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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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/"
] | The site I am interested in took about 7-8 weeks ;-) to get from definition into the commitment stage. As somebody that jumped on board early on, I needed quite some stamina to get to here, especially at the end when the last off-topic question took about 5 days to go from 18 to 20 points.
Now, today, I was the first to commit. My 11k reputation did not even show up in percentage. Within 6 hours, 5 people committed to the site. I would hate it to wait another month or even more without anything to do.
There is no development reason any longer (apart from team size and work necessary to promote a page to beta) for a delay. Yet, I agree with jaydles, that if we would start beta right now, it could become boring with only a few people.
Yet what about starting the beta when 10-20% are reached and give some stimulation in reputation and badges for early adopters? Maybe even a function of time: if 10% are reached within 5 days, start beta, otherwise start at 20%.
I hope that the page will be pre-populated with the questions from the definition phase that received more on-topic than off-topic votes. I would love to answer those questions right now and add dozens of new ones.
**Edit:**
Ten days into the commitment phase of the proposal I am most interested in we only picked up 13% with 26 committed people. It starts to get frustrating to wait and kinda daily look for the one person or 1% increase, if at all. (Slow down is helped by negative feedback about the site design of area51 - does not fit the community targeted too easily.)
Referral possibilities are spread, mouth-to-mouth I do. It would be great to have some possibility to further invest and get the site going.
**Edit:**
We are two months! into the commitment phase and still there are only 32% commitment showing, with 65 people interested. The page (Biblical Hermeneutics) is at place 42 in progress of all stackexchange sites. Not too bad. But it is boring to come back first daily, then weekly, only to see progress in the fraction of a percent. Give me some possibility to seed the page and to let people out there know what it will look like, please.
**Edit:**
Yet another 2 months gone (4 months of commitment phase) and 39% with 79 people. There have been some dropouts. This is ridiculously boring. Again I want to emphasize that something like a closed beta for committed people would make this waiting period much more bearable. | 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/"
] | 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 site I am interested in took about 7-8 weeks ;-) to get from definition into the commitment stage. As somebody that jumped on board early on, I needed quite some stamina to get to here, especially at the end when the last off-topic question took about 5 days to go from 18 to 20 points.
Now, today, I was the first to commit. My 11k reputation did not even show up in percentage. Within 6 hours, 5 people committed to the site. I would hate it to wait another month or even more without anything to do.
There is no development reason any longer (apart from team size and work necessary to promote a page to beta) for a delay. Yet, I agree with jaydles, that if we would start beta right now, it could become boring with only a few people.
Yet what about starting the beta when 10-20% are reached and give some stimulation in reputation and badges for early adopters? Maybe even a function of time: if 10% are reached within 5 days, start beta, otherwise start at 20%.
I hope that the page will be pre-populated with the questions from the definition phase that received more on-topic than off-topic votes. I would love to answer those questions right now and add dozens of new ones.
**Edit:**
Ten days into the commitment phase of the proposal I am most interested in we only picked up 13% with 26 committed people. It starts to get frustrating to wait and kinda daily look for the one person or 1% increase, if at all. (Slow down is helped by negative feedback about the site design of area51 - does not fit the community targeted too easily.)
Referral possibilities are spread, mouth-to-mouth I do. It would be great to have some possibility to further invest and get the site going.
**Edit:**
We are two months! into the commitment phase and still there are only 32% commitment showing, with 65 people interested. The page (Biblical Hermeneutics) is at place 42 in progress of all stackexchange sites. Not too bad. But it is boring to come back first daily, then weekly, only to see progress in the fraction of a percent. Give me some possibility to seed the page and to let people out there know what it will look like, please.
**Edit:**
Yet another 2 months gone (4 months of commitment phase) and 39% with 79 people. There have been some dropouts. This is ridiculously boring. Again I want to emphasize that something like a closed beta for committed people would make this waiting period much more bearable. |
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 site I am interested in took about 7-8 weeks ;-) to get from definition into the commitment stage. As somebody that jumped on board early on, I needed quite some stamina to get to here, especially at the end when the last off-topic question took about 5 days to go from 18 to 20 points.
Now, today, I was the first to commit. My 11k reputation did not even show up in percentage. Within 6 hours, 5 people committed to the site. I would hate it to wait another month or even more without anything to do.
There is no development reason any longer (apart from team size and work necessary to promote a page to beta) for a delay. Yet, I agree with jaydles, that if we would start beta right now, it could become boring with only a few people.
Yet what about starting the beta when 10-20% are reached and give some stimulation in reputation and badges for early adopters? Maybe even a function of time: if 10% are reached within 5 days, start beta, otherwise start at 20%.
I hope that the page will be pre-populated with the questions from the definition phase that received more on-topic than off-topic votes. I would love to answer those questions right now and add dozens of new ones.
**Edit:**
Ten days into the commitment phase of the proposal I am most interested in we only picked up 13% with 26 committed people. It starts to get frustrating to wait and kinda daily look for the one person or 1% increase, if at all. (Slow down is helped by negative feedback about the site design of area51 - does not fit the community targeted too easily.)
Referral possibilities are spread, mouth-to-mouth I do. It would be great to have some possibility to further invest and get the site going.
**Edit:**
We are two months! into the commitment phase and still there are only 32% commitment showing, with 65 people interested. The page (Biblical Hermeneutics) is at place 42 in progress of all stackexchange sites. Not too bad. But it is boring to come back first daily, then weekly, only to see progress in the fraction of a percent. Give me some possibility to seed the page and to let people out there know what it will look like, please.
**Edit:**
Yet another 2 months gone (4 months of commitment phase) and 39% with 79 people. There have been some dropouts. This is ridiculously boring. Again I want to emphasize that something like a closed beta for committed people would make this waiting period much more bearable. |
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. | Well, there's currently a development driven delay, as indicated [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54070/will-the-se-team-be-ready-to-launch-when-the-first-site-is-at-100/54072#54072). That's not really avoidable, and is the main reason that Web Apps and Gaming are not in beta now.
Once that's not the case, I think your suggestion has a circular problem:
**Yeah, they want to use it now, because they think it will be AWESOME.**
**But if it stinks, they'll lose interest.**
And it will if the first three committers are able to go there by themselves, and stop going before the rest of the party shows up.
I think a simultaneous influx of serious users is key to retention. |
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. | Well, there's currently a development driven delay, as indicated [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54070/will-the-se-team-be-ready-to-launch-when-the-first-site-is-at-100/54072#54072). That's not really avoidable, and is the main reason that Web Apps and Gaming are not in beta now.
Once that's not the case, I think your suggestion has a circular problem:
**Yeah, they want to use it now, because they think it will be AWESOME.**
**But if it stinks, they'll lose interest.**
And it will if the first three committers are able to go there by themselves, and stop going before the rest of the party shows up.
I think a simultaneous influx of serious users is key to retention. |
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/"
] | Well, there's currently a development driven delay, as indicated [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54070/will-the-se-team-be-ready-to-launch-when-the-first-site-is-at-100/54072#54072). That's not really avoidable, and is the main reason that Web Apps and Gaming are not in beta now.
Once that's not the case, I think your suggestion has a circular problem:
**Yeah, they want to use it now, because they think it will be AWESOME.**
**But if it stinks, they'll lose interest.**
And it will if the first three committers are able to go there by themselves, and stop going before the rest of the party shows up.
I think a simultaneous influx of serious users is key to retention. | 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/"
] | Well, there's currently a development driven delay, as indicated [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54070/will-the-se-team-be-ready-to-launch-when-the-first-site-is-at-100/54072#54072). That's not really avoidable, and is the main reason that Web Apps and Gaming are not in beta now.
Once that's not the case, I think your suggestion has a circular problem:
**Yeah, they want to use it now, because they think it will be AWESOME.**
**But if it stinks, they'll lose interest.**
And it will if the first three committers are able to go there by themselves, and stop going before the rest of the party shows up.
I think a simultaneous influx of serious users is key to retention. | 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. |
21,374,434 | I have the same jar file commons-io-2.4.jar both in the libs folder and in the Android Private Libraries. Is this a mistake? I got into this situation because I added the jar file to the Private Libraries and then I was told that it should be in the libs folder. I managed to put it in the libs folder, but I cannot delete it from the Private Libraries.
It looks like a method from this jar file does not work, because my application does not do anything after I call this method. And I don't get any error. | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21374434",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1739598/"
] | Putting a .jar file in your libs folder should cause it to automatically show up in the Android Private Libraries section, so that should be fine. What exactly is the method's expected behavior, and what is actually occurring? | Actually the commons-io-2.4.jar both in the libs folder and in the Android Private Libraries because Android Private Library folder references the jars in libs folder. Private Library folder only holds references and used these during the creation of apk. And you can delete references from this Private Libraries.
According to my understanding you have to put commons-io-2.4.jar in **assests** folder and add it to **add to build path** and check **order and export** in Java Build Path. This works. |
21,374,434 | I have the same jar file commons-io-2.4.jar both in the libs folder and in the Android Private Libraries. Is this a mistake? I got into this situation because I added the jar file to the Private Libraries and then I was told that it should be in the libs folder. I managed to put it in the libs folder, but I cannot delete it from the Private Libraries.
It looks like a method from this jar file does not work, because my application does not do anything after I call this method. And I don't get any error. | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21374434",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1739598/"
] | Putting a .jar file in your libs folder should cause it to automatically show up in the Android Private Libraries section, so that should be fine. What exactly is the method's expected behavior, and what is actually occurring? | I solved the problem, I need to put the input file in the sd card and to provide the right path. |
21,374,434 | I have the same jar file commons-io-2.4.jar both in the libs folder and in the Android Private Libraries. Is this a mistake? I got into this situation because I added the jar file to the Private Libraries and then I was told that it should be in the libs folder. I managed to put it in the libs folder, but I cannot delete it from the Private Libraries.
It looks like a method from this jar file does not work, because my application does not do anything after I call this method. And I don't get any error. | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21374434",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1739598/"
] | Actually the commons-io-2.4.jar both in the libs folder and in the Android Private Libraries because Android Private Library folder references the jars in libs folder. Private Library folder only holds references and used these during the creation of apk. And you can delete references from this Private Libraries.
According to my understanding you have to put commons-io-2.4.jar in **assests** folder and add it to **add to build path** and check **order and export** in Java Build Path. This works. | I solved the problem, I need to put the input file in the sd card and to provide the right path. |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | <http://code.google.com/p/php-form-builder-class/> is a nice solution that I have used and would recommend. | In addition to BenV's list, there's:
[phplens](http://phplens.com/), [phppeanuts](http://www.phppeanuts.org/site/index.php) and [PfP Studio](http://pfp-studio.sourceforge.net/)
HTH
C. |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | You could try CakePHP's [scaffolding](http://book.cakephp.org/1.3/en/The-Manual/Developing-with-CakePHP/Scaffolding.html) feature. | In addition to BenV's list, there's:
[phplens](http://phplens.com/), [phppeanuts](http://www.phppeanuts.org/site/index.php) and [PfP Studio](http://pfp-studio.sourceforge.net/)
HTH
C. |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | Here's a few, assuming you're using a MySql database:
* [PHPGenerator](http://www.sqlmaestro.com/products/mysql/phpgenerator/)
* [phpMyEdit](http://www.phpmyedit.org/)
* [PHP MySql Wizard](http://www.sharewareconnection.com/php-mysql-wizard-php-code-generator-for-mysql-.htm) | You can use php [form builder](http://phpforms.net/tutorial/html-basics/form-builder.html). It allows to build any kind of web forms |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | You could try CakePHP's [scaffolding](http://book.cakephp.org/1.3/en/The-Manual/Developing-with-CakePHP/Scaffolding.html) feature. | Here's a few, assuming you're using a MySql database:
* [PHPGenerator](http://www.sqlmaestro.com/products/mysql/phpgenerator/)
* [phpMyEdit](http://www.phpmyedit.org/)
* [PHP MySql Wizard](http://www.sharewareconnection.com/php-mysql-wizard-php-code-generator-for-mysql-.htm) |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | You could try CakePHP's [scaffolding](http://book.cakephp.org/1.3/en/The-Manual/Developing-with-CakePHP/Scaffolding.html) feature. | You can use php [form builder](http://phpforms.net/tutorial/html-basics/form-builder.html). It allows to build any kind of web forms |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | You can use php [form builder](http://phpforms.net/tutorial/html-basics/form-builder.html). It allows to build any kind of web forms | try [php mysql form maker](http://mysqlreports.com/mysql-reporting-tools/php-mysql-form-generator/) , it can help create unlimited number of php forms that you can use for inser, update, navigate, search and delete records from your MySQL database
 |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | Here's a few, assuming you're using a MySql database:
* [PHPGenerator](http://www.sqlmaestro.com/products/mysql/phpgenerator/)
* [phpMyEdit](http://www.phpmyedit.org/)
* [PHP MySql Wizard](http://www.sharewareconnection.com/php-mysql-wizard-php-code-generator-for-mysql-.htm) | try this one, it's far better then any other mentioned above/below!
<http://phpformgen.sourceforge.net/> |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | try this one, it's far better then any other mentioned above/below!
<http://phpformgen.sourceforge.net/> | try [php mysql form maker](http://mysqlreports.com/mysql-reporting-tools/php-mysql-form-generator/) , it can help create unlimited number of php forms that you can use for inser, update, navigate, search and delete records from your MySQL database
 |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | Here's a few, assuming you're using a MySql database:
* [PHPGenerator](http://www.sqlmaestro.com/products/mysql/phpgenerator/)
* [phpMyEdit](http://www.phpmyedit.org/)
* [PHP MySql Wizard](http://www.sharewareconnection.com/php-mysql-wizard-php-code-generator-for-mysql-.htm) | In addition to BenV's list, there's:
[phplens](http://phplens.com/), [phppeanuts](http://www.phppeanuts.org/site/index.php) and [PfP Studio](http://pfp-studio.sourceforge.net/)
HTH
C. |
3,005,307 | I'm looking for an open source php form builder or form generator to add/edit/delete/search records?
I have to create a simple manager for some records, it's a common application that should be found easily, but I can't find any good code/class/application/etc :(
Any help is appreciated. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3005307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/358443/"
] | You could try CakePHP's [scaffolding](http://book.cakephp.org/1.3/en/The-Manual/Developing-with-CakePHP/Scaffolding.html) feature. | try [php mysql form maker](http://mysqlreports.com/mysql-reporting-tools/php-mysql-form-generator/) , it can help create unlimited number of php forms that you can use for inser, update, navigate, search and delete records from your MySQL database
 |
78,218 | >
> Which one is formal or widely used in writing? '**aged 11-17**' or '**aged
> 11 to 17 years**' or '**aged 11 to 17**'
>
>
>
The complete phrase is 'students aged 11 to 17' | 2016/01/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/78218",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/28149/"
] | You can write any of them. It is personal preference as to whichever one you choose as they are all perfectly valid. All of them are widely used, writing 11-17 is just a shorthand way of saying 11 to 17 (years).
You only need to say "years" if you want to clarify that it is not 11-17 minutes or 11-17 hours. Otherwise people will tend to assume you mean 11-17 *years* based on the context. | As I mentioned in my comment, all three are used extensively. But, since you've used "Aged", you need not add a "years" at the end of the sentence. It seems redundant, which can be avoided. Then the question is "To use a hyphen or a "to". To avoid any sort of foolish interpretation, and to make it fool-proof, I suggest you use "to". I had this friend who read out a sentence which was written as :
>
> "Trainee Package (1 Month) : 12,000 - 15,000"
>
>
>
and that brilliantly stupid girl asked me why they were subtracting a greater amount from a smaller amount and wanted to know whether we had to pay them an amount of 3,000 back to the company. Yes, there are people like that. So make it as clear as it can be. |
63,016,346 | I'm creating a Flutter App and I have to use about 600 PNG images (totalling 75 MB) I have tried adding the images folder and use it directly and the APK exceeded 100 MB size! how can I do this and avoid this huge APK size? Thanks in advance! :) | 2020/07/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/63016346",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6283040/"
] | I would suggest you to use a cloud storage service like firebase,azure,google-cloud or any other simple server.
Then use CachedImage or Network Image widget and fetch them from the url. This is the best way to get large number of images with just less size of app | For such a large amount of images I would suggest you to use cloud storage as Krish told you before. In your case that you want your qpp to work offline you could still save some images in your assets folder and some in the cloud so the appa could be still usable and in a smaller size |
2,182,098 | Hi I'm considering between the 'standard individual' or 'standard company' program both for $99.
My question is, in order for me to open the business program do I need to have the
business registered legally (corp, LLC, etc?) or can I just put any business name
i.e "sweet potato studios" or something and I'm good to go? (sorry for my ignorance)
I'd ofcourse rather have a business name than a real name appearing in the app store, but on the other hand I don't want to go through the headache of opening an LLC or whatever. not yet anyway. | 2010/02/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2182098",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/257558/"
] | I think you need to prove your company is legit i.e. some sort of official government recognition in your country such as company or business number. Why not just register as an individual for now, then setup a company and register again when you have something ready for the app store? | IANAL but i think you have to register "sweet potato studios" as a business entity in your city (for taxes). As an individual, you'll pay the taxes under your name. |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | Christians claim Christianity is the only true religion because
* Its adherents believe it to be so, and their belief stems from their religion's ability to withstand the most thoroughgoing and grueling investigations into its truth claims and yet emerge unscathed. In other words, *apologetically*, it stands alone.
* Christianity is the only religion (at least of which I am aware) whose founder rose from the dead. In other words, the empty grave is powerful evidence--perhaps the most powerful evidence--of its veracity.
* Jesus said He was the one, the only, and the only true way to God (John 14:6).
* Ear- and eyewitnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (we call them apostles; see Acts 1:21,22) also claimed Jesus was the only way to God:
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV, said Paul the apostle.
* The evidence of radically changed lives bears witness to its veracity. Other religions can claim they create transformed lives, but few if any of their adherents can claim with full assurance that they *know* they are forgiven of all their sins and that they will be in heaven when they die. The adherents of most, if not all, world religions do not have this full assurance. Some far-eastern religions do not even teach there is an afterlife, at least in the way Christianity does, in that death to them is but a conduit either to nothingness or absorption into nature and/or God, who permeates nature (which is the essence of pantheism).
* In an era of what is called "the new tolerance," Christians are unashamedly intolerant of usurpers to Christianity's rightful place at the pinnacle of all the world's religions, including humanism and even the religion consisting of no religion at all! I cite [this source](http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-be-tolerant/) as an excellent introduction to how Christians can defend themselves against the charge which is frequently leveled at them that they are intolerant, the assumption being, of course, that intolerance is perhaps the "worst" sin of all.
In conclusion, if I am correct in detecting between the lines of your question the concern about whether Christians are being intolerant by claiming Jesus is the only true way to God, I have two things to say:
First, Christians do not claim (at least I hope they do not) that none of the world's religions have no truth whatsoever. Christians believe, as do I, that
>
> All truth is God's truth, wherever it may be found.
>
>
>
The major world religions have made such inroads into the minds, hearts, and cultures of people groups precisely because they contain elements of truth. Most, if not all, religions would never have gotten off the ground if they had no truth whatsoever to offer their adherents. These religions attract adherents, at least in part, because they offer some truth.
Christians therefore need to be aware of at least some of the aspects of the world's religions with which they can agree, if only to provide a basis for identifying with the people to whom they bear witness of the truth as it is found in its fullness in Jesus of Nazareth.
Second, As Hank Hanegraaff observed in the article to which I provided a citation above,
>
> "Christians must exemplify tolerance without sacrificing truth. Indeed, tolerance when it comes to personal relationships is a virtue, but tolerance when it comes to truth is a travesty."
>
>
> | “Christian religion” is “the faithful observance of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles.”
>
> James 1:27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
>
>
>
Care for the needy and personal virtue are externals which are present when one has a true love for God. The very fact that James is speaking of “pure and faultless” religion, there exist an “unclean and imperfect” type of religion as well—a religion not based on love for God.
Many good practices that we have today in the world and some of which have been conveniently adopted by some other religion have their roots in Christian religion. That is why Christian religion is better than other religion and observing the teachings of Jesus Christ is better than not observing them.
**Jesus Christ is the Way to God.**
That which leads to God is better than that which leads away from God. We have sinfully wandered away from God. Jesus is the guide that leads us back to God.
>
> Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
>
>
>
Jesus is that Way, the One who came to seek the lost:
>
> Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
>
>
>
He is, in fact, God Himself in human flesh, so to find Jesus is to find God:
>
> John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
>
>
>
**Jesus Christ is the Truth.**
The Christian religion is truer than other religions because things that are true are better than things that are false. Jesus is “the Truth” and He is the embodiment of truth, the revelation of God to humanity. The Christian religion is grounded in truth, being based on a historical Person whose acts were verified by eyewitnesses and recorded by four different biographers. In following Christ, Christians have the utmost regard for truth, as opposed to hollow externals and the hypocrisy of false appearances. The Christian religion is unique in that it forces us to face the truth about ourselves and speak the truth with others.
**Jesus Christ is the Life.**
The Christian religion is true religion because life is better than death. A religion whose leader is still alive compared to religions whose leaders have all died. Jesus is “the Life”; He is the source of life, and without Him one cannot truly live (John 1:4;3:36;5:24;10:10). Jesus provides what we need: the Bread that satisfies forever (John 6:35), the Water that gives eternal life (John 4:14;7:37-38), and the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). These are not empty claims; Jesus proved His ability to give life by raising from the dead Lazarus (John 11), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5), and the boy from Nain (Luke 7). Then, after His own death on the cross, Jesus rose again the third day.
**Jesus Christ transforms mankind.**
The Christian religion is true religion because righteousness is better than wickedness. Other religions may impose conformity to a certain code of behavior, but they have no power to change the heart. Christianity teaches that the believer is “dead to sin” and now lives “in newness of life” (Romans 6:2,4). The Christian’s zeal for doing good has resulted in the founding of countless orphanages, hospitals, clinics, schools, homeless shelters, and emergency relief agencies—all in the name of Christ. The Christian religion is unique in that it does not force change from without but revolutionizes lives from within.
**Jesus Christ is loving.**
The Christian religion is true religion because love is better than the absence of love. Jesus showed His love for us in providing for our salvation by dying on the cross (John 15:13). Jesus gave His followers a new command: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35). Christianity is unique in that it is not a system of rules but a celebration of unselfish love. |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | **At one level, this question is easily answerable.**
Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is who He claimed to be. And He said, in John 14:6
>
> I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
> except through me.
>
>
>
And if Jesus is who He claimed to be, then Christianity must be the only true religion, because He said *specifically* "No one comes to the Father except through me".
**At another level, there are other answers, but too large to fit in a single answer here.**
If you're looking for external evidence, there's an entire field of study, known as [Apologetics](http://carm.org/apologetics) that seeks to provide a defense for the veracity of Christianity, its teachings, the identity of God, and the Truth of the Bible.
There are volumes of information available (as well as counter-points arguing against the Truth of Christianity). Put simply, there's much too much information to make your question answerable in this forum. A Google search for "Apologetics," however, is a good place to start. | If Christ is indeed the **Divine Human** (fully God and fully Man) there can be no other, and thus no other religion could lay claim to one who truly knows God and can bring us to him because he **is** God.
Given that Christianity is the cult of said Jesus Christ, it would follow that if Christians were true to him, they would have a genuine connection to God, and not merely man's reaching up toward him. |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | *I tried making this a bit short but every time found that whatever that is there is relevant for question.*
Christianity gets this tag from its scripture itself and the Divinity of Jesus. A Test for a true religion can be on two counts:
1. To know how it directs its adherents in this earthly life.
2. And to know how convincing is its claim of everlasting after-life.
To know the answers for these two premises, we need not look further than the respective religious scriptures and get to know what they depicts, for scripture is like genome of any religious belief.
**First Premise: A true religion, irrespective of its ultimate aim of bringing all humanity under its fold, will ensure equality, peace, love, justice etc. to all humanity irrespective of cast, creed or religion.**
So a true religion needs to have such a scripture, which clearly states these characteristics of “goodness for all” and become a force for good, making this world a better place for all humans in their earthly life. A religion will evidently exhibit this trait of “goodness for all” if exists in its scripture in a manner it deals with all other humans and also this trait is noticeable to the would-be adherents from the scripture itself.
[**A note of caution:** Whether every follower of any religion will follow or has followed in the past, of what is spelled out in their scripture is a different matter since that would be due to the weakness of human nature not scripture. But what is to be judged is, whether in first place, the scripture has this in its content or not. If any of the religious scripture **does not teach** these traits of “goodness” to their neighbor, irrespective of cast, creed or religion or has content that teaches otherwise (to hate, to kill etc. etc) (whether to their followers or non followers), **then how would anyone can expect** the followers/adherents of that religion to practice it and attempt to bring peace, equality and happiness in the society.]
So if you apply this test to the New Testament, (Not Old testament because that stage was like **molding and preparing** God’s chosen people into special people compared to others, for receiving the Messiah in the world) and if you weigh it against message of any other religion, the message taught by Jesus is beyond any comparison as well as it is unique.
Scripture of other religion may teach their followers all that is good. But Christianity stands apart in a sense that it teaches to love your neighbor to the extent of loving **your enemy**. **It teaches to be humble, be servant not masters and so on** (**Matt. 5:38-48, Matt. 7:1-5, Matt 22:39-40**). Jesus Himself practiced all this and **mingled with sinners, rode on a donkey, washed His disciples’ feet and so on**. It teaches that it is the patient that needs a doctor not a healthy man and that Jesus came to seek the sinners not the righteous (Mark 2:13-17, Matt. 9:9-13). Imagine, God with His immense love for you, comes searching you, so as to reform and save you from hell. These are the revolutionary teachings which no other religion has in their scriptures which strengthens the claim that the Good News that Jesus preached is Divinely inspired and much relevant to lead an earthly life in peace will all humans.
**Second Premise:** If we take the case of some of the major religions in the world, the eastern religions (Hinduism) teach that you can become fully “enlightened” through a reincarnation process by doing enough good deeds. Islam teaches you must follow the teachings of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and accept Mohammad as God's true prophet for the hope that Allah may grant you entrance into paradise. We see that all these religions began with founders (Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) who lived and died too. They never said **that they are from above** except Jesus.
Jesus taught that He was God in the flesh, who came to Earth in human form to die for the sins of mankind, so that “whosoever would believe on Him would not perish, but have everlasting life”. So whatever Jesus said about salvation and after life is like hearing from God Himself (Horse’s mouth). [If one wants to know the truth regarding any event/incident, it is always trustworthy to hear from the Horse’s mouth rather than from the third or fourth eye witnesses]
Jesus is the only “religious leader” who actually claimed to be God on Earth, in the flesh. Of course, He was the Son of God while in human flesh, and yet also fully God and fully human. With this claim from Jesus, Christianity easily proves that it is a true a religion.
This is what we find in the Christian scripture to support the claim of Jesus. In Isaiah 9:6 it is prophesied the Messiah that comes to Earth in the flesh will be called “Mighty God, everlasting Father”. See Isaiah 7:14 also. Also John 3:31, John 6:41, John 8:23-24, John 10:30, John 8:58 and John 11:25. Gospel of John we find verses that clearly depicts Divinity of Jesus.
Jesus is the only founder of any religion who allowed himself to be worshiped as recorded in places such as John 9:38 and Matthew 14:33. In the Old Testament we see that God is a jealous God and declares that no one besides God is to be worshiped, so for Jesus to allow Himself to be worshiped establishes that He did in fact consider Himself to be God.
Jesus backed up His claims by doing things no regular human being was able to do and He did it with a claim that He is same as God, unlike Moses who did it with the help of God. He changed the weather with his spoken word, walked on water, changed water into wine, instantly healed the blind, the deaf, the paralyzed, created fish and bread to feed thousands, brought the dead back to life. In spite of these awesome supernatural powers He never tried to take control of either people or political system **forcibly**. On the contrary He shunned it as is seen at John 6:15. | Ravi Zacharias has to say following on this question. From one of [his video talk](http://jesusonline.com/pvideo-how-do-you-know-that-christianity-is-the-one-true-worldview-ravi-zacharias/?utm_source=Y-Jesus&utm_campaign=e17e96b94f-Y_Jesus_Newsletter_02_10_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_facce9096f-e17e96b94f-301433262#.Uv8wJWKSxHS), here is the transcript:
>
> ...Take a look at other world religion and see how these four question are dealt with: Origin, meaning, morality and destiny. These four questions are to be answered in two ways. Every particular answer has to correspond to truth, either through empirical form of measurement or through the logical reasoning process and when those four answers are put together they must cohere and not be incoherent. So the two tests should be correspondence and coherence. Only in Judaeo-Christian worldview will you find these four questions answered with corresponding truthfulness and with a coherence of world view.
>
>
> In the Koran, it is the only historically claimed document that denied Jesus Christ was actually crucified and died on the cross. It denies it. The Greek historians say that he died on the cross, Roman historians say that, Pagan historians says that, Jewish historians says that and Christians historians says that. So historically it is making an affirmation that is really historically untrue.
>
>
> Origin, meaning, morality and destiny: the Judea-Christian view is not the only one to claim exclusivity but is the only one that takes those four questions with corresponding answers that are truthful and coherent answers that stands the test of time. And the ultimate answer:The resurrection of the dead, that gives you the hope and meaning....
>
>
> |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | **At one level, this question is easily answerable.**
Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is who He claimed to be. And He said, in John 14:6
>
> I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
> except through me.
>
>
>
And if Jesus is who He claimed to be, then Christianity must be the only true religion, because He said *specifically* "No one comes to the Father except through me".
**At another level, there are other answers, but too large to fit in a single answer here.**
If you're looking for external evidence, there's an entire field of study, known as [Apologetics](http://carm.org/apologetics) that seeks to provide a defense for the veracity of Christianity, its teachings, the identity of God, and the Truth of the Bible.
There are volumes of information available (as well as counter-points arguing against the Truth of Christianity). Put simply, there's much too much information to make your question answerable in this forum. A Google search for "Apologetics," however, is a good place to start. | “Christian religion” is “the faithful observance of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles.”
>
> James 1:27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
>
>
>
Care for the needy and personal virtue are externals which are present when one has a true love for God. The very fact that James is speaking of “pure and faultless” religion, there exist an “unclean and imperfect” type of religion as well—a religion not based on love for God.
Many good practices that we have today in the world and some of which have been conveniently adopted by some other religion have their roots in Christian religion. That is why Christian religion is better than other religion and observing the teachings of Jesus Christ is better than not observing them.
**Jesus Christ is the Way to God.**
That which leads to God is better than that which leads away from God. We have sinfully wandered away from God. Jesus is the guide that leads us back to God.
>
> Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
>
>
>
Jesus is that Way, the One who came to seek the lost:
>
> Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
>
>
>
He is, in fact, God Himself in human flesh, so to find Jesus is to find God:
>
> John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
>
>
>
**Jesus Christ is the Truth.**
The Christian religion is truer than other religions because things that are true are better than things that are false. Jesus is “the Truth” and He is the embodiment of truth, the revelation of God to humanity. The Christian religion is grounded in truth, being based on a historical Person whose acts were verified by eyewitnesses and recorded by four different biographers. In following Christ, Christians have the utmost regard for truth, as opposed to hollow externals and the hypocrisy of false appearances. The Christian religion is unique in that it forces us to face the truth about ourselves and speak the truth with others.
**Jesus Christ is the Life.**
The Christian religion is true religion because life is better than death. A religion whose leader is still alive compared to religions whose leaders have all died. Jesus is “the Life”; He is the source of life, and without Him one cannot truly live (John 1:4;3:36;5:24;10:10). Jesus provides what we need: the Bread that satisfies forever (John 6:35), the Water that gives eternal life (John 4:14;7:37-38), and the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). These are not empty claims; Jesus proved His ability to give life by raising from the dead Lazarus (John 11), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5), and the boy from Nain (Luke 7). Then, after His own death on the cross, Jesus rose again the third day.
**Jesus Christ transforms mankind.**
The Christian religion is true religion because righteousness is better than wickedness. Other religions may impose conformity to a certain code of behavior, but they have no power to change the heart. Christianity teaches that the believer is “dead to sin” and now lives “in newness of life” (Romans 6:2,4). The Christian’s zeal for doing good has resulted in the founding of countless orphanages, hospitals, clinics, schools, homeless shelters, and emergency relief agencies—all in the name of Christ. The Christian religion is unique in that it does not force change from without but revolutionizes lives from within.
**Jesus Christ is loving.**
The Christian religion is true religion because love is better than the absence of love. Jesus showed His love for us in providing for our salvation by dying on the cross (John 15:13). Jesus gave His followers a new command: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35). Christianity is unique in that it is not a system of rules but a celebration of unselfish love. |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | **At one level, this question is easily answerable.**
Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is who He claimed to be. And He said, in John 14:6
>
> I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
> except through me.
>
>
>
And if Jesus is who He claimed to be, then Christianity must be the only true religion, because He said *specifically* "No one comes to the Father except through me".
**At another level, there are other answers, but too large to fit in a single answer here.**
If you're looking for external evidence, there's an entire field of study, known as [Apologetics](http://carm.org/apologetics) that seeks to provide a defense for the veracity of Christianity, its teachings, the identity of God, and the Truth of the Bible.
There are volumes of information available (as well as counter-points arguing against the Truth of Christianity). Put simply, there's much too much information to make your question answerable in this forum. A Google search for "Apologetics," however, is a good place to start. | Ravi Zacharias has to say following on this question. From one of [his video talk](http://jesusonline.com/pvideo-how-do-you-know-that-christianity-is-the-one-true-worldview-ravi-zacharias/?utm_source=Y-Jesus&utm_campaign=e17e96b94f-Y_Jesus_Newsletter_02_10_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_facce9096f-e17e96b94f-301433262#.Uv8wJWKSxHS), here is the transcript:
>
> ...Take a look at other world religion and see how these four question are dealt with: Origin, meaning, morality and destiny. These four questions are to be answered in two ways. Every particular answer has to correspond to truth, either through empirical form of measurement or through the logical reasoning process and when those four answers are put together they must cohere and not be incoherent. So the two tests should be correspondence and coherence. Only in Judaeo-Christian worldview will you find these four questions answered with corresponding truthfulness and with a coherence of world view.
>
>
> In the Koran, it is the only historically claimed document that denied Jesus Christ was actually crucified and died on the cross. It denies it. The Greek historians say that he died on the cross, Roman historians say that, Pagan historians says that, Jewish historians says that and Christians historians says that. So historically it is making an affirmation that is really historically untrue.
>
>
> Origin, meaning, morality and destiny: the Judea-Christian view is not the only one to claim exclusivity but is the only one that takes those four questions with corresponding answers that are truthful and coherent answers that stands the test of time. And the ultimate answer:The resurrection of the dead, that gives you the hope and meaning....
>
>
> |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | If Christ is indeed the **Divine Human** (fully God and fully Man) there can be no other, and thus no other religion could lay claim to one who truly knows God and can bring us to him because he **is** God.
Given that Christianity is the cult of said Jesus Christ, it would follow that if Christians were true to him, they would have a genuine connection to God, and not merely man's reaching up toward him. | As pointed out already frequently, the claim obviously comes from the bible. However whether that makes it a valid claim or not is interesting to ponder:
As most other religions, Christianity is self referential: By definition, you are Christian because you believe in Jesus, and since you believe in Jesus you are Christian.
The same line of reasoning applies for pretty much all other religions as well. "I believe in Zeus and therefore I'm a Hellenist". "I believe in Tenri-O-no-Mikoto and therefore I am a Tenrikyo"
Most religions do have an exclusion clause the explicitly declares other religions and gods invalid. In Christianity that's, for example, the first commandment (second commandment in the Talmud) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" . Interestingly, the wording seems to imply that other gods do exist, you are simply required to stay away from them.
Once you make this fundamental believe statement, the rest follows easily. For a "Christian" the claim is true "because it says so in the bible". For a non-Christian the bible is irrelevant and the claim cannot be substantiated. |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | “Christian religion” is “the faithful observance of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles.”
>
> James 1:27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
>
>
>
Care for the needy and personal virtue are externals which are present when one has a true love for God. The very fact that James is speaking of “pure and faultless” religion, there exist an “unclean and imperfect” type of religion as well—a religion not based on love for God.
Many good practices that we have today in the world and some of which have been conveniently adopted by some other religion have their roots in Christian religion. That is why Christian religion is better than other religion and observing the teachings of Jesus Christ is better than not observing them.
**Jesus Christ is the Way to God.**
That which leads to God is better than that which leads away from God. We have sinfully wandered away from God. Jesus is the guide that leads us back to God.
>
> Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
>
>
>
Jesus is that Way, the One who came to seek the lost:
>
> Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
>
>
>
He is, in fact, God Himself in human flesh, so to find Jesus is to find God:
>
> John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
>
>
>
**Jesus Christ is the Truth.**
The Christian religion is truer than other religions because things that are true are better than things that are false. Jesus is “the Truth” and He is the embodiment of truth, the revelation of God to humanity. The Christian religion is grounded in truth, being based on a historical Person whose acts were verified by eyewitnesses and recorded by four different biographers. In following Christ, Christians have the utmost regard for truth, as opposed to hollow externals and the hypocrisy of false appearances. The Christian religion is unique in that it forces us to face the truth about ourselves and speak the truth with others.
**Jesus Christ is the Life.**
The Christian religion is true religion because life is better than death. A religion whose leader is still alive compared to religions whose leaders have all died. Jesus is “the Life”; He is the source of life, and without Him one cannot truly live (John 1:4;3:36;5:24;10:10). Jesus provides what we need: the Bread that satisfies forever (John 6:35), the Water that gives eternal life (John 4:14;7:37-38), and the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). These are not empty claims; Jesus proved His ability to give life by raising from the dead Lazarus (John 11), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5), and the boy from Nain (Luke 7). Then, after His own death on the cross, Jesus rose again the third day.
**Jesus Christ transforms mankind.**
The Christian religion is true religion because righteousness is better than wickedness. Other religions may impose conformity to a certain code of behavior, but they have no power to change the heart. Christianity teaches that the believer is “dead to sin” and now lives “in newness of life” (Romans 6:2,4). The Christian’s zeal for doing good has resulted in the founding of countless orphanages, hospitals, clinics, schools, homeless shelters, and emergency relief agencies—all in the name of Christ. The Christian religion is unique in that it does not force change from without but revolutionizes lives from within.
**Jesus Christ is loving.**
The Christian religion is true religion because love is better than the absence of love. Jesus showed His love for us in providing for our salvation by dying on the cross (John 15:13). Jesus gave His followers a new command: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35). Christianity is unique in that it is not a system of rules but a celebration of unselfish love. | Ravi Zacharias has to say following on this question. From one of [his video talk](http://jesusonline.com/pvideo-how-do-you-know-that-christianity-is-the-one-true-worldview-ravi-zacharias/?utm_source=Y-Jesus&utm_campaign=e17e96b94f-Y_Jesus_Newsletter_02_10_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_facce9096f-e17e96b94f-301433262#.Uv8wJWKSxHS), here is the transcript:
>
> ...Take a look at other world religion and see how these four question are dealt with: Origin, meaning, morality and destiny. These four questions are to be answered in two ways. Every particular answer has to correspond to truth, either through empirical form of measurement or through the logical reasoning process and when those four answers are put together they must cohere and not be incoherent. So the two tests should be correspondence and coherence. Only in Judaeo-Christian worldview will you find these four questions answered with corresponding truthfulness and with a coherence of world view.
>
>
> In the Koran, it is the only historically claimed document that denied Jesus Christ was actually crucified and died on the cross. It denies it. The Greek historians say that he died on the cross, Roman historians say that, Pagan historians says that, Jewish historians says that and Christians historians says that. So historically it is making an affirmation that is really historically untrue.
>
>
> Origin, meaning, morality and destiny: the Judea-Christian view is not the only one to claim exclusivity but is the only one that takes those four questions with corresponding answers that are truthful and coherent answers that stands the test of time. And the ultimate answer:The resurrection of the dead, that gives you the hope and meaning....
>
>
> |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | Logically, there can only be one true religion. If it is, indeed, true that Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, who became a man when He was born of a virgin 2,000 years ago, lived a sinless life, died a vicarious death and rose from the dead, and if it is, indeed, true that salvation is available to mankind through faith in Him, then Christianity is, in fact, the truth. *(I understand that this does not define the beliefs of all that are accepted as Christian on this site.)*
Therefore, any religion that claims that Jesus is not any of those things is not true, if, in fact, Jesus really is all of those things.
If Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, then any religion that does not teach that is in error. If Jesus became a man through the virgin birth, then any religion that does not teach that is wrong.
So, Christianity makes truth claims and claims that those claims are actually true (of course). Every other religion does the same thing, so every religion claims that their set of truth claims are, indeed, the ones that are true. | “Christian religion” is “the faithful observance of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles.”
>
> James 1:27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
>
>
>
Care for the needy and personal virtue are externals which are present when one has a true love for God. The very fact that James is speaking of “pure and faultless” religion, there exist an “unclean and imperfect” type of religion as well—a religion not based on love for God.
Many good practices that we have today in the world and some of which have been conveniently adopted by some other religion have their roots in Christian religion. That is why Christian religion is better than other religion and observing the teachings of Jesus Christ is better than not observing them.
**Jesus Christ is the Way to God.**
That which leads to God is better than that which leads away from God. We have sinfully wandered away from God. Jesus is the guide that leads us back to God.
>
> Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
>
>
>
Jesus is that Way, the One who came to seek the lost:
>
> Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
>
>
>
He is, in fact, God Himself in human flesh, so to find Jesus is to find God:
>
> John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
>
>
>
**Jesus Christ is the Truth.**
The Christian religion is truer than other religions because things that are true are better than things that are false. Jesus is “the Truth” and He is the embodiment of truth, the revelation of God to humanity. The Christian religion is grounded in truth, being based on a historical Person whose acts were verified by eyewitnesses and recorded by four different biographers. In following Christ, Christians have the utmost regard for truth, as opposed to hollow externals and the hypocrisy of false appearances. The Christian religion is unique in that it forces us to face the truth about ourselves and speak the truth with others.
**Jesus Christ is the Life.**
The Christian religion is true religion because life is better than death. A religion whose leader is still alive compared to religions whose leaders have all died. Jesus is “the Life”; He is the source of life, and without Him one cannot truly live (John 1:4;3:36;5:24;10:10). Jesus provides what we need: the Bread that satisfies forever (John 6:35), the Water that gives eternal life (John 4:14;7:37-38), and the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). These are not empty claims; Jesus proved His ability to give life by raising from the dead Lazarus (John 11), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5), and the boy from Nain (Luke 7). Then, after His own death on the cross, Jesus rose again the third day.
**Jesus Christ transforms mankind.**
The Christian religion is true religion because righteousness is better than wickedness. Other religions may impose conformity to a certain code of behavior, but they have no power to change the heart. Christianity teaches that the believer is “dead to sin” and now lives “in newness of life” (Romans 6:2,4). The Christian’s zeal for doing good has resulted in the founding of countless orphanages, hospitals, clinics, schools, homeless shelters, and emergency relief agencies—all in the name of Christ. The Christian religion is unique in that it does not force change from without but revolutionizes lives from within.
**Jesus Christ is loving.**
The Christian religion is true religion because love is better than the absence of love. Jesus showed His love for us in providing for our salvation by dying on the cross (John 15:13). Jesus gave His followers a new command: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35). Christianity is unique in that it is not a system of rules but a celebration of unselfish love. |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | *I tried making this a bit short but every time found that whatever that is there is relevant for question.*
Christianity gets this tag from its scripture itself and the Divinity of Jesus. A Test for a true religion can be on two counts:
1. To know how it directs its adherents in this earthly life.
2. And to know how convincing is its claim of everlasting after-life.
To know the answers for these two premises, we need not look further than the respective religious scriptures and get to know what they depicts, for scripture is like genome of any religious belief.
**First Premise: A true religion, irrespective of its ultimate aim of bringing all humanity under its fold, will ensure equality, peace, love, justice etc. to all humanity irrespective of cast, creed or religion.**
So a true religion needs to have such a scripture, which clearly states these characteristics of “goodness for all” and become a force for good, making this world a better place for all humans in their earthly life. A religion will evidently exhibit this trait of “goodness for all” if exists in its scripture in a manner it deals with all other humans and also this trait is noticeable to the would-be adherents from the scripture itself.
[**A note of caution:** Whether every follower of any religion will follow or has followed in the past, of what is spelled out in their scripture is a different matter since that would be due to the weakness of human nature not scripture. But what is to be judged is, whether in first place, the scripture has this in its content or not. If any of the religious scripture **does not teach** these traits of “goodness” to their neighbor, irrespective of cast, creed or religion or has content that teaches otherwise (to hate, to kill etc. etc) (whether to their followers or non followers), **then how would anyone can expect** the followers/adherents of that religion to practice it and attempt to bring peace, equality and happiness in the society.]
So if you apply this test to the New Testament, (Not Old testament because that stage was like **molding and preparing** God’s chosen people into special people compared to others, for receiving the Messiah in the world) and if you weigh it against message of any other religion, the message taught by Jesus is beyond any comparison as well as it is unique.
Scripture of other religion may teach their followers all that is good. But Christianity stands apart in a sense that it teaches to love your neighbor to the extent of loving **your enemy**. **It teaches to be humble, be servant not masters and so on** (**Matt. 5:38-48, Matt. 7:1-5, Matt 22:39-40**). Jesus Himself practiced all this and **mingled with sinners, rode on a donkey, washed His disciples’ feet and so on**. It teaches that it is the patient that needs a doctor not a healthy man and that Jesus came to seek the sinners not the righteous (Mark 2:13-17, Matt. 9:9-13). Imagine, God with His immense love for you, comes searching you, so as to reform and save you from hell. These are the revolutionary teachings which no other religion has in their scriptures which strengthens the claim that the Good News that Jesus preached is Divinely inspired and much relevant to lead an earthly life in peace will all humans.
**Second Premise:** If we take the case of some of the major religions in the world, the eastern religions (Hinduism) teach that you can become fully “enlightened” through a reincarnation process by doing enough good deeds. Islam teaches you must follow the teachings of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and accept Mohammad as God's true prophet for the hope that Allah may grant you entrance into paradise. We see that all these religions began with founders (Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) who lived and died too. They never said **that they are from above** except Jesus.
Jesus taught that He was God in the flesh, who came to Earth in human form to die for the sins of mankind, so that “whosoever would believe on Him would not perish, but have everlasting life”. So whatever Jesus said about salvation and after life is like hearing from God Himself (Horse’s mouth). [If one wants to know the truth regarding any event/incident, it is always trustworthy to hear from the Horse’s mouth rather than from the third or fourth eye witnesses]
Jesus is the only “religious leader” who actually claimed to be God on Earth, in the flesh. Of course, He was the Son of God while in human flesh, and yet also fully God and fully human. With this claim from Jesus, Christianity easily proves that it is a true a religion.
This is what we find in the Christian scripture to support the claim of Jesus. In Isaiah 9:6 it is prophesied the Messiah that comes to Earth in the flesh will be called “Mighty God, everlasting Father”. See Isaiah 7:14 also. Also John 3:31, John 6:41, John 8:23-24, John 10:30, John 8:58 and John 11:25. Gospel of John we find verses that clearly depicts Divinity of Jesus.
Jesus is the only founder of any religion who allowed himself to be worshiped as recorded in places such as John 9:38 and Matthew 14:33. In the Old Testament we see that God is a jealous God and declares that no one besides God is to be worshiped, so for Jesus to allow Himself to be worshiped establishes that He did in fact consider Himself to be God.
Jesus backed up His claims by doing things no regular human being was able to do and He did it with a claim that He is same as God, unlike Moses who did it with the help of God. He changed the weather with his spoken word, walked on water, changed water into wine, instantly healed the blind, the deaf, the paralyzed, created fish and bread to feed thousands, brought the dead back to life. In spite of these awesome supernatural powers He never tried to take control of either people or political system **forcibly**. On the contrary He shunned it as is seen at John 6:15. | As pointed out already frequently, the claim obviously comes from the bible. However whether that makes it a valid claim or not is interesting to ponder:
As most other religions, Christianity is self referential: By definition, you are Christian because you believe in Jesus, and since you believe in Jesus you are Christian.
The same line of reasoning applies for pretty much all other religions as well. "I believe in Zeus and therefore I'm a Hellenist". "I believe in Tenri-O-no-Mikoto and therefore I am a Tenrikyo"
Most religions do have an exclusion clause the explicitly declares other religions and gods invalid. In Christianity that's, for example, the first commandment (second commandment in the Talmud) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" . Interestingly, the wording seems to imply that other gods do exist, you are simply required to stay away from them.
Once you make this fundamental believe statement, the rest follows easily. For a "Christian" the claim is true "because it says so in the bible". For a non-Christian the bible is irrelevant and the claim cannot be substantiated. |
1,450 | From where does the idea that Christianity the only **true** religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim? | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1450",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | If Christ is indeed the **Divine Human** (fully God and fully Man) there can be no other, and thus no other religion could lay claim to one who truly knows God and can bring us to him because he **is** God.
Given that Christianity is the cult of said Jesus Christ, it would follow that if Christians were true to him, they would have a genuine connection to God, and not merely man's reaching up toward him. | *I tried making this a bit short but every time found that whatever that is there is relevant for question.*
Christianity gets this tag from its scripture itself and the Divinity of Jesus. A Test for a true religion can be on two counts:
1. To know how it directs its adherents in this earthly life.
2. And to know how convincing is its claim of everlasting after-life.
To know the answers for these two premises, we need not look further than the respective religious scriptures and get to know what they depicts, for scripture is like genome of any religious belief.
**First Premise: A true religion, irrespective of its ultimate aim of bringing all humanity under its fold, will ensure equality, peace, love, justice etc. to all humanity irrespective of cast, creed or religion.**
So a true religion needs to have such a scripture, which clearly states these characteristics of “goodness for all” and become a force for good, making this world a better place for all humans in their earthly life. A religion will evidently exhibit this trait of “goodness for all” if exists in its scripture in a manner it deals with all other humans and also this trait is noticeable to the would-be adherents from the scripture itself.
[**A note of caution:** Whether every follower of any religion will follow or has followed in the past, of what is spelled out in their scripture is a different matter since that would be due to the weakness of human nature not scripture. But what is to be judged is, whether in first place, the scripture has this in its content or not. If any of the religious scripture **does not teach** these traits of “goodness” to their neighbor, irrespective of cast, creed or religion or has content that teaches otherwise (to hate, to kill etc. etc) (whether to their followers or non followers), **then how would anyone can expect** the followers/adherents of that religion to practice it and attempt to bring peace, equality and happiness in the society.]
So if you apply this test to the New Testament, (Not Old testament because that stage was like **molding and preparing** God’s chosen people into special people compared to others, for receiving the Messiah in the world) and if you weigh it against message of any other religion, the message taught by Jesus is beyond any comparison as well as it is unique.
Scripture of other religion may teach their followers all that is good. But Christianity stands apart in a sense that it teaches to love your neighbor to the extent of loving **your enemy**. **It teaches to be humble, be servant not masters and so on** (**Matt. 5:38-48, Matt. 7:1-5, Matt 22:39-40**). Jesus Himself practiced all this and **mingled with sinners, rode on a donkey, washed His disciples’ feet and so on**. It teaches that it is the patient that needs a doctor not a healthy man and that Jesus came to seek the sinners not the righteous (Mark 2:13-17, Matt. 9:9-13). Imagine, God with His immense love for you, comes searching you, so as to reform and save you from hell. These are the revolutionary teachings which no other religion has in their scriptures which strengthens the claim that the Good News that Jesus preached is Divinely inspired and much relevant to lead an earthly life in peace will all humans.
**Second Premise:** If we take the case of some of the major religions in the world, the eastern religions (Hinduism) teach that you can become fully “enlightened” through a reincarnation process by doing enough good deeds. Islam teaches you must follow the teachings of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and accept Mohammad as God's true prophet for the hope that Allah may grant you entrance into paradise. We see that all these religions began with founders (Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) who lived and died too. They never said **that they are from above** except Jesus.
Jesus taught that He was God in the flesh, who came to Earth in human form to die for the sins of mankind, so that “whosoever would believe on Him would not perish, but have everlasting life”. So whatever Jesus said about salvation and after life is like hearing from God Himself (Horse’s mouth). [If one wants to know the truth regarding any event/incident, it is always trustworthy to hear from the Horse’s mouth rather than from the third or fourth eye witnesses]
Jesus is the only “religious leader” who actually claimed to be God on Earth, in the flesh. Of course, He was the Son of God while in human flesh, and yet also fully God and fully human. With this claim from Jesus, Christianity easily proves that it is a true a religion.
This is what we find in the Christian scripture to support the claim of Jesus. In Isaiah 9:6 it is prophesied the Messiah that comes to Earth in the flesh will be called “Mighty God, everlasting Father”. See Isaiah 7:14 also. Also John 3:31, John 6:41, John 8:23-24, John 10:30, John 8:58 and John 11:25. Gospel of John we find verses that clearly depicts Divinity of Jesus.
Jesus is the only founder of any religion who allowed himself to be worshiped as recorded in places such as John 9:38 and Matthew 14:33. In the Old Testament we see that God is a jealous God and declares that no one besides God is to be worshiped, so for Jesus to allow Himself to be worshiped establishes that He did in fact consider Himself to be God.
Jesus backed up His claims by doing things no regular human being was able to do and He did it with a claim that He is same as God, unlike Moses who did it with the help of God. He changed the weather with his spoken word, walked on water, changed water into wine, instantly healed the blind, the deaf, the paralyzed, created fish and bread to feed thousands, brought the dead back to life. In spite of these awesome supernatural powers He never tried to take control of either people or political system **forcibly**. On the contrary He shunned it as is seen at John 6:15. |
41,638,214 | I'm developping an ionic application which use a backend.
I have to do a login. Next to that, I have to get some values of this user: name, email, height, etc. Lot of values in various controllers.
Is it best practice to do a request to the server when I use this (lot of request in many controller), or maybe to request all the values when the user login (login will take more time to finish) and save this values to rootscope?
Thanks | 2017/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/41638214",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4252339/"
] | If the information concerns the user, the profile, personal information, etc. it's all right to have it in the login and avoid a future call. If it's mixed information from different views/states, probably you should do it in their controllers.
The time of the request is very important too, you can't have a 10 second login, it's better to have 1 second loadings in 10 different views. Mostly because the user will probably only use 4 or 5 of this states/request and part of the information request on the login will go to waste.
Finally, take in account if you are going to use cache or local storage to save the information for future logins, if so you might want to have that 10 seconds request once and then reuse that data without redoing the request. | You can use [Local Forage](https://www.npmjs.com/package/angular-localforage) and store this values,and get them whatever you want(CRUD). Only inject $localForage at the controller you need. |
106,982 | 1. [Before](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7tByq.png)
2. [After](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dpm7C.png)
3. [What I'm reminded of](https://i.stack.imgur.com/our6a.jpg) [just a joke, I know the moderators of SO aren't like this]
My comments were in regards to [this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/143701/what-is-the-worst-class-variable-function-name-you-have-ever-encountered) being closed (which is now re-opened and locked).
There was growing support for the comment I made, but the comment being deleted is [in my opinion] rather totalitarian. Are all StackOverflow members required to share the same opinion about the site and the people that run it? What is this, North Korea?
In my experience, 130-odd upvotes for a question is rather rare, so to me it would seem like the community wants to see answers and considers it a good question. All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
The “community-driven” model of SE sites has [in my opinion] turned into “a site where people mostly nominate themselves to become moderators moderate community-provided questions and answers”.
I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this, does anyone else feel similar?
### Edit:
Since I am particularly bad at getting my point across, what I am specifically trying to discuss is the deletion of a comment I made about SO being monotonous. Robert Harvey pointed out that it was likely due to it being flagged 3 times and was automatically deleted, which I think is acceptable. I thought that it was removed by a mod because it appeared to me that the comments were selectively deleted by a mod (when truthfully all of them should have been deleted) just to get rid of the comment I made about SO. | 2011/09/21 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106982",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/134799/"
] | >
> What is this, North Korea?
>
>
>
Yes. What, you don't see all the starvation, the barbed wire, the armed guards? I would have thought you'd complain about those before starting in on the comment deletion. Y'know, ignoring serious crimes while railing against minor ones is something *Hitler* would do.
>
> All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
>
>
>
All it takes is 5 rule-enforcer-watchers to say "nup, this was incorrectly closed, re-opening" and the damage is undone. [Oh, look, that happened. *Twice.*](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/143701/revisions)
Obviously, we'll have to put those *other* ten people in front of the firing squad now. Since this is North Korea.
On a more serious note: that question was a ton of fun. *Three years ago.* Does every bit of idle amusement need to be kept around indefinitely? Do you still watch those old videos of your little-league baseball games? | Heavy moderation (which seems to be at the heart of your question) does at times seems to be orthogonal to the principle that ["Stackoverflow is *You*"](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/11/stack-overflow-is-you/). Now I'm not making a value judgement about whether the moderation in this instance or in general is appropriate (maybe (probably?) more moderation leads to an even better site).
Maybe the best of both worlds would be if that blog post were merely titled, "Stackoverflow is *You*\*."
\*Provided the moderators don't strongly disagree with you. |
106,982 | 1. [Before](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7tByq.png)
2. [After](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dpm7C.png)
3. [What I'm reminded of](https://i.stack.imgur.com/our6a.jpg) [just a joke, I know the moderators of SO aren't like this]
My comments were in regards to [this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/143701/what-is-the-worst-class-variable-function-name-you-have-ever-encountered) being closed (which is now re-opened and locked).
There was growing support for the comment I made, but the comment being deleted is [in my opinion] rather totalitarian. Are all StackOverflow members required to share the same opinion about the site and the people that run it? What is this, North Korea?
In my experience, 130-odd upvotes for a question is rather rare, so to me it would seem like the community wants to see answers and considers it a good question. All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
The “community-driven” model of SE sites has [in my opinion] turned into “a site where people mostly nominate themselves to become moderators moderate community-provided questions and answers”.
I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this, does anyone else feel similar?
### Edit:
Since I am particularly bad at getting my point across, what I am specifically trying to discuss is the deletion of a comment I made about SO being monotonous. Robert Harvey pointed out that it was likely due to it being flagged 3 times and was automatically deleted, which I think is acceptable. I thought that it was removed by a mod because it appeared to me that the comments were selectively deleted by a mod (when truthfully all of them should have been deleted) just to get rid of the comment I made about SO. | 2011/09/21 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106982",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/134799/"
] | >
> What is this, North Korea?
>
>
>
Yes. What, you don't see all the starvation, the barbed wire, the armed guards? I would have thought you'd complain about those before starting in on the comment deletion. Y'know, ignoring serious crimes while railing against minor ones is something *Hitler* would do.
>
> All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
>
>
>
All it takes is 5 rule-enforcer-watchers to say "nup, this was incorrectly closed, re-opening" and the damage is undone. [Oh, look, that happened. *Twice.*](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/143701/revisions)
Obviously, we'll have to put those *other* ten people in front of the firing squad now. Since this is North Korea.
On a more serious note: that question was a ton of fun. *Three years ago.* Does every bit of idle amusement need to be kept around indefinitely? Do you still watch those old videos of your little-league baseball games? | >
> ...all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
>
>
>
That's a question the community wanted answers to three years ago. They got 120 answers. Now *all of a sudden*, **three years later** the question is closed. At the request of the community, via moderator flag.
Oh the humanity. |
106,982 | 1. [Before](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7tByq.png)
2. [After](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dpm7C.png)
3. [What I'm reminded of](https://i.stack.imgur.com/our6a.jpg) [just a joke, I know the moderators of SO aren't like this]
My comments were in regards to [this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/143701/what-is-the-worst-class-variable-function-name-you-have-ever-encountered) being closed (which is now re-opened and locked).
There was growing support for the comment I made, but the comment being deleted is [in my opinion] rather totalitarian. Are all StackOverflow members required to share the same opinion about the site and the people that run it? What is this, North Korea?
In my experience, 130-odd upvotes for a question is rather rare, so to me it would seem like the community wants to see answers and considers it a good question. All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
The “community-driven” model of SE sites has [in my opinion] turned into “a site where people mostly nominate themselves to become moderators moderate community-provided questions and answers”.
I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this, does anyone else feel similar?
### Edit:
Since I am particularly bad at getting my point across, what I am specifically trying to discuss is the deletion of a comment I made about SO being monotonous. Robert Harvey pointed out that it was likely due to it being flagged 3 times and was automatically deleted, which I think is acceptable. I thought that it was removed by a mod because it appeared to me that the comments were selectively deleted by a mod (when truthfully all of them should have been deleted) just to get rid of the comment I made about SO. | 2011/09/21 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106982",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/134799/"
] | >
> What is this, North Korea?
>
>
>
Yes. What, you don't see all the starvation, the barbed wire, the armed guards? I would have thought you'd complain about those before starting in on the comment deletion. Y'know, ignoring serious crimes while railing against minor ones is something *Hitler* would do.
>
> All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
>
>
>
All it takes is 5 rule-enforcer-watchers to say "nup, this was incorrectly closed, re-opening" and the damage is undone. [Oh, look, that happened. *Twice.*](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/143701/revisions)
Obviously, we'll have to put those *other* ten people in front of the firing squad now. Since this is North Korea.
On a more serious note: that question was a ton of fun. *Three years ago.* Does every bit of idle amusement need to be kept around indefinitely? Do you still watch those old videos of your little-league baseball games? | Firstly, full disclosure: I am a moderator, but not on Stack Overflow.
A debate about the closure of the question is a discussion about the site itself and as such belongs here, not on Stack Overflow and especially not in extended Stack Overflow comments. I regularly flag extended comment threads on SO for removal anyway when they veer off the topic of the question, which your discussion had.
Really if you wished to ask about the closure of questions, the place is here. As such I'd fully expect such discussion to be deleted (over the course of time either by the community or by moderators) - not because you're not allowed to have such discussions or make such observations, but because meta is a better place for them to be had. After all, if the question is deemed on topic, new visitors to the question don't want to see the debate on the best location for it on the question itself. |
106,982 | 1. [Before](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7tByq.png)
2. [After](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dpm7C.png)
3. [What I'm reminded of](https://i.stack.imgur.com/our6a.jpg) [just a joke, I know the moderators of SO aren't like this]
My comments were in regards to [this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/143701/what-is-the-worst-class-variable-function-name-you-have-ever-encountered) being closed (which is now re-opened and locked).
There was growing support for the comment I made, but the comment being deleted is [in my opinion] rather totalitarian. Are all StackOverflow members required to share the same opinion about the site and the people that run it? What is this, North Korea?
In my experience, 130-odd upvotes for a question is rather rare, so to me it would seem like the community wants to see answers and considers it a good question. All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
The “community-driven” model of SE sites has [in my opinion] turned into “a site where people mostly nominate themselves to become moderators moderate community-provided questions and answers”.
I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this, does anyone else feel similar?
### Edit:
Since I am particularly bad at getting my point across, what I am specifically trying to discuss is the deletion of a comment I made about SO being monotonous. Robert Harvey pointed out that it was likely due to it being flagged 3 times and was automatically deleted, which I think is acceptable. I thought that it was removed by a mod because it appeared to me that the comments were selectively deleted by a mod (when truthfully all of them should have been deleted) just to get rid of the comment I made about SO. | 2011/09/21 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106982",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/134799/"
] | >
> ...all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
>
>
>
That's a question the community wanted answers to three years ago. They got 120 answers. Now *all of a sudden*, **three years later** the question is closed. At the request of the community, via moderator flag.
Oh the humanity. | Heavy moderation (which seems to be at the heart of your question) does at times seems to be orthogonal to the principle that ["Stackoverflow is *You*"](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/11/stack-overflow-is-you/). Now I'm not making a value judgement about whether the moderation in this instance or in general is appropriate (maybe (probably?) more moderation leads to an even better site).
Maybe the best of both worlds would be if that blog post were merely titled, "Stackoverflow is *You*\*."
\*Provided the moderators don't strongly disagree with you. |
106,982 | 1. [Before](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7tByq.png)
2. [After](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dpm7C.png)
3. [What I'm reminded of](https://i.stack.imgur.com/our6a.jpg) [just a joke, I know the moderators of SO aren't like this]
My comments were in regards to [this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/143701/what-is-the-worst-class-variable-function-name-you-have-ever-encountered) being closed (which is now re-opened and locked).
There was growing support for the comment I made, but the comment being deleted is [in my opinion] rather totalitarian. Are all StackOverflow members required to share the same opinion about the site and the people that run it? What is this, North Korea?
In my experience, 130-odd upvotes for a question is rather rare, so to me it would seem like the community wants to see answers and considers it a good question. All it takes is 5 rule-enforcers to say “nup, not having this” and all of a sudden the question that the community wanted answers to is no longer answerable.
The “community-driven” model of SE sites has [in my opinion] turned into “a site where people mostly nominate themselves to become moderators moderate community-provided questions and answers”.
I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this, does anyone else feel similar?
### Edit:
Since I am particularly bad at getting my point across, what I am specifically trying to discuss is the deletion of a comment I made about SO being monotonous. Robert Harvey pointed out that it was likely due to it being flagged 3 times and was automatically deleted, which I think is acceptable. I thought that it was removed by a mod because it appeared to me that the comments were selectively deleted by a mod (when truthfully all of them should have been deleted) just to get rid of the comment I made about SO. | 2011/09/21 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/106982",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/134799/"
] | Firstly, full disclosure: I am a moderator, but not on Stack Overflow.
A debate about the closure of the question is a discussion about the site itself and as such belongs here, not on Stack Overflow and especially not in extended Stack Overflow comments. I regularly flag extended comment threads on SO for removal anyway when they veer off the topic of the question, which your discussion had.
Really if you wished to ask about the closure of questions, the place is here. As such I'd fully expect such discussion to be deleted (over the course of time either by the community or by moderators) - not because you're not allowed to have such discussions or make such observations, but because meta is a better place for them to be had. After all, if the question is deemed on topic, new visitors to the question don't want to see the debate on the best location for it on the question itself. | Heavy moderation (which seems to be at the heart of your question) does at times seems to be orthogonal to the principle that ["Stackoverflow is *You*"](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/11/stack-overflow-is-you/). Now I'm not making a value judgement about whether the moderation in this instance or in general is appropriate (maybe (probably?) more moderation leads to an even better site).
Maybe the best of both worlds would be if that blog post were merely titled, "Stackoverflow is *You*\*."
\*Provided the moderators don't strongly disagree with you. |
16,721 | Can someone please suggest that in a scaled Sitecore 9 environment for some reason if the Roles other than CM and CD are down, how the Websites will be impacted?
If the xConnect, Marketing Automation, xDb Reference Data Roles are down, will the CM and CD roles will be down as well or we have any configuration to avoid such dependency? | 2019/02/12 | [
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/16721",
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com",
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/2890/"
] | **The question: What happens to the experience if xConnect is down?**
Sitecore
========
Content Delivery Role
---------------------
### Session Data
The Content Delivery Role uses the SessionEnd of the HTTP Request lifecycle to push session data to the xConnect Collection Service. When the xConnect Collection Service is down, Sitecore CD will wait until services are restored and then push data from the sessions.
If using InProc session management, and the CD server recycles it's app pool before it's able to push the session to the Collection Service, that session information is lost.
Recommended practice is to use a Session database like SQL or Redis.
### Tracker and Identification
If the xConnect Collection Service is down, Tracker and xConnect Submit batches will fail. This will mean personalization will not fire, but the Site will still work.
Assuming there's a Session Cookie, session data will still collect.
Content Management Role
-----------------------
### Analytics and Marketing Operations
If the xConnect Reference Data service is down:
* Most Analytics reporting will not show.
* Experience Profile will not show users.
* List Segments will not display
* Marketing Automation will not work.
Processing Role
---------------
If xConnect Collection Search Indexer is down, the processing pools will not hydrate and the processing server will not do anything.
If the xConnect Reference Data service is down, Processing will error out with xConnect Issues. The processing pool should remain until the problem is resolved.
Reporting Role
--------------
The Reporting Role of Sitecore does not have a dependence on xConnect. Merely the Reporting Database in SQL.
xConnect
========
Collection Service
------------------
If this service is down, no collection of data from the CD (or CM if running the xDB migration tool) will occur.
Collection Search Index Worker
------------------------------
If this service is down, the **xdb** index will not update.
Reference Data
--------------
If this service is down, Marketing Automation Engine and Sitecore Analytics will not work.
Marketing Automation Engine
---------------------------
If this service is down, Marketing Automation plans will not advance.
Marketing Automation Reporting
------------------------------
If this service is down, reporting in Marketing Automation will not work.
Cortex Processing
-----------------
If this service is down, ML Cortex processing will not work. | Well i just tried on an otherwise empty install of 9.1.
At least the homepage and a basic edit and publish would work. Other stuff like Experience Profile would just say An error has occurred.
It would be far safer to run an instance of XM1 instead. |
44,780 | Many companies I have registered with or interacted with sign me up to their email newsletters without my providing my consent.
For example, I created an account using my email and hired a bike from a bike sharing company through their app. Now I am on their email newsletter.
Does the company have the right to send me marketing emails based on the fact that I purchased something from them even though I didn't give my explicit consent for my data to be processed in that way?
Is consent assumed for every kind of processing/communication based on one reason (a purchase or making an account)? Can I withdraw my consent for marketing specifically? | 2019/09/17 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/44780",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/25763/"
] | Under the GDPR, consent is not the only legal basis that allows processing of your personal data. Other legal bases such as *legitimate interest* exist as well. So the question is: does the company have a legitimate interest to send you these emails?
The answer is that this case is more about direct marketing, less about personal data. The circumstances under which direct marketing emails can be sent are covered by the ePrivacy directive, which is implemented in the UK via PECR (Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003).
PECR and ePrivacy introduce a concept known as *soft opt-in*:
>
> where a natural or legal person obtains from its customers their electronic contact details for electronic mail, in the context of the sale of a product or a service, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, the same natural or legal person may use these electronic contact details for direct marketing of its own similar products or services provided that customers clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object, free of charge and in an easy manner, to such use of electronic contact details when they are collected and on the occasion of each message in case the customer has not initially refused such use.
>
>
> (ePrivacy Directive, Art 13(2))
>
>
>
In plain language, they are allowed to send unsolicited marketing emails to existing customers, under the following restrictions:
* this only applies to customer relationships
* the marketing must be for similar products or services
* you must be able to object to further messages, i.e. unsubscribe
* upon collection of contact details you were given the opportunity to opt out | GDPR is not the right framework [anti-spam](https://www.salesfusion.com/resource/international-email-spam-laws-know-comply/) laws are
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details vary, for example, you do not need permission to send marketing emails in the US but you do in Australia and in both jurisdictions you must provide an easily accessible opt-out. |
10,469 | So I'm just learning this Coldplay piece and it has notes which are not joined but on the same stave. I'm wondering what the purpose of this is or rather what information it's trying to convey? Perhaps the lower notes should be played when the lower lyrics are to be sung, i.e. on the second repeat?
Later on in the sheets it's made slightly more obvious as some of the notes that are separated are slightly smaller.
I'd like to know for sure as I'm turning my sheet music into MIDI files so that I can use Synthesia to practice them.
 | 2013/04/26 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/10469",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/3452/"
] | Smaller notes are a different issue, and could be relevant to a second line of lyrics, but you will typically see them only sporadically appear within the top voice.
Anyway, what you're asking about is referred to as *multiple voices* on a staff. Notes in harmony will generally only be grouped together with a stem if the rhythm is the same, and all of the notes are "on the same part".
There are three parts/voices in this excerpt. The bass is on the bass cleff staff, the melody is the top part of the treble clef staff, and the part in the middle is a harmony part. All parts should be played with each line of lyrics, and the top line should be sung.
Generally a staff will contain up to two voices, since they can easily be distinguished from one another with the use of up stems or down stems. But this is certainly not a hard limit; it is quite common to see more than 2 voices in a staff when reading orchestral scores. In ambiguous cases, the music will contain short instructions like "1.", "a 2" to designate which parts should be playing where. | When notes do share the same stem like this, it is because the editor is showing the two notes to be different "voices". In this particular case, they want to distinguish the melody, which is the top part, from the bottom notes that are filling out the harmony.
Separating the voices is extremely common whenever there is a sung melody that is also being played by the piano. Choral music where all four parts are written on the same staff will often be separated the same way so that the singers can tell which part is theirs. |
14,694,719 | I know that for running c++ on Windows you need to compile specifically for Windows and the same goes for linux and on...
But for example, if I'm compiling program for Windows written in native c++ I can run it on a freshly installed windows pc? I mean, without downloading visual c++ runtime libraries, etc, I can just compile it, let's say, reinstall windows on my computer, and run it without installing anything else?
(The question above using Windows as an example but the same thing can be done on freshly installed linux distro? e.g Ubuntu)
Thanks in advance. | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14694719",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1319084/"
] | No. Often the libraries are different on different systems. If your program involves any GUI then you will definatly have OS specific code that won't run on other OSs.
If you write a C++ program targeting the g++ compiler without GUI code there may still be some OS specific code. But you should be able to port it with minimal effort.
If your program only uses stl and stdio, then it will probably be portable. For example, MS STL's ::c\_str() function works a little different than the linux one. | Yes, the standard libraries are everywhere. Just think about it, most of your programs that you get are writen in C/C++. Only dependencies come when you use some specified libraries like winsock etc, therefore some windows applications are unlikely to work on linux and vice versa. |
14,694,719 | I know that for running c++ on Windows you need to compile specifically for Windows and the same goes for linux and on...
But for example, if I'm compiling program for Windows written in native c++ I can run it on a freshly installed windows pc? I mean, without downloading visual c++ runtime libraries, etc, I can just compile it, let's say, reinstall windows on my computer, and run it without installing anything else?
(The question above using Windows as an example but the same thing can be done on freshly installed linux distro? e.g Ubuntu)
Thanks in advance. | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14694719",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1319084/"
] | The only answer is "it depends".
There are many ways that an OS can "run" a program, many ways a program can be build, and many way code can be assembled.
A program that uses only "standard libraries" and that **links all libraries statically**, does not need any other dependency (in the sense that all the code it need is in the binary itself or into OS libraries that -being part of the system itself- are already on the system).
But:
* statically link the standard libraries (which are most likely present in all programs) will bloat the memory usage of many copy of the same code. That's the reason library are often linked dynamically, but this requires "installation" of those libraries as well
* Programs that use only standard libraries can do only the things that are somehow "common" (or can be commonly represented) into all systems, thus loosing all the peculiarity that makes an OS different from another.
* There are "platforms" that - by the nature of their peripherals - are not represented one into the other: a coffee machine has 12 keys and a textual 2 row x 20 col display. A PC has a mouse, a keyboard, and a display that can reach even 10'000 pixel of width, of millions of color each. A tablet has a touch surface that can seize multiple points at the same time.
Can you imagine a program running the same on all those three platform? | Yes, the standard libraries are everywhere. Just think about it, most of your programs that you get are writen in C/C++. Only dependencies come when you use some specified libraries like winsock etc, therefore some windows applications are unlikely to work on linux and vice versa. |
14,694,719 | I know that for running c++ on Windows you need to compile specifically for Windows and the same goes for linux and on...
But for example, if I'm compiling program for Windows written in native c++ I can run it on a freshly installed windows pc? I mean, without downloading visual c++ runtime libraries, etc, I can just compile it, let's say, reinstall windows on my computer, and run it without installing anything else?
(The question above using Windows as an example but the same thing can be done on freshly installed linux distro? e.g Ubuntu)
Thanks in advance. | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14694719",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1319084/"
] | For what it's worth, when using MinGW with static linkage to libc and libc++, It's very likely that your C++ application will work on any Windows system '95 and later, unless you specifically enabled functionality in the Windows API that isn't available, like NT features. All of my SDL applications compiled for Windows 7 (compiled in 32 bit of course) work fine on my '95 machine.
When deploying a Linux application, it's best to just supply the source plus a configure script or makefile. This will ensure that the user has valid dependencies for your application. You could deploy binaries to specific package managers if you wanted to though. | Yes, the standard libraries are everywhere. Just think about it, most of your programs that you get are writen in C/C++. Only dependencies come when you use some specified libraries like winsock etc, therefore some windows applications are unlikely to work on linux and vice versa. |
14,694,719 | I know that for running c++ on Windows you need to compile specifically for Windows and the same goes for linux and on...
But for example, if I'm compiling program for Windows written in native c++ I can run it on a freshly installed windows pc? I mean, without downloading visual c++ runtime libraries, etc, I can just compile it, let's say, reinstall windows on my computer, and run it without installing anything else?
(The question above using Windows as an example but the same thing can be done on freshly installed linux distro? e.g Ubuntu)
Thanks in advance. | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14694719",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1319084/"
] | The only answer is "it depends".
There are many ways that an OS can "run" a program, many ways a program can be build, and many way code can be assembled.
A program that uses only "standard libraries" and that **links all libraries statically**, does not need any other dependency (in the sense that all the code it need is in the binary itself or into OS libraries that -being part of the system itself- are already on the system).
But:
* statically link the standard libraries (which are most likely present in all programs) will bloat the memory usage of many copy of the same code. That's the reason library are often linked dynamically, but this requires "installation" of those libraries as well
* Programs that use only standard libraries can do only the things that are somehow "common" (or can be commonly represented) into all systems, thus loosing all the peculiarity that makes an OS different from another.
* There are "platforms" that - by the nature of their peripherals - are not represented one into the other: a coffee machine has 12 keys and a textual 2 row x 20 col display. A PC has a mouse, a keyboard, and a display that can reach even 10'000 pixel of width, of millions of color each. A tablet has a touch surface that can seize multiple points at the same time.
Can you imagine a program running the same on all those three platform? | No. Often the libraries are different on different systems. If your program involves any GUI then you will definatly have OS specific code that won't run on other OSs.
If you write a C++ program targeting the g++ compiler without GUI code there may still be some OS specific code. But you should be able to port it with minimal effort.
If your program only uses stl and stdio, then it will probably be portable. For example, MS STL's ::c\_str() function works a little different than the linux one. |
14,694,719 | I know that for running c++ on Windows you need to compile specifically for Windows and the same goes for linux and on...
But for example, if I'm compiling program for Windows written in native c++ I can run it on a freshly installed windows pc? I mean, without downloading visual c++ runtime libraries, etc, I can just compile it, let's say, reinstall windows on my computer, and run it without installing anything else?
(The question above using Windows as an example but the same thing can be done on freshly installed linux distro? e.g Ubuntu)
Thanks in advance. | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14694719",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1319084/"
] | No. Often the libraries are different on different systems. If your program involves any GUI then you will definatly have OS specific code that won't run on other OSs.
If you write a C++ program targeting the g++ compiler without GUI code there may still be some OS specific code. But you should be able to port it with minimal effort.
If your program only uses stl and stdio, then it will probably be portable. For example, MS STL's ::c\_str() function works a little different than the linux one. | For what it's worth, when using MinGW with static linkage to libc and libc++, It's very likely that your C++ application will work on any Windows system '95 and later, unless you specifically enabled functionality in the Windows API that isn't available, like NT features. All of my SDL applications compiled for Windows 7 (compiled in 32 bit of course) work fine on my '95 machine.
When deploying a Linux application, it's best to just supply the source plus a configure script or makefile. This will ensure that the user has valid dependencies for your application. You could deploy binaries to specific package managers if you wanted to though. |
14,694,719 | I know that for running c++ on Windows you need to compile specifically for Windows and the same goes for linux and on...
But for example, if I'm compiling program for Windows written in native c++ I can run it on a freshly installed windows pc? I mean, without downloading visual c++ runtime libraries, etc, I can just compile it, let's say, reinstall windows on my computer, and run it without installing anything else?
(The question above using Windows as an example but the same thing can be done on freshly installed linux distro? e.g Ubuntu)
Thanks in advance. | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14694719",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1319084/"
] | The only answer is "it depends".
There are many ways that an OS can "run" a program, many ways a program can be build, and many way code can be assembled.
A program that uses only "standard libraries" and that **links all libraries statically**, does not need any other dependency (in the sense that all the code it need is in the binary itself or into OS libraries that -being part of the system itself- are already on the system).
But:
* statically link the standard libraries (which are most likely present in all programs) will bloat the memory usage of many copy of the same code. That's the reason library are often linked dynamically, but this requires "installation" of those libraries as well
* Programs that use only standard libraries can do only the things that are somehow "common" (or can be commonly represented) into all systems, thus loosing all the peculiarity that makes an OS different from another.
* There are "platforms" that - by the nature of their peripherals - are not represented one into the other: a coffee machine has 12 keys and a textual 2 row x 20 col display. A PC has a mouse, a keyboard, and a display that can reach even 10'000 pixel of width, of millions of color each. A tablet has a touch surface that can seize multiple points at the same time.
Can you imagine a program running the same on all those three platform? | For what it's worth, when using MinGW with static linkage to libc and libc++, It's very likely that your C++ application will work on any Windows system '95 and later, unless you specifically enabled functionality in the Windows API that isn't available, like NT features. All of my SDL applications compiled for Windows 7 (compiled in 32 bit of course) work fine on my '95 machine.
When deploying a Linux application, it's best to just supply the source plus a configure script or makefile. This will ensure that the user has valid dependencies for your application. You could deploy binaries to specific package managers if you wanted to though. |
6,309,021 | i've got a webscript in alfresco which is written in javascript. In this webscript i have a lot of recursion (foreach loops) to do to generate the values that are used by a freemarker template to build a JSON. The problem is that javascript is very slow (3700 milliseconds). I could achieve the same results by iterating in freemarker, but i don't know if it's worth the hassle writing complex loop in freemarker because i don't know if it's faster and i don't know how to benchmark it.
Anyone knows if freemarker is faster than javascript or does anyone knows how to benchmark freemarker? | 2011/06/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6309021",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/397861/"
] | Some days ago somebody mentioned on the freemarker-devel mailing list that he benchmarked FreeMarker vs. GSP (Groovy Server Pages?). Maybe you can reuse some of his benchmarking stuff. There are some links in his [mailing list posting](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.freemarker.devel/7814). | If you want to compare for with forEach, some benchmarks are shown [here](http://www.symphonious.net/2010/10/09/javascript-performance-for-vs-foreach/) .
You might want to set your own benchmark in [jsperf](http://jsperf.com/) |
6,309,021 | i've got a webscript in alfresco which is written in javascript. In this webscript i have a lot of recursion (foreach loops) to do to generate the values that are used by a freemarker template to build a JSON. The problem is that javascript is very slow (3700 milliseconds). I could achieve the same results by iterating in freemarker, but i don't know if it's worth the hassle writing complex loop in freemarker because i don't know if it's faster and i don't know how to benchmark it.
Anyone knows if freemarker is faster than javascript or does anyone knows how to benchmark freemarker? | 2011/06/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6309021",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/397861/"
] | If you want to compare for with forEach, some benchmarks are shown [here](http://www.symphonious.net/2010/10/09/javascript-performance-for-vs-foreach/) .
You might want to set your own benchmark in [jsperf](http://jsperf.com/) | If performance is an issue, you could try writing your webscript in [Java instead](http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Web_Scripts#Java-Backed_Implementations). It's not too hard to do, and there are [some examples](http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Java-backed_Web_Scripts_Samples).
One of the examples even shows how to output the JSON from Java, skipping the freemarker layer, which might help you if you want it to run as fast as possible. |
6,309,021 | i've got a webscript in alfresco which is written in javascript. In this webscript i have a lot of recursion (foreach loops) to do to generate the values that are used by a freemarker template to build a JSON. The problem is that javascript is very slow (3700 milliseconds). I could achieve the same results by iterating in freemarker, but i don't know if it's worth the hassle writing complex loop in freemarker because i don't know if it's faster and i don't know how to benchmark it.
Anyone knows if freemarker is faster than javascript or does anyone knows how to benchmark freemarker? | 2011/06/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6309021",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/397861/"
] | Some days ago somebody mentioned on the freemarker-devel mailing list that he benchmarked FreeMarker vs. GSP (Groovy Server Pages?). Maybe you can reuse some of his benchmarking stuff. There are some links in his [mailing list posting](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.freemarker.devel/7814). | If performance is an issue, you could try writing your webscript in [Java instead](http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Web_Scripts#Java-Backed_Implementations). It's not too hard to do, and there are [some examples](http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Java-backed_Web_Scripts_Samples).
One of the examples even shows how to output the JSON from Java, skipping the freemarker layer, which might help you if you want it to run as fast as possible. |
19,685 | The PDP-8 was a remarkable exercise in minimalist computer design; some of the aspects of its design are discussed in detail at [PDP-8 transistor count](https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/5843/pdp-8-transistor-count)
One feature it did not have was a stack. Instead, when you called a subroutine, the return address would be saved in the first word of the subroutine. Of course, this meant it didn't support reentrancy (that is, if you needed reentrancy, you had to make your own arrangements, implement your own call stack in software). On the face of it, this is consistent with the overall design philosophy of eschewing luxury to save parts count and therefore cost.
But looking a bit more closely, the lack of a stack actually increases cost in some ways. In particular, it causes programs to use more memory, because a word has to be allocated for a return address for every subroutine in the program (as opposed to just the maximum call depth that will ever be used).
Furthermore, if you have a stack, you can use tail call optimization, where a call immediately followed by a return is replaced with a jump, saving a word of memory (and several cycles). Without a stack, you cannot do this.
In general, it's clear that the designers did care about code density, which in many ways is remarkably high; for example, a jump instruction to an arbitrary memory location takes two words, as expected – except two jump instructions in the same page to the same location, can share the operand word, for an amortized cost of 12 bits each. I have seen no other architecture that can do this.
And there was good reason to care about code density. Memory was expensive! Even with the basic 4096 12-bit words of memory in the PDP-8, this still amounted to a large percentage of the total system cost. For the low end of the market at which the machine was aimed, code density therefore could very well be more important than speed.
What exactly would it have cost to add a stack to the machine?
* A register for the stack pointer itself. This could have been just 7 bits; if there are two transistors needed to store a bit in discrete logic, that's an extra 14 transistors, about 1% of the total in the machine. (Plus corresponding other components, diodes, wires etc.) That would seem worthwhile for a likely saving of significantly more than 1% of memory.
* Opcode space not an issue, the call instruction would've taken the same number of bits, and there was spare opcode space for zero-operand instructions like RET, and a couple of instructions to push and pop the accumulator.
* Circuitry to increment and decrement the stack pointer. The machine already had a full-width adder. Decrement can be done by adding all ones.
* Control logic for the necessary sequence of operations. Does this add much complexity? Call would need to push the return address onto the stack before jumping to the destination. Then again, in the current design, call needs to jump to the destination, save the return address, then again increment the program counter. Doesn't look like a huge difference.
Overall it looks to me like a stack would achieve a modest improvement in code density at small extra hardware cost. Worth it? Hard to say. Looks like a tricky judgment call that would preferably need to be based on analysis of exactly what the hardware cost would be.
But this was in the early sixties. At that time, stacks and recursion were not in any way taken for granted the way they are now. Storing the return address in the first word of a subroutine was a perfectly normal way to do things!
So:
Did the designers consider a stack and decide it wasn't worth the cost? Or did they just go with return address stored in the first word of the callee because that was the way things were commonly done, and there was no particular reason to do otherwise? Is there anything written down by the designers that goes into detail about the options they considered? Or can anything be inferred from architectures that already existed, that the designers would have been familiar with; did any of those existing architectures have a stack? | 2021/04/26 | [
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/19685",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/"
] | Without detailed documentation on the PDP-8 design process, we cannot say for sure. I suspect that while they may have briefly considered it, it was never a serious prospect.
The PDP-8 is just the PDP-5 redesigned electronically. The PDP-5 was introduced in 1963 as an even-more-reduced version of a computer compared to the PDP-1 and PDP-4. The PDP-1/4 did not have a stack either.
The PDP-8 had only 12 bit words instead of 18, 3 bits of opcode per instruction instead of 5, and so on. Among the things sacrificed were hardware subtraction, a more sophisticated IO system, a larger address space, hardware to assist multiplication/division, and instructions like bitwise XOR and OR.
In short, they took everything out that they could. Anything else (10 bit word? No bitwise operations at all? No addition?) would drastically slow it down, require huge code for common operations, or simply make it *too* small (memory-wise).
It is approximately the minimal viable general-purpose computer. While addition might be necessary, stacks are not. Like subtraction, stack access can be simulated on a PDP-8 with just a couple of instructions average. (See some RISC machines that still do this today with no hardware stack.)
In '63 when the PDP-5 was released, hardware stacks were rare in general. DEC had never released a computer using them. The PDP-6 would come out about a year later, as the first. Stacks showed up on some fancy mainframes from other manufacturers around then, and, importantly, were usually a feature intended to support high level languages.
While this is another educated guess, I think supporting high level languages was likely not a design requirement for the PDP-5 and -8. In fact, I suspect the designers would have been quite surprised to learn the architecture, a decade later, would be hosting fairly complete compilers for languages like FORTRAN 66 and COBOL. At the outset, they barely squeezed a limited subset (no subroutines!) of FORTRAN II into the machine.
It was mostly intended to be a laboratory computer, or factory industrial controller, or some kind of embedded processor for control and monitoring tasks. Software like word processing systems and sophisticated compilers were something that became desirable and obvious only once it had been shipping for a while.
In conclusion, between the necessary additional hardware for a stack going directly against the main design goal, stacks being easily simulated with short routines, and the non-obviousness at design time of needing to support high-level languages in the ALGOL style, I doubt it was seriously considered. | I'm going to say no.
The PDP-8 was chiefly designed for compatibility with the PDP-5, and this machine also had no hardware stack.
There is not enough room in the instruction space to add push and pop instructions either. |
236,482 | I know that usually a short video with audio is called "clip", but at least for me, it's associated with a music video, MTV, etc, and doesn't sound professional enough.
So is there a single word for a short video promoting a company, showing the company skills and past achievements etc?
It is going to be used in a presentation which is going to start with the video, and contains Table of Contents as the first slide. So far we have "[company name] Video Clip" but like I said in the beginning, it doesn't feel right. Neither me nor the audience of the presentation are native English speakers, if it matters. | 2015/03/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/236482",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11875/"
] | The word [***promo***](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=promo&t=crmtb01) is often used.
Simply an abbreviation of promotional video, it is widely used to describe the type of short video that you mention. A video concentrating on the company itself rather than an advertisement which concentrates on its products. | *[Presentation](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presentation) video* is the expression generally used:
>
> * (Commerce) a verbal report presented with illustrative material, such as slides, graphs, etc: a presentation on the company results.
>
>
>
(TFD) |
236,482 | I know that usually a short video with audio is called "clip", but at least for me, it's associated with a music video, MTV, etc, and doesn't sound professional enough.
So is there a single word for a short video promoting a company, showing the company skills and past achievements etc?
It is going to be used in a presentation which is going to start with the video, and contains Table of Contents as the first slide. So far we have "[company name] Video Clip" but like I said in the beginning, it doesn't feel right. Neither me nor the audience of the presentation are native English speakers, if it matters. | 2015/03/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/236482",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11875/"
] | I think a good general term for this sort of thing would be *portfolio*. In practice I've seen this term used when I've reviewed potential companies to award design and programming contracts to, for instance. The dictionary says:
>
> portfolio: a set of pieces of creative work collected by someone to display their skills, esp. to a potential employer
>
>
>
From show-business come the related terms *showreel* and *demo reel* (sometimes heard as *reel*, as in "I'd love you to take a look at my reel"). Dictionary says:
>
> showreel: a short videotape containing examples of an actor's or director's work for showing to potential employers
>
>
>
And of course the related terms *résumé* and *curriculum vitae* tend to cover the case of a written document which is used when seeking individual employment.
All of the above terms yield good google results, including forum discussions regarding specific uses of the terms in particular industries. | *[Presentation](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presentation) video* is the expression generally used:
>
> * (Commerce) a verbal report presented with illustrative material, such as slides, graphs, etc: a presentation on the company results.
>
>
>
(TFD) |
236,482 | I know that usually a short video with audio is called "clip", but at least for me, it's associated with a music video, MTV, etc, and doesn't sound professional enough.
So is there a single word for a short video promoting a company, showing the company skills and past achievements etc?
It is going to be used in a presentation which is going to start with the video, and contains Table of Contents as the first slide. So far we have "[company name] Video Clip" but like I said in the beginning, it doesn't feel right. Neither me nor the audience of the presentation are native English speakers, if it matters. | 2015/03/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/236482",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11875/"
] | Surely this is a good one :-)
>
> A **showreel** (also known as a **demo reel**) is a short piece of
> video or film footage showcasing an actor's previous work. Usually
> four to six minutes in length, a showreel typically supplements an
> actor's résumé and is used to promote the artist's skill, talent, and
> experience to acting agents and casting directors.
>
>
> [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showreel_%28actors%29)
>
>
> | *[Presentation](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presentation) video* is the expression generally used:
>
> * (Commerce) a verbal report presented with illustrative material, such as slides, graphs, etc: a presentation on the company results.
>
>
>
(TFD) |
236,482 | I know that usually a short video with audio is called "clip", but at least for me, it's associated with a music video, MTV, etc, and doesn't sound professional enough.
So is there a single word for a short video promoting a company, showing the company skills and past achievements etc?
It is going to be used in a presentation which is going to start with the video, and contains Table of Contents as the first slide. So far we have "[company name] Video Clip" but like I said in the beginning, it doesn't feel right. Neither me nor the audience of the presentation are native English speakers, if it matters. | 2015/03/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/236482",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11875/"
] | The word [***promo***](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=promo&t=crmtb01) is often used.
Simply an abbreviation of promotional video, it is widely used to describe the type of short video that you mention. A video concentrating on the company itself rather than an advertisement which concentrates on its products. | I think a good general term for this sort of thing would be *portfolio*. In practice I've seen this term used when I've reviewed potential companies to award design and programming contracts to, for instance. The dictionary says:
>
> portfolio: a set of pieces of creative work collected by someone to display their skills, esp. to a potential employer
>
>
>
From show-business come the related terms *showreel* and *demo reel* (sometimes heard as *reel*, as in "I'd love you to take a look at my reel"). Dictionary says:
>
> showreel: a short videotape containing examples of an actor's or director's work for showing to potential employers
>
>
>
And of course the related terms *résumé* and *curriculum vitae* tend to cover the case of a written document which is used when seeking individual employment.
All of the above terms yield good google results, including forum discussions regarding specific uses of the terms in particular industries. |
236,482 | I know that usually a short video with audio is called "clip", but at least for me, it's associated with a music video, MTV, etc, and doesn't sound professional enough.
So is there a single word for a short video promoting a company, showing the company skills and past achievements etc?
It is going to be used in a presentation which is going to start with the video, and contains Table of Contents as the first slide. So far we have "[company name] Video Clip" but like I said in the beginning, it doesn't feel right. Neither me nor the audience of the presentation are native English speakers, if it matters. | 2015/03/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/236482",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11875/"
] | The word [***promo***](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=promo&t=crmtb01) is often used.
Simply an abbreviation of promotional video, it is widely used to describe the type of short video that you mention. A video concentrating on the company itself rather than an advertisement which concentrates on its products. | Surely this is a good one :-)
>
> A **showreel** (also known as a **demo reel**) is a short piece of
> video or film footage showcasing an actor's previous work. Usually
> four to six minutes in length, a showreel typically supplements an
> actor's résumé and is used to promote the artist's skill, talent, and
> experience to acting agents and casting directors.
>
>
> [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showreel_%28actors%29)
>
>
> |
236,482 | I know that usually a short video with audio is called "clip", but at least for me, it's associated with a music video, MTV, etc, and doesn't sound professional enough.
So is there a single word for a short video promoting a company, showing the company skills and past achievements etc?
It is going to be used in a presentation which is going to start with the video, and contains Table of Contents as the first slide. So far we have "[company name] Video Clip" but like I said in the beginning, it doesn't feel right. Neither me nor the audience of the presentation are native English speakers, if it matters. | 2015/03/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/236482",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11875/"
] | Surely this is a good one :-)
>
> A **showreel** (also known as a **demo reel**) is a short piece of
> video or film footage showcasing an actor's previous work. Usually
> four to six minutes in length, a showreel typically supplements an
> actor's résumé and is used to promote the artist's skill, talent, and
> experience to acting agents and casting directors.
>
>
> [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showreel_%28actors%29)
>
>
> | I think a good general term for this sort of thing would be *portfolio*. In practice I've seen this term used when I've reviewed potential companies to award design and programming contracts to, for instance. The dictionary says:
>
> portfolio: a set of pieces of creative work collected by someone to display their skills, esp. to a potential employer
>
>
>
From show-business come the related terms *showreel* and *demo reel* (sometimes heard as *reel*, as in "I'd love you to take a look at my reel"). Dictionary says:
>
> showreel: a short videotape containing examples of an actor's or director's work for showing to potential employers
>
>
>
And of course the related terms *résumé* and *curriculum vitae* tend to cover the case of a written document which is used when seeking individual employment.
All of the above terms yield good google results, including forum discussions regarding specific uses of the terms in particular industries. |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | The answer seems to be that with [the Wysiwyg module](http://drupal.org/project/wysiwyg), you get an interface for which buttons appear in the profiles, whereas with just [CKEditor](http://drupal.org/project/ckeditor), you don't? Or at least it's not obvious where choosing which buttons appear happens in the CKeditor module. <http://drupal.ckeditor.com/> has some documentation on the subject, which says you can change the buttons.
<http://drupal.org/node/606404> for some background on why CKEditor and Wysiwyg are separate efforts (though you can use CKEditor just fine with Wysiwyg).
I'd be inclined to stay with Wysiwyg so that you can swap out editors (that is, the JavaScript libraries for them) without having to swap out Drupal modules. | From my experience, using the Wysiwyg module was a better decision.
In some special cases (mainly when the editing was inside of an Ajaxed page), using ckeditor was a bad chioce.
When using the Wysiwyg, replacing the editor itself wasn't a hard task, which solved several problems very fast.
Therefore, for future situations you might not even think of now - use the Wysiwyg module. |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | The answer seems to be that with [the Wysiwyg module](http://drupal.org/project/wysiwyg), you get an interface for which buttons appear in the profiles, whereas with just [CKEditor](http://drupal.org/project/ckeditor), you don't? Or at least it's not obvious where choosing which buttons appear happens in the CKeditor module. <http://drupal.ckeditor.com/> has some documentation on the subject, which says you can change the buttons.
<http://drupal.org/node/606404> for some background on why CKEditor and Wysiwyg are separate efforts (though you can use CKEditor just fine with Wysiwyg).
I'd be inclined to stay with Wysiwyg so that you can swap out editors (that is, the JavaScript libraries for them) without having to swap out Drupal modules. | Using the WYSIWYG module will allow you to fairly easily switch to another editor if you find one you prefer (or if new ones come onto the market). |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | The answer seems to be that with [the Wysiwyg module](http://drupal.org/project/wysiwyg), you get an interface for which buttons appear in the profiles, whereas with just [CKEditor](http://drupal.org/project/ckeditor), you don't? Or at least it's not obvious where choosing which buttons appear happens in the CKeditor module. <http://drupal.ckeditor.com/> has some documentation on the subject, which says you can change the buttons.
<http://drupal.org/node/606404> for some background on why CKEditor and Wysiwyg are separate efforts (though you can use CKEditor just fine with Wysiwyg).
I'd be inclined to stay with Wysiwyg so that you can swap out editors (that is, the JavaScript libraries for them) without having to swap out Drupal modules. | The CKeditor module gives you have much more granular control around where the editor windows appear, user role level permissions and the buttons available for each. The WSYIWYG API just allows for basic on/off configuration of editor windows for text fields across the whole site. Button profiles are based around input types (filtered & full HTML). The advantages of the API module is that it's not limited to just one editor (there's 10 or so) and really easy to configure.
The Ckeditor module is more difficult to configure and certainly not for most implementations, but very nice to have this module available if you require that level of control. |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | The answer seems to be that with [the Wysiwyg module](http://drupal.org/project/wysiwyg), you get an interface for which buttons appear in the profiles, whereas with just [CKEditor](http://drupal.org/project/ckeditor), you don't? Or at least it's not obvious where choosing which buttons appear happens in the CKeditor module. <http://drupal.ckeditor.com/> has some documentation on the subject, which says you can change the buttons.
<http://drupal.org/node/606404> for some background on why CKEditor and Wysiwyg are separate efforts (though you can use CKEditor just fine with Wysiwyg).
I'd be inclined to stay with Wysiwyg so that you can swap out editors (that is, the JavaScript libraries for them) without having to swap out Drupal modules. | RE: WYSIWYG module using CKEditor library vs CKEditor module
I found the former only allowed the following toolbar;
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GOrzE.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar.png))
Later had much more like font colour, flash embed, spell check etc.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lABox.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar2.png))
Have done a full explanation here;
Link to [CKeditor](https://web.archive.org/web/20170509000520/http://johnathanthwaites.info:80/Ckeditor) |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | From my experience, using the Wysiwyg module was a better decision.
In some special cases (mainly when the editing was inside of an Ajaxed page), using ckeditor was a bad chioce.
When using the Wysiwyg, replacing the editor itself wasn't a hard task, which solved several problems very fast.
Therefore, for future situations you might not even think of now - use the Wysiwyg module. | Using the WYSIWYG module will allow you to fairly easily switch to another editor if you find one you prefer (or if new ones come onto the market). |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | The CKeditor module gives you have much more granular control around where the editor windows appear, user role level permissions and the buttons available for each. The WSYIWYG API just allows for basic on/off configuration of editor windows for text fields across the whole site. Button profiles are based around input types (filtered & full HTML). The advantages of the API module is that it's not limited to just one editor (there's 10 or so) and really easy to configure.
The Ckeditor module is more difficult to configure and certainly not for most implementations, but very nice to have this module available if you require that level of control. | From my experience, using the Wysiwyg module was a better decision.
In some special cases (mainly when the editing was inside of an Ajaxed page), using ckeditor was a bad chioce.
When using the Wysiwyg, replacing the editor itself wasn't a hard task, which solved several problems very fast.
Therefore, for future situations you might not even think of now - use the Wysiwyg module. |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | From my experience, using the Wysiwyg module was a better decision.
In some special cases (mainly when the editing was inside of an Ajaxed page), using ckeditor was a bad chioce.
When using the Wysiwyg, replacing the editor itself wasn't a hard task, which solved several problems very fast.
Therefore, for future situations you might not even think of now - use the Wysiwyg module. | RE: WYSIWYG module using CKEditor library vs CKEditor module
I found the former only allowed the following toolbar;
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GOrzE.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar.png))
Later had much more like font colour, flash embed, spell check etc.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lABox.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar2.png))
Have done a full explanation here;
Link to [CKeditor](https://web.archive.org/web/20170509000520/http://johnathanthwaites.info:80/Ckeditor) |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | The CKeditor module gives you have much more granular control around where the editor windows appear, user role level permissions and the buttons available for each. The WSYIWYG API just allows for basic on/off configuration of editor windows for text fields across the whole site. Button profiles are based around input types (filtered & full HTML). The advantages of the API module is that it's not limited to just one editor (there's 10 or so) and really easy to configure.
The Ckeditor module is more difficult to configure and certainly not for most implementations, but very nice to have this module available if you require that level of control. | Using the WYSIWYG module will allow you to fairly easily switch to another editor if you find one you prefer (or if new ones come onto the market). |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | Using the WYSIWYG module will allow you to fairly easily switch to another editor if you find one you prefer (or if new ones come onto the market). | RE: WYSIWYG module using CKEditor library vs CKEditor module
I found the former only allowed the following toolbar;
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GOrzE.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar.png))
Later had much more like font colour, flash embed, spell check etc.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lABox.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar2.png))
Have done a full explanation here;
Link to [CKeditor](https://web.archive.org/web/20170509000520/http://johnathanthwaites.info:80/Ckeditor) |
4,683,176 | What is the difference between using the WYSIWYG module pointing to the CKEditor library and using the dedicated CKEditor module.
We currently use the WYSIWYG module with TinyMCE. | 2011/01/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4683176",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/503198/"
] | The CKeditor module gives you have much more granular control around where the editor windows appear, user role level permissions and the buttons available for each. The WSYIWYG API just allows for basic on/off configuration of editor windows for text fields across the whole site. Button profiles are based around input types (filtered & full HTML). The advantages of the API module is that it's not limited to just one editor (there's 10 or so) and really easy to configure.
The Ckeditor module is more difficult to configure and certainly not for most implementations, but very nice to have this module available if you require that level of control. | RE: WYSIWYG module using CKEditor library vs CKEditor module
I found the former only allowed the following toolbar;
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GOrzE.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar.png))
Later had much more like font colour, flash embed, spell check etc.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lABox.png)
(source: [johnathanthwaites.info](http://johnathanthwaites.info/sites/default/files/toolbar2.png))
Have done a full explanation here;
Link to [CKeditor](https://web.archive.org/web/20170509000520/http://johnathanthwaites.info:80/Ckeditor) |
3,851,990 | ive got a email setup to forward to mx.sendgrid.new (the sendgrid mail server) then with received emails sendgrid passes them to a specified page (as shown in the 2nd image of the tutorial im following)
<http://nanceskitchen.com/2010/02/21/accept-incoming-emails-into-a-heroku-app-using-sendgrid/#comment-37>
SO what CODE is inside that index file that passes the sendgrid email into the controller
is it just like a regular form page...? | 2010/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3851990",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/365798/"
] | There is no index file, just a post request to your application made from SendGrid. You specify the url you want that post to go to, and when SendGrid receives an email, it posts a request to your specified URL, with the email fields as parameters.
PS. NancesKitchen.com is my blog. | There should be no index file (as in a static HTML or view file) involved.
Sendgrid makes the request to your app on a given URL. From your app's side, this request is handled straight by the controller. But instead of the params hash being populated by form data, it's populated by the data in the request from Sendgrid. |
150,018 | One of my characters suffers an injury where a spike pierced his lower jaw and severed his tongue. Ignoring the fact that he may not have survived this wound under normal circumstances (eldritch powers are a useful boon at times), what would be the consequences of having such an injury?
Some more information: the character is an adult male living in mid-1920's Boston. He is to be classed as a normal human for the purposes of living with this injury. In specifics, the spike punctured through his jaw, behind the chin and sunk into the upper part of his mouth, severing the tendons connecting his tongue on the way. Money not a large issue for the people taking care of him.
The main question I have is **what would living with this injury be like on a physical day-to-day basis and what hindrances might occur from the time period in question?**
Bonus points for answers including
* What medical care for this injury would be provided in this era,
* How easy it will be for him to communicate with or without sign language,
* Whether his job as a police sergeant will be affected (and how so) and
* How easy it will be for him to get assistance in learning sign language, what with deaf schools in 1920 being primarily oral education based. | 2019/07/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/150018",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/66169/"
] | So Sorry: No Terrible Consequences to Speak Of
==============================================
[Phineas Gage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage) was a 19th century workman famous for having survived an injury far worse that the one you're describing. On the right image, you can see that a heavy rod violently ascended through his left cheek, above his molars, burst through his left eye socket and proceeded to pass through his brain before exiting the right side of his skull. The left image is of Mr Gage afterwards. Still a rakish rogue, with his missing eye and famous rod in hand! His injuries were almost all cognitive and behavioural.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A3YZA.jpg)
You're describing a much less damaging injury, where a spike pierces the floor of the mouth, pierces or more likely violently pushes the tongue aside and lodges in his hard palate. Being from 1920s Boston, your character, especially since he's a policeman is undoubtedly Irish and probably got into into a bit of a tussle with some other, even drunker, Irishman, perhaps leaving him stabbed by a sailor with a marlinspike in his pocket. Very handy, your basic marlinspike!
A spike is essentially a longish, tapered tool with a round cross-section. The end may be sharp or blunt. This is ideal.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DnKjG.jpg)
The likely extent of your character's injuries will be as follows:
* Skin and subcutaneous tissues will, of course, be punctured and stretched to accommodate the widening shaft of the spike.
* There is a suite of muscles in this area: the digastric attaches to the mandible and runs in a triangle shape back towards the hyoid bone near the top of the larynx; beneath this is the mylohyoid, a broad muscle that comprises much of the structure of the floor of the mouth. It is possible that one side or the other of the digastric will be damaged, but probably not severed. A spike, depending on the angle of attack, will most likely "slot" roughly to midline, which will push those muscles out of the way. A small enough spike might pierce the digastric but will probably not sever it: it will just divide the muscle belly and push the tissues aside. The mylohyoid will certainly be pierced, but again will not be severely damaged.
* Passing up through the sublingual salivary glands, the spike may injure a gland or damage the salivary duct.
* The tongue itself is very muscular and will almost certainly be injured. A spike might pierce the tissue, and as with the other soft tissues it's gone through, will do little more than divide the muscle fibres and push them aside. Most of the tongue muscles attack posteriorly and to the mandible.
* The hard palate is the thick bone that forms the roof of the mouth and floor of the nasal cavity. The spike will probably be checked by the bone. If the tip passes into the nasal cavity, a fistula might form communicating between the nose and mouth.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tjmrT.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LWtLf.jpg)
Even in the 1920s, this injury would be a cinch for a good, Army trained surgeon to take care of!
Inspect and explore the nasal cavity; tamp down any dislodged bone; suture or cauterise the mucosa.
In the oral cavity, explore the injury to the roof of the mouth caused by the spike. It would be relatively simple to close the soft tissue injury injury in the roof of the mouth. A few stitches ought to do the trick.
Same with the tongue. Explore the wound, clean it out, suture the top, suture the middle if needed and then the bottom.
Same with the floor of the mouth. Explore the wound, clean it out. The salivary duct injury repair was by this time more than a century old, so no real worries there. Tack together torn soft tissues.
Coming down to the structural muscles, explore, irrigate, repair.
Skin, same: explore, clean, repair.
**Consequences**: The tongue can take quite a beating. People pierce them. People slit them. People bite them. Early in recovery, of course his mouth and jaw will will be very sore. Eating and drinking may be difficult, so he may have to be fed. If his nurse is cute, he'll be happy to be fed! Happily, his caretakers will almost certainly have an invalid feeder in the kitchen. These are designed to help feed people liquid diets when they're sick.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eNWP4.jpg)
Once the wounds heal, your character will be able to talk as well as he could before the injury.
Men came back from the trenches with real facial injuries. Your character...how can I put this? *Twas a mere flesh wound.*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JZSwT.jpg)
Other considerations:
1. What medical care for this injury would be provided in this era? -- No antibiotics, so your character's greatest threat will be from infection. This is the Post-WWI era. Surgeons have learned a lot about reconstructing the face after mind-blowing injuries on the battlefield. Your guy does not suffer from a mind-blowing injury. Nurses also learned a lot about pre-, intra- and post-surgical patient care & wound management. Pain killers are available (morphine, opium, laudanum, etc); anesthesia was well known (ether, airway management, etc).
2. How easy it will be for him to communicate with or without sign language? -- No need for sign language. In the immediate post-operative period, a notebook and pencil ought to suffice. Soon enough, he'll be able to talk quite normally. At worst, he might suffer a slight impediment.
3. Whether his job as a police sergeant will be affected (and how so) -- Ultimately, there should be no reason why he can't get back to his normal duties.
4. How easy it will be for him to get assistance in learning sign language, what with deaf schools in 1920 being primarily oral education based. -- No need. | The way you describe the injury makes it sound like the only part of his head to be injured is just the jaw and tongue, and not even the bones of the jaw, just the tongue. With some lucky placement, there really won't be that many injuries, except for the fact that his tongue is now unusable. It's really no different from being born mute, though he might have a hard time chewing food without a tongue.
Medical Care - bad. Antibiotics haven't been invented yet, fortunately, anesthesia has been. So he'll be put up in a hospital so they can stitch his mouth shut, but he'll be high on drugs in the process.
Communication - Moderate. ASL (American Sign Language) has been invented at this point, unfortunately, it's not widely known and people don't have smartphones. Carrying around a set of flashcards and a notebook and pencil is probably a good idea, and having a friend learn at least the sign alphabet. To clarify, you can make some noises without a tongue. Just not most of them.
Job - Yes. It's hard to be a police sergeant if you can't yell 'Stop, thief!' And job unions haven't been invented yet and hazard compensation was essentially a myth. That said, he's not actually disabled when it comes to fighting, so if, say, he was part of an 'Unspeakables' style team, they'd probably just give him a raise.
Education - Apparently, Boston has one of the oldest schools for deaf-mutes in America, the Horace Mann School. No problem. (Except that it's a day school for children, but I'm sure the teachers would be fine to tutor this guy for extra money.) |
65,509,170 | I have created Azure AD B2C Application and tried to integrate with React JS using MSAL Library , When i tried to get access token I am getting following error.
AADB2C90205: This application does not have sufficient permissions against this web resource to perform the operation
Any Help would highly appreciated. | 2020/12/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/65509170",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2842159/"
] | The link provided by @Jas Suri is correct, but I need to add some more:
You need to create two applications, one representing the client application and the other representing the api application, and then use the client application to call the api application.
Next, you need to expose the api of the back-end application and record the scope name, then go to the client application to add the scope to the API permissions (you need to find it in **My APIs**), and grant the admin consent to the permission.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bRSqI.png)
Finally, when you get the access token, you must add the scope.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3PNpq.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uxJzX.png) | You didn’t grant admin consent. Follow this:
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory-b2c/add-web-api-application?tabs=app-reg-ga>
Specifically the Grant Permissions section. |
279,850 | I have a hard time understanding #3 and #8 of [Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution).
The laws are:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
and
8. (1996) "Feedback System" (first stated 1974, formalised as law 1996) — E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement over any reasonable base
The rest of the laws are clear to me.
Could someone explain these two laws? | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/279850",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/145237/"
] | Law:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
**In other words 'an E-type systems growth inevitably slows as it grows older'.**
Source:
<http://www.governmentciomagazine.com/2013/04/implications-lehman%E2%80%99s-laws-it-priorities-wake-sequester> | Not sure about law 3 yet, but here's my take on law 8:
Law 8 would be a perfect example of a successful agile project. The system is adapted to the changing requirements of users, product owners and other stakeholders. By using the system, users find out what they really want to do with the system. Product owners and management prioritize new features according to a changing environment and the team discovers better ways of doing things by gaining domain knowledge and experience. That sounds a lot like a multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback system. |
279,850 | I have a hard time understanding #3 and #8 of [Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution).
The laws are:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
and
8. (1996) "Feedback System" (first stated 1974, formalised as law 1996) — E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement over any reasonable base
The rest of the laws are clear to me.
Could someone explain these two laws? | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/279850",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/145237/"
] | After talking to a professor at my university, and using the information provided by Ilyas and Boris (I will +rep as soon as I recieve 15 rep myself), this is what I have concluded:
Law 3 specifies that the growth of the system will follow the normal distribution curve. This means that the growth will be slower in the beginning and end of the life cycle compared to in the middle.
Law 8 states that software evolution is a complex process where feedback shall be collected from multiple sources (users, managers, runtime environment, application domain, etc.) to achieve significant improvement during the evolution process.
The following link is a pdf which contains alternate explanations for each of the eight laws: [http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~seng371/lectures/L12-371-S13-bw.pdf](http://www.engr.uvic.ca/%7Eseng371/lectures/L12-371-S13-bw.pdf) | Not sure about law 3 yet, but here's my take on law 8:
Law 8 would be a perfect example of a successful agile project. The system is adapted to the changing requirements of users, product owners and other stakeholders. By using the system, users find out what they really want to do with the system. Product owners and management prioritize new features according to a changing environment and the team discovers better ways of doing things by gaining domain knowledge and experience. That sounds a lot like a multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback system. |
279,850 | I have a hard time understanding #3 and #8 of [Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution).
The laws are:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
and
8. (1996) "Feedback System" (first stated 1974, formalised as law 1996) — E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement over any reasonable base
The rest of the laws are clear to me.
Could someone explain these two laws? | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/279850",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/145237/"
] | Not sure about law 3 yet, but here's my take on law 8:
Law 8 would be a perfect example of a successful agile project. The system is adapted to the changing requirements of users, product owners and other stakeholders. By using the system, users find out what they really want to do with the system. Product owners and management prioritize new features according to a changing environment and the team discovers better ways of doing things by gaining domain knowledge and experience. That sounds a lot like a multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback system. | Agile is a good way to understand the 8th Law, as well as the 1st and 2nd law, because Agile techniques work because they **embrace** Lehman's laws. Agile gives practical tools that make the realities described by the Lehmans laws in general, and the 8th in particular, manageable, and stable.
The insight behind the 8th law is that the process of software development is composed of three key - but very different ingredients - people, organizations of people, and software.
1. People define what the software should do and how it will be used. People develop software that realizes those requirements. People are subjective, imperfect, irrational, and biased (except me of course !). Organizations of people amplify this by introducing more stakeholders, with differing interests, opinions, and politics. Think of all of this as a complex feedback loop - not in the sense of say, an airplane control system - but like the world economy or even a government trying to manage a pandemic.
2. Software - unlike people - is "perfect" - unbiased, deterministic, it does exactly what it's programmed to do. Software has no notion of "tolerance" - there is no relationship between the nature of the error/fault and the size and criticality of the outcome. Also, changing software is conceived as "easy" - just type a few magic words, and the problem if fixed, redeployment is fast and automatic. So software changes behave like positive feedback - changes are very easy, but the smallest input can cause an unproportionate large output.
The combination of human users of the system, a large human organization manipulating an easy to change and deliver software base, leads to a constant desire and pressure for change. The fact that today's systems have multiple users, many features and there are many many stakeholders means that the entire system has a life of its own - not completely under the control of any particular person or organization.
Agile recognizes that systems evolve (the 1st law), hence it encourages, iterative, incremental, and evolutionary growth.
Agile encourages small, self-managing teams, i.e. it aims to simplify the 8th law feedback loops. It encourages measuring/analyzing/changing the development process itself - yet another 8th law feedback loop. Agile also recognizes the inevitability of technical debt and the need for refactoring (yet another loop) - accepting and embracing the 2nd law.
The 3rd law basically says that observations of the rate of real, large software systems, shows that this growth is not totally under the control of the managers - the people, the organization, and the nature of software combine in a way that makes the development process behave in a statistically predictable - cycles of increased and decreased development progress (negative feedback loop), increasing growth (the 1st law), and eventual decay (because of unmanaged entropy - the 2nd law). |
279,850 | I have a hard time understanding #3 and #8 of [Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution).
The laws are:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
and
8. (1996) "Feedback System" (first stated 1974, formalised as law 1996) — E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement over any reasonable base
The rest of the laws are clear to me.
Could someone explain these two laws? | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/279850",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/145237/"
] | After talking to a professor at my university, and using the information provided by Ilyas and Boris (I will +rep as soon as I recieve 15 rep myself), this is what I have concluded:
Law 3 specifies that the growth of the system will follow the normal distribution curve. This means that the growth will be slower in the beginning and end of the life cycle compared to in the middle.
Law 8 states that software evolution is a complex process where feedback shall be collected from multiple sources (users, managers, runtime environment, application domain, etc.) to achieve significant improvement during the evolution process.
The following link is a pdf which contains alternate explanations for each of the eight laws: [http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~seng371/lectures/L12-371-S13-bw.pdf](http://www.engr.uvic.ca/%7Eseng371/lectures/L12-371-S13-bw.pdf) | Law:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
**In other words 'an E-type systems growth inevitably slows as it grows older'.**
Source:
<http://www.governmentciomagazine.com/2013/04/implications-lehman%E2%80%99s-laws-it-priorities-wake-sequester> |
279,850 | I have a hard time understanding #3 and #8 of [Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution).
The laws are:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
and
8. (1996) "Feedback System" (first stated 1974, formalised as law 1996) — E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement over any reasonable base
The rest of the laws are clear to me.
Could someone explain these two laws? | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/279850",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/145237/"
] | Law:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
**In other words 'an E-type systems growth inevitably slows as it grows older'.**
Source:
<http://www.governmentciomagazine.com/2013/04/implications-lehman%E2%80%99s-laws-it-priorities-wake-sequester> | Agile is a good way to understand the 8th Law, as well as the 1st and 2nd law, because Agile techniques work because they **embrace** Lehman's laws. Agile gives practical tools that make the realities described by the Lehmans laws in general, and the 8th in particular, manageable, and stable.
The insight behind the 8th law is that the process of software development is composed of three key - but very different ingredients - people, organizations of people, and software.
1. People define what the software should do and how it will be used. People develop software that realizes those requirements. People are subjective, imperfect, irrational, and biased (except me of course !). Organizations of people amplify this by introducing more stakeholders, with differing interests, opinions, and politics. Think of all of this as a complex feedback loop - not in the sense of say, an airplane control system - but like the world economy or even a government trying to manage a pandemic.
2. Software - unlike people - is "perfect" - unbiased, deterministic, it does exactly what it's programmed to do. Software has no notion of "tolerance" - there is no relationship between the nature of the error/fault and the size and criticality of the outcome. Also, changing software is conceived as "easy" - just type a few magic words, and the problem if fixed, redeployment is fast and automatic. So software changes behave like positive feedback - changes are very easy, but the smallest input can cause an unproportionate large output.
The combination of human users of the system, a large human organization manipulating an easy to change and deliver software base, leads to a constant desire and pressure for change. The fact that today's systems have multiple users, many features and there are many many stakeholders means that the entire system has a life of its own - not completely under the control of any particular person or organization.
Agile recognizes that systems evolve (the 1st law), hence it encourages, iterative, incremental, and evolutionary growth.
Agile encourages small, self-managing teams, i.e. it aims to simplify the 8th law feedback loops. It encourages measuring/analyzing/changing the development process itself - yet another 8th law feedback loop. Agile also recognizes the inevitability of technical debt and the need for refactoring (yet another loop) - accepting and embracing the 2nd law.
The 3rd law basically says that observations of the rate of real, large software systems, shows that this growth is not totally under the control of the managers - the people, the organization, and the nature of software combine in a way that makes the development process behave in a statistically predictable - cycles of increased and decreased development progress (negative feedback loop), increasing growth (the 1st law), and eventual decay (because of unmanaged entropy - the 2nd law). |
279,850 | I have a hard time understanding #3 and #8 of [Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution).
The laws are:
3. (1974) "Self Regulation" — E-type system evolution processes are self-regulating with the distribution of product and process measures close to normal
and
8. (1996) "Feedback System" (first stated 1974, formalised as law 1996) — E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement over any reasonable base
The rest of the laws are clear to me.
Could someone explain these two laws? | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/279850",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/145237/"
] | After talking to a professor at my university, and using the information provided by Ilyas and Boris (I will +rep as soon as I recieve 15 rep myself), this is what I have concluded:
Law 3 specifies that the growth of the system will follow the normal distribution curve. This means that the growth will be slower in the beginning and end of the life cycle compared to in the middle.
Law 8 states that software evolution is a complex process where feedback shall be collected from multiple sources (users, managers, runtime environment, application domain, etc.) to achieve significant improvement during the evolution process.
The following link is a pdf which contains alternate explanations for each of the eight laws: [http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~seng371/lectures/L12-371-S13-bw.pdf](http://www.engr.uvic.ca/%7Eseng371/lectures/L12-371-S13-bw.pdf) | Agile is a good way to understand the 8th Law, as well as the 1st and 2nd law, because Agile techniques work because they **embrace** Lehman's laws. Agile gives practical tools that make the realities described by the Lehmans laws in general, and the 8th in particular, manageable, and stable.
The insight behind the 8th law is that the process of software development is composed of three key - but very different ingredients - people, organizations of people, and software.
1. People define what the software should do and how it will be used. People develop software that realizes those requirements. People are subjective, imperfect, irrational, and biased (except me of course !). Organizations of people amplify this by introducing more stakeholders, with differing interests, opinions, and politics. Think of all of this as a complex feedback loop - not in the sense of say, an airplane control system - but like the world economy or even a government trying to manage a pandemic.
2. Software - unlike people - is "perfect" - unbiased, deterministic, it does exactly what it's programmed to do. Software has no notion of "tolerance" - there is no relationship between the nature of the error/fault and the size and criticality of the outcome. Also, changing software is conceived as "easy" - just type a few magic words, and the problem if fixed, redeployment is fast and automatic. So software changes behave like positive feedback - changes are very easy, but the smallest input can cause an unproportionate large output.
The combination of human users of the system, a large human organization manipulating an easy to change and deliver software base, leads to a constant desire and pressure for change. The fact that today's systems have multiple users, many features and there are many many stakeholders means that the entire system has a life of its own - not completely under the control of any particular person or organization.
Agile recognizes that systems evolve (the 1st law), hence it encourages, iterative, incremental, and evolutionary growth.
Agile encourages small, self-managing teams, i.e. it aims to simplify the 8th law feedback loops. It encourages measuring/analyzing/changing the development process itself - yet another 8th law feedback loop. Agile also recognizes the inevitability of technical debt and the need for refactoring (yet another loop) - accepting and embracing the 2nd law.
The 3rd law basically says that observations of the rate of real, large software systems, shows that this growth is not totally under the control of the managers - the people, the organization, and the nature of software combine in a way that makes the development process behave in a statistically predictable - cycles of increased and decreased development progress (negative feedback loop), increasing growth (the 1st law), and eventual decay (because of unmanaged entropy - the 2nd law). |
16,754 | Does somebody here know the latest state of the development of MySQL Proxy?
Most materials I found on web are outdated. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/16754",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/users/7668/"
] | From an [email on the MySQL lists](http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/227139) sent earlier this month, Shawn Green (a MySQL Principal Technical Support Engineer) reports:
>
> Thanks to the corporate changes of the last few years, the sole developer has been too busy doing his primary job to really put any more time into the project and no person or group from the community has stepped forward to help push the project to a final deliverable state.
>
>
>
So I suppose the latest state of development is it's on hold. | The new MySQL Router is replacing MySQL Proxy. Please take a look and let us know what you think!
I'd love to hear what features you most want in future versions.
<http://mysqlhighavailability.com/mysql-router-on-labs-the-newest-member-of-the-mysql-family/>
<http://mysqlhighavailability.com/easy-load-balancing-and-high-availability-using-mysql-router/> |
339,748 | Kind of new to this, so I hope I'm posting this appropriately.
I was recently given a bulk of text that was translated to English, supposedly intended for publication in some capacity.
While my task didn't involve the linguistics, I was nonetheless puzzled by the fact that the contents, detailed by the writer from his perspective (and apparently translated quite literally), are always in the present tense, including when describing past events (to the point where in some cases it becomes nearly impossible to tell if he's referring to past or present things).
My question is this: in the following sample...
>
> That first week in July 1992 is a time for decisions, and by its end, I make a personal decision to do whatever I can to get assigned to the team. It is a commitment with a goal, but with no guarantee of success.... In my opinion, such decisions serve as many-sided contracts of sorts: between the decision-maker and himself, and between the decision-maker and the other participants - and priorities determine our decision-making processes.... It is clear to me that this is a really difficult challenge, but at this stage I'm deciding to go for it regardless.
>
>
>
...shouldn't the first two lines and the last line at the end essentially be shifted to the past tense?
>
> That first week in July 1992 ***was*** a time for decisions, and by its end, I ***made*** a personal decision to do whatever I ***could*** to get assigned to the team. It ***was*** a commitment with a goal, but with no guarantee of success... In my opinion, such decisions serve as many-sided contracts of sorts: between the decision-maker and himself, and between the decision-maker and the other participants - and priorities determine our decision-making processes... It ***was*** clear to me that day that this ***was*** a really difficult challenge, but at ***that*** stage, I ***decided*** to go for it regardless.
>
>
>
Or is the original sample grammatically correct, and this is merely an issue of a style that just seems unusual to me?
Thank you in advance! | 2016/07/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/339748",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/187538/"
] | It looks to me as if the author is presenting her narrative in the form of (or actually drawing it from) a ***journal*** of what she thought and what decisions and actions she took at specific points along the way.
If she maintains this style throughout the work, or employs it at otherwise 'marked' points, and it's reasonably coherent, I wouldn't change her "radical of presentation" (the phrase is Northrup Frye's) unless there is some overriding external reason to do so (such as the publisher of the work demanding it). | As Hotlicks suggested and Dan confirmed, this linguistic device is the "historical present".
>
> The present tense used instead of the past in vivid narrative,
> especially in titles, such as ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, and
> informally in speech, e.g. ‘so I say to him’.
> [Reference: Oxford Dictionaries](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/historic-present)
>
>
>
So the simple answer to your question is yes, grammatically it's fine.
The broader question as to whether or not it's correct to use this device boils down to what is the intent of the author?
If the purpose of the text is readability and straight forward comprehension (the author is relating facts) then I would certainly say that the past tense would be the best option. Why? Because it is simply easier to comprehend the concrete meaning of what is being conveyed, i.e.
>
> There was some past event, these are the facts, these are my thoughts
> on the matter.
>
>
>
Which is essentially the three fold structure the passage you quoted takes.
However if the author is more concerned with impact on their audience, perhaps trying to evoke some kind of emotional response, then the use of the historical present would certainly be a good choice.
Take this example for instance: -
>
> If the funeral had been yesterday, I could not recollect it better.
> The very air of the best parlour, when I went in at the door, the
> bright condition of the fire, the shining of the wine in the
> decanters, the patterns of the glasses and plates, the faint sweet
> smell of cake, the odour of Miss Murdstone dress, and your black
> clothes. Mr. Chillip is in the room, and comes to speak to me. "And
> how is Master David?" he says, kindly." - [Dickens, David Copperfield, Chapter 9](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w1VXb1qce0IC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=If%20the%20funeral%20had%20been%20yesterday,%20I%20could%20not%20recollect%20it%20better.%20The%20very%20air%20of%20the%20best%20parlour,%20when%20I%20went%20in%20at%20the%20door,%20the%20bright%20condition%20of%20the%20fire,%20the%20shining%20of%20the%20wine%20in%20the%20decanters,%20the%20patterns%20of%20the%20glasses%20and%20plates,%20the%20faint%20sweet%20smell%20of%20cake,%20the%20odour%20of%20Miss%20Murdstone%20dress,%20and%20your%20black%20clothes.%20Mr.%20Chillip%20is%20in%20the%20room,%20and%20comes%20to%20speak%20to%20me.%20%22And%20how%20is%20Master%20David?%22%20he%20says,%20kindly.&source=bl&ots=NqMkeSG69O&sig=8kYC7S9KiV1f7GrY8XD96T05wnc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4xo6C5ZTOAhVqKMAKHfQSDV8Q6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=If%20the%20funeral%20had%20been%20yesterday%2C%20I%20could%20not%20recollect%20it%20better.%20The%20very%20air%20of%20the%20best%20parlour%2C%20when%20I%20went%20in%20at%20the%20door%2C%20the%20bright%20condition%20of%20the%20fire%2C%20&f=false)
>
>
>
Notice how a real sense of immediacy is created here, we are reliving this moment with the narrative voice. It's a very different effect to if the passage was simply written in the past tense. We are more likely to feel empathy with the narrative voice as a result, it creates a more immersive reading experience.
So the question really comes down to what is your authorial intent? Are you writing for comprehsion or poetic effect. |
127,218 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Are there any voting limits?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5212/are-there-any-voting-limits)
>
> [Cancel a vote so that the tally goes back to zero and not minus](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30557/cancel-a-vote-so-that-the-tally-goes-back-to-zero-and-not-minus)
>
> [Cancel Vote (Up Vote/Down Vote)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/71885/cancel-vote-up-vote-down-vote)
>
>
>
Is it possible to cancel vote?
Suppose I voted on a question. But later I realise that this question does not deserve vote. So how can I cancel my vote? | 2012/03/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/127218",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/181058/"
] | Yes, you simply click the arrow again.
That is, to remove an upvote, click the up arrow and to remove a downvote click the down arrow. You should already see it highlighted — clicking again will remove the vote and highlight.
However, there is a time limit on this. You only have about 5 minutes in which to change your mind unless the question or answer has been edited in the meantime. This is to prevent gaming of the system whereby you down-vote all competing answers and then when your answer is accepted or clearly ahead in votes revoke the down-votes. | If you realise it soon enough, you can simply remove your vote by clicking the arrow again. If it is too late for that, you can remove your vote only after the question has been edited. |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | You can do it with a PHP script, managed via a [cron job](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron#crontab_syntax). | You can trigger the HTTP requests regularly using a service like <http://www.setcronjob.com/> |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | You can do it with a PHP script, managed via a [cron job](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron#crontab_syntax). | Check this baby out - <http://www.iamjacksdesign.com/blog/check-pop3-email-with-php/> - there's also <http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.imap.php>
You can use cron to run your e-mail check script regularly - <http://www.codewalkers.com/c/a/Server-Administration/Introduction-to-crontab/> |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | You can do it with a PHP script, managed via a [cron job](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron#crontab_syntax). | Cron Job is the way to go. Also, if I may make a recommendation, make certain to place the PHP script out of a web accessible directory and run it via CLI php.
If your script is placed in a directory that is accessible from the web, it's possible that it could run more often than desired... especially if a bot/crawler gets hold of it. |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | You can do it with a PHP script, managed via a [cron job](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron#crontab_syntax). | PHP itself cannot perform tasks by itself without a client request.
The common way to to use [cron job](http://www.unixgeeks.org/security/newbie/unix/cron-1.html) to schedule run scripts (shell, perl, **PHP**, python.. etc).
If you are running on IIS, then you can use [Schedule Tasks](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308569) in Windows. |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | You can trigger the HTTP requests regularly using a service like <http://www.setcronjob.com/> | Check this baby out - <http://www.iamjacksdesign.com/blog/check-pop3-email-with-php/> - there's also <http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.imap.php>
You can use cron to run your e-mail check script regularly - <http://www.codewalkers.com/c/a/Server-Administration/Introduction-to-crontab/> |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | You can trigger the HTTP requests regularly using a service like <http://www.setcronjob.com/> | Cron Job is the way to go. Also, if I may make a recommendation, make certain to place the PHP script out of a web accessible directory and run it via CLI php.
If your script is placed in a directory that is accessible from the web, it's possible that it could run more often than desired... especially if a bot/crawler gets hold of it. |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | Cron Job is the way to go. Also, if I may make a recommendation, make certain to place the PHP script out of a web accessible directory and run it via CLI php.
If your script is placed in a directory that is accessible from the web, it's possible that it could run more often than desired... especially if a bot/crawler gets hold of it. | Check this baby out - <http://www.iamjacksdesign.com/blog/check-pop3-email-with-php/> - there's also <http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.imap.php>
You can use cron to run your e-mail check script regularly - <http://www.codewalkers.com/c/a/Server-Administration/Introduction-to-crontab/> |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | PHP itself cannot perform tasks by itself without a client request.
The common way to to use [cron job](http://www.unixgeeks.org/security/newbie/unix/cron-1.html) to schedule run scripts (shell, perl, **PHP**, python.. etc).
If you are running on IIS, then you can use [Schedule Tasks](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308569) in Windows. | Check this baby out - <http://www.iamjacksdesign.com/blog/check-pop3-email-with-php/> - there's also <http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.imap.php>
You can use cron to run your e-mail check script regularly - <http://www.codewalkers.com/c/a/Server-Administration/Introduction-to-crontab/> |
2,025,547 | I'll be writing a script to parse text documents into a MySQL database. I'll be converting PDF's to text with a separate utility. These PDF's will be submitted via e-mail attachments.
I'm looking to see if I can do this with PHP since that's the server language I'm most familiar with. Second choice would be Perl, but I'll take your recommendations.
So the language needs to be able to:
1. Check an e-mail account for e-mails with attachments (every few minutes, or so).
2. Save the attachment.
3. Parse the file (looking for contact information) using Regular Expressions.
4. And place the results in a MySQL Database
I won't have full access to the server since it'll be hosted by GoDaddy or similar.
I'm familiar with PHP but I can't think of how I'd have it systematically check a mailbox. If PHP can't do it, are there languages that run constantly on a server performing tasks without requests from a browser?
Thank You. | 2010/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2025547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/241138/"
] | PHP itself cannot perform tasks by itself without a client request.
The common way to to use [cron job](http://www.unixgeeks.org/security/newbie/unix/cron-1.html) to schedule run scripts (shell, perl, **PHP**, python.. etc).
If you are running on IIS, then you can use [Schedule Tasks](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308569) in Windows. | Cron Job is the way to go. Also, if I may make a recommendation, make certain to place the PHP script out of a web accessible directory and run it via CLI php.
If your script is placed in a directory that is accessible from the web, it's possible that it could run more often than desired... especially if a bot/crawler gets hold of it. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | >
> What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
>
>
> In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
>
>
>
1. [Ejecting is an extremely violent event](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15295/why-are-pilots-deemed-unfit-to-fly-after-emergency-ejection), often resulting in the pilot being removed from service for an extended time period, or permanently. 1 in 3 suffer back fractures or other major complications. Ejecting is possibly an end-of-career move for pilots (at best, an end-of-life one at worst). Belly landing on the other hand isn't usually a bad event, typically the aircraft is repaired and returned to service. In an ejection, the aircraft is a total loss, not to mention a rather large unguided bomb.
>
> Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
>
>
>
2. No, there are no "wheel fell off" sensors. There are possible sensors to tell the pilot of low tire pressure, and certainly have sensors for hydraulic pressure. That isn't to say though that getting a low tire pressure means a wheels-up landing, landing on a flat tire is entirely possible. Drag probably isn't going to be significant, at least not enough to notice outside of gusts or other factors. That being said, having a wheel "fall off" is an extremely rare event, probably so few that you could count them by hand.
>
> Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
>
>
>
3. Not typically, but ATC often watches departing aircraft with binoculars, not necessarily looking for missing parts though. In clear visual conditions, it would probably be pretty apparent that a wheel fell off to people on the ground, at the very least the next departing aircraft who had to avoid it on the runway. Usually when something falls off the aircraft, the runway needs to be closed while they do a FOD (foreign object debris) removal run.
>
> Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway?
>
>
>
4. Yes, military airports can lay down AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) on the runway, but you don't always need to. The down side is that it causes the aircraft to slide quite a bit further than it may be planned, and it's incredibly hard to clean out. If there isn't much of a risk of fire, its better to just [belly it down in the grass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XakLMAm_U). Or just let it slide on the runway. Most military aircraft can dump fuel and land without much fire risk.
---
By the way, if you think it is impressive to belly-land an F-111 after a wheel falls off, you should watch [this video about an Israeli pilot who landed an F-15 with **one wing**!!!](https://youtu.be/M359poNjvVA). | I also imagine when the landing gear fell off it may had caught the ATCs or another's attention, then directing to the ATC, upon impact or on one of the bounces of hitting the dirt and throwing up a cloud.
Maybe a bit off topic but I believe most military and larger domestic aircraft have the ability to release fuel. So prior to landing they would also release majority of fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | >
> What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
>
>
> In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
>
>
>
1. [Ejecting is an extremely violent event](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15295/why-are-pilots-deemed-unfit-to-fly-after-emergency-ejection), often resulting in the pilot being removed from service for an extended time period, or permanently. 1 in 3 suffer back fractures or other major complications. Ejecting is possibly an end-of-career move for pilots (at best, an end-of-life one at worst). Belly landing on the other hand isn't usually a bad event, typically the aircraft is repaired and returned to service. In an ejection, the aircraft is a total loss, not to mention a rather large unguided bomb.
>
> Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
>
>
>
2. No, there are no "wheel fell off" sensors. There are possible sensors to tell the pilot of low tire pressure, and certainly have sensors for hydraulic pressure. That isn't to say though that getting a low tire pressure means a wheels-up landing, landing on a flat tire is entirely possible. Drag probably isn't going to be significant, at least not enough to notice outside of gusts or other factors. That being said, having a wheel "fall off" is an extremely rare event, probably so few that you could count them by hand.
>
> Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
>
>
>
3. Not typically, but ATC often watches departing aircraft with binoculars, not necessarily looking for missing parts though. In clear visual conditions, it would probably be pretty apparent that a wheel fell off to people on the ground, at the very least the next departing aircraft who had to avoid it on the runway. Usually when something falls off the aircraft, the runway needs to be closed while they do a FOD (foreign object debris) removal run.
>
> Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway?
>
>
>
4. Yes, military airports can lay down AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) on the runway, but you don't always need to. The down side is that it causes the aircraft to slide quite a bit further than it may be planned, and it's incredibly hard to clean out. If there isn't much of a risk of fire, its better to just [belly it down in the grass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XakLMAm_U). Or just let it slide on the runway. Most military aircraft can dump fuel and land without much fire risk.
---
By the way, if you think it is impressive to belly-land an F-111 after a wheel falls off, you should watch [this video about an Israeli pilot who landed an F-15 with **one wing**!!!](https://youtu.be/M359poNjvVA). | The F111 uses an ejection capsule, not individual ejection seats. Basically the entire cockpit separates from the rest of the aircraft. It requires 3 parachutes to safely let the capsule down. failure of even 1 parachute can result in a unsurvivable landing.
I would think a belly landing would be safer. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | >
> What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
>
>
> In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
>
>
>
1. [Ejecting is an extremely violent event](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15295/why-are-pilots-deemed-unfit-to-fly-after-emergency-ejection), often resulting in the pilot being removed from service for an extended time period, or permanently. 1 in 3 suffer back fractures or other major complications. Ejecting is possibly an end-of-career move for pilots (at best, an end-of-life one at worst). Belly landing on the other hand isn't usually a bad event, typically the aircraft is repaired and returned to service. In an ejection, the aircraft is a total loss, not to mention a rather large unguided bomb.
>
> Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
>
>
>
2. No, there are no "wheel fell off" sensors. There are possible sensors to tell the pilot of low tire pressure, and certainly have sensors for hydraulic pressure. That isn't to say though that getting a low tire pressure means a wheels-up landing, landing on a flat tire is entirely possible. Drag probably isn't going to be significant, at least not enough to notice outside of gusts or other factors. That being said, having a wheel "fall off" is an extremely rare event, probably so few that you could count them by hand.
>
> Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
>
>
>
3. Not typically, but ATC often watches departing aircraft with binoculars, not necessarily looking for missing parts though. In clear visual conditions, it would probably be pretty apparent that a wheel fell off to people on the ground, at the very least the next departing aircraft who had to avoid it on the runway. Usually when something falls off the aircraft, the runway needs to be closed while they do a FOD (foreign object debris) removal run.
>
> Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway?
>
>
>
4. Yes, military airports can lay down AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) on the runway, but you don't always need to. The down side is that it causes the aircraft to slide quite a bit further than it may be planned, and it's incredibly hard to clean out. If there isn't much of a risk of fire, its better to just [belly it down in the grass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XakLMAm_U). Or just let it slide on the runway. Most military aircraft can dump fuel and land without much fire risk.
---
By the way, if you think it is impressive to belly-land an F-111 after a wheel falls off, you should watch [this video about an Israeli pilot who landed an F-15 with **one wing**!!!](https://youtu.be/M359poNjvVA). | >
> 1.What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
>
>
>
Realities of ejection:
* Loss of a $30 million aircraft which is no longer in production
* Violent separation of crew capsule ([F-111s have a detachable crew capsule as opposed to conventional ejection seats](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8l79lSjVMg)) and violent impact of capsule on landing, even with successful parachute deployment and can be amplified by terrain conditions at impact site eg jagged rocks, uneven ground, etc. This frequently causes injuries to the flight crew and should only be done if the alternatives to ejection pose a greater risk to life and limb.
* Aircraft has to be abandoned in such a manner that it will not hit people or man made structures on the ground. This requires ejecting over remote land areas or out at sea, creating a further impedance to rescue operations.
* Crash of abandoned aircraft and subsequent destruction by fire creates explosion and wildfire hazards, toxic chemicals and other risks to people and or wildlife around or approaching the wreckage.
Realities of a forced landing with undercarriage retracted:
* Difficulty and risk dependent on condition at landing site. Long stretches of smooth, hard surface pose minimal risk to the aircraft and crew, though it is quite a wild ride; this is why military flight test facilities like Edwards AFB and China Lake NAS are placed on or near ancient dry lake beds. Grassy fields with soft ground pose a greater risk as part of the airframe can dig into or snag the ground, tall grass, scrub, etc, violently yanking or possibly flipping the jet during slideout, increasing the risk of injury or death and the total loss of the aircraft.
* No matter how you do it, you're going to damage the underside of the aircraft during the landing. This will slough off the skin of the aircraft as well and grind down extended structures, frames and longerons, rupture fuel tanks and damage mission systems. That can be minimized with good airmanship and a smooth touchdown and controlled slideout. Nevertheless, there is a risk that the aircraft will still have to be written off.
* Belly landings increase the risk of FOD ingestion into the engines, damaging them and creating further risks to the aircraft and flight crew.
* Directional control the aircraft is seriously diminished or non-existent at slower speeds, creating a risk of the aircraft veering off and striking structures in the vicinity of the landing area.
---
While the takeoff and wheel-loss event was not caught on film, I would take an educated guess that one of the main tires came loose from the aircraft just as it lifted off the runway and prior to the pilot commanding the retraction of the undercarriage. I'm sure it made for quite a sight for tower controllers watching this big tire come loose from the jet and go bouncing down the runway.
As for the flight crew all that can be done once they get the call is 1) Don't Panic 2) Fly the jet 3) A quick check of the cockpit instruments and warning lights indicates nothing else is wrong with the airplane; we have X pounds of fuel on board which should give about Y hours of flight time with conservative throttle settings. Let's get to a safe altitude to hold and see if we can work this problem out. We're missing a main wheel? - OK. What are the options? Probably either ejection or a belly landing. Neither the flight manual for the F-111 airplane nor ops knows or lists anything about attempting this sort of a landing. Based on all the scenarios as well as the USAF belly landing of an F-111 they had on file, the decision from both the flight crew and ground personnel the route of minimum risk was to attempt a gear up landing with the use of arresting gear to slow the jet down faster. So the flight crew sets up for a few low level, slow speed passes for practice while burning off fuel, then they make the attempt - and pulled it off with great success.
>
> Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
>
>
>
Wheels coming loose from an aircraft like that is such a rare contingency that no such warning system has ever been considered for that. There are landing gear position lights in the cockpit to indicate whether the landing gear is extended properly (down and locked) for landing. There is also a Weight on Wheels (WoW) pressure switch on the landing gear itself to sense if there are structure loads being applied to the landing gear in order to lock out systems which should not operate when the aircraft is on the ground ie landing gear retraction, weapons, etc.
>
> 3.Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
>
>
>
Not on landing, but @RonBeyer's answer suggests that it's not uncommon for ATC to watch departing aircraft. It's easier to notice things falling off than to notice their absence, and spotting FOD on runways is important.
As I said before this kind of incident is so rare it's not even thought of. I'm guessing it came as quite a shock to the controller watching what should have been another typical Aardvark departure, then see what appears to be the wheel come off and go bouncing down the runway. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | >
> What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
>
>
> In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
>
>
>
1. [Ejecting is an extremely violent event](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15295/why-are-pilots-deemed-unfit-to-fly-after-emergency-ejection), often resulting in the pilot being removed from service for an extended time period, or permanently. 1 in 3 suffer back fractures or other major complications. Ejecting is possibly an end-of-career move for pilots (at best, an end-of-life one at worst). Belly landing on the other hand isn't usually a bad event, typically the aircraft is repaired and returned to service. In an ejection, the aircraft is a total loss, not to mention a rather large unguided bomb.
>
> Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
>
>
>
2. No, there are no "wheel fell off" sensors. There are possible sensors to tell the pilot of low tire pressure, and certainly have sensors for hydraulic pressure. That isn't to say though that getting a low tire pressure means a wheels-up landing, landing on a flat tire is entirely possible. Drag probably isn't going to be significant, at least not enough to notice outside of gusts or other factors. That being said, having a wheel "fall off" is an extremely rare event, probably so few that you could count them by hand.
>
> Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
>
>
>
3. Not typically, but ATC often watches departing aircraft with binoculars, not necessarily looking for missing parts though. In clear visual conditions, it would probably be pretty apparent that a wheel fell off to people on the ground, at the very least the next departing aircraft who had to avoid it on the runway. Usually when something falls off the aircraft, the runway needs to be closed while they do a FOD (foreign object debris) removal run.
>
> Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway?
>
>
>
4. Yes, military airports can lay down AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) on the runway, but you don't always need to. The down side is that it causes the aircraft to slide quite a bit further than it may be planned, and it's incredibly hard to clean out. If there isn't much of a risk of fire, its better to just [belly it down in the grass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XakLMAm_U). Or just let it slide on the runway. Most military aircraft can dump fuel and land without much fire risk.
---
By the way, if you think it is impressive to belly-land an F-111 after a wheel falls off, you should watch [this video about an Israeli pilot who landed an F-15 with **one wing**!!!](https://youtu.be/M359poNjvVA). | Stay with the airplane
----------------------
I did have a squadron mate who was leading a flight in the break and accidentally switched off guard on his radio in the turn downwind. Unfortunately for him, his radios were also on the wrong frequencies, and he missed the fireworks display set off by tower at the approach end of the runway. He landed gear up and he told me later that it was a bit noisy, but the aircraft slid to a stop. "It was a sickening feeling," he said, "when you know you should be touching down but are instead sinking through ground effect." He knew something was up, just couldn't figure out what. So landing with both gear up doesn't sound too bad to me, and better than an ejection. I would be interested to know if anyone has heard of taking the gear at the end of the runway in such a case?
I have known a pilot who took an ejection over the ocean after a mid-air in an ACM (dog fighting) engagement. He was flying within a week, and, although the accident investigation found him accountable, he remained in the Navy as a pilot. I don't know if it precluded him from being selected for CMDR. It certainly could not have helped.
At sea you try to get aboard the ship and stay out of your chute, especially true if it is dark out. Even a controlled ejection at sea is risky. Instantaneous G's in the A7E ejection were 40, which is enough to make you lose consciousness during that phase. There is a burnout phase of 20 G's. It is a 0-0 capable ejection seat, which means it will give you a swing or two in the chute if you eject at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed. Generally speaking, the envelope of the seat, or when can you can safely eject given your descent rate versus airspeed, is complicated and I don't remember having any quick way of knowing when it was safe to eject. There were points on the envelope that we memorized. For example, an ejection over 400 knots can dislocate legs and arms, not necessarily in that order. Most of the accident investigations I read, where an uncontrolled ejection was attempted, the pilot initiated outside the safe envelope of the seat. Pilot's like to stay with their aircraft.
Each emergency is evaluated by the pilot, and then, if time permits, maintenance and the skipper, after which a course of action is determined. All of these things factor in to a decision to stay or eject.
Over water your troubles are just beginning when you are in the chute. Once you gain consciousness you have to prepare for water entry. There is a possibility that you can get entangled with the shroud lines. The parachute also is a great sea anchor, and will drag you under. The procedure was to release your Koch fittings when the raft hit the water. The single person raft held your survival gear and was deployed from beneath your seat. It was on a 14 foot tether. To give you an idea of some of the risks you might not consider. My squadron mate hit the water, which was at around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, he was in a wet suit and wearing his Nomex flight gloves. By the time he got to the raft and tried to haul himself in, his hands were numb and useless. He had considerable difficulty just getting into the raft, let alone then using the emergency radio to coordinate with the rescue aircraft and helicopters.
By the way, the other plane in the mid-air lost the section of wing from the joint outward (basically the whole wing), where the aileron was located. Three redundant hydraulic systems maintained the hydraulic flight control system. He stayed with the aircraft and eventually was diverted to Crete where he did an emergency landing. Again, it is worth pointing out that there was no ejection even in this case. There was also plenty of time to talk with maintenance, test the flight characteristics of the aircraft near gear down speed, evaluate the situation, and decide the safest course of action.
The point is, as a pilot I always wanted to stay with the aircraft as long as I could. In fact, the only "standing" controlled ejection procedure I heard discussed was the case where you run out of fuel at the ship. They steer you to some location, where the rescue has been coordinated and you eject.
Use the net
-----------
With a missing strut or wheel the standard procedure on the ship is to take the barricade. I was covering the last recovery as a hot tanker. I was in my A7E with a buddy store and 2,000 pounds of gas to give away. The designated tanker was an A6 circling at 5,000 feet, I was turning and parked right on the foul line near the Island. If the airborne tanker went down for some reason, and couldn't fulfill its mission as tanker, I would replace it taking quick cat shot off the bow.
I was up departure on one radio, and listening to approach on the other. The last aircraft coming aboard was AJ501, an A6. I heard the pilot's initial call of "Alpha Juliet 5-0-1, ball." The LSO had a welcoming tone to his voice when he calmly responded, "Roger ball, a bit left for line up." I was sitting on the foul line and watching the approach. I heard the LSO's call for lineup, but watched the A6 drop its right wing, which was pretty closely followed by another less welcoming call for "Left for line up!" from the LSO. The driver of the A6 dropped his right wing again and was now in close.
I just sat there as he boresighted me on the foul line. Didn't reach for my ejection handle between my legs, just watched with my eyes wide open. Incredulous of what was happening. It never got past my eyes into the working part of my brain. The LSO sounded downright rude on his last call with "LEFT FOR LINEUP! WAVE OFF! WAVE OFF!" Even today I shiver at the call. The pilot reached enlightenment at that point, with me a close second, as he dropped the left wing hard with the ball going off the top of the mirror. There were probably some power calls in there as well, I don't remember. It was a very big correction to centerline with military power coming back on the jet, and the A6 impacted the deck on its left strut, which subsequently snapped off and skipped, sparking its way down the deck with a high final arc to its trajectory as it disappeared into the night sea. Power was at military and the aircraft boltered.
I don't remember if they went and got some gas, but the pilot had time to collect himself because they had to prepare the barricade. There is a good scene in the movie Top Gun where an A7E takes the barricade, and shows the crew raising the pylons. The barricade is basically a big net strung between pylons that are raised up out of the deck on either side of the landing area. The critical point for the pilot is that the top of the barricade, that suspends the net, is a wire cable that is capable of cutting the airframe in two if the net is missed on a high approach.
The aircraft returned, for probably the pilot's most difficult approach of his career. The LSO will make the approach window smaller due to the risks involved, meaning that the aircraft will be held to smaller differences from speed and glide path and waved off earlier in the approach. It was a perfect barricade landing. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | The F111 uses an ejection capsule, not individual ejection seats. Basically the entire cockpit separates from the rest of the aircraft. It requires 3 parachutes to safely let the capsule down. failure of even 1 parachute can result in a unsurvivable landing.
I would think a belly landing would be safer. | I also imagine when the landing gear fell off it may had caught the ATCs or another's attention, then directing to the ATC, upon impact or on one of the bounces of hitting the dirt and throwing up a cloud.
Maybe a bit off topic but I believe most military and larger domestic aircraft have the ability to release fuel. So prior to landing they would also release majority of fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | >
> 1.What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
>
>
>
Realities of ejection:
* Loss of a $30 million aircraft which is no longer in production
* Violent separation of crew capsule ([F-111s have a detachable crew capsule as opposed to conventional ejection seats](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8l79lSjVMg)) and violent impact of capsule on landing, even with successful parachute deployment and can be amplified by terrain conditions at impact site eg jagged rocks, uneven ground, etc. This frequently causes injuries to the flight crew and should only be done if the alternatives to ejection pose a greater risk to life and limb.
* Aircraft has to be abandoned in such a manner that it will not hit people or man made structures on the ground. This requires ejecting over remote land areas or out at sea, creating a further impedance to rescue operations.
* Crash of abandoned aircraft and subsequent destruction by fire creates explosion and wildfire hazards, toxic chemicals and other risks to people and or wildlife around or approaching the wreckage.
Realities of a forced landing with undercarriage retracted:
* Difficulty and risk dependent on condition at landing site. Long stretches of smooth, hard surface pose minimal risk to the aircraft and crew, though it is quite a wild ride; this is why military flight test facilities like Edwards AFB and China Lake NAS are placed on or near ancient dry lake beds. Grassy fields with soft ground pose a greater risk as part of the airframe can dig into or snag the ground, tall grass, scrub, etc, violently yanking or possibly flipping the jet during slideout, increasing the risk of injury or death and the total loss of the aircraft.
* No matter how you do it, you're going to damage the underside of the aircraft during the landing. This will slough off the skin of the aircraft as well and grind down extended structures, frames and longerons, rupture fuel tanks and damage mission systems. That can be minimized with good airmanship and a smooth touchdown and controlled slideout. Nevertheless, there is a risk that the aircraft will still have to be written off.
* Belly landings increase the risk of FOD ingestion into the engines, damaging them and creating further risks to the aircraft and flight crew.
* Directional control the aircraft is seriously diminished or non-existent at slower speeds, creating a risk of the aircraft veering off and striking structures in the vicinity of the landing area.
---
While the takeoff and wheel-loss event was not caught on film, I would take an educated guess that one of the main tires came loose from the aircraft just as it lifted off the runway and prior to the pilot commanding the retraction of the undercarriage. I'm sure it made for quite a sight for tower controllers watching this big tire come loose from the jet and go bouncing down the runway.
As for the flight crew all that can be done once they get the call is 1) Don't Panic 2) Fly the jet 3) A quick check of the cockpit instruments and warning lights indicates nothing else is wrong with the airplane; we have X pounds of fuel on board which should give about Y hours of flight time with conservative throttle settings. Let's get to a safe altitude to hold and see if we can work this problem out. We're missing a main wheel? - OK. What are the options? Probably either ejection or a belly landing. Neither the flight manual for the F-111 airplane nor ops knows or lists anything about attempting this sort of a landing. Based on all the scenarios as well as the USAF belly landing of an F-111 they had on file, the decision from both the flight crew and ground personnel the route of minimum risk was to attempt a gear up landing with the use of arresting gear to slow the jet down faster. So the flight crew sets up for a few low level, slow speed passes for practice while burning off fuel, then they make the attempt - and pulled it off with great success.
>
> Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
>
>
>
Wheels coming loose from an aircraft like that is such a rare contingency that no such warning system has ever been considered for that. There are landing gear position lights in the cockpit to indicate whether the landing gear is extended properly (down and locked) for landing. There is also a Weight on Wheels (WoW) pressure switch on the landing gear itself to sense if there are structure loads being applied to the landing gear in order to lock out systems which should not operate when the aircraft is on the ground ie landing gear retraction, weapons, etc.
>
> 3.Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
>
>
>
Not on landing, but @RonBeyer's answer suggests that it's not uncommon for ATC to watch departing aircraft. It's easier to notice things falling off than to notice their absence, and spotting FOD on runways is important.
As I said before this kind of incident is so rare it's not even thought of. I'm guessing it came as quite a shock to the controller watching what should have been another typical Aardvark departure, then see what appears to be the wheel come off and go bouncing down the runway. | I also imagine when the landing gear fell off it may had caught the ATCs or another's attention, then directing to the ATC, upon impact or on one of the bounces of hitting the dirt and throwing up a cloud.
Maybe a bit off topic but I believe most military and larger domestic aircraft have the ability to release fuel. So prior to landing they would also release majority of fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | Stay with the airplane
----------------------
I did have a squadron mate who was leading a flight in the break and accidentally switched off guard on his radio in the turn downwind. Unfortunately for him, his radios were also on the wrong frequencies, and he missed the fireworks display set off by tower at the approach end of the runway. He landed gear up and he told me later that it was a bit noisy, but the aircraft slid to a stop. "It was a sickening feeling," he said, "when you know you should be touching down but are instead sinking through ground effect." He knew something was up, just couldn't figure out what. So landing with both gear up doesn't sound too bad to me, and better than an ejection. I would be interested to know if anyone has heard of taking the gear at the end of the runway in such a case?
I have known a pilot who took an ejection over the ocean after a mid-air in an ACM (dog fighting) engagement. He was flying within a week, and, although the accident investigation found him accountable, he remained in the Navy as a pilot. I don't know if it precluded him from being selected for CMDR. It certainly could not have helped.
At sea you try to get aboard the ship and stay out of your chute, especially true if it is dark out. Even a controlled ejection at sea is risky. Instantaneous G's in the A7E ejection were 40, which is enough to make you lose consciousness during that phase. There is a burnout phase of 20 G's. It is a 0-0 capable ejection seat, which means it will give you a swing or two in the chute if you eject at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed. Generally speaking, the envelope of the seat, or when can you can safely eject given your descent rate versus airspeed, is complicated and I don't remember having any quick way of knowing when it was safe to eject. There were points on the envelope that we memorized. For example, an ejection over 400 knots can dislocate legs and arms, not necessarily in that order. Most of the accident investigations I read, where an uncontrolled ejection was attempted, the pilot initiated outside the safe envelope of the seat. Pilot's like to stay with their aircraft.
Each emergency is evaluated by the pilot, and then, if time permits, maintenance and the skipper, after which a course of action is determined. All of these things factor in to a decision to stay or eject.
Over water your troubles are just beginning when you are in the chute. Once you gain consciousness you have to prepare for water entry. There is a possibility that you can get entangled with the shroud lines. The parachute also is a great sea anchor, and will drag you under. The procedure was to release your Koch fittings when the raft hit the water. The single person raft held your survival gear and was deployed from beneath your seat. It was on a 14 foot tether. To give you an idea of some of the risks you might not consider. My squadron mate hit the water, which was at around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, he was in a wet suit and wearing his Nomex flight gloves. By the time he got to the raft and tried to haul himself in, his hands were numb and useless. He had considerable difficulty just getting into the raft, let alone then using the emergency radio to coordinate with the rescue aircraft and helicopters.
By the way, the other plane in the mid-air lost the section of wing from the joint outward (basically the whole wing), where the aileron was located. Three redundant hydraulic systems maintained the hydraulic flight control system. He stayed with the aircraft and eventually was diverted to Crete where he did an emergency landing. Again, it is worth pointing out that there was no ejection even in this case. There was also plenty of time to talk with maintenance, test the flight characteristics of the aircraft near gear down speed, evaluate the situation, and decide the safest course of action.
The point is, as a pilot I always wanted to stay with the aircraft as long as I could. In fact, the only "standing" controlled ejection procedure I heard discussed was the case where you run out of fuel at the ship. They steer you to some location, where the rescue has been coordinated and you eject.
Use the net
-----------
With a missing strut or wheel the standard procedure on the ship is to take the barricade. I was covering the last recovery as a hot tanker. I was in my A7E with a buddy store and 2,000 pounds of gas to give away. The designated tanker was an A6 circling at 5,000 feet, I was turning and parked right on the foul line near the Island. If the airborne tanker went down for some reason, and couldn't fulfill its mission as tanker, I would replace it taking quick cat shot off the bow.
I was up departure on one radio, and listening to approach on the other. The last aircraft coming aboard was AJ501, an A6. I heard the pilot's initial call of "Alpha Juliet 5-0-1, ball." The LSO had a welcoming tone to his voice when he calmly responded, "Roger ball, a bit left for line up." I was sitting on the foul line and watching the approach. I heard the LSO's call for lineup, but watched the A6 drop its right wing, which was pretty closely followed by another less welcoming call for "Left for line up!" from the LSO. The driver of the A6 dropped his right wing again and was now in close.
I just sat there as he boresighted me on the foul line. Didn't reach for my ejection handle between my legs, just watched with my eyes wide open. Incredulous of what was happening. It never got past my eyes into the working part of my brain. The LSO sounded downright rude on his last call with "LEFT FOR LINEUP! WAVE OFF! WAVE OFF!" Even today I shiver at the call. The pilot reached enlightenment at that point, with me a close second, as he dropped the left wing hard with the ball going off the top of the mirror. There were probably some power calls in there as well, I don't remember. It was a very big correction to centerline with military power coming back on the jet, and the A6 impacted the deck on its left strut, which subsequently snapped off and skipped, sparking its way down the deck with a high final arc to its trajectory as it disappeared into the night sea. Power was at military and the aircraft boltered.
I don't remember if they went and got some gas, but the pilot had time to collect himself because they had to prepare the barricade. There is a good scene in the movie Top Gun where an A7E takes the barricade, and shows the crew raising the pylons. The barricade is basically a big net strung between pylons that are raised up out of the deck on either side of the landing area. The critical point for the pilot is that the top of the barricade, that suspends the net, is a wire cable that is capable of cutting the airframe in two if the net is missed on a high approach.
The aircraft returned, for probably the pilot's most difficult approach of his career. The LSO will make the approach window smaller due to the risks involved, meaning that the aircraft will be held to smaller differences from speed and glide path and waved off earlier in the approach. It was a perfect barricade landing. | I also imagine when the landing gear fell off it may had caught the ATCs or another's attention, then directing to the ATC, upon impact or on one of the bounces of hitting the dirt and throwing up a cloud.
Maybe a bit off topic but I believe most military and larger domestic aircraft have the ability to release fuel. So prior to landing they would also release majority of fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | The F111 uses an ejection capsule, not individual ejection seats. Basically the entire cockpit separates from the rest of the aircraft. It requires 3 parachutes to safely let the capsule down. failure of even 1 parachute can result in a unsurvivable landing.
I would think a belly landing would be safer. | Stay with the airplane
----------------------
I did have a squadron mate who was leading a flight in the break and accidentally switched off guard on his radio in the turn downwind. Unfortunately for him, his radios were also on the wrong frequencies, and he missed the fireworks display set off by tower at the approach end of the runway. He landed gear up and he told me later that it was a bit noisy, but the aircraft slid to a stop. "It was a sickening feeling," he said, "when you know you should be touching down but are instead sinking through ground effect." He knew something was up, just couldn't figure out what. So landing with both gear up doesn't sound too bad to me, and better than an ejection. I would be interested to know if anyone has heard of taking the gear at the end of the runway in such a case?
I have known a pilot who took an ejection over the ocean after a mid-air in an ACM (dog fighting) engagement. He was flying within a week, and, although the accident investigation found him accountable, he remained in the Navy as a pilot. I don't know if it precluded him from being selected for CMDR. It certainly could not have helped.
At sea you try to get aboard the ship and stay out of your chute, especially true if it is dark out. Even a controlled ejection at sea is risky. Instantaneous G's in the A7E ejection were 40, which is enough to make you lose consciousness during that phase. There is a burnout phase of 20 G's. It is a 0-0 capable ejection seat, which means it will give you a swing or two in the chute if you eject at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed. Generally speaking, the envelope of the seat, or when can you can safely eject given your descent rate versus airspeed, is complicated and I don't remember having any quick way of knowing when it was safe to eject. There were points on the envelope that we memorized. For example, an ejection over 400 knots can dislocate legs and arms, not necessarily in that order. Most of the accident investigations I read, where an uncontrolled ejection was attempted, the pilot initiated outside the safe envelope of the seat. Pilot's like to stay with their aircraft.
Each emergency is evaluated by the pilot, and then, if time permits, maintenance and the skipper, after which a course of action is determined. All of these things factor in to a decision to stay or eject.
Over water your troubles are just beginning when you are in the chute. Once you gain consciousness you have to prepare for water entry. There is a possibility that you can get entangled with the shroud lines. The parachute also is a great sea anchor, and will drag you under. The procedure was to release your Koch fittings when the raft hit the water. The single person raft held your survival gear and was deployed from beneath your seat. It was on a 14 foot tether. To give you an idea of some of the risks you might not consider. My squadron mate hit the water, which was at around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, he was in a wet suit and wearing his Nomex flight gloves. By the time he got to the raft and tried to haul himself in, his hands were numb and useless. He had considerable difficulty just getting into the raft, let alone then using the emergency radio to coordinate with the rescue aircraft and helicopters.
By the way, the other plane in the mid-air lost the section of wing from the joint outward (basically the whole wing), where the aileron was located. Three redundant hydraulic systems maintained the hydraulic flight control system. He stayed with the aircraft and eventually was diverted to Crete where he did an emergency landing. Again, it is worth pointing out that there was no ejection even in this case. There was also plenty of time to talk with maintenance, test the flight characteristics of the aircraft near gear down speed, evaluate the situation, and decide the safest course of action.
The point is, as a pilot I always wanted to stay with the aircraft as long as I could. In fact, the only "standing" controlled ejection procedure I heard discussed was the case where you run out of fuel at the ship. They steer you to some location, where the rescue has been coordinated and you eject.
Use the net
-----------
With a missing strut or wheel the standard procedure on the ship is to take the barricade. I was covering the last recovery as a hot tanker. I was in my A7E with a buddy store and 2,000 pounds of gas to give away. The designated tanker was an A6 circling at 5,000 feet, I was turning and parked right on the foul line near the Island. If the airborne tanker went down for some reason, and couldn't fulfill its mission as tanker, I would replace it taking quick cat shot off the bow.
I was up departure on one radio, and listening to approach on the other. The last aircraft coming aboard was AJ501, an A6. I heard the pilot's initial call of "Alpha Juliet 5-0-1, ball." The LSO had a welcoming tone to his voice when he calmly responded, "Roger ball, a bit left for line up." I was sitting on the foul line and watching the approach. I heard the LSO's call for lineup, but watched the A6 drop its right wing, which was pretty closely followed by another less welcoming call for "Left for line up!" from the LSO. The driver of the A6 dropped his right wing again and was now in close.
I just sat there as he boresighted me on the foul line. Didn't reach for my ejection handle between my legs, just watched with my eyes wide open. Incredulous of what was happening. It never got past my eyes into the working part of my brain. The LSO sounded downright rude on his last call with "LEFT FOR LINEUP! WAVE OFF! WAVE OFF!" Even today I shiver at the call. The pilot reached enlightenment at that point, with me a close second, as he dropped the left wing hard with the ball going off the top of the mirror. There were probably some power calls in there as well, I don't remember. It was a very big correction to centerline with military power coming back on the jet, and the A6 impacted the deck on its left strut, which subsequently snapped off and skipped, sparking its way down the deck with a high final arc to its trajectory as it disappeared into the night sea. Power was at military and the aircraft boltered.
I don't remember if they went and got some gas, but the pilot had time to collect himself because they had to prepare the barricade. There is a good scene in the movie Top Gun where an A7E takes the barricade, and shows the crew raising the pylons. The barricade is basically a big net strung between pylons that are raised up out of the deck on either side of the landing area. The critical point for the pilot is that the top of the barricade, that suspends the net, is a wire cable that is capable of cutting the airframe in two if the net is missed on a high approach.
The aircraft returned, for probably the pilot's most difficult approach of his career. The LSO will make the approach window smaller due to the risks involved, meaning that the aircraft will be held to smaller differences from speed and glide path and waved off earlier in the approach. It was a perfect barricade landing. |
34,034 | There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.
Couple of questions:
1. What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?
2. The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of
>
> *"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."*
>
>
>
Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
3. Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
4. Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway? | 2016/12/19 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34034",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/7611/"
] | >
> 1.What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
>
>
>
Realities of ejection:
* Loss of a $30 million aircraft which is no longer in production
* Violent separation of crew capsule ([F-111s have a detachable crew capsule as opposed to conventional ejection seats](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8l79lSjVMg)) and violent impact of capsule on landing, even with successful parachute deployment and can be amplified by terrain conditions at impact site eg jagged rocks, uneven ground, etc. This frequently causes injuries to the flight crew and should only be done if the alternatives to ejection pose a greater risk to life and limb.
* Aircraft has to be abandoned in such a manner that it will not hit people or man made structures on the ground. This requires ejecting over remote land areas or out at sea, creating a further impedance to rescue operations.
* Crash of abandoned aircraft and subsequent destruction by fire creates explosion and wildfire hazards, toxic chemicals and other risks to people and or wildlife around or approaching the wreckage.
Realities of a forced landing with undercarriage retracted:
* Difficulty and risk dependent on condition at landing site. Long stretches of smooth, hard surface pose minimal risk to the aircraft and crew, though it is quite a wild ride; this is why military flight test facilities like Edwards AFB and China Lake NAS are placed on or near ancient dry lake beds. Grassy fields with soft ground pose a greater risk as part of the airframe can dig into or snag the ground, tall grass, scrub, etc, violently yanking or possibly flipping the jet during slideout, increasing the risk of injury or death and the total loss of the aircraft.
* No matter how you do it, you're going to damage the underside of the aircraft during the landing. This will slough off the skin of the aircraft as well and grind down extended structures, frames and longerons, rupture fuel tanks and damage mission systems. That can be minimized with good airmanship and a smooth touchdown and controlled slideout. Nevertheless, there is a risk that the aircraft will still have to be written off.
* Belly landings increase the risk of FOD ingestion into the engines, damaging them and creating further risks to the aircraft and flight crew.
* Directional control the aircraft is seriously diminished or non-existent at slower speeds, creating a risk of the aircraft veering off and striking structures in the vicinity of the landing area.
---
While the takeoff and wheel-loss event was not caught on film, I would take an educated guess that one of the main tires came loose from the aircraft just as it lifted off the runway and prior to the pilot commanding the retraction of the undercarriage. I'm sure it made for quite a sight for tower controllers watching this big tire come loose from the jet and go bouncing down the runway.
As for the flight crew all that can be done once they get the call is 1) Don't Panic 2) Fly the jet 3) A quick check of the cockpit instruments and warning lights indicates nothing else is wrong with the airplane; we have X pounds of fuel on board which should give about Y hours of flight time with conservative throttle settings. Let's get to a safe altitude to hold and see if we can work this problem out. We're missing a main wheel? - OK. What are the options? Probably either ejection or a belly landing. Neither the flight manual for the F-111 airplane nor ops knows or lists anything about attempting this sort of a landing. Based on all the scenarios as well as the USAF belly landing of an F-111 they had on file, the decision from both the flight crew and ground personnel the route of minimum risk was to attempt a gear up landing with the use of arresting gear to slow the jet down faster. So the flight crew sets up for a few low level, slow speed passes for practice while burning off fuel, then they make the attempt - and pulled it off with great success.
>
> Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.
>
>
>
Wheels coming loose from an aircraft like that is such a rare contingency that no such warning system has ever been considered for that. There are landing gear position lights in the cockpit to indicate whether the landing gear is extended properly (down and locked) for landing. There is also a Weight on Wheels (WoW) pressure switch on the landing gear itself to sense if there are structure loads being applied to the landing gear in order to lock out systems which should not operate when the aircraft is on the ground ie landing gear retraction, weapons, etc.
>
> 3.Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?
>
>
>
Not on landing, but @RonBeyer's answer suggests that it's not uncommon for ATC to watch departing aircraft. It's easier to notice things falling off than to notice their absence, and spotting FOD on runways is important.
As I said before this kind of incident is so rare it's not even thought of. I'm guessing it came as quite a shock to the controller watching what should have been another typical Aardvark departure, then see what appears to be the wheel come off and go bouncing down the runway. | Stay with the airplane
----------------------
I did have a squadron mate who was leading a flight in the break and accidentally switched off guard on his radio in the turn downwind. Unfortunately for him, his radios were also on the wrong frequencies, and he missed the fireworks display set off by tower at the approach end of the runway. He landed gear up and he told me later that it was a bit noisy, but the aircraft slid to a stop. "It was a sickening feeling," he said, "when you know you should be touching down but are instead sinking through ground effect." He knew something was up, just couldn't figure out what. So landing with both gear up doesn't sound too bad to me, and better than an ejection. I would be interested to know if anyone has heard of taking the gear at the end of the runway in such a case?
I have known a pilot who took an ejection over the ocean after a mid-air in an ACM (dog fighting) engagement. He was flying within a week, and, although the accident investigation found him accountable, he remained in the Navy as a pilot. I don't know if it precluded him from being selected for CMDR. It certainly could not have helped.
At sea you try to get aboard the ship and stay out of your chute, especially true if it is dark out. Even a controlled ejection at sea is risky. Instantaneous G's in the A7E ejection were 40, which is enough to make you lose consciousness during that phase. There is a burnout phase of 20 G's. It is a 0-0 capable ejection seat, which means it will give you a swing or two in the chute if you eject at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed. Generally speaking, the envelope of the seat, or when can you can safely eject given your descent rate versus airspeed, is complicated and I don't remember having any quick way of knowing when it was safe to eject. There were points on the envelope that we memorized. For example, an ejection over 400 knots can dislocate legs and arms, not necessarily in that order. Most of the accident investigations I read, where an uncontrolled ejection was attempted, the pilot initiated outside the safe envelope of the seat. Pilot's like to stay with their aircraft.
Each emergency is evaluated by the pilot, and then, if time permits, maintenance and the skipper, after which a course of action is determined. All of these things factor in to a decision to stay or eject.
Over water your troubles are just beginning when you are in the chute. Once you gain consciousness you have to prepare for water entry. There is a possibility that you can get entangled with the shroud lines. The parachute also is a great sea anchor, and will drag you under. The procedure was to release your Koch fittings when the raft hit the water. The single person raft held your survival gear and was deployed from beneath your seat. It was on a 14 foot tether. To give you an idea of some of the risks you might not consider. My squadron mate hit the water, which was at around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, he was in a wet suit and wearing his Nomex flight gloves. By the time he got to the raft and tried to haul himself in, his hands were numb and useless. He had considerable difficulty just getting into the raft, let alone then using the emergency radio to coordinate with the rescue aircraft and helicopters.
By the way, the other plane in the mid-air lost the section of wing from the joint outward (basically the whole wing), where the aileron was located. Three redundant hydraulic systems maintained the hydraulic flight control system. He stayed with the aircraft and eventually was diverted to Crete where he did an emergency landing. Again, it is worth pointing out that there was no ejection even in this case. There was also plenty of time to talk with maintenance, test the flight characteristics of the aircraft near gear down speed, evaluate the situation, and decide the safest course of action.
The point is, as a pilot I always wanted to stay with the aircraft as long as I could. In fact, the only "standing" controlled ejection procedure I heard discussed was the case where you run out of fuel at the ship. They steer you to some location, where the rescue has been coordinated and you eject.
Use the net
-----------
With a missing strut or wheel the standard procedure on the ship is to take the barricade. I was covering the last recovery as a hot tanker. I was in my A7E with a buddy store and 2,000 pounds of gas to give away. The designated tanker was an A6 circling at 5,000 feet, I was turning and parked right on the foul line near the Island. If the airborne tanker went down for some reason, and couldn't fulfill its mission as tanker, I would replace it taking quick cat shot off the bow.
I was up departure on one radio, and listening to approach on the other. The last aircraft coming aboard was AJ501, an A6. I heard the pilot's initial call of "Alpha Juliet 5-0-1, ball." The LSO had a welcoming tone to his voice when he calmly responded, "Roger ball, a bit left for line up." I was sitting on the foul line and watching the approach. I heard the LSO's call for lineup, but watched the A6 drop its right wing, which was pretty closely followed by another less welcoming call for "Left for line up!" from the LSO. The driver of the A6 dropped his right wing again and was now in close.
I just sat there as he boresighted me on the foul line. Didn't reach for my ejection handle between my legs, just watched with my eyes wide open. Incredulous of what was happening. It never got past my eyes into the working part of my brain. The LSO sounded downright rude on his last call with "LEFT FOR LINEUP! WAVE OFF! WAVE OFF!" Even today I shiver at the call. The pilot reached enlightenment at that point, with me a close second, as he dropped the left wing hard with the ball going off the top of the mirror. There were probably some power calls in there as well, I don't remember. It was a very big correction to centerline with military power coming back on the jet, and the A6 impacted the deck on its left strut, which subsequently snapped off and skipped, sparking its way down the deck with a high final arc to its trajectory as it disappeared into the night sea. Power was at military and the aircraft boltered.
I don't remember if they went and got some gas, but the pilot had time to collect himself because they had to prepare the barricade. There is a good scene in the movie Top Gun where an A7E takes the barricade, and shows the crew raising the pylons. The barricade is basically a big net strung between pylons that are raised up out of the deck on either side of the landing area. The critical point for the pilot is that the top of the barricade, that suspends the net, is a wire cable that is capable of cutting the airframe in two if the net is missed on a high approach.
The aircraft returned, for probably the pilot's most difficult approach of his career. The LSO will make the approach window smaller due to the risks involved, meaning that the aircraft will be held to smaller differences from speed and glide path and waved off earlier in the approach. It was a perfect barricade landing. |
649,798 | What is the difference. Were are the used in physics? | 2021/07/06 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/649798",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/306221/"
] | A line integral is an integral where the function to be integrated is evaluated along a curve.[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWBC1.gif)
On the other hand a surface integral is an integral where the function to be integrated is evaluated along a surface.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dEwi0.gif)
There are many uses of line and surface integral in Physics I would highly recommend you to read this on math.libretexts.org
<https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Book%3A_Vector_Calculus_(Corral)/04%3A_Line_and_Surface_Integrals> | [Line Integral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral) gives **area** under the line (which may be of any shape) and [surface integral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_integral) gives **volume** in a same way.
So in physics it's used whenever the shape is odd, and we want to find area or volume of the object with high accuracy.
Check out above mentioned wikipedia links for more details. |
85,238 | Whenever I get a checkup with my eye doctor, they have me sign a consent-to-treat form. I never gave it a second thought. This last visit, though, the front desk attendant was distracted when I arrived. They knew I was there waiting, but forgot to have me sign. They called me for my appointment, I finished, paid, checked out with the same attendant at the desk, and left.
Now I'm wondering. Does it matter that they forgot to have me sign? Obviously I consented to being treated because I'm an adult and I willingly went with the doctor, so what's the need to have me sign? Is there some reason that an optometrist in the US would have me sign for my consent to treat at every visit when my implied consent is so obviously given? Is there some liability that they reduce by getting my physical signature? | 2022/10/11 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/85238",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/37913/"
] | If they do a treatment which you didn't consent to and harm you they risk being sued. As such, they get you to sign a consent form to prove you agreed to the treatment and were informed about what was going on and any material risks.
They had implied verbal consent from you which is enough legally, but there's a risk that if it went wrong you could claim you didn't consent, they lied about what treatment you had, and they illegally did it.
As an example, they often drip something into your eye which can sometimes cause blurry vision for a while. If you had blurry vision after and crashed your car you could theoretically sue them because you say you didn't consent to that and they have no proof you did. | One vital word is missing from here: **informed** consent.
This means the health care provider has given you the relevant information about risks etc., which is precisely the sort of thing that you *wouldn't* otherwise know, so that when you decide, you know what you're actually choosing to consent to. Such consent should be properly documented, particularly what/how/when information was given.
Uninformed consent is legally invalid.
See for example, positions of the [AMA](https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-consent), [NHS](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/), [CMPA](https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en/advice-publications/handbooks/consent-a-guide-for-canadian-physicians), [ACSQHC](https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/partnering-consumers/informed-consent), [NZMOH](https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/services-and-support/your-rights). This is universal, per [WHO](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health).
The documentation serves multiple purposes, including at least:
1. Protection in the case the patient later decides to claim that they didn't consent (or their expressed consent was invalid).
2. Proper medical records for future reference, either by the same provider or a different one.
3. Following procedural rules that most, if not all, physician regulators require as part of professional codes of conduct.
The necessity of having written paperwork is proportional to the risks involved in the procedure. Taking blood pressure? Nobody is going to care\*. Putting stuff in someone's eye that does have possible side effects and limitation on driving? Yep.
\*: And it's not like that's risk-free. You can turn a blood pressure cuff into a [tourniquet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourniquet) and cause damage, but at that point you just sue the device manufacturer for defect and/or provider for blatant malpractice, regardless of consent. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.