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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
37,479,454 | Guys.
i run WSO2 DAS on my local from downloaded source file.
but \i want to deploy WSO2 DAS into my local Tomcat server...\
is there any guide or something?
Thx | 2016/05/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37479454",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5114077/"
] | WSO2 DAS is an independent product which can run alone. It can not be deployed in Tomcat and there is no use case as such.
Refer <https://docs.wso2.com/display/DAS300/Quick+Start+Guide#QuickStartGuide-Gettingstarted> for download and start DAS. | WSO2 DAS is not an app that can be deployed into a Tomcat server. WSO2 DAS (and other WSO2 produts) comes as a set of features installed into a vanilla WSO2 Carbon server.
As Tomcat does not support adding features as in WSO2 Carbon there is no way to install WSO2 DAS related features into a Apache Tomcat server. |
6,479,166 | Is there any open source low level web based editor ?
(I'm aware of wysiwyg editors like CKEditor, I'm looking for something different. )
* The editor should work in a way like [new Google Docs editor](https://drive.googleblog.com/2010/05/whats-different-about-new-google-docs.html).
* The editor should take user's input key by key and should build the text. so that the client JavaScript can have complete control while editing.
* Why i need it ? I need to build a DSL editor for my application with syntax highlighting and auto complete.
* I already found code editor ace <http://ace.ajax.org> . but it has lots of features that I don't need, so I'm searching for alternatives.
* I'm looking for similar lightweight editor, so that I can add my features (like autocomplete ) easily to it. | 2011/06/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6479166",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/73630/"
] | Have you seen Aloha Editor?
HTML5 and fast too:
<http://www.aloha-editor.org/>
It's open source there are no iframes and you can access the page contents just as they are.
It's the future of html editors. | There's collabedit:
<http://collabedit.com/> |
29,106 | When I ski with my gopro, I usually have to use the wide FOV because it's too difficult to carefully frame my shot while I'm skiing since I have to, you know, ski! I often am chasing some of my friends who may be right in front of me, or off to the side. The resulting footage is a little underwhelming since the subject is so small on-screeen.
Since I can shoot this wide fov footage in 4k and only really need 1080p footage, I would like to have a moving crop at 1080p centered around the subject, preferably undistorting and stabilizing the image at the same time. Is there any video editing software that would allow me to do this? | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://avp.stackexchange.com/questions/29106",
"https://avp.stackexchange.com",
"https://avp.stackexchange.com/users/27114/"
] | Pretty much any modern NLE will allow you to do this, with varying levels of difficulty. For example, in Davinci Resolve you could do most of this in the free version, except for removing the fisheye effect which is I believe only available in the Studio version. | After Effects would be the go-to choice for doing this. You can use the "cc\_lens" effect that comes with AE to undistort footage - if you want to be very precise though, you can undistort using a fixed focal length, but that is only possible with third party plugins or more advanced compositing programs such as nuke or pfTrack (as far as I know). Scaling in on the footage shouldn't be a big problem when you first undistort the image. However, you might have some issues with chromatic abberation, especially when framing a subject close to the edge of the screen. Here's the pipeline I'd take for polishing such footage:
1. Undistort the footage using cc\_lens or something similar.
2. Stabilizing the footage by either camera-tracking the shot and transforming the Footage or by using the warp-stabilizer.
3. Zooming in on the area you want to focus on.
4. Reducing chromatic abberation, using methods like [this one.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOSxK45JksA)
The last step might be color correction, grading and adding some artificial camera shake, since you have probably stabilized the footage already. Quick, sudden shakes usually looks unpleasant, but slow moving shakes can look more organic and visually pleasing.
Hope this was helpful, have a good one :) |
29,106 | When I ski with my gopro, I usually have to use the wide FOV because it's too difficult to carefully frame my shot while I'm skiing since I have to, you know, ski! I often am chasing some of my friends who may be right in front of me, or off to the side. The resulting footage is a little underwhelming since the subject is so small on-screeen.
Since I can shoot this wide fov footage in 4k and only really need 1080p footage, I would like to have a moving crop at 1080p centered around the subject, preferably undistorting and stabilizing the image at the same time. Is there any video editing software that would allow me to do this? | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://avp.stackexchange.com/questions/29106",
"https://avp.stackexchange.com",
"https://avp.stackexchange.com/users/27114/"
] | Pretty much any modern NLE will allow you to do this, with varying levels of difficulty. For example, in Davinci Resolve you could do most of this in the free version, except for removing the fisheye effect which is I believe only available in the Studio version. | I will go through the process with [Movavi Video Editor Plus](https://techguide.io/movavi-video-editor-plus-review.html).
Here is the quick guide on how to crop your video:
1. Launch the app.
2. Import your video clip.
3. Select your clip.
4. Press "Crop" button (see the screenshot).
5. Adjust the frame.
6. Here you go, enjoy.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4dONb.jpg) |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | All thoughts of evolution & practicality aside, I'll assume that the firedrake exists in the context of the given world and look towards one possible answer\* to the how.
Some points to consider:
* This dragon is assumed to have some kind of ancestral line going back squillions of years through evolutionary history.
* Fire is really not amenable to biological life. Even Smaug didn't like it so well (in the movie) when all that hot molten gold splattered all over him!
* Yet Fire is exactly what the firedrake uses as a matter of defense!
Alcohol is the key to the *firedrake's* success!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ptppn.jpg)
Most people think that dragons subsist on a diet of naked virgins strapped to a post outside their caves, but this is a base canard. Being of neo-reptilian kind, your basic dragon, as do its lesser kin the monitor & the iguana, likes nothing more than to chow down on fruits & leaves. Perhaps with the occasional virgin to round out the diet. In order to digest all that plant matter, deep down in the complex digestive history of the dragon is the lowly microbe. The native flora of the dragon's gut loves to break down all those carbs, most of the byproducts of which process the dragon uptakes into its bloodstream.
But there's a catch! All that alcohol has got to go somewhere, and the dragon's response is to utilise it in conjunction with once of its most ancient defense mechanisms: grease.
Yes, grease.
You see, dragons when cornered by adversaries will face off, mouths agape (to show off teeth and huge impressive jaws) & legs spread wide. The secretion of an oily substance along the forelimbs and flanks serves to create a slippery surface that predators and foes alike will find difficult to grasp. Evolutionarily, this pathway derives from an ancient scale-protective secretion that kept ancestral dragons dry when swimming and during severe weather.
Now enter the alcohol: a specialised system of bladders contains the dragon's supply of both oily-grease & also alcohol. A system of efferent vessels lead these substances to ducts along the dragon's flanks and forelimbs. While the oil is secreted generally from pores along the ventral surface of each scale, the alcohol is only secreted in strategic locations --- those parts of the dragon that another creature will be directly facing. If the creature is a terribly predatory monster, the secretions are released and the alcohol is set alight by scraping of its *broad scales* --- those are the bigger, thicker defensive scales. These are tough, almost stony iron and quartz rich deals that easily spark when flared by muscular contraction. The sparks light up the alcohol which doesn't harm the dragon because these scales are so thick. But other creatures fear the light and heat of their most ancient enemy: Fire!
Fun fact: part of the evolutionary story of the firedrake, as opposed to other kindreds of lesser dragons, like the monitor, is that defense is nòt the original impetus for the mechanism. Mate selection: that's where it all starts!
You see, young dragons don't produce sufficient quantities of alcohol until they are nearly mature, and their scales are not sufficiently hardened & mineralised until some while after that. The inability to autoinflame is a sure sign of sexual immaturity. But once the firedrake becomes old enough, it will light up and go looking for a mate. Various breeds and kindreds of firedrake have characteristic mottling and patterns of "fire lines" along their limbs and flanks. Male patterns are visually more striking; females tend towards an all-over glow.
(\*NB: this is how firedrakes are in [**The World**](http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4585): but they are generally rather smaller - - - nothing like your impressively huge 12 yard long monsters! Just some food for thought.) | **"Would something like that be possible?"**
You're asking about the eternal flames, but you're forgetting that it's a flaming, nocturnal carnivore. That won't work. Its prey would see it coming from miles away: it's nighttime, and this huge thing is on fire! Your dragon would starve. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | It is a legend that they are covered in flame. No real creatures get covered in flame. But what if they just look like they are covered in blinding bright flames? That happens. Maybe the dragons are **bioluminescent?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wZK8s.jpg)
<http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160526-the-organisms-that-glow-brighter-than-any-other>
A cardinalfish (Apogon sp.) spits out an ostracod after it triggers a flash of bioluminescence (Credit: naturepl.com/Alamy Stock Photo)
>
> But Gerrish has found that the threat of attack provokes the most blinding >bursts of light.
> "The brightest luminescence of the ostracod is produced when they are
> preyed upon," says Gerrish. "The ostracods release large amounts of
> both luciferase and luciferin, which mix and light up the outline of
> the predatory fish."
>
>
> This flash-bomb tactic could be some of the brightest bioluminescence
> in the ocean.
>
>
>
So too your dragon. It is not on fire, but produces a fire colored flashbomb effect when under pressure. Hopefully it makes use of the time bought to counterattack, or slip way. | All these answers are pretty good, but there is another possibility that I don’t think has been mentioned...
If you take a flammable gas like methane, and pump it into water as it freezes, you end up with *flammable* ice. Cooler still (heh, puns), you can actually hold this ice in your hand as it burns, because the water shields you from the heat.
So am I saying your dragon should be covered in methane/ice? No, well maybe, that’d be cool, but that’s beside the point. What if your dragon naturally made a sticky sort of mucous that was secreted out of its skin. The top layer of the mucous could be as simple as fat and/or sugar based compounds from the dragon’s diet, while the bottom layer could be as simple as some kind of water based slime. Now all you need is a spark, maybe from specialized scales, fire breath, a special organ, all of which were mentioned in other answers and boom, your dragon is covered in flames that will burn until the fuel is gone and then self extinguish once they reach the water based slime coating the dragon’s scales. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | All these answers are pretty good, but there is another possibility that I don’t think has been mentioned...
If you take a flammable gas like methane, and pump it into water as it freezes, you end up with *flammable* ice. Cooler still (heh, puns), you can actually hold this ice in your hand as it burns, because the water shields you from the heat.
So am I saying your dragon should be covered in methane/ice? No, well maybe, that’d be cool, but that’s beside the point. What if your dragon naturally made a sticky sort of mucous that was secreted out of its skin. The top layer of the mucous could be as simple as fat and/or sugar based compounds from the dragon’s diet, while the bottom layer could be as simple as some kind of water based slime. Now all you need is a spark, maybe from specialized scales, fire breath, a special organ, all of which were mentioned in other answers and boom, your dragon is covered in flames that will burn until the fuel is gone and then self extinguish once they reach the water based slime coating the dragon’s scales. | The question is borderline closeable with *"unclear what you are asking"*. I'll fill in the gaps with wild assumptions from the top of my head.
For example, if the beast uses this strategy to escape hunting, then it is preyed upon, either by other animals or by humans.
Also, of the creature evolved such a specialized form of defense, it was probably *in lieu* of the usual defenses, i.e.: camouflage, speed, flying (mentioned in the question), a hard carapace etc.
The trope that they won't get you if you are on fire may seem like genius at first. It was probably invented by [Dan McNinja](http://drmcninja.com) circa 2006.
However, while this solves one immediate problem, it has some limitations, and also introduces a number of other problems.
* If the predators are humans, they can just fill the beast with spears and lances from a distance and wait for the fire to die out after the creature itself does. So the fire coat is only useful until hominids learn how to make tools.
* This creature cannot live in environments rich in flammable plant matter. Woods, forrests, savannahs... Those ecossystems would be devastated by the mere presence of such a creature. They would quickly be without food for themselves in such places.
* The creature therefore would live in deserts or wastelands, preferrably hot, sand deserts. In such places, water is usually rare, which introduces another problem...
* The creature needs to **drink a lot**. Even if you handwave its metabolism so that it thrives with internal temperatures in the hundreds of degrees through magic, any water and other fluids inside the creature will become hot, pressurized gas. So either the creature keeps continuously venting steam, or they will resemble giant walking puffer fish. If the latter, then they are walking pressure cookers and may explode violently if they get hurt in certain ways, or if they stop venting. This is a serious hazard... Exploding pressure cookers can destroy kitchens and kill people in real life.
* This is even more troublesome for the creature because if they have access to large bodies of water, they risk falling into it and dying out of thermal shock; If there is little water, they may vaporize it while they drink. In the very least the steam coming out of their mouth may temporalily blind them after a sip. Rains may be harmful or lethal.
* They will have a hard time hiding while they sleep. In fact, they broadcast their presence at night. Predators will take advantage of that. Even if they do manage to hide, they will leave very evident tracks. During day or night, whatever they prey on will be warned of their presence with plenty of time to try an escape.
* Last but not least, if they produce flammable methane in their bowels like many animals do... Let's say that each time they defecate or pass gas will lead to explosions. If they have cloacas, then each copulation will be a very literal bang.
---
If you still want to go with such a creature, just remember that combustion needs fuel, relatively high temperatures and oxygen (or an alternative oxydizer) to be stable. You can get the latter from the atmosphere as long as the creature doesn't get into a tight place. The other two, fuel and temperature, could only be provided by magic. That, and the ability to withstand the fire, are the minimal magic requirements - though you may want to consider the bits about water that I've mentioned for magicking away as well. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | The bombadier beetle uses a hot, chemical spray to ward off predators without hurting itself - if a dragon had similar glands under its scales, it could raise its scales and release a cloud around it of boiling, noxious gas that would burn anything next to it. It wouldn't light up though.
In order to get flames, we either need sparks, a stronger exothermic reaction, or something that ignites at lower temperatures.
### Sparks
If we keep the glands under the scales, but fill them with oil or alcohol - something easy to produce and flammable - and then give the dragon some way to ignite it with a spark when sprayed from under the scales.
Hydrogen gas is an option, too - it could be generated from the dragon's stomach acids.
Since dragon scales are famously hard, iron pyrite might do the trick; if you want something a little more exotic, then the eletricity-generating organ similar to electric eels or electric rays are able to deliver enough voltage to generate a spark - they do not spark in those animals, the dragon would need specialised conducting elements to generate a spark.
### Stronger Reactions
Something like sodium peroxide + zinc + water will produce a reaction strong enough to burn, but due to the sodium hydroxide being strongly reactive with water it will be difficult to produce or contain inside an animal. The other highly reactive metals (lithium, potassium) have similar problems.
### Low Temperature Ignition
Carbon disulphide has an autoignition temperature of only 90 degrees celcius - a temperature that can be reached by the bombadier beetle's chemical mix. The carbon disulphide could be sprayed around the dragon, then ignited with a single squirt.
The problem is that carbon disulphide is highly toxic and a strong solvent, so it would be impossible for the dragon to store. It would also be impossible to manufacture - most processes for creating it involve temperatures above 600 degrees - so the dragon would need to find a source (e.g. volcanoes), and could not produce it on demand.
### Less Violent Reactions
Most of the above prioritise reaction speed, so the dragon can use it as a defence mechanism on demand. There are some other processes that might be able to be controlled appropriately or hand-waved away so cover the dragon in flames. A good example is pistachios, which will, all by themselves, catch fire and burn if enough are stored together in a humid environment. If a dragon were to have a pistachio-shell-like compound in a special organ near its skin, where it can control the humidity and oxygen (and thus, the temperature build-up), it may be able to have a reservoir of burning material it can either expel or use to power one of the processes above. | **"Would something like that be possible?"**
You're asking about the eternal flames, but you're forgetting that it's a flaming, nocturnal carnivore. That won't work. Its prey would see it coming from miles away: it's nighttime, and this huge thing is on fire! Your dragon would starve. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | **"Would something like that be possible?"**
You're asking about the eternal flames, but you're forgetting that it's a flaming, nocturnal carnivore. That won't work. Its prey would see it coming from miles away: it's nighttime, and this huge thing is on fire! Your dragon would starve. | The question is borderline closeable with *"unclear what you are asking"*. I'll fill in the gaps with wild assumptions from the top of my head.
For example, if the beast uses this strategy to escape hunting, then it is preyed upon, either by other animals or by humans.
Also, of the creature evolved such a specialized form of defense, it was probably *in lieu* of the usual defenses, i.e.: camouflage, speed, flying (mentioned in the question), a hard carapace etc.
The trope that they won't get you if you are on fire may seem like genius at first. It was probably invented by [Dan McNinja](http://drmcninja.com) circa 2006.
However, while this solves one immediate problem, it has some limitations, and also introduces a number of other problems.
* If the predators are humans, they can just fill the beast with spears and lances from a distance and wait for the fire to die out after the creature itself does. So the fire coat is only useful until hominids learn how to make tools.
* This creature cannot live in environments rich in flammable plant matter. Woods, forrests, savannahs... Those ecossystems would be devastated by the mere presence of such a creature. They would quickly be without food for themselves in such places.
* The creature therefore would live in deserts or wastelands, preferrably hot, sand deserts. In such places, water is usually rare, which introduces another problem...
* The creature needs to **drink a lot**. Even if you handwave its metabolism so that it thrives with internal temperatures in the hundreds of degrees through magic, any water and other fluids inside the creature will become hot, pressurized gas. So either the creature keeps continuously venting steam, or they will resemble giant walking puffer fish. If the latter, then they are walking pressure cookers and may explode violently if they get hurt in certain ways, or if they stop venting. This is a serious hazard... Exploding pressure cookers can destroy kitchens and kill people in real life.
* This is even more troublesome for the creature because if they have access to large bodies of water, they risk falling into it and dying out of thermal shock; If there is little water, they may vaporize it while they drink. In the very least the steam coming out of their mouth may temporalily blind them after a sip. Rains may be harmful or lethal.
* They will have a hard time hiding while they sleep. In fact, they broadcast their presence at night. Predators will take advantage of that. Even if they do manage to hide, they will leave very evident tracks. During day or night, whatever they prey on will be warned of their presence with plenty of time to try an escape.
* Last but not least, if they produce flammable methane in their bowels like many animals do... Let's say that each time they defecate or pass gas will lead to explosions. If they have cloacas, then each copulation will be a very literal bang.
---
If you still want to go with such a creature, just remember that combustion needs fuel, relatively high temperatures and oxygen (or an alternative oxydizer) to be stable. You can get the latter from the atmosphere as long as the creature doesn't get into a tight place. The other two, fuel and temperature, could only be provided by magic. That, and the ability to withstand the fire, are the minimal magic requirements - though you may want to consider the bits about water that I've mentioned for magicking away as well. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | All thoughts of evolution & practicality aside, I'll assume that the firedrake exists in the context of the given world and look towards one possible answer\* to the how.
Some points to consider:
* This dragon is assumed to have some kind of ancestral line going back squillions of years through evolutionary history.
* Fire is really not amenable to biological life. Even Smaug didn't like it so well (in the movie) when all that hot molten gold splattered all over him!
* Yet Fire is exactly what the firedrake uses as a matter of defense!
Alcohol is the key to the *firedrake's* success!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ptppn.jpg)
Most people think that dragons subsist on a diet of naked virgins strapped to a post outside their caves, but this is a base canard. Being of neo-reptilian kind, your basic dragon, as do its lesser kin the monitor & the iguana, likes nothing more than to chow down on fruits & leaves. Perhaps with the occasional virgin to round out the diet. In order to digest all that plant matter, deep down in the complex digestive history of the dragon is the lowly microbe. The native flora of the dragon's gut loves to break down all those carbs, most of the byproducts of which process the dragon uptakes into its bloodstream.
But there's a catch! All that alcohol has got to go somewhere, and the dragon's response is to utilise it in conjunction with once of its most ancient defense mechanisms: grease.
Yes, grease.
You see, dragons when cornered by adversaries will face off, mouths agape (to show off teeth and huge impressive jaws) & legs spread wide. The secretion of an oily substance along the forelimbs and flanks serves to create a slippery surface that predators and foes alike will find difficult to grasp. Evolutionarily, this pathway derives from an ancient scale-protective secretion that kept ancestral dragons dry when swimming and during severe weather.
Now enter the alcohol: a specialised system of bladders contains the dragon's supply of both oily-grease & also alcohol. A system of efferent vessels lead these substances to ducts along the dragon's flanks and forelimbs. While the oil is secreted generally from pores along the ventral surface of each scale, the alcohol is only secreted in strategic locations --- those parts of the dragon that another creature will be directly facing. If the creature is a terribly predatory monster, the secretions are released and the alcohol is set alight by scraping of its *broad scales* --- those are the bigger, thicker defensive scales. These are tough, almost stony iron and quartz rich deals that easily spark when flared by muscular contraction. The sparks light up the alcohol which doesn't harm the dragon because these scales are so thick. But other creatures fear the light and heat of their most ancient enemy: Fire!
Fun fact: part of the evolutionary story of the firedrake, as opposed to other kindreds of lesser dragons, like the monitor, is that defense is nòt the original impetus for the mechanism. Mate selection: that's where it all starts!
You see, young dragons don't produce sufficient quantities of alcohol until they are nearly mature, and their scales are not sufficiently hardened & mineralised until some while after that. The inability to autoinflame is a sure sign of sexual immaturity. But once the firedrake becomes old enough, it will light up and go looking for a mate. Various breeds and kindreds of firedrake have characteristic mottling and patterns of "fire lines" along their limbs and flanks. Male patterns are visually more striking; females tend towards an all-over glow.
(\*NB: this is how firedrakes are in [**The World**](http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4585): but they are generally rather smaller - - - nothing like your impressively huge 12 yard long monsters! Just some food for thought.) | All these answers are pretty good, but there is another possibility that I don’t think has been mentioned...
If you take a flammable gas like methane, and pump it into water as it freezes, you end up with *flammable* ice. Cooler still (heh, puns), you can actually hold this ice in your hand as it burns, because the water shields you from the heat.
So am I saying your dragon should be covered in methane/ice? No, well maybe, that’d be cool, but that’s beside the point. What if your dragon naturally made a sticky sort of mucous that was secreted out of its skin. The top layer of the mucous could be as simple as fat and/or sugar based compounds from the dragon’s diet, while the bottom layer could be as simple as some kind of water based slime. Now all you need is a spark, maybe from specialized scales, fire breath, a special organ, all of which were mentioned in other answers and boom, your dragon is covered in flames that will burn until the fuel is gone and then self extinguish once they reach the water based slime coating the dragon’s scales. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | It is a legend that they are covered in flame. No real creatures get covered in flame. But what if they just look like they are covered in blinding bright flames? That happens. Maybe the dragons are **bioluminescent?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wZK8s.jpg)
<http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160526-the-organisms-that-glow-brighter-than-any-other>
A cardinalfish (Apogon sp.) spits out an ostracod after it triggers a flash of bioluminescence (Credit: naturepl.com/Alamy Stock Photo)
>
> But Gerrish has found that the threat of attack provokes the most blinding >bursts of light.
> "The brightest luminescence of the ostracod is produced when they are
> preyed upon," says Gerrish. "The ostracods release large amounts of
> both luciferase and luciferin, which mix and light up the outline of
> the predatory fish."
>
>
> This flash-bomb tactic could be some of the brightest bioluminescence
> in the ocean.
>
>
>
So too your dragon. It is not on fire, but produces a fire colored flashbomb effect when under pressure. Hopefully it makes use of the time bought to counterattack, or slip way. | **"Would something like that be possible?"**
You're asking about the eternal flames, but you're forgetting that it's a flaming, nocturnal carnivore. That won't work. Its prey would see it coming from miles away: it's nighttime, and this huge thing is on fire! Your dragon would starve. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | All thoughts of evolution & practicality aside, I'll assume that the firedrake exists in the context of the given world and look towards one possible answer\* to the how.
Some points to consider:
* This dragon is assumed to have some kind of ancestral line going back squillions of years through evolutionary history.
* Fire is really not amenable to biological life. Even Smaug didn't like it so well (in the movie) when all that hot molten gold splattered all over him!
* Yet Fire is exactly what the firedrake uses as a matter of defense!
Alcohol is the key to the *firedrake's* success!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ptppn.jpg)
Most people think that dragons subsist on a diet of naked virgins strapped to a post outside their caves, but this is a base canard. Being of neo-reptilian kind, your basic dragon, as do its lesser kin the monitor & the iguana, likes nothing more than to chow down on fruits & leaves. Perhaps with the occasional virgin to round out the diet. In order to digest all that plant matter, deep down in the complex digestive history of the dragon is the lowly microbe. The native flora of the dragon's gut loves to break down all those carbs, most of the byproducts of which process the dragon uptakes into its bloodstream.
But there's a catch! All that alcohol has got to go somewhere, and the dragon's response is to utilise it in conjunction with once of its most ancient defense mechanisms: grease.
Yes, grease.
You see, dragons when cornered by adversaries will face off, mouths agape (to show off teeth and huge impressive jaws) & legs spread wide. The secretion of an oily substance along the forelimbs and flanks serves to create a slippery surface that predators and foes alike will find difficult to grasp. Evolutionarily, this pathway derives from an ancient scale-protective secretion that kept ancestral dragons dry when swimming and during severe weather.
Now enter the alcohol: a specialised system of bladders contains the dragon's supply of both oily-grease & also alcohol. A system of efferent vessels lead these substances to ducts along the dragon's flanks and forelimbs. While the oil is secreted generally from pores along the ventral surface of each scale, the alcohol is only secreted in strategic locations --- those parts of the dragon that another creature will be directly facing. If the creature is a terribly predatory monster, the secretions are released and the alcohol is set alight by scraping of its *broad scales* --- those are the bigger, thicker defensive scales. These are tough, almost stony iron and quartz rich deals that easily spark when flared by muscular contraction. The sparks light up the alcohol which doesn't harm the dragon because these scales are so thick. But other creatures fear the light and heat of their most ancient enemy: Fire!
Fun fact: part of the evolutionary story of the firedrake, as opposed to other kindreds of lesser dragons, like the monitor, is that defense is nòt the original impetus for the mechanism. Mate selection: that's where it all starts!
You see, young dragons don't produce sufficient quantities of alcohol until they are nearly mature, and their scales are not sufficiently hardened & mineralised until some while after that. The inability to autoinflame is a sure sign of sexual immaturity. But once the firedrake becomes old enough, it will light up and go looking for a mate. Various breeds and kindreds of firedrake have characteristic mottling and patterns of "fire lines" along their limbs and flanks. Male patterns are visually more striking; females tend towards an all-over glow.
(\*NB: this is how firedrakes are in [**The World**](http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4585): but they are generally rather smaller - - - nothing like your impressively huge 12 yard long monsters! Just some food for thought.) | The question is borderline closeable with *"unclear what you are asking"*. I'll fill in the gaps with wild assumptions from the top of my head.
For example, if the beast uses this strategy to escape hunting, then it is preyed upon, either by other animals or by humans.
Also, of the creature evolved such a specialized form of defense, it was probably *in lieu* of the usual defenses, i.e.: camouflage, speed, flying (mentioned in the question), a hard carapace etc.
The trope that they won't get you if you are on fire may seem like genius at first. It was probably invented by [Dan McNinja](http://drmcninja.com) circa 2006.
However, while this solves one immediate problem, it has some limitations, and also introduces a number of other problems.
* If the predators are humans, they can just fill the beast with spears and lances from a distance and wait for the fire to die out after the creature itself does. So the fire coat is only useful until hominids learn how to make tools.
* This creature cannot live in environments rich in flammable plant matter. Woods, forrests, savannahs... Those ecossystems would be devastated by the mere presence of such a creature. They would quickly be without food for themselves in such places.
* The creature therefore would live in deserts or wastelands, preferrably hot, sand deserts. In such places, water is usually rare, which introduces another problem...
* The creature needs to **drink a lot**. Even if you handwave its metabolism so that it thrives with internal temperatures in the hundreds of degrees through magic, any water and other fluids inside the creature will become hot, pressurized gas. So either the creature keeps continuously venting steam, or they will resemble giant walking puffer fish. If the latter, then they are walking pressure cookers and may explode violently if they get hurt in certain ways, or if they stop venting. This is a serious hazard... Exploding pressure cookers can destroy kitchens and kill people in real life.
* This is even more troublesome for the creature because if they have access to large bodies of water, they risk falling into it and dying out of thermal shock; If there is little water, they may vaporize it while they drink. In the very least the steam coming out of their mouth may temporalily blind them after a sip. Rains may be harmful or lethal.
* They will have a hard time hiding while they sleep. In fact, they broadcast their presence at night. Predators will take advantage of that. Even if they do manage to hide, they will leave very evident tracks. During day or night, whatever they prey on will be warned of their presence with plenty of time to try an escape.
* Last but not least, if they produce flammable methane in their bowels like many animals do... Let's say that each time they defecate or pass gas will lead to explosions. If they have cloacas, then each copulation will be a very literal bang.
---
If you still want to go with such a creature, just remember that combustion needs fuel, relatively high temperatures and oxygen (or an alternative oxydizer) to be stable. You can get the latter from the atmosphere as long as the creature doesn't get into a tight place. The other two, fuel and temperature, could only be provided by magic. That, and the ability to withstand the fire, are the minimal magic requirements - though you may want to consider the bits about water that I've mentioned for magicking away as well. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | It is a legend that they are covered in flame. No real creatures get covered in flame. But what if they just look like they are covered in blinding bright flames? That happens. Maybe the dragons are **bioluminescent?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wZK8s.jpg)
<http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160526-the-organisms-that-glow-brighter-than-any-other>
A cardinalfish (Apogon sp.) spits out an ostracod after it triggers a flash of bioluminescence (Credit: naturepl.com/Alamy Stock Photo)
>
> But Gerrish has found that the threat of attack provokes the most blinding >bursts of light.
> "The brightest luminescence of the ostracod is produced when they are
> preyed upon," says Gerrish. "The ostracods release large amounts of
> both luciferase and luciferin, which mix and light up the outline of
> the predatory fish."
>
>
> This flash-bomb tactic could be some of the brightest bioluminescence
> in the ocean.
>
>
>
So too your dragon. It is not on fire, but produces a fire colored flashbomb effect when under pressure. Hopefully it makes use of the time bought to counterattack, or slip way. | The question is borderline closeable with *"unclear what you are asking"*. I'll fill in the gaps with wild assumptions from the top of my head.
For example, if the beast uses this strategy to escape hunting, then it is preyed upon, either by other animals or by humans.
Also, of the creature evolved such a specialized form of defense, it was probably *in lieu* of the usual defenses, i.e.: camouflage, speed, flying (mentioned in the question), a hard carapace etc.
The trope that they won't get you if you are on fire may seem like genius at first. It was probably invented by [Dan McNinja](http://drmcninja.com) circa 2006.
However, while this solves one immediate problem, it has some limitations, and also introduces a number of other problems.
* If the predators are humans, they can just fill the beast with spears and lances from a distance and wait for the fire to die out after the creature itself does. So the fire coat is only useful until hominids learn how to make tools.
* This creature cannot live in environments rich in flammable plant matter. Woods, forrests, savannahs... Those ecossystems would be devastated by the mere presence of such a creature. They would quickly be without food for themselves in such places.
* The creature therefore would live in deserts or wastelands, preferrably hot, sand deserts. In such places, water is usually rare, which introduces another problem...
* The creature needs to **drink a lot**. Even if you handwave its metabolism so that it thrives with internal temperatures in the hundreds of degrees through magic, any water and other fluids inside the creature will become hot, pressurized gas. So either the creature keeps continuously venting steam, or they will resemble giant walking puffer fish. If the latter, then they are walking pressure cookers and may explode violently if they get hurt in certain ways, or if they stop venting. This is a serious hazard... Exploding pressure cookers can destroy kitchens and kill people in real life.
* This is even more troublesome for the creature because if they have access to large bodies of water, they risk falling into it and dying out of thermal shock; If there is little water, they may vaporize it while they drink. In the very least the steam coming out of their mouth may temporalily blind them after a sip. Rains may be harmful or lethal.
* They will have a hard time hiding while they sleep. In fact, they broadcast their presence at night. Predators will take advantage of that. Even if they do manage to hide, they will leave very evident tracks. During day or night, whatever they prey on will be warned of their presence with plenty of time to try an escape.
* Last but not least, if they produce flammable methane in their bowels like many animals do... Let's say that each time they defecate or pass gas will lead to explosions. If they have cloacas, then each copulation will be a very literal bang.
---
If you still want to go with such a creature, just remember that combustion needs fuel, relatively high temperatures and oxygen (or an alternative oxydizer) to be stable. You can get the latter from the atmosphere as long as the creature doesn't get into a tight place. The other two, fuel and temperature, could only be provided by magic. That, and the ability to withstand the fire, are the minimal magic requirements - though you may want to consider the bits about water that I've mentioned for magicking away as well. |
105,941 | Based on a local legend, this species of dragon can't fly, but instead covers itself in flame to protect itself from hunters.
With as little magic as possible, would something like that be possible?
**More details about the creature:**
* It's about twelve meters long, nocturnal carnivore and is said to have thick scales.
* The flames are not a constant effect, the creature only uses it to scare off hunters.
My question is: **How could a creature like this exist?**
Magic is allowed, but I'm trying to avoid using it as much as possible. | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/105941",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38408/"
] | It is a legend that they are covered in flame. No real creatures get covered in flame. But what if they just look like they are covered in blinding bright flames? That happens. Maybe the dragons are **bioluminescent?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wZK8s.jpg)
<http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160526-the-organisms-that-glow-brighter-than-any-other>
A cardinalfish (Apogon sp.) spits out an ostracod after it triggers a flash of bioluminescence (Credit: naturepl.com/Alamy Stock Photo)
>
> But Gerrish has found that the threat of attack provokes the most blinding >bursts of light.
> "The brightest luminescence of the ostracod is produced when they are
> preyed upon," says Gerrish. "The ostracods release large amounts of
> both luciferase and luciferin, which mix and light up the outline of
> the predatory fish."
>
>
> This flash-bomb tactic could be some of the brightest bioluminescence
> in the ocean.
>
>
>
So too your dragon. It is not on fire, but produces a fire colored flashbomb effect when under pressure. Hopefully it makes use of the time bought to counterattack, or slip way. | This assumes your Dragon has a breathe weapon.
Dragons have evolved to produce a modified version of their breath weapon fuel that secretes between scales. This primarily occurs as part of fight or flight response in dragons. This gooey substance quickly spreads into a vast network of flames covering the dragons body. As we all know when a dragon feels threatened, the first response is to face the threat, show the threat your dragon teeth, and then intimidate further by displaying your royal fire which ignites your burning goo covered fireproof scales. |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | A bit more context would help. It sounds like you want to say:
>
> Something new is being created.
>
>
>
I cannot think of a way to use "a new" where "new" is a noun, but "the new", as in "Out with the old and in with the new." is correct. In that case, it is called, I believe, an [ellipsis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_%28linguistics%29). | The most common use of "new" as a noun is "out with the old, in with the new." |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | The most common use of "new" as a noun is "out with the old, in with the new." | In Italian you have the expression: "**C'è una novità**" which translated literally is *"There is a new thing."*
The noun, novità, in Italian does much more than by saying *a new*. It could be saying one of several things for example, there is some **latest news** I have to tell you, or "Is **anything new** happening in your life?" It might be announcing that **new products or items** have been issued or released in the market. So context is king in these cases, and unfortunately, the OP did not specify any situation for this noun *"new"*, only in the sense that from a *new being*, a miracle has been created.
>
> "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing"
>
>
>
Hence, in English, if we were talking about a scientific *discovery* or new studies in medicine we might say:
>
> A **new breakthrough** in science/medicine has been made in the fight against
> etc...
>
>
>
If we were talking about *new* electronic devices or technological advances we might say:
>
> Numerous **innovations** in the field of telecommunications have been etc...
>
>
> The **cutting edge** of computer technology that promises to etc..
>
>
>
On a final note the expressions: *breakthrough*, *innovation* and *cutting edge* are all nouns, which proves that the English language does indeed have nouns meaning *newness*. |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | English like many languages allows substantive adjectives, i.e. adjectives that are used in place of nouns. Using the definite article (*the*) is usually helpful to indicate that you are using such an adjective:
>
> Out with the old, in with the new.
>
>
> What becomes of the broken-hearted?
>
>
> Soak the rich.
>
>
> Fortune favors the bold.
>
>
>
As "A new is being created" uses the indefinite article (*a* / *an*), I think it would confuse most English-speakers, who would ask "a new what?" If you want a generic message indicating that something new is being created, you could try to find a generic term for whatever it could be:
>
> A new item is being created.
>
>
>
Since the act of creation implies newness in itself (one does not by definition create old or existing things), perhaps you can reword to replace one or the other. A software status message could be as simple as
>
> Creating …
>
>
> | The most common use of "new" as a noun is "out with the old, in with the new." |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | When used with the definite article, *new* does indeed function as a noun (as JeffSahol notes). But that doesn't work for what you seem to be trying to say.
>
> The new is being created.
>
>
>
That is technically grammatical but sounds godawful.
If you want to make a noun out of the abstract concept of *new* you could try **newness**. So you could say
>
> Newness is being created.
>
>
>
But that still needs special handling and enough context to make it work. | My contribution would be: a *novelty* if it fits your purpose. *The new* also works, like *the young*, *the poor*, and *the well-to-do* all work.
However, I daresay that *“**a** new”* (as opposed to *“**the** new”*) sounds awkward, doesn’t it? |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | My contribution would be: a *novelty* if it fits your purpose. *The new* also works, like *the young*, *the poor*, and *the well-to-do* all work.
However, I daresay that *“**a** new”* (as opposed to *“**the** new”*) sounds awkward, doesn’t it? | >
> Has the "new" worn off yet?
>
>
>
Seems to meet the criteria in a different way with a common figure of speech. |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | From Merriam-Webster:
>
> **new**, *noun*
>
>
> **1** : a new thing : something new {the *new* ever supplants the old}; especially : the first phase {in the *new* of the moon}
>
>
> **2** : FRESHNESS, NEWNESS {wear the *new* off these shoes}
>
>
>
Note that Merriam-Webster lists adjective, noun, and adverb forms of *new*. (The adverb is usually used in combination, as in "*new*-mown grass.")
For your sentence, you could say something like, "This is the creation of *the new*." | >
> Has the "new" worn off yet?
>
>
>
Seems to meet the criteria in a different way with a common figure of speech. |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | English like many languages allows substantive adjectives, i.e. adjectives that are used in place of nouns. Using the definite article (*the*) is usually helpful to indicate that you are using such an adjective:
>
> Out with the old, in with the new.
>
>
> What becomes of the broken-hearted?
>
>
> Soak the rich.
>
>
> Fortune favors the bold.
>
>
>
As "A new is being created" uses the indefinite article (*a* / *an*), I think it would confuse most English-speakers, who would ask "a new what?" If you want a generic message indicating that something new is being created, you could try to find a generic term for whatever it could be:
>
> A new item is being created.
>
>
>
Since the act of creation implies newness in itself (one does not by definition create old or existing things), perhaps you can reword to replace one or the other. A software status message could be as simple as
>
> Creating …
>
>
> | From Merriam-Webster:
>
> **new**, *noun*
>
>
> **1** : a new thing : something new {the *new* ever supplants the old}; especially : the first phase {in the *new* of the moon}
>
>
> **2** : FRESHNESS, NEWNESS {wear the *new* off these shoes}
>
>
>
Note that Merriam-Webster lists adjective, noun, and adverb forms of *new*. (The adverb is usually used in combination, as in "*new*-mown grass.")
For your sentence, you could say something like, "This is the creation of *the new*." |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | A bit more context would help. It sounds like you want to say:
>
> Something new is being created.
>
>
>
I cannot think of a way to use "a new" where "new" is a noun, but "the new", as in "Out with the old and in with the new." is correct. In that case, it is called, I believe, an [ellipsis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_%28linguistics%29). | English like many languages allows substantive adjectives, i.e. adjectives that are used in place of nouns. Using the definite article (*the*) is usually helpful to indicate that you are using such an adjective:
>
> Out with the old, in with the new.
>
>
> What becomes of the broken-hearted?
>
>
> Soak the rich.
>
>
> Fortune favors the bold.
>
>
>
As "A new is being created" uses the indefinite article (*a* / *an*), I think it would confuse most English-speakers, who would ask "a new what?" If you want a generic message indicating that something new is being created, you could try to find a generic term for whatever it could be:
>
> A new item is being created.
>
>
>
Since the act of creation implies newness in itself (one does not by definition create old or existing things), perhaps you can reword to replace one or the other. A software status message could be as simple as
>
> Creating …
>
>
> |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | English like many languages allows substantive adjectives, i.e. adjectives that are used in place of nouns. Using the definite article (*the*) is usually helpful to indicate that you are using such an adjective:
>
> Out with the old, in with the new.
>
>
> What becomes of the broken-hearted?
>
>
> Soak the rich.
>
>
> Fortune favors the bold.
>
>
>
As "A new is being created" uses the indefinite article (*a* / *an*), I think it would confuse most English-speakers, who would ask "a new what?" If you want a generic message indicating that something new is being created, you could try to find a generic term for whatever it could be:
>
> A new item is being created.
>
>
>
Since the act of creation implies newness in itself (one does not by definition create old or existing things), perhaps you can reword to replace one or the other. A software status message could be as simple as
>
> Creating …
>
>
> | >
> Has the "new" worn off yet?
>
>
>
Seems to meet the criteria in a different way with a common figure of speech. |
56,049 | In some languages "new" could be used both as a noun or as an adjective. I read that in English, "new" is only an adjective. Is it true? When I say: "a new", is it wrong? How else can I properly say something along the lines "a new"?
In other words, is it ok to say: "a new is being created"? If not, how to say it properly?
Edit:
Example - hmm, I cannot really think of one. Maybe: "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing". I try to *name* the result of a creation.
The problem is, in my native language there is no distinction between "new" as a noun and "new" as an adjective. "Newness" is, if I understand correctly, the general quality of "a new" or of "something new", hence it is a bit different from what I'm looking for.
"The new" is almost perfect - but I'm not sure if I can use "the" as this is the first time I talk about that "new". | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56049",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/17454/"
] | In Italian you have the expression: "**C'è una novità**" which translated literally is *"There is a new thing."*
The noun, novità, in Italian does much more than by saying *a new*. It could be saying one of several things for example, there is some **latest news** I have to tell you, or "Is **anything new** happening in your life?" It might be announcing that **new products or items** have been issued or released in the market. So context is king in these cases, and unfortunately, the OP did not specify any situation for this noun *"new"*, only in the sense that from a *new being*, a miracle has been created.
>
> "a miracle is when a new comes to life out of nothing"
>
>
>
Hence, in English, if we were talking about a scientific *discovery* or new studies in medicine we might say:
>
> A **new breakthrough** in science/medicine has been made in the fight against
> etc...
>
>
>
If we were talking about *new* electronic devices or technological advances we might say:
>
> Numerous **innovations** in the field of telecommunications have been etc...
>
>
> The **cutting edge** of computer technology that promises to etc..
>
>
>
On a final note the expressions: *breakthrough*, *innovation* and *cutting edge* are all nouns, which proves that the English language does indeed have nouns meaning *newness*. | >
> Has the "new" worn off yet?
>
>
>
Seems to meet the criteria in a different way with a common figure of speech. |
144,659 | **Context:**
============
I'm the sole product designer for a company with a product built around selling "knowledge packages" for getting your company on a better spot financially, fiscally, or productively.
I'm building the content builder for our employees to then publish to users, and the solution we ended up going for after doing research and establishing our value proposition was a "modular document builder" which we can build other features on top of in the future aligning with our product strategy.
I know I'm being vague, but I wouldn't want to reveal too much. Let me know if you need more info!
**The problem:**
================
This content builder has Sections, which contain Rows; Rows contain components, which act as columns; Components can be Cards, Text, tables, etc.
These components can be dragged around the screen into different rows and/or sections through Drag'n'Drop indicator on the top left corner, and on the top right there is an option for additional actions. (Drag'n'Drop + Additional Actions = Action Bar)
When I came into the company, they had the Action Bar set to "always visible" on all components around the screen, but it made the screen crowded and added too much noise, and did not allow users to read the screen easily. I'm introducing Progressive Disclosure but I'm finding myself in a bit of a pickle which I'm having trouble fixing.
>
> **The issue is that this "Action Bar" appears on hover, but I don't** **know how to find an appropriate way to make it appear.**
>
>
>
**What I've explored:**
=======================
* Resize and move. The action bar appears on hover instantly and makes the content box longer and displaces the content below. It is the option that I'm most inclined toward, but I still don't feel it is the right one as it might break the layout and displace the content.
* Cover. This simply doesn't work except for images. It goes over the content and can difficult editing the text on the top row.
There is also the option to reserve the space on top and add the same amount of padding on the bottom, which I'm not really fond of as it might add unjustified white space which can affect how users scan the content and break items related through the law of proximity. Here's a simple wireframe to support what I'm talking about.
Am I taking the right approach? Do you have any suggestions? Have you already solved this before?
Thanks so much, guys! | 2022/10/13 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/144659",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/158617/"
] | Here is a suggestion - show the three status within one filled bar:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMD9s.png)
This is simpler than stacked avatars, but has the same informational value, and scales well to accomodate large teams.
From a development perspective, it can be implemented as a stacked column graph -- with labels and value appearing on hover. | Your approach would not work with large teams, since you visually represent every team member with a icon.
The solution depends on the need of the users. Is it necessary to have an rough overview or exact numbers? Is it important to see only the percentage of the team etc.
I assume it is about the numbers. Therefore I would suggest to use numbers instead of icons. Also the color coding alone would not be enough you would have to add an explanation.
Here is one possible approach, which would solve these problems. You could even use additional icons or color coding for the status.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JXNOM.png) |
144,659 | **Context:**
============
I'm the sole product designer for a company with a product built around selling "knowledge packages" for getting your company on a better spot financially, fiscally, or productively.
I'm building the content builder for our employees to then publish to users, and the solution we ended up going for after doing research and establishing our value proposition was a "modular document builder" which we can build other features on top of in the future aligning with our product strategy.
I know I'm being vague, but I wouldn't want to reveal too much. Let me know if you need more info!
**The problem:**
================
This content builder has Sections, which contain Rows; Rows contain components, which act as columns; Components can be Cards, Text, tables, etc.
These components can be dragged around the screen into different rows and/or sections through Drag'n'Drop indicator on the top left corner, and on the top right there is an option for additional actions. (Drag'n'Drop + Additional Actions = Action Bar)
When I came into the company, they had the Action Bar set to "always visible" on all components around the screen, but it made the screen crowded and added too much noise, and did not allow users to read the screen easily. I'm introducing Progressive Disclosure but I'm finding myself in a bit of a pickle which I'm having trouble fixing.
>
> **The issue is that this "Action Bar" appears on hover, but I don't** **know how to find an appropriate way to make it appear.**
>
>
>
**What I've explored:**
=======================
* Resize and move. The action bar appears on hover instantly and makes the content box longer and displaces the content below. It is the option that I'm most inclined toward, but I still don't feel it is the right one as it might break the layout and displace the content.
* Cover. This simply doesn't work except for images. It goes over the content and can difficult editing the text on the top row.
There is also the option to reserve the space on top and add the same amount of padding on the bottom, which I'm not really fond of as it might add unjustified white space which can affect how users scan the content and break items related through the law of proximity. Here's a simple wireframe to support what I'm talking about.
Am I taking the right approach? Do you have any suggestions? Have you already solved this before?
Thanks so much, guys! | 2022/10/13 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/144659",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/158617/"
] | Expanding on [@essbee 's answer](https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/144665/93969), adding inner-bar labels:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Flghu.png)
...with mouseover activated popup to provide more information:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CLKo4.png) | Your approach would not work with large teams, since you visually represent every team member with a icon.
The solution depends on the need of the users. Is it necessary to have an rough overview or exact numbers? Is it important to see only the percentage of the team etc.
I assume it is about the numbers. Therefore I would suggest to use numbers instead of icons. Also the color coding alone would not be enough you would have to add an explanation.
Here is one possible approach, which would solve these problems. You could even use additional icons or color coding for the status.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JXNOM.png) |
150,907 | I've worked for a company in the media industry as an IT support while I was in CIT college and due to some circumstances I dropped out of college but kept on working there for 5 years. I've gained a good amount of experience in desktop and network troubleshooting, server management, and some vendor-specific devices in the media industry. The company ceased operations 2 years ago and since then I've been working non-IT related jobs.
**My question** is what is the best move for me now to get back in the field and land a good job? With nothing but 5 years experience and a 2 year gap?
I'm working on getting Cisco CCNA Routing & Switching before the end of February although I don't know if I can really be ready for it in time. Also I'm planning to tackle Comptia A+ certificate next and maybe Network+ in case I miss CCNA R&S deadline.
My end goal is to get a job in the IT field again and find some way to finish my degree even if I have to start over. | 2020/01/08 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150907",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/113395/"
] | I think first you should make up your mind about the technology you want to work with; but as per your 5 years experience and your zeal to pursue CCNA R&S, I will assume you want to work in "Infra" field in an IT company.
* Start scanning job portals and read about the latest expectations of the companies, what do they expect out of their next Infra hire.
* Try to give some interviews, and most importantly, expect not to be selected but you will definitely gain some crucial areas where you lack now and then you will have leads on what to improve. (A certification does not necessarily mean a good hire but practical experience does!)
* Then prepare a list of what you need to brush up more, practice all concepts with hands-on experience.
* Try giving more interviews, eventually your confidence will become high and I am sure you will land up with an IT job soon.
* Your gap won't matter to a company if you can prove you can work according to their expectations and have relevant experience.
* Once you land up with a good job, then you can try to find a college that offers that degree from correspondence, meaning you just need to clear all exams and not necessarily attend all classes. You will have to manage your time on weekends.
---
* Now if you want to change your IT field to a Development or Testing job then that requires expert knowledge of a coding language OR some Automation Testing experience can help you land up a QA job.
All the best! | As Paul K mentioned in a comment, location will matter a lot.
Easy steps could be to dust-up your (or create a) Linked-In profile and if that's not already done, look-up your former colleagues and classmates. Then in the options, mark yourself as available (and add the areas where you are looking for, and open to move to).
Usually when I do that, offers start flooding and it's more a matter of finding out which are spam and which are legitimate. That's how I've landed all my jobs since graduation. But I'm a software engineer though, not a network specialist or a sysadmin (even though that's what my initial degree was in), and the market for engineers in France is in extreme deficit.
Now, I use Linked-In, because I think it's the best tool for my situation (engineering consultancy in France) but there are plenty of other sites. If you look over to Stack Overflow, there's a job offers site and I hear it's good for positions in the US/UK for example. So my advice boils down to this: show up online.
And good luck for your CISCO cert. |
150,907 | I've worked for a company in the media industry as an IT support while I was in CIT college and due to some circumstances I dropped out of college but kept on working there for 5 years. I've gained a good amount of experience in desktop and network troubleshooting, server management, and some vendor-specific devices in the media industry. The company ceased operations 2 years ago and since then I've been working non-IT related jobs.
**My question** is what is the best move for me now to get back in the field and land a good job? With nothing but 5 years experience and a 2 year gap?
I'm working on getting Cisco CCNA Routing & Switching before the end of February although I don't know if I can really be ready for it in time. Also I'm planning to tackle Comptia A+ certificate next and maybe Network+ in case I miss CCNA R&S deadline.
My end goal is to get a job in the IT field again and find some way to finish my degree even if I have to start over. | 2020/01/08 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150907",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/113395/"
] | I think first you should make up your mind about the technology you want to work with; but as per your 5 years experience and your zeal to pursue CCNA R&S, I will assume you want to work in "Infra" field in an IT company.
* Start scanning job portals and read about the latest expectations of the companies, what do they expect out of their next Infra hire.
* Try to give some interviews, and most importantly, expect not to be selected but you will definitely gain some crucial areas where you lack now and then you will have leads on what to improve. (A certification does not necessarily mean a good hire but practical experience does!)
* Then prepare a list of what you need to brush up more, practice all concepts with hands-on experience.
* Try giving more interviews, eventually your confidence will become high and I am sure you will land up with an IT job soon.
* Your gap won't matter to a company if you can prove you can work according to their expectations and have relevant experience.
* Once you land up with a good job, then you can try to find a college that offers that degree from correspondence, meaning you just need to clear all exams and not necessarily attend all classes. You will have to manage your time on weekends.
---
* Now if you want to change your IT field to a Development or Testing job then that requires expert knowledge of a coding language OR some Automation Testing experience can help you land up a QA job.
All the best! | Any time you have an area in your resume that you perceive to be weak, it makes sense to emphasize your stronger areas - and also show that you are capable of overcoming your weaknesses. Sometimes, this requires a careful refocusing of your resume and your question-answering technique, versus just writing a literal resume showing your work experience or giving simple answers to questions.
While technical skills are important in IT, and it's valuable to show that you have up to the minute experience with specific technologies or tools, employers are also looking for more generic, softer skills. They're also generally looking for people who can follow directions, accomplish tasks, handle exceptions appropriately, and who know how to follow rules or processes versus winging everything.
Since you're concerned about a two year gap indicating that you are out of date technically, it may make sense to emphasize those soft skills in your resume. If you have a paragraph or summary at the top, that's a good place to do so. Also, when you list your past jobs, make sure you show how you did these things, versus just listing bland job duties or acronyms. Some employers may not pick up on this and may pass over you, but that's okay - employers with a narrow focus on specific up to the minute technologies are probably not your ideal employer anyways.
Secondly, make sure you emphasize your ability to learn and adapt to new technologies. If a candidate doesn't have a specific recent skill set, but they can show that they've regularly picked up new skill sets and have been able to effectively use them, that is a strong advantage. Ultimately, employers who are *always* focused on the shiny new thing really need people who can learn - not people who know what's shiny and new right now (because in 6 months they'll be focused on whatever replaces it anyways).
Further, as an option, consider targeting employers who need the skills you currently have, even if you think they are out of date. A big fallacy among people new to IT is the assumption that every employer always wants the newest and only cares about "current" technology. In reality, a large portion of the IT landscape is "old" and "outdated" at any point in time. You may find that there are a lot of employers who are specifically looking for your years-out-of-date skills. My current employer and several before it were all running their core systems on technology that was **decades** old, and it was a huge struggle to fill many positions, because the majority of candidates emphasized "current" technology.
So, don't rule out the potential that you may already have highly desirable skills - at the end of the day, finding a job is a balance of advertising yourself accurately and appropriately, but also making sure you're looking for opportunities that are actually a good fit for you. |
563,427 | I have a computer with an integrated gpu on the motherboard. Because I wanted to use two monitors and my motherboard only has one VGA port, I bought an ATI radeon HD 6450. Both my monitors have a VGA connector, so I also bought an adapter (VGA to DVI). The VGA port on the card works fine, but I can't get the DVI port to work. Does anybody know how I can get this to work? | 2013/03/09 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/563427",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/205684/"
] | Hm. From my understanding, you are attempting to connect two monitors to your new discrete card and then use that to manage displays.
If your BIOS outputs to both monitors (which it should, since that seems to be the default with more modern boards), then that confirms that everything is working. In that case, I cannot offer much advice beyond cleaning out the connectors between the monitor, adapter, and video card itself. As well, ensure that Windows is recognizing the monitors in the first place. Either check the AMD Catalyst Control Centre, Windows Screen Resolution configuration, or even check Device Manager to see if they show up. I'm not sure if they show up in device manager, but I do know that Piriform's [Speccy](https://www.piriform.com/speccy) *does* show connected monitors, so I imagine Windows device manager does as well.
However, if your second monitor is completely dead, I would look into checking for hardware failure on the monitor, the video card's DVI port, the adapter, and any cables in between. I personally would replace the adapter, since they seem to have the highest failure rate in my set-ups. As mentioned above, I would still definitely try to clean out the connectors to make sure there isn't a piece of dust in between. But first, you should try replacing the first monitor with the second ("dead") one to see if it even works at all.
While I hold a little doubt the hardware is at fault here, it is entirely possible.. unless you mentioned that "the monitor outputs" somewhere and I missed it.
tl;dr
* Check AMD/Windows configuration
* Clean out the connectors
* Swap out the monitors if the second one doesn't output **at all**
* (No system POST on the monitor at all) Replace the adapter, cables, etc. to see if they're the fault of the problem. | Try to obtain latest Catalyst drivers and try to detect second monitor(enable) in Display options (AMD/ATI) Display Manager, and also you need check is there any conflicts in BIOS with integrated graphics like Josh already proposed. Also in every manual that comes with Graphic cards is explained a way to connect cabling to multiple displays. Maybe Yours problem is in DVI/VGA adaptor and/or cabling. |
21,492 | Assume one runs a purely classical algorithm on $n$ logical qubits on a physical device with some bit flip probability.
Can implementing error correction in this case be any easier than in the case of a general quantum circuit?
I guess, given that the hardware is "quantum", to answer this question we also need to make assumptions on probabilities of hardware errors other than bit flips.
Basically I'm trying to understand whether quantum error correction has anything to offer to classical computation, at a cost less then the "full" quantum error correction. | 2021/10/10 | [
"https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/21492",
"https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com",
"https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/users/6313/"
] | >
> Can implementing error correction in this case be any easier than in the case of a general quantum circuit?
>
>
>
Yes, for example you could use a classical error correcting code such as a repetition code. Or, and I really want to emphasize how much more efficient this would be as a strategy for running the computation, you could throw the quantum computer into a wood chipper and then run the classical computation directly on a classical computer.
>
> I'm trying to understand whether quantum error correction has anything to offer to classical computation, at a cost less then the "full" quantum error correction.
>
>
>
Error correction involves doing syndrome decoding. The amount of classical compute you need to do syndrome decoding to keep the quantum computer on track will be millions of times worse than if you'd just run the computation directly on a classical computer [[1]](https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2019-07-18-167/) [[2]](https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04149). | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Br9B4.png)
Peter Shor has two error correcting methods. One is the bit flip method and the other is the phase shift method. The bit flip method is similar to what you could use in classical computing, and is what I would recommend you use when comparing the two. The phase shift method is unique to quantum computing. This is a great link describing it. This circuit diagram shows how the bit flip error, where the qubits' computational state flips from 0 to 1 or vice versa, is corrected. This 3-qubit circuit is using two ancillary qubits to correct one qubit.
<https://quantumcomputinguk.org/tutorials/quantum-error-correction-bit-flip-code-in-qiskit>
>
> The code works by first using CNOT gates to transfer the computational
> state of the main qubit to the other ancillary qubits. Then if an
> error occurs the first qubits state will be flipped. To correct the
> bit flip CNOT gates are applied to the ancillary qubits again and then
> a toffoli gate is applied to the first qubit which will correct its
> state.
>
>
> |
162,922 | I purchased my Iphone 5 in New-York but i live in London, may Apple restrict me from replacing the Power/Sleep button outside of the US? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/162922",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/105596/"
] | call apple, they tend to do it on a case by case basis for full phone replacements.
That being said if it is just the sleep button, in countries like canada you can just walk into any apple store and they do it for you, maybe try walking into a store, i would be shocked if the recall was not available in canada and not london | When I was in California with a defective iPad purchased in London, the San Luis Obispo Apple store swapped it out for a replacement with no problem. It just had the standard warranty, not Applecare. But I seem to recall that they said they couldn't have done the same for an iPhone, because the UK and US models are actually different -- different frequencies. If you're just having the button replaced that shouldn't matter, though. |
17,348,480 | From sqlite FAQ I've known that:
>
> Multiple processes can have the same database open at the same time.
> Multiple processes can be doing a SELECT at the same time. But only
> one process can be making changes to the database at any moment in
> time, however.
>
>
>
So, as far as I understand I can:
1) Read db from multiple threads (SELECT)
2) Read db from multiple threads (SELECT) and write from single thread (CREATE, INSERT, DELETE)
But, I read about [**Write-Ahead Logging**](http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) that provides more concurrency as *readers do not block writers and a writer does not block readers*. Reading and writing can proceed concurrently.
Finally, I've got completely muddled when I found [it](http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=DatabaseIsLocked&t=1292363538), when specified:
>
> Here are other reasons for getting an SQLITE\_LOCKED error:
>
>
> * Trying to CREATE or DROP a table or index while a SELECT statement is
> still pending.
> * Trying to write to a table while a SELECT is active on that same table.
> * Trying to do two SELECT on the same table at the same time in a
> multithread application, if sqlite is not set to do so.
> * fcntl(3,F\_SETLK call on DB file fails. This could be caused by an NFS locking
> issue, for example. One solution for this issue, is to mv the DB away,
> and copy it back so that it has a new Inode value
>
>
>
So, I would like to clarify for myself, when I should to avoid the locks? Can I read and write at the same time from two different threads? Thanks. | 2013/06/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/17348480",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1455957/"
] | Not specific to SQLite:
1) Write your code to gracefully handle the situation where you get a locking conflict at the application level; even if you wrote your code so that this is 'impossible'. Use transactional re-tries (ie: SQLITE\_LOCKED could be one of many codes that you interpret as "try again" or "wait and try again"), and coordinate this with application-level code. If you think about it, getting a SQLITE\_LOCKED is better than simply having the attempt hang because it's locked - because you can go do something else.
2) Acquire locks. But you have to be careful if you need to acquire more than one. For each transaction at the application level, acquire all of the resources (locks) you will need in a consistent (ie: alphabetical?) order to prevent deadlocks when locks get acquired in the database. Sometimes you can ignore this if the database will reliably and quickly detect the deadlocks and throw exceptions; in other systems it may just hang without detecting the deadlock - making it absolutely necessary to take the effort to acquire the locks correctly.
Besides the facts of life with locking, you should try to design the data and in-memory structures with concurrent merging and rolling back planned in from the beginning. If you can design data such that the outcome of a data race gives a good result for all orders, then you don't have to deal with locks in that case. A good example is to increment a counter without knowing its current value, rather than reading the value and submitting a new value to update. It's similar for appending to a set (ie: adding a row, such that it doesn't matter which order the row inserts happened).
A good system is supposed to transactionally move from one valid state to the next, and you can think of exceptions (even in in-memory code) as aborting an attempt to move to the next state; with the option to ignore or retry. | You're fine with multithreading. The page you link lists what you cannot do while you're looping on the results of your `SELECT` (i.e. your select is active/pending) in the same thread. |
17,348,480 | From sqlite FAQ I've known that:
>
> Multiple processes can have the same database open at the same time.
> Multiple processes can be doing a SELECT at the same time. But only
> one process can be making changes to the database at any moment in
> time, however.
>
>
>
So, as far as I understand I can:
1) Read db from multiple threads (SELECT)
2) Read db from multiple threads (SELECT) and write from single thread (CREATE, INSERT, DELETE)
But, I read about [**Write-Ahead Logging**](http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) that provides more concurrency as *readers do not block writers and a writer does not block readers*. Reading and writing can proceed concurrently.
Finally, I've got completely muddled when I found [it](http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=DatabaseIsLocked&t=1292363538), when specified:
>
> Here are other reasons for getting an SQLITE\_LOCKED error:
>
>
> * Trying to CREATE or DROP a table or index while a SELECT statement is
> still pending.
> * Trying to write to a table while a SELECT is active on that same table.
> * Trying to do two SELECT on the same table at the same time in a
> multithread application, if sqlite is not set to do so.
> * fcntl(3,F\_SETLK call on DB file fails. This could be caused by an NFS locking
> issue, for example. One solution for this issue, is to mv the DB away,
> and copy it back so that it has a new Inode value
>
>
>
So, I would like to clarify for myself, when I should to avoid the locks? Can I read and write at the same time from two different threads? Thanks. | 2013/06/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/17348480",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1455957/"
] | For those who are working with ***Android API***:
>
> Locking in SQLite is done on the file level which guarantees locking
> of changes from different threads and connections. Thus multiple
> threads can read the database however one can only write to it.
>
>
>
More on locking in SQLite can be read at [SQLite](http://www.sqlite.org/lockingv3.html) documentation but we are most interested in the API provided by OS Android.
*Writing with two concurrent threads can be made both from a single and from multiple database connections.* Since only one thread can write to the database then there are two variants:
1. If you write from two threads of one connection then one thread will
await on the other to finish writing.
2. If you write from two threads of different connections then an error
will be – all of your data will not be written to the database and
the application will be interrupted with
SQLiteDatabaseLockedException. It becomes evident that the
application should always have only one copy of
SQLiteOpenHelper(just an open connection) otherwise
SQLiteDatabaseLockedException can occur at any moment.
***Different Connections At a Single SQLiteOpenHelper***
Everyone is aware that SQLiteOpenHelper has 2 methods providing access to the database **getReadableDatabase()** and **getWritableDatabase()**, to read and write data respectively. However in most cases there is one real connection. Moreover it is one and the same object:
>
> SQLiteOpenHelper.getReadableDatabase()==SQLiteOpenHelper.getWritableDatabase()
>
>
>
It means that there is no difference in use of the methods the data is read from. However there is another undocumented issue which is more important – inside of the class SQLiteDatabase there are own locks – the variable mLock. Locks for writing at the level of the object SQLiteDatabase and since there is only one copy of SQLiteDatabase for read and write then data read is also blocked. It is more prominently visible when writing a large volume of data in a transaction.
Let’s consider an **example** of such an application that should download a large volume of data (*approx. 7000 lines containing BLOB*) in the background on first launch and save it to the database. If the data is saved inside the transaction then saving takes approx. 45 seconds but the user can not use the application since any of the reading queries are blocked. If the data is saved in small portions then the update process is dragging out for a rather lengthy period of time (10-15 minutes) but the user can use the application without any restrictions and inconvenience. “The double edge sword” – either fast or convenient.
Google has already fixed a part of issues related to SQLiteDatabase functionality as the following methods have been added:
**beginTransactionNonExclusive()** – creates a transaction in the “IMMEDIATE mode”.
**yieldIfContendedSafely()** – temporary seizes the transaction in order to allow completion of tasks by other threads.
**isDatabaseIntegrityOk()** – checks for database integrity
Please read in more details in the [documentation](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/database/sqlite/SQLiteDatabase.html).
However for the older versions of Android this functionality is required as well.
***The Solution***
First locking should be turned off and allow reading the data in any situation.
>
> SQLiteDatabase.setLockingEnabled(false);
>
>
>
cancels using internal query locking – on the logic level of the java class (not related to locking in terms of SQLite)
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“PRAGMA read\_uncommitted = true;”);
>
>
>
Allows reading data from cache. In fact, changes the level of isolation. This parameter should be set for each connection anew. If there are a number of connections then it influences only the connection that calls for this command.
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“PRAGMA synchronous=OFF”);
>
>
>
Change the writing method to the database – without “synchronization”. When activating this option the database can be damaged if the system unexpectedly fails or power supply is off. However according to the SQLite documentation some operations are executed 50 times faster if the option is not activated.
Unfortunately not all of [PRAGMA](http://www.sqlite.org/pragma.html#pragma_synchronous) is supported in Android e.g. “**PRAGMA locking\_mode = NORMAL**” and “**PRAGMA journal\_mode = OFF**” and some others are not supported. At the attempt to call PRAGMA data the application fails.
In the documentation for the method **setLockingEnabled** it is said that this method is recommended for using only in the case if you are sure that all the work with the database is done from a single thread. We should guarantee than at a time only one transaction is held. Also instead of the default transactions (exclusive transaction) the immediate transaction should be used. In the older versions of Android (below API 11) there is no option to create the immediate transaction thru the java wrapper however SQLite supports this functionality. To initialize a transaction in the immediate mode the following SQLite query should be executed directly to the database, – for example thru the method execSQL:
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“begin immediate transaction”);
>
>
>
Since the transaction is initialized by the direct query then it should be finished the same way:
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“commit transaction”);
>
>
>
Then TransactionManager is the only thing left to be implemented which will initiate and finish transactions of the required type. The purpose of TransactionManager – is to guarantee that all of the queries for changes (insert, update, delete, DDL queries) originate from the same thread.
Hope this helps the future visitors!!! | You're fine with multithreading. The page you link lists what you cannot do while you're looping on the results of your `SELECT` (i.e. your select is active/pending) in the same thread. |
17,348,480 | From sqlite FAQ I've known that:
>
> Multiple processes can have the same database open at the same time.
> Multiple processes can be doing a SELECT at the same time. But only
> one process can be making changes to the database at any moment in
> time, however.
>
>
>
So, as far as I understand I can:
1) Read db from multiple threads (SELECT)
2) Read db from multiple threads (SELECT) and write from single thread (CREATE, INSERT, DELETE)
But, I read about [**Write-Ahead Logging**](http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) that provides more concurrency as *readers do not block writers and a writer does not block readers*. Reading and writing can proceed concurrently.
Finally, I've got completely muddled when I found [it](http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=DatabaseIsLocked&t=1292363538), when specified:
>
> Here are other reasons for getting an SQLITE\_LOCKED error:
>
>
> * Trying to CREATE or DROP a table or index while a SELECT statement is
> still pending.
> * Trying to write to a table while a SELECT is active on that same table.
> * Trying to do two SELECT on the same table at the same time in a
> multithread application, if sqlite is not set to do so.
> * fcntl(3,F\_SETLK call on DB file fails. This could be caused by an NFS locking
> issue, for example. One solution for this issue, is to mv the DB away,
> and copy it back so that it has a new Inode value
>
>
>
So, I would like to clarify for myself, when I should to avoid the locks? Can I read and write at the same time from two different threads? Thanks. | 2013/06/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/17348480",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1455957/"
] | For those who are working with ***Android API***:
>
> Locking in SQLite is done on the file level which guarantees locking
> of changes from different threads and connections. Thus multiple
> threads can read the database however one can only write to it.
>
>
>
More on locking in SQLite can be read at [SQLite](http://www.sqlite.org/lockingv3.html) documentation but we are most interested in the API provided by OS Android.
*Writing with two concurrent threads can be made both from a single and from multiple database connections.* Since only one thread can write to the database then there are two variants:
1. If you write from two threads of one connection then one thread will
await on the other to finish writing.
2. If you write from two threads of different connections then an error
will be – all of your data will not be written to the database and
the application will be interrupted with
SQLiteDatabaseLockedException. It becomes evident that the
application should always have only one copy of
SQLiteOpenHelper(just an open connection) otherwise
SQLiteDatabaseLockedException can occur at any moment.
***Different Connections At a Single SQLiteOpenHelper***
Everyone is aware that SQLiteOpenHelper has 2 methods providing access to the database **getReadableDatabase()** and **getWritableDatabase()**, to read and write data respectively. However in most cases there is one real connection. Moreover it is one and the same object:
>
> SQLiteOpenHelper.getReadableDatabase()==SQLiteOpenHelper.getWritableDatabase()
>
>
>
It means that there is no difference in use of the methods the data is read from. However there is another undocumented issue which is more important – inside of the class SQLiteDatabase there are own locks – the variable mLock. Locks for writing at the level of the object SQLiteDatabase and since there is only one copy of SQLiteDatabase for read and write then data read is also blocked. It is more prominently visible when writing a large volume of data in a transaction.
Let’s consider an **example** of such an application that should download a large volume of data (*approx. 7000 lines containing BLOB*) in the background on first launch and save it to the database. If the data is saved inside the transaction then saving takes approx. 45 seconds but the user can not use the application since any of the reading queries are blocked. If the data is saved in small portions then the update process is dragging out for a rather lengthy period of time (10-15 minutes) but the user can use the application without any restrictions and inconvenience. “The double edge sword” – either fast or convenient.
Google has already fixed a part of issues related to SQLiteDatabase functionality as the following methods have been added:
**beginTransactionNonExclusive()** – creates a transaction in the “IMMEDIATE mode”.
**yieldIfContendedSafely()** – temporary seizes the transaction in order to allow completion of tasks by other threads.
**isDatabaseIntegrityOk()** – checks for database integrity
Please read in more details in the [documentation](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/database/sqlite/SQLiteDatabase.html).
However for the older versions of Android this functionality is required as well.
***The Solution***
First locking should be turned off and allow reading the data in any situation.
>
> SQLiteDatabase.setLockingEnabled(false);
>
>
>
cancels using internal query locking – on the logic level of the java class (not related to locking in terms of SQLite)
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“PRAGMA read\_uncommitted = true;”);
>
>
>
Allows reading data from cache. In fact, changes the level of isolation. This parameter should be set for each connection anew. If there are a number of connections then it influences only the connection that calls for this command.
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“PRAGMA synchronous=OFF”);
>
>
>
Change the writing method to the database – without “synchronization”. When activating this option the database can be damaged if the system unexpectedly fails or power supply is off. However according to the SQLite documentation some operations are executed 50 times faster if the option is not activated.
Unfortunately not all of [PRAGMA](http://www.sqlite.org/pragma.html#pragma_synchronous) is supported in Android e.g. “**PRAGMA locking\_mode = NORMAL**” and “**PRAGMA journal\_mode = OFF**” and some others are not supported. At the attempt to call PRAGMA data the application fails.
In the documentation for the method **setLockingEnabled** it is said that this method is recommended for using only in the case if you are sure that all the work with the database is done from a single thread. We should guarantee than at a time only one transaction is held. Also instead of the default transactions (exclusive transaction) the immediate transaction should be used. In the older versions of Android (below API 11) there is no option to create the immediate transaction thru the java wrapper however SQLite supports this functionality. To initialize a transaction in the immediate mode the following SQLite query should be executed directly to the database, – for example thru the method execSQL:
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“begin immediate transaction”);
>
>
>
Since the transaction is initialized by the direct query then it should be finished the same way:
>
> SQLiteDatabase.execSQL(“commit transaction”);
>
>
>
Then TransactionManager is the only thing left to be implemented which will initiate and finish transactions of the required type. The purpose of TransactionManager – is to guarantee that all of the queries for changes (insert, update, delete, DDL queries) originate from the same thread.
Hope this helps the future visitors!!! | Not specific to SQLite:
1) Write your code to gracefully handle the situation where you get a locking conflict at the application level; even if you wrote your code so that this is 'impossible'. Use transactional re-tries (ie: SQLITE\_LOCKED could be one of many codes that you interpret as "try again" or "wait and try again"), and coordinate this with application-level code. If you think about it, getting a SQLITE\_LOCKED is better than simply having the attempt hang because it's locked - because you can go do something else.
2) Acquire locks. But you have to be careful if you need to acquire more than one. For each transaction at the application level, acquire all of the resources (locks) you will need in a consistent (ie: alphabetical?) order to prevent deadlocks when locks get acquired in the database. Sometimes you can ignore this if the database will reliably and quickly detect the deadlocks and throw exceptions; in other systems it may just hang without detecting the deadlock - making it absolutely necessary to take the effort to acquire the locks correctly.
Besides the facts of life with locking, you should try to design the data and in-memory structures with concurrent merging and rolling back planned in from the beginning. If you can design data such that the outcome of a data race gives a good result for all orders, then you don't have to deal with locks in that case. A good example is to increment a counter without knowing its current value, rather than reading the value and submitting a new value to update. It's similar for appending to a set (ie: adding a row, such that it doesn't matter which order the row inserts happened).
A good system is supposed to transactionally move from one valid state to the next, and you can think of exceptions (even in in-memory code) as aborting an attempt to move to the next state; with the option to ignore or retry. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | I think Robert Harvey's answer (above, in the comments) was the best:
>
> "Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith."
>
>
>
I found this very profound as it totally changed my attitude to what Jesus was saying. Like I wrote above, I thought He was saying something similar to, *"Shame you don't have more faith"* but what He is actually saying, according to Robert, is that **they already have all the faith they need!**
This makes complete sense to me. Rather than thinking, *"I don't have enough faith"* I should just assume I do and keep [persistently praying](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8&version=NIV1984). | >
> but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, "Yes, it would be
> great if you had more faith." But His answer doesn't help people with
> little faith.
>
>
>
Luke 17:7-10 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
The parable that Jesus gives seems to compound the problem of what seems to be an insufficient answer.
At such a point it can be helpful to back up a little and take a closer look at the basics.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
John 6:44a No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him
Hebrews 12:2a Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
Luke 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Matthew 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
The Father creates in us something which leads us to Jesus (possibly a desire for truth). When we hear of Jesus (who is truth) we find faith (that in which we can trust). Faith can be measured as great or little. Jesus originates our faith and completes it.
The verse in Luke seems to be saying that we have some responsibility for our faith as well. It is at this point that it can be helpful to consider another encounter that illustrates a barrier to faith.
Matthew 19:21-22 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Jesus didn't say, "Isn't it too bad God didn't give him more faith".
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
We know that riches can be a barrier to faith (since we live in the most prosperous time in history, this should also be a warning for us).
Jesus really can't give universal instruction for more faith because we all have different things to which we cling and in which we trust, (riches, retirement account, health, family, schooling, employment, social position, or plans for the future).
We do have an example of faith similar to a poker player who goes "all in".
Matthew 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Jesus is the example of perfect faith
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
One might conclude that an increase in faith is our responsibility and is a result not of that which we aquire, but of that we relinquish. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | Think back to [the other time he mentions a mustard seed](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:30-32). What he focuses on in the example is the way it grows from a very small seed to a very large plant.
So if a disciple's faith is as this seed, vital and active, and capable of great growth even though it may be small at the moment, then it can enable them to do great things when the need arises. | I think Robert Harvey's answer (above, in the comments) was the best:
>
> "Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith."
>
>
>
I found this very profound as it totally changed my attitude to what Jesus was saying. Like I wrote above, I thought He was saying something similar to, *"Shame you don't have more faith"* but what He is actually saying, according to Robert, is that **they already have all the faith they need!**
This makes complete sense to me. Rather than thinking, *"I don't have enough faith"* I should just assume I do and keep [persistently praying](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8&version=NIV1984). |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | Jesus was saying to the apostles that *they didn't need more faith.*
Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act. Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.
There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself. *"Rely not on your own understanding,"* but on God's. Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender. Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must "do," but because it is something we do not always allow.
Faith is not something you can "measure." In a very real sense, there is no such thing as "more faith." You can not surrender "more," you can only surrender completely. | I think Robert Harvey's answer (above, in the comments) was the best:
>
> "Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith."
>
>
>
I found this very profound as it totally changed my attitude to what Jesus was saying. Like I wrote above, I thought He was saying something similar to, *"Shame you don't have more faith"* but what He is actually saying, according to Robert, is that **they already have all the faith they need!**
This makes complete sense to me. Rather than thinking, *"I don't have enough faith"* I should just assume I do and keep [persistently praying](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8&version=NIV1984). |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | Jesus was saying to the apostles that *they didn't need more faith.*
Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act. Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.
There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself. *"Rely not on your own understanding,"* but on God's. Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender. Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must "do," but because it is something we do not always allow.
Faith is not something you can "measure." In a very real sense, there is no such thing as "more faith." You can not surrender "more," you can only surrender completely. | I found that the christian that desires to further their faith for a closer relationship with him is to except the whole teaching of the holy spirit. As he commanded us to go out and heal the sick and lay hands and make disciples. Literally go do it 1 Timothy 4 : 14 tells us to practice the gifts and grow in them. What I'm getting at is though talk of this sort can become a stumbling block to a cultural christian. This is one of the things that makes us really reflect his image. This is something that is gifted to you through your faith and as you do good works and fill yourself with the word, your faith becomes self efficient. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | I think Robert Harvey's answer (above, in the comments) was the best:
>
> "Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith."
>
>
>
I found this very profound as it totally changed my attitude to what Jesus was saying. Like I wrote above, I thought He was saying something similar to, *"Shame you don't have more faith"* but what He is actually saying, according to Robert, is that **they already have all the faith they need!**
This makes complete sense to me. Rather than thinking, *"I don't have enough faith"* I should just assume I do and keep [persistently praying](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8&version=NIV1984). | I found that the christian that desires to further their faith for a closer relationship with him is to except the whole teaching of the holy spirit. As he commanded us to go out and heal the sick and lay hands and make disciples. Literally go do it 1 Timothy 4 : 14 tells us to practice the gifts and grow in them. What I'm getting at is though talk of this sort can become a stumbling block to a cultural christian. This is one of the things that makes us really reflect his image. This is something that is gifted to you through your faith and as you do good works and fill yourself with the word, your faith becomes self efficient. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | Faith is something one can have in a very small amount (mustard seed) it's how one chooses to express that faith that matters. Expressing faith through actions, not just words is, I think, paramount. I agree that faith is something that you can not measure, just like air, gotta have that air, so in some ways, gotta have faith, no matter how small it is. | >
> but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, "Yes, it would be
> great if you had more faith." But His answer doesn't help people with
> little faith.
>
>
>
Luke 17:7-10 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
The parable that Jesus gives seems to compound the problem of what seems to be an insufficient answer.
At such a point it can be helpful to back up a little and take a closer look at the basics.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
John 6:44a No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him
Hebrews 12:2a Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
Luke 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Matthew 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
The Father creates in us something which leads us to Jesus (possibly a desire for truth). When we hear of Jesus (who is truth) we find faith (that in which we can trust). Faith can be measured as great or little. Jesus originates our faith and completes it.
The verse in Luke seems to be saying that we have some responsibility for our faith as well. It is at this point that it can be helpful to consider another encounter that illustrates a barrier to faith.
Matthew 19:21-22 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Jesus didn't say, "Isn't it too bad God didn't give him more faith".
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
We know that riches can be a barrier to faith (since we live in the most prosperous time in history, this should also be a warning for us).
Jesus really can't give universal instruction for more faith because we all have different things to which we cling and in which we trust, (riches, retirement account, health, family, schooling, employment, social position, or plans for the future).
We do have an example of faith similar to a poker player who goes "all in".
Matthew 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Jesus is the example of perfect faith
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
One might conclude that an increase in faith is our responsibility and is a result not of that which we aquire, but of that we relinquish. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | Think back to [the other time he mentions a mustard seed](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:30-32). What he focuses on in the example is the way it grows from a very small seed to a very large plant.
So if a disciple's faith is as this seed, vital and active, and capable of great growth even though it may be small at the moment, then it can enable them to do great things when the need arises. | I found that the christian that desires to further their faith for a closer relationship with him is to except the whole teaching of the holy spirit. As he commanded us to go out and heal the sick and lay hands and make disciples. Literally go do it 1 Timothy 4 : 14 tells us to practice the gifts and grow in them. What I'm getting at is though talk of this sort can become a stumbling block to a cultural christian. This is one of the things that makes us really reflect his image. This is something that is gifted to you through your faith and as you do good works and fill yourself with the word, your faith becomes self efficient. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | Jesus was saying to the apostles that *they didn't need more faith.*
Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act. Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.
There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself. *"Rely not on your own understanding,"* but on God's. Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender. Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must "do," but because it is something we do not always allow.
Faith is not something you can "measure." In a very real sense, there is no such thing as "more faith." You can not surrender "more," you can only surrender completely. | >
> but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, "Yes, it would be
> great if you had more faith." But His answer doesn't help people with
> little faith.
>
>
>
Luke 17:7-10 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
The parable that Jesus gives seems to compound the problem of what seems to be an insufficient answer.
At such a point it can be helpful to back up a little and take a closer look at the basics.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
John 6:44a No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him
Hebrews 12:2a Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
Luke 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Matthew 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
The Father creates in us something which leads us to Jesus (possibly a desire for truth). When we hear of Jesus (who is truth) we find faith (that in which we can trust). Faith can be measured as great or little. Jesus originates our faith and completes it.
The verse in Luke seems to be saying that we have some responsibility for our faith as well. It is at this point that it can be helpful to consider another encounter that illustrates a barrier to faith.
Matthew 19:21-22 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Jesus didn't say, "Isn't it too bad God didn't give him more faith".
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
We know that riches can be a barrier to faith (since we live in the most prosperous time in history, this should also be a warning for us).
Jesus really can't give universal instruction for more faith because we all have different things to which we cling and in which we trust, (riches, retirement account, health, family, schooling, employment, social position, or plans for the future).
We do have an example of faith similar to a poker player who goes "all in".
Matthew 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Jesus is the example of perfect faith
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
One might conclude that an increase in faith is our responsibility and is a result not of that which we aquire, but of that we relinquish. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | Jesus was saying to the apostles that *they didn't need more faith.*
Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act. Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.
There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself. *"Rely not on your own understanding,"* but on God's. Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender. Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must "do," but because it is something we do not always allow.
Faith is not something you can "measure." In a very real sense, there is no such thing as "more faith." You can not surrender "more," you can only surrender completely. | Faith is something one can have in a very small amount (mustard seed) it's how one chooses to express that faith that matters. Expressing faith through actions, not just words is, I think, paramount. I agree that faith is something that you can not measure, just like air, gotta have that air, so in some ways, gotta have faith, no matter how small it is. |
5,072 | The question, ["How do I get more faith?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith) has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:
>
> [Luke 17:5-6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&version=NIV1984)
>
>
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
>
>
> He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>
>
>
It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus *"How do I get more faith?"* (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, *"Yes, it would be great if you had more faith."* But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer? | 2011/12/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5072",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | >
> but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, "Yes, it would be
> great if you had more faith." But His answer doesn't help people with
> little faith.
>
>
>
Luke 17:7-10 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
The parable that Jesus gives seems to compound the problem of what seems to be an insufficient answer.
At such a point it can be helpful to back up a little and take a closer look at the basics.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
John 6:44a No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him
Hebrews 12:2a Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
Luke 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Matthew 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
The Father creates in us something which leads us to Jesus (possibly a desire for truth). When we hear of Jesus (who is truth) we find faith (that in which we can trust). Faith can be measured as great or little. Jesus originates our faith and completes it.
The verse in Luke seems to be saying that we have some responsibility for our faith as well. It is at this point that it can be helpful to consider another encounter that illustrates a barrier to faith.
Matthew 19:21-22 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Jesus didn't say, "Isn't it too bad God didn't give him more faith".
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
We know that riches can be a barrier to faith (since we live in the most prosperous time in history, this should also be a warning for us).
Jesus really can't give universal instruction for more faith because we all have different things to which we cling and in which we trust, (riches, retirement account, health, family, schooling, employment, social position, or plans for the future).
We do have an example of faith similar to a poker player who goes "all in".
Matthew 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Jesus is the example of perfect faith
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
One might conclude that an increase in faith is our responsibility and is a result not of that which we aquire, but of that we relinquish. | I found that the christian that desires to further their faith for a closer relationship with him is to except the whole teaching of the holy spirit. As he commanded us to go out and heal the sick and lay hands and make disciples. Literally go do it 1 Timothy 4 : 14 tells us to practice the gifts and grow in them. What I'm getting at is though talk of this sort can become a stumbling block to a cultural christian. This is one of the things that makes us really reflect his image. This is something that is gifted to you through your faith and as you do good works and fill yourself with the word, your faith becomes self efficient. |
558,071 | If the Universal Wave Function definitely existed, would that mean the Many-Worlds Interpretation was automatically true or would it only imply that? | 2020/06/09 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/558071",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/203798/"
] | Your intuition is correct: from the point of view of physics, there is no distinction between interaction and measurement. There is some argument about this, but as long as all interactions are accounted for, all the way to an observer's awareness of a measurement outcome, so that the observer is included as part of the system, then there is no distinction.
**But** that does not mean that all states are fixed. Let's say there are two particles, one of which is in a superposition of UP/DOWN states, and the other of which is in a fixed UP state. They interact in such a way that the second particle stays UP when the first particle is UP, and flips DOWN if the first particle is DOWN. The result is that the second particle, after the interaction, is in a superposition of states. In a sense, the superposed state of the first particle is transferred to the second particle.
Now let's complicate the scenario. Let the first particle instead interact with an instrument that measures its state. If the first particle is UP, the instrument panel displays "*UP*"; and if the first particle is DOWN, the instrument panel displays "*DOWN*". Now, after the measurement (remember, measurement = interaction), the instrument is in a superposition of states because the particle was in a superposition of states. BUT: the instrument has two "perspectives" corresponding to its two states: in the "*UP*" state, it "knows" that the particle was UP, and in the "*DOWN*" state it "knows" the particle was DOWN. The instrument *never* sees the particle as being in both states.
However, the instrument itself is in a mixed state. Now along comes an observer (who is just a really complicated instrument from the point of view of physics) who looks at the instrument and sees the instrument displaying either "*UP*" or "*DOWN*". The observer is put into a superposed state by looking at (interacting with) the instrument. The observer state that sees "*UP*" can only see "*UP*"; and the observer state that sees "*DOWN*" can only see "*DOWN*". The observer can never see the instrument displaying a mix of both.
This would all seem very abstract and unnecessary, except for the fact that it is supported by experiment. Young's double slit experiment, and other related experiments, demonstrate very solidly that a particle actually exists in a superposition of states until it is detected.
It's very difficult to design an experiment to prove that anything much larger than a small molecule can exist in a superposition of states, but [it has been done](https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.130). Proving that Schroedinger's cat - or a human observer - is in a mixed state may well be beyond our reach; but there is plenty of theoretical basis to assume that each quantum measurement puts the lab tech in a superposition of states. | I thought of an interpretation about this question and would like to know if it is meaningful:
Saying that there is no superposition of states is only true for a given orientation of coordinates. And the notion of superposition has only meaning for a given frame.
If a particle $A$ has spin up in a given direction it has a superposition of up and down for an axis not at that direction. It is not possible to choose a frame where all particles have no superposition of states.
It is simmilar to an elastic field inside a body in equilibrium. It is always possible for each point, to find an axis orientation such that there is no shear stresses in the stress tensor.
But if I choose that orientation, it is perfectly possible to have shear stresses at points in the neighborhood. |
558,071 | If the Universal Wave Function definitely existed, would that mean the Many-Worlds Interpretation was automatically true or would it only imply that? | 2020/06/09 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/558071",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/203798/"
] | Your intuition is correct: from the point of view of physics, there is no distinction between interaction and measurement. There is some argument about this, but as long as all interactions are accounted for, all the way to an observer's awareness of a measurement outcome, so that the observer is included as part of the system, then there is no distinction.
**But** that does not mean that all states are fixed. Let's say there are two particles, one of which is in a superposition of UP/DOWN states, and the other of which is in a fixed UP state. They interact in such a way that the second particle stays UP when the first particle is UP, and flips DOWN if the first particle is DOWN. The result is that the second particle, after the interaction, is in a superposition of states. In a sense, the superposed state of the first particle is transferred to the second particle.
Now let's complicate the scenario. Let the first particle instead interact with an instrument that measures its state. If the first particle is UP, the instrument panel displays "*UP*"; and if the first particle is DOWN, the instrument panel displays "*DOWN*". Now, after the measurement (remember, measurement = interaction), the instrument is in a superposition of states because the particle was in a superposition of states. BUT: the instrument has two "perspectives" corresponding to its two states: in the "*UP*" state, it "knows" that the particle was UP, and in the "*DOWN*" state it "knows" the particle was DOWN. The instrument *never* sees the particle as being in both states.
However, the instrument itself is in a mixed state. Now along comes an observer (who is just a really complicated instrument from the point of view of physics) who looks at the instrument and sees the instrument displaying either "*UP*" or "*DOWN*". The observer is put into a superposed state by looking at (interacting with) the instrument. The observer state that sees "*UP*" can only see "*UP*"; and the observer state that sees "*DOWN*" can only see "*DOWN*". The observer can never see the instrument displaying a mix of both.
This would all seem very abstract and unnecessary, except for the fact that it is supported by experiment. Young's double slit experiment, and other related experiments, demonstrate very solidly that a particle actually exists in a superposition of states until it is detected.
It's very difficult to design an experiment to prove that anything much larger than a small molecule can exist in a superposition of states, but [it has been done](https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.130). Proving that Schroedinger's cat - or a human observer - is in a mixed state may well be beyond our reach; but there is plenty of theoretical basis to assume that each quantum measurement puts the lab tech in a superposition of states. | Measurement is happening all the time *only* in the macroscopic world. The fundamental difference between a quantum particle and a macroscopic body is that a quantum particle is not interacting with its environment, or if it is interacting then it is not interacting in such a way as to generate the measured property you are interested in.
The conceptual difficulty in quantum mechanics is that in the absence of measured properties, particles do not behave in a way which we find intuitive. Indeed, one must go into the mathematical foundations, not just study the results, if one wants to understand it. I have sought to clarify this in a published paper [The Hilbert space of conditional clauses](https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4607). |
558,071 | If the Universal Wave Function definitely existed, would that mean the Many-Worlds Interpretation was automatically true or would it only imply that? | 2020/06/09 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/558071",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/203798/"
] | Measurement is happening all the time *only* in the macroscopic world. The fundamental difference between a quantum particle and a macroscopic body is that a quantum particle is not interacting with its environment, or if it is interacting then it is not interacting in such a way as to generate the measured property you are interested in.
The conceptual difficulty in quantum mechanics is that in the absence of measured properties, particles do not behave in a way which we find intuitive. Indeed, one must go into the mathematical foundations, not just study the results, if one wants to understand it. I have sought to clarify this in a published paper [The Hilbert space of conditional clauses](https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4607). | I thought of an interpretation about this question and would like to know if it is meaningful:
Saying that there is no superposition of states is only true for a given orientation of coordinates. And the notion of superposition has only meaning for a given frame.
If a particle $A$ has spin up in a given direction it has a superposition of up and down for an axis not at that direction. It is not possible to choose a frame where all particles have no superposition of states.
It is simmilar to an elastic field inside a body in equilibrium. It is always possible for each point, to find an axis orientation such that there is no shear stresses in the stress tensor.
But if I choose that orientation, it is perfectly possible to have shear stresses at points in the neighborhood. |
49,836 | On page 182 of the PHB there are rules describing how far and high characters can jump. However, there is no mention of what type of action jumping is or how much movement it takes to initiate a jump. In the combat chapter of the book there is no action listed that allows a character to attempt any sort of acrobatics or athletics in combat. Which leads me to think if it's even an option. **Can you jump in combat and if so what are the restrictions?**
In case it's important I was wondering about this when I came across the spell Jump. It simply triples the distance the target can jump and lasts 1 minute. If cast on a martial character with 20 Strength they could jump 60 feet. That kind of mobility could be useful in combat. | 2014/10/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/49836",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15264/"
] | Per the rules for jumping in the Adventuring chapter (Basic Rules p64, probably the same section you cite):
>
> each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
>
>
>
Yes, you can jump in combat as part of your movement; no, you can't jump further than you could move anyway. Rules as written, the Jump spell doesn't extend this distance.
If I were the GM, I would say that the Jump spell makes every three feet you clear cost a single foot of movement, but that would be a house ruling. | Jump is part of "Move."
>
> Your movement can include jumping, climbing and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However, you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving. (PHB 190)
>
>
>
For distance traveled on Jump, you move your strength score (provided that you move at least 2 squares prior to your jump, otherwise it's half that). This movement still costs the normal amount for each foot of movement:
>
> Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
>
>
>
So if a wizard casts Jump, your jump movement is still limited by your character's speed. However, this allows for a standing jump which means that you could jump 25 or 30' in a single move instead of 15-20'. |
49,836 | On page 182 of the PHB there are rules describing how far and high characters can jump. However, there is no mention of what type of action jumping is or how much movement it takes to initiate a jump. In the combat chapter of the book there is no action listed that allows a character to attempt any sort of acrobatics or athletics in combat. Which leads me to think if it's even an option. **Can you jump in combat and if so what are the restrictions?**
In case it's important I was wondering about this when I came across the spell Jump. It simply triples the distance the target can jump and lasts 1 minute. If cast on a martial character with 20 Strength they could jump 60 feet. That kind of mobility could be useful in combat. | 2014/10/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/49836",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15264/"
] | Per the rules for jumping in the Adventuring chapter (Basic Rules p64, probably the same section you cite):
>
> each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
>
>
>
Yes, you can jump in combat as part of your movement; no, you can't jump further than you could move anyway. Rules as written, the Jump spell doesn't extend this distance.
If I were the GM, I would say that the Jump spell makes every three feet you clear cost a single foot of movement, but that would be a house ruling. | Jump Attack
-----------
Falling (p. 183 PHB)
>
> A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer.
> At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.
>
>
>
What you need: Winged Boots
Each round up equals 60 feet using the Dash Action (assuming 30 ft. of normal movement).
For every 10 feet up you travel you deal +1d6 bludgeoning damage when you fall, to a maximum of 20d6 if jumping 200 ft. or more. On a hit the target is knocked prone, unless they take no bludgeoning damage from you falling on them.
Note: It is assumed you begin flying again to halt your movement once you hit your opponent with the attack action (using your movement action for the round you fall).
Minimum Jump: 1 round up + 1 round down (assuming opponent is within 5 ft.) +6d6 damage and the target is knocked prone, unless they take no bludgeoning damage from you falling on them.
Full Jump: 4 rounds up + 1 round down = 5 rounds +20d6 damage and the target is knocked prone, unless they take no bludgeoning damage from you falling on them.
>
> **WINGED BOOTS**
>
> Wondrous item, uncommon (requires attunement)
>
>
> While you wear these boots, you have a flying speed equal to your walking speed. You can use the boots to fly for up to 4 hours, all at once or in several shorter flights, each one using a minimum of 1 minute from the duration. If you are flying when the duration expires, you descend at a rate of 30 feet per round until you land. The boots regain 2 hours of flying capability for every 12 hours they aren't in use.
>
>
> |
49,836 | On page 182 of the PHB there are rules describing how far and high characters can jump. However, there is no mention of what type of action jumping is or how much movement it takes to initiate a jump. In the combat chapter of the book there is no action listed that allows a character to attempt any sort of acrobatics or athletics in combat. Which leads me to think if it's even an option. **Can you jump in combat and if so what are the restrictions?**
In case it's important I was wondering about this when I came across the spell Jump. It simply triples the distance the target can jump and lasts 1 minute. If cast on a martial character with 20 Strength they could jump 60 feet. That kind of mobility could be useful in combat. | 2014/10/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/49836",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15264/"
] | Jump is part of "Move."
>
> Your movement can include jumping, climbing and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However, you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving. (PHB 190)
>
>
>
For distance traveled on Jump, you move your strength score (provided that you move at least 2 squares prior to your jump, otherwise it's half that). This movement still costs the normal amount for each foot of movement:
>
> Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
>
>
>
So if a wizard casts Jump, your jump movement is still limited by your character's speed. However, this allows for a standing jump which means that you could jump 25 or 30' in a single move instead of 15-20'. | Jump Attack
-----------
Falling (p. 183 PHB)
>
> A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer.
> At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.
>
>
>
What you need: Winged Boots
Each round up equals 60 feet using the Dash Action (assuming 30 ft. of normal movement).
For every 10 feet up you travel you deal +1d6 bludgeoning damage when you fall, to a maximum of 20d6 if jumping 200 ft. or more. On a hit the target is knocked prone, unless they take no bludgeoning damage from you falling on them.
Note: It is assumed you begin flying again to halt your movement once you hit your opponent with the attack action (using your movement action for the round you fall).
Minimum Jump: 1 round up + 1 round down (assuming opponent is within 5 ft.) +6d6 damage and the target is knocked prone, unless they take no bludgeoning damage from you falling on them.
Full Jump: 4 rounds up + 1 round down = 5 rounds +20d6 damage and the target is knocked prone, unless they take no bludgeoning damage from you falling on them.
>
> **WINGED BOOTS**
>
> Wondrous item, uncommon (requires attunement)
>
>
> While you wear these boots, you have a flying speed equal to your walking speed. You can use the boots to fly for up to 4 hours, all at once or in several shorter flights, each one using a minimum of 1 minute from the duration. If you are flying when the duration expires, you descend at a rate of 30 feet per round until you land. The boots regain 2 hours of flying capability for every 12 hours they aren't in use.
>
>
> |
176,240 | I'm playing in Curse of Strahd module, and there is an item named the [holy symbol of ravenkind](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/holy-symbol-of-ravenkind).
This item hides behind the paladin’s shirt. When the paladin is in the a middle of the combat and has their sword and shield in his hands, and wants to take out the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind, does he need to sheathe or drop his sword before he can pull the necklace out? I tried to consult with this [spellcasting in combat clarifications and restrictions article](https://merricb.com/2015/04/14/dd-5e-spellcasting-in-combat-clarifications-and-restrictions/) but it got me more confused.
And if you need to sheathe the sword, does he need 2 turns for taking the item out, using it and release it on the neck since it need to be presented, or does it take only 1 turn. Here is an example:
>
> * 1st turn attack and then sheathe the sword.
> * 2nd turn pull the necklace and use it.
> * 3rd turn wear the necklace on the neck and draw the sword.
> * 4th turn attack with the sword.
>
>
>
This is how my DM said it should be, considering the necklace as an item like a sword.
for clarification this item is not the paladin holy symbol, and he can't use it to cast spells. this is a magic item, that is on a necklace and I'm wondering about the free action that concerning pulling it out of the shirt for presenting it, like the item description required. | 2020/10/08 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/176240",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/64942/"
] | Interaction can be part of the action, but you will need a free hand
====================================================================
In the situation that you've described, one hand is equipped with a shield and the other is holding a sword. Your amulet is hidden inside your shirt and needs to be presented.
But how do you do that with no hands? The answer is you that you can't, or at least I'm using the rulings on [how to use a focus/holy symbol/component pouch for spellcasting](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80271/does-a-wizard-need-to-hold-a-component-pouch-or-focus-in-one-hand-in-order-for-i) which utilizes similar language for presenting. Therefore, you need a free hand to present.
If you do not want to drop your sword in order to present the amulet, then you must use an action to doff your shield.
As it takes an action to doff a shield, that hand isn't going to be immediately available. Which leaves your sword hand, and that's where it gets tricky.
[This question](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70237/is-dropping-a-weapon-free) covers that you can drop an item at no cost. This releases the long sword, and then you use your object interaction to display the holy symbol and use one of it's properties.
Unfortunately, you are now out of actions and can't really pick up the longsword as you've used your object interaction and action for presenting and using the holy symbol An enemy *could* do something to your dropped weapon, or you just pick it up and attack as part of your next turn using the object interaction along with the attack action.
Order of events
---------------
The quickest way to utilize the Holy Symbol while using a shield. It will show how you can achieve this using with the action economy:
1. Drop longsword (no action cost)
2. Present Amulet (free action)
3. Use Amulet (action) | Each turn, you have a free object interaction, and can use your action to get a second one, but that won't be necessary for what you're trying to do here. While casting a spell often involves manipulating your spellcasting focus and requires a free hand for the purpose, that doesn't require removing you holy symbol from your neck.
>
> **Holy Symbol.** [...] A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, *wear it visibly*, or bear it on a shield. (*Player's Handbook*, Equipment, p.151; emphasis mine)
>
>
>
>
> A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. (*Player's Handbook*, Spellcasting - Components - Material, p.203)
>
>
>
You're simply touching it or presenting the holy symbol when you use it as a focus. Think of a priest grabbing his crucifix necklace and presenting it to Dracula -- he doesn't need to take it off his neck first, he's just lifting it off his chest a few inches. We can probably just assume holy symbols are commonly worn on a rather long chain to facilitate this sort of thing, but technically the rules don't require that. As long as it's visible and you can touch it with a free hand, you're able to cast.
Assuming you start out wearing the necklace but with it obscured by your shirt, you need a total of three object interactions: One to sheathe your sword (or otherwise free a hand), one to pull the holy symbol into view (still around your neck, but now visible), and one to draw your sword after you finish casting spells. You can take those three interactions in combination with three normal actions.
So, for example, you could:
* 1st turn: Attack with sword, then sheathe it
* 2nd turn: Pull necklace into view and use it to cast a paladin spell
* 3rd turn: Draw your sword and attack with it
There's no real point to trading your turn 1 attack for another object interaction because it turns out you don't actually get to do anything sooner that way:
* 1st turn: Sheathe your sword, then use your action to pull your holy symbol into view
* 2nd turn: Cast a paladin spell, then draw your sword
* 3rd turn: Attack with your sword
Assuming you don't re-hide the holy symbol, in subsequent rounds you can sheathe your sword and cast a spell in the same turn, then the next turn draw your sword and attack, so that makes it very nearly free to switch from melee to spellcasting and back.
You could drop your sword (not an interaction) in order to pull your symbol and cast without the preparation turn, and then picking your sword up still only takes an interaction, so that's an option if you weren't thinking ahead about needing to cast next time around and hadn't sheathed your sword. |
326,723 | I could not find an appropriate driver for the printer. Tried other Canon drivers; a generic Postscript and generic PCL5/6 but when I send a print job, the printer wakes up but does not print.
The same happens when using wireless or USB connection.
Other Canon printers work just fine. | 2013/07/30 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/326723",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/179939/"
] | Install the driver from Canon (ver 3.90). Oddly, it shows up on its Asia site, but not on its US site. This worked for me on Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty.
<http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100517002.html>
This driver was also linked by this [Technosophy blog](http://technosopher.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/ubuntu-debian-linux-drivers-for-the-canon-mx-922-and-other-mx-series-multifunctions/) | Try this.
MX920 series IJ [Printer Driver](https://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100517002.html) Ver. 3.90 for Linux (debian Packagearchive).
MX920 series [ScanGear MP](https://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100690502.html) Ver. 2.10 for Linux (debian Packagearchive) |
326,723 | I could not find an appropriate driver for the printer. Tried other Canon drivers; a generic Postscript and generic PCL5/6 but when I send a print job, the printer wakes up but does not print.
The same happens when using wireless or USB connection.
Other Canon printers work just fine. | 2013/07/30 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/326723",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/179939/"
] | Try this.
MX920 series IJ [Printer Driver](https://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100517002.html) Ver. 3.90 for Linux (debian Packagearchive).
MX920 series [ScanGear MP](https://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100690502.html) Ver. 2.10 for Linux (debian Packagearchive) | Here's what appeared to fix it for me, a total noob, (I don't know which parts of this procedure may be red herrings):
* Download the driver from the canon-asia site, the US one did not have it.
* Unzip the tar.gz (I thought it was weird that the driver is not a .deb file, it is just a folder that ends in -deb)
* But I cd'd into that folder, and did sudo ./install.sh
Then in synaptic package manager I made sure that all these were installed:
* cnijfilter2
* cups-backend-bjnp
* printer-driver-gutenprint
Then when I reinstalled my printer for the 100th time,
it gave me a Model called Canon MX920 series PS+Gutenprint v5.3.3.
Hope that helps somebody. |
326,723 | I could not find an appropriate driver for the printer. Tried other Canon drivers; a generic Postscript and generic PCL5/6 but when I send a print job, the printer wakes up but does not print.
The same happens when using wireless or USB connection.
Other Canon printers work just fine. | 2013/07/30 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/326723",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/179939/"
] | Install the driver from Canon (ver 3.90). Oddly, it shows up on its Asia site, but not on its US site. This worked for me on Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty.
<http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100517002.html>
This driver was also linked by this [Technosophy blog](http://technosopher.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/ubuntu-debian-linux-drivers-for-the-canon-mx-922-and-other-mx-series-multifunctions/) | The official drivers from Canon are here:
* IJ Printer Driver - <http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100517002.html>
* ScanGear MP Driver - <http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100518302.html>
For some reason, these drivers are only available on the Asia site. |
326,723 | I could not find an appropriate driver for the printer. Tried other Canon drivers; a generic Postscript and generic PCL5/6 but when I send a print job, the printer wakes up but does not print.
The same happens when using wireless or USB connection.
Other Canon printers work just fine. | 2013/07/30 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/326723",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/179939/"
] | Install the driver from Canon (ver 3.90). Oddly, it shows up on its Asia site, but not on its US site. This worked for me on Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty.
<http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100517002.html>
This driver was also linked by this [Technosophy blog](http://technosopher.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/ubuntu-debian-linux-drivers-for-the-canon-mx-922-and-other-mx-series-multifunctions/) | Here's what appeared to fix it for me, a total noob, (I don't know which parts of this procedure may be red herrings):
* Download the driver from the canon-asia site, the US one did not have it.
* Unzip the tar.gz (I thought it was weird that the driver is not a .deb file, it is just a folder that ends in -deb)
* But I cd'd into that folder, and did sudo ./install.sh
Then in synaptic package manager I made sure that all these were installed:
* cnijfilter2
* cups-backend-bjnp
* printer-driver-gutenprint
Then when I reinstalled my printer for the 100th time,
it gave me a Model called Canon MX920 series PS+Gutenprint v5.3.3.
Hope that helps somebody. |
326,723 | I could not find an appropriate driver for the printer. Tried other Canon drivers; a generic Postscript and generic PCL5/6 but when I send a print job, the printer wakes up but does not print.
The same happens when using wireless or USB connection.
Other Canon printers work just fine. | 2013/07/30 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/326723",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/179939/"
] | The official drivers from Canon are here:
* IJ Printer Driver - <http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100517002.html>
* ScanGear MP Driver - <http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100518302.html>
For some reason, these drivers are only available on the Asia site. | Here's what appeared to fix it for me, a total noob, (I don't know which parts of this procedure may be red herrings):
* Download the driver from the canon-asia site, the US one did not have it.
* Unzip the tar.gz (I thought it was weird that the driver is not a .deb file, it is just a folder that ends in -deb)
* But I cd'd into that folder, and did sudo ./install.sh
Then in synaptic package manager I made sure that all these were installed:
* cnijfilter2
* cups-backend-bjnp
* printer-driver-gutenprint
Then when I reinstalled my printer for the 100th time,
it gave me a Model called Canon MX920 series PS+Gutenprint v5.3.3.
Hope that helps somebody. |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | The electrically shortened antennas often found on HTs are not simple pieces of wire, but coils:
[](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg#/media/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg)
*By Shootthedevgru at English Wikipedia, [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0")*
The coil adds inductance over the length of the antenna, making it appear electrically longer than it is physically. Without the inductance, the antenna would need to be approximately a quarter-wavelength long.
A length of coax of the same physical length would not have this inductance, so would not be a good replacement.
Besides the issue of length, using a length of coax, with the coax connector attached the usual way, screwed into the antenna connector on the HT isn't an antenna at all since the shield would surround the center conductor which would otherwise be the antenna. It's just a feedline, with no antenna on the end. | You can remove the shielding of the coax leaving only the center conductor, but as mentioned in the comments the length will be off since this is way less then 1/4 wavelength and there is nothing added to increase the inductance. if the coax is 1/4 wavelength then it will work great. |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | The electrically shortened antennas often found on HTs are not simple pieces of wire, but coils:
[](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg#/media/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg)
*By Shootthedevgru at English Wikipedia, [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0")*
The coil adds inductance over the length of the antenna, making it appear electrically longer than it is physically. Without the inductance, the antenna would need to be approximately a quarter-wavelength long.
A length of coax of the same physical length would not have this inductance, so would not be a good replacement.
Besides the issue of length, using a length of coax, with the coax connector attached the usual way, screwed into the antenna connector on the HT isn't an antenna at all since the shield would surround the center conductor which would otherwise be the antenna. It's just a feedline, with no antenna on the end. | If you want an antenna at the end of a length of coax, in my experience, simply stripping the last 1/4 wave of coax and leaving the inner exposed, does not work. The VSWR is high and unstable, as the other half of the dipole is completely undefined.
What works a lot better is to carefully extract the inner from the braid, or re-attach the braid, and fold it back down against the coax. So now you have a 1/2 wave dipole, with the coax running down against the lower, grounded half. You could even put some heat shrink over it, but it's better to keep the braid slightly away from the coax.
If you have access to a VSWR meter, try building these and running your hand down the coax. In the first case the VSWR changes dramatically as your hand moves, in the second it will be more stable.
If you want an antenna directly on the HT without any coax, then stripping off the sheath is fine, and a quick and easy way to get a 1/4 wave monopole without soldering. Your tuning will almost certainly be wrong on your first try - either cut it while attached to an MFJ style antenna tester, or try a range of lengths and see which ones work best for getting in to distant repeaters. |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | The electrically shortened antennas often found on HTs are not simple pieces of wire, but coils:
[](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg#/media/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg)
*By Shootthedevgru at English Wikipedia, [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0")*
The coil adds inductance over the length of the antenna, making it appear electrically longer than it is physically. Without the inductance, the antenna would need to be approximately a quarter-wavelength long.
A length of coax of the same physical length would not have this inductance, so would not be a good replacement.
Besides the issue of length, using a length of coax, with the coax connector attached the usual way, screwed into the antenna connector on the HT isn't an antenna at all since the shield would surround the center conductor which would otherwise be the antenna. It's just a feedline, with no antenna on the end. | Grid dip the coax to quarter wave, then put half wave wire on the center conductor end. Should work fine but clunky. Why not buy one of the longer antennas made for walkies? |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | The electrically shortened antennas often found on HTs are not simple pieces of wire, but coils:
[](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg#/media/File:Uhf_cb_wit_rubber_ducky_exposed.jpg)
*By Shootthedevgru at English Wikipedia, [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0")*
The coil adds inductance over the length of the antenna, making it appear electrically longer than it is physically. Without the inductance, the antenna would need to be approximately a quarter-wavelength long.
A length of coax of the same physical length would not have this inductance, so would not be a good replacement.
Besides the issue of length, using a length of coax, with the coax connector attached the usual way, screwed into the antenna connector on the HT isn't an antenna at all since the shield would surround the center conductor which would otherwise be the antenna. It's just a feedline, with no antenna on the end. | youtube has a video of a piece of coax with the last 19" being separated between the center, pulling it out of the sheath. poor mans dipole. seemed to work
<http://bit.ly/2scIYD7> |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | If you want an antenna at the end of a length of coax, in my experience, simply stripping the last 1/4 wave of coax and leaving the inner exposed, does not work. The VSWR is high and unstable, as the other half of the dipole is completely undefined.
What works a lot better is to carefully extract the inner from the braid, or re-attach the braid, and fold it back down against the coax. So now you have a 1/2 wave dipole, with the coax running down against the lower, grounded half. You could even put some heat shrink over it, but it's better to keep the braid slightly away from the coax.
If you have access to a VSWR meter, try building these and running your hand down the coax. In the first case the VSWR changes dramatically as your hand moves, in the second it will be more stable.
If you want an antenna directly on the HT without any coax, then stripping off the sheath is fine, and a quick and easy way to get a 1/4 wave monopole without soldering. Your tuning will almost certainly be wrong on your first try - either cut it while attached to an MFJ style antenna tester, or try a range of lengths and see which ones work best for getting in to distant repeaters. | You can remove the shielding of the coax leaving only the center conductor, but as mentioned in the comments the length will be off since this is way less then 1/4 wavelength and there is nothing added to increase the inductance. if the coax is 1/4 wavelength then it will work great. |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | You can remove the shielding of the coax leaving only the center conductor, but as mentioned in the comments the length will be off since this is way less then 1/4 wavelength and there is nothing added to increase the inductance. if the coax is 1/4 wavelength then it will work great. | Grid dip the coax to quarter wave, then put half wave wire on the center conductor end. Should work fine but clunky. Why not buy one of the longer antennas made for walkies? |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | You can remove the shielding of the coax leaving only the center conductor, but as mentioned in the comments the length will be off since this is way less then 1/4 wavelength and there is nothing added to increase the inductance. if the coax is 1/4 wavelength then it will work great. | youtube has a video of a piece of coax with the last 19" being separated between the center, pulling it out of the sheath. poor mans dipole. seemed to work
<http://bit.ly/2scIYD7> |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | If you want an antenna at the end of a length of coax, in my experience, simply stripping the last 1/4 wave of coax and leaving the inner exposed, does not work. The VSWR is high and unstable, as the other half of the dipole is completely undefined.
What works a lot better is to carefully extract the inner from the braid, or re-attach the braid, and fold it back down against the coax. So now you have a 1/2 wave dipole, with the coax running down against the lower, grounded half. You could even put some heat shrink over it, but it's better to keep the braid slightly away from the coax.
If you have access to a VSWR meter, try building these and running your hand down the coax. In the first case the VSWR changes dramatically as your hand moves, in the second it will be more stable.
If you want an antenna directly on the HT without any coax, then stripping off the sheath is fine, and a quick and easy way to get a 1/4 wave monopole without soldering. Your tuning will almost certainly be wrong on your first try - either cut it while attached to an MFJ style antenna tester, or try a range of lengths and see which ones work best for getting in to distant repeaters. | Grid dip the coax to quarter wave, then put half wave wire on the center conductor end. Should work fine but clunky. Why not buy one of the longer antennas made for walkies? |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | If you want an antenna at the end of a length of coax, in my experience, simply stripping the last 1/4 wave of coax and leaving the inner exposed, does not work. The VSWR is high and unstable, as the other half of the dipole is completely undefined.
What works a lot better is to carefully extract the inner from the braid, or re-attach the braid, and fold it back down against the coax. So now you have a 1/2 wave dipole, with the coax running down against the lower, grounded half. You could even put some heat shrink over it, but it's better to keep the braid slightly away from the coax.
If you have access to a VSWR meter, try building these and running your hand down the coax. In the first case the VSWR changes dramatically as your hand moves, in the second it will be more stable.
If you want an antenna directly on the HT without any coax, then stripping off the sheath is fine, and a quick and easy way to get a 1/4 wave monopole without soldering. Your tuning will almost certainly be wrong on your first try - either cut it while attached to an MFJ style antenna tester, or try a range of lengths and see which ones work best for getting in to distant repeaters. | youtube has a video of a piece of coax with the last 19" being separated between the center, pulling it out of the sheath. poor mans dipole. seemed to work
<http://bit.ly/2scIYD7> |
9,907 | For a normal 5 watt handy working in VHF or UHF freq with 50 ohm antenna , is it possible to use a same length coax cable instead of a stub antenna, so as to work like a crude antenna. Will this only result in extra capacitance/ VSWR damaging the system ? | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/11174/"
] | youtube has a video of a piece of coax with the last 19" being separated between the center, pulling it out of the sheath. poor mans dipole. seemed to work
<http://bit.ly/2scIYD7> | Grid dip the coax to quarter wave, then put half wave wire on the center conductor end. Should work fine but clunky. Why not buy one of the longer antennas made for walkies? |
87,262 | *In the context of helping someone out in driving*
1. Should it be 'ease me on out' or can I simply say 'eased me out'?
2. Finally, is my constuction correct?
For Example
>
> I'm new to driving a car. My cousin *eased me on out* to ride through the narrow street.
>
>
>
**I'm trying to say this**: When I was learning to drive the car I got stuck in the middle of the street. It was not quite easy for me to drive futher without hitting any obtacle that come in the way. So my cousin helped me out and drew the car till we were off the narrow street. | 2016/04/12 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/87262",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/32576/"
] | In the context of driving, the verb *ease* describes slow, careful movement, and the term *eased out* describes slowly merging out of some place, while *eased out on* (or *eased out into*) can mean merging onto a busy street, or into traffic. The person doing the "easing out" is generally the driver.
It's not clear to me if your cousin was giving you advice to help you off the narrow street, or if he actually got in the driver's seat to get you out of a tricky driving situation.
If your cousin was driving, here's a sentence you could use:
>
> I'm new to driving a car, so **my cousin had to ease us out** so we could get through the narrow street.
>
>
>
If he was just giving advice, you might say:
>
> I'm new to driving a car, so **my cousin helped me ease out** into the narrow street.
>
>
>
---
Here are a few more examples; hopefully, they can help you better understand how to use the verb *ease* in relation to driving:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yxCqU.jpg)
>
> *The driver **eased the car** through the narrow street, being careful not to hit the pedestrians*.
>
>
>
When we use *ease out*, it means the car is going "out" somewhere, like out of a parking spot, or out onto a highway:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BO26k.jpg)
>
> *The driver of the silver car is **easing out** into the rush hour traffic*.
>
>
>
We can also *ease into* instead of *ease out on*:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7o4cz.jpg)
>
> *The silver Fiat **eased into** a tight space between a minivan and a pickup truck*.
>
>
> | Using *on* is kind of like adding extra intent or assistance.
>
> **Come out** to the party tonight. (A simple request)
>
>
> **Come on out** to the party tonight. (I would like for you to go to the party)
>
>
>
but either way is grammatically correct.
However in your example, "eased me on out to ride" doesn't make sense, because "eased me out to ride" doesn't either. You might need to explain your logic and what you are trying to say. |
309,808 | Why is mentioning 2, 3, ... users (by `@user`) in one comment not allowed?
What's the bad thing could happen if Stack Overflow allows it? I didn't understand. | 2015/11/10 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/309808",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/2671591/"
] | Comments are to be used to **talk with one person to clarify some matters** which the person posted on your question/answer.
Otherwise, Stack Overflow users would abuse the comment section to bring attention to their Q/A, which would most likely be perceived as very negative. Example:
>
> @abdulla @Robert\_Harvey @DMaster please check my question
>
>
>
We also can't ping mods. Please also read: [How do comment @replies work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43019/how-do-comment-replies-work) | Comments have only two sanctioned purposes: to clarify a post, or to ask for clarification. So ask yourself: how would talking to two people at the same time advance these purposes?
There are plenty of unsanctioned uses, however. It's just that we don't feel the need to encourage those uses. |
50,186 | I have been BLIND QUERYING agents for nearly three years to no avail, and I am wondering if this approach is a realistic one. I have used countless templates in crafting my query letter and all my queries were catered to the agents needs. Is this how most authors find agents realistically speaking? Or do most authors find agents through some kind of a referral or conference request? I mostly write Christian fantasies. | 2020/02/20 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/50186",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42900/"
] | **I've had success at least getting to the level of proposal requests through blind queries**. They can be a tremendous resource for an unknown writer. But it's a brutally tough market out there right now. Agents, in particular, are often looking exclusively for books they think will have a significant financial payoff --because otherwise their margins aren't enough for them to make a living.
**You might have more luck querying publishers directly if you have a niche book**, or one with less commercial upside. There are some small independent niche publishers out there who are pursuing what they do as a labor of love. They aren't large enough to attract agents, but they do publish books, and if they love what you do, you might have a chance with them.
**For Christian fiction in particular, the odds may be against you**. There is a significant specifically Christian book-buying audience, but they aren't typically reading thrillers or fantasy. Conversely, many people who enjoy fantasy or thrillers may in fact be Christians, but they aren't necessarily looking for that in the literature they choose. As an example, I'm a Christian who loves fantasy literature, but in all my years of reading, I can only think of one or two specifically Christian fantasies I've read and enjoyed ("Her Majesty's Wizard" by Stasheff and the Narnia series, by Lewis, in case you're wondering). | Don't know about stats as far as most, but yes, it happens:
<https://twitter.com/samroebuck/status/1229919990083702785?s=19>
General wisdom is that every 10-15 rejections without a request, you should go back and evaluate what isn't working. It's either the query letter, the sample, or the people you're querying. With a niche as small as Christian fantasy, you should go very slow and get as much feedback from good + brutally honest betas as you can first, because you don't get to requery someone after they've rejected you just because you've improved your product, and you likely have a much smaller pool of agents who can sell your work than most. |
68,883 | I think I don't have anymore space. So what do I do now? Help? | 2012/10/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/68883",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/33131/"
] | As [noted in another answer](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/68885/10167), you'll need to remove some data if you want to install new apps. What you remove really depends on what's taking up lots of space — it might be apps (games in particular tend to be large), videos or music.
You can get a good overview of what's taking up space on your device by going to **Settings → General → Usage**. You should see a breakdown of how much storage each app is taking up. You can also remove apps from this screen, or if tap on the Music or Videos apps, you have the option of removing some media files more granularly. | Maybe you can start with removing some of your unwanted apps.
To delete: Press and hold any of the app icons on home screen, then press the small cross button at the upper right hand corner of your unwanted app. |
68,883 | I think I don't have anymore space. So what do I do now? Help? | 2012/10/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/68883",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/33131/"
] | Maybe you can start with removing some of your unwanted apps.
To delete: Press and hold any of the app icons on home screen, then press the small cross button at the upper right hand corner of your unwanted app. | You have to register with the iTunes Store to be able to download. |
68,883 | I think I don't have anymore space. So what do I do now? Help? | 2012/10/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/68883",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/33131/"
] | As [noted in another answer](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/68885/10167), you'll need to remove some data if you want to install new apps. What you remove really depends on what's taking up lots of space — it might be apps (games in particular tend to be large), videos or music.
You can get a good overview of what's taking up space on your device by going to **Settings → General → Usage**. You should see a breakdown of how much storage each app is taking up. You can also remove apps from this screen, or if tap on the Music or Videos apps, you have the option of removing some media files more granularly. | Maybe you could try to go to settings, then you go to " General Usage " to see what are the apps who are taking to much space on your device. Then you just delete the unwanted apps. |
68,883 | I think I don't have anymore space. So what do I do now? Help? | 2012/10/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/68883",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/33131/"
] | As [noted in another answer](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/68885/10167), you'll need to remove some data if you want to install new apps. What you remove really depends on what's taking up lots of space — it might be apps (games in particular tend to be large), videos or music.
You can get a good overview of what's taking up space on your device by going to **Settings → General → Usage**. You should see a breakdown of how much storage each app is taking up. You can also remove apps from this screen, or if tap on the Music or Videos apps, you have the option of removing some media files more granularly. | You have to register with the iTunes Store to be able to download. |
68,883 | I think I don't have anymore space. So what do I do now? Help? | 2012/10/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/68883",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/33131/"
] | Maybe you could try to go to settings, then you go to " General Usage " to see what are the apps who are taking to much space on your device. Then you just delete the unwanted apps. | You have to register with the iTunes Store to be able to download. |
72,665 | I have a use-case where I need to control 4+ sonar sensors with a pic 628A microcontroller. The pic is also responsible for controlling a GPS and LCD so pins are scarce. The sonar sensors each have a single signal pin. To operate them, you pulse this pin which produces an ultrasonic chirp and then wait for it to go high again which indicates that an echo was detected. The time between the initial pulse and the response pulse corresponds to the time of flight of the chirp.
I would like to be able to multiplex all of the sonar sensors onto a single bus, but am not sure how to accomplish this. I would like to use only basic components if possible (not specialized IC's) because my main purpose of this experiment is to get a better understanding of the basics. Since the signal channel must allow for both input and output, I do not think bipolar transistors will work. I have considered using FET's to multiplex each signal line, but I am very inexperience with this stuff and would appreciate some direction. | 2013/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/72665",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/23941/"
] | What you want is an 8:1 multiplexer/demultiplexer. You can get them as an [IC](http://www.idt.com/products/memory-logic/bus-switch/50v-quickswitch/qs3251-high-speed-cmos-quickswitch-81-muxdemux), but I don't know if that falls under your idea of a "specialized" IC or not. It's the kind of thing you would use in a freshman digital logic class.
If that's not basic enough for you, the block diagram still shows you what you need to build.
The bottom half is your MOSFETs. The top half is called a *decoder* if you want to get that in a single IC. You can also get the inverters and 4-input AND gates as separate ICs, or you can build those from transistors if that tickles your fancy. Depends how hard you want to make it on yourself. | The simplest approach may be to use something like a 74HC4051 along with some sort of counter chip to select among up to seven devices. One could probably use a single processor pin to do everything if the counter was operated by the rising edge on the data wire, though it would probably be a good idea to add a short delay (perhaps using a couple Schmidt-trigger inverters with an RC delay between them) between the data wire and the counter's clock input (to ensure that the data wire is all the way high before the counter advances). To avoid the need for a separate wire to reset or sense the counter state, wire one of the 74HC4051 inputs to a pull-down resistor which is strong enough to overpower the "normal" pull-up on the pin. Repeatedly asserting and releasing the pin would cause the counter to advance enough to select that input; the data wire would then sit low until the PIC actively drove it high. |
7,820,481 | I'm currently in the process of writing a programming language which extends C# mainly by adding custom operators and keywords.
I have found the grammar file for c# 4 in <http://antlrcsharp.codeplex.com/> but cannot find any examples on how to import this file in my own grammar file.
Can anyone provide some examples or point me to other projects which archive the same thing? | 2011/10/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7820481",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1002900/"
] | If you want to extend c# that means you're doing a DSL?
Check this one out [Irony](http://irony.codeplex.com/) from codeplex, [Hanselman explains it better](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheWeeklySourceCode59AnOpenSourceTreasureIronyNETLanguageImplementationKit.aspx) | Starting with ANTLR 3.1 there is a [grammar composition](http://www.antlr.org/wiki/display/ANTLR3/Composite+Grammars) feature.
You can import other grammars to yours and then use and/or override rules from the imported ones.
Another approach would be to modify the existing C# grammar to your needs. |
459,199 | A couple of questions:
1) It looks to me that the three-prong ground connection in the bottom right of this schematic is the only ground connection. I used the GNDPWR symbol in my KiCad schematic to represent this ground connection. Can (or should?) this GNDPWR be connected to the "normal" GND which I am using on the jack sockets which connect to the inputs/outputs?
2) Why is the -12v connected directly to this GND? Is this just saying that the GND reference is -12v? But because I am using op-amps and a dual-rail powersupply, don't I also need a 0V GND? Won't it cause a short-circuit if I connected the -12v GND to the 0v GND? I do not understand.
3) Can I use any op-amp for U1-U4?
4) For the op-amps should I use a +/-15V power rails? Or should I use +/-12V?
5) What does the test point 4 mean (near the +12v)? Should I just ignore that?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CLXU.jpg) | 2019/09/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/459199",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/229925/"
] | I suspect that this circuit is intended to use a single 12 volt power supply, with the negative terminal of the supply connected to the circuit ground. The power input labelling is misleading - it appears to imply a total 24 volt supply (+12 and -12) rather than a single 12 volt supply.
Test point 4 and the test point connected to Ground are just handy spots to connect your meter to measure the supply voltage - you can ignore them.
Does the place you found this circuit recommend any particular op-amp? If not, I expect any op-amp that will work from 12 volts will do.
When you want to ask questions about a circuit you found somewhere, you should include links to the source (and you should look around the source - it might answer your questions...) | 1 and 2) I read that as chassis ground symbol, so negative supply pin is just connected to a metal chassis. This and the fact that the op amps do not use ground as reference but it is biased to half of the input supply pins would suggest that this is a single supply device so it needs single 12V supply and 0V ground, not dual +/- 12V supplies.
3) In general, no. You would have to know what this filter is for and what parameters of the op-amp are important for the circuit operation. If this is from the ARRL handbook, then this is for audio I suppose and it uses LM324 which is pretty generic. And pin numbering must match, but in general quad op-amps have matching pinouts these days.
4) It says 12V on the circuit, not 15V. And based on 1&2, this circuit needs +12V only, not -12v.
5) They are not test points, it just shows the supply input connections to op-amp supply pins 4 and 11, but here the label 11 is missing. |
459,199 | A couple of questions:
1) It looks to me that the three-prong ground connection in the bottom right of this schematic is the only ground connection. I used the GNDPWR symbol in my KiCad schematic to represent this ground connection. Can (or should?) this GNDPWR be connected to the "normal" GND which I am using on the jack sockets which connect to the inputs/outputs?
2) Why is the -12v connected directly to this GND? Is this just saying that the GND reference is -12v? But because I am using op-amps and a dual-rail powersupply, don't I also need a 0V GND? Won't it cause a short-circuit if I connected the -12v GND to the 0v GND? I do not understand.
3) Can I use any op-amp for U1-U4?
4) For the op-amps should I use a +/-15V power rails? Or should I use +/-12V?
5) What does the test point 4 mean (near the +12v)? Should I just ignore that?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CLXU.jpg) | 2019/09/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/459199",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/229925/"
] | I suspect that this circuit is intended to use a single 12 volt power supply, with the negative terminal of the supply connected to the circuit ground. The power input labelling is misleading - it appears to imply a total 24 volt supply (+12 and -12) rather than a single 12 volt supply.
Test point 4 and the test point connected to Ground are just handy spots to connect your meter to measure the supply voltage - you can ignore them.
Does the place you found this circuit recommend any particular op-amp? If not, I expect any op-amp that will work from 12 volts will do.
When you want to ask questions about a circuit you found somewhere, you should include links to the source (and you should look around the source - it might answer your questions...) | The most important assumption not shown is what voltages are used by the OA V+,V-.
The certainty is that the midpoint between the external , DC V+,V- inputs shown will become the DC output of all Op Amps with a null input. The input and the notch out are AC coupled, the latter of which is dubious for the reason of blocking DC only on this output.
The missing assumptions for 0V and OA Supply and lack of specs , makes this schematic incomplete. |
459,199 | A couple of questions:
1) It looks to me that the three-prong ground connection in the bottom right of this schematic is the only ground connection. I used the GNDPWR symbol in my KiCad schematic to represent this ground connection. Can (or should?) this GNDPWR be connected to the "normal" GND which I am using on the jack sockets which connect to the inputs/outputs?
2) Why is the -12v connected directly to this GND? Is this just saying that the GND reference is -12v? But because I am using op-amps and a dual-rail powersupply, don't I also need a 0V GND? Won't it cause a short-circuit if I connected the -12v GND to the 0v GND? I do not understand.
3) Can I use any op-amp for U1-U4?
4) For the op-amps should I use a +/-15V power rails? Or should I use +/-12V?
5) What does the test point 4 mean (near the +12v)? Should I just ignore that?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CLXU.jpg) | 2019/09/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/459199",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/229925/"
] | I suspect that this circuit is intended to use a single 12 volt power supply, with the negative terminal of the supply connected to the circuit ground. The power input labelling is misleading - it appears to imply a total 24 volt supply (+12 and -12) rather than a single 12 volt supply.
Test point 4 and the test point connected to Ground are just handy spots to connect your meter to measure the supply voltage - you can ignore them.
Does the place you found this circuit recommend any particular op-amp? If not, I expect any op-amp that will work from 12 volts will do.
When you want to ask questions about a circuit you found somewhere, you should include links to the source (and you should look around the source - it might answer your questions...) | I breadboarded this up and after a couple false starts, I finally have some answers:
1) Connecting -12v and +12v causes it to start smoking. So the schematic is wrong labeling it as -12v. Don't do this.
2) Connecting it up with +12v and 0v (GND) works perfectly! They should remove the -12v label as it is simply incorrect, it is actually just 0V and GND, NOT -12v. This schematic is also missing a label #11 on the lower GND input, which is the negative supply for the op-amp. The op-amps are supplied by pin #4 and #11. I am assuming they incorrectly labeled it -12v because usually the op-amps are dual-rail, but in this case they are powered by just +12v/0v (single supply). The op-amp is the LM324 as indicated on the original schematic and text which can be found at <https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-DX/Ham%20Radio/70s/Ham-Radio-197802.pdf> on page 70 (page 72 in PDF). Thanks to @SamGibson for finding the original schematic.
So for anyone else looking at this schematic, the -12v is wrong and should be marked 0v.
This is a great little filter. |
459,199 | A couple of questions:
1) It looks to me that the three-prong ground connection in the bottom right of this schematic is the only ground connection. I used the GNDPWR symbol in my KiCad schematic to represent this ground connection. Can (or should?) this GNDPWR be connected to the "normal" GND which I am using on the jack sockets which connect to the inputs/outputs?
2) Why is the -12v connected directly to this GND? Is this just saying that the GND reference is -12v? But because I am using op-amps and a dual-rail powersupply, don't I also need a 0V GND? Won't it cause a short-circuit if I connected the -12v GND to the 0v GND? I do not understand.
3) Can I use any op-amp for U1-U4?
4) For the op-amps should I use a +/-15V power rails? Or should I use +/-12V?
5) What does the test point 4 mean (near the +12v)? Should I just ignore that?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CLXU.jpg) | 2019/09/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/459199",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/229925/"
] | 1 and 2) I read that as chassis ground symbol, so negative supply pin is just connected to a metal chassis. This and the fact that the op amps do not use ground as reference but it is biased to half of the input supply pins would suggest that this is a single supply device so it needs single 12V supply and 0V ground, not dual +/- 12V supplies.
3) In general, no. You would have to know what this filter is for and what parameters of the op-amp are important for the circuit operation. If this is from the ARRL handbook, then this is for audio I suppose and it uses LM324 which is pretty generic. And pin numbering must match, but in general quad op-amps have matching pinouts these days.
4) It says 12V on the circuit, not 15V. And based on 1&2, this circuit needs +12V only, not -12v.
5) They are not test points, it just shows the supply input connections to op-amp supply pins 4 and 11, but here the label 11 is missing. | The most important assumption not shown is what voltages are used by the OA V+,V-.
The certainty is that the midpoint between the external , DC V+,V- inputs shown will become the DC output of all Op Amps with a null input. The input and the notch out are AC coupled, the latter of which is dubious for the reason of blocking DC only on this output.
The missing assumptions for 0V and OA Supply and lack of specs , makes this schematic incomplete. |
459,199 | A couple of questions:
1) It looks to me that the three-prong ground connection in the bottom right of this schematic is the only ground connection. I used the GNDPWR symbol in my KiCad schematic to represent this ground connection. Can (or should?) this GNDPWR be connected to the "normal" GND which I am using on the jack sockets which connect to the inputs/outputs?
2) Why is the -12v connected directly to this GND? Is this just saying that the GND reference is -12v? But because I am using op-amps and a dual-rail powersupply, don't I also need a 0V GND? Won't it cause a short-circuit if I connected the -12v GND to the 0v GND? I do not understand.
3) Can I use any op-amp for U1-U4?
4) For the op-amps should I use a +/-15V power rails? Or should I use +/-12V?
5) What does the test point 4 mean (near the +12v)? Should I just ignore that?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CLXU.jpg) | 2019/09/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/459199",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/229925/"
] | 1 and 2) I read that as chassis ground symbol, so negative supply pin is just connected to a metal chassis. This and the fact that the op amps do not use ground as reference but it is biased to half of the input supply pins would suggest that this is a single supply device so it needs single 12V supply and 0V ground, not dual +/- 12V supplies.
3) In general, no. You would have to know what this filter is for and what parameters of the op-amp are important for the circuit operation. If this is from the ARRL handbook, then this is for audio I suppose and it uses LM324 which is pretty generic. And pin numbering must match, but in general quad op-amps have matching pinouts these days.
4) It says 12V on the circuit, not 15V. And based on 1&2, this circuit needs +12V only, not -12v.
5) They are not test points, it just shows the supply input connections to op-amp supply pins 4 and 11, but here the label 11 is missing. | I breadboarded this up and after a couple false starts, I finally have some answers:
1) Connecting -12v and +12v causes it to start smoking. So the schematic is wrong labeling it as -12v. Don't do this.
2) Connecting it up with +12v and 0v (GND) works perfectly! They should remove the -12v label as it is simply incorrect, it is actually just 0V and GND, NOT -12v. This schematic is also missing a label #11 on the lower GND input, which is the negative supply for the op-amp. The op-amps are supplied by pin #4 and #11. I am assuming they incorrectly labeled it -12v because usually the op-amps are dual-rail, but in this case they are powered by just +12v/0v (single supply). The op-amp is the LM324 as indicated on the original schematic and text which can be found at <https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-DX/Ham%20Radio/70s/Ham-Radio-197802.pdf> on page 70 (page 72 in PDF). Thanks to @SamGibson for finding the original schematic.
So for anyone else looking at this schematic, the -12v is wrong and should be marked 0v.
This is a great little filter. |
97 | “Hardly”, “hardly ever”, and “hardly even” seem to mean different things and I can hardly distinguish between them.
There's [this page](http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/hardly), listing 2 very similar meanings for *hardly*, and which seems to indicate [here](http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/ever) that it composes “normally” with *ever* (i.e. *hardly* + *ever* = *almost* + *n+ever*), but doesn't mention *even*.
Also, I can't help but believe there should be a way to understand it as *in a hard way* (*hard-ly*), but I can't find it.
What's a clear way to understand all this? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/97",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/57/"
] | The meaning of *hardly* has evolved over the centuries. So has the meaning of the adjective from which it is derived, *hard*. But where the adjective has **accumulated** meanings, so most of its meanings are still alive in one context or another, *hardly* has drifted from meaning to meaning.
I won't trouble you with the entire history (which you may find in the [Oxford English Dictionary](http://archive.org/stream/newenglishdicpt105murruoft#page/84/mode/2up)—look at *Hard*, both adjective and adverb, and *Hardly*); but by about 1600 *hard* had the senses of *difficult* and *close, narrow*, and both of these may be detected behind the modern sense of *hardly*.
When a historian writes that “The King **hardly** escaped, by charging with his own troop of horse solely, through the body of the enemy” he implies both that Charles escaped only *with difficulty* and that he escaped only *narrowly*” — *by the skin of my teeth*, we also say.
When Captain Corcoran boasts that he “never” curses, and then admits that it’s actually “**hardly ever**”, he’s claiming that it’s so *close* to “never” that it’s not worth dwelling on. In fact, it’s **hardly even** worth mentioning—very *close* to being not even worth mentioning at all.
In today’s use the *difficulty* sense has declined, but it’s kept alive by uses like the old song “Johnny I **Hardly** Knew Ye” in which a woman meets her old love who has been almost unrecognizably disfigured in war. | The way to understand it it's almost synonymous with "barely" except it's not satisfactory.
"The food storage barely suffices for the winter" means with rationing meals people will pass the winter without starving but never full. It's not optimal, but it's acceptable.
"The food storage hardly suffices for the winter" means it will suffice to survive the winter but people will be starving. They won't die, but they will definitely feel strong hunger and lose weight. It's not something you should accept unless you have no other options.
Another example:
"I barely passed the exam" - I needed score 40/100 and got 40 points. I can go have a drink and relax. It's not a stellar score but the job is done.
"I hardly passed the exam" - I needed score 40/100 and got 42 points. Technically, I passed. But the score counts towards global score which is required to advance to next year. Currently, with this exam I have 598/600 required and it means despite passing this exam I won't advance to the next year. I must approach this exam again and finish it with at least 44 points, then I will have barely passed into next year.
"Hardly" is sometimes an euphemism for "no". "That's hardly enough" usually means "do more, it's still not enough". |
4,132,610 | I am currently writing a coding style guideline for junior devlopers, and I am curious if anyone uses list of common variable names (for basic concepts), to limit confusion in codebase?
For example:
* for email address: **email** (and not: *mail*, *e-mail*, *address*, \*mail\_address\* ...)
* for database name: **dbname** (and not: *db*, *dbase*, *base*, *database*, \*database\_name\*, *dbn* ...)
* for file name with full qualified path: **filepath** (and not: *file*, *path*, \*file\_name\*, *pathtofile* ...)
* for relative file name (without path) : **filename** (and not: *file*, *name*, *f*, ...)
* for configuration object : **config** (and not: *configuration*, *conf*, *vars*, ...)
Do you use similiar conventions?
**Edit**:
To be precise: it is not about **formatting** convention (*camelCaps* or \*names\_with\_underscores\*) which tends to be language and project dependant, but about **naming** convention (*mail*, *email* or *courriel*), something which is common for all the languages (like convention of using *i*, *j*, *k* for iteration counters) | 2010/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4132610",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/129289/"
] | Pick a consistent convention and stick to it.
Your suggested convention is not consistent. **email** is using [the English word](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email), so instead of dbname you should use **database\_name**. Also, **file\_path**, **file\_name**, **configuration**.
In short, I suggest full English words, separated by '\_'. This is consistent and is the convention used in Eiffel. Other systems may be consistent, too. But not a mix of everything. | Many people usually prefer to adopt the conventions already adopted in the language they use.
E.g. in java it would be **databaseName** and in C++ **database\_name** |
4,132,610 | I am currently writing a coding style guideline for junior devlopers, and I am curious if anyone uses list of common variable names (for basic concepts), to limit confusion in codebase?
For example:
* for email address: **email** (and not: *mail*, *e-mail*, *address*, \*mail\_address\* ...)
* for database name: **dbname** (and not: *db*, *dbase*, *base*, *database*, \*database\_name\*, *dbn* ...)
* for file name with full qualified path: **filepath** (and not: *file*, *path*, \*file\_name\*, *pathtofile* ...)
* for relative file name (without path) : **filename** (and not: *file*, *name*, *f*, ...)
* for configuration object : **config** (and not: *configuration*, *conf*, *vars*, ...)
Do you use similiar conventions?
**Edit**:
To be precise: it is not about **formatting** convention (*camelCaps* or \*names\_with\_underscores\*) which tends to be language and project dependant, but about **naming** convention (*mail*, *email* or *courriel*), something which is common for all the languages (like convention of using *i*, *j*, *k* for iteration counters) | 2010/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4132610",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/129289/"
] | This is micro management of the worst kind. Just say "Try to use clear nonambiguous variable names." Tell them to prefer longer names and just use code completion to save typing.
Use pair programming and code review if you need to teach juniors to write code that makes sense to other people.
You need to trust them to do the right thing and correct them when they don't.
And don't make up your own conventions, it's very likely the language you're using already has conventions in its culture, like for example camelCaseForVariableNames in Java. Just follow those. | Many people usually prefer to adopt the conventions already adopted in the language they use.
E.g. in java it would be **databaseName** and in C++ **database\_name** |
4,056 | Some stack exchange sites, such as World Building, have question sand boxes where users may work on questions and get feedback before posting it on the main website.
Given that several questions on Skeptics have to be closed, fixed, and then re-opened, should we create a sandbox for our site, and inform new users before they post about it? | 2017/09/17 | [
"https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4056",
"https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/104/"
] | The following answer is a collection of information I gathered to form my opinion around the subject. Maybe it helps you too.
---
Main purpose of sandboxes
=========================
AFAIK the only sandboxes that exist are those in [Codegolf](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2140/sandbox-for-proposed-challenges) and [Worldbuilding](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4835/sandbox-for-proposed-questions).
Both sandboxes state their primary purpose like this:
>
> [Posting your question in the sandbox first] is useful because writing a clear and fully specified question on the first try can be difficult. There is a much better chance of your question being well received if you post it in the Sandbox first.
>
>
>
So **a sandbox's main purpose is to increase the chances of a question being received well**. Why does it need extra help to increase the reception of question? **Because it is hard to formulate a good question on the first try.**
---
Analysis of the sandboxes
=========================
I think the main reason why a sandbox might not be a good fit for us lies in the description itself *(emphasis mine)*:
>
> This is useful because **writing a clear and fully specified question on the first try can be difficult**. There is a much better chance of your question being well received if you post it in the Sandbox first.
>
>
>
Do you notice it states *"on the first try"* and not *"for the first time"*? This means that **writing a good question is hard for everyone** on these StackExchange sites.
This is proven by looking at the at the proposed question in either sandbox. More than 50% of the users proposing questions are 1K+ members\*.
---
A closer look at Codegolf and Worldbuilding
===========================================
Why is it hard to formulate good questions on these sites?
Because **these are sites that allow for multiple correct answers**.
A question on CG could be some challenge where the winner is the submission with the fewest bytes of source code, this requires per definition more than one submission.
A question on WB almost always asks the users to be very creative to solve unique problems. These are questions along the lines of *"under what circumstances could ponies evolve into actual unicorns?"*. There is just no single definitive answer.
So **both of these sites have a major problem**: every question could potentially generate hundreds of acceptable answers. To make sure not every question is *Too Broad*, they need to have a clearly defined scope. And that's problematic. Making questions is easy, defining a scope is hard
.
The sandbox helps even the most experienced user to create a clearly defined scope (e.g. *"can the dragons breathe fire through chemistry or magic?"* or *"can we assume that input is always a number?"*). It's to avoid a possible confusion about the OP's intent and to make sure the question isn't ambiguous.
---
Sandbox for our community
=========================
We don't face the same problems. Once the rep raises, so will the likelihood of a well formulated question within the scope of our site rules.
The problem we have (IMHO) is that people don't understand what this site is for. **Many people seem to think that this is a site for interesting/intellectual questions.** And that is the real problem we have to fix.
There are evidently plenty of people who think that as long as they use some magical phrase such as *"I am skeptical about..."* or *"What is the evidence for..."* that it is automatically on-topic. This leads to many questions that are presumably perfectly fine for other SE sites such as Politics, Law, History and Physics, but not for us.
And the stupid thing is, **Skeptics.SE has one of the simplest rules about which question is on-topic.** It's just that people don't seem to know them:
1. What did you read or hear?
2. Was it from a notable source *(famous person/relevant authority/mainstream media)*? Or is it something that many people believe *(there should be plenty of examples to prove that it is a widely held belief)*? In any case, back it up with references.
3. Is it self-evident why you are skeptical about this claim? Is it not referenced? Is it counter-intuitive? Otherwise explain carefully.
4. Is it self-evident how this claim could be debunked or verified?
And that's pretty much it, that is how I evaluate questions on this site, but YMMV. On those other sites, every question is unique and needs an unique approach. Here we (should) have strict rules as to what constitutes as a good question, defeating the purpose of a Sandbox IMHO.
---
Conclusion
==========
**Propositions:**
* Sandboxes are for all users, not just low rep users.
* New/low rep users should know how to formulate good questions through the site tour and help center.
* Skeptics.SE main source of bad questions come from new/low rep users.
**Conclusion**: Skeptics.SE doesn't need a Sandbox as is currently proposed.
---
\*I only looked at the first page of either sandbox. | I vote **no**.
Every poor question is an opportunity for its asker to learn our values, and for the community to teach them. Besides being an ugly hack that the system wasn't designed for, a "sandbox" is just a layer of indirection: a bad question posted in the sandbox is still a bad question, and still needs to be dealt with. I also fear that a sandbox would cause bad questions to be buried such that only passionate users would see them, excluding less experienced or motivated users from the moderation effort.
Instead,
* if we have a generic low-volume low quality question problem (like almost every SE site), I think the solution should just be to explain our criteria better.
* If we've already explained our rules well, and are just being overwhelmed by the [Eternal September's tides of dumb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September) (people posting off-topic despite clear instructions), then we should just elect more moderators with insta-close privileges to mop the deck. |
249,042 | Can we convert a noun into an adjective by putting "**of**" before that noun?
People say "**[she is a woman of great determination](https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/of)**", so I think "**of determination**" plays a role of an adjective and modifies "**woman**".
**Can we do the same for other nouns?**
We have "**fishy**" meaning "**smelling of fish**".
But how to express the smells of "cake/candy/pee" when we have no equivalent adjectives.
Is it idiomatic "**it smells of cake/candy/pee**"?
Are they idiomatic and the same "**it smells of cake/candy/pee**" and "**it smells like cake/candy/pee**"? | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/249042",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/22478/"
] | Putting the noun into a preposition phrase doesn't convert it into an adjective, but the phrase can act as an adjective, as in your example, "of great determination" more or less equals "very determined".
In "it smells of pee." there is no adjective. Rather the phrase is another way of saying "It has a/the smell of pee." where "pee" is a noun. For an adjective, you might say "It has a urinous smell.", but you'll be understood quicker with "It smells like pee."
Similarly, you could say "cake-like" or "candy-like" smell, but it would be unusual, and not as understandable as "smells like...".
It would also be very strange to say "It smells of cake/candy." Neither of the two has a unique characteristic, pervasive smell, in the way that urine does. If I heard "It smells of cake!", I would think someone was joking. | It smells of cake - there is some cake involved here.
It smells like cake - no cake anywhere in sight, but something different that for some reason smells the same.
“Fishy” and “this smells fishy” has a totally different meaning that has nothing to do with fish: It usually means “dodgy” or “suspicious”. |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | I know the question is about typography (i.e., aesthetics), but maybe an overview over several *scientific* studies which compare the legibility of typefaces is also interesting:
[Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?](http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/)
>
> Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility.
>
>
>
Since aesthetics cannot be determined scientifically, the only important reason to prefer one typeface over another is really your personal opinion—but often it helps to stick to traditions. | Serifs are used for traditional things, and with themes like "corporate" and "formal", and for books & novels, etc. I use Sans Serif when the themes are "modern", "fun", "Colourful" and "playful" |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | * presentations: sans-serif
* documents:
+ up to one/two pages: sans-serif or serif
+ more pages: always serif
+ header/titles maybe in sans-serif | Serifs are used for traditional things, and with themes like "corporate" and "formal", and for books & novels, etc. I use Sans Serif when the themes are "modern", "fun", "Colourful" and "playful" |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | a good and detailed answer can be found also here - although it's talking about web design, I think these are good guide lines also for printed documents:
<http://webdesign.about.com/od/fonts/a/aa080204.htm> | There is one reason to use serif and not sans serif:
It is less likely to read a "l" as a "I" or vice versa.
In the other hand, the "1" and the "l" look very similar on some serif fonts, but still better than the "l" and the "I" in most sans serif fonts. |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | a good and detailed answer can be found also here - although it's talking about web design, I think these are good guide lines also for printed documents:
<http://webdesign.about.com/od/fonts/a/aa080204.htm> | * presentations: sans-serif
* documents:
+ up to one/two pages: sans-serif or serif
+ more pages: always serif
+ header/titles maybe in sans-serif |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | a good and detailed answer can be found also here - although it's talking about web design, I think these are good guide lines also for printed documents:
<http://webdesign.about.com/od/fonts/a/aa080204.htm> | I don't think there's a reasonable answer to this question. It all depends on typeface. In the earlier days of last century, Sans serif were mainly used for display purpose, displacing Didot like faces, and serif faces are used for continued readings. However this line is increasingly blurred thess days.
Now, you can have sans serif such as Scala Sans or Syntax, Crosnos and many other faces that are as humane as as any serif face.
Legacy Sans is as much Venetian as any serif faces I have seen. And they are very well suited for text usage.
On the other hand, there are also sturdy serif faces that blur the lines between sans serif and serif faces. And some serif faces play the role of a display face as gracefully as any sans serif. Higher contrast faces such as Questa Grande has long played the role of a display face. If you look at any 19th century book title, you are likely to find one in Didot, Bodoni, Walbum, etc.
There's also no reason that sans-serif being more "informal" than serifs. Acumin can be as formal as any serif I know of. Jenson can be just as warm as any sans.
The only place that sans serif is really dominant that I can think of is signage. |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | a good and detailed answer can be found also here - although it's talking about web design, I think these are good guide lines also for printed documents:
<http://webdesign.about.com/od/fonts/a/aa080204.htm> | I know the question is about typography (i.e., aesthetics), but maybe an overview over several *scientific* studies which compare the legibility of typefaces is also interesting:
[Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?](http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/)
>
> Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility.
>
>
>
Since aesthetics cannot be determined scientifically, the only important reason to prefer one typeface over another is really your personal opinion—but often it helps to stick to traditions. |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | I know the question is about typography (i.e., aesthetics), but maybe an overview over several *scientific* studies which compare the legibility of typefaces is also interesting:
[Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?](http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/)
>
> Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility.
>
>
>
Since aesthetics cannot be determined scientifically, the only important reason to prefer one typeface over another is really your personal opinion—but often it helps to stick to traditions. | Semi-serious answer: You could look it up on this fabulous poster: [So you need a Typeface](http://www.julianhansen.com/#/zimmer/). |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | * presentations: sans-serif
* documents:
+ up to one/two pages: sans-serif or serif
+ more pages: always serif
+ header/titles maybe in sans-serif | *Disclaimer: This answer is subjective. Good references to support claims are missing, even if the reason is based on my understanding of R. Bringhurst's* Elements of Typographic Style.
**Main text:** Serif typefaces are known for being more readable (in terms of content understood per unit of time), as serifs guide the eye through the line. (Of course, this is true for well designed typefaces.)
This is why they are often chosen as font for the main text.
**Headings:** The purpose of headings is to highlight the structure of the reason in the text. Headings should thus contrast with the main text.
My claim is that because widespread typefaces are often constituted of a few fonts only (e.g., the Times New Roman typeface is available through its regular, italic, bold and bold-italic fonts only), and because the man in the street lack of knowledge in typography/aesthetic design (and that's normal), the common choice for headings' typeface is sans-serif.
**On-screen reading:** Note that this reasoning is verified in the reverse direction is some websites where the main text is typesetted in a sans-serif typeface (as sans-serif font are more readable on screen, as serif might appear blurred) and headings thus use a serif font.
---
**Is this a good thing?** I would prefer steering you towards renowned sources. It also depends on your objective: do you want your text to be a medium for conveying ideas, or do you want it to be admired?
My understanding is that one should balance the contrast between headings and the main text (i.e., increasing contrast) versus the global unity of the document (i.e., decreasing contrast).
My rule of thumb would thus be: ***change one setting at a time***.
That is you between 'main heading' and 'sub heading', or between 'sub heading' and 'main text', you may change either the font size (10, 12, 16pt.), or the font weight (thin, regular, semi-bold, bold, ...), or the slope (regular, italic - slanted), or the caps (regular, small caps, full caps), or the serif, etc. But not all at the same time.
A good example of this is the book mentioned above, in which Bringhurst uses one (serif) type face only for the whole text. Only captions of full-page figures are typesetted in a sans-serif type face.
Beautiful (as synonym of 'noticeable') design does not mean good (as synonym of 'functional') design. |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | I know the question is about typography (i.e., aesthetics), but maybe an overview over several *scientific* studies which compare the legibility of typefaces is also interesting:
[Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?](http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/)
>
> Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility.
>
>
>
Since aesthetics cannot be determined scientifically, the only important reason to prefer one typeface over another is really your personal opinion—but often it helps to stick to traditions. | *Disclaimer: This answer is subjective. Good references to support claims are missing, even if the reason is based on my understanding of R. Bringhurst's* Elements of Typographic Style.
**Main text:** Serif typefaces are known for being more readable (in terms of content understood per unit of time), as serifs guide the eye through the line. (Of course, this is true for well designed typefaces.)
This is why they are often chosen as font for the main text.
**Headings:** The purpose of headings is to highlight the structure of the reason in the text. Headings should thus contrast with the main text.
My claim is that because widespread typefaces are often constituted of a few fonts only (e.g., the Times New Roman typeface is available through its regular, italic, bold and bold-italic fonts only), and because the man in the street lack of knowledge in typography/aesthetic design (and that's normal), the common choice for headings' typeface is sans-serif.
**On-screen reading:** Note that this reasoning is verified in the reverse direction is some websites where the main text is typesetted in a sans-serif typeface (as sans-serif font are more readable on screen, as serif might appear blurred) and headings thus use a serif font.
---
**Is this a good thing?** I would prefer steering you towards renowned sources. It also depends on your objective: do you want your text to be a medium for conveying ideas, or do you want it to be admired?
My understanding is that one should balance the contrast between headings and the main text (i.e., increasing contrast) versus the global unity of the document (i.e., decreasing contrast).
My rule of thumb would thus be: ***change one setting at a time***.
That is you between 'main heading' and 'sub heading', or between 'sub heading' and 'main text', you may change either the font size (10, 12, 16pt.), or the font weight (thin, regular, semi-bold, bold, ...), or the slope (regular, italic - slanted), or the caps (regular, small caps, full caps), or the serif, etc. But not all at the same time.
A good example of this is the book mentioned above, in which Bringhurst uses one (serif) type face only for the whole text. Only captions of full-page figures are typesetted in a sans-serif type face.
Beautiful (as synonym of 'noticeable') design does not mean good (as synonym of 'functional') design. |
7,562 | This is not a technical question. However as the FAQs say this place is about
>
> people who love to create well-structured and beautifully typeset documents
>
>
>
I take my shot.
I am often confused when which font family is more appropriate. Most people would suggest: "take what you like the most". But there are typographicaly reasons and I don't want to pick a font familty randomly.
I am looking for some good paper reasoning about the choice of font family, no luck so far. Are there good sources? | 2010/12/22 | [
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7562",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.stackexchange.com/users/2633/"
] | a good and detailed answer can be found also here - although it's talking about web design, I think these are good guide lines also for printed documents:
<http://webdesign.about.com/od/fonts/a/aa080204.htm> | Serifs are used for traditional things, and with themes like "corporate" and "formal", and for books & novels, etc. I use Sans Serif when the themes are "modern", "fun", "Colourful" and "playful" |
105,096 | Fire Emblem 7 is a sprite based game with some interesting sprite art aesthetics. For example, see this sheet of one of the main characters, Lyn:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cSR9N.gif)
On the last frames of the critical hit, the artist used some kind of slash effect to represent the entire motion of the sword in a single frame. It looks really appealing [on video](https://youtu.be/9qQh1tShepo?t=39s). I have two questions:
1. What is this effect called?
2. How or why did the artist arrive at that result? For example, why are those "spikes" where they are, and why is the "end" of the line fatter? | 2015/08/04 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/105096",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/13127/"
] | It looks like it's supposed to represent a motion blur or at least achieve a similar effect: to convey the feeling of movement and speed as the sword is swung in a arc. In 3D we sometimes go for similar effects with geometry or particle-effect based "trails" behind slashes.
It looks the way it does for a variety of reasons, many of them due to the stylistic choices of the artist (that is, because it looks cool). There are some technical consideration to keep in mind, like what the perspective of the sprite is (and how it might foreshorten the sword during its arc), and the direction of travel (the "spikes" can help suggest that by guiding the eye). But generally things like this are designed to for visual oomph more than anything else, and tend to be exaggerated as they are only on-screen for a very limited number of frames; the exaggeration combined with human persistence of vision leads to the desired illustration of power and/or speed. | Ah yeah. Fire Emblem, a great game indeed.
If you take a really close look to the critic attack of Lyn you will actually got it. The first slash is going from down-right to up-left.
That will be the first slashing image starting from the left of the sheet combined with the second. So, we can say that the second slashing image is a continuation of the first one, and that makes a single large blow.
That's why the end of the line in the first image is fat headed, so the second image can be placed parcially on top of it. Same thing happens with the third and fourth images, (from up-rigth to down-left), they both are a single great blow.
After the enemy get's hitted, she then returns to his place, and that's the last slashing image.
Reasons for making a first blow in two images could be a couple, I think.
One of them is to make the eye believe that the blow really last a while so, it gives an impression that Lyn traveled a long trail around the enemy in pretty high speed.
She is really fast, so she cannot be seen! D:
The other reason is that the width and eight of every image that represents the blows were not enough, so they had to make it in two pieces, probably, because some systems work better in power of 2 images, say 64x64, if you take a look to the second and fourth images, that are the continuations, they have the same width and height, and the fourth one Its like is not finished, but it doesn't matter, because, where is placed on the screen, it make's it look like it continues.
And about the spikes, I'm not an artist, but I think it resembles where the end of the sword is pointing, notice that, spikes are when she draws the sword from the cover, and at the end of the blow, when she hit's, giving some impression of colition or friction.
And the middle clean part is where the sword takes more speed. |
116,620 | I'm working on building a sci-fi world and I had an idea for how to cut down on the sheer amount of bureaucracy that a massive (say, 200 planets) empire would require. What if the central government ran a system of client state like planets instead of directly annexing each of their conquests?
In this set-up, the conquered planet or civilization would be allowed to have self-rule under a new government formed by the empire. The client states would be allowed to have land-based militias, but no space-fleets. The central empire would set a specific quota of tax and manpower for the client to give to the state and army, respectively, then leave the government on their own to figure out how to acquire these things.
The pros I can see off are that it makes bureaucracy much easier for the central empire and can potentially make the transition easier for the conquered worlds. The primary issue I see is that these client states could be prone to rebellion if the central empire ever grew weak.
Thoughts? Am I missing something obvious here, or does this seem practical?
**Edit: Added more information**
Thanks to @nullpointer for pointing out a few things I failed to include. The FTL travel of the universe operates on a jump-drive technology with relatively limited range (say, 2 lightyears every day). The exceptions exist in areas where natural or artificial wormholes have been set up. These wormholes require a lot of resources and time to produce, however, and rarely exist in these hypothetical client states. The Empire in question is (at the time the story takes place) working on building waystation wormholes to make transit easier, but right now travel from the home planet to distant client states take weeks or months. Communications in this empire can only travel as fast as the fastest ships, so they're locked to about the same timeline.
Finally, a bit about the empire's motivations. On the home planet, political careers are driven by military successes, i.e. a candidate has to have won x many victories to be eligible for x position. Because of the wormholes near their planet that connect to other planets, they discovered a few other civilizations before the jump drives or even militarized spaceships. This allowed the dominant state on the home planet to finally complete their hegemony without concern for a collapse of their political system and transition into a spacefaring empire. The larger civilizations (this empire included) of the galaxy nearby retain a mutually lucrative trade route that generally keeps them from conquering one another. That leaves smaller, typically less advanced civilizations as targets.
If the general agreement is "yeah, this should work fine", then here's a secondary question: would the empire want to maintain garrisons (either space or ground-based) in client states, or would that cost too much/lack justification? | 2018/06/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/116620",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52501/"
] | WillK has provided a great description of the Federal model and he is indeed correct in saying that many countries have done 'well' with such a system, although well is perhaps a matter of interpretation depending on your goals with such a model.
Two countries that come to mind that are Federal in nature are the USA and Australia.
I'm going to expand on Will's answer by providing some pros and cons from my experience in a Government context. Let's start with the benefits;
**Expansion**
Because the states that join forces retain their own sovereignty (only giving up specific rights to the federal govt) it means that adding new states is a relatively simple exercise. In the case of the USA, they have literally 'bought' states and territories in the past, the most recent of which was Alaska (IIRC). If there is an existing province or state that wants to join the federation, in theory they are entitled to apply to join. Leaving? Well, like Will states that can be a cause of contention and attempts have led to civil war in the past. But, assimilating new territories is certainly a lot simpler.
**Mutual Providence**
Providing a defense force for a large country with a large population is more cost effective than trying to build a defense force for a small country, or worse yet, a large country with a *small* population. Also, certain states may be rich in minerals and the like, but not have strong agriculture. A federation allows different states to contribute to the wealth and prosperity of its citizens in different ways and provides for a domestic homogenisation of resources (state A's minerals get shipped around, as does state B's wheat, etc.) without the added complexity of diplomacy or currency issues. This concept easily expands to education, technical capability and other information services.
**Diversity**
Different states may have different environmental constraints, belief systems, and needs from its neighbours. In a Federal environment, that state has the right to conduct some affairs in accordance with those needs. It's a flexible arrangement by virtue of the state still retaining at least part of its sovereignty. In the US for instance, each state can collect its own taxes, and run its own social welfare systems, etc. In Australia, they have a much broader remit because they have a restrictive constitution (everything at the federal level is prohibited unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution) but in practice, this doesn't work because one thing that the states are specifically prohibited from doing is raising their own direct taxes.
There are (however) a few pitfalls...
**Fragmentation**
It may *seem* like the USA and Australia have uniform codes of law and that they everyone in these countries is subject to the same rules, but that perception is very thin. In Australia for instance, every state as a separate criminal code and when something is being made illegal at the federal level, what's *really* happening in the background is the federal govt works with the state govts to get them to enact uniform laws in each state. This can be time consuming and very inefficient, especially if not all the states agree on the new law. What this means is that if you're the kind of dictator that wants to micro-manage your states, this model isn't for you.
**Disenfranchisement**
Just because the federation of your states is a good deal, doesn't always mean that all your states are going to recognise that. The USA discovered that during the debate about slave ownership and the resulting Civil War. In Australia, there is discontent in some states who contribute significant mineral wealth to Australia but feel that they are short changed in terms of federal funding for services. Unless you have REALLY strong communication and good relations with all your states, this sense of being taken advantage of can build in certain regions without you noticing, especially if funds or other critical resources are being centrally redistributed.
**On a Galactic Scale**
Your ability to expand would be a big plus, especially if you treat every planet as its own state for the purposes of this model. The defense and redistribution of resources arguments make for great selling points, but the sheer scale you're talking about means that diversity almost forces fragmentation among the member states. Given that different planets are going to have different atmospheric, agricultural and mineral resource needs to begin with, this is only going to be exacerbated. Ultimately, the federation can thrive IF there is a strong unifying need among the member states, like defense.
But the one mistake you can make here is to try and micromanage the states in question. At the galactic scale, this federation becomes much looser and you're probably better off leaving most states to do their thing, only providing some principles to which 'their thing' must conform. Things like democracy, term limits, freedom of movement for all citizens, etc.
You won't achieve cultural homogenisation and that's actually a good thing. Most cultural practices tend to form around environmental necessities or conveniences; The British sailors (who came from cold climates) often mistook the minimal dress requirements of Polynesian people as a sign of a primitive culture rather than a natural reaction to a hot, humid climate.
What you hopefully *will* achieve is a political homogenisation; setting a minimum level of human (?) rights, how government is formed and how often it is replaced, freedom of movement, how it contributes to the welfare of the federation, and the rights it receives in resource distribution and defense in return.
If that's enough for you, then this can be an ideal form of government for states that have such distances between them. Given the political motivations you describe, you could almost think of each state as a franchise; they get to run things more or less how they see fit so long as they recognise a federal patron and conform to the rules that have been set for the broader federation. | **You propose a federal system of government.**
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism>
>
> Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a
> general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional
> governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other
> sub-unit governments) in a single political system...
>
>
> According to Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State, there are four
> competing theoretical explanations in the academic literature for the
> adoption of federal systems:
>
>
> Ideational theories, which hold that a greater degree of ideological
> commitment to decentralist ideas in society makes federalism more
> likely to be adopted.
>
>
> Cultural-historical theories, which hold that federal institutions are
> more likely to be adopted in societies with culturally or ethnically
> fragmented populations.
>
>
> "Social contract" theories, which hold that federalism emerges as a
> bargain between a center and a periphery where the center is not
> powerful enough to dominate the periphery and the periphery is not
> powerful enough to secede from the center.
>
>
> "Infrastructural power" theories, which hold that federalism is likely
> to emerge when the subunits of a potential federation already have
> highly developed infrastructures (e.g. they are already
> constitutional, parliamentary, and administratively modernized states)
>
>
>
There are many countries that have done very well with federal systems. So too your proposed galactic federation. As you state, the sub governments do not have need of big militaries and should not be permitted to raise them. There is a risk of civil war if "client states" as you say decide to secede. |
116,620 | I'm working on building a sci-fi world and I had an idea for how to cut down on the sheer amount of bureaucracy that a massive (say, 200 planets) empire would require. What if the central government ran a system of client state like planets instead of directly annexing each of their conquests?
In this set-up, the conquered planet or civilization would be allowed to have self-rule under a new government formed by the empire. The client states would be allowed to have land-based militias, but no space-fleets. The central empire would set a specific quota of tax and manpower for the client to give to the state and army, respectively, then leave the government on their own to figure out how to acquire these things.
The pros I can see off are that it makes bureaucracy much easier for the central empire and can potentially make the transition easier for the conquered worlds. The primary issue I see is that these client states could be prone to rebellion if the central empire ever grew weak.
Thoughts? Am I missing something obvious here, or does this seem practical?
**Edit: Added more information**
Thanks to @nullpointer for pointing out a few things I failed to include. The FTL travel of the universe operates on a jump-drive technology with relatively limited range (say, 2 lightyears every day). The exceptions exist in areas where natural or artificial wormholes have been set up. These wormholes require a lot of resources and time to produce, however, and rarely exist in these hypothetical client states. The Empire in question is (at the time the story takes place) working on building waystation wormholes to make transit easier, but right now travel from the home planet to distant client states take weeks or months. Communications in this empire can only travel as fast as the fastest ships, so they're locked to about the same timeline.
Finally, a bit about the empire's motivations. On the home planet, political careers are driven by military successes, i.e. a candidate has to have won x many victories to be eligible for x position. Because of the wormholes near their planet that connect to other planets, they discovered a few other civilizations before the jump drives or even militarized spaceships. This allowed the dominant state on the home planet to finally complete their hegemony without concern for a collapse of their political system and transition into a spacefaring empire. The larger civilizations (this empire included) of the galaxy nearby retain a mutually lucrative trade route that generally keeps them from conquering one another. That leaves smaller, typically less advanced civilizations as targets.
If the general agreement is "yeah, this should work fine", then here's a secondary question: would the empire want to maintain garrisons (either space or ground-based) in client states, or would that cost too much/lack justification? | 2018/06/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/116620",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52501/"
] | **You propose a federal system of government.**
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism>
>
> Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a
> general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional
> governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other
> sub-unit governments) in a single political system...
>
>
> According to Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State, there are four
> competing theoretical explanations in the academic literature for the
> adoption of federal systems:
>
>
> Ideational theories, which hold that a greater degree of ideological
> commitment to decentralist ideas in society makes federalism more
> likely to be adopted.
>
>
> Cultural-historical theories, which hold that federal institutions are
> more likely to be adopted in societies with culturally or ethnically
> fragmented populations.
>
>
> "Social contract" theories, which hold that federalism emerges as a
> bargain between a center and a periphery where the center is not
> powerful enough to dominate the periphery and the periphery is not
> powerful enough to secede from the center.
>
>
> "Infrastructural power" theories, which hold that federalism is likely
> to emerge when the subunits of a potential federation already have
> highly developed infrastructures (e.g. they are already
> constitutional, parliamentary, and administratively modernized states)
>
>
>
There are many countries that have done very well with federal systems. So too your proposed galactic federation. As you state, the sub governments do not have need of big militaries and should not be permitted to raise them. There is a risk of civil war if "client states" as you say decide to secede. | First, consider *prior art*:
* Especially with the need for conquest, there is the obvious Roman analogy.
* There is an early science-fiction roleplaying game, *Traveller*, where the main human state works on this principle. "The Imperium rules the space between the planets, not the member planets themselves."
* One might argue that the Federation of *Star Trek* works that way, minus the conquest angle.
Both fictional worlds have generated countless fan-based writings how their system can or cannot work. Some comments in addition to those by Tim B:
**Just how much interstellar travel and commerce is there, relative to the size of the planetary economy?**
* Are they tightly integrated on the scale e.g. the US and Canada are today? If so, it becomes important to have **standards** for things like the screw threads and power supply voltages. Can a client-state-based empire provide that?
* If they are not very integrated, how does the empire extract taxes? A planet might sign over a trillion *planetary dollars* which then sit in an account and pay for the embassy compound or the bar tab of soldiers on shore leave. Unless the money is reinvested on the planet, then after decades or centuries the empire would own most industry on that planet, still will no means to extract the wealth.
**Are there better integrated rivals?**
* It would be in the interest of the empire to foster economic and technical progress on **all** planets to increase their industrial base and to get a bigger navy for further conquests. Can they do that with a client state model?
* Is the navy itself built on the single central planet, or do contingents come from client planets? What is their loyalty? |
116,620 | I'm working on building a sci-fi world and I had an idea for how to cut down on the sheer amount of bureaucracy that a massive (say, 200 planets) empire would require. What if the central government ran a system of client state like planets instead of directly annexing each of their conquests?
In this set-up, the conquered planet or civilization would be allowed to have self-rule under a new government formed by the empire. The client states would be allowed to have land-based militias, but no space-fleets. The central empire would set a specific quota of tax and manpower for the client to give to the state and army, respectively, then leave the government on their own to figure out how to acquire these things.
The pros I can see off are that it makes bureaucracy much easier for the central empire and can potentially make the transition easier for the conquered worlds. The primary issue I see is that these client states could be prone to rebellion if the central empire ever grew weak.
Thoughts? Am I missing something obvious here, or does this seem practical?
**Edit: Added more information**
Thanks to @nullpointer for pointing out a few things I failed to include. The FTL travel of the universe operates on a jump-drive technology with relatively limited range (say, 2 lightyears every day). The exceptions exist in areas where natural or artificial wormholes have been set up. These wormholes require a lot of resources and time to produce, however, and rarely exist in these hypothetical client states. The Empire in question is (at the time the story takes place) working on building waystation wormholes to make transit easier, but right now travel from the home planet to distant client states take weeks or months. Communications in this empire can only travel as fast as the fastest ships, so they're locked to about the same timeline.
Finally, a bit about the empire's motivations. On the home planet, political careers are driven by military successes, i.e. a candidate has to have won x many victories to be eligible for x position. Because of the wormholes near their planet that connect to other planets, they discovered a few other civilizations before the jump drives or even militarized spaceships. This allowed the dominant state on the home planet to finally complete their hegemony without concern for a collapse of their political system and transition into a spacefaring empire. The larger civilizations (this empire included) of the galaxy nearby retain a mutually lucrative trade route that generally keeps them from conquering one another. That leaves smaller, typically less advanced civilizations as targets.
If the general agreement is "yeah, this should work fine", then here's a secondary question: would the empire want to maintain garrisons (either space or ground-based) in client states, or would that cost too much/lack justification? | 2018/06/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/116620",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52501/"
] | WillK has provided a great description of the Federal model and he is indeed correct in saying that many countries have done 'well' with such a system, although well is perhaps a matter of interpretation depending on your goals with such a model.
Two countries that come to mind that are Federal in nature are the USA and Australia.
I'm going to expand on Will's answer by providing some pros and cons from my experience in a Government context. Let's start with the benefits;
**Expansion**
Because the states that join forces retain their own sovereignty (only giving up specific rights to the federal govt) it means that adding new states is a relatively simple exercise. In the case of the USA, they have literally 'bought' states and territories in the past, the most recent of which was Alaska (IIRC). If there is an existing province or state that wants to join the federation, in theory they are entitled to apply to join. Leaving? Well, like Will states that can be a cause of contention and attempts have led to civil war in the past. But, assimilating new territories is certainly a lot simpler.
**Mutual Providence**
Providing a defense force for a large country with a large population is more cost effective than trying to build a defense force for a small country, or worse yet, a large country with a *small* population. Also, certain states may be rich in minerals and the like, but not have strong agriculture. A federation allows different states to contribute to the wealth and prosperity of its citizens in different ways and provides for a domestic homogenisation of resources (state A's minerals get shipped around, as does state B's wheat, etc.) without the added complexity of diplomacy or currency issues. This concept easily expands to education, technical capability and other information services.
**Diversity**
Different states may have different environmental constraints, belief systems, and needs from its neighbours. In a Federal environment, that state has the right to conduct some affairs in accordance with those needs. It's a flexible arrangement by virtue of the state still retaining at least part of its sovereignty. In the US for instance, each state can collect its own taxes, and run its own social welfare systems, etc. In Australia, they have a much broader remit because they have a restrictive constitution (everything at the federal level is prohibited unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution) but in practice, this doesn't work because one thing that the states are specifically prohibited from doing is raising their own direct taxes.
There are (however) a few pitfalls...
**Fragmentation**
It may *seem* like the USA and Australia have uniform codes of law and that they everyone in these countries is subject to the same rules, but that perception is very thin. In Australia for instance, every state as a separate criminal code and when something is being made illegal at the federal level, what's *really* happening in the background is the federal govt works with the state govts to get them to enact uniform laws in each state. This can be time consuming and very inefficient, especially if not all the states agree on the new law. What this means is that if you're the kind of dictator that wants to micro-manage your states, this model isn't for you.
**Disenfranchisement**
Just because the federation of your states is a good deal, doesn't always mean that all your states are going to recognise that. The USA discovered that during the debate about slave ownership and the resulting Civil War. In Australia, there is discontent in some states who contribute significant mineral wealth to Australia but feel that they are short changed in terms of federal funding for services. Unless you have REALLY strong communication and good relations with all your states, this sense of being taken advantage of can build in certain regions without you noticing, especially if funds or other critical resources are being centrally redistributed.
**On a Galactic Scale**
Your ability to expand would be a big plus, especially if you treat every planet as its own state for the purposes of this model. The defense and redistribution of resources arguments make for great selling points, but the sheer scale you're talking about means that diversity almost forces fragmentation among the member states. Given that different planets are going to have different atmospheric, agricultural and mineral resource needs to begin with, this is only going to be exacerbated. Ultimately, the federation can thrive IF there is a strong unifying need among the member states, like defense.
But the one mistake you can make here is to try and micromanage the states in question. At the galactic scale, this federation becomes much looser and you're probably better off leaving most states to do their thing, only providing some principles to which 'their thing' must conform. Things like democracy, term limits, freedom of movement for all citizens, etc.
You won't achieve cultural homogenisation and that's actually a good thing. Most cultural practices tend to form around environmental necessities or conveniences; The British sailors (who came from cold climates) often mistook the minimal dress requirements of Polynesian people as a sign of a primitive culture rather than a natural reaction to a hot, humid climate.
What you hopefully *will* achieve is a political homogenisation; setting a minimum level of human (?) rights, how government is formed and how often it is replaced, freedom of movement, how it contributes to the welfare of the federation, and the rights it receives in resource distribution and defense in return.
If that's enough for you, then this can be an ideal form of government for states that have such distances between them. Given the political motivations you describe, you could almost think of each state as a franchise; they get to run things more or less how they see fit so long as they recognise a federal patron and conform to the rules that have been set for the broader federation. | First, consider *prior art*:
* Especially with the need for conquest, there is the obvious Roman analogy.
* There is an early science-fiction roleplaying game, *Traveller*, where the main human state works on this principle. "The Imperium rules the space between the planets, not the member planets themselves."
* One might argue that the Federation of *Star Trek* works that way, minus the conquest angle.
Both fictional worlds have generated countless fan-based writings how their system can or cannot work. Some comments in addition to those by Tim B:
**Just how much interstellar travel and commerce is there, relative to the size of the planetary economy?**
* Are they tightly integrated on the scale e.g. the US and Canada are today? If so, it becomes important to have **standards** for things like the screw threads and power supply voltages. Can a client-state-based empire provide that?
* If they are not very integrated, how does the empire extract taxes? A planet might sign over a trillion *planetary dollars* which then sit in an account and pay for the embassy compound or the bar tab of soldiers on shore leave. Unless the money is reinvested on the planet, then after decades or centuries the empire would own most industry on that planet, still will no means to extract the wealth.
**Are there better integrated rivals?**
* It would be in the interest of the empire to foster economic and technical progress on **all** planets to increase their industrial base and to get a bigger navy for further conquests. Can they do that with a client state model?
* Is the navy itself built on the single central planet, or do contingents come from client planets? What is their loyalty? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.