Split (1)

train · 1.05M rows

qid int64 1 74.7M	question stringlengths 12 33.8k	date stringlengths 10 10	metadata list	response_j stringlengths 0 115k	response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k
177,686	The inhabitants of a small city carved into the side of a cliff are blind and use echolocation to navigate. There is a lot of empty space, around a kilometer of between the cliff side where the village resides and the other cliff side, in other words a 1km valley. Will echolocation still work effectively in this kind of situation?	2020/06/01	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177686", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/75712/" ]	Yes, in combination with other skills ===================================== Your residents are going to use a combination of techniques to navigate. Echolocation is a way of avoiding obstacles, not of navigating over longer distances. In the Wikipedia image below, the bat can tell that there's a box ahead on its left, but the bat has no idea what's on the other side of that box. [![Image describing echolocation in bats](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nU1UY.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nU1UY.png) If your villagers want to walk from the church to the blacksmith shop, for example, they'll have to have an idea of where both places are located and generally how to get between them. Here's a great overview of how blind people in the real world navigate from [Chicago Lighthouse](https://chicagolighthouse.org/sandys-view/getting-around/): > > When in familiar places, visually impaired people generally know the > layout and memorize where things are. Learning to travel in different > or unfamiliar places is done by using orientation and mobility (O&M) > skills. Orientation is the actual planning of how to get to and from > places. Blind and visually impaired people use other senses – like > sound, touch and smell – to orient ourselves to our surroundings. So, > if I am walking outside and know there is a school nearby, then I can > assume that it is near when I hear children playing and laughing. > Likewise, the smell of freshly baked bread and cookies tells me I am > near a bakery. > > > By adding echolocation into the mix, you're giving your people a much better ability to avoid walking into objects. But they still won't be able to get around using that skill alone. They'll start hearing the hammering of the blacksmith and know that they're getting closer to the destination. As they approach, they'll be able to use echolocation to avoid running into the anvil.	The power level of the echolocation signal in bats is similar to that of the sounds the human voice can produce (order of 100 decibels). This allows the animals to perceive objects over distances never recorded to be further than 20 meters. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22978903/> Regardless bats have also specially adapted receiving organ devices. The better human echolocator I've ever withnessed was that on Stan Lee's show "Superhumans". A blind man who could slowly drive a bike in a silent parking lot.
177,686	The inhabitants of a small city carved into the side of a cliff are blind and use echolocation to navigate. There is a lot of empty space, around a kilometer of between the cliff side where the village resides and the other cliff side, in other words a 1km valley. Will echolocation still work effectively in this kind of situation?	2020/06/01	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177686", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/75712/" ]	Anecdotally: probably. Compare [the Horseshoe Canyon Ranch](https://horseshoecanyonduderanch.com), which is in the Ozarks. The [Louisiana Center for the Blind](http://louisianacenter.org) takes blind trainees there annually, with lots of room for said trainees to wander off unsupervised between (and sometimes during) scheduled activities. More relevant to the question (it isn't precisely a city carved into a rocky canyon, after all), there was this time when I was there with a group of mixed skill levels, returning to the lodge from the rock-climbing area. In terms of layout, the lodge is in the middle of a shallower slope, at the bottom of a steeper section where visitor cabins are, and the climbing area is up a completely different, steep and rocky slope, across a gap which I assume is around 0.25km or so in width based on how long it took to cross. On this particular evening, we'd taken a different path for some reason, rather than the more direct gravel road connecting these areas, instead going down the rocks and crossing a big meadow . Things were going slowly, and some people were needing extra assistance (lots of big rocks and such on the way down), and for this I was quite useless, and permitted to go on ahead if I wanted. Somehow, absolutely nothing went wrong. It turns out that even Ozark-sized mountains close together are sufficient to navigate by, without requiring additional clicks (the ambient acoustics were quite sufficient), and as I got closer, voices from the lodge were audible. I also suspect that, had the lodge been silent and I'd veered away from it too far to catch echoes from the building, it was still sufficiently apparent which side of it I was on, so I'd've just followed the slope/road, whichever I'd've hit first. There was also this small playground behind the lodge, not directly in contact with any sidewalk or other structure people would likely frequent. The equipment was not very tall, as playground equipment goes, and it was little more than one family-sized structure in the middle of a box of gravel. Knowing that it was behind the lodge somewhere, and that nobody else was paying attention to it was sufficient to find it, though I will point out that the information was necessary (it was not simple to pick out ambiance reflecting off it before getting very close to cane's reach of the conspicuous boundary). While my travel/mountain skills might have been unusual at the time, my echolocation is on the poor side - useful, but not reliable. The most reliable day-to-day passive echolocation is hard to describe, just because it's always there in the background. The most salient example in a non-canyon context, for me, would probably be my front yard. I'm far enough from the road, with enough trees, that it's easy to fail to distinguish my house from trees or the neighbors' fence, especially if there's not enough sun/traffic and I'm away from the driveway. The clearest cue is the garbage can, because it has a very distinct echo profile, being just large enough, and having the right material/hollowness to be picked out from farther away than, say, a random person of the same height. The driveway also ends without sidewalk quite a way before reaching it, but normally I can echolocate it before reaching the end of the driveway. Which, of course, means that if I'm coming back from taking the garbage to the road for pickup, it's a lot harder to find the way back. (LCB helped a lot with this particular problem, and I eventually did have a stone path installed from the driveway to the porch, but before those things, the echoes from that thing were a rather big deal). All this is with fairly passive echolocation (not that I didn't try clicks / snaps once or twice when looking for the playground / garbage can). People who train to echolocate learn how to use different clicks to different ends, for things like range vs detail / area, etc. My experience is something of a lower bound, and a full-blown city with generations of experience to build on would outperform the one impressive feat to my name on a daily basis. The biggest consideration I'd keep in mind is range and levels of detail, and range will depend on both the size of objects and whether or not there are other object around to obscure them. One thing I have never encountered, even though it makes a ton of sense to me, is strategic use of windchimes. Neither the LCB apartment complex, nor any of the blind staff's houses had any such decorations whatsoever. No school for the blind with a multibuilding campus that I have ever visited has utilized chimes. The NFB national convention uses ushers who form a path of criers, shouting directions (rather than going the Disneyland route and having speakers replay the same message from the 70's on a loop), and that is the most I have ever encountered as regards deliberate audio signage. It's enough to make me question whether or not a canyon city full of blind people would bother, even though someone with, say, a shop in the middle of the canyon would probably want to draw attention to themselves somehow. (The NFB convention's market / exhibit hall just had a maze of long tables with Braille labels to indicate what you were passing. You'd have to know to constantly check the table for labels, of course.) I expect the real answer is "yes, but do not rely exclusively on echolocation; it has gaping weaknesses, and temperature / noise / environment can influence it positively or negatively."	The power level of the echolocation signal in bats is similar to that of the sounds the human voice can produce (order of 100 decibels). This allows the animals to perceive objects over distances never recorded to be further than 20 meters. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22978903/> Regardless bats have also specially adapted receiving organ devices. The better human echolocator I've ever withnessed was that on Stan Lee's show "Superhumans". A blind man who could slowly drive a bike in a silent parking lot.
177,686	The inhabitants of a small city carved into the side of a cliff are blind and use echolocation to navigate. There is a lot of empty space, around a kilometer of between the cliff side where the village resides and the other cliff side, in other words a 1km valley. Will echolocation still work effectively in this kind of situation?	2020/06/01	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177686", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/75712/" ]	There are some exceptional real worlds cases of humans using echolocation, take a look at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation> to see a few. There are videos where people avoid obstacles, sink basket balls and take hikes along rocky paths. In a demonstration in a documentary I can't recall the name of Ben Underwood could even successfully detect small objects on a table, and he could distinguish wooden objects from metal ones . Most of these people are exceptional, in the sense that they discovered their ability and worked it out themselves. In your community though, echolocation is normal. IRL exceptional skills are probably normal in your cave, and the exceptional cases would be really cool. Finding a hanging rope to climb somewhere? No problem! Workers throwing bags of turnips to each other from a cart? Sure! Spear hunting? Why not? Spear hunting fish? Maybe. As has been noted though, the resolution of echolocation is courser than that of eyesight, and this becomes a problem over large distances; you could compare it to a low-resolution camera where far away objects are eventually within the same pixel. Also, over large distances sound is distorted, and reflections, wind etc will compromise perception. There will be some sound though, so people can probably "see" some blurry picture at least. If gravel, smooth granite, limestone, rough granite and slime-covered, moist granite all give of distinct echoes, you could maybe tell enough about far off structures to get a sense of direction, and if nothing else know what type of local environment you are in; though echolocation often assumes that the person using it makes the sounds themselves, the way in which surfaces reflect ambient sounds are important as well. Also, like @CAE Jones and @Andrew point out, many places make distinct sounds by themselves. Playing children, dripping water or a smithy will all be little beacons which will help people navigate. Let's also not forget the possibility of various hearing aids. Fairly simple parabolas can produce surprisingly focused beams of sound, and one could easily imagine these people using cones, tubes and various other shapes to direct, magnify and otherwise manipulate the sound according to their needs. This is not to speak of all the possible devices to generate special purpous sounds for certain types of echoes, or devices that detect certain sounds. All these aids, ranging from the equivalents of glasses or binoculars to observatories, would be either carried by people who need them, kept in most homes or stationed in certain buildings, maybe watchtowers. This said, other senses would also be important. Except for touch, in the form of rails along paths where echoes are impractical and so on, I think foremost of heat. If you are outside on a sunny day, you can feel where the sun is and use that to navigate much longer distances, but even more miniscule differences could be useful. Does the cave become progressively colder the further in you get? Can you feel the difference in radiation from the warm opening of the cave from it's cold interior? There could also be differences in the behaviour and temperature of the wind depending on what your surroundings look like.	The power level of the echolocation signal in bats is similar to that of the sounds the human voice can produce (order of 100 decibels). This allows the animals to perceive objects over distances never recorded to be further than 20 meters. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22978903/> Regardless bats have also specially adapted receiving organ devices. The better human echolocator I've ever withnessed was that on Stan Lee's show "Superhumans". A blind man who could slowly drive a bike in a silent parking lot.
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	The following is predicated on the assumption that the reviewer comments indeed concern mostly editorial matters which can be resolved through modest amounts of text editing (your examples look like that), and do not raise any substantial issues (an example of which would be where reviewers ask you to carry out additional experiments which would take a serious amount of time). In the latter case i would suggest to get in touch with the editor to discuss whether or not the additional work can reasonably be expected to be done within the time frame given for revision (if any). I think that two things happened: the reviewers were either sloppy or they did not have the time to read the paper un-interrupted and forgot some parts of it, and secondly: you apparently made it easy enough for them to forget parts that are relevant. Not knowing your papers, i can only give general suggestions to avoid the second issue or reduce its impact. The first is to have a proper structure in your paper: have separate (sub-)sections clarifying different aspects of your technical approach. In my sub-field of CS it is for example very common to have a (sub-)section describing the system model, which can have further sub-structure describing the fault model, load models etc -- even when I as a reviewer forgot some detail about certain assumptions or details of the experimental setup, i know where to look when such a section is there and stands out. And secondly, you can sprinkle cross-references to the relevant sections in various places ("The user did well in task X (see Section x.y for the task description) because ..") instead of repeating the task descriptions. Fixing / re-organizing your paper along these lines should definitely be part of your reaction, don't just ignore such comments. I would recommend against bugging the editor about editorial issues -- the onus is on you to make things clear and to keep reviewers happy. To summarise, I think your overall approach should be based on the assumption that all is your fault and not the reviewers. I am not saying it is, but i think the outcome overall is better if you treat it like that.	To be honest, I don't think a comments like > > the paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during > the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if > the authors could at least provide one such example > > > are incorrect. Although you described your surveys briefly, the reviewer may still want to actually have a look at them. If I were you, I would publish the surveys on the internet, and include a link to them in the paper. This way, anybody could easily see what your "eight tasks" are, and convince themselves that you did a great job :)
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	A simple rule of thumb can help to handle reviewer comments: "The reviewers are always right, even when they are wrong." This means that when reviewers make wrong assumptions or draw wrong conclusions, apparently the article is not clear enough and allowed them to do so. Mostly, in my experience, the solution that works best, is to restructure the article to prevent readers from drawing wrong conclusions. Make the text clearer, improve the structure, avoid being overly verbose. The reviewers will appreciate such an approach more than you trying to point out in the reply-to-the-reviewers why they are wrong, or just ignoring their comments. When your article was rejected immediately, then use this approach to improve the paper for a new submission, and prevent running into the same issues.	To be honest, I don't think a comments like > > the paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during > the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if > the authors could at least provide one such example > > > are incorrect. Although you described your surveys briefly, the reviewer may still want to actually have a look at them. If I were you, I would publish the surveys on the internet, and include a link to them in the paper. This way, anybody could easily see what your "eight tasks" are, and convince themselves that you did a great job :)
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	The following is predicated on the assumption that the reviewer comments indeed concern mostly editorial matters which can be resolved through modest amounts of text editing (your examples look like that), and do not raise any substantial issues (an example of which would be where reviewers ask you to carry out additional experiments which would take a serious amount of time). In the latter case i would suggest to get in touch with the editor to discuss whether or not the additional work can reasonably be expected to be done within the time frame given for revision (if any). I think that two things happened: the reviewers were either sloppy or they did not have the time to read the paper un-interrupted and forgot some parts of it, and secondly: you apparently made it easy enough for them to forget parts that are relevant. Not knowing your papers, i can only give general suggestions to avoid the second issue or reduce its impact. The first is to have a proper structure in your paper: have separate (sub-)sections clarifying different aspects of your technical approach. In my sub-field of CS it is for example very common to have a (sub-)section describing the system model, which can have further sub-structure describing the fault model, load models etc -- even when I as a reviewer forgot some detail about certain assumptions or details of the experimental setup, i know where to look when such a section is there and stands out. And secondly, you can sprinkle cross-references to the relevant sections in various places ("The user did well in task X (see Section x.y for the task description) because ..") instead of repeating the task descriptions. Fixing / re-organizing your paper along these lines should definitely be part of your reaction, don't just ignore such comments. I would recommend against bugging the editor about editorial issues -- the onus is on you to make things clear and to keep reviewers happy. To summarise, I think your overall approach should be based on the assumption that all is your fault and not the reviewers. I am not saying it is, but i think the outcome overall is better if you treat it like that.	If the article is accepted and there is no rebuttal phase or step and you really had a section that called out the tasks, ignore that part of the review. If there's an opportunity to rebut, or this is a journal where the editor needs a response, then write back to the editor that you have already provided example tasks, cite the page number and section, and quote the text. There's really nothing more you need to do or should do.
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	I almost never ignore a reviewer comment. Even if the reviewer is simply wrong, the way in which they are wrong usually points out a way that some significant subpopulation of readers is likely to misread the paper. Given this, when a reviewer seems to have simply overlooked a chunk of the paper, I will generally fiddle with the wording, the structure or the introductory material in order to make it pop out more clearly. For example, with your "eight tasks" example, I might do any or all of the following to make the presence and visibility of the material more blatant: * Make sure that the introduction has a "the structure of this paper" subsection that includes the word "example" in it. * Do the same for the section including the tasks with a "structure of this section" paragraph at its beginning. * Add a subsection header for "Examples of Tasks" * Put the question examples into a bullet list, rather than prose Remember, the reviewer may be incompetent and sloppy, but many of your readers will be also. You want to get your point across to as many of them as possible, regardless.	Being a researcher myself and having seen how the review process is done, I know that there are reviewers that give the review task to their students and these students who are not experts evaluate papers written by other serious researchers. Of course, later on the original reviewer also does a check on the reviews written by the students, but I think this is a huge blow to the quality of publication. Of course, I cannot tell how much common is this practice. May be very little. And since you complained that you frequently get those negative reviews, I believe you are not a victim of these non-qualified reviewers. On the other side, as another answer mentions - a reviewer is always right. So, from your description, what I would suggest is, try to create clear description of your examples. For example, write subheadings, "Example 1", "Example 2" and this way, there is no chance even a half careful reviewer will miss it. Remember, these days most of the reviewers are overburdened with other work, and if your paper is not very clearly readable, chances are you will get negative remarks, even when you think you don't deserve it.
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	I almost never ignore a reviewer comment. Even if the reviewer is simply wrong, the way in which they are wrong usually points out a way that some significant subpopulation of readers is likely to misread the paper. Given this, when a reviewer seems to have simply overlooked a chunk of the paper, I will generally fiddle with the wording, the structure or the introductory material in order to make it pop out more clearly. For example, with your "eight tasks" example, I might do any or all of the following to make the presence and visibility of the material more blatant: * Make sure that the introduction has a "the structure of this paper" subsection that includes the word "example" in it. * Do the same for the section including the tasks with a "structure of this section" paragraph at its beginning. * Add a subsection header for "Examples of Tasks" * Put the question examples into a bullet list, rather than prose Remember, the reviewer may be incompetent and sloppy, but many of your readers will be also. You want to get your point across to as many of them as possible, regardless.	If the article is accepted and there is no rebuttal phase or step and you really had a section that called out the tasks, ignore that part of the review. If there's an opportunity to rebut, or this is a journal where the editor needs a response, then write back to the editor that you have already provided example tasks, cite the page number and section, and quote the text. There's really nothing more you need to do or should do.
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	A simple rule of thumb can help to handle reviewer comments: "The reviewers are always right, even when they are wrong." This means that when reviewers make wrong assumptions or draw wrong conclusions, apparently the article is not clear enough and allowed them to do so. Mostly, in my experience, the solution that works best, is to restructure the article to prevent readers from drawing wrong conclusions. Make the text clearer, improve the structure, avoid being overly verbose. The reviewers will appreciate such an approach more than you trying to point out in the reply-to-the-reviewers why they are wrong, or just ignoring their comments. When your article was rejected immediately, then use this approach to improve the paper for a new submission, and prevent running into the same issues.	If the article is accepted and there is no rebuttal phase or step and you really had a section that called out the tasks, ignore that part of the review. If there's an opportunity to rebut, or this is a journal where the editor needs a response, then write back to the editor that you have already provided example tasks, cite the page number and section, and quote the text. There's really nothing more you need to do or should do.
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	A simple rule of thumb can help to handle reviewer comments: "The reviewers are always right, even when they are wrong." This means that when reviewers make wrong assumptions or draw wrong conclusions, apparently the article is not clear enough and allowed them to do so. Mostly, in my experience, the solution that works best, is to restructure the article to prevent readers from drawing wrong conclusions. Make the text clearer, improve the structure, avoid being overly verbose. The reviewers will appreciate such an approach more than you trying to point out in the reply-to-the-reviewers why they are wrong, or just ignoring their comments. When your article was rejected immediately, then use this approach to improve the paper for a new submission, and prevent running into the same issues.	The following is predicated on the assumption that the reviewer comments indeed concern mostly editorial matters which can be resolved through modest amounts of text editing (your examples look like that), and do not raise any substantial issues (an example of which would be where reviewers ask you to carry out additional experiments which would take a serious amount of time). In the latter case i would suggest to get in touch with the editor to discuss whether or not the additional work can reasonably be expected to be done within the time frame given for revision (if any). I think that two things happened: the reviewers were either sloppy or they did not have the time to read the paper un-interrupted and forgot some parts of it, and secondly: you apparently made it easy enough for them to forget parts that are relevant. Not knowing your papers, i can only give general suggestions to avoid the second issue or reduce its impact. The first is to have a proper structure in your paper: have separate (sub-)sections clarifying different aspects of your technical approach. In my sub-field of CS it is for example very common to have a (sub-)section describing the system model, which can have further sub-structure describing the fault model, load models etc -- even when I as a reviewer forgot some detail about certain assumptions or details of the experimental setup, i know where to look when such a section is there and stands out. And secondly, you can sprinkle cross-references to the relevant sections in various places ("The user did well in task X (see Section x.y for the task description) because ..") instead of repeating the task descriptions. Fixing / re-organizing your paper along these lines should definitely be part of your reaction, don't just ignore such comments. I would recommend against bugging the editor about editorial issues -- the onus is on you to make things clear and to keep reviewers happy. To summarise, I think your overall approach should be based on the assumption that all is your fault and not the reviewers. I am not saying it is, but i think the outcome overall is better if you treat it like that.
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	Being a researcher myself and having seen how the review process is done, I know that there are reviewers that give the review task to their students and these students who are not experts evaluate papers written by other serious researchers. Of course, later on the original reviewer also does a check on the reviews written by the students, but I think this is a huge blow to the quality of publication. Of course, I cannot tell how much common is this practice. May be very little. And since you complained that you frequently get those negative reviews, I believe you are not a victim of these non-qualified reviewers. On the other side, as another answer mentions - a reviewer is always right. So, from your description, what I would suggest is, try to create clear description of your examples. For example, write subheadings, "Example 1", "Example 2" and this way, there is no chance even a half careful reviewer will miss it. Remember, these days most of the reviewers are overburdened with other work, and if your paper is not very clearly readable, chances are you will get negative remarks, even when you think you don't deserve it.	To be honest, I don't think a comments like > > the paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during > the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if > the authors could at least provide one such example > > > are incorrect. Although you described your surveys briefly, the reviewer may still want to actually have a look at them. If I were you, I would publish the surveys on the internet, and include a link to them in the paper. This way, anybody could easily see what your "eight tasks" are, and convince themselves that you did a great job :)
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	I almost never ignore a reviewer comment. Even if the reviewer is simply wrong, the way in which they are wrong usually points out a way that some significant subpopulation of readers is likely to misread the paper. Given this, when a reviewer seems to have simply overlooked a chunk of the paper, I will generally fiddle with the wording, the structure or the introductory material in order to make it pop out more clearly. For example, with your "eight tasks" example, I might do any or all of the following to make the presence and visibility of the material more blatant: * Make sure that the introduction has a "the structure of this paper" subsection that includes the word "example" in it. * Do the same for the section including the tasks with a "structure of this section" paragraph at its beginning. * Add a subsection header for "Examples of Tasks" * Put the question examples into a bullet list, rather than prose Remember, the reviewer may be incompetent and sloppy, but many of your readers will be also. You want to get your point across to as many of them as possible, regardless.	The following is predicated on the assumption that the reviewer comments indeed concern mostly editorial matters which can be resolved through modest amounts of text editing (your examples look like that), and do not raise any substantial issues (an example of which would be where reviewers ask you to carry out additional experiments which would take a serious amount of time). In the latter case i would suggest to get in touch with the editor to discuss whether or not the additional work can reasonably be expected to be done within the time frame given for revision (if any). I think that two things happened: the reviewers were either sloppy or they did not have the time to read the paper un-interrupted and forgot some parts of it, and secondly: you apparently made it easy enough for them to forget parts that are relevant. Not knowing your papers, i can only give general suggestions to avoid the second issue or reduce its impact. The first is to have a proper structure in your paper: have separate (sub-)sections clarifying different aspects of your technical approach. In my sub-field of CS it is for example very common to have a (sub-)section describing the system model, which can have further sub-structure describing the fault model, load models etc -- even when I as a reviewer forgot some detail about certain assumptions or details of the experimental setup, i know where to look when such a section is there and stands out. And secondly, you can sprinkle cross-references to the relevant sections in various places ("The user did well in task X (see Section x.y for the task description) because ..") instead of repeating the task descriptions. Fixing / re-organizing your paper along these lines should definitely be part of your reaction, don't just ignore such comments. I would recommend against bugging the editor about editorial issues -- the onus is on you to make things clear and to keep reviewers happy. To summarise, I think your overall approach should be based on the assumption that all is your fault and not the reviewers. I am not saying it is, but i think the outcome overall is better if you treat it like that.
49,185	As this has happened to me several times for different papers now, I am not describing a specific case here, but the abstract aspects that were common to all situations. Occasionally, in the "Tasks" or "Materials" section of the "Evaluation" or "User Study" chapter, papers of mine contain statements such as: * "Figure ... shows one of the tasks from the user study. The correct answer was ... ." * "For the user study, we had prepared eight tasks. They were given in the form of natural-language questions. Users were supposed to use our novel concept to input the appropriate parameters as described by the questions. Questions ranged from simple (such as '...?', see Figure ... for the solution) to complex (such as '...?', cf. solution in Figure ...)." In these cases, the figure captions once again mention the figures depict questions and/or solutions from the user study. Occasionally, these are met with reviewer comments such as: * "The paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if the authors could at least provide one such example. Without this, I find it very hard to get a clear idea of how the study was conducted, and thereby, I also cannot tell how reliable the results presented in Section ... are." I base my reasoning on the idea that this reviewer comment is, plain and simple, incorrect, as I did provide concrete examples of tasks. If I am somehow mistaken about this, please do let me know. While such statements were certainly not the only reason for voting to reject, some of the reviewers who wrote something along these lines made it rather clear that they saw the alleged lack of any task examples as one of the most critical issues with the submission. My question focuses on the situation that such a paper is getting revised - either, because it was accepted after all, and I am preparing a camera-ready version, or because it was rejected, and I am trying to improve it before submitting it elsewhere: What is the appropriate reaction with respect to such comments? * Ignore the statements and do not change anything about the respective examples in my paper. This might be a viable way to go, but it leaves a bad taste to completely ignore some reviewer statements, even though they are clearly comprehensible and should be straightforward to implement. * Re-word the sentences mentioning the examples. I might do that, but I am wary of making things worse, as I already consider the respective statements in my paper quite unambiguous as they are. * Add more examples, and possibly at different locations. This could make it harder to miss the examples, but in CS conference papers, space is an extremely scarce resource. * Ask the editor. Especially in cases where the paper was eventually still accepted, this seems quite extreme to me. I feel contacting the editor should be reserved to truly exceptional and severe issues, not "every-day worries" of all authors who are preparing their CR-versions. Note that I am not asking [how to deal with the review decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23836/paper-rejection-based-on-unfair-review). Even though it is slightly annoying if a rejection is indeed based on incorrect reviewer statements, I am ok with resubmitting a revised version elsewhere. I am specifically asking how to revise the particular parts that were incorrectly criticized. Some peculiarities of my field to note that might not be obvious: * Only some conferences have a rebuttal phase. If they do, it is not guaranteed (or even reasonably likely) that especially reviewers who criticized a paper a lot will actually read the rebuttal and possibly even amend their review. Also, these rebuttals are usually limited in length (e.g. to 500 words), so you can usually mention only a selection of all issues raised by reviewers. * CR-versions are rarely accompanied with explanatory letters to the editors (or, more precisely, the program committee) in my experience. + Submission usually happens by means of web-based submission systems which allow the upload of exactly one PDF file, which is sometimes automatically checked on formal factors, such as number of pages (so even tacking an extra page with explanatory notes in front of the paper will not work). + If an opportunity is provided to upload some additional files, this is usually meant for uploading sources and supplementary material such as videos that will be put on the proceedings CD. It is not clear whether the material will be sifted thoroughly enough so letters to the editors will be found in time and treated appropriately. * My field is related to HCI. + Therefore, contributions are sometimes graphical in nature. Consequently, figures sometimes do not just provide information about the contribution (statistical graphs, exemplary architectures), figures are often a crucial part for showing the contribution. In other words, sometimes, the depiction is the contribution, or it shows how the novel concept presented in the paper does something. + User studies are used to test how well human users can get along with the novel concept. Therefore, tasks are often written as questions. Study participants then have to find the correct answers to these questions by using the novel concept being tested. This usually means that they have to interact/make inputs with/in the implemented prototype that shows the novel concept. This is meant to mimick how the concept would be used in real life, where users would use the respective novel HCI technique for retrieving information, as well.	2015/07/22	[ "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49185", "https://academia.stackexchange.com", "https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017/" ]	I almost never ignore a reviewer comment. Even if the reviewer is simply wrong, the way in which they are wrong usually points out a way that some significant subpopulation of readers is likely to misread the paper. Given this, when a reviewer seems to have simply overlooked a chunk of the paper, I will generally fiddle with the wording, the structure or the introductory material in order to make it pop out more clearly. For example, with your "eight tasks" example, I might do any or all of the following to make the presence and visibility of the material more blatant: * Make sure that the introduction has a "the structure of this paper" subsection that includes the word "example" in it. * Do the same for the section including the tasks with a "structure of this section" paragraph at its beginning. * Add a subsection header for "Examples of Tasks" * Put the question examples into a bullet list, rather than prose Remember, the reviewer may be incompetent and sloppy, but many of your readers will be also. You want to get your point across to as many of them as possible, regardless.	To be honest, I don't think a comments like > > the paper does not provide any example of the tasks presented during > the user study. It would greatly improve the quality of the paper if > the authors could at least provide one such example > > > are incorrect. Although you described your surveys briefly, the reviewer may still want to actually have a look at them. If I were you, I would publish the surveys on the internet, and include a link to them in the paper. This way, anybody could easily see what your "eight tasks" are, and convince themselves that you did a great job :)
192,514	Currently one of the websites I'm visiting blocks all VPN traffic from services like privateinternetaccess, torguard, and other vpn providers. How can one prevent VPN detection without exposing their IP address? The service I'm trying to use is banned in my country, which is why I need to use a VPN, but it seems that this service now has banned all VPNs too. What are some solutions and how can they even detect that I'm coming from a VPN?	2018/08/28	[ "https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/192514", "https://security.stackexchange.com", "https://security.stackexchange.com/users/20141/" ]	Lets handle this question as two different: > > How can they even detect that I'm coming from a VPN? > > > It's not that hard to look if someone is coming from a VPN provider. Most of them are using static IP addresses. There are lists of their exit gateways. They block this IP and no one can come through. Even if they don't use such type of an address they just need to make an automatic DNS reverse lookup and see that this have to be a VPN provider. If this also don't work, you can look into the round trip time of a tcp ack. If it lasts too long you are able to take this as an indicator. > > What are some solutions? > > > That's a bit tricky. If you are into VPN's I would suggest to rent a Server in a country where the Website is allowed. After that you should set an OpenVPN Server up. Maybe [this](https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/HOWTO) Tutorial helps you. Connect to your own server and surf on this site.	One thing you could try ======================= I have to make a few assumptions to answer this question, considering I do not know what measures the website has in place to avoid access through a VPN. As a result, this method may or may not work. If you are able to find a cheap VPS host, you could setup your own VPN on that VPS. In case you didnt know; a VPS is a Virtual Private Server and a VPN is a Virtual Private Network. I suggest searching for the best way to go about setting up the server once you've got a VPS to work with or following one of the tutorials I've linked below. Usually depending on how much you spend, it may not be the fastest, but it could quite possibly get the job done. Make sure that the IP address the server you rent is labeled to a country that is allowed to access the website you're attempting to connect to. As a side note, I recommend using the SoftEther VPN Server software for a Windows based VPS, but if you use a Linux based VPS, I suggest using OpenVPN Server. There are some excellent youtube tutorials for setting these up. I provided one that I found for each of them in links below. [Softether VPN Server Software Setup Tutorial (For Windows VPS)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbvRhPqNCsk) [OpenVPN Server Software Setup Tutorial (For Linux VPS)](https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/howto-setup-openvpn-server-on-ubuntu-linux-14-04-or-16-04-lts/)
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	Dragons would need to have a reason to be supersonic in order to evolve to do so. Being able to fly at supersonic speeds will have incredibly high metabolic and structural costs for the dragon. In order for one to evolve these traits, we need to answer the following question: why do supersonic dragons produce more offspring than non-supersonic dragons? If supersonic flight doesn't get more food, or more mates, dragons won't evolve it. Similar non-supersonic dragons would outcompete the supersonic ones, since they would require far less food. In nature, nothing else flies supersonic, and supersonic flight won't be worth its calories if its used to catch cattle or ponies or other such animals. That's not to say that it couldn't be useful, though. Dragons have projectile weapons, so if dragons mostly fight against other dragons, supersonic flight could give them a key edge in dogfighting, especially since the dragon they were closing in on wouldn't be able to hear them coming. Dragons would need to consume incredibly high caloric density food in order to evolve to be supersonic. It takes a lot of energy for an aircraft to reach supersonic speeds, probably more than an animal could obtain eating other animals. If dragons fly at supersonic speeds, they'll need to consume something more energetically dense. Something like oil. If dragons consume oil from naturally occurring sources, they could directly burn this in an internal jet engine in order to achieve supersonic flight. The Ecology of Dragons Dragons are large creatures that eat oil. They both extract calories from it, and produce refined fuel which they burn in their engines. These engines resemble a pulse-jet engine, and are primarily comprised of carbon fibers and thermally resistant graphites which the dragons synthesize from their food. Naturally occurring oil, of course, is rare, and as a result, dragons have become incredibly territorial. They've got large, stiff bodies covered in smooth scales to reduce their drag, and can launch flaming globs of tar at one another mid flight. Large dragons can fly at supersonic speeds, which gives them maneuvering advantages in their aerial fights over oil-rich territory. Because their bodies are stiffened for high speed flight, they can't turn their heads very much, so skill in dogfighting is key for dragons to protect their territories. These supersonic dogfights, of course, are necessarily short, as the thick scales of graphite that dragons grow on the leading edges of their wings and along their heads slowly ablate during supersonic flight. Dragons prefer to cruise at fast subsonic speeds and use their size and breath weapons to dispatch smaller challengers if possible, rapidly accelerating into the supersonic regime only when absolutely necessary to outmaneuver an opponent. These graphite scales also provide a measure of resistance against the breath weapons of other dragons. Larger dragons can grow these heat shields faster and thicker than smaller dragons. As this gives the largest of these creatures a major edge in combat, evolution has driven these majestic creatures to grow to truly colossal sizes.	Actually I think a smaller dragon would be more likely to achieve these high flight speeds. If for no other reason than it can help them escape larger dragons and can be used as a weapon. I don't think the dragon could reach these speeds by flapping their wings alone, especially since most dragons would already need magic just to fly because of their size. But if they are very fast and can fly high into the stratosphere, then turn down and dive, they might be able to break the sound barrier with just a little handwavium. This could have come about partly from escaping larger dragons, (fly higher than they can) and then attacking either prey or as another defense against the larger predators. If it was used as an attack dive they might need reinforced heads and necks, but the sonic boom would really mess up another flying creature or any other creature it passes near.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	Taking the speed of a perigrine falcon as 1/3rd the speed of sound. We know that the force of acceleration is proportional to mass. We know that the force opposing this (air resistance) is proportional to surface area and the square of velocity. We can rearrange those to say that velocity is proportional to SQRT(mass/surface area). We can say that mass is proportional to density and wingspan^3. We can say that surface area is proportional to wingspan^2. So velocity =k x SQRT(density x wingspan). We can define density to be density(any animal) = density(peregrine falcon) x y. using symbols v = p(falcon) x y. Where y is the density of the animal divided by density of a falcon. So v = k x SQRT(pyw). For a peregrine falcon, v = 1/3 speed of sound = 113 m/s. Where; p=1,w =1. 113 = k x SQRT(1). So k = 1. For a dragon: v = 113 SQRT(xw). Lets set w = 30 meters, and density double that of a falcon, x=2. v = 113 SQRT(60) = 875 = nearly triple that of sound. Assuming you have solved the problem of how such a big and heavy animal flies, then getting them to dive much faster than sound is trivial. The bigger they are, the faster they fall.	Well, the big problem here is air resistance. Falling objects top out at a speed of somewhat above 500 km/h because of air resistance. Sound of speed is 1200 km/h. So it would need immense energy to speed up above that limit. Luckily there is an easy way around it: just decrease the air pressure. To get still enough oxygen to support big creatures the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere has to be increased. But all that are possibilities and would it make easier to achieve higher speeds. Still, [most birds reach their highest velocity in dives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_speed), so you may want to let the dragon break to supersonic speeds while make an diving attack from a higher flight position.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	The real issue behind your dragon problem isn't biological - it's mechanical. The fastest animal on earth is the Peregrine Falcon, which can only reach speeds of 389 KM/H while going at full-dive, which is several magnitudes slower than needed. Simply put, an organic life form could not possibly achieve supersonic speed... Unless they can make it into space. Skydiver Felix Baumgartner have been well-documented to have broken the sound barrier simply by falling high enough - 24 miles up to be exact. If your dragon can get itself that high up in the first place, all it would take is falling down, then catching itself before it breaks every bone in its body. The problems your dragon would face trying to do this are: * Getting that high up in the first place * Surviving the atmospheric climb without externals * Breaking its fall in a non-catastrophic way Let's get our dragon into space first. Getting Up Into Space ------------------------- If your dragon is Titan-levels of large, and you don't mind it leaving a crater behind when it launches into the air, it could simply push itself off the ground and, with a light enough body, accelerate itself up 24 miles high. This would require an enormous amount of energy, but we're not looking to solve the ecosystem problem of a giant dragon - we just want to get it into space. Another option, that could pair well with the above solution, would be hydrogen gas pockets that allow it to float up into the atmosphere (and would explain where it gets all that fire, if it can breath fire that is). You wouldn't make it all the way up with just hydrogen, but coupled with a good launch, you might just make it high enough. This would also have to be aided by wings to give them additional thrust(origin of their wings I will get to later) since any momentum that could solely carry them up that far would create a sonic boom on takeoff (Not that this would be necessarily a bad side-effect). Getting both of these would be evolutionarily unlikely - you would need a strong food chain full of high-caloric prey, coupled with a reason to float and have such strong legs. Fortunately, I have an idea... Surviving In Space ---------------------- Your dragon will need to not only survive in the incredibly low-atmosphere of space, but also survive the lack of oxygen involved with being so high in the first place. Evolution-wise, there's one option that might give you both of these at once: Deep sea hibernating ancestors. Deep sea ancestors on the scale of Giant Squids would give you giant, strong dragons with especially strong legs that would be increasingly strong outside of the high pressures of the ocean, and hibernating beneath the sea, perhaps after feasting on giant squids, would give them a reason to survive without oxygen. It even suggests a means by which this behavior was evolutionarily chosen for - launching themselves from the sea floor, the faster and stronger dragons, who could also handle the rapid change in pressure, could more easily catch Giant Squid the faster they can go. Some dragons may have even figured out that they can get a better chance of catching them on the return-trip, which would lead them to trying to jump higher and higher, until eventually they evolve the ability to survive breaching the water, then as they move onto land, learn to use their strong legs to leap into space. Surviving the Drop ---------------------- This is your biggest challenge - to explain how a dragon that evolved from a sea creature would survive a 24-mile drop. Their initial sheer resistance to pressure (possibly owing to their scales) helps, but they'll need SOME way to catch themselves as they break the sound barrier. Fortunately, being from the sea gives them one unique feature that could help them with this - Fins, or evolutionarily speaking, evolved wings. Originally used to slow themselves back down after catching a squid, they could use them to catch the air and shift their direction mid-flight, so that their momentum is reduced and redirected in a wholly non-catastrophic, and entirely sound-barrier-breaking way. There you have it - dragons that leap into space and come crashing down at supersonic speeds, evolved from giant sea-dwelling predators that ate giant squids literally for breakfast.	What if the dragons utilize their standard, magically hot fire to modify themselves for supersonic flight? Arcane knowledge of metallurgy and surgery, passed down through the ages, is used to augment their bones with titanium alloys bathed in dragonfire, strengthening their frames for the ordeal while being hollowed to reduce weight. Scales are reshaped and smoothed to reduce friction, and re-enforced on the leading edge to take the brunt of supersonic flight. Tanks are added to artificial structures, and the dragons use magic to purify and store enhanced rocket fuel that they then use to literally rocket themselves to supersonic speeds.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	I was going to post this as a comment on @Zibbobz's answer, however it kind of grew to being its own answer. If there was some local fauna which was kind of like kelp. With pockets of hydrogen gas to help hold it's self up. The plant would have evolved this to help them scatter their seeds or pollen over a very large area. When the dragon wants to go hunting it grabs hold of lots of these. Cuts them free of the ground and floats up, up and away. These plants will have evolved to have very stretchy gas sacks so they can reach higher altitudes. (a normal weather balloon can stretch four times its size during flight[1](http://www.diyspaceexploration.com/introduction-to-high-altitude-balloons/)) During the early phase of the flight the dragon takes many deep breaths to oxygenate its blood and then holds its breath once it passes out of the range where it can breath. Whales can hold their breath for up to 90 minutes. Once the dragon is high enough or the balloon/kelp pops it drops down in a very stream lined shape with its wings folded back. It is still holding its breath. Here it will break the sound barrier. The pray it is falling on will not see or hear it coming. The pray is going to have to give it a huge amount of energy. This has to feed a dragon after all. As the dragon needs to slow down it first goes from noes down to nose level then slowly expands its wings. Hopefully managing to glide out of the fall before it splatters its self into the ground. The highly flammable plants may be a problem with this plan. Maybe need to explain that the plants seeds can be activated by fire and thus why they are around fire breathing dragons. We are trying to deal with big dragons, some amount of hand waving is required to deal with the square/cubed law.	If you are only concerned about the boom and do not necessarily need flight, you could consider different methods of creating a sonic boom. One scenario that is not so far-fetched and actually might have happened is that dinosaurs with very long tails could have flicked them like a bullwhip, accelerating the tip of their tails to the speed of sound. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/02/science/did-dinosaurs-break-the-sound-barrier.html) is an article from '97 about a paleontologist discussing whether it is possible.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	What if the dragons utilize their standard, magically hot fire to modify themselves for supersonic flight? Arcane knowledge of metallurgy and surgery, passed down through the ages, is used to augment their bones with titanium alloys bathed in dragonfire, strengthening their frames for the ordeal while being hollowed to reduce weight. Scales are reshaped and smoothed to reduce friction, and re-enforced on the leading edge to take the brunt of supersonic flight. Tanks are added to artificial structures, and the dragons use magic to purify and store enhanced rocket fuel that they then use to literally rocket themselves to supersonic speeds.	Well, the big problem here is air resistance. Falling objects top out at a speed of somewhat above 500 km/h because of air resistance. Sound of speed is 1200 km/h. So it would need immense energy to speed up above that limit. Luckily there is an easy way around it: just decrease the air pressure. To get still enough oxygen to support big creatures the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere has to be increased. But all that are possibilities and would it make easier to achieve higher speeds. Still, [most birds reach their highest velocity in dives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_speed), so you may want to let the dragon break to supersonic speeds while make an diving attack from a higher flight position.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	I was going to post this as a comment on @Zibbobz's answer, however it kind of grew to being its own answer. If there was some local fauna which was kind of like kelp. With pockets of hydrogen gas to help hold it's self up. The plant would have evolved this to help them scatter their seeds or pollen over a very large area. When the dragon wants to go hunting it grabs hold of lots of these. Cuts them free of the ground and floats up, up and away. These plants will have evolved to have very stretchy gas sacks so they can reach higher altitudes. (a normal weather balloon can stretch four times its size during flight[1](http://www.diyspaceexploration.com/introduction-to-high-altitude-balloons/)) During the early phase of the flight the dragon takes many deep breaths to oxygenate its blood and then holds its breath once it passes out of the range where it can breath. Whales can hold their breath for up to 90 minutes. Once the dragon is high enough or the balloon/kelp pops it drops down in a very stream lined shape with its wings folded back. It is still holding its breath. Here it will break the sound barrier. The pray it is falling on will not see or hear it coming. The pray is going to have to give it a huge amount of energy. This has to feed a dragon after all. As the dragon needs to slow down it first goes from noes down to nose level then slowly expands its wings. Hopefully managing to glide out of the fall before it splatters its self into the ground. The highly flammable plants may be a problem with this plan. Maybe need to explain that the plants seeds can be activated by fire and thus why they are around fire breathing dragons. We are trying to deal with big dragons, some amount of hand waving is required to deal with the square/cubed law.	Taking the speed of a perigrine falcon as 1/3rd the speed of sound. We know that the force of acceleration is proportional to mass. We know that the force opposing this (air resistance) is proportional to surface area and the square of velocity. We can rearrange those to say that velocity is proportional to SQRT(mass/surface area). We can say that mass is proportional to density and wingspan^3. We can say that surface area is proportional to wingspan^2. So velocity =k x SQRT(density x wingspan). We can define density to be density(any animal) = density(peregrine falcon) x y. using symbols v = p(falcon) x y. Where y is the density of the animal divided by density of a falcon. So v = k x SQRT(pyw). For a peregrine falcon, v = 1/3 speed of sound = 113 m/s. Where; p=1,w =1. 113 = k x SQRT(1). So k = 1. For a dragon: v = 113 SQRT(xw). Lets set w = 30 meters, and density double that of a falcon, x=2. v = 113 SQRT(60) = 875 = nearly triple that of sound. Assuming you have solved the problem of how such a big and heavy animal flies, then getting them to dive much faster than sound is trivial. The bigger they are, the faster they fall.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	Dragons would need to have a reason to be supersonic in order to evolve to do so. Being able to fly at supersonic speeds will have incredibly high metabolic and structural costs for the dragon. In order for one to evolve these traits, we need to answer the following question: why do supersonic dragons produce more offspring than non-supersonic dragons? If supersonic flight doesn't get more food, or more mates, dragons won't evolve it. Similar non-supersonic dragons would outcompete the supersonic ones, since they would require far less food. In nature, nothing else flies supersonic, and supersonic flight won't be worth its calories if its used to catch cattle or ponies or other such animals. That's not to say that it couldn't be useful, though. Dragons have projectile weapons, so if dragons mostly fight against other dragons, supersonic flight could give them a key edge in dogfighting, especially since the dragon they were closing in on wouldn't be able to hear them coming. Dragons would need to consume incredibly high caloric density food in order to evolve to be supersonic. It takes a lot of energy for an aircraft to reach supersonic speeds, probably more than an animal could obtain eating other animals. If dragons fly at supersonic speeds, they'll need to consume something more energetically dense. Something like oil. If dragons consume oil from naturally occurring sources, they could directly burn this in an internal jet engine in order to achieve supersonic flight. The Ecology of Dragons Dragons are large creatures that eat oil. They both extract calories from it, and produce refined fuel which they burn in their engines. These engines resemble a pulse-jet engine, and are primarily comprised of carbon fibers and thermally resistant graphites which the dragons synthesize from their food. Naturally occurring oil, of course, is rare, and as a result, dragons have become incredibly territorial. They've got large, stiff bodies covered in smooth scales to reduce their drag, and can launch flaming globs of tar at one another mid flight. Large dragons can fly at supersonic speeds, which gives them maneuvering advantages in their aerial fights over oil-rich territory. Because their bodies are stiffened for high speed flight, they can't turn their heads very much, so skill in dogfighting is key for dragons to protect their territories. These supersonic dogfights, of course, are necessarily short, as the thick scales of graphite that dragons grow on the leading edges of their wings and along their heads slowly ablate during supersonic flight. Dragons prefer to cruise at fast subsonic speeds and use their size and breath weapons to dispatch smaller challengers if possible, rapidly accelerating into the supersonic regime only when absolutely necessary to outmaneuver an opponent. These graphite scales also provide a measure of resistance against the breath weapons of other dragons. Larger dragons can grow these heat shields faster and thicker than smaller dragons. As this gives the largest of these creatures a major edge in combat, evolution has driven these majestic creatures to grow to truly colossal sizes.	A creature meeting your size, speed, and strength requirements would have to be composed of extremely lightweight tissues, most notably including the skeleton (which must be able to handle the physical stresses of accelerating to supersonic speeds rapidly) and muscles (which must be able to convert the creature's biochemical or magical energies into mechanical energy efficiently, rapidly, and at high volume). The most "realistic" way I could imagine all of these requirements being satisfied is if your dragon looks like a blimp: a giant sack of air that moves short distances by flapping its wings, and naturally floats in the air because its body density is about equal to the surrounding air density. Such a creature might achieve supersonic speeds by rapidy forcing most of the air in its body cavity through a small opening to create jet propulsion. This would also cause the creature to deflate to a narrow, streamlined shape that's more aerodynamic for long, straight flight paths. We could go into further technical detail, but as you can see the result is a bit ridiculous. Really what I'm saying is you need a fart dragon.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	If you are only concerned about the boom and do not necessarily need flight, you could consider different methods of creating a sonic boom. One scenario that is not so far-fetched and actually might have happened is that dinosaurs with very long tails could have flicked them like a bullwhip, accelerating the tip of their tails to the speed of sound. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/02/science/did-dinosaurs-break-the-sound-barrier.html) is an article from '97 about a paleontologist discussing whether it is possible.	A creature meeting your size, speed, and strength requirements would have to be composed of extremely lightweight tissues, most notably including the skeleton (which must be able to handle the physical stresses of accelerating to supersonic speeds rapidly) and muscles (which must be able to convert the creature's biochemical or magical energies into mechanical energy efficiently, rapidly, and at high volume). The most "realistic" way I could imagine all of these requirements being satisfied is if your dragon looks like a blimp: a giant sack of air that moves short distances by flapping its wings, and naturally floats in the air because its body density is about equal to the surrounding air density. Such a creature might achieve supersonic speeds by rapidy forcing most of the air in its body cavity through a small opening to create jet propulsion. This would also cause the creature to deflate to a narrow, streamlined shape that's more aerodynamic for long, straight flight paths. We could go into further technical detail, but as you can see the result is a bit ridiculous. Really what I'm saying is you need a fart dragon.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	I was going to post this as a comment on @Zibbobz's answer, however it kind of grew to being its own answer. If there was some local fauna which was kind of like kelp. With pockets of hydrogen gas to help hold it's self up. The plant would have evolved this to help them scatter their seeds or pollen over a very large area. When the dragon wants to go hunting it grabs hold of lots of these. Cuts them free of the ground and floats up, up and away. These plants will have evolved to have very stretchy gas sacks so they can reach higher altitudes. (a normal weather balloon can stretch four times its size during flight[1](http://www.diyspaceexploration.com/introduction-to-high-altitude-balloons/)) During the early phase of the flight the dragon takes many deep breaths to oxygenate its blood and then holds its breath once it passes out of the range where it can breath. Whales can hold their breath for up to 90 minutes. Once the dragon is high enough or the balloon/kelp pops it drops down in a very stream lined shape with its wings folded back. It is still holding its breath. Here it will break the sound barrier. The pray it is falling on will not see or hear it coming. The pray is going to have to give it a huge amount of energy. This has to feed a dragon after all. As the dragon needs to slow down it first goes from noes down to nose level then slowly expands its wings. Hopefully managing to glide out of the fall before it splatters its self into the ground. The highly flammable plants may be a problem with this plan. Maybe need to explain that the plants seeds can be activated by fire and thus why they are around fire breathing dragons. We are trying to deal with big dragons, some amount of hand waving is required to deal with the square/cubed law.	A creature meeting your size, speed, and strength requirements would have to be composed of extremely lightweight tissues, most notably including the skeleton (which must be able to handle the physical stresses of accelerating to supersonic speeds rapidly) and muscles (which must be able to convert the creature's biochemical or magical energies into mechanical energy efficiently, rapidly, and at high volume). The most "realistic" way I could imagine all of these requirements being satisfied is if your dragon looks like a blimp: a giant sack of air that moves short distances by flapping its wings, and naturally floats in the air because its body density is about equal to the surrounding air density. Such a creature might achieve supersonic speeds by rapidy forcing most of the air in its body cavity through a small opening to create jet propulsion. This would also cause the creature to deflate to a narrow, streamlined shape that's more aerodynamic for long, straight flight paths. We could go into further technical detail, but as you can see the result is a bit ridiculous. Really what I'm saying is you need a fart dragon.
18,705	Taking several notable real life inspirations from the animal kingdom I like to design a realistic Dragon towering any creature ever lived but has a nasty habit of generating sonic boom every where in its wake. What are the prerequisites my Dragon have to evolve in order to attain supersonic flight? I think it's must have close to a mammal blood circulation to supply ample oxygen to its already effective muscular system and is warm blooded like a cheetahs to give it energy for sudden rush of adrenaline, a crocodiles eyelids to cover it eyes, and so on. My concern is that this colossal winged breast would be too heavy and its skeletal structure have to be augmented naturally through evolution but I have no clues how any animal can survive unhurt after performing such a earth shattering feat any ideas? No tech pls and absolutely no thunderpants!	2015/06/08	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18705", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/8400/" ]	I was going to post this as a comment on @Zibbobz's answer, however it kind of grew to being its own answer. If there was some local fauna which was kind of like kelp. With pockets of hydrogen gas to help hold it's self up. The plant would have evolved this to help them scatter their seeds or pollen over a very large area. When the dragon wants to go hunting it grabs hold of lots of these. Cuts them free of the ground and floats up, up and away. These plants will have evolved to have very stretchy gas sacks so they can reach higher altitudes. (a normal weather balloon can stretch four times its size during flight[1](http://www.diyspaceexploration.com/introduction-to-high-altitude-balloons/)) During the early phase of the flight the dragon takes many deep breaths to oxygenate its blood and then holds its breath once it passes out of the range where it can breath. Whales can hold their breath for up to 90 minutes. Once the dragon is high enough or the balloon/kelp pops it drops down in a very stream lined shape with its wings folded back. It is still holding its breath. Here it will break the sound barrier. The pray it is falling on will not see or hear it coming. The pray is going to have to give it a huge amount of energy. This has to feed a dragon after all. As the dragon needs to slow down it first goes from noes down to nose level then slowly expands its wings. Hopefully managing to glide out of the fall before it splatters its self into the ground. The highly flammable plants may be a problem with this plan. Maybe need to explain that the plants seeds can be activated by fire and thus why they are around fire breathing dragons. We are trying to deal with big dragons, some amount of hand waving is required to deal with the square/cubed law.	Well, the big problem here is air resistance. Falling objects top out at a speed of somewhat above 500 km/h because of air resistance. Sound of speed is 1200 km/h. So it would need immense energy to speed up above that limit. Luckily there is an easy way around it: just decrease the air pressure. To get still enough oxygen to support big creatures the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere has to be increased. But all that are possibilities and would it make easier to achieve higher speeds. Still, [most birds reach their highest velocity in dives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_speed), so you may want to let the dragon break to supersonic speeds while make an diving attack from a higher flight position.
66,275	I'm building what will be a PDF in Sketch 3. I want to create a button (a rectangle box with "sign up" inside) that launches a mailto link when the person reading it clicks on it. I can't figure out how to 1) add links in Sketch, or 2) make the entire button (including the border of the rectangle box) clickable, vs just the text portion. Any help is appreciated!	2016/02/01	[ "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/66275", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/58412/" ]	After creating PDF without links, open it in Adobe Acrobat and choose the place where you want to link like in the image below: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qZuY7.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qZuY7.png) Then choose Create Link in the menu and select the option "Open a Web Page": [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6Edl.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6Edl.png) Click Next and you will be prompted with a text box. Fill it with "mailto:person@address.com" without quotation marks. And you'll be done! [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9l6ED.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9l6ED.png) Hope it helps!	Found this on the Sketch Talk forum. Just confirmed that it works, even with mailto: links. "Easiest way (which is how I did it in Illustrator too) is to paste the URL you want over the text you want to hyperlink, change the URL color to the same as the background, and send it to the back underneath the original text you wanted to link. Once you export, there will be an invisible hyperlink underneath the text!"
66,275	I'm building what will be a PDF in Sketch 3. I want to create a button (a rectangle box with "sign up" inside) that launches a mailto link when the person reading it clicks on it. I can't figure out how to 1) add links in Sketch, or 2) make the entire button (including the border of the rectangle box) clickable, vs just the text portion. Any help is appreciated!	2016/02/01	[ "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/66275", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/58412/" ]	After creating PDF without links, open it in Adobe Acrobat and choose the place where you want to link like in the image below: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qZuY7.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qZuY7.png) Then choose Create Link in the menu and select the option "Open a Web Page": [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6Edl.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6Edl.png) Click Next and you will be prompted with a text box. Fill it with "mailto:person@address.com" without quotation marks. And you'll be done! [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9l6ED.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9l6ED.png) Hope it helps!	A simple solution is for this problem is here <https://youtu.be/WLggIppVE1w>
66,275	I'm building what will be a PDF in Sketch 3. I want to create a button (a rectangle box with "sign up" inside) that launches a mailto link when the person reading it clicks on it. I can't figure out how to 1) add links in Sketch, or 2) make the entire button (including the border of the rectangle box) clickable, vs just the text portion. Any help is appreciated!	2016/02/01	[ "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/66275", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/58412/" ]	You can actually create a hyperlink in Sketch without using Acrobat. [Here is how it works in GIF](https://media.giphy.com/media/uTZ5XNlsMTyM2hNdZd/giphy.gif) 1. Paste the link from the browser. 2. Right click on text AND Select the text -> Make link. 3. Select the text and replace it with whatever you want. Simply clicking the text block will not reveal Make Link option on Right Click. Also selecting part of the text will not reveal this option. It has to be a valid link. e.g. * <https://www.stackexchange.com> -> is valid. * stackexchange.com -> is valid. * stackexchangecom -> is not.	Found this on the Sketch Talk forum. Just confirmed that it works, even with mailto: links. "Easiest way (which is how I did it in Illustrator too) is to paste the URL you want over the text you want to hyperlink, change the URL color to the same as the background, and send it to the back underneath the original text you wanted to link. Once you export, there will be an invisible hyperlink underneath the text!"
66,275	I'm building what will be a PDF in Sketch 3. I want to create a button (a rectangle box with "sign up" inside) that launches a mailto link when the person reading it clicks on it. I can't figure out how to 1) add links in Sketch, or 2) make the entire button (including the border of the rectangle box) clickable, vs just the text portion. Any help is appreciated!	2016/02/01	[ "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/66275", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/58412/" ]	Found this on the Sketch Talk forum. Just confirmed that it works, even with mailto: links. "Easiest way (which is how I did it in Illustrator too) is to paste the URL you want over the text you want to hyperlink, change the URL color to the same as the background, and send it to the back underneath the original text you wanted to link. Once you export, there will be an invisible hyperlink underneath the text!"	A simple solution is for this problem is here <https://youtu.be/WLggIppVE1w>
66,275	I'm building what will be a PDF in Sketch 3. I want to create a button (a rectangle box with "sign up" inside) that launches a mailto link when the person reading it clicks on it. I can't figure out how to 1) add links in Sketch, or 2) make the entire button (including the border of the rectangle box) clickable, vs just the text portion. Any help is appreciated!	2016/02/01	[ "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/66275", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/58412/" ]	You can actually create a hyperlink in Sketch without using Acrobat. [Here is how it works in GIF](https://media.giphy.com/media/uTZ5XNlsMTyM2hNdZd/giphy.gif) 1. Paste the link from the browser. 2. Right click on text AND Select the text -> Make link. 3. Select the text and replace it with whatever you want. Simply clicking the text block will not reveal Make Link option on Right Click. Also selecting part of the text will not reveal this option. It has to be a valid link. e.g. * <https://www.stackexchange.com> -> is valid. * stackexchange.com -> is valid. * stackexchangecom -> is not.	A simple solution is for this problem is here <https://youtu.be/WLggIppVE1w>
7,218,984	So I'm using [cocoahttpserver](http://code.google.com/p/cocoahttpserver/) in my iphone application. I have the webserver working. But for now I need to identify my ip address and port number before an outside browser can access anything I create. I would like to have my users connect via a human readable domain name. Even a domain name w/ the port appended would be acceptable. I'm given to understand Bonjour allows for some degree of domain name resolution via mDNS. Is it even possible to use Bonjour to come to some solution here? I've been trying for some time, but I am running into a myriad of problems. Am I spinning my wheels? It does seem strange that temporary domain name resolution is possible. Any documentation, tutorials, or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. EDIT: Editing to be more clear, I apologize. I only require LOCALIZED domain name resolution. Doing it on a global scale would be folly for obvious reasons. But my app's need will not extend beyond a single wireless router. EDIT: Unfortunately my question has not yet been answered. Here is another [reference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_configuration_networking#Name_resolution). Perhaps I didn't make my question clear enough originally. If anyone has advice on best practices to clean up a question, please let me know via comment. EDIT: This question does not seem to be of value. My true problem seems to lie in the cocoahttpserver implementation of Bonjour and mdns. It seems this problem can be solved, but it is fairly difficult and advanced, which made it hard for me to phrase the question. When I get the rep, I'll recommend this question for removal. Thank you to all who tried to help.	2011/08/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7218984", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/565887/" ]	It sounds like you're looking for a dynamic DNS client for iPhone. A couple quick Google searches turned up these: iDynDNS: <http://code.google.com/p/idyndns/> EasyDNS: <http://gavcode.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/automatic-easydns-on-iphone/> List of dynamic DNS providers: <http://dnslookup.me/dynamic-dns/>	If it's feasible, you could set up your own domain server, put the iPhone's IP address in that, and have the local machines refer to that DNS server first. Of course, I suspect you don't have an local servers of any description -- that's why you'd be using your iPhone, of all things, as a server; if so, you'd have to fall back on one of the dynamic DNS solutions alberge mentioned or just hand-edit the /etc/hosts file on every local machine.
7,218,984	So I'm using [cocoahttpserver](http://code.google.com/p/cocoahttpserver/) in my iphone application. I have the webserver working. But for now I need to identify my ip address and port number before an outside browser can access anything I create. I would like to have my users connect via a human readable domain name. Even a domain name w/ the port appended would be acceptable. I'm given to understand Bonjour allows for some degree of domain name resolution via mDNS. Is it even possible to use Bonjour to come to some solution here? I've been trying for some time, but I am running into a myriad of problems. Am I spinning my wheels? It does seem strange that temporary domain name resolution is possible. Any documentation, tutorials, or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. EDIT: Editing to be more clear, I apologize. I only require LOCALIZED domain name resolution. Doing it on a global scale would be folly for obvious reasons. But my app's need will not extend beyond a single wireless router. EDIT: Unfortunately my question has not yet been answered. Here is another [reference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_configuration_networking#Name_resolution). Perhaps I didn't make my question clear enough originally. If anyone has advice on best practices to clean up a question, please let me know via comment. EDIT: This question does not seem to be of value. My true problem seems to lie in the cocoahttpserver implementation of Bonjour and mdns. It seems this problem can be solved, but it is fairly difficult and advanced, which made it hard for me to phrase the question. When I get the rep, I'll recommend this question for removal. Thank you to all who tried to help.	2011/08/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7218984", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/565887/" ]	Technically, you can; and here is a [related video](http://vimeo.com/1555410). The idea is that hosting a domain would need a static IP address. A static IP addresses needs to be assigned by your ISP, or a dynamic ISP provider. As long as you can bind one particular IP address to your iPhone, every kind of application/web hosting can be done. Note, your iPhone will have to stick in once place to keep the same IP address.. If you move around between different WiFi spots for example, your IP address will constantly change making the hosted website or service unreachable. Advise: Forget about it :)	If it's feasible, you could set up your own domain server, put the iPhone's IP address in that, and have the local machines refer to that DNS server first. Of course, I suspect you don't have an local servers of any description -- that's why you'd be using your iPhone, of all things, as a server; if so, you'd have to fall back on one of the dynamic DNS solutions alberge mentioned or just hand-edit the /etc/hosts file on every local machine.
153,174	I'm using relays to drive a circuit of solenoids. Do I really need flyback diodes on the controlled circuit if there are only solenoids on it? The driving circuit is already protected by flybacks. ![schematic](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xvlay.png) [simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fXvlay.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)	2015/02/08	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/153174", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/66267/" ]	A MOV or snubber or bipolar TVS will usually extend the life of the relay contact. At 24VAC it may not be that important. Personally, I would consider a bipolar TVS. It won't affect the relay directly, but if the controlling circuitry is poorly designed you may see effects from switching such an inductive load (microcontroller resets, flakey behavior increasing in frequency as the contacts age and so on).	The relay contacts should be snubbed with a (bipolar) TVS device or R/C snubber network; this will protect the contacts from arcing damage/wear (pitting, etal) and extend their life dramatically in this service. See Chapter 7 of [Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0470189304) for more snubbing advice.
153,174	I'm using relays to drive a circuit of solenoids. Do I really need flyback diodes on the controlled circuit if there are only solenoids on it? The driving circuit is already protected by flybacks. ![schematic](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xvlay.png) [simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fXvlay.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)	2015/02/08	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/153174", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/66267/" ]	A MOV or snubber or bipolar TVS will usually extend the life of the relay contact. At 24VAC it may not be that important. Personally, I would consider a bipolar TVS. It won't affect the relay directly, but if the controlling circuitry is poorly designed you may see effects from switching such an inductive load (microcontroller resets, flakey behavior increasing in frequency as the contacts age and so on).	It depends on many factors, including AC or DC operation, voltage, current, solenoid inductance, relay contact construction and relay contact material. First: your show your solenoids having only 1 uH inductance. I don't believe that is anywhere near close to their actual value - several hundred milli-Henrys on through several Henrys would be more like it. My company manufactures a lot of circuit boards used to build HVAC equipment where we have relays driving water circulating pumps that run at AC Mains voltage (both 120 Vac & 230 Vac). Those relays are NAIS / Aromat JS1 series and we have shipped boards containing several hundred thousand relays over the past 20 years or so. There is NO transient suppression on the contacts. I am not aware of any relay contact failures that weren't caused by installer wiring errors. A different class of board uses either 1 or 3 American Zettler AZ2150 & AZ2150A relays directly controlling 3/4 HP induction motors (HVAC Blowers). Same deal there: no relay failures not caused by installer wiring errors. In general, I worry about requiring arc suppression on relays contacts driving DC inductive loads. It seems to be much less of an issue when driving inductive loads from an AC source. That said: I examine each specific application carefully at the design stage and determine if relay contact transient suppression is warranted.
153,174	I'm using relays to drive a circuit of solenoids. Do I really need flyback diodes on the controlled circuit if there are only solenoids on it? The driving circuit is already protected by flybacks. ![schematic](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xvlay.png) [simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fXvlay.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)	2015/02/08	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/153174", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/66267/" ]	It depends on many factors, including AC or DC operation, voltage, current, solenoid inductance, relay contact construction and relay contact material. First: your show your solenoids having only 1 uH inductance. I don't believe that is anywhere near close to their actual value - several hundred milli-Henrys on through several Henrys would be more like it. My company manufactures a lot of circuit boards used to build HVAC equipment where we have relays driving water circulating pumps that run at AC Mains voltage (both 120 Vac & 230 Vac). Those relays are NAIS / Aromat JS1 series and we have shipped boards containing several hundred thousand relays over the past 20 years or so. There is NO transient suppression on the contacts. I am not aware of any relay contact failures that weren't caused by installer wiring errors. A different class of board uses either 1 or 3 American Zettler AZ2150 & AZ2150A relays directly controlling 3/4 HP induction motors (HVAC Blowers). Same deal there: no relay failures not caused by installer wiring errors. In general, I worry about requiring arc suppression on relays contacts driving DC inductive loads. It seems to be much less of an issue when driving inductive loads from an AC source. That said: I examine each specific application carefully at the design stage and determine if relay contact transient suppression is warranted.	The relay contacts should be snubbed with a (bipolar) TVS device or R/C snubber network; this will protect the contacts from arcing damage/wear (pitting, etal) and extend their life dramatically in this service. See Chapter 7 of [Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0470189304) for more snubbing advice.
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	I think this is a marketing strategy, they want to keep the transactions friendly and in this case the accent is on the action, not on the money. They explain how to fill the input with the placeholder and I'm sure they have a solution to insert the sum separately in the database. I don't find this wrong or counter-productive, so I don't think this is an anti-pattern.	Putting multiple data types into a single field definitely does have issues, when storing and recovering from the database, one merged it'll be very problematic separating the data. However I think they might be trying a natural language approach for this field. e.g. <http://tympanus.net/Tutorials/NaturalLanguageForm/> so while it might look like a single field, it might actually be a form
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	Putting multiple data types into a single field definitely does have issues, when storing and recovering from the database, one merged it'll be very problematic separating the data. However I think they might be trying a natural language approach for this field. e.g. <http://tympanus.net/Tutorials/NaturalLanguageForm/> so while it might look like a single field, it might actually be a form	I don't think it is the best pattern here but it is not an anti pattern. If a field did not have mixed data there would be not need for parsers. * query statement for a database (SQL) * programming language * Number of document management applications use a search syntax with multiple field types. It is part of them CMIS specification. * Many of the litigation support applications use that syntax * Westlaw syntax is common * [Jason](http://www.json.org/) * [ODATA](http://www.odata.org/documentation/odata-version-2-0/uri-conventions/) * [LUCENE](https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html) (the leading search engine)
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	Yes, this PROBABLY is an anti pattern. Please note the PROBABLY word, because anti-patterns are usually measured on client's side. But given the information you provided and with some experience on my back, I'd bet money this is like the definition of an anti pattern: something that looks like a great idea at first, but use demonstrates it's counter-productive or provides a bad experience to users (like in your case) Let's look to a known example: credit card numbers. There are lot of studies about the proper UX of a string which only has number and a known pattern . Even on this site, you'll find lots of question about this, including whether to use a single input, use masked inputs, use 4 different inputs, auto tab and so on. Now, your example: it has 2 extremely different data types, with no clue on affordance and everything in the same field. Furthermore: if you don't comply with the mysterious UX, your input doesn't validate. And as you say, even on validation error messages, it's unclear what to do. Now, compare both cases: one is way simpler, has a lot of studies about it and still represents a problem sometimes, including some anti patterns here and there. The other is complicated, with obfuscated data, unclear for the user and no clues on affordance, with botched validation messages. So.... what would you say about this? (I know what would you say because you said it in your question, and you're 100% right, it's a rhetorical question) In short: as I said, I don't have the client's side data to confirm this is an anti pattern but... If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. EDIT: ===== On a second view, now I can see they can share this payment on Facebook... guess that's the explanation for the convoluted UX, but well... posting your financial movements on Facebook is weird to say the least. As a matter of fact, this is the weirdest part of this UX for me	Putting multiple data types into a single field definitely does have issues, when storing and recovering from the database, one merged it'll be very problematic separating the data. However I think they might be trying a natural language approach for this field. e.g. <http://tympanus.net/Tutorials/NaturalLanguageForm/> so while it might look like a single field, it might actually be a form
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	I think this is a marketing strategy, they want to keep the transactions friendly and in this case the accent is on the action, not on the money. They explain how to fill the input with the placeholder and I'm sure they have a solution to insert the sum separately in the database. I don't find this wrong or counter-productive, so I don't think this is an anti-pattern.	I don't think it is the best pattern here but it is not an anti pattern. If a field did not have mixed data there would be not need for parsers. * query statement for a database (SQL) * programming language * Number of document management applications use a search syntax with multiple field types. It is part of them CMIS specification. * Many of the litigation support applications use that syntax * Westlaw syntax is common * [Jason](http://www.json.org/) * [ODATA](http://www.odata.org/documentation/odata-version-2-0/uri-conventions/) * [LUCENE](https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html) (the leading search engine)
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	Yes, this PROBABLY is an anti pattern. Please note the PROBABLY word, because anti-patterns are usually measured on client's side. But given the information you provided and with some experience on my back, I'd bet money this is like the definition of an anti pattern: something that looks like a great idea at first, but use demonstrates it's counter-productive or provides a bad experience to users (like in your case) Let's look to a known example: credit card numbers. There are lot of studies about the proper UX of a string which only has number and a known pattern . Even on this site, you'll find lots of question about this, including whether to use a single input, use masked inputs, use 4 different inputs, auto tab and so on. Now, your example: it has 2 extremely different data types, with no clue on affordance and everything in the same field. Furthermore: if you don't comply with the mysterious UX, your input doesn't validate. And as you say, even on validation error messages, it's unclear what to do. Now, compare both cases: one is way simpler, has a lot of studies about it and still represents a problem sometimes, including some anti patterns here and there. The other is complicated, with obfuscated data, unclear for the user and no clues on affordance, with botched validation messages. So.... what would you say about this? (I know what would you say because you said it in your question, and you're 100% right, it's a rhetorical question) In short: as I said, I don't have the client's side data to confirm this is an anti pattern but... If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. EDIT: ===== On a second view, now I can see they can share this payment on Facebook... guess that's the explanation for the convoluted UX, but well... posting your financial movements on Facebook is weird to say the least. As a matter of fact, this is the weirdest part of this UX for me	I think this is a marketing strategy, they want to keep the transactions friendly and in this case the accent is on the action, not on the money. They explain how to fill the input with the placeholder and I'm sure they have a solution to insert the sum separately in the database. I don't find this wrong or counter-productive, so I don't think this is an anti-pattern.
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	I think this is a marketing strategy, they want to keep the transactions friendly and in this case the accent is on the action, not on the money. They explain how to fill the input with the placeholder and I'm sure they have a solution to insert the sum separately in the database. I don't find this wrong or counter-productive, so I don't think this is an anti-pattern.	It's not because it's mixed values, but because it's pretty unclear what that input field needs to be valid. Instead of just showing that placeholder, it should have probably been designed as such: ![mockup](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T1zX9.png) This actually makes it very clear what to input, because it guides you through the process, instead of assuming users will know what to write.
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	Yes, this PROBABLY is an anti pattern. Please note the PROBABLY word, because anti-patterns are usually measured on client's side. But given the information you provided and with some experience on my back, I'd bet money this is like the definition of an anti pattern: something that looks like a great idea at first, but use demonstrates it's counter-productive or provides a bad experience to users (like in your case) Let's look to a known example: credit card numbers. There are lot of studies about the proper UX of a string which only has number and a known pattern . Even on this site, you'll find lots of question about this, including whether to use a single input, use masked inputs, use 4 different inputs, auto tab and so on. Now, your example: it has 2 extremely different data types, with no clue on affordance and everything in the same field. Furthermore: if you don't comply with the mysterious UX, your input doesn't validate. And as you say, even on validation error messages, it's unclear what to do. Now, compare both cases: one is way simpler, has a lot of studies about it and still represents a problem sometimes, including some anti patterns here and there. The other is complicated, with obfuscated data, unclear for the user and no clues on affordance, with botched validation messages. So.... what would you say about this? (I know what would you say because you said it in your question, and you're 100% right, it's a rhetorical question) In short: as I said, I don't have the client's side data to confirm this is an anti pattern but... If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. EDIT: ===== On a second view, now I can see they can share this payment on Facebook... guess that's the explanation for the convoluted UX, but well... posting your financial movements on Facebook is weird to say the least. As a matter of fact, this is the weirdest part of this UX for me	I don't think it is the best pattern here but it is not an anti pattern. If a field did not have mixed data there would be not need for parsers. * query statement for a database (SQL) * programming language * Number of document management applications use a search syntax with multiple field types. It is part of them CMIS specification. * Many of the litigation support applications use that syntax * Westlaw syntax is common * [Jason](http://www.json.org/) * [ODATA](http://www.odata.org/documentation/odata-version-2-0/uri-conventions/) * [LUCENE](https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html) (the leading search engine)
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	It's not because it's mixed values, but because it's pretty unclear what that input field needs to be valid. Instead of just showing that placeholder, it should have probably been designed as such: ![mockup](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T1zX9.png) This actually makes it very clear what to input, because it guides you through the process, instead of assuming users will know what to write.	I don't think it is the best pattern here but it is not an anti pattern. If a field did not have mixed data there would be not need for parsers. * query statement for a database (SQL) * programming language * Number of document management applications use a search syntax with multiple field types. It is part of them CMIS specification. * Many of the litigation support applications use that syntax * Westlaw syntax is common * [Jason](http://www.json.org/) * [ODATA](http://www.odata.org/documentation/odata-version-2-0/uri-conventions/) * [LUCENE](https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html) (the leading search engine)
99,997	We are designing a flow where the user is expected to enter some additional mandatory data after entering some other data. For example, the user enters amount in a field and does a TAB-OUT. We want the system to automatically pop-up a modal window to tell the system certain mandatory information about the source of funds. It is agreed by everyone that modal window is the best option. Now, the question: Should the system automatically pop-up a modal window after the user does a TAB-OUT or provide an icon and ask the user to click the icon? One view is, automatic pop-up is better because the step is sequential, mandatory (and hence expected in a sense). It also saves a click. Contrary view is any automatic pop-up is bad since it is "unexpected" for the user since no explicit action was initiated by the user. The first camp argues that "unexpected" pop-ups are bad when it is used for messages that are meant to solicit unrelated inputs (like advertisements, donations etc) and not when used in an enterprise application where it is an essential step in the process. A quick background on the nature of system: The system is meant for internal users of an enterprise and therefore the users will be repeating the task multiple times on a day to day basis. The usage is primarily on desktop. What is the right way to go in this context?	2016/10/04	[ "https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/99997", "https://ux.stackexchange.com", "https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/91913/" ]	Yes, this PROBABLY is an anti pattern. Please note the PROBABLY word, because anti-patterns are usually measured on client's side. But given the information you provided and with some experience on my back, I'd bet money this is like the definition of an anti pattern: something that looks like a great idea at first, but use demonstrates it's counter-productive or provides a bad experience to users (like in your case) Let's look to a known example: credit card numbers. There are lot of studies about the proper UX of a string which only has number and a known pattern . Even on this site, you'll find lots of question about this, including whether to use a single input, use masked inputs, use 4 different inputs, auto tab and so on. Now, your example: it has 2 extremely different data types, with no clue on affordance and everything in the same field. Furthermore: if you don't comply with the mysterious UX, your input doesn't validate. And as you say, even on validation error messages, it's unclear what to do. Now, compare both cases: one is way simpler, has a lot of studies about it and still represents a problem sometimes, including some anti patterns here and there. The other is complicated, with obfuscated data, unclear for the user and no clues on affordance, with botched validation messages. So.... what would you say about this? (I know what would you say because you said it in your question, and you're 100% right, it's a rhetorical question) In short: as I said, I don't have the client's side data to confirm this is an anti pattern but... If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. EDIT: ===== On a second view, now I can see they can share this payment on Facebook... guess that's the explanation for the convoluted UX, but well... posting your financial movements on Facebook is weird to say the least. As a matter of fact, this is the weirdest part of this UX for me	It's not because it's mixed values, but because it's pretty unclear what that input field needs to be valid. Instead of just showing that placeholder, it should have probably been designed as such: ![mockup](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T1zX9.png) This actually makes it very clear what to input, because it guides you through the process, instead of assuming users will know what to write.
1,236	If we disregard deals, players accidentally mucking winning hands, and time-limited tournaments, in order to win a poker tournament, you must win the very last hand of the tournament. In order to win the last hand, exactly one of these statements must be true: 1. You were the underdog, and you won the hand. (You got lucky.) 2. You were the favorite to win the hand, and you did. (You did not get unlucky.) 3. You were even up to win the hand, and you won it. (You got very lucky!) (If you're wondering why I said very lucky for number 3- it's because I think you'd have to have the same hand as your opponent to be even up- which means the only way you can win is by making a flush. The most common example that you'll never forget is when you have AA, you're up against AA and you win/lose with/to a flush.) To summuraize, to win a tournament, on the last hand you either have to get lucky, or not get unlucky. That statement can be extrapolated to the rest of the preceeding hands in the tournament too, i.e., the above logic can be applied to every hand you win in the entire tournament. Multiple times after winning a tournament (small ones, mostly 10-100 people), I remember thinking that I won because I never got unlucky- no one pulled a bad beat on me. Sometimes I recall winning a tournament because I got lucky a few times, and sometimes it was a combination of the two. Sure you'll have a few hands here and there where you catch a bad beat and still end up winning, especially in large tournaments, but in the smaller tournaments, most of the time a meaningful hand where you get unlucky will send you to the rail, or lead to it shortly after, particularly closer to the end of the tournament. So this means that to win a tournament, you will have traversed a course of mostly getting lucky and not getting unlucky. Occaisionally, you will also get unlucky, and many times you will also not get lucky. (Not get lucky means you were the underdog and didn't win.) We now have 4 "main" ways your chip count can significantly change per hand throughout the course of the tournament: 1. Got lucky. (Was underdog, won hand.) 2. Got unlucky. (Was favorite, lost hand.) 3. Didn't get lucky. (Was underdog, lost hand.) 4. Didn't get unlucky. (Was favorite, won hand.) I would like to know if we can quantity the approximate expected ratio of those occurrences throughout the course of a tournament, separated by wins and loses, for someone who wins the tournament. I'm not sure if this can be done mathematically without real data. Ideally we could datamine tracking software to get these numbers. For example, perhaps if you just won a tournament, and looked back at those types of hands, you might see this: Hands won: * Didn't get unlucky: 90% * Got lucky: 10% Hands lost: * Didn't get lucky: 90% * Got unlucky: 10% Why does this matter? If we can get real numbers, it helps assign the skill vs luck ratio of poker. This number may be important for certain governments in how they determine whether to define poker and/or poker tournaments as pure gambling, vs a game of skill. Update: Imorin pointed out many reasons why my above method for attempting to quantify luck may not work, and I agree. I still believe there may be a way to achieve this. Here is what prompted me to ask this in the first place. I believe that almost everyone who wins a tournament can think of at least one hand in the tournament where they got lucky, and had they not gotten lucky, they would have either busted out, or very likely not have won the tournament. A few times I remember winning single table tournments thinking afterwad, "I won that because I never got unlucky. No one sucked out on me the entire tournament." But I've never won a multi-table tournament where there wasn't at least one hand where I got lucky, and had I not, I probably wouldn't have won it.	2013/03/22	[ "https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/1236", "https://poker.stackexchange.com", "https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/828/" ]	The common conditions/rules of being independent from luck in the tournament: 1) You are playing tournament with deep stacks and reasonable blind level lengths. It means turbo tournaments with 5 minutes per level contain enough luck-dependent situations. Not playing "turbos" will allow to avoid rapid short stack preflop all-in situation. 2) You don't ignore your opponent's push diapason, nor his image, nor any other aspects of tournament play. In this case typically the worst situation you will face: AQ vs KJ, where you are up to 60% ahead of your opponent. 3) Tending to have chip leader stack (or near it) at least on your table. In this case preflop allin 50/50 will not be fatal for you. 4) And finally: try to win without showdown as much as you can, which is a poker basics. Taking into account these factors will reduce the influence of luck in the tournament to a minimum. --- *Update: (Answering the comment from @TTT below the post). To measure the "luck" component of tournament play you can do the following:* 1. Get the hands history of all tournaments where you got into big prizes. Top1-Top3... Let's approximate it with all MTT where you got on the final table. 2. Get the product of all your chances on "risky for life" show-downs during each tournaments from (1). That means any show-down hands where you was risking to be beaten (even AA vs A2 pre-flop, when all your chips are in pot) get into this statistics. 3. Get the average of this products. In case of at least 10-20 such tournaments in the statistics you will get the average probability for you to get on the final\_table/top\_3/ITM etc. 4. This number could be surprisingly low, but you can increase it using points from the first part of my post. Because it is very dependent from your playing style. --- p.s. I am not sure that calculating this number for another players (data mining) could be enough helpful, because it will present other players' winning chance and reflect their playing style. But at least you will see what this numbers approximately could be. p.p.s. It would be really interesting to compare your "lucky" number with another players and get your playing style closer to the best of them. But this is something related to using another players' hands history... what is not fair :)	Your partition (underdog/favorite, hand won/lost) won't reveals many things as you will have to work on average. This will give you the performance of your hand range (supposed constant) versus and average hand range met in tournaments. A long term moving average will give you the evolution of your handrange performance. The deviation will give you the effect of luck + focus in the final classement. (assuming some normalization, which may be hard to do.). This could be an interesting approach but the effect of focus is impossible to determine. The better thing to do is to buil a quantitative model for luck... Some remarks: I think the way you measure luck is not adapted to reality. First, 49%vs51% is not very different from 51%vs49% in practice, but in your model it is. Then, 49%vs51% is very different from 1%vs99% in practice, but in your model it isn't. So I think an interesting number would be the average of the difference of percentage of chance of loss/win to 50%. Let's say you have 75% chance to loose: * you win: +25% (it's luck) * you loose: -25% (it's not luck) Let's say you have 75% chance to win: * you loose: -25% (it's unluck) * you win: +25% (understandable as non unluck) It will give you on average the difference in number of hand you've won to what you are supposed to win (50%). Is this a good definition of luck ? No, because it reflects just a number of hands. Usually we are more interested in chips. You can easily understand it by looking at some extreme case again. Doubling your stack with 1% chance is way more lucky than stealing 1BB with 1% chance. Once again we have to quantify explicitly to solve comparable situtation (is stealing 1BB with 1% chance luckyer than winning 10 BB with 10% chance ?) The simple solution, used in cash game is the expected value. The difference of probability to 50% is multiplied by the number of chips in the pot. It give you the amount of chips you can expect to win. You could then compare the number of chips you win/loose after the hand to what you are supposed to have (expected value) to deduce if you have been lucky or not. Is this a good definition for luck ? Yes for cash game, no for tournament. In cash game your stack is directly linked to your gains, and the result of a hand won't influence the result of following hands (assuming you have enough money). In a tournament this not possible to suppose these 2 things. Your gain/placement is not proportionnal to the amount you win in a hand. Let's say you double your stack (+1000 chips) in your very first hand, with expected value it will count as the same thing as stealing a blind after an hour or two of game, and nothing to the big blind at the last table. But in term of real gain (or classement) this is absolutely different. You can take this into account by dividing your gain by a reference value. The reference value can be your stack at the moment or the average stack at the moment or the ratio between your contribution and the size of the pot or a combination of the three, depending on what you think is important in a tournament. This is a simple model, as you don't take into account the effects of a hand on another (we can talk about dynamics of the tournament), you are simply working hand by hand. Take this exemple: you are lucky, you double in the very first hand, you are now comfortable enough to call another all-in, the second all-in is a sure gain, 90% win for you, you win. There is no luck in this second win taken apart of the first one, but without the luck in the first all-in the second wouldn't have happened. It would be very difficult to take it into account. (I guess you have to use recurrence on conditionnal probabilty to guess the effect of a hand on another, but have no clue of how to do it). Another question is how to calculate your chance of gain. This is a big question and can lead to philosophical considerations. Let's say you have seen the flop before going all-in, what % will you use ? hand / hand, hand + flop / hand + flop ? what % will you use after seeing turn, river ? With all-in the answers are easy to guess. but without all-in ? What % do you have to use ? Maybe you can use different % between each round of bet depending on what you have seen. "What you have seen" this is where it gets philosophical. You have seen cards, of course, but you have also seen rounds of bets and previous hands. You have more information and it could change some things. We talked about luck in the sense of the diffenrence between what you expect and what you get. But now we have luck in the sense of the difference between your interpretation of information and reality. Some intepret it as skill. But in my opinion (mainly on internet as you can not get tells from your opponent) there is a part of luck in interpretation of informations. And this luck seems impossible to quantify. Poker is such a complex game that it is very hard to build quantitative model for it.
1,236	If we disregard deals, players accidentally mucking winning hands, and time-limited tournaments, in order to win a poker tournament, you must win the very last hand of the tournament. In order to win the last hand, exactly one of these statements must be true: 1. You were the underdog, and you won the hand. (You got lucky.) 2. You were the favorite to win the hand, and you did. (You did not get unlucky.) 3. You were even up to win the hand, and you won it. (You got very lucky!) (If you're wondering why I said very lucky for number 3- it's because I think you'd have to have the same hand as your opponent to be even up- which means the only way you can win is by making a flush. The most common example that you'll never forget is when you have AA, you're up against AA and you win/lose with/to a flush.) To summuraize, to win a tournament, on the last hand you either have to get lucky, or not get unlucky. That statement can be extrapolated to the rest of the preceeding hands in the tournament too, i.e., the above logic can be applied to every hand you win in the entire tournament. Multiple times after winning a tournament (small ones, mostly 10-100 people), I remember thinking that I won because I never got unlucky- no one pulled a bad beat on me. Sometimes I recall winning a tournament because I got lucky a few times, and sometimes it was a combination of the two. Sure you'll have a few hands here and there where you catch a bad beat and still end up winning, especially in large tournaments, but in the smaller tournaments, most of the time a meaningful hand where you get unlucky will send you to the rail, or lead to it shortly after, particularly closer to the end of the tournament. So this means that to win a tournament, you will have traversed a course of mostly getting lucky and not getting unlucky. Occaisionally, you will also get unlucky, and many times you will also not get lucky. (Not get lucky means you were the underdog and didn't win.) We now have 4 "main" ways your chip count can significantly change per hand throughout the course of the tournament: 1. Got lucky. (Was underdog, won hand.) 2. Got unlucky. (Was favorite, lost hand.) 3. Didn't get lucky. (Was underdog, lost hand.) 4. Didn't get unlucky. (Was favorite, won hand.) I would like to know if we can quantity the approximate expected ratio of those occurrences throughout the course of a tournament, separated by wins and loses, for someone who wins the tournament. I'm not sure if this can be done mathematically without real data. Ideally we could datamine tracking software to get these numbers. For example, perhaps if you just won a tournament, and looked back at those types of hands, you might see this: Hands won: * Didn't get unlucky: 90% * Got lucky: 10% Hands lost: * Didn't get lucky: 90% * Got unlucky: 10% Why does this matter? If we can get real numbers, it helps assign the skill vs luck ratio of poker. This number may be important for certain governments in how they determine whether to define poker and/or poker tournaments as pure gambling, vs a game of skill. Update: Imorin pointed out many reasons why my above method for attempting to quantify luck may not work, and I agree. I still believe there may be a way to achieve this. Here is what prompted me to ask this in the first place. I believe that almost everyone who wins a tournament can think of at least one hand in the tournament where they got lucky, and had they not gotten lucky, they would have either busted out, or very likely not have won the tournament. A few times I remember winning single table tournments thinking afterwad, "I won that because I never got unlucky. No one sucked out on me the entire tournament." But I've never won a multi-table tournament where there wasn't at least one hand where I got lucky, and had I not, I probably wouldn't have won it.	2013/03/22	[ "https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/1236", "https://poker.stackexchange.com", "https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/828/" ]	The common conditions/rules of being independent from luck in the tournament: 1) You are playing tournament with deep stacks and reasonable blind level lengths. It means turbo tournaments with 5 minutes per level contain enough luck-dependent situations. Not playing "turbos" will allow to avoid rapid short stack preflop all-in situation. 2) You don't ignore your opponent's push diapason, nor his image, nor any other aspects of tournament play. In this case typically the worst situation you will face: AQ vs KJ, where you are up to 60% ahead of your opponent. 3) Tending to have chip leader stack (or near it) at least on your table. In this case preflop allin 50/50 will not be fatal for you. 4) And finally: try to win without showdown as much as you can, which is a poker basics. Taking into account these factors will reduce the influence of luck in the tournament to a minimum. --- *Update: (Answering the comment from @TTT below the post). To measure the "luck" component of tournament play you can do the following:* 1. Get the hands history of all tournaments where you got into big prizes. Top1-Top3... Let's approximate it with all MTT where you got on the final table. 2. Get the product of all your chances on "risky for life" show-downs during each tournaments from (1). That means any show-down hands where you was risking to be beaten (even AA vs A2 pre-flop, when all your chips are in pot) get into this statistics. 3. Get the average of this products. In case of at least 10-20 such tournaments in the statistics you will get the average probability for you to get on the final\_table/top\_3/ITM etc. 4. This number could be surprisingly low, but you can increase it using points from the first part of my post. Because it is very dependent from your playing style. --- p.s. I am not sure that calculating this number for another players (data mining) could be enough helpful, because it will present other players' winning chance and reflect their playing style. But at least you will see what this numbers approximately could be. p.p.s. It would be really interesting to compare your "lucky" number with another players and get your playing style closer to the best of them. But this is something related to using another players' hands history... what is not fair :)	If you are willing to go all in getting 3:2 then the chance of winning all of 5 is only 8%. Basically you need to suck out 2/5 meaning you defy odds and win the two you should have lost. Basically you need to get lucky 2/5 of the time. If you manage to play all in only 5 pots getting 4:1 then you only need to suck out 1/5. You pretty much have to play it for all in getting 4:1 or you are just not going to collect enough chips. And you need to get some lucky cards to be 4:1. If you are going to fold to anytime you are no dominating then you are going forfeit a lot of chip. Basically even with good cards and perfect reads I think 1/5 luck is kind of a minimum. If you are card dead you just cannot get lucky enough.
1,236	If we disregard deals, players accidentally mucking winning hands, and time-limited tournaments, in order to win a poker tournament, you must win the very last hand of the tournament. In order to win the last hand, exactly one of these statements must be true: 1. You were the underdog, and you won the hand. (You got lucky.) 2. You were the favorite to win the hand, and you did. (You did not get unlucky.) 3. You were even up to win the hand, and you won it. (You got very lucky!) (If you're wondering why I said very lucky for number 3- it's because I think you'd have to have the same hand as your opponent to be even up- which means the only way you can win is by making a flush. The most common example that you'll never forget is when you have AA, you're up against AA and you win/lose with/to a flush.) To summuraize, to win a tournament, on the last hand you either have to get lucky, or not get unlucky. That statement can be extrapolated to the rest of the preceeding hands in the tournament too, i.e., the above logic can be applied to every hand you win in the entire tournament. Multiple times after winning a tournament (small ones, mostly 10-100 people), I remember thinking that I won because I never got unlucky- no one pulled a bad beat on me. Sometimes I recall winning a tournament because I got lucky a few times, and sometimes it was a combination of the two. Sure you'll have a few hands here and there where you catch a bad beat and still end up winning, especially in large tournaments, but in the smaller tournaments, most of the time a meaningful hand where you get unlucky will send you to the rail, or lead to it shortly after, particularly closer to the end of the tournament. So this means that to win a tournament, you will have traversed a course of mostly getting lucky and not getting unlucky. Occaisionally, you will also get unlucky, and many times you will also not get lucky. (Not get lucky means you were the underdog and didn't win.) We now have 4 "main" ways your chip count can significantly change per hand throughout the course of the tournament: 1. Got lucky. (Was underdog, won hand.) 2. Got unlucky. (Was favorite, lost hand.) 3. Didn't get lucky. (Was underdog, lost hand.) 4. Didn't get unlucky. (Was favorite, won hand.) I would like to know if we can quantity the approximate expected ratio of those occurrences throughout the course of a tournament, separated by wins and loses, for someone who wins the tournament. I'm not sure if this can be done mathematically without real data. Ideally we could datamine tracking software to get these numbers. For example, perhaps if you just won a tournament, and looked back at those types of hands, you might see this: Hands won: * Didn't get unlucky: 90% * Got lucky: 10% Hands lost: * Didn't get lucky: 90% * Got unlucky: 10% Why does this matter? If we can get real numbers, it helps assign the skill vs luck ratio of poker. This number may be important for certain governments in how they determine whether to define poker and/or poker tournaments as pure gambling, vs a game of skill. Update: Imorin pointed out many reasons why my above method for attempting to quantify luck may not work, and I agree. I still believe there may be a way to achieve this. Here is what prompted me to ask this in the first place. I believe that almost everyone who wins a tournament can think of at least one hand in the tournament where they got lucky, and had they not gotten lucky, they would have either busted out, or very likely not have won the tournament. A few times I remember winning single table tournments thinking afterwad, "I won that because I never got unlucky. No one sucked out on me the entire tournament." But I've never won a multi-table tournament where there wasn't at least one hand where I got lucky, and had I not, I probably wouldn't have won it.	2013/03/22	[ "https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/1236", "https://poker.stackexchange.com", "https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/828/" ]	Your partition (underdog/favorite, hand won/lost) won't reveals many things as you will have to work on average. This will give you the performance of your hand range (supposed constant) versus and average hand range met in tournaments. A long term moving average will give you the evolution of your handrange performance. The deviation will give you the effect of luck + focus in the final classement. (assuming some normalization, which may be hard to do.). This could be an interesting approach but the effect of focus is impossible to determine. The better thing to do is to buil a quantitative model for luck... Some remarks: I think the way you measure luck is not adapted to reality. First, 49%vs51% is not very different from 51%vs49% in practice, but in your model it is. Then, 49%vs51% is very different from 1%vs99% in practice, but in your model it isn't. So I think an interesting number would be the average of the difference of percentage of chance of loss/win to 50%. Let's say you have 75% chance to loose: * you win: +25% (it's luck) * you loose: -25% (it's not luck) Let's say you have 75% chance to win: * you loose: -25% (it's unluck) * you win: +25% (understandable as non unluck) It will give you on average the difference in number of hand you've won to what you are supposed to win (50%). Is this a good definition of luck ? No, because it reflects just a number of hands. Usually we are more interested in chips. You can easily understand it by looking at some extreme case again. Doubling your stack with 1% chance is way more lucky than stealing 1BB with 1% chance. Once again we have to quantify explicitly to solve comparable situtation (is stealing 1BB with 1% chance luckyer than winning 10 BB with 10% chance ?) The simple solution, used in cash game is the expected value. The difference of probability to 50% is multiplied by the number of chips in the pot. It give you the amount of chips you can expect to win. You could then compare the number of chips you win/loose after the hand to what you are supposed to have (expected value) to deduce if you have been lucky or not. Is this a good definition for luck ? Yes for cash game, no for tournament. In cash game your stack is directly linked to your gains, and the result of a hand won't influence the result of following hands (assuming you have enough money). In a tournament this not possible to suppose these 2 things. Your gain/placement is not proportionnal to the amount you win in a hand. Let's say you double your stack (+1000 chips) in your very first hand, with expected value it will count as the same thing as stealing a blind after an hour or two of game, and nothing to the big blind at the last table. But in term of real gain (or classement) this is absolutely different. You can take this into account by dividing your gain by a reference value. The reference value can be your stack at the moment or the average stack at the moment or the ratio between your contribution and the size of the pot or a combination of the three, depending on what you think is important in a tournament. This is a simple model, as you don't take into account the effects of a hand on another (we can talk about dynamics of the tournament), you are simply working hand by hand. Take this exemple: you are lucky, you double in the very first hand, you are now comfortable enough to call another all-in, the second all-in is a sure gain, 90% win for you, you win. There is no luck in this second win taken apart of the first one, but without the luck in the first all-in the second wouldn't have happened. It would be very difficult to take it into account. (I guess you have to use recurrence on conditionnal probabilty to guess the effect of a hand on another, but have no clue of how to do it). Another question is how to calculate your chance of gain. This is a big question and can lead to philosophical considerations. Let's say you have seen the flop before going all-in, what % will you use ? hand / hand, hand + flop / hand + flop ? what % will you use after seeing turn, river ? With all-in the answers are easy to guess. but without all-in ? What % do you have to use ? Maybe you can use different % between each round of bet depending on what you have seen. "What you have seen" this is where it gets philosophical. You have seen cards, of course, but you have also seen rounds of bets and previous hands. You have more information and it could change some things. We talked about luck in the sense of the diffenrence between what you expect and what you get. But now we have luck in the sense of the difference between your interpretation of information and reality. Some intepret it as skill. But in my opinion (mainly on internet as you can not get tells from your opponent) there is a part of luck in interpretation of informations. And this luck seems impossible to quantify. Poker is such a complex game that it is very hard to build quantitative model for it.	If you are willing to go all in getting 3:2 then the chance of winning all of 5 is only 8%. Basically you need to suck out 2/5 meaning you defy odds and win the two you should have lost. Basically you need to get lucky 2/5 of the time. If you manage to play all in only 5 pots getting 4:1 then you only need to suck out 1/5. You pretty much have to play it for all in getting 4:1 or you are just not going to collect enough chips. And you need to get some lucky cards to be 4:1. If you are going to fold to anytime you are no dominating then you are going forfeit a lot of chip. Basically even with good cards and perfect reads I think 1/5 luck is kind of a minimum. If you are card dead you just cannot get lucky enough.
19,829,676	Is there any charting library which provides an `odometer` like in this [image](http://static4.depositphotos.com/1024437/363/v/950/depositphotos_3631665-Black-and-Red-Odometer.jpg)? ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7dUbk.jpg) I've gone through Highcharts but there sint like this. Where can I find an odometer like provided which shows digit values only, not a gauge or something. I want something like [this](http://jsfiddle.net/jDkzg/). Since this is hardcoded, I want a library which will do this for me.	2013/11/07	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/19829676", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1457252/" ]	I used an SVG library before named RaphaelJS to generate cool charts.	* You may want to look and adapt the Google [Chart's Gauge](http://code.google.com/apis/chart/interactive/docs/gallery/gauge.html). * [RGraph](http://www.cmsws.com/examples/applications/rgraph/RGraph_20091010/) has an [odometer](http://www.cmsws.com/examples/applications/rgraph/RGraph_20091010/examples/odo.html) plot As for charting libraries and their general features see this [Comparison of JavaScript charting frameworks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_charting_frameworks)
1,397	I know I could just carry a bottle, but scavenging is much more fun. What is a good source of vitamin C in the wild? Have spruce needles really got enough?	2012/04/27	[ "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/1397", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/432/" ]	[Pine needle tea](http://www.practicalprimitive.com/skillofthemonth/pineneedletea.html) is a good solution which is available year round in areas where pines grow. Do be careful to identify properly, and take care to not guzzle the stuff down... too much is bad for you. However this is the easiest to find and pine needle tea has a ton of vitamin C. [Dandelion greens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraxacum#Culinary_use) are plentiful in many areas and good for vitamin C, though I detest the flavor. [Chicory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicory) is a decent source, though I find it to be too easy to misidentify.	All types of berries are your answer here! Pretty much any (edible) variety contains a large amount of vitamin C - blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries for instance. (Blackberries and raspberries seem to be especially prevalent at the right time of the year here in the UK.) And they're tasty too. Of course, it goes without saying if you're not 100% sure what a plant is then don't risk eating it.
1,397	I know I could just carry a bottle, but scavenging is much more fun. What is a good source of vitamin C in the wild? Have spruce needles really got enough?	2012/04/27	[ "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/1397", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/432/" ]	All types of berries are your answer here! Pretty much any (edible) variety contains a large amount of vitamin C - blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries for instance. (Blackberries and raspberries seem to be especially prevalent at the right time of the year here in the UK.) And they're tasty too. Of course, it goes without saying if you're not 100% sure what a plant is then don't risk eating it.	[Scurvy Grass Sorrell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalis_enneaphylla) has leaves rich in Vitamin C, and got its name from sailors travelling round Cape Horn who would eat the leaves to avoid scurvy. It tastes pretty good, despite what the Wikipedia page says, but I'm not sure how widespread it is outside South America.
1,397	I know I could just carry a bottle, but scavenging is much more fun. What is a good source of vitamin C in the wild? Have spruce needles really got enough?	2012/04/27	[ "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/1397", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/432/" ]	All types of berries are your answer here! Pretty much any (edible) variety contains a large amount of vitamin C - blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries for instance. (Blackberries and raspberries seem to be especially prevalent at the right time of the year here in the UK.) And they're tasty too. Of course, it goes without saying if you're not 100% sure what a plant is then don't risk eating it.	There are many sources of vitamin C in the wild. Some of the tricks that I have come across is to know how to extract it in ways that do not destroy the vitamin C. Berries are great in vitamin C and may be eaten raw. However there are a great variety of other sources of vitamin C in the wild. > > Let’s take a look at a few wild sources of vitamin C from plants available in my habitat (Southwestern Pennsylvania). For reference, the orange – at 100 grams – contains approximately 53 mg of vitamin C. > > > Species (100 g), parts of plant, vitamin C content (1, 2, 3) > > > * Dog rose (Rosa canina), fruit, 1252 mg > * Balsam fir (Abies balsamea), needles, 270 mg > * Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), bark and needles, 200 mg and 32 mg respectively > * Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), aerial parts, 190 mg > * Red spruce (Picea rubens), needles, 169 mg > * Wild garlic (Allium vineale), leaves, 130 mg > * Garden yellow-rocket (Barbarea vulgaris), basal leaves, 130 mg > * Common blue violet (Viola sororia), basal leaves, 130 mg > * Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album), whole young plants, 130 mg > * Elderberry (Sambucus nigra), fruit, 116 mg > * Shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), basal leaves of first year plants, 91 mg > * Wild leeks (Allium tricoccum), leaves, 80 mg > * Woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca), fruit, 80 mg > * Mock strawberry (Duchesnea indica), leaves, 79 mg > * Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), flowers, 69 mg > * Mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia), fruit, 68 mg > * Common yellow woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta), leaves, 59 mg > * Northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), needles, 45 mg > > > Looking at this list, it’s quite evident that vitamin C is ubiquitous in nature. And it’s not just found in plants. One can acquire vitamin C by consuming animals; the heart, liver, and adrenals are all good sources of vitamin C. > > > This list also hints at another important implication: our hunter and gatherer ancestors surely were ingesting vitamin C in levels greater than what is recommended today. After all, the average indigenous diet was far more diverse than the modern dietary amalgamation of corn, wheat, and soy; this traditional heterogeneity ensured that vitamin C was easily acquired. Additionally, research has shown that animal organs, rich in vitamin C, were favored over muscle meats in traditional diets. - [Finding Vitamin C Outside The Grocery Store – Looking Into Wild Sources](https://wildfoodism.com/2014/08/18/finding-vitamin-c-outside-the-grocery-store-looking-into-wild-sources/) > > > The number one on the list is "rose hips" and this is my personal favorite due to its' history in Britain during World War II. > > During World War II in Britain, the general public were encouraged to return to (or re-learn) the art of foraging in order to supplement or augment rationed foodstuffs. Most of the emphasis was on wild vegetation, there not being a great deal of wild game accessible to the ordinary person. The concept was not just tossed out to the population to follow-up as they saw fit, it was actively promoted and resourced by the government. The Ministry of Food published several leaflets on how to find and use the “Hedgerow Harvest” and County Herb Committees were set up to organize collections on a large scale. The latter was directed particularly towards wild foods with health benefits – many of the sources of fruit no longer being available – and also included foods for livestock feeding, such as horse-chestnuts (‘conkers.’) > > > One item singled out for particular attention was the rose-hip - a valuable source of vitamin C. The national diet was at some risk of shortage of Vitamin C due to the cessation of importation of fruit such as oranges during the war. The solution was to ask the public to collect rose hips from wild or cultivated bushes, the harvest then to be processed by commercial companies into syrup which could then be made available in the shops. The details and success of the campaign are eloquently told in two articles in The Times [London, England] in autumn of 1941, and mid-winter 1942. - [The Rose Hip Collection Campaign (WW II).](http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2014/05/the-rose-hip-collection-campaign-ww-ii.html) > > > At one time people could read articles on how rose hips saved the British during the World War II. It makes great tea and syrup! In fact, [Recipes Past and Present](http://www.recipespastandpresent.org.uk/wartime/tag/rosehip-syrup/) has some fun recipes for ways to use rose hips, including written and video instructions. Much of it was taken from a Ministry of Food leaflet, Hedgerow Harvest, published in 1943. [![Wartime Rose Hip Collecting in Britain](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cqchY.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cqchY.jpg) [Wartime Rose Hip Collecting in Britain](http://www.recipespastandpresent.org.uk/wartime/tag/rosehip-syrup/)
1,397	I know I could just carry a bottle, but scavenging is much more fun. What is a good source of vitamin C in the wild? Have spruce needles really got enough?	2012/04/27	[ "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/1397", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/432/" ]	[Pine needle tea](http://www.practicalprimitive.com/skillofthemonth/pineneedletea.html) is a good solution which is available year round in areas where pines grow. Do be careful to identify properly, and take care to not guzzle the stuff down... too much is bad for you. However this is the easiest to find and pine needle tea has a ton of vitamin C. [Dandelion greens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraxacum#Culinary_use) are plentiful in many areas and good for vitamin C, though I detest the flavor. [Chicory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicory) is a decent source, though I find it to be too easy to misidentify.	[Scurvy Grass Sorrell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalis_enneaphylla) has leaves rich in Vitamin C, and got its name from sailors travelling round Cape Horn who would eat the leaves to avoid scurvy. It tastes pretty good, despite what the Wikipedia page says, but I'm not sure how widespread it is outside South America.
1,397	I know I could just carry a bottle, but scavenging is much more fun. What is a good source of vitamin C in the wild? Have spruce needles really got enough?	2012/04/27	[ "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/1397", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com", "https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/432/" ]	[Pine needle tea](http://www.practicalprimitive.com/skillofthemonth/pineneedletea.html) is a good solution which is available year round in areas where pines grow. Do be careful to identify properly, and take care to not guzzle the stuff down... too much is bad for you. However this is the easiest to find and pine needle tea has a ton of vitamin C. [Dandelion greens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraxacum#Culinary_use) are plentiful in many areas and good for vitamin C, though I detest the flavor. [Chicory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicory) is a decent source, though I find it to be too easy to misidentify.	There are many sources of vitamin C in the wild. Some of the tricks that I have come across is to know how to extract it in ways that do not destroy the vitamin C. Berries are great in vitamin C and may be eaten raw. However there are a great variety of other sources of vitamin C in the wild. > > Let’s take a look at a few wild sources of vitamin C from plants available in my habitat (Southwestern Pennsylvania). For reference, the orange – at 100 grams – contains approximately 53 mg of vitamin C. > > > Species (100 g), parts of plant, vitamin C content (1, 2, 3) > > > * Dog rose (Rosa canina), fruit, 1252 mg > * Balsam fir (Abies balsamea), needles, 270 mg > * Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), bark and needles, 200 mg and 32 mg respectively > * Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), aerial parts, 190 mg > * Red spruce (Picea rubens), needles, 169 mg > * Wild garlic (Allium vineale), leaves, 130 mg > * Garden yellow-rocket (Barbarea vulgaris), basal leaves, 130 mg > * Common blue violet (Viola sororia), basal leaves, 130 mg > * Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album), whole young plants, 130 mg > * Elderberry (Sambucus nigra), fruit, 116 mg > * Shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), basal leaves of first year plants, 91 mg > * Wild leeks (Allium tricoccum), leaves, 80 mg > * Woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca), fruit, 80 mg > * Mock strawberry (Duchesnea indica), leaves, 79 mg > * Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), flowers, 69 mg > * Mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia), fruit, 68 mg > * Common yellow woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta), leaves, 59 mg > * Northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), needles, 45 mg > > > Looking at this list, it’s quite evident that vitamin C is ubiquitous in nature. And it’s not just found in plants. One can acquire vitamin C by consuming animals; the heart, liver, and adrenals are all good sources of vitamin C. > > > This list also hints at another important implication: our hunter and gatherer ancestors surely were ingesting vitamin C in levels greater than what is recommended today. After all, the average indigenous diet was far more diverse than the modern dietary amalgamation of corn, wheat, and soy; this traditional heterogeneity ensured that vitamin C was easily acquired. Additionally, research has shown that animal organs, rich in vitamin C, were favored over muscle meats in traditional diets. - [Finding Vitamin C Outside The Grocery Store – Looking Into Wild Sources](https://wildfoodism.com/2014/08/18/finding-vitamin-c-outside-the-grocery-store-looking-into-wild-sources/) > > > The number one on the list is "rose hips" and this is my personal favorite due to its' history in Britain during World War II. > > During World War II in Britain, the general public were encouraged to return to (or re-learn) the art of foraging in order to supplement or augment rationed foodstuffs. Most of the emphasis was on wild vegetation, there not being a great deal of wild game accessible to the ordinary person. The concept was not just tossed out to the population to follow-up as they saw fit, it was actively promoted and resourced by the government. The Ministry of Food published several leaflets on how to find and use the “Hedgerow Harvest” and County Herb Committees were set up to organize collections on a large scale. The latter was directed particularly towards wild foods with health benefits – many of the sources of fruit no longer being available – and also included foods for livestock feeding, such as horse-chestnuts (‘conkers.’) > > > One item singled out for particular attention was the rose-hip - a valuable source of vitamin C. The national diet was at some risk of shortage of Vitamin C due to the cessation of importation of fruit such as oranges during the war. The solution was to ask the public to collect rose hips from wild or cultivated bushes, the harvest then to be processed by commercial companies into syrup which could then be made available in the shops. The details and success of the campaign are eloquently told in two articles in The Times [London, England] in autumn of 1941, and mid-winter 1942. - [The Rose Hip Collection Campaign (WW II).](http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2014/05/the-rose-hip-collection-campaign-ww-ii.html) > > > At one time people could read articles on how rose hips saved the British during the World War II. It makes great tea and syrup! In fact, [Recipes Past and Present](http://www.recipespastandpresent.org.uk/wartime/tag/rosehip-syrup/) has some fun recipes for ways to use rose hips, including written and video instructions. Much of it was taken from a Ministry of Food leaflet, Hedgerow Harvest, published in 1943. [![Wartime Rose Hip Collecting in Britain](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cqchY.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cqchY.jpg) [Wartime Rose Hip Collecting in Britain](http://www.recipespastandpresent.org.uk/wartime/tag/rosehip-syrup/)
53,996	Was the original release of Empire Strikes Back called Episode V in 1980? Or was this added in a later re-release? Did the original opening crawl actually start out with > > Star Wars > > Episode V > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > or just > > Star Wars > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > or maybe even > > Star Wars > > Episode II > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > ?	2014/04/14	[ "https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/53996", "https://scifi.stackexchange.com", "https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/25014/" ]	Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was the only live-action feature length Star Wars film to ever be released without an episode number or subtitle. Per the Wikipedia entry for [Star Wars (Film)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%5fWars%5f%28film%29) > > The film was originally released as Star Wars, without "Episode IV" or the subtitle A New Hope. The 1980 sequel, The Empire Strikes Back, was numbered "Episode V" in the opening crawl. When the original film was re-released on April 10, 1981, Episode IV: A New Hope was added above the original opening crawl. In early interviews, it was suggested the series might comprise nine or twelve films. The film was re-released theatrically in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, and with additional scenes and enhanced special effects in 1997. > > >	It was released as Episode V although Lucas toyed with it being Episode II in the beginning. It is not quite the grand vision some would make out hence why the prequels contradict so much.
53,996	Was the original release of Empire Strikes Back called Episode V in 1980? Or was this added in a later re-release? Did the original opening crawl actually start out with > > Star Wars > > Episode V > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > or just > > Star Wars > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > or maybe even > > Star Wars > > Episode II > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > ?	2014/04/14	[ "https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/53996", "https://scifi.stackexchange.com", "https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/25014/" ]	Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was the only live-action feature length Star Wars film to ever be released without an episode number or subtitle. Per the Wikipedia entry for [Star Wars (Film)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%5fWars%5f%28film%29) > > The film was originally released as Star Wars, without "Episode IV" or the subtitle A New Hope. The 1980 sequel, The Empire Strikes Back, was numbered "Episode V" in the opening crawl. When the original film was re-released on April 10, 1981, Episode IV: A New Hope was added above the original opening crawl. In early interviews, it was suggested the series might comprise nine or twelve films. The film was re-released theatrically in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, and with additional scenes and enhanced special effects in 1997. > > >	I saw The Empire Strikes Back in May 1980 and it indeed had the "Episode V:" prefix in the title of the opening crawl. It's true it had working titles of Star Wars 2 and other variations in other countries. The leak of the title in January 1978 by The Hollywood Reporter and official announcement by Lucasfilm a few months later in August explained this. After the success of Star Wars in 1977 and announcement of a sequel some copies were updated to include the updated title "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening crawl in the early fall of 1977 but most people didn't see this new edit until the summer of 1978 when it was re-released the first time.
53,996	Was the original release of Empire Strikes Back called Episode V in 1980? Or was this added in a later re-release? Did the original opening crawl actually start out with > > Star Wars > > Episode V > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > or just > > Star Wars > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > or maybe even > > Star Wars > > Episode II > > The Empire Strikes Back > > > ?	2014/04/14	[ "https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/53996", "https://scifi.stackexchange.com", "https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/25014/" ]	It was released as Episode V although Lucas toyed with it being Episode II in the beginning. It is not quite the grand vision some would make out hence why the prequels contradict so much.	I saw The Empire Strikes Back in May 1980 and it indeed had the "Episode V:" prefix in the title of the opening crawl. It's true it had working titles of Star Wars 2 and other variations in other countries. The leak of the title in January 1978 by The Hollywood Reporter and official announcement by Lucasfilm a few months later in August explained this. After the success of Star Wars in 1977 and announcement of a sequel some copies were updated to include the updated title "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening crawl in the early fall of 1977 but most people didn't see this new edit until the summer of 1978 when it was re-released the first time.
39,084	Ideally I'd like to turn the screen off too to save power!	2009/09/10	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/39084", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/9529/" ]	Right-click on the Power Icon in the systray and select Power Options. Look at the available Plans. Select Change Options for the current Plan. ![Edit the current Plan](https://i.stack.imgur.com/l0iwD.jpg) From here you can set how long the computer waits before it turns off its display and how long it will wait unattended before it hibernates.	I'm not sure where the setting would be in Windows 7, but on my XP laptop in the power saver settings you can change the behavior when you close the laptop. Just tell it to stay on when that happens. I believe it should still turn off the screen, but otherwise it will stay on. Just make sure you have the laptop plugged in.
110,835	The Protagonist in Tenet takes part in the car chase twice—forwards in time (regular Protagonist) and backwards in time (inverted Protagonist). The inverted protagonist walks out of the shipping container and starts "driving" a regular car. As he drives away from the container the regular skid marks disappear. This means that in forward time direction this car has stopped near the shipping container. During the car chase, the inverted protagonist flips the car. Sator puts the car on fire and the car blows up. Due to inverted entropy, the inverted Protagonist almost dies due to hypothermia. In regular time direction, how does the blown up car ends up being driven to the port to stop near the shipping container? Is this a plot hole or am I misunderstanding something? Is it possible that the car is actually inverted?	2020/09/12	[ "https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/110835", "https://movies.stackexchange.com", "https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/45269/" ]	Because this will-be-blown-up car has not been driven by the inverted protagonist yet. From the normal timeline, what we experience as the end of a sequence is the start of a sequence of the inverted timeline. Therefore, in the normal timeline, the end of the car chase is marked by the protagonist becomes the inverted-protagonist; who has not yet driven this silver Saab, which parks at the port near the shipping container.	First of all, please note, that [interactions between regular and inverted objects are inconsistent in the film](https://old.reddit.com/r/tenet/comments/ilaaba/tenet_is_a_perfect_time_travel_film_with_zero/g4xwyrk/) ([archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20200914072236/https://old.reddit.com/r/tenet/comments/ilaaba/tenet_is_a_perfect_time_travel_film_with_zero/g4xwyrk/)): > > tl;dr: Inverted things impact puddles and the impact propagates forward in time. Inverted things impact walls (and, apparently, people) and the impact propagates backwards in time. A non-inverted wall and a non-inverted puddle can not propagate impacts from inverted things in different time directions. That is an inconsistency. > > > --- To answer the actual question: > > Is it possible that the car is actually inverted? > > > Yes, the car is inverted. Here's an explanation [suggested by u/Krystman on subreddit r/tenet](https://old.reddit.com/r/tenet/comments/immbs8/official_faq_megathread_spoilers/g42nquz/?context=3): > > > > > > How can inverted Protagonist drive a non inverted car at normal speed since it would have to be in reverse gear, severely limiting its drive speed? > > > > > > > > > The car may be inverted as well. It reverse-flips onto the highway and reverse-explodes. > > > To add to this, here's timeline of the silver car (adapted from [another reddit comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/tenet/comments/ilaaba/tenet_is_a_perfect_time_travel_film_with_zero/g3tzpp3/?context=10)): > > Timeline of the silver car: > > > Creation → Life as a regular car → Inversion → Parked outside at the docks (near exit out of Turnstile) → Crashed → Exploded > > > After the crash, inverted Sator lights it up with inverted cigarette lighter. But then it is shown that the explosion resulting from it is a regular explosion with regular entropy. The inverted car and inverted protagonist experience the increase in entropy caused by explosion in reverse—for them, it is a decrease in entropy, and thus they are freezing. The windows on the inverted car get covered in ice and the inverted protagonist gets hypothermia. It was very hard to catch in the film, but Neil explains that when two types of entropy (regular and inverted) interact, the regular wins: "It's like pissing in the wind". So regular entropy of oxygen wins over inverted entropy of fuel. --- And here's a related question and answer from an [FAQ of the subreddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/tenet/comments/immbs8/official_faq_megathread_spoilers/): > > How did the reverse bullet holes get into the wall in the first place? > > > How long has the glass in the Oslo Turnstile been broken? > > > What happened to the flipped car on the highway? Shouldn't that have been there before the car chase? Who put it there? > > > The Movie doesn't want you to worry about such details it too much. > > > This is a nasty little logic problem that throws the premise of a lot of the Movie's spectacular set-pieces somewhat into question. > > > The Movie does attempt an explanation. When in the container on their way to Oslo Neil explains that our universe has a prevailing direction of entropy - a "wind". Events that go against the wind will eventually succumb to it. > > > Here is how that could work in practice: At first the glass at the Oslo Turnstile is normal and unbroken. A few hours before the events the glass becomes somewhat brittle in some spots. A micro fracture develops which slowly grows to become more and more pronounced over time. Small pieces start falling off. Eventually the fracture starts looks like a bullet hole. This is when our Protagonist enters the room. > > >
61,085	This inconsistency is very confusing to me. Socrates takes pride in knowing that he knows nothing. But if that is the case, how is he able to, as he often does, give book-length of "truth" (as opposed to "opinions" which Socrates/Plato despises) to his friends, as in Republic, Apologies etc. on significant topics such as politics and ethics? Is it possible that he truly believed he knows nothing but has to speak nonetheless to make a living or to garner respect? (On afterthought, this is terrible since it would imply origin of the western moral philosophy might be one of dishonesty and hypocrisy.)	2019/03/13	[ "https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/61085", "https://philosophy.stackexchange.com", "https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/37062/" ]	The Platonic Socrates did not claim that he knew nothing. ========================================================= When asked by Chaerephon whether there were any wiser than Socrates, the Delphic Oracle replied that there was no one wiser (Apology, 21A). This puzzled Socrates, who thought he had no wisdom at all. He questioned the reputedly wise, then the poets, then the craftsmen or artisans. He concluded, not that they did not know anything but that they did not know anything 'fine and good' (kalon kagathon : Apology, 21D). What he means is, I think, that they lacked knowledge of the really important things, those that concern human well-being and virtue. Their lack of knowledge would have been revealed - exposed - by their inability to analyse these matters adequately under the impact of the Socratic elenchus. Socrates himself was in no better position but *he knew that he lacked knowledge of the really important things, while others did not. His wisdom consisted in his recognition that he lacked this* knowledge.** Certainly the early Platonic dialogues, which are widely thought to be not too far divergent from the views of the historical Socrates, are abortive. The Charmides, Laches, Lysis, for instance, end in defeat. No satisfactory definitions are reached. Socrates has no knowledge to bring to the table. Extended speeches are rare in the early Platonic dialogues ========================================================== Now, in these early dialogues there is much adversarial question and answer but The normal pattern is : > > 1. The interlocutor, "saying what he believes," asserts p, which Socrates considers false, and targets for refutation. > 2. Socrates obtains agreement to further premises, say q and r, which > are logically independent of p. The agreement is ad hoc: Socrates > does not argue for q or for r. > 3. Socrates argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that q and r entail not-p. > 4. Thereupon Socrates claims that p has been proved false, not-p true. (Gregory Vlastos, 'The Socratic Elenchus', The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 79, No. 11, Seventy-Ninth Annual Meeting of the > American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division (Nov., 1982), pp. 711-714: 712.) > > > If 'p' is a definition of courage or friendship, say, we are none the wiser about what courage or friendship is; all we have established is that it cannot be defined as 'p'. Extended speeches belong to the middle and late dialogues ========================================================= Such speeches occur, not 'all the time' (if that means frequently or constantly), in the middle Platonic dialogues such as Phaedo, Republic, Phaedrus : there is much extended discourse by Socrates in the Republic in particular. In the late dialogues such as Timaeus and the Laws there are long speeches but Socrates does not make them : Timaeus does in the dialogue of that name, and the Athenian Stranger does in the Laws - a dialogue in which Socrates does not appear. Why the change? Universal consensus is not to be had but the majority view among scholars is that while the early dialogues repeat or recreate the historical Socrates' method of question and answer, in these later dialogues Plato elaborates his own ideas and arguments. The 'Socrates' of the Republic is Plato speculating under Socrates' name. Socrates' name may - though we can never know - be retained because Plato derived his initial philosophical impetus from the elentic historical Socrates and is honouring the growth-point of his philosophy. A point about the Socratic speeches =================================== A final point should be made. The Republic's Socratic speeches are not dogmatic orations. Everything is tentative. The analogy of the sun (VI.507D), the line (509D), and the cave (VII.514A), an epistemological and metaphysical axis of the text, are only 'as if' accounts - stand-ins for properly accurate, non-allegorical analyses and expositions (VI.506D-507A). As well, whatever Socrates says about the psuche (soul) and its virtues (aretai) is provisional. At IV.435c–d and 504b ff.VI we are told that the full, precise truth about these matters can only be discovered via a longer road on which the Republic cannot embark. Whatever Socrates engages in, it is not the dogmatic speechifying of a supposedly all-wise figure. References ========== Christopher Rowe, 'Socrates and Plato', Phronesis, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 72-82. Daniel W. Graham, 'Socrates and Plato', Phronesis, Vol. 37, No. 2 (1992), pp. 141-165. Gregory Vlastos, 'The Socratic Elenchus', The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 79, No. 11, Seventy-Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division (Nov., 1982), pp. 711-714 Michel Meyer, 'Dialectic and Questioning: Socrates and Plato', American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 281-289.	There is no inconsistency. First of all, we have to consider that the "real" [Socrates](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/) and the [main character](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#Soc) in many Plato's dialogues, called Socrates, are obviously linked but not exactly the same person. Plato had personal experience of Socrates and for sure he borrowed in many ways from Socrates, but in reading Plato's dialogues it is not easy to draw the line between him (Plato) and his teacher. The method of asking and answering questions is presumably due to Socrates and Plato uses it in most of the dialogues. Typical example is the [Theaetetus](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-theaetetus/#SumDia) where Socrates questions Theaetetus about key issue of the dialogue: “What is knowledge?”: > > [[145e](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Asection%3D145e)] Socrates Then knowledge and wisdom are the same thing? > > > Theaetetus Yes. > > > Socrates Well, it is just this that I am in doubt about and cannot fully grasp by my own efforts—what knowledge really is. > > > The so-called [Socratic method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) is aimed at aquiring the definition (the knowledge of the essence) starting from common sense notions and (presumably) shared opinions and test them with a series of questions. Thus, Socrates' approach has not as a result that "he knows nothing" but instead that, starting from an initial status of confusion or from seemingly certain assertions (expressing "false" knowledge), to inquire on them in order to attain real knowledge.
327,575	So I have an Acer laptop that has both an HDD and SSD. I have been having trouble dual booting Ubuntu with Windows. For some reason Ubuntu does not recognize Windows and I do not want to wipe out windows hard drive... Ive done this 3 times already on accident ha(First time I lost Windows 8 but I hated it anyway). I was wondering if it was okay to keep windows on my hdd and just install ubuntu on my ssd(20 GB)? Or in anyone has an alternate solution I am all ears.. Thanks!	2013/08/01	[ "https://askubuntu.com/questions/327575", "https://askubuntu.com", "https://askubuntu.com/users/180569/" ]	1. Not to mess up with Windows while installing Ubuntu, do the partitions with Gparted THEN do a custom installation using the new partitions. 2. Grub2 should find the OS whatever disk they are on. Just make sure to install the grub to the 1st disk in the boot order.	Since both the operating systems are on different hard drives, I think the BIOS will always check 1 disk before the other. And whichever OS it sees on that disk, it will boot into. One option to pick the OS at boot-up is to switch the boot-order when you boot. There is usually a small time-frame during boot-up in which you can press a key,for example, F11, but may be different, to enter boot options This should be displayed when you boot your machine. boot...
9,136,466	I've been getting in to mongo, but coming from RDBMS background facing the probably obvious questions with regards to denormalisation and general data modelling. If I have a document type with an array of sub docs, each sub doc has a status code. In The relational world I would add a foreign key to the record, StatusId, simple. In mongodb, would you denormalise the key pieces of data from the "status" e.g. Code and desc and hold objectid referencing another collection of proper status. I guess the next question is one of design, if the status doc is modified I'd then need to modified the denormalised data? Another question on the same theme is how would you model a transaction table, say I have events and people, the events could be quite granular, say time sheets which over time may lead to many records. Based on what I've seen, this would seem like a good candidate for a child / sub array of docs, of course that could be indexed for speed. Therefore is it possible to query / find just the sub array or part of it? And given the 16mb limit for doc size, and I just limited the transaction history of the person? Or should the transaction history be a separate collection with a onjid referencing the person? Thanks for any input Sam	2012/02/03	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9136466", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/280192/" ]	> > Or should the transaction history be a separate collection with a onjid referencing the person? > > > Probably, I think [this S/O question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4662530/how-should-i-implement-this-schema-in-mongodb/4684647#4684647) may help you understand why. > > if the status doc is modified I'd then need to modified the denormalised data? > > > Yes this is standard trade-off in MongoDB. You will encounter this question a lot. You may need to leverage a Queue structure to ensure that data remains consistent across multiple collections. > > Therefore is it possible to query / find just the sub array or part of it? > > > This is a tough one specific to MongoDB. With the basic query syntax, you have only limited support for dealing with arrays of objects. The new "Aggregration Framework" is actually much better here, but it's not available in a stable build.	All your "how to model this or that" can't really be answered, because good schema design depends on so many factors (access patters, hardware characteristics, is cluster used, etc). > > if the status doc is modified I'd then need to modified the denormalised data? > > > Usually yes, that's the drawback of denormalisation. But sometimes you don't have to (some social network site stores user name with a photo tag and doesn't update it when user changes his name). > > to query / find just the sub array or part of it? > > > It is not currently possible to fetch only a part of array (unless using map/reduce, of course). > > And given the 4mb limit > > > Where did you get this from? It's 16mb at the moment.
9,136,466	I've been getting in to mongo, but coming from RDBMS background facing the probably obvious questions with regards to denormalisation and general data modelling. If I have a document type with an array of sub docs, each sub doc has a status code. In The relational world I would add a foreign key to the record, StatusId, simple. In mongodb, would you denormalise the key pieces of data from the "status" e.g. Code and desc and hold objectid referencing another collection of proper status. I guess the next question is one of design, if the status doc is modified I'd then need to modified the denormalised data? Another question on the same theme is how would you model a transaction table, say I have events and people, the events could be quite granular, say time sheets which over time may lead to many records. Based on what I've seen, this would seem like a good candidate for a child / sub array of docs, of course that could be indexed for speed. Therefore is it possible to query / find just the sub array or part of it? And given the 16mb limit for doc size, and I just limited the transaction history of the person? Or should the transaction history be a separate collection with a onjid referencing the person? Thanks for any input Sam	2012/02/03	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9136466", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/280192/" ]	All your "how to model this or that" can't really be answered, because good schema design depends on so many factors (access patters, hardware characteristics, is cluster used, etc). > > if the status doc is modified I'd then need to modified the denormalised data? > > > Usually yes, that's the drawback of denormalisation. But sometimes you don't have to (some social network site stores user name with a photo tag and doesn't update it when user changes his name). > > to query / find just the sub array or part of it? > > > It is not currently possible to fetch only a part of array (unless using map/reduce, of course). > > And given the 4mb limit > > > Where did you get this from? It's 16mb at the moment.	While it's true that schema design does take into account many factors, the need to denormalize data usually comes up somewhere. I tend to take advantage of denormalization in my apps that use MongoDB because I feel it lends itself well storing denormalized data: * no additional column maintenance * support for hashes and arrays as field types (perfect for storing denormalized fields) * speedy, non-blocking writes make syncing data less expensive * document size growth only marginally affects performance up to limits (for the most part) There are a few gems that help you manage denormalized data, including setting it up and keeping it in sync. If you're using Mongoid, you try [mongoid\_alize](http://github.com/dzello/mongoid_alize). DISCLAIMER: I am the author and maintainer of mongoid\_alize.
9,136,466	I've been getting in to mongo, but coming from RDBMS background facing the probably obvious questions with regards to denormalisation and general data modelling. If I have a document type with an array of sub docs, each sub doc has a status code. In The relational world I would add a foreign key to the record, StatusId, simple. In mongodb, would you denormalise the key pieces of data from the "status" e.g. Code and desc and hold objectid referencing another collection of proper status. I guess the next question is one of design, if the status doc is modified I'd then need to modified the denormalised data? Another question on the same theme is how would you model a transaction table, say I have events and people, the events could be quite granular, say time sheets which over time may lead to many records. Based on what I've seen, this would seem like a good candidate for a child / sub array of docs, of course that could be indexed for speed. Therefore is it possible to query / find just the sub array or part of it? And given the 16mb limit for doc size, and I just limited the transaction history of the person? Or should the transaction history be a separate collection with a onjid referencing the person? Thanks for any input Sam	2012/02/03	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9136466", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/280192/" ]	> > Or should the transaction history be a separate collection with a onjid referencing the person? > > > Probably, I think [this S/O question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4662530/how-should-i-implement-this-schema-in-mongodb/4684647#4684647) may help you understand why. > > if the status doc is modified I'd then need to modified the denormalised data? > > > Yes this is standard trade-off in MongoDB. You will encounter this question a lot. You may need to leverage a Queue structure to ensure that data remains consistent across multiple collections. > > Therefore is it possible to query / find just the sub array or part of it? > > > This is a tough one specific to MongoDB. With the basic query syntax, you have only limited support for dealing with arrays of objects. The new "Aggregration Framework" is actually much better here, but it's not available in a stable build.	While it's true that schema design does take into account many factors, the need to denormalize data usually comes up somewhere. I tend to take advantage of denormalization in my apps that use MongoDB because I feel it lends itself well storing denormalized data: * no additional column maintenance * support for hashes and arrays as field types (perfect for storing denormalized fields) * speedy, non-blocking writes make syncing data less expensive * document size growth only marginally affects performance up to limits (for the most part) There are a few gems that help you manage denormalized data, including setting it up and keeping it in sync. If you're using Mongoid, you try [mongoid\_alize](http://github.com/dzello/mongoid_alize). DISCLAIMER: I am the author and maintainer of mongoid\_alize.
24,536	The proposition "from" is could be used to indicate the source. In this example (context is soccer, or association football): > > [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_v_England_(1986_FIFA_World_Cup)#Lineker.27s_goal_and_Argentine_victory) > > "England were unable to score an equaliser - Olarticoechea making a particularly important defensive contribution in the 87th minute when he and Lineker both jumped for the ball *from* another Barnes cross, the two players collided, both missed the ball by a whisker..." > > > A ball is a physical object. A cross is the act of sending a ball across the field. The part: > > "...when he and Lineker both jumped for the ball *from* another Barnes cross..." > > > suggests that a physical object (ball) could somehow appear as a result of an act (cross), which sounds weird. An abstract version of "the ball from a cross" would be "*[an object]* from *[an action]", which suggests that the "[action]" has a hand in creating the "[object]". Would this: > > "...he and Lineker both jumped for the ball on* another Barnes cross...." > > > be possibily better?	2014/05/30	[ "https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/24536", "https://ell.stackexchange.com", "https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/6362/" ]	I agree with your parsing of (he and Lineker) (jumped (for (the ball (from another cross)))) as opposed to the alternate given by @Jay of (he and Lineker) (jumped (for (the ball)) (from another cross)). The natural assumption is that the ball came from the cross, not that the players came from the cross; especially since a cross is, as you say, an action performed on a ball. However, I see no reason why the idea that a ball appears somewhere as the result of a cross should be weird; the whole point of a cross is to make the ball disappear from location A and appear at location B on the opposite side of the field. So it doesn't seem odd at all to me, in fact it sounds perfectly reasonable and natural.	I take it this is from the description of a football (soccer) game? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the terminology of the sport. But assuming that, as you say, a "cross" is an action ... The quote does not say that the ball came from a cross. It says that they jumped from a cross. "For the ball" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adverb to modify "jumped". Eliminating some modifiers, you could simplify this sentence down to "[The two men] jumped from a cross." So they did a cross, and then from that cross they jumped. The difficulty that often arises is that the same construction could have a totally different meaning. In a different context, you could say, "They asked for the ball from Sweden", meaning, they asked for the ball, and the ball is from Sweden.
24,536	The proposition "from" is could be used to indicate the source. In this example (context is soccer, or association football): > > [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_v_England_(1986_FIFA_World_Cup)#Lineker.27s_goal_and_Argentine_victory) > > "England were unable to score an equaliser - Olarticoechea making a particularly important defensive contribution in the 87th minute when he and Lineker both jumped for the ball *from* another Barnes cross, the two players collided, both missed the ball by a whisker..." > > > A ball is a physical object. A cross is the act of sending a ball across the field. The part: > > "...when he and Lineker both jumped for the ball *from* another Barnes cross..." > > > suggests that a physical object (ball) could somehow appear as a result of an act (cross), which sounds weird. An abstract version of "the ball from a cross" would be "*[an object]* from *[an action]", which suggests that the "[action]" has a hand in creating the "[object]". Would this: > > "...he and Lineker both jumped for the ball on* another Barnes cross...." > > > be possibily better?	2014/05/30	[ "https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/24536", "https://ell.stackexchange.com", "https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/6362/" ]	The word from is used to indicate who passed the ball (Barnes). In sports, a pass (or throw) uses the same prepositions as a birthday present: > > a gift from my brother to my sister > > a touchdown pass from Manning to Harrison > > a scoring pass from Orr to Esposito > > a crossing pass from Barnes to Lineker > > a throw from Jeter to first base > > > As for your assertion that the wording "suggests that a physical object (ball) could somehow appear as a result of an act (cross)," that's not the case. The word from doesn't suggest that the ball was conjured out of nowhere, but that it got its direction from Barnes' foot. So: > > he and Lineker both jumped for the ball from another Barnes cross > > > means the same as: > > After a cross pass from Barnes, both he [Olarticoechea] and Lineker jumped for the ball. > > > I assure you, the preposition from sounds very natural to a sports fan in that context. --- As for your initial assertion: > > The proposition from is used to indicate the source. > > > That is an oversimplified view of a very flexible word. The word from can also be used: * when stating who gives or sends you something → this package from Bob * when something starts at a particular point and moves away → the puck from center ice * when some condition is because of or as a result of something → clothes wet from the rain. Little prepositions often have [many uses](http://onelook.com/?w=from&ls=a).	I take it this is from the description of a football (soccer) game? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the terminology of the sport. But assuming that, as you say, a "cross" is an action ... The quote does not say that the ball came from a cross. It says that they jumped from a cross. "For the ball" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adverb to modify "jumped". Eliminating some modifiers, you could simplify this sentence down to "[The two men] jumped from a cross." So they did a cross, and then from that cross they jumped. The difficulty that often arises is that the same construction could have a totally different meaning. In a different context, you could say, "They asked for the ball from Sweden", meaning, they asked for the ball, and the ball is from Sweden.
32,105	In the question; [Hollow-boned Humanoids](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/13619/hollow-boned-humanoids) Nathaniels humanoids were a flying mammal species called soarfolk. But let's say that I want a sapient mammal to have hollow bones but not fly. These furred, sapient mammals are called Lokk, they evolved in the plains after leaving jungles. They are an average of 5"4 and 50 kg. The length of their arms(3.1 ft) Legs(2.8 ft) and tail(2.7 ft). They will be preferably digitigrade(though not a requirement) and of course they have hollow bones. How could a creature like this evolve in an earth like world?	2015/12/23	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32105", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/11049/" ]	Maybe while living in the jungles they were arboreal and the lighter animals were able to stay higher in the trees, or be able to 'flee' across smaller branches in the trees allowing them to live, as they 'ran' from predators. So like flying, staying up higher in the trees would encourage lighter bodies, but having hollow bones turned out to be more advantageous than a smaller frame, (like longer arms to help reach farther to grab the next branch. The other might be if they were originally a flying species that started living in the treetops of the jungles and lost the ability to fly, but became more monkey like as generations came and went.	Overall, make weight a major concern in some way, while maintaining that there is an advantage in having more upright height on land (To keep them bi-pedal). The easiest way to do so is if gravity were considerably stronger, which may or may not be considered "Earth-like". There would be more advantage to have stronger, denser, bones. But the weight might not be worth having solid bones, so they might become hollow. There are probably other ways to make one's weight heavy without simply adapting to lose that weight, but I can't think of them at the moment. Hopefully others will have more ideas if you don't want to mess with gravity.
32,105	In the question; [Hollow-boned Humanoids](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/13619/hollow-boned-humanoids) Nathaniels humanoids were a flying mammal species called soarfolk. But let's say that I want a sapient mammal to have hollow bones but not fly. These furred, sapient mammals are called Lokk, they evolved in the plains after leaving jungles. They are an average of 5"4 and 50 kg. The length of their arms(3.1 ft) Legs(2.8 ft) and tail(2.7 ft). They will be preferably digitigrade(though not a requirement) and of course they have hollow bones. How could a creature like this evolve in an earth like world?	2015/12/23	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32105", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/11049/" ]	Overall, make weight a major concern in some way, while maintaining that there is an advantage in having more upright height on land (To keep them bi-pedal). The easiest way to do so is if gravity were considerably stronger, which may or may not be considered "Earth-like". There would be more advantage to have stronger, denser, bones. But the weight might not be worth having solid bones, so they might become hollow. There are probably other ways to make one's weight heavy without simply adapting to lose that weight, but I can't think of them at the moment. Hopefully others will have more ideas if you don't want to mess with gravity.	Perhaps there are poisonous gases created by underground bacteria in the forest floor which are fatal to your Lokk, and those gases dissipate in sunlight (i.e. concentrations would readily reach non-fatal levels as one approaches the top of the jungle. If combined with plants whose branches retract upon sufficient jarring (i.e. Lokk who were heavier and disturbed the branches would fall into the gases), the Lokk would probably evolve into lighter, hollow-boned organisms, who could keep themselves out of the gases, up in the treetops.
32,105	In the question; [Hollow-boned Humanoids](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/13619/hollow-boned-humanoids) Nathaniels humanoids were a flying mammal species called soarfolk. But let's say that I want a sapient mammal to have hollow bones but not fly. These furred, sapient mammals are called Lokk, they evolved in the plains after leaving jungles. They are an average of 5"4 and 50 kg. The length of their arms(3.1 ft) Legs(2.8 ft) and tail(2.7 ft). They will be preferably digitigrade(though not a requirement) and of course they have hollow bones. How could a creature like this evolve in an earth like world?	2015/12/23	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32105", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/11049/" ]	Overall, make weight a major concern in some way, while maintaining that there is an advantage in having more upright height on land (To keep them bi-pedal). The easiest way to do so is if gravity were considerably stronger, which may or may not be considered "Earth-like". There would be more advantage to have stronger, denser, bones. But the weight might not be worth having solid bones, so they might become hollow. There are probably other ways to make one's weight heavy without simply adapting to lose that weight, but I can't think of them at the moment. Hopefully others will have more ideas if you don't want to mess with gravity.	You have 2 big problems to overcome The easier reason bats don't have hollow bones is that mammals have fewer bones than most vertebrates and bone marrow is where our blood is made, birds have moved the bulk of their marrow to only a few select bones and use nucleated blood cells (so blood can make more blood) to [compensate](http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdcirculatory.html). Remember not all of a bird's bones are hollow many of the large limb bones actually have marrow or are hollow with large amounts of marrow in the ends of the bones. So you have two ways: 1 you can have a mammal that has developed an alternative to bone marrow, say like a new tissue in the spleen or liver. 2.You can have a few select bones that have been altered to have lots of marrow like say a large growth off the pelvis and a swollen bulbous tail with big vertibra, that way you can make some bones hollow without loosing the total volume of bone marrow. There is a second hurdle once you can make bones hollow you still have the problem of how to get air to the bones to fill them. birds have a unique air sac based breathing system with hard inflexible lungs. the air sacs a widely distributed and can be moved by evolution into bones with disturbing the function of the lungs. If a mammal tried this they would suffocate from either having a hole in the diaphragm or making the lungs to stiff. So you also need to completely redesign the mammalian breathing system.which is tricky becasue all your intermediaries have to keep up with the high oxygen demand of warm blooded anatomy. You would have to slowly stiffen the upper part of the lungs while binding the lower portion of the lungs to the diaphragm and ribs to physically pull the lungs open, instead of using negative pressure the way mammal do right now.but that means the chest cavity needs to get a lot bigger to fit all that.
32,105	In the question; [Hollow-boned Humanoids](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/13619/hollow-boned-humanoids) Nathaniels humanoids were a flying mammal species called soarfolk. But let's say that I want a sapient mammal to have hollow bones but not fly. These furred, sapient mammals are called Lokk, they evolved in the plains after leaving jungles. They are an average of 5"4 and 50 kg. The length of their arms(3.1 ft) Legs(2.8 ft) and tail(2.7 ft). They will be preferably digitigrade(though not a requirement) and of course they have hollow bones. How could a creature like this evolve in an earth like world?	2015/12/23	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32105", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/11049/" ]	Maybe while living in the jungles they were arboreal and the lighter animals were able to stay higher in the trees, or be able to 'flee' across smaller branches in the trees allowing them to live, as they 'ran' from predators. So like flying, staying up higher in the trees would encourage lighter bodies, but having hollow bones turned out to be more advantageous than a smaller frame, (like longer arms to help reach farther to grab the next branch. The other might be if they were originally a flying species that started living in the treetops of the jungles and lost the ability to fly, but became more monkey like as generations came and went.	Perhaps there are poisonous gases created by underground bacteria in the forest floor which are fatal to your Lokk, and those gases dissipate in sunlight (i.e. concentrations would readily reach non-fatal levels as one approaches the top of the jungle. If combined with plants whose branches retract upon sufficient jarring (i.e. Lokk who were heavier and disturbed the branches would fall into the gases), the Lokk would probably evolve into lighter, hollow-boned organisms, who could keep themselves out of the gases, up in the treetops.
32,105	In the question; [Hollow-boned Humanoids](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/13619/hollow-boned-humanoids) Nathaniels humanoids were a flying mammal species called soarfolk. But let's say that I want a sapient mammal to have hollow bones but not fly. These furred, sapient mammals are called Lokk, they evolved in the plains after leaving jungles. They are an average of 5"4 and 50 kg. The length of their arms(3.1 ft) Legs(2.8 ft) and tail(2.7 ft). They will be preferably digitigrade(though not a requirement) and of course they have hollow bones. How could a creature like this evolve in an earth like world?	2015/12/23	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32105", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/11049/" ]	Maybe while living in the jungles they were arboreal and the lighter animals were able to stay higher in the trees, or be able to 'flee' across smaller branches in the trees allowing them to live, as they 'ran' from predators. So like flying, staying up higher in the trees would encourage lighter bodies, but having hollow bones turned out to be more advantageous than a smaller frame, (like longer arms to help reach farther to grab the next branch. The other might be if they were originally a flying species that started living in the treetops of the jungles and lost the ability to fly, but became more monkey like as generations came and went.	You have 2 big problems to overcome The easier reason bats don't have hollow bones is that mammals have fewer bones than most vertebrates and bone marrow is where our blood is made, birds have moved the bulk of their marrow to only a few select bones and use nucleated blood cells (so blood can make more blood) to [compensate](http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdcirculatory.html). Remember not all of a bird's bones are hollow many of the large limb bones actually have marrow or are hollow with large amounts of marrow in the ends of the bones. So you have two ways: 1 you can have a mammal that has developed an alternative to bone marrow, say like a new tissue in the spleen or liver. 2.You can have a few select bones that have been altered to have lots of marrow like say a large growth off the pelvis and a swollen bulbous tail with big vertibra, that way you can make some bones hollow without loosing the total volume of bone marrow. There is a second hurdle once you can make bones hollow you still have the problem of how to get air to the bones to fill them. birds have a unique air sac based breathing system with hard inflexible lungs. the air sacs a widely distributed and can be moved by evolution into bones with disturbing the function of the lungs. If a mammal tried this they would suffocate from either having a hole in the diaphragm or making the lungs to stiff. So you also need to completely redesign the mammalian breathing system.which is tricky becasue all your intermediaries have to keep up with the high oxygen demand of warm blooded anatomy. You would have to slowly stiffen the upper part of the lungs while binding the lower portion of the lungs to the diaphragm and ribs to physically pull the lungs open, instead of using negative pressure the way mammal do right now.but that means the chest cavity needs to get a lot bigger to fit all that.
32,105	In the question; [Hollow-boned Humanoids](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/13619/hollow-boned-humanoids) Nathaniels humanoids were a flying mammal species called soarfolk. But let's say that I want a sapient mammal to have hollow bones but not fly. These furred, sapient mammals are called Lokk, they evolved in the plains after leaving jungles. They are an average of 5"4 and 50 kg. The length of their arms(3.1 ft) Legs(2.8 ft) and tail(2.7 ft). They will be preferably digitigrade(though not a requirement) and of course they have hollow bones. How could a creature like this evolve in an earth like world?	2015/12/23	[ "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32105", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com", "https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/11049/" ]	You have 2 big problems to overcome The easier reason bats don't have hollow bones is that mammals have fewer bones than most vertebrates and bone marrow is where our blood is made, birds have moved the bulk of their marrow to only a few select bones and use nucleated blood cells (so blood can make more blood) to [compensate](http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdcirculatory.html). Remember not all of a bird's bones are hollow many of the large limb bones actually have marrow or are hollow with large amounts of marrow in the ends of the bones. So you have two ways: 1 you can have a mammal that has developed an alternative to bone marrow, say like a new tissue in the spleen or liver. 2.You can have a few select bones that have been altered to have lots of marrow like say a large growth off the pelvis and a swollen bulbous tail with big vertibra, that way you can make some bones hollow without loosing the total volume of bone marrow. There is a second hurdle once you can make bones hollow you still have the problem of how to get air to the bones to fill them. birds have a unique air sac based breathing system with hard inflexible lungs. the air sacs a widely distributed and can be moved by evolution into bones with disturbing the function of the lungs. If a mammal tried this they would suffocate from either having a hole in the diaphragm or making the lungs to stiff. So you also need to completely redesign the mammalian breathing system.which is tricky becasue all your intermediaries have to keep up with the high oxygen demand of warm blooded anatomy. You would have to slowly stiffen the upper part of the lungs while binding the lower portion of the lungs to the diaphragm and ribs to physically pull the lungs open, instead of using negative pressure the way mammal do right now.but that means the chest cavity needs to get a lot bigger to fit all that.	Perhaps there are poisonous gases created by underground bacteria in the forest floor which are fatal to your Lokk, and those gases dissipate in sunlight (i.e. concentrations would readily reach non-fatal levels as one approaches the top of the jungle. If combined with plants whose branches retract upon sufficient jarring (i.e. Lokk who were heavier and disturbed the branches would fall into the gases), the Lokk would probably evolve into lighter, hollow-boned organisms, who could keep themselves out of the gases, up in the treetops.
1,333,377	Is there a way to monitor how an installer for Windows writes its own stuff inside the registry? Is there also a way to monitor which files are written on the disk?	2018/06/22	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/1333377", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/916839/" ]	[Revo Uninstaller](https://www.revouninstaller.com/) will track an installation and show you all files and registry entries that are written during an installation.	Use a software that does Registry Snapshots like [RegShot2](https://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=2505). > > Regshot2 Unicode is a registry change and file system change detection > diff tool that takes snapshots, generates HTML reports, and creates > automatic REG undo/redo scripts. The program can save/load snapshots > to file for later use, while registry path and file path > inclusion/exclusion rules can be set to include/exclude paths in the > snapshots. > > > * Do a registry snapshot * install the software * do a 2nd snapshot and let the software compare the 2 snapshots for diffs. Now you see the new/altered registry settings.
1,333,377	Is there a way to monitor how an installer for Windows writes its own stuff inside the registry? Is there also a way to monitor which files are written on the disk?	2018/06/22	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/1333377", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/916839/" ]	[Revo Uninstaller](https://www.revouninstaller.com/) will track an installation and show you all files and registry entries that are written during an installation.	The best tool for this is process explorer by Windows Sysinternals. It's free tools that can view file and registry handles of any program running on the system. Here's the link: <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/process-utilities>) [Here's an image of the open handles of Explorer.exe](https://i.stack.imgur.com/t1lEx.png)
1,333,377	Is there a way to monitor how an installer for Windows writes its own stuff inside the registry? Is there also a way to monitor which files are written on the disk?	2018/06/22	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/1333377", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/916839/" ]	Use [Process Monitor](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/procmon) for this purpose. RegMon and FileMon are merged into this and it can now be used to monitor process, registry and files.	Use a software that does Registry Snapshots like [RegShot2](https://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=2505). > > Regshot2 Unicode is a registry change and file system change detection > diff tool that takes snapshots, generates HTML reports, and creates > automatic REG undo/redo scripts. The program can save/load snapshots > to file for later use, while registry path and file path > inclusion/exclusion rules can be set to include/exclude paths in the > snapshots. > > > * Do a registry snapshot * install the software * do a 2nd snapshot and let the software compare the 2 snapshots for diffs. Now you see the new/altered registry settings.
1,333,377	Is there a way to monitor how an installer for Windows writes its own stuff inside the registry? Is there also a way to monitor which files are written on the disk?	2018/06/22	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/1333377", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/916839/" ]	Use [Process Monitor](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/procmon) for this purpose. RegMon and FileMon are merged into this and it can now be used to monitor process, registry and files.	The best tool for this is process explorer by Windows Sysinternals. It's free tools that can view file and registry handles of any program running on the system. Here's the link: <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/process-utilities>) [Here's an image of the open handles of Explorer.exe](https://i.stack.imgur.com/t1lEx.png)
1,333,377	Is there a way to monitor how an installer for Windows writes its own stuff inside the registry? Is there also a way to monitor which files are written on the disk?	2018/06/22	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/1333377", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/916839/" ]	Use a software that does Registry Snapshots like [RegShot2](https://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=2505). > > Regshot2 Unicode is a registry change and file system change detection > diff tool that takes snapshots, generates HTML reports, and creates > automatic REG undo/redo scripts. The program can save/load snapshots > to file for later use, while registry path and file path > inclusion/exclusion rules can be set to include/exclude paths in the > snapshots. > > > * Do a registry snapshot * install the software * do a 2nd snapshot and let the software compare the 2 snapshots for diffs. Now you see the new/altered registry settings.	The best tool for this is process explorer by Windows Sysinternals. It's free tools that can view file and registry handles of any program running on the system. Here's the link: <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/process-utilities>) [Here's an image of the open handles of Explorer.exe](https://i.stack.imgur.com/t1lEx.png)
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	It really depends on the license the open source project uses. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; you should always read the license for full details. If a project is under the GPL, then anything you derive from it must also be released under the GPL (or a compatible license, and if it is released at all). You're still allowed to charge money for it, but anyone who buys it has to be provided with the full source, and you can't prevent them also selling it, or giving it away for free. If a project is under the BSD license, you can do pretty much anything with it including incorporate it into a proprietary closed source product. There is BSD code inside Windows! Other licenses fall somewhere in between.	Isn't that essentially what red hat does? Even though they have fedora, they are charging money for their linux distribution. Granted, they've written a lot of code for it, it's still based on open source-stuff.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Nothing prevents clone products appearing on the market. Look at all the various linux distributions, for example. The X.org project was forked from XFree86. And so on. It happens relatively infrequently, though, for a couple of reasons: * The original project has the first-to-market advantage * The original is usually being given away free So unless your version is significantly better than the original, you're not going to get much uptake or make much money out of it. If your version is significantly better, then go ahead! From the original developer's point of view, the power of the GPL is that it forces such clones to share any improvements with the rest of the world, so they can be incorporated back into the original.	> > What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market? > > > Nothing. The real question is: How can a similar cloned product get more popular than the original product? Some cases where somebody might clone/fork a project: * Picking up a dead open source project and continuing its development. If the new derived product is maintained regularly and it gets more updates than the original version, then people will start using the new version. This is one of the big benefits of open source - good software does not need to die, just because the original developers stop developing it, but someone else can continue from where they were left. One example of such a project (which I've used) is that the development of [Turck MMCache](http://turck-mmcache.sourceforge.net/index_old.html) had died out in 2003, so [eAccelerator](http://eaccelerator.net/) forked it and continued its development in 2004. I'm sure there are lots of other examples. * There is a disagreement in the developer community of an open source project, and the project splits into two. That's why it's best to strive for a common understanding in open source projects, so that the community would not be split needlessly. If a project is split, the projects may continue living if they managed to attract enough developers and users, but otherwise they may slowly die. In general, splitting should be avoided, because it makes the community more fragmented and weaker. IIRC, in the video presentations of [Producing Open Source Software](http://producingoss.com/) (good stuff!) they mentioned a case where the original developer of some project wanted to take a completely new direction in the development, but the community of other developers wanted to keep the old direction. The result was that the original developer was kicked out of the project, so he created a fork of the project, while the rest of the community continued the development of the original project. * A commercial closed source derivative of an open source project which was released under a permissive license (for example BSD). The derived product would need to be considerably better in features or in support than the original product. Otherwise people will prefer using the original open and free product.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Generally, my read of the licenses is: 1. You can make a derivative work of any project based on one of the popular licenses (i.e. GPL, LGPL, Apache, MIT, BSD). 2. You may charge money for at least the distribution & packaging of your derivative work. 3. Depending on the license, you may also have to distribute your modifications in source form and/or include notices in your distribution. So to your question about Apaxe: yes, you can do this as far as I know. I believe that the Oracle HTTPD server is actually derived from Apache, and it's definitely not free!	Isn't that essentially what red hat does? Even though they have fedora, they are charging money for their linux distribution. Granted, they've written a lot of code for it, it's still based on open source-stuff.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Here's my 10,000 foot view of open source licenses: "Real" open source licenses (eg: MIT, BSD, Apache I think, etc.): You can do whatever you want with licensing derived works. It can be closed, open, etc. The license places no restrictions on your licensing of derived works. "Restricted" open source licenses (eg: GPL, LGPL): Derived works must include specific license restrictions; for example, the GPL requires derived works to be GPL-ed. Essentially your rights are restricted for derived works. Charging for products is separate from either of these; neither type restricts charging for products, although some licenses place restrictions on the rights you can retain and/or must convey to receivers of your software (ie: the "Restricted" licenses). Hope this helps. Edit: Changed by original "DRM" term for GPL type licenses to "Restricted", cause some people attach negative connotations to DRM, and/or cannot grasp how the GPL restricts your rights for derived works in an almost identical way to any other type of DRM (ie: controlling what you can do with it). Seriously, you can be a FSF supporter and still grok the concept that the GPL is more restrictive than "real" open source licenses. The question is not about which type is right or wrong, it's about what the difference is.	Isn't that essentially what red hat does? Even though they have fedora, they are charging money for their linux distribution. Granted, they've written a lot of code for it, it's still based on open source-stuff.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	> > What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market? > > > Nothing. The real question is: How can a similar cloned product get more popular than the original product? Some cases where somebody might clone/fork a project: * Picking up a dead open source project and continuing its development. If the new derived product is maintained regularly and it gets more updates than the original version, then people will start using the new version. This is one of the big benefits of open source - good software does not need to die, just because the original developers stop developing it, but someone else can continue from where they were left. One example of such a project (which I've used) is that the development of [Turck MMCache](http://turck-mmcache.sourceforge.net/index_old.html) had died out in 2003, so [eAccelerator](http://eaccelerator.net/) forked it and continued its development in 2004. I'm sure there are lots of other examples. * There is a disagreement in the developer community of an open source project, and the project splits into two. That's why it's best to strive for a common understanding in open source projects, so that the community would not be split needlessly. If a project is split, the projects may continue living if they managed to attract enough developers and users, but otherwise they may slowly die. In general, splitting should be avoided, because it makes the community more fragmented and weaker. IIRC, in the video presentations of [Producing Open Source Software](http://producingoss.com/) (good stuff!) they mentioned a case where the original developer of some project wanted to take a completely new direction in the development, but the community of other developers wanted to keep the old direction. The result was that the original developer was kicked out of the project, so he created a fork of the project, while the rest of the community continued the development of the original project. * A commercial closed source derivative of an open source project which was released under a permissive license (for example BSD). The derived product would need to be considerably better in features or in support than the original product. Otherwise people will prefer using the original open and free product.	Isn't that essentially what red hat does? Even though they have fedora, they are charging money for their linux distribution. Granted, they've written a lot of code for it, it's still based on open source-stuff.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Red Hat (and most of the other Linux vendors) charge for support, not for their software - which is primarily how companies can make money off of code that is GPL licensed.	Isn't that essentially what red hat does? Even though they have fedora, they are charging money for their linux distribution. Granted, they've written a lot of code for it, it's still based on open source-stuff.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Nothing prevents clone products appearing on the market. Look at all the various linux distributions, for example. The X.org project was forked from XFree86. And so on. It happens relatively infrequently, though, for a couple of reasons: * The original project has the first-to-market advantage * The original is usually being given away free So unless your version is significantly better than the original, you're not going to get much uptake or make much money out of it. If your version is significantly better, then go ahead! From the original developer's point of view, the power of the GPL is that it forces such clones to share any improvements with the rest of the world, so they can be incorporated back into the original.	Red Hat (and most of the other Linux vendors) charge for support, not for their software - which is primarily how companies can make money off of code that is GPL licensed.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Nothing prevents clone products appearing on the market. Look at all the various linux distributions, for example. The X.org project was forked from XFree86. And so on. It happens relatively infrequently, though, for a couple of reasons: * The original project has the first-to-market advantage * The original is usually being given away free So unless your version is significantly better than the original, you're not going to get much uptake or make much money out of it. If your version is significantly better, then go ahead! From the original developer's point of view, the power of the GPL is that it forces such clones to share any improvements with the rest of the world, so they can be incorporated back into the original.	look at MyEclipse, its really just eclipse+free plugins+myeclipse's plugins and it cost some money.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Nothing prevents clone products appearing on the market. Look at all the various linux distributions, for example. The X.org project was forked from XFree86. And so on. It happens relatively infrequently, though, for a couple of reasons: * The original project has the first-to-market advantage * The original is usually being given away free So unless your version is significantly better than the original, you're not going to get much uptake or make much money out of it. If your version is significantly better, then go ahead! From the original developer's point of view, the power of the GPL is that it forces such clones to share any improvements with the rest of the world, so they can be incorporated back into the original.	It really depends on the license the open source project uses. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; you should always read the license for full details. If a project is under the GPL, then anything you derive from it must also be released under the GPL (or a compatible license, and if it is released at all). You're still allowed to charge money for it, but anyone who buys it has to be provided with the full source, and you can't prevent them also selling it, or giving it away for free. If a project is under the BSD license, you can do pretty much anything with it including incorporate it into a proprietary closed source product. There is BSD code inside Windows! Other licenses fall somewhere in between.
493,959	This question has always been around my head. Can someone create a new product based on an existing open source project? Say you want to create an "Apaxe webserver" that is basically Apache with your some extra plugins ( say support for ASP or something similar ) Is this possible? Would you be able to create a closed source product ( either free or licensed ) As for GPL seems clear it is not possible because the source should be open. But what about Apache license, BSD and others "corporate friendly" Are the price ( free for most of the project ) , bug fixes and counting with the core development team the only thing that prevent from others to commercialize those OS products? What about: Khrome a commercial product based on Chrome with ActiveX support ( who would dare to do such a thing :P ) EDIT Thank you all you all for your answers. So, again *What prevents from similar ( clone ) products from appearing in the market?* :) NOTE: I know we are not lawyers, and we could read every OSS license here <http://www.opensource.org/licenses>.	2009/01/29	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/493959", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20654/" ]	Nothing prevents clone products appearing on the market. Look at all the various linux distributions, for example. The X.org project was forked from XFree86. And so on. It happens relatively infrequently, though, for a couple of reasons: * The original project has the first-to-market advantage * The original is usually being given away free So unless your version is significantly better than the original, you're not going to get much uptake or make much money out of it. If your version is significantly better, then go ahead! From the original developer's point of view, the power of the GPL is that it forces such clones to share any improvements with the rest of the world, so they can be incorporated back into the original.	Here's my 10,000 foot view of open source licenses: "Real" open source licenses (eg: MIT, BSD, Apache I think, etc.): You can do whatever you want with licensing derived works. It can be closed, open, etc. The license places no restrictions on your licensing of derived works. "Restricted" open source licenses (eg: GPL, LGPL): Derived works must include specific license restrictions; for example, the GPL requires derived works to be GPL-ed. Essentially your rights are restricted for derived works. Charging for products is separate from either of these; neither type restricts charging for products, although some licenses place restrictions on the rights you can retain and/or must convey to receivers of your software (ie: the "Restricted" licenses). Hope this helps. Edit: Changed by original "DRM" term for GPL type licenses to "Restricted", cause some people attach negative connotations to DRM, and/or cannot grasp how the GPL restricts your rights for derived works in an almost identical way to any other type of DRM (ie: controlling what you can do with it). Seriously, you can be a FSF supporter and still grok the concept that the GPL is more restrictive than "real" open source licenses. The question is not about which type is right or wrong, it's about what the difference is.
320,163	My source is a desktop computer power supply, It's output is 5 v ,45 amps dc. I want it to be converted to 20khz or more frequency ac current with same or less volt and same current. Edit:- I am trying to make a rTMS. Which would change it's poles at 20khz. My electromagnets would be 2,10000 turns coils. Wires used used for coiling are 0.2 mm copper wire. rTMS:- Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic stimulation 0.2 mm wire,45amps,5v 20khz. I get it it won't work. Thank you for replying. A guy from a YouTube channel called applied science made a tms, the coil had 15turns and current source was capacitors (1700v). It did work for him <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B_olmdAQx5s> Thanks	2017/07/24	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/320163", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/157892/" ]	You are in over your head First piece of advise: Do not attempt to make home-made medical equipment from an old computer supply. The are many ways that can go horribly wrong, and some of them can kill you or your patient. The inductance problem You say you will have two coils of 10k turns and an (inner?) diameter of 0.5cm. 10k turns of 0.2mm wire will have a cross-section of 400mm^2. So your coil is going to be 20mm tall, 40mm wide, with a 5mm hole down the middle. It will have an inductance of a Henry or so. To push 45A through that at 20kHz will require hundreds of thousands of volts. Even if you did somehow manage, you have about 60m of wire in those coils, so they will have a resistance of about 30-35 ohms. 45A through 33 ohm will dissipate 67kW as heat. You cannot realistically do what you want If you really do want to build your own TMS system (and again, I suggest you don't) then you need to spend some time working out what fields, frequencies, and waveforms are commonly used, and how they are usually generated. It certainly isn't a 20kHz AC signal. Then come back and ask specific questions about the implementation you've chosen.	This smells like a major [XY problem](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem), but an [H-bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_bridge) would solve this Y question. Now, when you've revealed your X, I'll still say that it's an H-bridge that you want, but that the inductance of the coil will give an impedance that is way too high for 20kHz and 45A. You need much higher voltage in order to get the current flowing. I'll just come up with a guess and say that you need at least 100 Volt, and this is ignoring the real resistance in the wire. So let's add 100 Volt on top of this. So my guess is 200 V, minimum. Again, just a guess. If you want to really know your minimum voltage, then measure your coil's inductance and resistance and then we can come to some actual numbers. 5 volt will never do this, not even if you cool it down to 0.1K.
320,163	My source is a desktop computer power supply, It's output is 5 v ,45 amps dc. I want it to be converted to 20khz or more frequency ac current with same or less volt and same current. Edit:- I am trying to make a rTMS. Which would change it's poles at 20khz. My electromagnets would be 2,10000 turns coils. Wires used used for coiling are 0.2 mm copper wire. rTMS:- Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic stimulation 0.2 mm wire,45amps,5v 20khz. I get it it won't work. Thank you for replying. A guy from a YouTube channel called applied science made a tms, the coil had 15turns and current source was capacitors (1700v). It did work for him <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B_olmdAQx5s> Thanks	2017/07/24	[ "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/320163", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com", "https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/157892/" ]	You are in over your head First piece of advise: Do not attempt to make home-made medical equipment from an old computer supply. The are many ways that can go horribly wrong, and some of them can kill you or your patient. The inductance problem You say you will have two coils of 10k turns and an (inner?) diameter of 0.5cm. 10k turns of 0.2mm wire will have a cross-section of 400mm^2. So your coil is going to be 20mm tall, 40mm wide, with a 5mm hole down the middle. It will have an inductance of a Henry or so. To push 45A through that at 20kHz will require hundreds of thousands of volts. Even if you did somehow manage, you have about 60m of wire in those coils, so they will have a resistance of about 30-35 ohms. 45A through 33 ohm will dissipate 67kW as heat. You cannot realistically do what you want If you really do want to build your own TMS system (and again, I suggest you don't) then you need to spend some time working out what fields, frequencies, and waveforms are commonly used, and how they are usually generated. It certainly isn't a 20kHz AC signal. Then come back and ask specific questions about the implementation you've chosen.	I would use a H-bridge as suggested, or if you use suitable values you may get away with something self resonant (but then the frequency may be effected by external factors)... But the real issue (other than lack of detail in your question) is: Do you really want to be stimulating your brain with a homebrew device unless you're 100% confident it works as intended?
16,264,366	When I use Clojure with the (Sun/Oracle) Hotspot VM, what other software components are required, at a minimum, by Clojure? Are all those (minimal) components Open Source? I see that the [Hotspot VM is Open Source](http://openjdk.java.net/groups/hotspot/) but I don't think any Java libraries are included in that component. I know Clojure needs Java strings and regular expressions for instance.	2013/04/28	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16264366", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/156550/" ]	There's good news and bad news and good news. * The Oracle distributions of Java includes the full Java SE libraries. In fact, any Java distribution does. * But ... the Oracle distributions is not totally open source. Certainly, the source code bundle that is included in a Java 7 Hotspot JDK says this in the source code headers: > > Copyright (c) 1997, 2006, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. ORACLE PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms. > > > * But ... Oracle distributions are built from a source code base that is derived from OpenJDK, and OpenJDK is fully Open Source. So if you want to see the Java SE source code, and the source code of the JVM, it is pretty much all in the OpenJDK repositories. It is possible that there is a bit of "secret sauce/source" for Hotspot that is held back, but I'm not aware of any public details. And if you want to be 100% kosher OSS, you have the option of using an OpenJDK-based distribution; e.g. as available for most recent Linux distros from their respective package installer repositories. You could also download and build the source from the OpenJDK repositories. --- > > When I use Clojure with the (Sun/Oracle) Hotspot VM, what other software components are required, at a minimum, by Clojure? > > > The complete Java SE libraries. I don't think you can subset the library because a Clojure program could use any of the standard Java classes. (And if you did try to subset the Java standard libraries you'd have to analyse all of Clojure and its standard libraries to figure out what subset of Java is required. And it would most likely be a moving target.) > > Are all those (minimal) components Open Source? > > > Strictly speaking, it depends on where you get them from.	A build of OpenJDK - either prebuilt from a Linux distro, such as RedHat's IcedTea, or built by hand from source (which with the new build-infra build is trivial - see AdoptOpenJDK for details) is all that you need to run Clojure. You should not attempt to subset the Java class libraries - this will cause you a great deal of pain later for essentially zero benefit.
94,335	Part of the [everyday object series](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/search?q=body%3A%22everyday+object+series%22+is%3Aquestion) > > I present to you: the everyday fay. > > Its ancestor was born on the very first day. > > It lives alone, but can work well in a team, > > Only comes alive when its foot is engulfed in a stream. > > Its head is what's most important to us, > > The material therein is almost superfluous; > > That which comes out, that is the prize. > > Incorporeal, yet it made us modernize. > > > What is this everyday fay?	2020/02/28	[ "https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/94335", "https://puzzling.stackexchange.com", "https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/57005/" ]	I believe this is > > A lightbulb > > > Its ancestor was born on the very first day. > > The sun, our world’s original light source > > > It lives alone, but can work well in a team, > > One bulb per socket, but multi-socket fixtures provide more light > > > Only comes alive when its foot is engulfed in a stream. > > A “stream” of electricity > > > Its head is what's most important to us, > > As that’s where the light comes from > > > The material therein is almost superfluous; > > Light bulbs are basically vacuums inside, other than the slenderest filament > > > That which comes out, that is the prize. > > The light, of course. > > > Incorporeal, yet it made us modernize. > > The light bulb spurred electric power distribution grids and all that came with ready availability of electricity to households. > > >	It sounds like a > > transistor > > > I present to you: the everyday fay. Its ancestor was born on the very first day. > > perhaps this references the electron? > > > It lives alone, but can work well in a team, > > A transistor is standalone, but works well in a circuit > > > Only comes alive when its foot is engulfed in a stream. > > I think this refers to the need of current (a stream of electrons) for it to operate > > > Its head is what's most important to us, The material therein is almost superfluous; > > the material of a transistor can vary, but doesn't affect how it works > > > That which comes out, that is the prize. Incorporeal, yet it made us modernize. > > We are modernized because of the transistor > > >
27,313,145	I keep seeing > > (not provided) > > > under my > > Keywords > > > section so I'm unable to see what people are searching for when Googling my website. I had a friend say for me to click 'Search Engine Optimisaion > Queries' in Analytics and then link it to Google Webmaster Tools. I did this a few days ago but I'm still getting the '(not provided)' problem. Do I need to do something else?	2014/12/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27313145", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/" ]	Keyword (not provided) occurs for all Google searches now. It only affects the organic results, not the paid. It works by directing traffic through a redirect that strips off the keyword parameter, but keeps the other referrer information, so you at least still know it is coming from Google search. You can't get rid of (not provided) appearing in analytics reports, and what your friend suggests is to instead link to [Google Webmaster Tools](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/home?pli=1), to see those reports (Which don't rely on Google Analytics), but comes straight from Google. You could login and see those reports in more detail if you just set them up and login there. The Google Analytics hookup isn't that useful, as you can't link the keywords to other Google Analytics metrics or dimensions - its just a straight import there for convenience if nothing else. What may be useful to get some kind information is to use the landing page dimension in the keyword reports. Select secondary dimension, then landing page and you will at least see where organic search has landed, and get some idea on what keywords they came from by looking at the title tag of that page.	This is a security thing. If the search came from SSL Search on <https://www.google.com> Note the HTTPS not HTTP then the data is not shown to you. Google stores it as (Not provided). Webmaster toosl should be set up the same as this is a Google thing. Google Analytics blog post : [Making search more secure: Accessing search query data in Google Analytics](http://analytics.blogspot.dk/2011/10/making-search-more-secure-accessing.html) The following is directly from Googles official blog: [Making Search more Secure](http://googleblog.blogspot.dk/2011/10/making-search-more-secure.html) > > As search becomes an increasingly customized experience, we recognize > the growing importance of protecting the personalized search results > we deliver. As a result, we’re enhancing our default search experience > for signed-in users. Over the next few weeks, many of you will find > yourselves redirected to <https://www.google.com> (note the extra “s”) > when you’re signed in to your Google Account. This change encrypts > your search queries and Google’s results page. This is especially > important when you’re using an unsecured Internet connection, such as > a WiFi hotspot in an Internet cafe. You can also navigate to > <https://www.google.com> directly if you’re signed out or if you don’t > have a Google Account. > > >
27,313,145	I keep seeing > > (not provided) > > > under my > > Keywords > > > section so I'm unable to see what people are searching for when Googling my website. I had a friend say for me to click 'Search Engine Optimisaion > Queries' in Analytics and then link it to Google Webmaster Tools. I did this a few days ago but I'm still getting the '(not provided)' problem. Do I need to do something else?	2014/12/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27313145", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/" ]	What you did was connecting the Search Console to Analytics. Here you get the Search Console Analytics Data in Google Analytics, but under a new Tab: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IQ8KW.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IQ8KW.png) The Problem here is, that you don´t see the behavioural and transaction-Metrics for this Keywords (you even don´t see which Keyword rankt to which page). As other mentioned the Problem is here Google Secure Search Update in 2011. Also Bing started 2015 to deliver the search results in https so you get less and less Keywords here. There are some workarounds with filters for this <https://blog.kissmetrics.com/unlock-keyword-not-provided/>. But this are just "workarounds". To get a idea of the Keywords a User googled to come to my pages i use <https://keyword-hero.com/>. They match the Keywords quite well. I test it now since ca. 3 weeks and it looks like this: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdA7H.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdA7H.png) You can also use the Search Console itself to get an idea of the Keywords user googled, i thinks its the best source for this.	This is a security thing. If the search came from SSL Search on <https://www.google.com> Note the HTTPS not HTTP then the data is not shown to you. Google stores it as (Not provided). Webmaster toosl should be set up the same as this is a Google thing. Google Analytics blog post : [Making search more secure: Accessing search query data in Google Analytics](http://analytics.blogspot.dk/2011/10/making-search-more-secure-accessing.html) The following is directly from Googles official blog: [Making Search more Secure](http://googleblog.blogspot.dk/2011/10/making-search-more-secure.html) > > As search becomes an increasingly customized experience, we recognize > the growing importance of protecting the personalized search results > we deliver. As a result, we’re enhancing our default search experience > for signed-in users. Over the next few weeks, many of you will find > yourselves redirected to <https://www.google.com> (note the extra “s”) > when you’re signed in to your Google Account. This change encrypts > your search queries and Google’s results page. This is especially > important when you’re using an unsecured Internet connection, such as > a WiFi hotspot in an Internet cafe. You can also navigate to > <https://www.google.com> directly if you’re signed out or if you don’t > have a Google Account. > > >
27,313,145	I keep seeing > > (not provided) > > > under my > > Keywords > > > section so I'm unable to see what people are searching for when Googling my website. I had a friend say for me to click 'Search Engine Optimisaion > Queries' in Analytics and then link it to Google Webmaster Tools. I did this a few days ago but I'm still getting the '(not provided)' problem. Do I need to do something else?	2014/12/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27313145", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/" ]	Keyword (not provided) occurs for all Google searches now. It only affects the organic results, not the paid. It works by directing traffic through a redirect that strips off the keyword parameter, but keeps the other referrer information, so you at least still know it is coming from Google search. You can't get rid of (not provided) appearing in analytics reports, and what your friend suggests is to instead link to [Google Webmaster Tools](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/home?pli=1), to see those reports (Which don't rely on Google Analytics), but comes straight from Google. You could login and see those reports in more detail if you just set them up and login there. The Google Analytics hookup isn't that useful, as you can't link the keywords to other Google Analytics metrics or dimensions - its just a straight import there for convenience if nothing else. What may be useful to get some kind information is to use the landing page dimension in the keyword reports. Select secondary dimension, then landing page and you will at least see where organic search has landed, and get some idea on what keywords they came from by looking at the title tag of that page.	As mentioned in some of the other answers, Google intentionally discontinued providing keywords when someone is referred from their search engine to a result page for privacy reasons. There is no way around this within Google Analytics. There are some other methods for best guess using Webmaster Tools as also mentioned. Another option is to use a tool that helps to match up keywords, landing pages and search volume. One such tool is provided by Authority Labs. There's probably some other providers too, this is just the one I know and use. You can see exactly how Authority Labs works in this YouTube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72mLFFTAMpw>
27,313,145	I keep seeing > > (not provided) > > > under my > > Keywords > > > section so I'm unable to see what people are searching for when Googling my website. I had a friend say for me to click 'Search Engine Optimisaion > Queries' in Analytics and then link it to Google Webmaster Tools. I did this a few days ago but I'm still getting the '(not provided)' problem. Do I need to do something else?	2014/12/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27313145", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/" ]	Keyword (not provided) occurs for all Google searches now. It only affects the organic results, not the paid. It works by directing traffic through a redirect that strips off the keyword parameter, but keeps the other referrer information, so you at least still know it is coming from Google search. You can't get rid of (not provided) appearing in analytics reports, and what your friend suggests is to instead link to [Google Webmaster Tools](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/home?pli=1), to see those reports (Which don't rely on Google Analytics), but comes straight from Google. You could login and see those reports in more detail if you just set them up and login there. The Google Analytics hookup isn't that useful, as you can't link the keywords to other Google Analytics metrics or dimensions - its just a straight import there for convenience if nothing else. What may be useful to get some kind information is to use the landing page dimension in the keyword reports. Select secondary dimension, then landing page and you will at least see where organic search has landed, and get some idea on what keywords they came from by looking at the title tag of that page.	What you did was connecting the Search Console to Analytics. Here you get the Search Console Analytics Data in Google Analytics, but under a new Tab: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IQ8KW.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IQ8KW.png) The Problem here is, that you don´t see the behavioural and transaction-Metrics for this Keywords (you even don´t see which Keyword rankt to which page). As other mentioned the Problem is here Google Secure Search Update in 2011. Also Bing started 2015 to deliver the search results in https so you get less and less Keywords here. There are some workarounds with filters for this <https://blog.kissmetrics.com/unlock-keyword-not-provided/>. But this are just "workarounds". To get a idea of the Keywords a User googled to come to my pages i use <https://keyword-hero.com/>. They match the Keywords quite well. I test it now since ca. 3 weeks and it looks like this: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdA7H.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdA7H.png) You can also use the Search Console itself to get an idea of the Keywords user googled, i thinks its the best source for this.
27,313,145	I keep seeing > > (not provided) > > > under my > > Keywords > > > section so I'm unable to see what people are searching for when Googling my website. I had a friend say for me to click 'Search Engine Optimisaion > Queries' in Analytics and then link it to Google Webmaster Tools. I did this a few days ago but I'm still getting the '(not provided)' problem. Do I need to do something else?	2014/12/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27313145", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/" ]	What you did was connecting the Search Console to Analytics. Here you get the Search Console Analytics Data in Google Analytics, but under a new Tab: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IQ8KW.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IQ8KW.png) The Problem here is, that you don´t see the behavioural and transaction-Metrics for this Keywords (you even don´t see which Keyword rankt to which page). As other mentioned the Problem is here Google Secure Search Update in 2011. Also Bing started 2015 to deliver the search results in https so you get less and less Keywords here. There are some workarounds with filters for this <https://blog.kissmetrics.com/unlock-keyword-not-provided/>. But this are just "workarounds". To get a idea of the Keywords a User googled to come to my pages i use <https://keyword-hero.com/>. They match the Keywords quite well. I test it now since ca. 3 weeks and it looks like this: [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdA7H.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdA7H.png) You can also use the Search Console itself to get an idea of the Keywords user googled, i thinks its the best source for this.	As mentioned in some of the other answers, Google intentionally discontinued providing keywords when someone is referred from their search engine to a result page for privacy reasons. There is no way around this within Google Analytics. There are some other methods for best guess using Webmaster Tools as also mentioned. Another option is to use a tool that helps to match up keywords, landing pages and search volume. One such tool is provided by Authority Labs. There's probably some other providers too, this is just the one I know and use. You can see exactly how Authority Labs works in this YouTube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72mLFFTAMpw>
159,129	I have a website on which we have recently enabled SSL. In most browsers, this works fine: our scripts and stylesheets are imported using HTTPS and most browsers load pages successfully. However, in some circumstances, secure pages will load without page styling or JavaScript. One place we've reproduced this consistently is on Mac OS X (v10.6.4) with Safari 5. We have another user who reports consistent issues on Mac OS X with Chrome v5, but I see no issues with Chrome v6. Safari reports to me that the certificate is not valid as it's signed by an 'unknown' authority (DigiCert). This complicates the situation since Safari in Windows doesn't have this issue. At least in Safari, however, a user can tell the browser to always trust content from the site and stylesheets and scripts will load appropriately. Most Chrome users who encounter the issue have a similar error signature. However, one of them reports that his browser downloads the files with blank content. In these situations, Chrome's error console indicates the file was interpreted as the correct type but transferred with a blank MIME type. The site itself runs Apache and the static content server uses Lighttpd. The inconsistency of this issue is making it hard to pin down so any suggestions would be appreciated.	2010/07/09	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/159129", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/45255/" ]	This turned out to be a problem with how we set up the certificate on our static content server. It was set up in Lighttpd such that Safari could not follow the certification chain to the intermediary cert from the root cert. We had to stack the certs in a single file and move the server cert to a pem file. Afterward, Safari treated requests to our static server as valid and began serving the JavaScript and CSS to the browser again.	Did you put hardcoded references to the files with the full url? eg '<http://server/file.cs>' If the browser refuses to show insecure content for a secure web page then you will get the problem you describe.
159,129	I have a website on which we have recently enabled SSL. In most browsers, this works fine: our scripts and stylesheets are imported using HTTPS and most browsers load pages successfully. However, in some circumstances, secure pages will load without page styling or JavaScript. One place we've reproduced this consistently is on Mac OS X (v10.6.4) with Safari 5. We have another user who reports consistent issues on Mac OS X with Chrome v5, but I see no issues with Chrome v6. Safari reports to me that the certificate is not valid as it's signed by an 'unknown' authority (DigiCert). This complicates the situation since Safari in Windows doesn't have this issue. At least in Safari, however, a user can tell the browser to always trust content from the site and stylesheets and scripts will load appropriately. Most Chrome users who encounter the issue have a similar error signature. However, one of them reports that his browser downloads the files with blank content. In these situations, Chrome's error console indicates the file was interpreted as the correct type but transferred with a blank MIME type. The site itself runs Apache and the static content server uses Lighttpd. The inconsistency of this issue is making it hard to pin down so any suggestions would be appreciated.	2010/07/09	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/159129", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/45255/" ]	This turned out to be a problem with how we set up the certificate on our static content server. It was set up in Lighttpd such that Safari could not follow the certification chain to the intermediary cert from the root cert. We had to stack the certs in a single file and move the server cert to a pem file. Afterward, Safari treated requests to our static server as valid and began serving the JavaScript and CSS to the browser again.	I had the same problem with nginx. According to DigiCert and the nginx docs, the site certificate and the intermediate certificate need to be concatenated: <http://www.digicert.com/ssl-certificate-installation-nginx.htm> <http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpSslModule> cat intermediate\_certificate.crt >> your\_domain\_name.crt nginx (and in your case, lighttpd) don't have a separate SSLCertificateChainFile directive like Apache and instead need the certificates to be "chained" manually.
22,372	I'm my experience, I found its customary to give at least two weeks notice when separating from your employer. How does this work when you're in a position with access to all systems? There have been two other individuals in my time at my current employer that quit on the spot. When I enquired about this, a coworker informed me that this is normal because of the access those individuals had. I would like to leave on good terms and I'm not sure what the etiquette is in these situations.	2014/04/08	[ "https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/22372", "https://workplace.stackexchange.com", "https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/18597/" ]	It is very unlikely that those individuals gave zero notice. What almost certainly happened is that they gave the expected amount of notice, but the company decided not to require them to work that notice. That option is always open to a company, and is frequently used when the employee has access to confidential information. Typically the person still technically works for the company through the notice period, and is paid, but they don't have to show up for work and their access privileges are revoked. Alternatively the company may have agreed with the employee to waive the notice period, so the employee could start work at the new company immediately. in the first case it's the company's decision, not your colleagues. In the second both parties have to agree. If you are in this position, you should give the normal period of notice and wait to see if the company wants to take either of those options.	It depends on how bureaucratic the company is (regarding the access). it might take them a while to revoke the access. Also it depends on how critical your role is and what kind of mentoring you need to organize for whoever will take care of your responsibilities once you leave (or how you are going to document things for the next guy). The fact that other people were able to do it, doesn't necessarily means that you can use them as reference, as you said, they left under a different circumstance. Try to be honest with them without sharing too much personal details, if you want to leave due to a new/better opportunity then talk to your manager, schedule a meeting to talk about it. If your main point with this question is the access issue, then ask them if you can sign a Confidentiality Agreement.
55,045	I understand the idea behind the commit phase, but when a site can easily spend weeks in the commit phase, isn't there a big danger that it's going to lose momentum? That all those who signed up for it forget about the site's existence? That some of them move on? It doesn't really matter that you had 3000 people commit to using a site, if only 50 actually committed within the last week, and most of the others can't even remember committing. I'm not sure what the solution is, but at the moment, it seems like you're not just setting high requirements for the first wave of sites (which is understandable and sensible), but actively strangling them by setting the wrong requirements. The first wave of sites absolutely should have to run a tough gauntlet to prove their worth. But the gauntlet should be to prove the site's support from its actual community. And the commit phase doesn't do that. The commit phase, as it is now, appeals to very few people. It appeals to the people who hang around here on Meta. The rules lawyers, the rep addicts, the people who are more interested in gaming the system, in "being in charge" (or at least, in having an impact on the SE platform). But it does not appeal to the actual community it was meant to gauge support from. To succeed, the site needs support from the community it targets. And yet it gets created if it can demonstrate support from an entirely different group. A site might have tens of thousands of people itching to use the site, but they won't commit because they're not interested in all the power games and politicking of shaping a new system. They just want to share information and ask questions. There is nothing for them in the commit phase. Yes, every site needs a few expert users basically to ensure that the nontrivial questions get answered. But it doesn't need 500 of them. Even StackOverflow probably doesn't have 500 of them. Something like 10-20 would be reasonable for a new site. Again, most questions are not answered by the type of user who would "commit" to using the site. They are answered by people who come here to get a question answered. So a much more reasonable requirement would be to run the "commit" and "beta" phases in parallel, and to revise the "commit" phase to specifically ask for a small number of expert users, willing to commit to answering questions, while the "beta" phase is used to gauge support from the broader user community. If the site can get 20 such expert users to commit, and, say, a few thousand ordinary users to actually use the beta site for a certain length of time, it has a much better chance of surviving than one which passes the current test of requiring hundreds of the kind of user who's dedicated "playing the game", rather than merely answering questions about the subject matter. But time has to factor into it. The question should not be "can we get X users to sign this virtual petition to please create the site", but rather "if the site is there, does it sustain its momentum, or do people just check it out, and never visit again?" I committed to using the LaTeX site. I could easily drum up 500 casual users. All it'd take is a single email to my university's main mailing list. All the CS students struggling to write their reports and assignments in LaTeX would see it, and use the site the next time they're trying to write a report. If I sent it out to the Physics and Math departments as well, we could probably call it 1500-2000 potential users, give or take. Just from me. But asking them to commit to a site they can't use would be a waste of their time. I'm not even going to bother asking. If I did, a handful would perhaps commit. The rest would see that it doesn't actually help them, delete the email, and forget about it. And then how much time would they spend looking at the next email I send, the one which says "the site is now live"? The commit phase is hurting the upcoming sites by turning away their actual users. It tries to accumulate a number of "signatures", but it's bleeding users because actual users have absolutely no motivation for committing to use something later when what they're trying to do is get questions answered now.	2010/06/25	[ "https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/55045", "https://meta.stackexchange.com", "https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/33213/" ]	It is already happening in my opinion. All the people that advocated a site during the proposal stage, and wrote answers, and discussed, and voted... then for a too long time has nothing to do. I think that the proposal and commitment phase should somehow overlap a bit.	The appearance of a question on the new Area51 discussion site, [Is the reputation requirement during the commit phase too strict?](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/55/is-the-reputation-requirement-during-the-commit-phase-too-strict), reminded me of this one. We've seen enough sites go under the bridge to give a better informed response to this. The commitment phase has three effects: 1. It means that fewer sites that get through the definition phase result in sites created at the beta phase; 2. It means that the activity in the beta phase starts with less momentum than it would have if we went straight from definition to beta; 3. I guess means that the private beta has about twice as many participants than it would otherwise have had. All I think are good, if we want to reduce the total amount of time wasted by participants in betas of sites that ultimately fail. A fourth point: I sometimes follow sites whose evolution I am interested in, even though I have no interest in participating in their beta. It's hard to count following as commitment if when you first follow some proposal, most of the defining questions aren't yet submitted, and the name and remit of the proposal don't resemble their final form.
55,045	I understand the idea behind the commit phase, but when a site can easily spend weeks in the commit phase, isn't there a big danger that it's going to lose momentum? That all those who signed up for it forget about the site's existence? That some of them move on? It doesn't really matter that you had 3000 people commit to using a site, if only 50 actually committed within the last week, and most of the others can't even remember committing. I'm not sure what the solution is, but at the moment, it seems like you're not just setting high requirements for the first wave of sites (which is understandable and sensible), but actively strangling them by setting the wrong requirements. The first wave of sites absolutely should have to run a tough gauntlet to prove their worth. But the gauntlet should be to prove the site's support from its actual community. And the commit phase doesn't do that. The commit phase, as it is now, appeals to very few people. It appeals to the people who hang around here on Meta. The rules lawyers, the rep addicts, the people who are more interested in gaming the system, in "being in charge" (or at least, in having an impact on the SE platform). But it does not appeal to the actual community it was meant to gauge support from. To succeed, the site needs support from the community it targets. And yet it gets created if it can demonstrate support from an entirely different group. A site might have tens of thousands of people itching to use the site, but they won't commit because they're not interested in all the power games and politicking of shaping a new system. They just want to share information and ask questions. There is nothing for them in the commit phase. Yes, every site needs a few expert users basically to ensure that the nontrivial questions get answered. But it doesn't need 500 of them. Even StackOverflow probably doesn't have 500 of them. Something like 10-20 would be reasonable for a new site. Again, most questions are not answered by the type of user who would "commit" to using the site. They are answered by people who come here to get a question answered. So a much more reasonable requirement would be to run the "commit" and "beta" phases in parallel, and to revise the "commit" phase to specifically ask for a small number of expert users, willing to commit to answering questions, while the "beta" phase is used to gauge support from the broader user community. If the site can get 20 such expert users to commit, and, say, a few thousand ordinary users to actually use the beta site for a certain length of time, it has a much better chance of surviving than one which passes the current test of requiring hundreds of the kind of user who's dedicated "playing the game", rather than merely answering questions about the subject matter. But time has to factor into it. The question should not be "can we get X users to sign this virtual petition to please create the site", but rather "if the site is there, does it sustain its momentum, or do people just check it out, and never visit again?" I committed to using the LaTeX site. I could easily drum up 500 casual users. All it'd take is a single email to my university's main mailing list. All the CS students struggling to write their reports and assignments in LaTeX would see it, and use the site the next time they're trying to write a report. If I sent it out to the Physics and Math departments as well, we could probably call it 1500-2000 potential users, give or take. Just from me. But asking them to commit to a site they can't use would be a waste of their time. I'm not even going to bother asking. If I did, a handful would perhaps commit. The rest would see that it doesn't actually help them, delete the email, and forget about it. And then how much time would they spend looking at the next email I send, the one which says "the site is now live"? The commit phase is hurting the upcoming sites by turning away their actual users. It tries to accumulate a number of "signatures", but it's bleeding users because actual users have absolutely no motivation for committing to use something later when what they're trying to do is get questions answered now.	2010/06/25	[ "https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/55045", "https://meta.stackexchange.com", "https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/33213/" ]	It is already happening in my opinion. All the people that advocated a site during the proposal stage, and wrote answers, and discussed, and voted... then for a too long time has nothing to do. I think that the proposal and commitment phase should somehow overlap a bit.	Proposal: [Genealogy & Family History](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43502/genealogy-family-history) So we work hard to get it to go quickly up to 50% Commitment and then the brakes of the train stop as there are no more people with 200+ Rep available .... 51% ... 52% ... 52% ... 52% ... rigor mortis Believe me, we've been attacking all fronts to find Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange people who have an interest in Genealogy. They're two separate universes. We've excited our community with energetic people trying to get this going and going quickly. But now there's this effort required to find people with rep to come and help us. It's frustrating and it's energy zapping, when what we want to try to use our energy on is to get the Beta going successfully.
55,045	I understand the idea behind the commit phase, but when a site can easily spend weeks in the commit phase, isn't there a big danger that it's going to lose momentum? That all those who signed up for it forget about the site's existence? That some of them move on? It doesn't really matter that you had 3000 people commit to using a site, if only 50 actually committed within the last week, and most of the others can't even remember committing. I'm not sure what the solution is, but at the moment, it seems like you're not just setting high requirements for the first wave of sites (which is understandable and sensible), but actively strangling them by setting the wrong requirements. The first wave of sites absolutely should have to run a tough gauntlet to prove their worth. But the gauntlet should be to prove the site's support from its actual community. And the commit phase doesn't do that. The commit phase, as it is now, appeals to very few people. It appeals to the people who hang around here on Meta. The rules lawyers, the rep addicts, the people who are more interested in gaming the system, in "being in charge" (or at least, in having an impact on the SE platform). But it does not appeal to the actual community it was meant to gauge support from. To succeed, the site needs support from the community it targets. And yet it gets created if it can demonstrate support from an entirely different group. A site might have tens of thousands of people itching to use the site, but they won't commit because they're not interested in all the power games and politicking of shaping a new system. They just want to share information and ask questions. There is nothing for them in the commit phase. Yes, every site needs a few expert users basically to ensure that the nontrivial questions get answered. But it doesn't need 500 of them. Even StackOverflow probably doesn't have 500 of them. Something like 10-20 would be reasonable for a new site. Again, most questions are not answered by the type of user who would "commit" to using the site. They are answered by people who come here to get a question answered. So a much more reasonable requirement would be to run the "commit" and "beta" phases in parallel, and to revise the "commit" phase to specifically ask for a small number of expert users, willing to commit to answering questions, while the "beta" phase is used to gauge support from the broader user community. If the site can get 20 such expert users to commit, and, say, a few thousand ordinary users to actually use the beta site for a certain length of time, it has a much better chance of surviving than one which passes the current test of requiring hundreds of the kind of user who's dedicated "playing the game", rather than merely answering questions about the subject matter. But time has to factor into it. The question should not be "can we get X users to sign this virtual petition to please create the site", but rather "if the site is there, does it sustain its momentum, or do people just check it out, and never visit again?" I committed to using the LaTeX site. I could easily drum up 500 casual users. All it'd take is a single email to my university's main mailing list. All the CS students struggling to write their reports and assignments in LaTeX would see it, and use the site the next time they're trying to write a report. If I sent it out to the Physics and Math departments as well, we could probably call it 1500-2000 potential users, give or take. Just from me. But asking them to commit to a site they can't use would be a waste of their time. I'm not even going to bother asking. If I did, a handful would perhaps commit. The rest would see that it doesn't actually help them, delete the email, and forget about it. And then how much time would they spend looking at the next email I send, the one which says "the site is now live"? The commit phase is hurting the upcoming sites by turning away their actual users. It tries to accumulate a number of "signatures", but it's bleeding users because actual users have absolutely no motivation for committing to use something later when what they're trying to do is get questions answered now.	2010/06/25	[ "https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/55045", "https://meta.stackexchange.com", "https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/33213/" ]	I think the solution would be to actually create a proposal site in private beta stage right after definition stage, so there will be real questions and real people answering them, not fake questions and undecided committers. Then in couple of weeks it will be clear whether or not this site idea is picked up and ready for public beta. If not the site is just getting closed.	The appearance of a question on the new Area51 discussion site, [Is the reputation requirement during the commit phase too strict?](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/55/is-the-reputation-requirement-during-the-commit-phase-too-strict), reminded me of this one. We've seen enough sites go under the bridge to give a better informed response to this. The commitment phase has three effects: 1. It means that fewer sites that get through the definition phase result in sites created at the beta phase; 2. It means that the activity in the beta phase starts with less momentum than it would have if we went straight from definition to beta; 3. I guess means that the private beta has about twice as many participants than it would otherwise have had. All I think are good, if we want to reduce the total amount of time wasted by participants in betas of sites that ultimately fail. A fourth point: I sometimes follow sites whose evolution I am interested in, even though I have no interest in participating in their beta. It's hard to count following as commitment if when you first follow some proposal, most of the defining questions aren't yet submitted, and the name and remit of the proposal don't resemble their final form.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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