit for 24 hours (depending on the humidity level, it will usually evaporate during this time). Repeat the treatment once a day for 3-5 days.
For mattresses, the best thing to do is to make a double, triple, or even quadruple batch of the recipe, enough to completely cover the stain and then really pour it on. Don't be afraid of saturating the mattress. The urine has gone deep into the mattress, so you need to make sure that there's enough solution to go deep into the mattress as well. The solution has to reach the urine to neutralize it. We recommend treating the mattress in the morning so that the solution can work through the day. The mattress will often be dry enough for use by bedtime.
or use an ENZYME based pet odor and stain remover. I've used a few brands, they all have worked. You can read reviews Best Enzyme Cleaner for Dog Urine On Get Cleaning Done.
Also, you can use a blacklight to find stains on your dark carpet. The urine will fluoresce. |
11,688 | My dog is 16 and for the past year she has been having many accidents inside due to her age. I clean it up as soon as it happens, but if I'm not home, it's apparently left long enough for a stain to set, so now my tiles have this terrible grayish stain build up, and I need to clean it. I've tried a baking soda and peroxide mix with no luck, same with vinegar. Any ideas? | 2016/03/13 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/11688",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/6837/"
] | Have you tried [Nature's Miracle](http://www.natures-miracle.com/)?
I've used it for years to get stains and odors out of hardwood, carpet, linens and it's always worked great. Even on older, set-in stains Nature's Miracle has been helpful. | As with any product that you would put on your carpet, flooring, or furniture, please test for colorfastness. To test for colorfastness, mix a small amount of the solution and place on a hidden area of your carpet. Wait 24 hours or until carpet is dry before proceeding to full treatment.
We recommend extreme caution when treating fine fabrics and upholstery. You must be extra careful in checking for colorfastness. Do not skip this step, thinking, "Oh, I'm sure it will be fine." It may not. You must test a hidden area and wait 24 hours before proceeding to a full treatment.
Odor Remover
16 oz. (2 cups) hydrogen peroxide
2 tsp. baking soda
2 small drops liquid dishwashing soap (Dawn, Palmolive, etc.)
Place all ingredients in a glass jar or bowl. Gently stir do not beat or shake, until baking soda is dissolved. If urine is fresh, be sure to blot up any excess urine with dry paper towels or a dry washcloth before the next step.
Pour mixture over urine spot, making sure to cover the entire spot. Allow mixture to completely soak the area being treated. Do not rub or scrub. Let sit for 24 hours without disturbing. After 24 hours, take clean paper towels or a clean, white washcloth and blot up any remaining liquid. Again, do not rub or scrub. Allow area to air dry completely. If you are treating carpet, you can vacuum over the area when dry.
Makes 16 oz. (2 cups) of solution.
Tips:
The solution is most active for one hour after mixing. Be sure to apply the solution within this time period for maximum effectiveness.
Do not enclose the mixture in an airtight container, or you could have a big mess on your hands. The reason for this is because when the ingredients are combined they release oxygen (Remember making "volcanoes" out of baking soda and vinegar when you were a little kid? Similar principle here.).
Two alternate methods of applying the solution are using a spray bottle or a garden watering can. A spray bottle works best for applying the solution to hard surfaces like concrete or linoleum, or to vertical surfaces like walls or shower tile. This is not the best method for carpet. Just be sure to thoroughly spray the area you are treating. A garden watering can is best for medium to large areas, indoors or outdoors.
For really tough odors, you may have to treat the area more than once. Carpet, furniture, and mattresses typically require 1-2 treatments. Concrete, wood, tile, and other hard surfaces usually need 3-5 treatments (1 treatment per day).
For concrete and other hard surfaces, you want to make enough of the recipe to completely cover the stain. Pour or spray the solution on and let it soak. Do not mop or wipe up. Let it sit for 24 hours (depending on the humidity level, it will usually evaporate during this time). Repeat the treatment once a day for 3-5 days.
For mattresses, the best thing to do is to make a double, triple, or even quadruple batch of the recipe, enough to completely cover the stain and then really pour it on. Don't be afraid of saturating the mattress. The urine has gone deep into the mattress, so you need to make sure that there's enough solution to go deep into the mattress as well. The solution has to reach the urine to neutralize it. We recommend treating the mattress in the morning so that the solution can work through the day. The mattress will often be dry enough for use by bedtime.
or use an ENZYME based pet odor and stain remover. I've used a few brands, they all have worked. You can read reviews Best Enzyme Cleaner for Dog Urine On Get Cleaning Done.
Also, you can use a blacklight to find stains on your dark carpet. The urine will fluoresce. |
20,761 | At this link they show the major holdings for the technology index fund (XLK):
<http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q/hl?s=XLK>
Now let us say the major holding AAPL keeps going down. At what point would the index rearrange itself (either by removing AAPL or decreasing the percentage) so that the overall index stays healthy. I mean....after all, why should just one company drag down a whole index? Also at what point would they consider letting a new company in as part of the index? | 2013/02/18 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/20761",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/2991/"
] | An index will drop a company for several reasons:
* They don't meet the size criteria. Too big or too small
* They don't meet the sector criteria. If Apple dropped all hardware and became a music publisher they wouldn't be a technology company.
* They don't meet the regional requirement. Some indexes are country or region based
* They are no longer listed on the specific exchange. The price of a share may be too low.
* They no longer are an independent company. They merged or were bought.
A fund decides how close they want to mirror the index. Some do so exactly, others only approximate the index. | [S & P Index Announcements](http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/index-announcements/en/us) would have notes on when there are changes to the index. For example in the S & P Small-cap 600 there is a change that takes affect on Feb. 19, 2013.
As for how index funds handle changes to the fund, this depends a bit on the nature of the fund as open-end mutual funds would be different than exchange-traded funds. [The open-end fund would have to sell and purchase to keep tracking the index which can be interesting to see how well this is handled to keep the transaction costs down](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund#Index_composition_changes_reduce_return) while [the ETFs will just unload the shares in the redemption units of the stock leaving the index while taking in new shares with creation units of the newly added stock to the index.](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/05/062705.asp) |
163,122 | When i click on the buy button in the software center it instructs me to login, however as i'm using Keepass for saving my passwords i would like to paste it in but it wont let me...
the same applies to gwibber when i try to input my facebook password.
it is possible to input manually but since i picked a long password this would take very long.
Unfortunately until now i couldn't find a solution other than just not logging in or stop using the password manager.
Does anyone have an idea? | 2012/07/13 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/163122",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/36744/"
] | I solved this problem by using keepassx instead of keepass. | If you tried pasting through the popup menu, well I'd say that is reasonable for a password field to have the Paste entry disabled. In some cases the keyboard shortcuts might work, so try Ctrl+V and Shift+Ins. |
163,122 | When i click on the buy button in the software center it instructs me to login, however as i'm using Keepass for saving my passwords i would like to paste it in but it wont let me...
the same applies to gwibber when i try to input my facebook password.
it is possible to input manually but since i picked a long password this would take very long.
Unfortunately until now i couldn't find a solution other than just not logging in or stop using the password manager.
Does anyone have an idea? | 2012/07/13 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/163122",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/36744/"
] | I solved this problem by using keepassx instead of keepass. | I also experience the scenario in Gwibber where I copy the username/password from Keepass but cannot paste into login fields using the mouse paste menu or ctrl + v. The workaround to this is to
* copy the login detail (user name or password) from within Keepass per usual
* switch to a text editor such as gedit
* check if the mouse paste menu or ctrl + v works there (on my system they do)
* highlight the pasted text in the text editor and copy (I use ctrl + c)
* switch to Gwibber's login screens and now paste the text using ctrl + v
* the copied text will now appear
I have applied this approach to several applications where my details would not paste directly out of Keepass. (including - if I recall correctly - the Ubuntu Software Center) |
146,383 | I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but...
I need a scanner (paper feed scanner) where depending on either a barcode, or number, or some identifier on the paper being scanned, creates a PDF file with a name based on that identifier.
For example: If I scanned a page with the number 12345 on the top-left of the page, a PDF file named 12345.pdf would be created.
Any suggestions at all would be greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/28 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/146383",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/9918/"
] | If you looking for document scanner that has the capability to do batch separation using barcode and rename them base on barcode and zoned OCR you can try to do it with Fujitsu Scanner bundled with its software scan all pro. Other choice is you are using Kodak scanner with kodak capture but the software is sold separately and it quite costly.
If you have an ISIS based scanner you can try Quick Scan Pro software to do it. I have used scan all pro since 3 years ago to digitalized million of pages and it works fine. | Have you looked at things like [Readiris](http://www.irislink.com/c2-1584-189/Readiris-12---OCR-Software-------Convert-your-Paper-Documents-into-Editable-Text-.aspx) or [SimpleOCR](http://SimpleOCR) or [other](http://www.topocr.com/download.html) [OCR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition) [alternatives](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/top-5-free-ocr-software-tools-to-convert-your-images-into-text-nb/) to see if any of them have the features that you are after?
I have written a document scanner using Microsoft Access VBA that can grab pages from a document feeding scanner and output pdf files, and I'm currently rewriting it in Python, but I've not yet been bothered enough to figure out how to build some kind of OCR into it to as there doesn't seem to be many options for OCR in Python. [Barcode Readers](http://www.barcodereaders.com/) seem like an option as generally you can get ones which just give a serial data stream with the content of the barcode which could then just be used as the name of the file...
It seems like the kind of thing that should be available in the way of paid OCR solutions, I think you may need to go through evaluating which packages support bulk document scanning and rule based file saving. |
146,383 | I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but...
I need a scanner (paper feed scanner) where depending on either a barcode, or number, or some identifier on the paper being scanned, creates a PDF file with a name based on that identifier.
For example: If I scanned a page with the number 12345 on the top-left of the page, a PDF file named 12345.pdf would be created.
Any suggestions at all would be greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/28 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/146383",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/9918/"
] | Have you looked at things like [Readiris](http://www.irislink.com/c2-1584-189/Readiris-12---OCR-Software-------Convert-your-Paper-Documents-into-Editable-Text-.aspx) or [SimpleOCR](http://SimpleOCR) or [other](http://www.topocr.com/download.html) [OCR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition) [alternatives](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/top-5-free-ocr-software-tools-to-convert-your-images-into-text-nb/) to see if any of them have the features that you are after?
I have written a document scanner using Microsoft Access VBA that can grab pages from a document feeding scanner and output pdf files, and I'm currently rewriting it in Python, but I've not yet been bothered enough to figure out how to build some kind of OCR into it to as there doesn't seem to be many options for OCR in Python. [Barcode Readers](http://www.barcodereaders.com/) seem like an option as generally you can get ones which just give a serial data stream with the content of the barcode which could then just be used as the name of the file...
It seems like the kind of thing that should be available in the way of paid OCR solutions, I think you may need to go through evaluating which packages support bulk document scanning and rule based file saving. | Sorry for answering a 3 year old thread, but I was in search of something like this too in the place I work in. After some research, I stumbled upon [Batch Scan To Pdf](http://www.batchscantopdf.com) that exactly does what you need in your description. Instead of regular barcodes however, they use QR-Codes. They are SUPER cheap compared to other ones I've seen. Hope this helps others who may need similar functionality. |
146,383 | I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but...
I need a scanner (paper feed scanner) where depending on either a barcode, or number, or some identifier on the paper being scanned, creates a PDF file with a name based on that identifier.
For example: If I scanned a page with the number 12345 on the top-left of the page, a PDF file named 12345.pdf would be created.
Any suggestions at all would be greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/28 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/146383",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/9918/"
] | If you looking for document scanner that has the capability to do batch separation using barcode and rename them base on barcode and zoned OCR you can try to do it with Fujitsu Scanner bundled with its software scan all pro. Other choice is you are using Kodak scanner with kodak capture but the software is sold separately and it quite costly.
If you have an ISIS based scanner you can try Quick Scan Pro software to do it. I have used scan all pro since 3 years ago to digitalized million of pages and it works fine. | Sorry for answering a 3 year old thread, but I was in search of something like this too in the place I work in. After some research, I stumbled upon [Batch Scan To Pdf](http://www.batchscantopdf.com) that exactly does what you need in your description. Instead of regular barcodes however, they use QR-Codes. They are SUPER cheap compared to other ones I've seen. Hope this helps others who may need similar functionality. |
88 | Sorry for the catchy title. I want to understand, what should one have to do to disprove the Church-Turing thesis? Somewhere I read it's mathematically impossible to do it! Why?
Turing, Rosser etc used different terms to
differentiate between: "what can be computed" and "what can be
computed by a Turing machine".
Turing's 1939 definition regarding this is:
"We shall use the expression "computable function" to mean a function
calculable by a machine, and we let "effectively calculable" refer to
the intuitive idea without particular identification with any one of
these definitions".
So, the Church-Turing thesis can be stated as follows:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
So again, how will the proof look like if one disproves this conjecture? | 2010/08/17 | [
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Disproving the Church-Turing thesis seems indeed extremely unlikely and conceptually very hard to imagine. There are various "hypothetical physical worlds" which are in some tension with the Church-Turing thesis (but whether they contradict it is by itself an interesting philosophical question). A paper by Pitowsky "[The Physical Church’s Thesis and Physical Computational Complexity", Iyun 39, 81-99 (1990)](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper14.pdf) deals with such hypothetical physical worlds. See also the paper by Itamar Pitowsky and Oron Shagrir: "[The Church-Turing Thesis and Hyper Computation](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper36.pdf)", Minds and Machines 13, 87-101 (2003). Oron Shagrir have written several philosophical papers about the Church-Turing thesis [see his webpage](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/shagrir/). (See also [this blog post](http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/itamar-pitowski-probability-in-physics-where-does-it-come-from/).)
The effective or efficient Church-Turing thesis is an infinitely stronger assertion than the original Church-Turing assertion which asserts that every possible computation can be simulated effciently by a Turing machine. Quantum computers will indeed show that The efficient Church-Turing thesis is invalid (modulo some computational complexity mathematical conjectures, and modulo the "asymptotic interpretation"). I think the efficient Church-Turing conjecture was first formulated in 1985 by Wolfram, the paper is cited in Pitowsky's paper linked above. In fact, you do not even need universal quantum computers to refute the efficient C-T thesis, and it is interesting line of research (that Aaronson among others studies) to propose as simple as possible demonstration of the computational superiority of quantum systems.
It is also an interesting problem if there are simpler ways to demonstrate the computational superiority of quantum computers in the presence of noise, rather than to have full-fledge quantum fault-tolerance (that allows universal quantum computation). (Scott A. is indeed interested also in this problem.) | Regarding the *Extended* Church-Turing Thesis (meant as "A probabilistic Turing machine can efficiently simulate any physically computable function."):
One possibility is the difference between classical and quantum computers. Specifically the question, "Is there a task that quantum computers can perform that classical computers cannot?" [A recent ECCC report by Scott Aaronson](http://www.eccc.uni-trier.de/report/2010/128/) (see Conjecture 9 on page 5) highlights a conjecture that, if proven, would provide strong evidence against the Extended Church-Turing Thesis.
If one were to disprove the Extended Church-Turing Thesis, it could look like that -- specifically, by demonstrating an efficiently computable task that a (classical) Turing machine cannot efficiently compute. |
88 | Sorry for the catchy title. I want to understand, what should one have to do to disprove the Church-Turing thesis? Somewhere I read it's mathematically impossible to do it! Why?
Turing, Rosser etc used different terms to
differentiate between: "what can be computed" and "what can be
computed by a Turing machine".
Turing's 1939 definition regarding this is:
"We shall use the expression "computable function" to mean a function
calculable by a machine, and we let "effectively calculable" refer to
the intuitive idea without particular identification with any one of
these definitions".
So, the Church-Turing thesis can be stated as follows:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
So again, how will the proof look like if one disproves this conjecture? | 2010/08/17 | [
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Disproving the Church-Turing thesis seems indeed extremely unlikely and conceptually very hard to imagine. There are various "hypothetical physical worlds" which are in some tension with the Church-Turing thesis (but whether they contradict it is by itself an interesting philosophical question). A paper by Pitowsky "[The Physical Church’s Thesis and Physical Computational Complexity", Iyun 39, 81-99 (1990)](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper14.pdf) deals with such hypothetical physical worlds. See also the paper by Itamar Pitowsky and Oron Shagrir: "[The Church-Turing Thesis and Hyper Computation](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper36.pdf)", Minds and Machines 13, 87-101 (2003). Oron Shagrir have written several philosophical papers about the Church-Turing thesis [see his webpage](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/shagrir/). (See also [this blog post](http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/itamar-pitowski-probability-in-physics-where-does-it-come-from/).)
The effective or efficient Church-Turing thesis is an infinitely stronger assertion than the original Church-Turing assertion which asserts that every possible computation can be simulated effciently by a Turing machine. Quantum computers will indeed show that The efficient Church-Turing thesis is invalid (modulo some computational complexity mathematical conjectures, and modulo the "asymptotic interpretation"). I think the efficient Church-Turing conjecture was first formulated in 1985 by Wolfram, the paper is cited in Pitowsky's paper linked above. In fact, you do not even need universal quantum computers to refute the efficient C-T thesis, and it is interesting line of research (that Aaronson among others studies) to propose as simple as possible demonstration of the computational superiority of quantum systems.
It is also an interesting problem if there are simpler ways to demonstrate the computational superiority of quantum computers in the presence of noise, rather than to have full-fledge quantum fault-tolerance (that allows universal quantum computation). (Scott A. is indeed interested also in this problem.) | The following papers from Selim Akl may be of interest and relevant to the discussion:
Akl, S.G., "Three counterexamples to dispel the myth of the universal computer", Parallel Processing Letters, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 381 - 403.
Akl, S.G., "Even accelerating machines are not universal", International Journal of Unconventional Computing, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2007, pp. 105 - 121.
Nagy, M. and Akl, S.G., "Parallelism in quantum information processing defeats the Universal Computer", Parallel Processing Letters, Special Issue on Unconventional Computational Problems, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 233 - 262.
Here is the abstract of the first one:
It is shown that the concept of a Universal Computer cannot be realized. Specifically, instances of a computable function F are exhibited that cannot be computed on any machine U that is capable of only a finite and fixed number of operations per step. This remains true even if the machine U is endowed with an infinite memory and the ability to communicate with the outside world while it is attempting to compute F. It also remains true if, in addition, U is given an indefinite amount of time to compute F. This result applies not only to idealized models of computation, such as the Turing Machine and the like, but also to all known general-purpose computers, including existing conventional computers (both sequential and parallel), as well as contemplated unconventional ones such as biological and quantum computers. Even accelerating machines (that is, machines that increase their speed at every step) cannot be universal. |
88 | Sorry for the catchy title. I want to understand, what should one have to do to disprove the Church-Turing thesis? Somewhere I read it's mathematically impossible to do it! Why?
Turing, Rosser etc used different terms to
differentiate between: "what can be computed" and "what can be
computed by a Turing machine".
Turing's 1939 definition regarding this is:
"We shall use the expression "computable function" to mean a function
calculable by a machine, and we let "effectively calculable" refer to
the intuitive idea without particular identification with any one of
these definitions".
So, the Church-Turing thesis can be stated as follows:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
So again, how will the proof look like if one disproves this conjecture? | 2010/08/17 | [
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Regarding the *Extended* Church-Turing Thesis (meant as "A probabilistic Turing machine can efficiently simulate any physically computable function."):
One possibility is the difference between classical and quantum computers. Specifically the question, "Is there a task that quantum computers can perform that classical computers cannot?" [A recent ECCC report by Scott Aaronson](http://www.eccc.uni-trier.de/report/2010/128/) (see Conjecture 9 on page 5) highlights a conjecture that, if proven, would provide strong evidence against the Extended Church-Turing Thesis.
If one were to disprove the Extended Church-Turing Thesis, it could look like that -- specifically, by demonstrating an efficiently computable task that a (classical) Turing machine cannot efficiently compute. | The following papers from Selim Akl may be of interest and relevant to the discussion:
Akl, S.G., "Three counterexamples to dispel the myth of the universal computer", Parallel Processing Letters, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 381 - 403.
Akl, S.G., "Even accelerating machines are not universal", International Journal of Unconventional Computing, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2007, pp. 105 - 121.
Nagy, M. and Akl, S.G., "Parallelism in quantum information processing defeats the Universal Computer", Parallel Processing Letters, Special Issue on Unconventional Computational Problems, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 233 - 262.
Here is the abstract of the first one:
It is shown that the concept of a Universal Computer cannot be realized. Specifically, instances of a computable function F are exhibited that cannot be computed on any machine U that is capable of only a finite and fixed number of operations per step. This remains true even if the machine U is endowed with an infinite memory and the ability to communicate with the outside world while it is attempting to compute F. It also remains true if, in addition, U is given an indefinite amount of time to compute F. This result applies not only to idealized models of computation, such as the Turing Machine and the like, but also to all known general-purpose computers, including existing conventional computers (both sequential and parallel), as well as contemplated unconventional ones such as biological and quantum computers. Even accelerating machines (that is, machines that increase their speed at every step) cannot be universal. |
88 | Sorry for the catchy title. I want to understand, what should one have to do to disprove the Church-Turing thesis? Somewhere I read it's mathematically impossible to do it! Why?
Turing, Rosser etc used different terms to
differentiate between: "what can be computed" and "what can be
computed by a Turing machine".
Turing's 1939 definition regarding this is:
"We shall use the expression "computable function" to mean a function
calculable by a machine, and we let "effectively calculable" refer to
the intuitive idea without particular identification with any one of
these definitions".
So, the Church-Turing thesis can be stated as follows:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
So again, how will the proof look like if one disproves this conjecture? | 2010/08/17 | [
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | As far as I understand, the "impossibility" of proving or disproving the thesis is that there is no formal definition of "effectively calculable". Today, we take it to be precisely "computable by a Turing machine", but that rather begs the question.
Models of computation that are strictly more powerful than a Turing machine have been studied, take a look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation> for some examples. Or just take a Turing machine with an oracle for the Halting Problem for Turing Machines. Such a machine will have its own Halting Problem, but it can solve the original Halting Problem just fine. Of course, we have no such oracle, but there's nothing mathematically impossible about the idea. | The following papers from Selim Akl may be of interest and relevant to the discussion:
Akl, S.G., "Three counterexamples to dispel the myth of the universal computer", Parallel Processing Letters, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 381 - 403.
Akl, S.G., "Even accelerating machines are not universal", International Journal of Unconventional Computing, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2007, pp. 105 - 121.
Nagy, M. and Akl, S.G., "Parallelism in quantum information processing defeats the Universal Computer", Parallel Processing Letters, Special Issue on Unconventional Computational Problems, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 233 - 262.
Here is the abstract of the first one:
It is shown that the concept of a Universal Computer cannot be realized. Specifically, instances of a computable function F are exhibited that cannot be computed on any machine U that is capable of only a finite and fixed number of operations per step. This remains true even if the machine U is endowed with an infinite memory and the ability to communicate with the outside world while it is attempting to compute F. It also remains true if, in addition, U is given an indefinite amount of time to compute F. This result applies not only to idealized models of computation, such as the Turing Machine and the like, but also to all known general-purpose computers, including existing conventional computers (both sequential and parallel), as well as contemplated unconventional ones such as biological and quantum computers. Even accelerating machines (that is, machines that increase their speed at every step) cannot be universal. |
88 | Sorry for the catchy title. I want to understand, what should one have to do to disprove the Church-Turing thesis? Somewhere I read it's mathematically impossible to do it! Why?
Turing, Rosser etc used different terms to
differentiate between: "what can be computed" and "what can be
computed by a Turing machine".
Turing's 1939 definition regarding this is:
"We shall use the expression "computable function" to mean a function
calculable by a machine, and we let "effectively calculable" refer to
the intuitive idea without particular identification with any one of
these definitions".
So, the Church-Turing thesis can be stated as follows:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
So again, how will the proof look like if one disproves this conjecture? | 2010/08/17 | [
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Disproving the Church-Turing thesis seems indeed extremely unlikely and conceptually very hard to imagine. There are various "hypothetical physical worlds" which are in some tension with the Church-Turing thesis (but whether they contradict it is by itself an interesting philosophical question). A paper by Pitowsky "[The Physical Church’s Thesis and Physical Computational Complexity", Iyun 39, 81-99 (1990)](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper14.pdf) deals with such hypothetical physical worlds. See also the paper by Itamar Pitowsky and Oron Shagrir: "[The Church-Turing Thesis and Hyper Computation](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper36.pdf)", Minds and Machines 13, 87-101 (2003). Oron Shagrir have written several philosophical papers about the Church-Turing thesis [see his webpage](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/shagrir/). (See also [this blog post](http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/itamar-pitowski-probability-in-physics-where-does-it-come-from/).)
The effective or efficient Church-Turing thesis is an infinitely stronger assertion than the original Church-Turing assertion which asserts that every possible computation can be simulated effciently by a Turing machine. Quantum computers will indeed show that The efficient Church-Turing thesis is invalid (modulo some computational complexity mathematical conjectures, and modulo the "asymptotic interpretation"). I think the efficient Church-Turing conjecture was first formulated in 1985 by Wolfram, the paper is cited in Pitowsky's paper linked above. In fact, you do not even need universal quantum computers to refute the efficient C-T thesis, and it is interesting line of research (that Aaronson among others studies) to propose as simple as possible demonstration of the computational superiority of quantum systems.
It is also an interesting problem if there are simpler ways to demonstrate the computational superiority of quantum computers in the presence of noise, rather than to have full-fledge quantum fault-tolerance (that allows universal quantum computation). (Scott A. is indeed interested also in this problem.) | The Church-Turing thesis has been proved for all practical purposes.
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.146.5402>
Dershowitz and Gurevich, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 2008.
(This reference discusses the history of Church's and Turing's work, and argues for a separation between "Church's Thesis" and "Turing's Thesis" as distinct logical claims, then proves them both, within an intuitive axiomatization of computability.) |
88 | Sorry for the catchy title. I want to understand, what should one have to do to disprove the Church-Turing thesis? Somewhere I read it's mathematically impossible to do it! Why?
Turing, Rosser etc used different terms to
differentiate between: "what can be computed" and "what can be
computed by a Turing machine".
Turing's 1939 definition regarding this is:
"We shall use the expression "computable function" to mean a function
calculable by a machine, and we let "effectively calculable" refer to
the intuitive idea without particular identification with any one of
these definitions".
So, the Church-Turing thesis can be stated as follows:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
So again, how will the proof look like if one disproves this conjecture? | 2010/08/17 | [
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Regarding the *Extended* Church-Turing Thesis (meant as "A probabilistic Turing machine can efficiently simulate any physically computable function."):
One possibility is the difference between classical and quantum computers. Specifically the question, "Is there a task that quantum computers can perform that classical computers cannot?" [A recent ECCC report by Scott Aaronson](http://www.eccc.uni-trier.de/report/2010/128/) (see Conjecture 9 on page 5) highlights a conjecture that, if proven, would provide strong evidence against the Extended Church-Turing Thesis.
If one were to disprove the Extended Church-Turing Thesis, it could look like that -- specifically, by demonstrating an efficiently computable task that a (classical) Turing machine cannot efficiently compute. | The Church-Turing thesis has been proved for all practical purposes.
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.146.5402>
Dershowitz and Gurevich, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 2008.
(This reference discusses the history of Church's and Turing's work, and argues for a separation between "Church's Thesis" and "Turing's Thesis" as distinct logical claims, then proves them both, within an intuitive axiomatization of computability.) |
88 | Sorry for the catchy title. I want to understand, what should one have to do to disprove the Church-Turing thesis? Somewhere I read it's mathematically impossible to do it! Why?
Turing, Rosser etc used different terms to
differentiate between: "what can be computed" and "what can be
computed by a Turing machine".
Turing's 1939 definition regarding this is:
"We shall use the expression "computable function" to mean a function
calculable by a machine, and we let "effectively calculable" refer to
the intuitive idea without particular identification with any one of
these definitions".
So, the Church-Turing thesis can be stated as follows:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
So again, how will the proof look like if one disproves this conjecture? | 2010/08/17 | [
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Disproving the Church-Turing thesis seems indeed extremely unlikely and conceptually very hard to imagine. There are various "hypothetical physical worlds" which are in some tension with the Church-Turing thesis (but whether they contradict it is by itself an interesting philosophical question). A paper by Pitowsky "[The Physical Church’s Thesis and Physical Computational Complexity", Iyun 39, 81-99 (1990)](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper14.pdf) deals with such hypothetical physical worlds. See also the paper by Itamar Pitowsky and Oron Shagrir: "[The Church-Turing Thesis and Hyper Computation](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/pitowsky/papers/Paper36.pdf)", Minds and Machines 13, 87-101 (2003). Oron Shagrir have written several philosophical papers about the Church-Turing thesis [see his webpage](http://edelstein.huji.ac.il/staff/shagrir/). (See also [this blog post](http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/itamar-pitowski-probability-in-physics-where-does-it-come-from/).)
The effective or efficient Church-Turing thesis is an infinitely stronger assertion than the original Church-Turing assertion which asserts that every possible computation can be simulated effciently by a Turing machine. Quantum computers will indeed show that The efficient Church-Turing thesis is invalid (modulo some computational complexity mathematical conjectures, and modulo the "asymptotic interpretation"). I think the efficient Church-Turing conjecture was first formulated in 1985 by Wolfram, the paper is cited in Pitowsky's paper linked above. In fact, you do not even need universal quantum computers to refute the efficient C-T thesis, and it is interesting line of research (that Aaronson among others studies) to propose as simple as possible demonstration of the computational superiority of quantum systems.
It is also an interesting problem if there are simpler ways to demonstrate the computational superiority of quantum computers in the presence of noise, rather than to have full-fledge quantum fault-tolerance (that allows universal quantum computation). (Scott A. is indeed interested also in this problem.) | A new paper presented at [DCM2011](http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jkrivine/conferences/DCM2011/DCM_2011.html): [A Formalization and Proof of the Extended Church-Turing Thesis](http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachumd/papers/ECTT.pdf) (Nachum Dershowitz and Evgenia Falkovich) |
264,021 | The leader of our clan left the clan and went to another clan. He is an awesome lvl 118 player. I also left the clan and tried to join other clans, but everyone declined it l. Now my mail box is full with **"Clan Request Declined"**. So is there a way I can recover his mail to see which clan he went to?
The player's name is *Velkar* if that helps. | 2016/04/29 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/264021",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/139312/"
] | No, there's no way to get back old mail that got deleted. It's also not possible to search for a particular player (although it is an often requested feature...). If you didn't note the clan tag or clan name, and you aren't friends on social media (ie, Facebook or Game Center), then you aren't likely to find this player. | Join your old clan and look at the chat. Find the notification saying that he left the clan. Click the notification and click profile or view clan. Then bookmark the clan. |
52,621 | I was just given a used Arturia Mini Brute to mess around with. What basic equipment do I need to amplify/hear the sound produced? I have already purchased headphones. If it is not obvious, I have almost no experience with electronics. | 2017/01/24 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/52621",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/36319/"
] | According to the "main features" information at the bottom of <https://www.arturia.com/products/hardware-synths/minibrute/overview> it has a 1/4" audio output, and a 1/4" headphone output.
Most "consumer quality" headphones have a smaller 3.5mm plug, which is the standard size on cellphones, etc. If that is what you have, you need a "3.5mm socket to 6.35mm jack plug audio stereo adaptor" like this (1/4 inch is the same size as 6.35mm).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YDSWK.png)
These are very widely available, and cheap. As usual, you get what you pay for - the very cheapest ones may not be very durable.
Note, if you buy one by mail order, make sure you are ordering *exactly* what it says above - you don't want one has a 3.5mm *plug* and a 1.4" *socket*, which would let you plug "professional quality" headphones into a cellphone! | Just plug in your headphones and let the fun begin. |
863,715 | In MS Word.
If heading one is numbered using roman numbers, when the figure caption also includes chapter numbers, roman numbers will be used like this: "II-1", but what I want is "2-1". How can I achieve this?
 | 2015/01/12 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/863715",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/166876/"
] | I've got a better solution:
Number the chapter headers with Arabic numerals and then use hidden formatting (ctrl+shift+h) to hide the number and manually write "Chapter I", "Chapter II", etc. It's not the prettiest solution, but I think it's the easiest. ToC should use whatever you've written there so you can manually change that too if you need to. | You can right click on the header number and select "adjust list indents" and then check the box that says "Legal Style Numbering". Then you can right click on the style in the ribbon and select "Update X to match section". |
863,715 | In MS Word.
If heading one is numbered using roman numbers, when the figure caption also includes chapter numbers, roman numbers will be used like this: "II-1", but what I want is "2-1". How can I achieve this?
 | 2015/01/12 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/863715",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/166876/"
] | I've got a better solution:
Number the chapter headers with Arabic numerals and then use hidden formatting (ctrl+shift+h) to hide the number and manually write "Chapter I", "Chapter II", etc. It's not the prettiest solution, but I think it's the easiest. ToC should use whatever you've written there so you can manually change that too if you need to. | You only need to make a new level numbering and new heading. For example, if your numbering thant link to heading is until heading 3, you could add level 4 for new heading that you make for figure. For example you make a new heading and name it as Figure. Then link the level 4 numbering to Figure heading. The issues come: how to make a table of figures for this heading. It is easy, in the options menu while you insert table of figures, change the styles column to be Figure. And voila you made it. |
386,517 | In one of my tests at school, there was this multiple choice question which asked students to choose answer having the same meaning with this sentence "Men hold no better positions in society than women do."
The answers were:
A. Women are in better positions in society than men are
B. Women and men hold the same positions in society
C. Men are not as good as women in society
The correct answer was A, but I'm confused between A and B, because I think "no better than" refers to "the same", not acts as a comparative adjective.
Can someone explain why A is correct? | 2017/04/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/386517",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/233286/"
] | The question is flawed and impossible to answer
-----------------------------------------------
StoneyB is correct here, **none** of the answers are correct. The question, as it is currently asked, has no answer.
---
Let's think about this before we even address the question itself. When comparing two specific positions, there are only three possible outcomes:
* M > W
* M = W
* M < W
I assume you see that I'm using M and W to refer to men and women.
Now, we introduce the statement (I will refer to this as "the statement" later on):
>
> "Men hold no better positions in society than women do."
>
>
>
This tells us that **(M > W)** is not a possibility. This is the **only** conclusion we can draw from this statement.
Therefore, we are left with the following possibilities:
* M = W
* M < W
Men *could* have equal positions to women.
Men *could* have inferior positions to women.
It's also possible that *some* men hold equal positions to women, and *some* men hold inferior positions to women.
---
Now let's discuss why every answer is wrong
-------------------------------------------
>
> A. Women are in better positions in society than men are
>
>
>
**Incorrect**.
As I addressed before, we cannot know for certain if **(M = W)** or **(M < W)**. Both could be possible (separately, or at the same time). "The statement" never confirmed that **(M < W)** is the **only** remaining option, and therefore we cannot conclude that answer A is *conclusively* correct.
We could say that it's possible, but not that it is definitively correct.
"The statement" and answer A do not have the same meaning. They could *possibly* both be correct at the same time; but that does not mean they mean the same thing!
Consider the following statements:
>
> (1) The first name of the President of the United States is Donald.
>
> (2) The last name of the President of the United States is Trump.
>
>
>
Are these statements both correct? **Yes**.
Do these statement have the same meaning? **No**.
>
> B. Women and men hold the same positions in society
>
>
>
**Incorrect**.
The same argument is true here. We cannot know for certain if **(M = W)** or **(M < W)**. Both could be possible (separately, or at the same time). "The statement" never confirmed that **(M = W)** is the **only** remaining option, and therefore we cannot conclude that answer B is *conclusively* correct.
We could say that it's possible, but not that it is definitively correct.
"The statement" and answer B do not have the same meaning. They could *possibly* both be correct at the same time; but that does not mean they mean the same thing!
>
> C. Men are not as good as women in society
>
>
>
**Incorrect**.
This like comparing apples and oranges. Just because you can compare the *position* of men and women objectively, does not mean that you can apply those conclusions to *the inherent worth* of men and women.
Even if I state that shooting someone in the head is a better way to kill a man, compared to being kind to him; that does not inherently mean that I think shooting people in the head is better than being kind to people.
---
Regardless of whether the examinator made a mistake or not, **A and B should always be considered equally correct or incorrect**. Every argument you can make for A being (in)correct will automatically apply to B too, and vice versa. | I think you may have misunderstood the question, either that or there was an error on your exam.
>
> (1) Men hold no better positions in society than women do
>
>
>
is not synonymous with
>
> (2) Women are in better positions in society than men are
>
>
>
Logically if (1) is true, (2) can still be true. But they do not mean the same thing.
Men can hold no better positions in society than women, and women could also be in better positions in society than men.
However (1) does not mean (2). (1) Merely allows for the possibility that (2) can be true.
>
> (3) Women and men hold the same positions in society
>
>
>
is possible from (1) also. If both women and men hold the same position in society, then by definition men hold no better positions in society than women do.
>
> (4) Men are not as good as women in society
>
>
>
Is saying something about the nature of men, not the nature of the positions they hold, so has no direct relation to (1).
So in summary. (1) is not synonymous with (2).
Logically (1) allows for the possibility of (2) or (3).
(4) is altogether different semantically. It doesn't matter if (1) is true or false, (4) can still be true. However if (1) is false then both (2) and (3) must also be false. |
109,944 | In the show Jessica Jones, in the last two episodes Kilgrave takes steps to enhance his powers, which leads to him
>
> being able to control people through phones, loudspeakers, tvs, and other electronic communication devices. He uses a phone call in the hospital, which is Jessica's first realization he can use electronic equipment. He then uses the broadcasting system and the televisions in the hospital to turn all of the hospital staff against Jessica, uses phone calls to control Luke Cage, and uses a microphone and sound system to take over a concert.
>
>
>
Given that we are told his powers work because he emits an air-borne virus that affects people near him, how does this make any sense at all? How does a (presumably) biological virus get transmitted electronically? | 2015/12/08 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/109944",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/14343/"
] | It doesn't get transmitted electronically, though it's not clear at all from the scene.
Kilgrave's power is
>
> a virus that his body continuously emits into the air around him.
>
>
>
Once you are exposed, you become very open to suggestions from Kilgrave's voice. His power is only limited by those people who are physically exposed to the environment where Kilgrave happens to be.
Initially, his limits are around the size of a medium-sized room, and about 10 hours. That is the distance his powers can travel in the air from Kilgrave, and the length of time it stays active in the victims after exposure. At any time during that 10 hours, he can order you to do something and you will do it, even if he's not physically there anymore.
At the end of the series, Kilgrave has
>
> his father work on expanding those limits.
>
>
>
Once done, his power is able to spread out further away from him, including
>
> through the circulation system of the entire hospital.
>
>
>
All of those people are *already exposed* to Kilgrave's ability; they are just waiting around open to his suggestion. Once he announces over the loudspeaker what he wants them to do, they're forced to obey his commands. | Those in Kilgrave's presence (e.g. those that are
>
> infected by the virus he exudes)
>
>
>
are prone to following his verbal commands. This also extends to commands given to other people to pass on as well as commands heard via phone/microphone, etc.
The key factor is that people must have been in his physical presence to have been
>
> infected in the first place.
>
>
>
In the final episodes, his *range* is extended to the point that he can control an entire theatre or an entire hospital almost at once, but the key factor is that he has to have been inside the building at the time. |
55,643 | Scenario: I have a generation ship moving between two star systems. Given that such a ship needs to have a completely self sufficient life cycle system to make it viable, ejecting mass continuously does not seem to me to be a very viable option for acceleration.
With this given scenario what other methods can be used to achieve acceleration and deceleration in interstellar space?
I would like answers to be bound by the known laws of physics in our universe. | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/55643",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27250/"
] | The best way to conserve mass is to use external energy to accelerate the ship.
[Robert L Forward](http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D001_AxA.html) had designed a multi stage lightsail which allowed ships to accelerate, and then, by detaching portions of the sail and using them to reflect laser energy back to the starship, decelerate at the target star. The disadvantage is laser driven lightsails are still quite massive, and the amount of laser energy needed to drive the starship is measured in *Terrawatts*. Building the laser launcher alone is a huge undertaking (usually described as being done by building a ring of solar power satellites and lasers in polar orbit around Mercury), gigantic focusing lenses over a thousand kilometres in diameter in the outer solar system, and then the starship itself.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4pmW3.gif)
Since a generation ship is bound to be larger than an exploration starship like the one Froward was proposing, you will need to scale things up considerably. (Realistically, if you can accelerate a ship to the sorts of speeds Forward is considering, then it isn't really a generation ship, but since it may take centuries to build colonies in the new star system, a generation ship sized construct is probably needed as a base to live and work out of until fresh colony space is created. NextBigFuture published an interesting speculation about "[Tabby's Star](http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/tabby-star-abnormalities-in-dimming-are.html)" which suggested an orbiting mirror the size of the Moons orbit around the Earth could power monster lightsails.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3MGUY.jpg)
If a lightsail ins't your thing, then maybe a gigantic mass driver could be used to accelerate the starship. Deceleration can be handled by various means including a rocket, magsail or deploying a lightsail to use the target star's energy. Once again. we are talking about a monstrous device. Marshal Savage conceptualized something like this in his book "[The Millenial Project](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0316771635)", describing a system which *stretched across the solar system*. One reason to make it so big is to keep acceleration down to a reasonable limit (3g is about the best an unprotected human can withstand, trained pilots with G suits can withstand up to 9g, for sustained acceleration beyond that limit people might have to be immersed in fluid and have all their internal spaces packed with oxygenated fluorocarbons).
Once again, using high initial accelerations allows the ship to cross the interstellar distance in decades rather than centuries, so the advantage to a large ship is as a shelter and workspace on arrival; generations of colonists might need to stay aboard the ship until a colony planet is terraformed. | A rocket *does* accelerate in space. Momentum of hot gas out the back = forward momentum. Change the burn rate and you change the momentum (i.e., accelerate). Also, the mass of the rocket changes as fuel is being burnt, so at a constant burn rate, the rocket accelerates naturally. |
55,643 | Scenario: I have a generation ship moving between two star systems. Given that such a ship needs to have a completely self sufficient life cycle system to make it viable, ejecting mass continuously does not seem to me to be a very viable option for acceleration.
With this given scenario what other methods can be used to achieve acceleration and deceleration in interstellar space?
I would like answers to be bound by the known laws of physics in our universe. | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/55643",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27250/"
] | The best way to conserve mass is to use external energy to accelerate the ship.
[Robert L Forward](http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D001_AxA.html) had designed a multi stage lightsail which allowed ships to accelerate, and then, by detaching portions of the sail and using them to reflect laser energy back to the starship, decelerate at the target star. The disadvantage is laser driven lightsails are still quite massive, and the amount of laser energy needed to drive the starship is measured in *Terrawatts*. Building the laser launcher alone is a huge undertaking (usually described as being done by building a ring of solar power satellites and lasers in polar orbit around Mercury), gigantic focusing lenses over a thousand kilometres in diameter in the outer solar system, and then the starship itself.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4pmW3.gif)
Since a generation ship is bound to be larger than an exploration starship like the one Froward was proposing, you will need to scale things up considerably. (Realistically, if you can accelerate a ship to the sorts of speeds Forward is considering, then it isn't really a generation ship, but since it may take centuries to build colonies in the new star system, a generation ship sized construct is probably needed as a base to live and work out of until fresh colony space is created. NextBigFuture published an interesting speculation about "[Tabby's Star](http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/tabby-star-abnormalities-in-dimming-are.html)" which suggested an orbiting mirror the size of the Moons orbit around the Earth could power monster lightsails.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3MGUY.jpg)
If a lightsail ins't your thing, then maybe a gigantic mass driver could be used to accelerate the starship. Deceleration can be handled by various means including a rocket, magsail or deploying a lightsail to use the target star's energy. Once again. we are talking about a monstrous device. Marshal Savage conceptualized something like this in his book "[The Millenial Project](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0316771635)", describing a system which *stretched across the solar system*. One reason to make it so big is to keep acceleration down to a reasonable limit (3g is about the best an unprotected human can withstand, trained pilots with G suits can withstand up to 9g, for sustained acceleration beyond that limit people might have to be immersed in fluid and have all their internal spaces packed with oxygenated fluorocarbons).
Once again, using high initial accelerations allows the ship to cross the interstellar distance in decades rather than centuries, so the advantage to a large ship is as a shelter and workspace on arrival; generations of colonists might need to stay aboard the ship until a colony planet is terraformed. | * [Lightsails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail), possibly powered by a laser launch system.
* Variants like a [magnetic sail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail).
* [Bussard Ramjets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet).
* Accept that you will need fuel or [reaction mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_mass) for acceleration/deceleration, and plan for it. Take a very efficient fuel like antimatter, and/or accept a long flight.
Whatever you do, a [hard-science](/questions/tagged/hard-science "show questions tagged 'hard-science'") solution will have a minuscule payload and an astronomical pricetag. |
55,643 | Scenario: I have a generation ship moving between two star systems. Given that such a ship needs to have a completely self sufficient life cycle system to make it viable, ejecting mass continuously does not seem to me to be a very viable option for acceleration.
With this given scenario what other methods can be used to achieve acceleration and deceleration in interstellar space?
I would like answers to be bound by the known laws of physics in our universe. | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/55643",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27250/"
] | The best way to conserve mass is to use external energy to accelerate the ship.
[Robert L Forward](http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D001_AxA.html) had designed a multi stage lightsail which allowed ships to accelerate, and then, by detaching portions of the sail and using them to reflect laser energy back to the starship, decelerate at the target star. The disadvantage is laser driven lightsails are still quite massive, and the amount of laser energy needed to drive the starship is measured in *Terrawatts*. Building the laser launcher alone is a huge undertaking (usually described as being done by building a ring of solar power satellites and lasers in polar orbit around Mercury), gigantic focusing lenses over a thousand kilometres in diameter in the outer solar system, and then the starship itself.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4pmW3.gif)
Since a generation ship is bound to be larger than an exploration starship like the one Froward was proposing, you will need to scale things up considerably. (Realistically, if you can accelerate a ship to the sorts of speeds Forward is considering, then it isn't really a generation ship, but since it may take centuries to build colonies in the new star system, a generation ship sized construct is probably needed as a base to live and work out of until fresh colony space is created. NextBigFuture published an interesting speculation about "[Tabby's Star](http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/tabby-star-abnormalities-in-dimming-are.html)" which suggested an orbiting mirror the size of the Moons orbit around the Earth could power monster lightsails.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3MGUY.jpg)
If a lightsail ins't your thing, then maybe a gigantic mass driver could be used to accelerate the starship. Deceleration can be handled by various means including a rocket, magsail or deploying a lightsail to use the target star's energy. Once again. we are talking about a monstrous device. Marshal Savage conceptualized something like this in his book "[The Millenial Project](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0316771635)", describing a system which *stretched across the solar system*. One reason to make it so big is to keep acceleration down to a reasonable limit (3g is about the best an unprotected human can withstand, trained pilots with G suits can withstand up to 9g, for sustained acceleration beyond that limit people might have to be immersed in fluid and have all their internal spaces packed with oxygenated fluorocarbons).
Once again, using high initial accelerations allows the ship to cross the interstellar distance in decades rather than centuries, so the advantage to a large ship is as a shelter and workspace on arrival; generations of colonists might need to stay aboard the ship until a colony planet is terraformed. | You can accelerate prior to the interstellar portion of the mission. This could be done with [booster rockets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster) like many real-world missions, or it could be done with a [space tug](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tug) (which is really just a variation of a booster rocket). You could also get fancy and use some kind of rail-gun setup, with magnets or lasers or whatever mounted to orbiting stations in the departure solar system and each station adds a bit more momentum to the ship.
Whatever method you use, the ship would just drift through space until it reaches its destination. If it's the first ship to arrive, it's probably1 going to have to use one or more rockets to enter planetary orbit and eventually land. Otherwise you don't need to use any major thrust on the way, though, as Michael Kjörling points out, you'd likely want *some* thrust to make course corrections along the way2. If it's not the first ship to arrive, previous ships could have the same kind of fancy setups to slow the ship down, but those will take a lot of resources to build, and won't likely exist until many ships have arrived and settled into the new star system.
That said, your ship can't have a completely closed setup. EM energy will [leak out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation) into space, plus [entropy](http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/content.htm) says every time your life cycle loops around, you don't have quite as much extra energy. So you need a power source that will keep the ship warm, feed the plants, etc. for the duration of your trip, although a decent-sized batch of [nuclear fuel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space) should suffice depending on the size of the ship and crew.
The other consideration is that you'll get there faster if you keep accelerating to the halfway point. This means you need [much more fuel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) to accelerate, then even more fuel to decelerate, and even more fuel to get all that fuel out of the solar system, and even more fuel to get all of that off the origin planet's surface. It will be a lot more expensive, but less time in transit means less opportunity for failure, and fewer generations living in the ship.
1 I think you could technically use a giant [lightsail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail) to airbrake once you get to the other end, but my gut feeling is there's not enough acceleration there to slow you down from the very high speeds you'd want to traverse interstellar space at. However, the wikipedia article mentions a [hypothetical way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail#Oort_Cloud_.2F_Sun.27s_inner_gravity_focus) to propel a spacecraft to the inner [Oort cloud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud) (about 0.8 ly from Earth) in 30 years, so similar technology might be used to reach Proxima Centauri (about 4.2 ly from Earth) in a reasonable timeframe using no rockets.
2 Tiny errors in velocity at the beginning of the trip could cause you to miss the other star system entirely if not accounted for. As seen in Brendan's answer to [another question](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9169/what-percent-of-time-is-a-rocket-to-the-moon-on-the-right-trajectory), even the moon flights made a couple small course corrections along the way, and that's about [100 million](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(distance+to+moon)+%2F+(distance+to+proxima+centauri)) times closer than the nearest star system. |
56,473,986 | I have a text file ar. 50 GB size.
I used to process it through TextPipe but atm only mac is available and no TextPipe access.
Is it possible to initiate regex search in this file with good results saving to some other file per matching line?
I was thinking about vim editor but have no sufficient knowledge on where to search for.
Would appreciate any suggestions.
As an example let's assume that I have the code below in my initial.txt file and I want to save lines with "Lorem" in line processed.txt.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. | 2019/06/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56473986",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9629120/"
] | You cannot cache this class, because that implies serializing it, and the class contains explicit methods that prevent certain properties from being included in the serialized string. In fact, the only property that *is* included, is `query` (the input query that caused the result).
You might be able to cache the QueryResult and then manually call the injection methods to add instances of DataMapper etc. - but even if you did, the serialized QueryResult would not contain the results and would fire again every time you attempt to load an entity from it.
The right way would be to extract to a not-QueryResult (array, iterator of own choosing) that you know will allow the results to be serialized.
See: <https://github.com/TYPO3/TYPO3.CMS/blob/v8.7.26/typo3/sysext/extbase/Classes/Persistence/Generic/QueryResult.php#L250> | In the case this is an Ajax-Controller you might want to cache the generated JSON response. |
280,176 | I can't find a proper \*.exe for Excel in the usual places:
* "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Microsoft Office
* "c:\program files\microsoft office\office12\excel.exe"
Does anybody know where I would find the Excel executable for a Windows Vista machine? For that matter, also invoke Excel to open an existing \*.xls file using a batch file?
Incidentally, the Shortcut for Excel shows "target:" to be
>
> Microsoft Office Professional Hybrid 2007
>
>
> | 2011/05/06 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/280176",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/6229/"
] | Just add this line to your batch file:
* START "name of spreadsheet.xls"
This will use the default file association to open the file. If you need a specific version though, then you'll need to find the appropriate .EXE file which might be under a sub-directory called "Common" or "Common files" which should be somewhere under "C:/Program Files/" or "C:/Program Files (x86)/" (stuff is often scattered between both of these as applications are slowly transitioning from 32-bit to 64-bit).
Depending on the default file assocation will ensure that your batch file is portable, so you should prefer to use this approach if you can. | I just stumbled across this amazingly clear Microsoft Support article: [Command-line switches for Microsoft Office products](https://support.office.com/en-us/article/command-line-switches-for-microsoft-office-products-079164cd-4ef5-4178-b235-441737deb3a6) It lists executable names and paths for Office 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016 products in its *Startup command names and locations* section .
I notice that the version of Windows 7/Office that I'm using now *does* list the target path in the shortcut, but I have run across this problem in the past.
Edit: I also discovered that this is because of .NET Advertised Shortcuts. This [Stack Overflow question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1270779/why-is-the-target-disabled-in-dot-net-shortcuts-after-setup) gives a bit more info. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | I suggest that you don't lose a lot of sleep over something that happened several years ago. While you may have crossed a line, your description suggests it wasn't a bright line. Assuming your description is honest, you started out (probably) appropriately looking for alternate explanations of the material, not solutions to the problem at hand. But, rather than the internet it might just as well have been a different textbook.
But if it bothers you, then, assuming you are an academic, make sure that your own students get more explicit advice about what is and is not permitted.
It would have been better, of course, if you had pointed out the situation to the professor. But let the past be the past. Make the future better than the past if you are able. | The exam had no clear policy, so formally you did nothing wrong.
More in detail:
>
> I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me
> whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
>
>
>
You were consulting other sources because you felt the textbook was not enough. It all boils down to that. It is perfectly fine, as long as the reason was "the textbook was not enough".
It is very different than "consulting other sources to find the solution to my take-home exam".
If you did it because of that, you at least learned the skill "how to retrieve information" although it was not a skill you were supposed nor required to develop during that specific course. So instead of doubting the morality of your exams' attitude, you should question the degree you pursued :) ! |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | A take-home test is not, as a more formal test or exam would be, strictly a test of knowledge.
It tests the synthesis of your knowledge and resourcefulness in a fixed time frame, in all respects no different than an essay.
Anyone who gave a test of that nature should expect the student to make use of all available resources and only plagiarism to be unethical. | >
> Unethical?
>
>
>
Given what the professor had directed you to do, I'd say no. I would even be of two minds regarding the unethicality of consulting a textbook during a take-home-only exam.
>
> Was what I did dishonest?
>
>
>
You were not maximally forthcoming - by your own standard. I guess that's what's bugging you, morally. By your professor's standard you were just fine.
>
> Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor?
>
>
>
You're implicitly assuming your a no-good low-down sinner. Stop that.
Anyway, no. Also, if you had told your professor about this, I'm pretty certain he would have said something like "Well, you lucked out, that's life." Or maybe even "The fact that you noticed the problem were related and one was applicable to the other is an indication you have good command of the subject matter."
>
> Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
>
>
>
This.
But moreover - you're giving too much weight to what an exam means. It is not a fatal moral trial by the gods to determine your true nature or anything like that. Think about it more like a lottery where your skills bias the odds... I know that might sound a bit extreme, but you should really let this extreme view balance the other extreme. The exam grade is just a number, it's not paid for in blood and there isn't a one-true-grade for people. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | I suggest that you don't lose a lot of sleep over something that happened several years ago. While you may have crossed a line, your description suggests it wasn't a bright line. Assuming your description is honest, you started out (probably) appropriately looking for alternate explanations of the material, not solutions to the problem at hand. But, rather than the internet it might just as well have been a different textbook.
But if it bothers you, then, assuming you are an academic, make sure that your own students get more explicit advice about what is and is not permitted.
It would have been better, of course, if you had pointed out the situation to the professor. But let the past be the past. Make the future better than the past if you are able. | I would say that it's generally understood that on a take-home test you can use some external literature.
Typically with a take-home exam that takes a day or more, the expectation is that:
* Open-book: you're allowed to use the handbook for the course, as well as your lecture notes, and any recorded lectures and so forth.
* Extra literature: is allowed, although not necessary.
* No collaboration: you're not supposed to share your answers with, or receive answers from, other students.
* Your own work: don't ask other people, even people outside the course, for the solutions.
* Based on reasoning and application of what you've learned, not recalling facts. The problems may be harder and more diffuse than what you would get on an on-site closed-book exam.
There is probably some anecdotal exam that breaks each of these assumptions. As a teacher you'd do well to be explicit with your rules and expectations.
Using external literature to be inspired, to learn something that is helpful in the exam: fine. Adding a reference in your answers to where you found this useful literature: excellent. Rooting out an answer list on the internet: not okay. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | It’s not unethical to *accidentally* benefit from anything, since the fact of such a thing happening is, as the word suggests, accidental. You didn’t mean to cheat, and it was the professor’s idiosyncratic testing policy that set up the perfect storm of circumstances that caused this “accident” to happen: note that the combination of a take-home exam and an in-class exam, and the way the two exams were scheduled, created a period of several days during which you were not allowed to search online for solutions to a specific set of problems, but during which you *were* allowed, and in fact incentivized, to look up general material related to the course. Hmm, I wonder what could go wrong with such an arrangement...?
TL;DR: **no**. | I would say that it's generally understood that on a take-home test you can use some external literature.
Typically with a take-home exam that takes a day or more, the expectation is that:
* Open-book: you're allowed to use the handbook for the course, as well as your lecture notes, and any recorded lectures and so forth.
* Extra literature: is allowed, although not necessary.
* No collaboration: you're not supposed to share your answers with, or receive answers from, other students.
* Your own work: don't ask other people, even people outside the course, for the solutions.
* Based on reasoning and application of what you've learned, not recalling facts. The problems may be harder and more diffuse than what you would get on an on-site closed-book exam.
There is probably some anecdotal exam that breaks each of these assumptions. As a teacher you'd do well to be explicit with your rules and expectations.
Using external literature to be inspired, to learn something that is helpful in the exam: fine. Adding a reference in your answers to where you found this useful literature: excellent. Rooting out an answer list on the internet: not okay. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | A take-home test is not, as a more formal test or exam would be, strictly a test of knowledge.
It tests the synthesis of your knowledge and resourcefulness in a fixed time frame, in all respects no different than an essay.
Anyone who gave a test of that nature should expect the student to make use of all available resources and only plagiarism to be unethical. | If you found how to solve the problem it is all ok. I see the problem only if someone else did the work for you. Why is that? The exam is there to prepare you for your future job and problems that you would face at your work.
Your boss will not tell you: please solve this but don't look at Wikipedia, do not use Google or some other textbooks. Your boss will just want the problem solved. You proved that you know how to find the solution if you don't know, and that is all there it is to it. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | I suggest that you don't lose a lot of sleep over something that happened several years ago. While you may have crossed a line, your description suggests it wasn't a bright line. Assuming your description is honest, you started out (probably) appropriately looking for alternate explanations of the material, not solutions to the problem at hand. But, rather than the internet it might just as well have been a different textbook.
But if it bothers you, then, assuming you are an academic, make sure that your own students get more explicit advice about what is and is not permitted.
It would have been better, of course, if you had pointed out the situation to the professor. But let the past be the past. Make the future better than the past if you are able. | >
> Unethical?
>
>
>
Given what the professor had directed you to do, I'd say no. I would even be of two minds regarding the unethicality of consulting a textbook during a take-home-only exam.
>
> Was what I did dishonest?
>
>
>
You were not maximally forthcoming - by your own standard. I guess that's what's bugging you, morally. By your professor's standard you were just fine.
>
> Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor?
>
>
>
You're implicitly assuming your a no-good low-down sinner. Stop that.
Anyway, no. Also, if you had told your professor about this, I'm pretty certain he would have said something like "Well, you lucked out, that's life." Or maybe even "The fact that you noticed the problem were related and one was applicable to the other is an indication you have good command of the subject matter."
>
> Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
>
>
>
This.
But moreover - you're giving too much weight to what an exam means. It is not a fatal moral trial by the gods to determine your true nature or anything like that. Think about it more like a lottery where your skills bias the odds... I know that might sound a bit extreme, but you should really let this extreme view balance the other extreme. The exam grade is just a number, it's not paid for in blood and there isn't a one-true-grade for people. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | I would say that it's generally understood that on a take-home test you can use some external literature.
Typically with a take-home exam that takes a day or more, the expectation is that:
* Open-book: you're allowed to use the handbook for the course, as well as your lecture notes, and any recorded lectures and so forth.
* Extra literature: is allowed, although not necessary.
* No collaboration: you're not supposed to share your answers with, or receive answers from, other students.
* Your own work: don't ask other people, even people outside the course, for the solutions.
* Based on reasoning and application of what you've learned, not recalling facts. The problems may be harder and more diffuse than what you would get on an on-site closed-book exam.
There is probably some anecdotal exam that breaks each of these assumptions. As a teacher you'd do well to be explicit with your rules and expectations.
Using external literature to be inspired, to learn something that is helpful in the exam: fine. Adding a reference in your answers to where you found this useful literature: excellent. Rooting out an answer list on the internet: not okay. | If you found how to solve the problem it is all ok. I see the problem only if someone else did the work for you. Why is that? The exam is there to prepare you for your future job and problems that you would face at your work.
Your boss will not tell you: please solve this but don't look at Wikipedia, do not use Google or some other textbooks. Your boss will just want the problem solved. You proved that you know how to find the solution if you don't know, and that is all there it is to it. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | The exam had no clear policy, so formally you did nothing wrong.
More in detail:
>
> I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me
> whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
>
>
>
You were consulting other sources because you felt the textbook was not enough. It all boils down to that. It is perfectly fine, as long as the reason was "the textbook was not enough".
It is very different than "consulting other sources to find the solution to my take-home exam".
If you did it because of that, you at least learned the skill "how to retrieve information" although it was not a skill you were supposed nor required to develop during that specific course. So instead of doubting the morality of your exams' attitude, you should question the degree you pursued :) ! | If you found how to solve the problem it is all ok. I see the problem only if someone else did the work for you. Why is that? The exam is there to prepare you for your future job and problems that you would face at your work.
Your boss will not tell you: please solve this but don't look at Wikipedia, do not use Google or some other textbooks. Your boss will just want the problem solved. You proved that you know how to find the solution if you don't know, and that is all there it is to it. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | I suggest that you don't lose a lot of sleep over something that happened several years ago. While you may have crossed a line, your description suggests it wasn't a bright line. Assuming your description is honest, you started out (probably) appropriately looking for alternate explanations of the material, not solutions to the problem at hand. But, rather than the internet it might just as well have been a different textbook.
But if it bothers you, then, assuming you are an academic, make sure that your own students get more explicit advice about what is and is not permitted.
It would have been better, of course, if you had pointed out the situation to the professor. But let the past be the past. Make the future better than the past if you are able. | It’s not unethical to *accidentally* benefit from anything, since the fact of such a thing happening is, as the word suggests, accidental. You didn’t mean to cheat, and it was the professor’s idiosyncratic testing policy that set up the perfect storm of circumstances that caused this “accident” to happen: note that the combination of a take-home exam and an in-class exam, and the way the two exams were scheduled, created a period of several days during which you were not allowed to search online for solutions to a specific set of problems, but during which you *were* allowed, and in fact incentivized, to look up general material related to the course. Hmm, I wonder what could go wrong with such an arrangement...?
TL;DR: **no**. |
162,289 | Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I was taking a physics class which had a peculiar exam arrangement: on Tuesday, the professor gave us a take-home portion of the exam which would be submitted on Thursday, but on Thursday, there would also be an in-class portion of the exam with a different set of problems.
In my case, I remember working out the solution to a difficult problem on the take-home exam throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. I had a solution, but I was unsure whether it was correct. Some equations didn't seem to make sense. At the same time, I was also preparing myself for the exam on Thursday. As usual, I read the textbook, but I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
While doing this, I accidentally stumbled upon a Wikipedia article which explained the solution of a similar problem to the one I was working on in the take-home exam. It was not the same problem, but the general method used was sufficiently similar so that I immediately realized that my approach to the problem on the take-home exam was probably correct.
Perhaps the most ethical thing to do at the time was to stop consulting the Wikipedia article immediately. I have to confess that I didn't do this exactly: I couldn't help but glance at it a few more times. Coming across that article made me confident in my approach to the take-home problem, and it drove me to scrutinize my previously written solution more deeply. This led me to discover a simple algebraic mistake which I had made in my own solution, after which my solution made sense and was surely correct. In the end, I never copied anything directly from the Wikipedia article, but I cannot deny that reading it helped me realize my own mistakes.
On Thursday I handed in my work on the take-home portion, and did well in the in-class portion as well. I never told the professor about the incident. Internally, I reasoned to myself that when I came across the Wikipedia article I was not trying to cheat on the take-home, but simply preparing for the in-class exam.
Years afterwards, however, I started to have doubts over what I did was completely ethical. I did not exactly cheat - in the sense of copying solutions from the Internet - but I was indeed "inspired" to become confident in my existing solution because of something I found on the Internet.
Was what I did dishonest? Unethical? Did it rise to the level of cheating that should have been disclosed to the professor? Or was it just a fortunate accident, the product of an odd exam arrangement?
(Note that the professor did not have a clear policy on consulting materials other than the official textbook from Tuesday-Thursday during the take home portion of the exam. While it was generally considered cheating to search out solutions on the Internet for specific problems on a take-home exam, I did not consider it unethical to look up online resources when studying a course and preparing for an in-class exam. In this case, I was doing the latter and accidentally stumbled upon material which was more similar to the former. The fact that there was a take home exam occuring right before an in-class exam resulted in a gray area.) | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134845/"
] | I would say that it's generally understood that on a take-home test you can use some external literature.
Typically with a take-home exam that takes a day or more, the expectation is that:
* Open-book: you're allowed to use the handbook for the course, as well as your lecture notes, and any recorded lectures and so forth.
* Extra literature: is allowed, although not necessary.
* No collaboration: you're not supposed to share your answers with, or receive answers from, other students.
* Your own work: don't ask other people, even people outside the course, for the solutions.
* Based on reasoning and application of what you've learned, not recalling facts. The problems may be harder and more diffuse than what you would get on an on-site closed-book exam.
There is probably some anecdotal exam that breaks each of these assumptions. As a teacher you'd do well to be explicit with your rules and expectations.
Using external literature to be inspired, to learn something that is helpful in the exam: fine. Adding a reference in your answers to where you found this useful literature: excellent. Rooting out an answer list on the internet: not okay. | The exam had no clear policy, so formally you did nothing wrong.
More in detail:
>
> I also was in the habit of consulting other websites to help me
> whenever the textbook wasn't enough.
>
>
>
You were consulting other sources because you felt the textbook was not enough. It all boils down to that. It is perfectly fine, as long as the reason was "the textbook was not enough".
It is very different than "consulting other sources to find the solution to my take-home exam".
If you did it because of that, you at least learned the skill "how to retrieve information" although it was not a skill you were supposed nor required to develop during that specific course. So instead of doubting the morality of your exams' attitude, you should question the degree you pursued :) ! |
1,263 | I suggest that tag-wikis and guidelines for writing great tag wikis should be included in the FAQ for all the users to see.I am aware that the link to [this blog post](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/03/redesigned-tags-page/) is provided on the *edit-tag-wiki* page.
I feel that creating/editing tag-wikis are one of the most ignored features especially on sec.SE. It will be a great way to let new users know the importance and purpose of tag-wikis and that they can be improved. | 2013/05/15 | [
"https://security.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1263",
"https://security.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.meta.stackexchange.com/users/21234/"
] | IMO the FAQ is for the most important things. Tag wikis are relatively obscure -- asking and answering is what is important (and common) and that's what the faq deals with. The faq is for new users; and new users probably shouldn't be dealing with the tag wikis.
If you wish, you may write up a [faq-proposed](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq-proposed "show questions tagged 'faq-proposed'") page on [the mother meta](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/) with hope that it will become a [full faq entry](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq). Alternatively, suggest an edit to the [privilege page](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits) and list tag wiki guidelines. | >
> I feel that creating/editing tag-wikis are one of the most ignored
> features especially on Sec.SE.
>
>
>
I disagree. The current situation is just fine. We discuss tags here on Meta.Sec.SE and The DMZ. We're a relatively small site (less than 9k questions), and that process is sufficient.
The system is working fine; Until you reach 20k rep you cannot edit wiki tags without the community's approval, that's enough to keep the tags neat and clean. |
4,298,966 | Basically I'm trying to draw a sequence of lines on a Canvas object with a short pause in between each line being drawn. Unfortunately as I have it now it does pause but I don't see any of the intermediate steps, which is to say I see it before and after it's drawn but nothing in between. I've tried System.Timers.Timer but it gave me an error that said the canvas was owned by another thread. How can I get this to work? | 2010/11/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4298966",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/161638/"
] | have you tried putting your drawing sequence in a storyboard? you can stop/start them pretty much at will, or just time them to what you want. | Controls in winforms do not play nice with threads. There is a timer class specifically made for working with winform controls.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.timer.aspx>
It can be found in your toolbox in VS |
4,298,966 | Basically I'm trying to draw a sequence of lines on a Canvas object with a short pause in between each line being drawn. Unfortunately as I have it now it does pause but I don't see any of the intermediate steps, which is to say I see it before and after it's drawn but nothing in between. I've tried System.Timers.Timer but it gave me an error that said the canvas was owned by another thread. How can I get this to work? | 2010/11/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4298966",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/161638/"
] | In WPF, I would recommend using System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherTimer instead.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.threading.dispatchertimer.aspx> | Controls in winforms do not play nice with threads. There is a timer class specifically made for working with winform controls.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.timer.aspx>
It can be found in your toolbox in VS |
4,298,966 | Basically I'm trying to draw a sequence of lines on a Canvas object with a short pause in between each line being drawn. Unfortunately as I have it now it does pause but I don't see any of the intermediate steps, which is to say I see it before and after it's drawn but nothing in between. I've tried System.Timers.Timer but it gave me an error that said the canvas was owned by another thread. How can I get this to work? | 2010/11/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4298966",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/161638/"
] | have you tried putting your drawing sequence in a storyboard? you can stop/start them pretty much at will, or just time them to what you want. | In WPF, I would recommend using System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherTimer instead.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.threading.dispatchertimer.aspx> |
19,682 | Which VHDL synthesis tools support the VHDL 2008 fixed and floating
point types as described at [vhdl.org/fphdl](http://www.vhdl.org/fphdl/)? The
VHDL.org site states "all these packages are designed to be synthesizable in
VHDL-93". Which tools have yield successful results synthesizing the
VHDL-2008 fixed-point and floating-point types?
Second question, what is the status of VHDL-2008. Has it been ratified? | 2011/09/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/19682",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/5793/"
] | Yes, VHDL-2008 was ratified
>
> "In February 2008, Accellera approved VHDL 4.0 also informally known
> as VHDL 2008, which addressed more than 90 issues discovered during
> the trial period for version 3.0 and includes enhanced generic types.
> In 2008, Accellera released VHDL 4.0 to the IEEE for balloting for
> inclusion in IEEE 1076-2008. The VHDL standard IEEE 1076-2008 was
> published in January 2009."
>
>
>
-<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vhdl> | I have used the VHDL fixed-point libraries in Altera's Quartus II (v9.1), with a Cyclone III. They synthesized an IIR filter and an LMS adaptive filter fairly efficiently - I noticed no major difference in resource usage compared to my previous implementation using numeric\_std.
So, I am confident that Quartus supports the fixed-point libraries. |
19,682 | Which VHDL synthesis tools support the VHDL 2008 fixed and floating
point types as described at [vhdl.org/fphdl](http://www.vhdl.org/fphdl/)? The
VHDL.org site states "all these packages are designed to be synthesizable in
VHDL-93". Which tools have yield successful results synthesizing the
VHDL-2008 fixed-point and floating-point types?
Second question, what is the status of VHDL-2008. Has it been ratified? | 2011/09/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/19682",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/5793/"
] | This doesn't answer your question *exactly*, but ANY working VHDL 93 synthesizer will work with fixed and floating point VHDL libraries under VHDL 93. To get these, see <http://www.eda.org/fphdl/>. | I have used the VHDL fixed-point libraries in Altera's Quartus II (v9.1), with a Cyclone III. They synthesized an IIR filter and an LMS adaptive filter fairly efficiently - I noticed no major difference in resource usage compared to my previous implementation using numeric\_std.
So, I am confident that Quartus supports the fixed-point libraries. |
29,670 | My internal model of academia is that (1) as a group we are one of the most tolerant of biological and philosophical differences (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and religion) and (2) that we are likely to take extreme views on issues related to our research. I have no evidence for either of these and they seem potentially at odds in that it seems strange that people would be so passionate about their research and be blase about their religion (or any other philosophy). Is there any work that characterizes the level of tolerance of academics on various issues? | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/"
] | There is [a recent study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063742) which generated quite a bit of noise and seems to indicate that racial and gender biases do indeed exist in academia (at least in the U.S.). The researchers sent e-mails to professors pretending to be a prospective graduate student, and response rates varied widely depending on the ethnic- and gender- markers in the purported student's name. | As a matter of fact, academics tend to be quite left-leaning, especially in fields like sociology. ([Here](http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/07/23/why-do-sociologists-lean-left-really-left/ "Here's")'s an article about this, with links to multiple studies.) Sadly, they're not abnormally likely to be tolerant of conservative viewpoints. |
29,670 | My internal model of academia is that (1) as a group we are one of the most tolerant of biological and philosophical differences (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and religion) and (2) that we are likely to take extreme views on issues related to our research. I have no evidence for either of these and they seem potentially at odds in that it seems strange that people would be so passionate about their research and be blase about their religion (or any other philosophy). Is there any work that characterizes the level of tolerance of academics on various issues? | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/"
] | There is [a recent study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063742) which generated quite a bit of noise and seems to indicate that racial and gender biases do indeed exist in academia (at least in the U.S.). The researchers sent e-mails to professors pretending to be a prospective graduate student, and response rates varied widely depending on the ethnic- and gender- markers in the purported student's name. | David French is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonpartisan group that monitors free speech on campus. In [a 2005 interview with ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=461497&page=1), French argued that "the universities have been so captured by the left point of view, that you're going to get more political and intellectual diversity at your average suburban mega-church than you are at an elite university." The cause, he believed, was the systematic suppression and censorship of conservatives.
That same year, Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter published [a paper](http://www.conservativecriminology.com/uploads/5/6/1/7/56173731/rothman_et_al.pdf) using data based on a telephone survey in 1999 of approximately 4000 faculty, administrators, and students. The purpose of this study was to test if professional advancement is influenced by ideological orientation. What they found out, was that conservatives and Republicans taught at lower quality schools, compared with liberals and Democrats. This suggested, they argued, "that conservative complaints of the presence and effects
of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously".
A [2014 study](https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf) by Iyengar and Westwood underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among fictitious finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.
For [a 2016 study](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0199863059), Shields and Dunn surveyed 153 conservative professors. “As two conservative professors,” they wrote in The Washington Post, “we agree that right-wing faculty members and ideas are not always treated fairly on college campuses. But we also know that right-wing hand-wringing about higher education is overblown.” Nevertheless, about one-third of the professors professors admit to using "coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments", ie they "closeted" themselves by passing as liberals. Some also said they were badly mistreated on account of their politics.
In [a 2017 speech](https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/21/the-threat-from-within/) before the Stanford Board of Trustees, former Provost John Etchemendy argued that he "watched a growing intolerance", "a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for". "It manifests itself", he argued "in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands".
In 2009, world–renowned political scientist Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul University [for his criticisms of Israel's human rights violations against the Palestinian people](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/16/us/penn-removes-professor-for-racial-remarks-trnd/index.html). In 2014, co-discoverer or DNA James Watson was forced to sell his Nobel prize after losing most of his income [for stating that people of African descent are less intelligent than white people](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2017/11/24/the-problematic-case-of-the-wilfrid-laurier-ta-who-dared-to-air-a-debate-on-grammar.html). In 2017, graduate student Lindsay Shepherd was hauled before a three-person panel at Wilfrid Laurier University, which interrogated her for more than 40 minutes [for showing a first-year communications class a video snippet from TV Ontario of Jordan Peterson debating another professor on the use of gender pronouns](http://www.worksanddays.net/2008-9/File14.Klein_011309_FINAL.pdf). In 2018, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Amy Wax was removed from teaching mandatory first-year courses [for saying in an interview that she didn't think she'd ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html).
These are some of many examples where academics / scholars have been reprimanded for making statements deemed too "politically incorrect" by their employers. While such cases are obviously but annectodal evidence at best, they do suggest Etchemendy may have had a point when he said he watched a growing intolerance "that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for". They do suggest it may indeed be safer for conservative professors to pass as liberals. They do suggest that French may have had a point when he argued there was systematic suppression and censorship of conservatives. And they do suggest that Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter may have been right to conclude that that conservative complaints of the presence and effects of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously. |
29,670 | My internal model of academia is that (1) as a group we are one of the most tolerant of biological and philosophical differences (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and religion) and (2) that we are likely to take extreme views on issues related to our research. I have no evidence for either of these and they seem potentially at odds in that it seems strange that people would be so passionate about their research and be blase about their religion (or any other philosophy). Is there any work that characterizes the level of tolerance of academics on various issues? | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/"
] | There is [a recent study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063742) which generated quite a bit of noise and seems to indicate that racial and gender biases do indeed exist in academia (at least in the U.S.). The researchers sent e-mails to professors pretending to be a prospective graduate student, and response rates varied widely depending on the ethnic- and gender- markers in the purported student's name. | I think it might depend on the field. For example, if you are in a Biology department, you're likely to be labeled as "ignorant", "dumb", or "coward" if you are Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim or any religion that believes in a God who creates), regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, and regardless of what your actual religious beliefs are. Generally, in natural sciences that's a pretty common trend I think. One could argue that this is more related to the second point you mentioned, rather than the first one, but given that this intolerance, as I said, is regardless of the opinion of the religious person about the origin of life and rules of physics, one could also argue that having this opinion that "any religious person is incapable of appreciating science" as an assumption, is a form of intolerance.
(There is a documentary about Christian professors in science (or biology) departments who were not tolerated by their colleagues and were discriminated against, but I couldn't find it now)
When it comes to ethnic and racial tolerance, in my experience, a level of racism and orientalism that would face condemnation in the US (but not necessarily in Europe) is not uncommon in academic communities in Europe. That being said, my impression is that they're still considerably more tolerant than an average person (or at least an average conservative) in that society.
But overall, I perceive academics to be more tolerant than the median member of the society. |
29,670 | My internal model of academia is that (1) as a group we are one of the most tolerant of biological and philosophical differences (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and religion) and (2) that we are likely to take extreme views on issues related to our research. I have no evidence for either of these and they seem potentially at odds in that it seems strange that people would be so passionate about their research and be blase about their religion (or any other philosophy). Is there any work that characterizes the level of tolerance of academics on various issues? | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/"
] | As a matter of fact, academics tend to be quite left-leaning, especially in fields like sociology. ([Here](http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/07/23/why-do-sociologists-lean-left-really-left/ "Here's")'s an article about this, with links to multiple studies.) Sadly, they're not abnormally likely to be tolerant of conservative viewpoints. | David French is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonpartisan group that monitors free speech on campus. In [a 2005 interview with ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=461497&page=1), French argued that "the universities have been so captured by the left point of view, that you're going to get more political and intellectual diversity at your average suburban mega-church than you are at an elite university." The cause, he believed, was the systematic suppression and censorship of conservatives.
That same year, Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter published [a paper](http://www.conservativecriminology.com/uploads/5/6/1/7/56173731/rothman_et_al.pdf) using data based on a telephone survey in 1999 of approximately 4000 faculty, administrators, and students. The purpose of this study was to test if professional advancement is influenced by ideological orientation. What they found out, was that conservatives and Republicans taught at lower quality schools, compared with liberals and Democrats. This suggested, they argued, "that conservative complaints of the presence and effects
of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously".
A [2014 study](https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf) by Iyengar and Westwood underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among fictitious finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.
For [a 2016 study](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0199863059), Shields and Dunn surveyed 153 conservative professors. “As two conservative professors,” they wrote in The Washington Post, “we agree that right-wing faculty members and ideas are not always treated fairly on college campuses. But we also know that right-wing hand-wringing about higher education is overblown.” Nevertheless, about one-third of the professors professors admit to using "coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments", ie they "closeted" themselves by passing as liberals. Some also said they were badly mistreated on account of their politics.
In [a 2017 speech](https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/21/the-threat-from-within/) before the Stanford Board of Trustees, former Provost John Etchemendy argued that he "watched a growing intolerance", "a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for". "It manifests itself", he argued "in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands".
In 2009, world–renowned political scientist Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul University [for his criticisms of Israel's human rights violations against the Palestinian people](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/16/us/penn-removes-professor-for-racial-remarks-trnd/index.html). In 2014, co-discoverer or DNA James Watson was forced to sell his Nobel prize after losing most of his income [for stating that people of African descent are less intelligent than white people](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2017/11/24/the-problematic-case-of-the-wilfrid-laurier-ta-who-dared-to-air-a-debate-on-grammar.html). In 2017, graduate student Lindsay Shepherd was hauled before a three-person panel at Wilfrid Laurier University, which interrogated her for more than 40 minutes [for showing a first-year communications class a video snippet from TV Ontario of Jordan Peterson debating another professor on the use of gender pronouns](http://www.worksanddays.net/2008-9/File14.Klein_011309_FINAL.pdf). In 2018, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Amy Wax was removed from teaching mandatory first-year courses [for saying in an interview that she didn't think she'd ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html).
These are some of many examples where academics / scholars have been reprimanded for making statements deemed too "politically incorrect" by their employers. While such cases are obviously but annectodal evidence at best, they do suggest Etchemendy may have had a point when he said he watched a growing intolerance "that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for". They do suggest it may indeed be safer for conservative professors to pass as liberals. They do suggest that French may have had a point when he argued there was systematic suppression and censorship of conservatives. And they do suggest that Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter may have been right to conclude that that conservative complaints of the presence and effects of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously. |
29,670 | My internal model of academia is that (1) as a group we are one of the most tolerant of biological and philosophical differences (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and religion) and (2) that we are likely to take extreme views on issues related to our research. I have no evidence for either of these and they seem potentially at odds in that it seems strange that people would be so passionate about their research and be blase about their religion (or any other philosophy). Is there any work that characterizes the level of tolerance of academics on various issues? | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/"
] | As a matter of fact, academics tend to be quite left-leaning, especially in fields like sociology. ([Here](http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/07/23/why-do-sociologists-lean-left-really-left/ "Here's")'s an article about this, with links to multiple studies.) Sadly, they're not abnormally likely to be tolerant of conservative viewpoints. | I think it might depend on the field. For example, if you are in a Biology department, you're likely to be labeled as "ignorant", "dumb", or "coward" if you are Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim or any religion that believes in a God who creates), regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, and regardless of what your actual religious beliefs are. Generally, in natural sciences that's a pretty common trend I think. One could argue that this is more related to the second point you mentioned, rather than the first one, but given that this intolerance, as I said, is regardless of the opinion of the religious person about the origin of life and rules of physics, one could also argue that having this opinion that "any religious person is incapable of appreciating science" as an assumption, is a form of intolerance.
(There is a documentary about Christian professors in science (or biology) departments who were not tolerated by their colleagues and were discriminated against, but I couldn't find it now)
When it comes to ethnic and racial tolerance, in my experience, a level of racism and orientalism that would face condemnation in the US (but not necessarily in Europe) is not uncommon in academic communities in Europe. That being said, my impression is that they're still considerably more tolerant than an average person (or at least an average conservative) in that society.
But overall, I perceive academics to be more tolerant than the median member of the society. |
29,670 | My internal model of academia is that (1) as a group we are one of the most tolerant of biological and philosophical differences (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and religion) and (2) that we are likely to take extreme views on issues related to our research. I have no evidence for either of these and they seem potentially at odds in that it seems strange that people would be so passionate about their research and be blase about their religion (or any other philosophy). Is there any work that characterizes the level of tolerance of academics on various issues? | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/"
] | David French is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonpartisan group that monitors free speech on campus. In [a 2005 interview with ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=461497&page=1), French argued that "the universities have been so captured by the left point of view, that you're going to get more political and intellectual diversity at your average suburban mega-church than you are at an elite university." The cause, he believed, was the systematic suppression and censorship of conservatives.
That same year, Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter published [a paper](http://www.conservativecriminology.com/uploads/5/6/1/7/56173731/rothman_et_al.pdf) using data based on a telephone survey in 1999 of approximately 4000 faculty, administrators, and students. The purpose of this study was to test if professional advancement is influenced by ideological orientation. What they found out, was that conservatives and Republicans taught at lower quality schools, compared with liberals and Democrats. This suggested, they argued, "that conservative complaints of the presence and effects
of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously".
A [2014 study](https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf) by Iyengar and Westwood underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among fictitious finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.
For [a 2016 study](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0199863059), Shields and Dunn surveyed 153 conservative professors. “As two conservative professors,” they wrote in The Washington Post, “we agree that right-wing faculty members and ideas are not always treated fairly on college campuses. But we also know that right-wing hand-wringing about higher education is overblown.” Nevertheless, about one-third of the professors professors admit to using "coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments", ie they "closeted" themselves by passing as liberals. Some also said they were badly mistreated on account of their politics.
In [a 2017 speech](https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/21/the-threat-from-within/) before the Stanford Board of Trustees, former Provost John Etchemendy argued that he "watched a growing intolerance", "a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for". "It manifests itself", he argued "in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands".
In 2009, world–renowned political scientist Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul University [for his criticisms of Israel's human rights violations against the Palestinian people](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/16/us/penn-removes-professor-for-racial-remarks-trnd/index.html). In 2014, co-discoverer or DNA James Watson was forced to sell his Nobel prize after losing most of his income [for stating that people of African descent are less intelligent than white people](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2017/11/24/the-problematic-case-of-the-wilfrid-laurier-ta-who-dared-to-air-a-debate-on-grammar.html). In 2017, graduate student Lindsay Shepherd was hauled before a three-person panel at Wilfrid Laurier University, which interrogated her for more than 40 minutes [for showing a first-year communications class a video snippet from TV Ontario of Jordan Peterson debating another professor on the use of gender pronouns](http://www.worksanddays.net/2008-9/File14.Klein_011309_FINAL.pdf). In 2018, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Amy Wax was removed from teaching mandatory first-year courses [for saying in an interview that she didn't think she'd ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html).
These are some of many examples where academics / scholars have been reprimanded for making statements deemed too "politically incorrect" by their employers. While such cases are obviously but annectodal evidence at best, they do suggest Etchemendy may have had a point when he said he watched a growing intolerance "that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for". They do suggest it may indeed be safer for conservative professors to pass as liberals. They do suggest that French may have had a point when he argued there was systematic suppression and censorship of conservatives. And they do suggest that Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter may have been right to conclude that that conservative complaints of the presence and effects of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously. | I think it might depend on the field. For example, if you are in a Biology department, you're likely to be labeled as "ignorant", "dumb", or "coward" if you are Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim or any religion that believes in a God who creates), regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, and regardless of what your actual religious beliefs are. Generally, in natural sciences that's a pretty common trend I think. One could argue that this is more related to the second point you mentioned, rather than the first one, but given that this intolerance, as I said, is regardless of the opinion of the religious person about the origin of life and rules of physics, one could also argue that having this opinion that "any religious person is incapable of appreciating science" as an assumption, is a form of intolerance.
(There is a documentary about Christian professors in science (or biology) departments who were not tolerated by their colleagues and were discriminated against, but I couldn't find it now)
When it comes to ethnic and racial tolerance, in my experience, a level of racism and orientalism that would face condemnation in the US (but not necessarily in Europe) is not uncommon in academic communities in Europe. That being said, my impression is that they're still considerably more tolerant than an average person (or at least an average conservative) in that society.
But overall, I perceive academics to be more tolerant than the median member of the society. |
132,162 | Edit: Let me first thank all of you for being patient with me (I’m by no means a physicist) and for answering my question. This is an update to my previous question. I’ve done some research and to the best of my knowledge the idea that multiple universes could exist is a result of cosmic inflation and the principles of uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Basically (as I understand it) the idea is that during cosmic inflation after the Big Bang due to these uncertainties in quantum mechanics different regions of space time began their ‘Hot Big Bang’ period at different intervals. Thus the gap between universes is the result of the continued inflation of the universe after this happens. So my new question is: could we not just travel there via space? Grant it would be very difficult considering space is still inflating making the distance between universes farther and farther as time passes. But let’s say we use a little handwaving and make it so the teleportation of organic matter is possible or we create a wormhole that won’t collapse almost immediately upon formation and won’t kill us. I’m trying to fill the gaps with as much actual science as possible and whatever is still vastly unknown can be filled in with pseudoscience. Thanks again. | 2018/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/132162",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/57920/"
] | **It's almost certainly not possible to provide a plausible scientific explanation**
I'm afraid that (especially with the science based tag) the answer will be that there is no plausible explanation for how human beings might travel the multiverse.
I am very sure that (like the [Ansible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible) used by Orson Scott Card in "Ender's Game" to communicate instantly across any distance via quantum entanglement) the idea you can hop between universes is nothing more than a literary device based on junk science arising from poor (or unfortunate) choice of words when explaining the physics to laymen.
That it belongs in the realm of fantasy & has nothing to do with any real (or merely "hard") science.
That said, I'd guess this is an idea you're as attached to as I was to quantum communication, so suspect you'll be resistant to my answer & want "proof" (as I did for why the ansible couldn't work).
But it took me a lot of very frustrating research & reading before I fully understood enough about quantum entanglement to know that the idea it could be used for communication was rubbish & I really don't want to put myself through all that *again* just to provide someone else with proof :)
So I suggest you field a question in the physics stack exchange to get your answers.
**But that said how about this**
Time travel.
Go with the idea the past is fixed (hot tub time machine played with this idea I think).
So (when someone invents a time machine) every time anyone goes to the "past" they create a new alternative timeline (one where an older version of themselves just appeared out of nowhere) & as long as the "wormhole" stays open while they're there they can step back into their own timeline.
>
> But if the wormhole closes while they're in the past there's absolutely no way to reconnect the two alternate realities, because every time you open one of these time gates it creates a new alternative timeline.
>
>
>
This means nothing they do in the (other) past effects their present.
>
> So they can bring people & things back with them & they won't disappear from history in their own timeline, which means a short wormhole back gets you your doppelgangers with no need to explain how they manage to tune into an appropriately similar alternate world to find one.
>
>
>
Now you just have to work out the equally improbable mechanics of how to build a time machine. | Travelling the multiverse is currently magic because our physic and mathematical models are not up to the task of adequately representing fifth or higher order dimensions required to plot an exit point and return safely. So you could do a cheat and "find" an ancient artifact that acts as a portal (tv shows such as Sliders, Twilight Zone or Stargate SG1). Were humans able to build such a device that could breach the veil/barrier it would require a ridiculous amount of energy and would not be something portable in scale. The computations would require the use of a super computer or several working together. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.