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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
377,218 | I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/167575/should-a-project-manager-enforce-coding-standards), but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits? | 2008/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/377218",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/38206/"
] | I think coding standards are very important. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to find the differences between two revisions of a file only to find that the whole file has been changed by someone who reformatted it all. And I know someone is going to say that that sort of practice should be stamped out, but most IDEs have a 'reformat file' feature (Ctrl-K Ctrl-D in Visual Studio, for example), which makes keeping your code layed out nicely much easier.
I've seen projects fail through lack of coding standards - the curly-brace wars at my last company were contributary to a breakdown in the team.
I've found the best coding standards are not the standards made up by someone in the team. I implemented the standards created by iDesign ([click here](http://www.idesign.net/idesign/download/IDesign%20CSharp%20Coding%20Standard.zip "IDesign Coding Standard")) in our team, which gets you away from any kind of resentment you might get if you try to implement your own 'standard'.
A quick mention of Code Style Enforcer ([click here](http://joel.fjorden.se/static.php?page=CodeStyleEnforcer "Code Style Enforcer")) which is pretty good for highlighting non-compliance in Visual Studio. | We have a kind of 'loose' standard. Maybe because of our inability to have agreement upon some of those 'how many spaces to put there and there', 'where to put my open brace, after the statement or on the next line'.
However, as we have main developers for each of the dedicated modules or components, and some additional developers that may work in those modules, we have the following main rule:
"Uphold the style used by the main developer"
So if he wants to do 3 space-indentation, do it yourself also.
It's not ideal as it might require retune your editor settings, but it keeps the peace :-) |
377,218 | I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/167575/should-a-project-manager-enforce-coding-standards), but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits? | 2008/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/377218",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/38206/"
] | We take use of the Eclipse's save actions and formatters. We do have a suggested standard, but nobody is actually enforcing it, so there are some variations on what is actually formatted, and how.
This is something of a nuisance (for me), as various whitespace variations are committed as updates to the SVN repository... | I have never seen a project fail because of lack of coding standards (or adherence to them), or even have any effect on productivity. If you are spending any time on enforcing them then you are wasting money. There are so many important things to worry about instead (like code quality).
Create a set of suggested standards for those who prefer to have something to follow, but leave it at that. |
377,218 | I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/167575/should-a-project-manager-enforce-coding-standards), but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits? | 2008/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/377218",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/38206/"
] | I think coding standards are very important. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to find the differences between two revisions of a file only to find that the whole file has been changed by someone who reformatted it all. And I know someone is going to say that that sort of practice should be stamped out, but most IDEs have a 'reformat file' feature (Ctrl-K Ctrl-D in Visual Studio, for example), which makes keeping your code layed out nicely much easier.
I've seen projects fail through lack of coding standards - the curly-brace wars at my last company were contributary to a breakdown in the team.
I've found the best coding standards are not the standards made up by someone in the team. I implemented the standards created by iDesign ([click here](http://www.idesign.net/idesign/download/IDesign%20CSharp%20Coding%20Standard.zip "IDesign Coding Standard")) in our team, which gets you away from any kind of resentment you might get if you try to implement your own 'standard'.
A quick mention of Code Style Enforcer ([click here](http://joel.fjorden.se/static.php?page=CodeStyleEnforcer "Code Style Enforcer")) which is pretty good for highlighting non-compliance in Visual Studio. | >
> Do you have coding standards?
> What does it cover?
>
>
>
Yes, it has naming conventions, mandatory braces after if, while ... , no warning allowed, recommendations for 32/64 bits alignment, no magic number, header guards, variables initialization and formatting rules that favor consistency for legacy code.
>
> Is it being followed by everyone?
> And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standard?
>
>
>
Mostly, getting the **team agreement** and a somewhat lightweight coding standard (less than 20 rules) helped us here.
>
> How it is being enforced ?
>
>
>
Softly, we do not have coding standard cop.
* Application of the standard is checked at review time
* We have template files that provide the standard boilerplate |
377,218 | I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/167575/should-a-project-manager-enforce-coding-standards), but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits? | 2008/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/377218",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/38206/"
] | Do you have coding standards?
>
>
> >
> > Yes, differs from project to project.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
What does it cover?
>
>
> >
> > Code(class, variable, method, constant), SQL naming and formatting convention
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Is it being followed by everyone?
>
>
> >
> > Yes, every new entrant in project could be asked to create a demo project following organization coding convention then it gets reviewed. This exercise makes developer feel at ease before starting real job.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standard?
>
>
> >
> > **Use StyleCop and FxCop** to ensure they are religiously followed. It would show up as **warning/error if code fails to comply** with organization coding convention.
> >
> >
> > **Visual Studio Team system** has **nice code anlysis and check-In policies** which would prevent developers checking in code that does not comply
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Hope, it helps
Thanks,
Maulik Modi | Oh yes, I'm the coding standard police :) I just wrote a simple script to periodically check and fix the code (my coding standard is [simple enough](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/276173/what-are-your-favorite-c-coding-style-idioms#276560) to implement that.) I hope people will get the message after seeing all these "coding convention cleanups" messages :) |
377,218 | I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/167575/should-a-project-manager-enforce-coding-standards), but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits? | 2008/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/377218",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/38206/"
] | I think coding standards are very important. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to find the differences between two revisions of a file only to find that the whole file has been changed by someone who reformatted it all. And I know someone is going to say that that sort of practice should be stamped out, but most IDEs have a 'reformat file' feature (Ctrl-K Ctrl-D in Visual Studio, for example), which makes keeping your code layed out nicely much easier.
I've seen projects fail through lack of coding standards - the curly-brace wars at my last company were contributary to a breakdown in the team.
I've found the best coding standards are not the standards made up by someone in the team. I implemented the standards created by iDesign ([click here](http://www.idesign.net/idesign/download/IDesign%20CSharp%20Coding%20Standard.zip "IDesign Coding Standard")) in our team, which gets you away from any kind of resentment you might get if you try to implement your own 'standard'.
A quick mention of Code Style Enforcer ([click here](http://joel.fjorden.se/static.php?page=CodeStyleEnforcer "Code Style Enforcer")) which is pretty good for highlighting non-compliance in Visual Studio. | Oh yes, I'm the coding standard police :) I just wrote a simple script to periodically check and fix the code (my coding standard is [simple enough](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/276173/what-are-your-favorite-c-coding-style-idioms#276560) to implement that.) I hope people will get the message after seeing all these "coding convention cleanups" messages :) |
377,218 | I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/167575/should-a-project-manager-enforce-coding-standards), but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits? | 2008/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/377218",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/38206/"
] | I think coding standards are very important. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to find the differences between two revisions of a file only to find that the whole file has been changed by someone who reformatted it all. And I know someone is going to say that that sort of practice should be stamped out, but most IDEs have a 'reformat file' feature (Ctrl-K Ctrl-D in Visual Studio, for example), which makes keeping your code layed out nicely much easier.
I've seen projects fail through lack of coding standards - the curly-brace wars at my last company were contributary to a breakdown in the team.
I've found the best coding standards are not the standards made up by someone in the team. I implemented the standards created by iDesign ([click here](http://www.idesign.net/idesign/download/IDesign%20CSharp%20Coding%20Standard.zip "IDesign Coding Standard")) in our team, which gets you away from any kind of resentment you might get if you try to implement your own 'standard'.
A quick mention of Code Style Enforcer ([click here](http://joel.fjorden.se/static.php?page=CodeStyleEnforcer "Code Style Enforcer")) which is pretty good for highlighting non-compliance in Visual Studio. | I think the best way to look at coding standards is in terms of what you hope to achieve by applying, and the damage that they can cause if mis-applied. For example, I see the following as quite good;
* Document and provide unit tests that illustrate all typical scenarios for usage of a given interface to a given routine or module.
* Where possible use the following container classes libraries, etc...
* Use asserts to validate incoming parameters and results returned (C & C++)
* Minimise scope of all variables
* Access object members through methods
* Use new and delete over malloc and free
* Use the prescribed naming conventions
I don't think that enforcing style beyond this is a great idea, as different programmers are efficient using differing styles. Forcing programmers to change style can be counter productive and lead to lost time and reduced quality. Standards should be kept short and easy to understand. |
377,218 | I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/167575/should-a-project-manager-enforce-coding-standards), but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits? | 2008/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/377218",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/38206/"
] | I've worked in places with barely-followed coding practices, and others where they're close to being enforced - or at least easily checked.
A few suggestions:
* The most important thing is to get buy-in to the idea that consistency trumps your personal preferred style. There should be discussion of the coding standard both before and after it's instituted, but no-one should be allowed to just opt out of it.
* Code reviews should be mandatory, with the checkin comment including the username of the reviewer. If you're using a suitably powerful SCM, consider not allowing checkins which don't have a valid reviewer name.
* There should be a document which *everyone* knows about laying out the coding standards. With enough detail, you shouldn't get too much in the way of arguments.
* Where possible, automate checking of the conventions (via Lint, CheckStyle, FXCop etc) so it's easy for both the committer and the reviewer to get a quick check of things like ordering import/using directives, whitespace etc.
The benefits are:
* Primarily consistency - if you make it so that anyone can feel "at home" in any part of the codebase at any time, it gives you more flexibility.
* Spreading best practice - if you ban public fields, mutable structs etc then no-one can accidentally plant a time bomb in your code. (At least, not a time bomb that's covered by the standard. There's no coding standard for perfect code, of course :)
EDIT: I should point out that coding standards are probably *most* important when working in large companies. I believe they help even in small companies, but there's probably less need of process around the standard at that point. It helps when all the developers know each other personally and are all co-located. | We take use of the Eclipse's save actions and formatters. We do have a suggested standard, but nobody is actually enforcing it, so there are some variations on what is actually formatted, and how.
This is something of a nuisance (for me), as various whitespace variations are committed as updates to the SVN repository... |
38,071,566 | if I deploy Apache Drill in a existing Hadoop cluster, dose the Apache Drill have any negative influence on the other members of Hadoop ecosystem in the existing Hadoop cluster ? | 2016/06/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38071566",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6521594/"
] | It wont have any negative impact on other members of ecosystem but it will hog a lot of memory of the node. Make sure you have enough memory before installing Drill. | It's Hadoop compatibility component. The influence only happen if you don't provide enough resource for all the members to operate.
You can put Drill with HDFS in the same node or same cluster to get the best performance. |
34,567 | With early 2013 cameras, it's generally accepted that using contrast detection autofocus on SLRs (ie live view on *most* SLRs) is something which is really suitable only for static, or close to static, subjects due to the slow focusing speed. On the other hand, the current best of breed mirrorless cameras (the Olympus OM-D E-M5 often being quoted here) have autofocus systems which are significantly quicker at achieving a focus lock, if not quite being up to the performance of phase detection autofocus systems.
My understanding is that both systems are using the same technology, so why is it the case that mirrorless cameras have much quicker autofocus systems than SLRs in Live View mode? Is it the case that the *lenses* for mirrorless systems are optimized for quick CDAF performance, and if so, what are those optimizations?
Edit: in response to one of the answers, I'm not thinking about how cameras like the Nikon 1 series or the Canon EOS M have quicker autofocus due to the use of phase detection elements in the sensor; I understand how using an entirely different technology will improve things - what I'm interested in here is how some manufacturers have made contrast detection autofocus much quicker than is apparently possible in SLRs. Similar reasoning applies to the Sony SLT series as that's again using PDAF rather than CDAF. | 2013/02/11 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34567",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/11371/"
] | Major reason is that the **DSLR lenses are optimized for Phase Detection**. Every component of the lens is tailored towards quick movement and stopping the glass in precisely picked moment. Contrast detection on the other hand works best with stepper motors capable of quickly switching directions so that you can move lenses inside back and forth looking for highest contrast on the image.
Phase detection knows straight away where the focus is and how much should the lenses move to achieve perfect focus. Contrast detection needs to "find it". This forces different engineering solutions in lenses manufacturing.
Also the DSLRs are usually made with **live view as an afterthought**. Most of the manufacturers think of it as an manual focus assist. They don't try to create fast AF for video as they know that pro videophotographers usually relay on manual focusing (not that they have any choice with such performance...) while photographers usually use viewfinders anyway. Hence they rarely have dedicated processors for contrast detection, and if the main CPU is occupied with focusing - it doesn't perform as well as dedicated unit.
Also the statement in your question **isn't entirely true**. Sony's **SLT** DSLRs have AF that's much faster in live view than Mirrorless, as SLT design basically allows camera to fully utilize it's PDAF (Phase Detection Auto Focus) sensors all the time during live view. So you get DSLR-quality AF with Live view at the same time. Also the older generation of Sony DSLRs offered **Quick AF Live View** - which never flipped the main mirror up for Live View - instead it used secondary sensor in viewfinder allowing DSLR-quality AF for a price of additional delay before shooting photo (mirror had to flip up in order to capture the photograph). | It is simply a case of optimization. Sensors used on those cameras have been optimized to perform efficient autofocus. Some use contrast-detect while others even have phase-detect sensors.
In the case of the OM-D E-M5, it uses Contrast-Detect which is basically a loop that measures local contrast, moves the lens and repeats until the maximum contrast is found. This latest generation of sensors performs this iteration at 240 Hz with processing to analyze the data correspondingly fast. Olympus is so confident in their ability to make this faster than DSLRs that they are not considering on-chip phase-detection.
Nikon on the other hand choose to use Phase-Detection which is why they can focus so fast. That system requires much fewer iterations - like on a DSLR using the OVF - because the data collected informs the camera of the direction and amount of misfocus. This is not precise enough to do it in a single bound but gets there rather quickly. One thing to note is that the splitters for on-chip phase-detection tiny which is why these systems do not work as quickly as those used by DSLRs in low-light. Nikon 1 cameras switch to Contrast-Detect AF when light is low.
As you mention, lenses have an influence on autofocus speed. The key is in the loop described above. With contrast-detect, the camera continuously moves the lens in tiny increments. In contrast (no pun intended), phase detection does the majority of focusing with larger movement. Motors, controls and feedback from the lens have to be tuned for each particular case. In the case of modern DSLR lenses, the ultra-sonic motor used in many lenses works against them.
For example, Canon introduced lenses with linear motors (STM) with the EOS M while their high-end lenses feature ultra-sonic ones (USM). Along the release, the explicitly stated that the new motors are designed to work better with autofocus of the EOS M which uses contrast-detect to fine-tune AF after phase-detection places focus in the ballpark area. |
34,567 | With early 2013 cameras, it's generally accepted that using contrast detection autofocus on SLRs (ie live view on *most* SLRs) is something which is really suitable only for static, or close to static, subjects due to the slow focusing speed. On the other hand, the current best of breed mirrorless cameras (the Olympus OM-D E-M5 often being quoted here) have autofocus systems which are significantly quicker at achieving a focus lock, if not quite being up to the performance of phase detection autofocus systems.
My understanding is that both systems are using the same technology, so why is it the case that mirrorless cameras have much quicker autofocus systems than SLRs in Live View mode? Is it the case that the *lenses* for mirrorless systems are optimized for quick CDAF performance, and if so, what are those optimizations?
Edit: in response to one of the answers, I'm not thinking about how cameras like the Nikon 1 series or the Canon EOS M have quicker autofocus due to the use of phase detection elements in the sensor; I understand how using an entirely different technology will improve things - what I'm interested in here is how some manufacturers have made contrast detection autofocus much quicker than is apparently possible in SLRs. Similar reasoning applies to the Sony SLT series as that's again using PDAF rather than CDAF. | 2013/02/11 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34567",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/11371/"
] | Major reason is that the **DSLR lenses are optimized for Phase Detection**. Every component of the lens is tailored towards quick movement and stopping the glass in precisely picked moment. Contrast detection on the other hand works best with stepper motors capable of quickly switching directions so that you can move lenses inside back and forth looking for highest contrast on the image.
Phase detection knows straight away where the focus is and how much should the lenses move to achieve perfect focus. Contrast detection needs to "find it". This forces different engineering solutions in lenses manufacturing.
Also the DSLRs are usually made with **live view as an afterthought**. Most of the manufacturers think of it as an manual focus assist. They don't try to create fast AF for video as they know that pro videophotographers usually relay on manual focusing (not that they have any choice with such performance...) while photographers usually use viewfinders anyway. Hence they rarely have dedicated processors for contrast detection, and if the main CPU is occupied with focusing - it doesn't perform as well as dedicated unit.
Also the statement in your question **isn't entirely true**. Sony's **SLT** DSLRs have AF that's much faster in live view than Mirrorless, as SLT design basically allows camera to fully utilize it's PDAF (Phase Detection Auto Focus) sensors all the time during live view. So you get DSLR-quality AF with Live view at the same time. Also the older generation of Sony DSLRs offered **Quick AF Live View** - which never flipped the main mirror up for Live View - instead it used secondary sensor in viewfinder allowing DSLR-quality AF for a price of additional delay before shooting photo (mirror had to flip up in order to capture the photograph). | Update
------
Since this question and answer were originally written a lot has changed in the way different types of cameras implement AF and in the levels at which those implementations perform.
Many current DSLRs now have imaging sensor based hybrid Phase Detection/Contrast Detection AF in Live View that rivals or even bests the performance of imaging sensor based AF in many current mirrorless cameras. Particularly, Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF performs as well in terms of both speed and accuracy as many current mirrorless cameras.
The big difference today (September 2017) is that DSLRs can offer the best of both systems - Dedicated AF sensor based Phase Detection AF *or* main imaging sensor based hybrid PD/CDAF that is comparable to anything in a mirrorless camera - while the mirrorless cameras can only offer the second option.
---
Phase detection systems early on were designed to be fast even if it meant sacrificing a little accuracy. In the early systems the camera took one look, decided how far the focus needed to be moved and sent a message to the lens. The lens moved by that amount and stopped there. If you wanted to fine tune the AF you could do a half press to get the lens close, raise up off of the shutter button and then do another half press. Since the lens should have less traveling to do, it should result in a more accurate focus. More recent lens designs have included a way for the lens to communicate a precise position of the focus mechanism to the camera. This has lead to more accurate focus with very little to no speed penalty.
The speed of contrast detection focus has steadily improved as the processing power of cameras has increased. Since contrast focus requires several measure and move cycles, the more steps per second your camera can process, the faster it will perform those multiple calculations. New lenses designed specifically for the mirrorless cameras are optimized to focus using contrast detection or a hybrid that combines contrast and phase detection focus using the imaging sensor. And while DSLR makers have mainly concentrated on building improved focus arrays for phase detection focus, mirrorless manufacturers put a lot more effort into improving the contrast detection focus.
Roger Cicala at lensrentals.com recently wrote a series about focus performance that is pretty detailed and touches on several of these issues. It is a lot of material to go through, but I found it interesting reading.
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/autofocus-reality-part-4-nikon-full-frame> |
34,567 | With early 2013 cameras, it's generally accepted that using contrast detection autofocus on SLRs (ie live view on *most* SLRs) is something which is really suitable only for static, or close to static, subjects due to the slow focusing speed. On the other hand, the current best of breed mirrorless cameras (the Olympus OM-D E-M5 often being quoted here) have autofocus systems which are significantly quicker at achieving a focus lock, if not quite being up to the performance of phase detection autofocus systems.
My understanding is that both systems are using the same technology, so why is it the case that mirrorless cameras have much quicker autofocus systems than SLRs in Live View mode? Is it the case that the *lenses* for mirrorless systems are optimized for quick CDAF performance, and if so, what are those optimizations?
Edit: in response to one of the answers, I'm not thinking about how cameras like the Nikon 1 series or the Canon EOS M have quicker autofocus due to the use of phase detection elements in the sensor; I understand how using an entirely different technology will improve things - what I'm interested in here is how some manufacturers have made contrast detection autofocus much quicker than is apparently possible in SLRs. Similar reasoning applies to the Sony SLT series as that's again using PDAF rather than CDAF. | 2013/02/11 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34567",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/11371/"
] | Update
------
Since this question and answer were originally written a lot has changed in the way different types of cameras implement AF and in the levels at which those implementations perform.
Many current DSLRs now have imaging sensor based hybrid Phase Detection/Contrast Detection AF in Live View that rivals or even bests the performance of imaging sensor based AF in many current mirrorless cameras. Particularly, Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF performs as well in terms of both speed and accuracy as many current mirrorless cameras.
The big difference today (September 2017) is that DSLRs can offer the best of both systems - Dedicated AF sensor based Phase Detection AF *or* main imaging sensor based hybrid PD/CDAF that is comparable to anything in a mirrorless camera - while the mirrorless cameras can only offer the second option.
---
Phase detection systems early on were designed to be fast even if it meant sacrificing a little accuracy. In the early systems the camera took one look, decided how far the focus needed to be moved and sent a message to the lens. The lens moved by that amount and stopped there. If you wanted to fine tune the AF you could do a half press to get the lens close, raise up off of the shutter button and then do another half press. Since the lens should have less traveling to do, it should result in a more accurate focus. More recent lens designs have included a way for the lens to communicate a precise position of the focus mechanism to the camera. This has lead to more accurate focus with very little to no speed penalty.
The speed of contrast detection focus has steadily improved as the processing power of cameras has increased. Since contrast focus requires several measure and move cycles, the more steps per second your camera can process, the faster it will perform those multiple calculations. New lenses designed specifically for the mirrorless cameras are optimized to focus using contrast detection or a hybrid that combines contrast and phase detection focus using the imaging sensor. And while DSLR makers have mainly concentrated on building improved focus arrays for phase detection focus, mirrorless manufacturers put a lot more effort into improving the contrast detection focus.
Roger Cicala at lensrentals.com recently wrote a series about focus performance that is pretty detailed and touches on several of these issues. It is a lot of material to go through, but I found it interesting reading.
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/autofocus-reality-part-4-nikon-full-frame> | It is simply a case of optimization. Sensors used on those cameras have been optimized to perform efficient autofocus. Some use contrast-detect while others even have phase-detect sensors.
In the case of the OM-D E-M5, it uses Contrast-Detect which is basically a loop that measures local contrast, moves the lens and repeats until the maximum contrast is found. This latest generation of sensors performs this iteration at 240 Hz with processing to analyze the data correspondingly fast. Olympus is so confident in their ability to make this faster than DSLRs that they are not considering on-chip phase-detection.
Nikon on the other hand choose to use Phase-Detection which is why they can focus so fast. That system requires much fewer iterations - like on a DSLR using the OVF - because the data collected informs the camera of the direction and amount of misfocus. This is not precise enough to do it in a single bound but gets there rather quickly. One thing to note is that the splitters for on-chip phase-detection tiny which is why these systems do not work as quickly as those used by DSLRs in low-light. Nikon 1 cameras switch to Contrast-Detect AF when light is low.
As you mention, lenses have an influence on autofocus speed. The key is in the loop described above. With contrast-detect, the camera continuously moves the lens in tiny increments. In contrast (no pun intended), phase detection does the majority of focusing with larger movement. Motors, controls and feedback from the lens have to be tuned for each particular case. In the case of modern DSLR lenses, the ultra-sonic motor used in many lenses works against them.
For example, Canon introduced lenses with linear motors (STM) with the EOS M while their high-end lenses feature ultra-sonic ones (USM). Along the release, the explicitly stated that the new motors are designed to work better with autofocus of the EOS M which uses contrast-detect to fine-tune AF after phase-detection places focus in the ballpark area. |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | ### Imagine this:
The year is 2222 and human technology has advanced to the point that we are able to reach and colonize other planets. Life on Earth is thriving and things are going really well. However, there is still one problem. **The Amish.** They are still living their lives as they always have, but now they're using space that the government wants to use for other things. Invoking eminent domain, the government buys all of their land and, in return, transports all of the Amish to a (relatively) nearby planet on which they can all live. After receiving the means by which to build up life as they had it on Earth, the colony is never touched again, allowing the residents to remain there leading their simple lives.
**While this situation would almost never happen, there are some points it brings to light.** Just because a society has not reached a certain level of technology does not mean that they are unable to do so. As the Amish choose to live a life without many of the luxuries of modern life, another society could choose not to pursue further technological advancements for many reasons besides necessity. Maybe they have a religion that forbids the use of a certain material necessary for advancing technology. A scientist in their distant past may have caused a great war with his inventing, so a ban has gone out preventing certain technology. The society may just be content with life as they have it. While this information may not all prove to be useful to you, considering the fact that societies can be primitive by choice is a worthwhile one in my opinion.
*Note: I have absolutely nothing against the Amish, and instead merely consider the more general suppositions to still be interesting ones to consider.* | Have an existing spacefaring species from a different planet/solar system/whatever give opposing political factions nukes, tell them "the other guy" is going to kill them by the end of the day if they don't shoot first, and don't tell any of them how powerful the nukes are.
This will likely kill everyone on the moon and possibly destroy the moon itself. Even if there are survivors, they will be too few to recover any time in the next millennia and likely too radiation diseased to survive the next decade. And the flora and fauna will likely not able to sustain the survivors, so they probably won't even survive the year. And that's if they can find potable water. Maybe they survive a month, depending on how much food and clean water they have stocked in stores and homes.
So, no more development. |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | Apocalyptic cycle
-----------------
This moon is much more volcanically active than Earth. It means every now and again there is a devastating volcanic eruption that causes a massive release of particles that end up blocking out the sun (or the equivalent of the sun on that moon). This results in a [volcanic winter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter). Those are more severe than any we had on Earth, causing crop failures for several years, resulting in death of most of the population and collapse of civilization - but not quite enough to wipe out the intelligent aliens completely.
The survivors are thrown back into dark ages. Hundreds or years later, they get back to the previous level of civilization, only for the next catastrophic volcanic eruption to throw them back again.
You could have meteorite strikes instead of volcanic activity, due to thinner atmosphere, but then I'm not sure what would stop a Chicxulub-level impact that just wipes them out completely. | They're too busy. The species has developed a hierarchy. Some individuals are at the top, and rule over everyone else.
Those at the top demand that those under them work. The work mostly doesn't advance society. Some of it maintains the status quo by keeping everyone fed who deserves to be fed, and the rest of it mostly just feeds the ego of those at the top.
Those at the bottom are promised that if they work long enough (tens of thousands of hours), they can become a ruler themselves and won't have to work any longer. They are told - gaslit - that working long hours will set them free and if they are not free it's their own fault for not working hard enough. But if they *don't* work, even though this society has abolished the death penalty, they will be denied access to basic necessities like food and shelter, and caused to die anyway.
As such, even the most intelligent members of the lower caste are too busy fulfilling their obligations to actually do anything with their intelligence.
Remind you of any other known intelligent species? |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | Give them the internet.
Give them e-mail, chat, and Zoom. Give them instagram, Facebook, TikTok.
Gmail.
Youtube.
Give them Twitter.
They will forget all about the stars. | They're too busy. The species has developed a hierarchy. Some individuals are at the top, and rule over everyone else.
Those at the top demand that those under them work. The work mostly doesn't advance society. Some of it maintains the status quo by keeping everyone fed who deserves to be fed, and the rest of it mostly just feeds the ego of those at the top.
Those at the bottom are promised that if they work long enough (tens of thousands of hours), they can become a ruler themselves and won't have to work any longer. They are told - gaslit - that working long hours will set them free and if they are not free it's their own fault for not working hard enough. But if they *don't* work, even though this society has abolished the death penalty, they will be denied access to basic necessities like food and shelter, and caused to die anyway.
As such, even the most intelligent members of the lower caste are too busy fulfilling their obligations to actually do anything with their intelligence.
Remind you of any other known intelligent species? |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | Two big factors:
1. Limited resources. If everything is expended to support themselves, they will not have the faculties to invent new things. They may even spend their idle time sitting about so as to not waste more calories when they don't have them.
2. Local maxima. If they have achieved peak effectiveness such that incremental changes will not make the situation better, any attempts to innovate will be a waste of resources, because great leaps are rare. Also this discourages innovation because it's a pure waste. | Extreme lack of supplies could exist in this planet that causes this species to spend nearly all of its time scavenging compared to engineering |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | They won't "develop" beyond 18th century fun anyway
---------------------------------------------------
When I was playing war games in the universe conquering planets (yes we could) the primary goal of stage 1 colonization was to get yourself a "good" planet. That meant: a big one. You provide them with a natural limit on development already.
Below answer assumes your inhabitants have air to breath up there and there's good soil and a balanced population, so they may prosper.
**Pitfalls of small places**
X Y named some of these already. Development can reach a certain point in industrialization and it cannot go beyond that point anyway. Your planet is too small to contain relevant resources for energy and construction materials. Small moon-size planets generally don't have huge amounts of metals in their crust. When there exists any metal that can be mined, digging for it will be hard work for low gravity folks. Fossil fuel will be exhausted soon. For energy, they will require solar sats at an early stage and if they have not reached that stage of development, consumption and population will remain modest. A small population is *not* good for science, because exceptional talent will be rare.
**Distraction**
Your inhabitants will form a small community. It could have a strong cultural development and a weak economic development.
Low gravity is fun and it is difficult to perform any heavy work. As a result, your folks will remain thin and light weight, have a long youth and spend a lot of time jumping around and having fun. Development ? Tomorrow..
There is a fantastic sports culture on your planet. Every year, they organize a run around the planet, many inhabitants take part in it.
**How do they do physics research?**
The basics. How do they measure e.g. temperature with 18th century means ? It will require a lot of material to create a thermometer based on a gauge. The capillary action being much stronger than the down force will require more mass, the low gravity requires a huge gauge.
**Law and order**
For proper medieval law and order, low gravity is a hurdle too. You can't throw people off buildings and you can't possibly develop a guillotine. Lots of types of ballistic weapons can't be built (too much metal) or are useless because of the low gravity, or too dangerous to use. War won't develop easy.
**Quakes**
To make it more difficult, you could introduce some seismic activity. If you have that, it is quite difficult to maintain integrity of large constructs. Any quake will cause upward acceleration of huge amounts of stuff on the surface, which can be devastating. | No need to plan ahead
---------------------
In our history, complex civilizations developed where there was a need to plan ahead. In temperate regions, like Europe and China, people had to stockpile enough food and firewood to survive the winter. In the Middle East, they needed irrigation because of the arid climate. And in all the above cases, growing food was seasonal: there was one big harvest in a year, and that harvest had to last for an entire year. This required a complex organization of society, and that society needed to organize its protection, because if your neighbors had one bad harvest, they would either starve to death or had to try to raid you.
Compare this to tropical regions where you can pick food from the trees all year round, and although life as a hunter-gatherer is not easy, one does not need to plan ahead for an entire year. Humans there remained on a tribal level just as they lived tens of thousands of years ago, until fairly recently when they were contacted by more advanced civilizations. |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | ### Imagine this:
The year is 2222 and human technology has advanced to the point that we are able to reach and colonize other planets. Life on Earth is thriving and things are going really well. However, there is still one problem. **The Amish.** They are still living their lives as they always have, but now they're using space that the government wants to use for other things. Invoking eminent domain, the government buys all of their land and, in return, transports all of the Amish to a (relatively) nearby planet on which they can all live. After receiving the means by which to build up life as they had it on Earth, the colony is never touched again, allowing the residents to remain there leading their simple lives.
**While this situation would almost never happen, there are some points it brings to light.** Just because a society has not reached a certain level of technology does not mean that they are unable to do so. As the Amish choose to live a life without many of the luxuries of modern life, another society could choose not to pursue further technological advancements for many reasons besides necessity. Maybe they have a religion that forbids the use of a certain material necessary for advancing technology. A scientist in their distant past may have caused a great war with his inventing, so a ban has gone out preventing certain technology. The society may just be content with life as they have it. While this information may not all prove to be useful to you, considering the fact that societies can be primitive by choice is a worthwhile one in my opinion.
*Note: I have absolutely nothing against the Amish, and instead merely consider the more general suppositions to still be interesting ones to consider.* | Extreme lack of supplies could exist in this planet that causes this species to spend nearly all of its time scavenging compared to engineering |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | Two big factors:
1. Limited resources. If everything is expended to support themselves, they will not have the faculties to invent new things. They may even spend their idle time sitting about so as to not waste more calories when they don't have them.
2. Local maxima. If they have achieved peak effectiveness such that incremental changes will not make the situation better, any attempts to innovate will be a waste of resources, because great leaps are rare. Also this discourages innovation because it's a pure waste. | No need to plan ahead
---------------------
In our history, complex civilizations developed where there was a need to plan ahead. In temperate regions, like Europe and China, people had to stockpile enough food and firewood to survive the winter. In the Middle East, they needed irrigation because of the arid climate. And in all the above cases, growing food was seasonal: there was one big harvest in a year, and that harvest had to last for an entire year. This required a complex organization of society, and that society needed to organize its protection, because if your neighbors had one bad harvest, they would either starve to death or had to try to raid you.
Compare this to tropical regions where you can pick food from the trees all year round, and although life as a hunter-gatherer is not easy, one does not need to plan ahead for an entire year. Humans there remained on a tribal level just as they lived tens of thousands of years ago, until fairly recently when they were contacted by more advanced civilizations. |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | No fossil fuels, no wood
------------------------
Without either fossil fuels or wood, any species is going to be hobbled in the fields of metallurgy and chemistry, as well most others. This goes double if there are very few lipids around.
Lack of wood also means that the most convenient building and carpentry material is unavailable.
Your civilisation will have nice baskets, and, if answers to other recent questions are true, jugs. And that's about all. Caves and wickerwork and jugs. | Have an existing spacefaring species from a different planet/solar system/whatever give opposing political factions nukes, tell them "the other guy" is going to kill them by the end of the day if they don't shoot first, and don't tell any of them how powerful the nukes are.
This will likely kill everyone on the moon and possibly destroy the moon itself. Even if there are survivors, they will be too few to recover any time in the next millennia and likely too radiation diseased to survive the next decade. And the flora and fauna will likely not able to sustain the survivors, so they probably won't even survive the year. And that's if they can find potable water. Maybe they survive a month, depending on how much food and clean water they have stocked in stores and homes.
So, no more development. |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | **Only one thing can stop development: an outside force**
"How do I retard development?" isn't an unknown question on the Stack. The fundamental problem is that evolution is naturally competitive, meaning it's filled with creatures that know how to solve problems. You want to stop them from solving problems, to act against their basic nature. There's only one way to do that if you want to avoid obvious inconsistencies in your creature's physiology and intelligence: use an outside force.
I'll be quoting from [my answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/203835/40609) to [this similar question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/203779/40609). It will read a bit oddly from time to time because the previous question was only asking to delay development for a millennium, but the point is relevant.
>
> **A body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force**
>
>
> I love Newton's first law — it can be applied to so much in our lives. The speed of technological and scientific advance is very much one of them.
>
>
> Let's start with the basics. Speaking of the species and not of any individual, humanity is naturally inquisitive. When faced with a problem, we'll work out a solution. When faced with hordes of oncoming potential BBQ, we invent a pike. When faced with the possibility of being alone on a Saturday night, we'll invent music. And when music proves insufficient, we'll invent gloves to make picking roses easier and an entire process for extracting the essence of the Cacao bean. I think it's not an understatement to say that humans love to tinker.
>
>
> *Especially when we're motivated.*
>
>
> And there's your loophole. The outside force to slow everything down. How do you demotivate humanity, especially when our reaction to most outside forces led to the aphorism, "Necessity is the mother of invention."
>
>
> So, knowing that the, shall we say, *wrong* kind of motivation will speed up the discovery of science and technology — what's the *right* kind of motivation that will slow it down?
>
>
> I'm going to suggest you'll need, well... *a series of unfortunate events.* (Honestly, I wasn't looking to use that phrase... it just became, well, a necessity....)
>
>
> **1. Regular Depopulation**
>
>
> Your first best motivator for slow advancement will be regular depopulation. Plagues, wars, famines, droughts, more plagues, regular falls of a mycorrhizoid spore,1 evolution of a particularly nasty badger... Humanity will eventually figure out how to overcome all these things, but if you keep the population low enough and spread out enough, it'll take forever.
>
>
> This helps you for a couple of reasons that would normally increase the fertility of innovation.
>
>
> * Low communication
> * Low leisure time
> * Early age of employment
> * Shorter life spans
> * Difficult acquisition of wealth
>
>
> **2. Lower Birth Rates**
>
>
> If a constant string of wars and disasters depopulating your world isn't your fare of choice, let's try something simpler: lower birth rates. One thing that appears very true: the more people you have to work on a problem, the faster you'll solve it with more creative results. So, if we use [this chart](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/) as our reference, you want to take 1,000 years to get from 1750 to 2021. That was 0.75 billion to 7.8 billion people for an average of 20 million new people "net" (meaning after all the reasons they're getting killed are taken into account) each year. You need to effectively divide that by four or more.
>
>
> **3. A Fertile Landscape**
>
>
> Curiously, history suggests you need winter to spur innovation. Areas with low population growth but highly fertile landscapes where people could happily live in grass huts and be simple hunter/gatherers did not innovate nearly as quickly as areas with limited growing seasons, limited resources, and/or strong climate changes between seasons.
>
>
> **4. Finally, let's make humanity more competitive and/or aggressive**
>
>
> Let's use music as an example. During the Renaissance music advanced tremendously due to *patronage.* Wealthy leaders and families would sponsor musicians (and artists of all kinds) to increase their personal status with the *new.* Yes, there were vendettas and wars, etc... but what if people were naturally more competitive? What if our social mores didn't favor compassion and life quite so much?
>
>
> What if the Medici's were satisfied with a little *new,* and then went out of their way to make sure *no one else found anything new?*
>
>
> This much more centralized, selfish, concerted effort to control innovation could justify a much longer delay. It's not enough to destroy a person's work — it's reasonable to destroy the person. In this way you actually minimize the number of clever problem solvers in your world. Given enough time, evolution would begin to favor the socially adept rather than the technologically adept.
>
>
> After a thousand years you'd have your modern cellphone-using, Netflix-watching cyber-surfers — but the consequence of the longer period might be a species of humanity that's much more naturally politic than we all are today.
>
>
> *That's almost scary to think about....*
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> 1 *It shouldn't surprise you that SciFi/Fantasy writers have come up with reasons to retard scientific progress. This one comes from Anne McCaffrey's* [Dragonriders of Pern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonriders_of_Pern) *series of books. The spores, called "[thread,](https://www.pern.nl/pe/T_table.html)" were a lifeform on a planet with an orbit that brought it close enough to the planet Pern to move some between planets. It was a neat plot device that, combined with the socio-economic conditions surrounding the politics of dragon riding, acted to retard scientific progress — in fact it caused it to regress.*
>
>
> | An exterior magical force is what I've done with some of my worlds; there is an enchantment of some sort that does not allow the people of the planet to advance past the technologies that aren't wanted for that world. E.g. when someone on a 1500s timelocked world creates a lightbulb, it just vanishes. Thus they can't advance past the technologies they already have, because they physically can't. |
238,948 | How could a really intelligent species be kept from developing? For clarification, this species is the only creature of intelligent thought on the planet and they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon. However, they can't develop to the level that Britain reached in the industrial revolution. | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/238948",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/99785/"
] | **Only one thing can stop development: an outside force**
"How do I retard development?" isn't an unknown question on the Stack. The fundamental problem is that evolution is naturally competitive, meaning it's filled with creatures that know how to solve problems. You want to stop them from solving problems, to act against their basic nature. There's only one way to do that if you want to avoid obvious inconsistencies in your creature's physiology and intelligence: use an outside force.
I'll be quoting from [my answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/203835/40609) to [this similar question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/203779/40609). It will read a bit oddly from time to time because the previous question was only asking to delay development for a millennium, but the point is relevant.
>
> **A body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force**
>
>
> I love Newton's first law — it can be applied to so much in our lives. The speed of technological and scientific advance is very much one of them.
>
>
> Let's start with the basics. Speaking of the species and not of any individual, humanity is naturally inquisitive. When faced with a problem, we'll work out a solution. When faced with hordes of oncoming potential BBQ, we invent a pike. When faced with the possibility of being alone on a Saturday night, we'll invent music. And when music proves insufficient, we'll invent gloves to make picking roses easier and an entire process for extracting the essence of the Cacao bean. I think it's not an understatement to say that humans love to tinker.
>
>
> *Especially when we're motivated.*
>
>
> And there's your loophole. The outside force to slow everything down. How do you demotivate humanity, especially when our reaction to most outside forces led to the aphorism, "Necessity is the mother of invention."
>
>
> So, knowing that the, shall we say, *wrong* kind of motivation will speed up the discovery of science and technology — what's the *right* kind of motivation that will slow it down?
>
>
> I'm going to suggest you'll need, well... *a series of unfortunate events.* (Honestly, I wasn't looking to use that phrase... it just became, well, a necessity....)
>
>
> **1. Regular Depopulation**
>
>
> Your first best motivator for slow advancement will be regular depopulation. Plagues, wars, famines, droughts, more plagues, regular falls of a mycorrhizoid spore,1 evolution of a particularly nasty badger... Humanity will eventually figure out how to overcome all these things, but if you keep the population low enough and spread out enough, it'll take forever.
>
>
> This helps you for a couple of reasons that would normally increase the fertility of innovation.
>
>
> * Low communication
> * Low leisure time
> * Early age of employment
> * Shorter life spans
> * Difficult acquisition of wealth
>
>
> **2. Lower Birth Rates**
>
>
> If a constant string of wars and disasters depopulating your world isn't your fare of choice, let's try something simpler: lower birth rates. One thing that appears very true: the more people you have to work on a problem, the faster you'll solve it with more creative results. So, if we use [this chart](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/) as our reference, you want to take 1,000 years to get from 1750 to 2021. That was 0.75 billion to 7.8 billion people for an average of 20 million new people "net" (meaning after all the reasons they're getting killed are taken into account) each year. You need to effectively divide that by four or more.
>
>
> **3. A Fertile Landscape**
>
>
> Curiously, history suggests you need winter to spur innovation. Areas with low population growth but highly fertile landscapes where people could happily live in grass huts and be simple hunter/gatherers did not innovate nearly as quickly as areas with limited growing seasons, limited resources, and/or strong climate changes between seasons.
>
>
> **4. Finally, let's make humanity more competitive and/or aggressive**
>
>
> Let's use music as an example. During the Renaissance music advanced tremendously due to *patronage.* Wealthy leaders and families would sponsor musicians (and artists of all kinds) to increase their personal status with the *new.* Yes, there were vendettas and wars, etc... but what if people were naturally more competitive? What if our social mores didn't favor compassion and life quite so much?
>
>
> What if the Medici's were satisfied with a little *new,* and then went out of their way to make sure *no one else found anything new?*
>
>
> This much more centralized, selfish, concerted effort to control innovation could justify a much longer delay. It's not enough to destroy a person's work — it's reasonable to destroy the person. In this way you actually minimize the number of clever problem solvers in your world. Given enough time, evolution would begin to favor the socially adept rather than the technologically adept.
>
>
> After a thousand years you'd have your modern cellphone-using, Netflix-watching cyber-surfers — but the consequence of the longer period might be a species of humanity that's much more naturally politic than we all are today.
>
>
> *That's almost scary to think about....*
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> 1 *It shouldn't surprise you that SciFi/Fantasy writers have come up with reasons to retard scientific progress. This one comes from Anne McCaffrey's* [Dragonriders of Pern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonriders_of_Pern) *series of books. The spores, called "[thread,](https://www.pern.nl/pe/T_table.html)" were a lifeform on a planet with an orbit that brought it close enough to the planet Pern to move some between planets. It was a neat plot device that, combined with the socio-economic conditions surrounding the politics of dragon riding, acted to retard scientific progress — in fact it caused it to regress.*
>
>
> | A frame challenege:
>
> they have a population of about 50 million across the planet about the size of the moon.
>
>
>
And by "the moon" I guess you mean the Moon, Luna, the moon of Earth.
Part One: Facts About the Moon.
The Moon has a mean radius of 1,737.4 kilometers (0.2727 that of Earth), a surface area of 3.793 times ten to the 7th power square kilometers (0.074 that of Earth) and a volume of 2.1958 times ten to the 10th power cubic kilometers (0.02 that of Earth).
The Moon has a mass of 7.342 times ten to the 22nd power kilograms (0.0123 Earth), a mean density of 3.344 grams per cubic centimeter (0.606 Earth), and a surface gravity of 1.622 meters per second per second (0.1653 Earth).
But what is important about the Moon is its escape velocity of 2.38 kilometers per second. That escape velocity is far too low to retain an atmosphere at the temperatures of Earth. If you want your aliens to use liquid water and breathe oxygen you have a big problem.
Part Two: A Titanic Solution.
If you want the aliens to live on a very, very cold world and have an exotic alien biochemestry you can make their planet a bit bigger than Earth's moon, the size of Satern's largest moon Titan, which has an atmoshere a bit denser than Earth's atmosphere.
Part Three: A Small But Dense World.
But if you want the aliens to live on a world warm enough for liquid surface water and with plenty of oxygen in the air you have the problems that the escape velocity of a planet "about the size of the moon" will be totally inadquate to retain an atmosphere for long enough.
But the question says
>
> the planet about the size of the moon.
>
>
>
"The size" means the dimensions, not the mass or density. If a world has the dimensions of the Moon, but a high enough mean density and mass, it can have a high enough escape velocity to retain an atmosphere for long enough. Possibly as high as the 11.186 kilometers per second of Earth's escape velocity, which is obviously high enough.
Since the moon has 0.02 the volume of the Earth, a world the size of the Moon would have 0.02 the mass of Earth if it had the mean densiity of Earth (which is 5.514 grams per cubic centimeter).
According to this online escape velocity calculator, <https://www.calctool.org/astrophysics/escape-velocity> if a world has 0.2727 the radius of Earth, and has the same density as Earth and thus has 0.02 the mass of Earth, it will have an escape velocity of 3.0293 kilometers per second, better than the Moon's 2.38 kilometers per second.
So if your world has the size of the Moon and twice the density of Earth (11.028 grams per cubic centimeter) it will have 0.04 times the mass of Earth and an escape velocity of 4.284 kilometers per second.
So if your world has the size of the Moon and three times the density of Earth (16.542 grams per cubic centimeter) it will have 0.06 times the mass of Earth and an escape velocity of 5.247 kilometers per second.
So if your world has the size of the Moon and four times the density of Earth (22.056 grams per cubic centimeter) it will have 0.08 times the mass of Earth and an escape velocity of 6.059 kilometers per second.
And under some conditions an escape velocity of about 6.25 kilometers per second might be adequate to retain an oxygen atmosphere for about 100 million years, a loss rate slow enough that it might be gradually replaced.
Part Four: A planet Artificially Constructed Out of Irridium.
Unfortunately, no elements which are common in the universe have a density anywhere near 22.056 grams per cubic centimeter. No planet willnaturlaly form with a desnity near that. So an advanced civilization would have to amass rare heavy elements and build your planet out of them.
Osmium has a density of 22.59 grams per cubic centimeter. But it reacts with oxygen to form osmium tetroxide, which is very toxic and reactive. Iridium is almost as dense, with 22.56 grams per cubic centimeter.
So an advanced civilization might build your planet out of iridium and put a layer of rocks and soil a few miles thick on the top, and import water and atmospheric gases, and seed it with life.
Part Five: A Small Planet With a Black Hole Inside It.
Another way to get a planet not much bigger than the Moon to have a high enough escape velocity would be to have a primordial black hole of planetary mass encounter the planet and fall into its center, thus increasing the density, mass and escape velocity of the combined world.
How long would the world last before the primordial black hole swallowed up the entire world?
I asked such a question once:
[How long could a planet or moon survive if it had an Earth mass black hole within it?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/202273/how-long-could-a-planet-or-moon-survive-if-it-had-an-earth-mass-black-hole-withi)
But I am not certain that any of the answers correctly allowed for the extreme conditions of pressure and gravity inside the world just outside the event horizon of the black hole. One of the answers says "billions of years", which is hopeful.
Part Six: A Shellworld
Or possibly the super advanced society which terraformed your little world and gave it a breathable atmosphere would have kept the atmosphere from escaping into space by putting a roof on the world. That would make it what is called a shellworld.
>
> A shellworld[1](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/202273/how-long-could-a-planet-or-moon-survive-if-it-had-an-earth-mass-black-hole-withi)[3] is any of several types of hypothetical megastructures:
>
>
> A planet or a planetoid turned into series of concentric matryoshka doll-like layers supported by massive pillars. A shellworld of this type features prominently in Iain M. Banks' novel Matter.
>
>
> megastructure consisting of multiple layers of shells suspended above each other by orbital rings supported by hypothetical mass stream technology. This type of shellworld can be theoretically suspended above any type of stellar body, including planets, gas giants, stars and black holes. The most massive type of shellworld could be built around supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies.
>
>
> An inflated canopy holding high pressure air around an otherwise airless world to create a breathable atmosphere.[4] The pressure of the contained air supports the weight of the shell.
>
>
> Completely hollow shell worlds can also be created on a planetary or larger scale by contained gas alone, also called bubbleworlds or gravitational balloons, as long as the outward pressure from the contained gas balances the gravitational contraction of the entire structure, resulting in no net force on the shell. The scale is limited only by the mass of gas enclosed; the shell can be made of any mundane material. The shell can have an additional atmosphere on the outside.[5][6]
>
>
>
The third type of shellworld would be the type necessary to retain an atmosphere on a planetary mass world with a low escape velocity.
I note that when the aliens living on your planet became advanced enough to be interested in space flight, they should discover there is an air supported canopy holding in their planetary atmosphere and realize that a rocket launch through the canopy could make a hole large enough to let all of the air out, killing everyone.
Of course, the question asks for ways to keep the aliens from reaching a 18th century early industtrialrevolution level of science and technology, so they won't advance to an early space age level in the story anyway.
Part Seven: Artifical Gravity Generators.
I know nothing about the plot of the story. But if Earth humans travel to that world to meet the natives, their methods of interstellar travel may make it a space opera type story. And in many space opera type stories advanced societies can use machines to generate gravity where desired.
In Jack Williamson's space opera *The Legion of Space* (1934, 1947) humans have colonized the solar system. They have terraformed many small worlds, giving them breathable atmospheres and using gravity generators to give them comfortable surface gravities and escape velocities high enough to retain their new atmopsheres. Evn a world as tiny as Phobos, the larger Martian Moon, has been terraformed to be habitable.
Of corrse the artifical gravity genenerators which enable small worlds to retain their atmpospheres better be extremely reliable.
Anyway, an advanced society could have given your small world a breatheable atmopshere and installed (hopefully) everlasting gravity generators to keep the atmosphere from escaping into space.
Part Eight: Conclusion.
I am all for science fiction writers creating fictional habitable planets which are too small to be naturally habitable, but only when the writers realize the problem with such small worlds, and use some plausible (in a science fiction sense) methods for those planets to be made habitable and remain habitable. |
2,177,886 | I have a VSPackage that I would like to get information similar to that shown in the locals window when in debug mode (the values of variables for the current context).
I have been experimenting with the DTE.Debugger.CurrentStackFrame instance which looked interesting because it exposed Argument and Local collections of expressions. However, I can't see a way of getting the value of an expression as an object - the Value property just seems to be the ToString value. | 2010/02/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2177886",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/101642/"
] | It is not possible to get ahold of the value as an object. Mainly because the value doesn't exist in the same process as your VS Package. It exists in the debugee process. The Visual Studio Debugger has to go through the CLR API's to manipulate the value. The best you can do is get ahold of the string value from the VS Package. | You can get access to actual objects using a Visual Studio Visualizer. The info can be found [here](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/zayyhzts%28v=VS.80%29.aspx). |
40,778,576 | I have two panels in my dashboard and i have applied a filter(select month) in the first panel and the issue i face is the same filter cannot be applied in panel 2.
I don't want to apply same filter in panel 2 again . I want filter in panel 1 to control both the panels.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z6uT3.jpg)panel 1
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wxFLs.jpg)panel 2.jpg
Thanks in advance.... | 2016/11/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/40778576",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7017824/"
] | You can't like this. Your only option is to put the month in the filter bar :/ | Try to embed the two panels into a container and apply the filter to it. This is the way to sinchronize scroll bars between two different grids, for example.
Regards! |
9,440,488 | I saw a good article explaining how to have .net apps communicate directly with each other (http://ryanfarley.com/blog/archive/2004/05/10/605.aspx), but it involved overriding the WndProc method in your form which I obviously can't do in vb6.
Do any other methods of inter-application communication exist that could be utilized in vb6?
I am about to start a new project in .net, but there are vb6 forms I will not be able to port as soon as I will need them. After considering a couple of different designs I've decided that it may be best to just let the vb6 app run in the background and, when notified to do so, it could present any forms I need it to and then notify the .net application when the form has been closed. | 2012/02/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9440488",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1019215/"
] | There are many alternatives. If you say more about your requirements, I can provide a more detailed answer.
In the mean time, have a look at named pipes:
<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/871044>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365590(v=vs.85).aspx>
If your programs reside on different servers:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb546085.aspx>
They are a reliable method of inter-process communication that do not require any specific OS setup, available to both .NET and VB6. | You could make your VB6 EXE an ActiveX EXE (COM server) and then have the .Net component call it via COM interop. I.e. just [add a reference](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cwys3b23.aspx) to the VB6 EXE on the COM tab of the project references dialog.
Alternatively you could use WCF. Create a COM-visible DLL in .Net to act as a wrapper for the WCF communications, so that the VB6 can participate. You could use named pipes: I recommend using the built-in .Net [support](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb546085.aspx) in a COM-visible DLL so that the VB6 can call it.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually tried this, but it really should be simpler than accessing the named pipes API from VB6. |
90,592 | I am in the process of migrating to a new AD DS from AD 2000. We have Exchange 2003 in the old and in the new domains. I am wondering if and how it's possible since I will be doing a slow migration (a group of users each day) to allow the users who have been moved to the new Domain and Exchange server to be able to still see and send mail to the other users on the old domain and exchange server. Microsoft KB articles are requested but not required for answers. | 2009/12/03 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/90592",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/8093/"
] | Based on your comment to TJ, it sounds like you're looking for a unified Global Address List between the organizations and email delivery (presumably sharing the same Internet domain name) between both organizations.
re: the GAL - Your choice is between third-party software or scripting something up yourself.
If you're going to do "a few users a day", you might be best off exporting the user list from both organizations using something like [CSVDE](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327620), slicing and dicing that list using Excel, and generating an import for both directories to create mail-enabled contact objects in the opposing directory. In that way, then, you could have a unified GAL.
Each day when you move users, you'll be deleting the mail-enabled contact corresponding to them in the destination organization, creating their new mailbox in the destination organization, deleting their mailbox in the source organization, and creating a mail-enabled contact in the source organization referring to their new mailbox. This could be automated by a script that queried each directory and performed the appropriate creates / deletes of mail-enabled contacts, but you can easily do all that by hand.
That would get you a unified GAL. If you need unified distribution lists between both organizations you'll have to manually keep those in sync, too. A script would handle that better, but you could do it by hand.
Finally, for getting SMTP delivery sharing the same domain name you'll need to configure each of your Exchange 2003 servers to ["Forward all messages with unresolved recipients"](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb676395.aspx) to the other Exchange 2003 server computer. (You can have the potential for mail loops here, but the loops will be short-circuited by the maximum hop count specified on the SMTP virtual servers. As long as you're filtering incoming email at the border of the network for valid recipients only, this shouldn't be a major issue and something you can live with until you retire the old Exchange 2003 installation.)
If you haven't started yet, I'd seriously consider the need to perform the migration at all. Virtually anything that's "wrong" with your existing Active Directory can be fixed in-place rather than peforming a painful cross-forest migration and email coexistance as I've described above. Getting together with somebody who is very familiar with Active Directory and explaining your reasons for wanting to migrate may shed light on a much cheaper and faster solution to your problems. Leveling the directory and starting over really should be a last-resort measure (getting away from toxic schema modifications, etc).
If you don't mind sharing, I'd be interested to hear what kind of specific problemms you're having with your current Active Directory installation. If it's not something you're comfortable sharing here, I'd be interested in corresponding with you off this site (email, etc) briefly if you're interested. While I certainly take the recommendation of Microsoft re: your Active Directory to have a lot of credibility, it shocks me that they'd recommend leveling the directory unless there are really major problems. | What you're doing is essentially a cross-forest migration of Exchange users. The Exchange Deployment guide has a section of this, find it at <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125074%28EXCHG.65%29.aspx>. (Look for "Migrating Accounts and Mailboxes Across Forests") |
29,265 | I have a cell with wrapped text content in Excel and I want to format the cell so that its height will adjust to fit the content which can span over several lines. How can I achieve this behavior? | 2009/08/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/29265",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1868/"
] | If it doesn't automatically do it, then place your cursor over the small line between row numbers (ex: between 1 and 2) and double click, this will resize the row (directly above the small line, in the example: 1) so that everything is visible (from a vertical aspect). | Do you know macro? Put the following code in
>
> Application.ActiveCell.WrapText = True
>
>
>
inside your Worksheet\_SelectionChange subroutine. |
29,265 | I have a cell with wrapped text content in Excel and I want to format the cell so that its height will adjust to fit the content which can span over several lines. How can I achieve this behavior? | 2009/08/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/29265",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1868/"
] | From <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/149663>
To adjust the height of the row to fit all the text in a cell, follow these steps:
Select the row.
>
> In Microsoft Office Excel 2003 and in earlier versions of Excel, point
> to Row on the Format menu, and then click AutoFit.
>
>
> In Microsoft Office Excel 2007, click the Home tab, click Format in
> the Cells group, and then click AutoFit Row Height.
>
>
>
Also Works when all the rows are selected | The only way I can get it to work as expected is to highlight the whole sheet with CTRL-A, unclick the "Wrap Text" button in the toolbar, then re-select it. No other settings change, but each row is now the "proper" height for its contents. |
29,265 | I have a cell with wrapped text content in Excel and I want to format the cell so that its height will adjust to fit the content which can span over several lines. How can I achieve this behavior? | 2009/08/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/29265",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1868/"
] | Note that autofit doesn't work on merged cells. You have to do it manually.
See this Microsoft answer:
[You cannot use the AutoFit feature for rows or columns that contain merged cells in Excel](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/212010) | The only way I can get it to work as expected is to highlight the whole sheet with CTRL-A, unclick the "Wrap Text" button in the toolbar, then re-select it. No other settings change, but each row is now the "proper" height for its contents. |
29,265 | I have a cell with wrapped text content in Excel and I want to format the cell so that its height will adjust to fit the content which can span over several lines. How can I achieve this behavior? | 2009/08/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/29265",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1868/"
] | From <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/149663>
To adjust the height of the row to fit all the text in a cell, follow these steps:
Select the row.
>
> In Microsoft Office Excel 2003 and in earlier versions of Excel, point
> to Row on the Format menu, and then click AutoFit.
>
>
> In Microsoft Office Excel 2007, click the Home tab, click Format in
> the Cells group, and then click AutoFit Row Height.
>
>
>
Also Works when all the rows are selected | Do you know macro? Put the following code in
>
> Application.ActiveCell.WrapText = True
>
>
>
inside your Worksheet\_SelectionChange subroutine. |
29,265 | I have a cell with wrapped text content in Excel and I want to format the cell so that its height will adjust to fit the content which can span over several lines. How can I achieve this behavior? | 2009/08/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/29265",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1868/"
] | From <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/149663>
To adjust the height of the row to fit all the text in a cell, follow these steps:
Select the row.
>
> In Microsoft Office Excel 2003 and in earlier versions of Excel, point
> to Row on the Format menu, and then click AutoFit.
>
>
> In Microsoft Office Excel 2007, click the Home tab, click Format in
> the Cells group, and then click AutoFit Row Height.
>
>
>
Also Works when all the rows are selected | If it doesn't automatically do it, then place your cursor over the small line between row numbers (ex: between 1 and 2) and double click, this will resize the row (directly above the small line, in the example: 1) so that everything is visible (from a vertical aspect). |
388,296 | Windows (in this case XP) allows me to simply "share a folder" via its [SMB protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block), and I can access it via Linux quite nicely (with [Samba](http://www.samba.org/)), no questions asked.
That's what bothers me, it just does not feel secure, and the ["security" section](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#Security) of the Wikipedia page is discouraging.
I love being able to just tell Windows to share a folder and imediately have these personal files on the Linux box (and with R/W access), but I don't want these files to be deletable or even accessible from the internet. I'm not even being asked a password! Can people all over the world access my shared folders without a password too?
The topography is: One machine Windows XP SP3, the other Linux Mint Debian edition, and both connected to the internet (and to each other) via a router that my ISP gave me. It has WPA-encrypted Wi-FI, but I connect these two via LAN cable.
Am I secure in my usage of Windows' file sharing (maybe by being behind a router)? Do I have to do something? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/388296",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/19668/"
] | A properly configured router with a built in firewall and network address translation (NAT) should give reasonable protection.
There are many websites that will perform a port scan and tell you what file-sharing and other services are visible through your router. For example "Shields Up" at www.grc.com.
*Other such services exist, you can also do it yourself using a port scanner such as nmap*
It is good practice to use user-ids and passwords to protect your file shares. Windows allows you to choose the level of security. Samba on Linux can work with at least some types of Windows file-sharing security (it's a while since I used it). | A work around I use is to put a 3rd party firewall on XP (disable XP firewall), set a rule to only allow the ip address of your other PCs to be able to connect to the XP box, I use the old Sygate firewall for this on all my XP boxes. Sygate is no longer supported but works flawlessly for me.
Once installed you can allow or deny outbound using the popups when the show, and to set inbound for your network adapters go to Tools >Options> Network Neighborhood Tab in the sygate interface to configure inbound protection, Untick "Allow others to share my files and printers", do this for all network adapters you have using the drop down box to change adapters, then hit ok. Now go to Tools>Advanced Rules to allow the IPs and protocols/ports you need using the "add" button.
[I use Sygate free version 5.6.2808](http://www.oldversion.com/Sygate-Personal-Firewall.html)
.
.
.
 |
557,115 | Is the writer employing a mixed metaphor here?
>
> A part of her was sinking languidly down into the passive pleasure of having returned to the familiar—**like a pebble**, she had been picked up and hurled back into the pond, and sunk down through the layer of green scum, through the secret cool depths to the soft layer of mud at the bottom, sending up bubbles of relief and joy. A part of her twitched, stirred **like a fin in resentment**: why was the pond so muddy and stagnant? Why had nothing changed? She had changed—why did it not keep up with her?
>
>
> | 2021/01/10 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/557115",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/405662/"
] | I would describe it as a failed attempt at an [extended metaphor](https://literarydevices.net/extended-metaphor/).
It is certainly mixed in the sense that pebbles don't have fins. | There are many many figures of speech.
But "like" is a "simile" and **simile** describes something as being **similar** to something.
It directly gives information to the readers to let them know how something can be similar to something.
For mixed metaphor, you can access here : <https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | TeamCity does not have extensive integration with JIRA as Bamboo does, and I am not aware of a plugin that provides it. TeamCity does however, offer a generic integration option to external sites which can be used for basic JIRA integration.
From their documentation:
>
> TeamCity allows to map patterns in VCS change comments to arbitrary HTML pieces using regular expression search and replace patterns. One of the most common usages is to map an issue ID mentioning into a hyperlink to the issue page in the issue tracking system.
>
>
>
Read more here: [Mapping External Links in Comments](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TCD4/Mapping+External+Links+in+Comments)
I haven't set this up yet on our local TeamCity, so I can't testify as to how well it works. | TeamCity has 3 build in Issue Tracking Systems:
1.BugZilla
2.JIRA
3.YouTrack
And there's a way to install the custom plugin for other ITS.
I did an integration with FogBugz issue tracking system with TeamCity 9.x.
<https://github.com/jozefizso/teamcity-fogbugz> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | TeamCity 5 EAP has support for showing issues from Jira on the tabs of your build.
[EAP Release Notes](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TW/Darjeeling+5.0+EAP+Release+Notes)
you still don't have the integration in Jira itself which I would prefer
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6JPQU.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wy171.jpg) | TeamCity has 3 build in Issue Tracking Systems:
1.BugZilla
2.JIRA
3.YouTrack
And there's a way to install the custom plugin for other ITS.
I did an integration with FogBugz issue tracking system with TeamCity 9.x.
<https://github.com/jozefizso/teamcity-fogbugz> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | There is this plugin
<https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.stiltsoft.jira.teamcity> | TeamCity does have a free plugin for Atlassian Confluence. Its provides a nice way to show your build status on your wiki.
You can find it in the Atlassian marketplace:
<https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.stiltsoft.confluence.extra.confluence-teamcity-plugin> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | TeamCity 5 EAP has support for showing issues from Jira on the tabs of your build.
[EAP Release Notes](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TW/Darjeeling+5.0+EAP+Release+Notes)
you still don't have the integration in Jira itself which I would prefer
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6JPQU.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wy171.jpg) | There is this plugin
<https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.stiltsoft.jira.teamcity> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | TeamCity 5 EAP has support for showing issues from Jira on the tabs of your build.
[EAP Release Notes](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TW/Darjeeling+5.0+EAP+Release+Notes)
you still don't have the integration in Jira itself which I would prefer
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6JPQU.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wy171.jpg) | TeamCity does not have extensive integration with JIRA as Bamboo does, and I am not aware of a plugin that provides it. TeamCity does however, offer a generic integration option to external sites which can be used for basic JIRA integration.
From their documentation:
>
> TeamCity allows to map patterns in VCS change comments to arbitrary HTML pieces using regular expression search and replace patterns. One of the most common usages is to map an issue ID mentioning into a hyperlink to the issue page in the issue tracking system.
>
>
>
Read more here: [Mapping External Links in Comments](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TCD4/Mapping+External+Links+in+Comments)
I haven't set this up yet on our local TeamCity, so I can't testify as to how well it works. |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | There is this plugin
<https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.stiltsoft.jira.teamcity> | TeamCity has 3 build in Issue Tracking Systems:
1.BugZilla
2.JIRA
3.YouTrack
And there's a way to install the custom plugin for other ITS.
I did an integration with FogBugz issue tracking system with TeamCity 9.x.
<https://github.com/jozefizso/teamcity-fogbugz> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | TeamCity 5 EAP has support for showing issues from Jira on the tabs of your build.
[EAP Release Notes](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TW/Darjeeling+5.0+EAP+Release+Notes)
you still don't have the integration in Jira itself which I would prefer
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6JPQU.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wy171.jpg) | TeamCity does have a free plugin for Atlassian Confluence. Its provides a nice way to show your build status on your wiki.
You can find it in the Atlassian marketplace:
<https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.stiltsoft.confluence.extra.confluence-teamcity-plugin> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | TeamCity does not have extensive integration with JIRA as Bamboo does, and I am not aware of a plugin that provides it. TeamCity does however, offer a generic integration option to external sites which can be used for basic JIRA integration.
From their documentation:
>
> TeamCity allows to map patterns in VCS change comments to arbitrary HTML pieces using regular expression search and replace patterns. One of the most common usages is to map an issue ID mentioning into a hyperlink to the issue page in the issue tracking system.
>
>
>
Read more here: [Mapping External Links in Comments](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TCD4/Mapping+External+Links+in+Comments)
I haven't set this up yet on our local TeamCity, so I can't testify as to how well it works. | TeamCity does have a free plugin for Atlassian Confluence. Its provides a nice way to show your build status on your wiki.
You can find it in the Atlassian marketplace:
<https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.stiltsoft.confluence.extra.confluence-teamcity-plugin> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | **Yes, they are comming out with their own issue tracker.
Read more in this blogpost:
[first eap for jetbrains issue tracker Charisma](http://blogs.jetbrains.com/teamcity/2009/05/21/first-eap-for-jetbrains-issue-tracker/)**
you can try it here [Charisma](http://jetbrains.net/tracker/issues/TW)
and here you can see [video for some of the features](http://jetbrains.net/tracker/welcome)
you can download the EAP version from here
[Charisma EAP download](http://jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TSYSPUB/Early+Access+Program) | TeamCity has 3 build in Issue Tracking Systems:
1.BugZilla
2.JIRA
3.YouTrack
And there's a way to install the custom plugin for other ITS.
I did an integration with FogBugz issue tracking system with TeamCity 9.x.
<https://github.com/jozefizso/teamcity-fogbugz> |
754,195 | Is it possible for TeamCity to integrate to JIRA like how Bamboo integrates to JIRA? I couldnt find any documentation on JetBrains website that talks about issue-tracker integration.
FYI: I heard that TeamCity is coming out with their own tracker called Charisma. Is that true? | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/754195",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/65313/"
] | TeamCity 5 EAP has support for showing issues from Jira on the tabs of your build.
[EAP Release Notes](http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TW/Darjeeling+5.0+EAP+Release+Notes)
you still don't have the integration in Jira itself which I would prefer
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6JPQU.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wy171.jpg) | **Yes, they are comming out with their own issue tracker.
Read more in this blogpost:
[first eap for jetbrains issue tracker Charisma](http://blogs.jetbrains.com/teamcity/2009/05/21/first-eap-for-jetbrains-issue-tracker/)**
you can try it here [Charisma](http://jetbrains.net/tracker/issues/TW)
and here you can see [video for some of the features](http://jetbrains.net/tracker/welcome)
you can download the EAP version from here
[Charisma EAP download](http://jetbrains.net/confluence/display/TSYSPUB/Early+Access+Program) |
10,296 | Currently, I am looking for a new accommodation, I don't have much experience in renting (this is my first year in Europe), Kindly I will be appreciated if you share your experience.
* what should I take care of when viewing?
* Contract rules that I should take care of?
* Did you face any bad experience before (share it if possible) | 2017/02/20 | [
"https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/10296",
"https://expatriates.stackexchange.com",
"https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/users/9887/"
] | Let's start with the "bad experiences" part of your question: This might be trivial for some, but: **Never ever pay any money before you've physically seen the apartment.** There are quite a few rent scammers who will give you all sorts of excuses for why you need to pay before you've seen the place - don't be fooled.
Now for some meta-advice:
* Ask a Dutch friend to come-with: The locals always spot things that foreigners don't.
* Don't sign anything on the spot if you can help it: If necessary, make an excuse about having to get approval from somewhere/someone, or something else which takes the pressure off of you.
* Compare your contract with other people's, especially other neighbors in your building if you can manage it, other tenants of the same landlord, or the previous tenant in your own apartment. (But don't make the landlord think you're snooping around too much.)
* There's an official (?) document of conditions which apply to all rental contract and follow from Dutch law, that has been [translated into English](https://www.tijdelijktweewoningen.nl/uploads/files/General%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20for%20lease%20of%20housing%20accomodation_juli_2003%5b4%5d.pdf). Read it. You don't need to insist to insert all of that into your actual contract, but you should make sure you're not agreeing to anything contrary to it - and that the landlord is passing off something he's required to do anyway as some sort of a great favor.
* Ask the landlord about an estimate of the energy cost for the apartment over the past year or so; specifically, ask if there is anything which causes excessive costs. That's essentially "fishing", but it's harder to lie about this than it is to just fail to mention it.
* Ask whether any recent rennovation of repair work has been done in the apartment over the past several years.
+ If something was done, ask about the cause and what was fixed.
+ If nothing was done, perhaps it's time to do some work on something (which you have previously thought of)
* Speaking of repair work - the way the apartment is right now is not entirely set in stone. It is not unacceptable to list issues that bother you and ask for them to be addressed; of course - there's a trade-off between the landlord wanting you to sign the contract and not wanting someone who'll nag him a lot.
* A tricky point which is not yet clear to me is, what kind of expenses is the landlord supposed to go to in fixing things, and how much are you supposed to chip in for things which naturally wear out or fail, due to regular daily use. Like changing worn-out carpeting, dust bins with a broken mechanism. or specialty lightbulbs.
* It is somehow customary in many places in the Netherlands to have *you*, the tenant, install your own *floorboards*. Yes, you heard me right. That is i-n-s-a-n-e, utterly and completely - but it's a collective insanity, it's not just your individual landlord.
* More tips might be coming. | That is a quite subjective question, so here is my the quite subjective answer.
I would look to:
* Price including agent fees and deposit
* Neighbourhood: infrastructure, criminal situation, recreation areas or points of interest
* Time travel to workplace
* Owner's common sense and openness: I would discuss possible scenarios like broken washing machine, required balcony chairs, problems with hitting
* Facilities in building and furniture in the apartment: is it fresh or recently re-decorated, how good isolated, double glassed, check mould in corners and bathroom
* Read contract: what are termination conditions, what are rent increase conditions, what are procedure for deposit return
However, with the current situation on the rent market in Amsterdam and neighbourhood, I should much my criteria and make decisions super fast. I should also trust a lot my intuition since in such short amount of time brain can not make proper conclusions.
If you have free money I would advise to go with an agent who will help you with finding, he will save your time, he will check your required conditions and can speak landlord or his agent language. |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | I think you identified the reason already:
>
> There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
>
>
>
There is a "middle class" of questions where the person asking doesn't have the expertise to answer them, but somebody else does, but in order to make such questions "profitable" to ask on the site, we need to have a wide variety of topical experts, many many more than we do now. | I have a PhD in physics and teach the subject at a community college, so I guess I would count as an expert. However, my expertise is concentrated in a couple of areas. My Q:A ratio is 29:262. Sometimes I ask questions about subjects I don't know as much about, e.g., field theory. Sometimes I ask questions and get zero answers, which is discouraging. I recently offered a small bounty on a question and still got zero answers. Other times I'm very, very happy with the answers I get, e.g.: [Radio antennas that are much shorter than the wavelength](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65068/radio-antennas-that-are-much-shorter-than-the-wavelength) and [What determines the angle of the cushion on a pool table?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62619/what-determines-the-angle-of-the-cushion-on-a-pool-table) . (In the latter, the answer was given in a comment -- this seems to happen more with nontrivial questions, maybe because people are less sure their answers are right.) |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | I think you identified the reason already:
>
> There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
>
>
>
There is a "middle class" of questions where the person asking doesn't have the expertise to answer them, but somebody else does, but in order to make such questions "profitable" to ask on the site, we need to have a wide variety of topical experts, many many more than we do now. | I recently asked [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71598/8563) precisely in the spirit to have more "expert" questions, and I'd like to share this thought while it is still fresh in my mind:
Reading a paper related to my research prompted a tangential question that became my Question. It took remarkably little time to form and emerged very clear and crisp in its full form. Essentially: "Oh, that's curious! It's not important here, but surely one can do better experiments now. I wonder what one would see then? What's the theory behind that, anyway?".
However, actually posting the question on the site was a pretty laborious effort of phrasing it correctly, furnishing it with the appropriate context for it to be answerable, and the mechanics of digging for the images and links and references. In this instance that effort was probably "cheaper" than trying to figure out an answer (which would involve some digging for the state-of-the-art on that measurement, at least, and I'm not in the mood for *more* papers), but this is probably rare. I also have rather faint hopes of that question getting an answer here, as I feel there are few molecular physicists around. |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | *Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more? I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there.*
Yes, we should encourage expert users to ask more questions in their area of expertise. I agree with you that the proportion of good questions would be greater if the experts shared more.
Here are five suggestions for experts considering contributing a question:
1) Answer your own questions.
2) Write questions for an audience of physicists trained outside your specialty.
3) Share the big, significant, important questions in your field.
4) Elaborate on the scientific news that does manage to get attention in the media.
5) Ask questions with answers that actually matter to the quality of life for people on our planet.
6) Be an example of reason, scientific methodology, and professionalism.
Reasons to contribute
1) We become what we write.
2) There are too few examples of scientific thinking available to people outside a university.
3) Good posts have a feedback effect by encouraging others – making physics.se more fun. | I have a PhD in physics and teach the subject at a community college, so I guess I would count as an expert. However, my expertise is concentrated in a couple of areas. My Q:A ratio is 29:262. Sometimes I ask questions about subjects I don't know as much about, e.g., field theory. Sometimes I ask questions and get zero answers, which is discouraging. I recently offered a small bounty on a question and still got zero answers. Other times I'm very, very happy with the answers I get, e.g.: [Radio antennas that are much shorter than the wavelength](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65068/radio-antennas-that-are-much-shorter-than-the-wavelength) and [What determines the angle of the cushion on a pool table?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62619/what-determines-the-angle-of-the-cushion-on-a-pool-table) . (In the latter, the answer was given in a comment -- this seems to happen more with nontrivial questions, maybe because people are less sure their answers are right.) |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | *Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more? I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there.*
Yes, we should encourage expert users to ask more questions in their area of expertise. I agree with you that the proportion of good questions would be greater if the experts shared more.
Here are five suggestions for experts considering contributing a question:
1) Answer your own questions.
2) Write questions for an audience of physicists trained outside your specialty.
3) Share the big, significant, important questions in your field.
4) Elaborate on the scientific news that does manage to get attention in the media.
5) Ask questions with answers that actually matter to the quality of life for people on our planet.
6) Be an example of reason, scientific methodology, and professionalism.
Reasons to contribute
1) We become what we write.
2) There are too few examples of scientific thinking available to people outside a university.
3) Good posts have a feedback effect by encouraging others – making physics.se more fun. | For me, if I have a question, I usually do the research myself and since I'm in grad school, I can use my library to get any paper I want to read.
But the other side of the coin is that I'm **paid** to ask questions and answer them. That's what research is about. And in my field, the competition for money is fierce and we have to be very careful to protect not just our results but the questions we are thinking about so we don't get sniped by our competition. So I **can't** ask my questions here.
And so I resort to answering questions rather than asking them. |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | I think you identified the reason already:
>
> There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
>
>
>
There is a "middle class" of questions where the person asking doesn't have the expertise to answer them, but somebody else does, but in order to make such questions "profitable" to ask on the site, we need to have a wide variety of topical experts, many many more than we do now. | A view from the other side: why *did* I ask [a question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71184/are-quantum-effects-significant-in-lens-design) here? As with others, I am/was an "expert" (PhD in astrophysics, although that was 10 years ago and I left academia directly after it). However, that doesn't mean I know everything about physics.
Therefore when an interesting (to me, anyway) debate was occurring on Photography.SE about classical vs quantum optics, the obvious thing to do was to send it over here, where people who are better at optics than I am would be able to help out. Sure, I probably *could* have done the research myself (and I had a strong suspicion as to the answer), but if there are friendly, clever folk here who will help me to confirm my thoughts, why not take advantage of that.
At this point, it probably helps that I both have a more than passing knowledge of the subject matter and am also an experienced user across other bits of Stack Exchange, so writing a "good" question was relatively easy for me. However, I'm not going to be unique in this - there are going to be other physicists who want answers to a question from a different area of physics. |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | Because writing a good question is *hard*. New users post questions that aren't so good -- not as much effort is put into it, etc etc. Veteran users are more careful about what they ask because they know hat it's like to be on the other side and will want to ask a question well-tailored to get answered.
While I'm no expert, I certainly have my times hen I get a physics question and I'm like "I'd better post this on SE". But I first sit and mull over how I'd phrase it. And then I make sure that I'v tried all I can to solve it by myself. In doing so, I usually solve the question on my own.
What would be beneficial is if experts self-answer tough, relevant conceptual confusions that they encounter and solve on their own. Instead of encouraging them to ask questions, which isn't exactly feasible due to what I mentioned above, we can encourage them to make more use of the "answer own question" feature.
I almost did that with [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/23895/7433). I and my friends had been discussing the apparent paradox, and later on I worked it out on my own. I was thinking of self-answering this, except my friend (to whom I had recommended the site), posted the question first.
---
Besides this, there's always the uncertainty that a question won't *get* an answer (See @DavidZaslavsky's answer). This doesn't apply to me as much as it applies to the experts here -- I'm reasonably certain that any questions I ask here would get a good answer. | I had a longer answer, but I will limit it to this, for what it is worth.
I do write many more answers than questions. I answer only relatively
simple questions, as my math is no longer what it used to be.
I am no expert in physics, but I am a scientist, and I can
often find my own answers. I also learn by answering questions
(typically what I did about the working of ABS brakes, on which I knew
practically nothing).
I did ask a very decent [question of physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69677/), for which I was downvoted
(-1) for no reason I could identify (52 views). A few comments, but no
answer. I provided an answer myself (read apparently by no one). The
purpose of the question was to understand how people make assumptions,
as the answer to that question contradicted assumptions made in a
previous one that was referenced. I still believe it was a good
question, even though the purpose of it was (barely) hidden. I think
understanding methods of reasonning is also part of science.
This is not encouraging.
I do have questions to ask. But I let them ripen. I feel that I will
not (should not ?) get many chances of asking, and I better ask the
right questions. |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | I believe I am in the minority of [high rep](https://physics.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&filter=all) users who ask a lot of questions. I've asked 65 questions, and this is high compared to the next 5 users ahead of me, who've asked 3, 2, 20, 29, and 2 questions. When someone writes 200 answers and asks 2 questions, then after all the time they've spent on the site, it's pretty obvious to call it a pattern.
So why do so many advanced users ask few, if any, questions? And why am I an exception? Easy - I'm an engineer, not a physicist. Ok, I'm sure we have plenty of engineers and otherwise non-professional physicists here, and among the ranks of the high rep users. Myself, I've just always had pent up angst against physics, since I started out excelling in it, but specialized in more lucrative directions.
Now, about my working theory for why high rep users don't ask questions... it's because **you can never form a question that can't be improved**. If we lived in a world with limited resources this wouldn't be true, but this site isn't like asking your colleague a quick question. You are offering a typed question (with access to LaTeX and formatting) to be immortalized forever in Google results. The browser you already have up has the capability for further research. But let's say you're at the extent of available resources. You've found an equation in a textbook that might have something wrong, but might not. Even if you ask the perfect question, almost no one will be able to answer it! By the time your question reaches the state of perfection, you're probably the most qualified person to answer it.
Here's an example of a random thought experiment I had.
[Why aren't gas planets and stars fuzzy?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/why-arent-gas-planets-and-stars-fuzzy)
In retrospect, it's fairly trivial. But yet, it's a highly upvoted question. If you share a curiosity with a genuine technical basis, other people will find it interesting. Being extremely difficult to answer isn't a requirement for questions here. If you're not willing to occasionally throw your hands up and say "why not, I'll do a question", then you'll rarely ever post one.
Experts would ask more questions if it was more "banter" than questions because their thoughts can be expanded on by all parties. Of course that has issues of scope. Stack Exchange Q&A format is a way of enforcing good structure and scope, and even so, we go outside that scope all the time. New questions are often answered by an answer on an old question that went off topic... and thus answered the new question. Seriously, it can get to be a problem with close votes. | I have a PhD in physics and teach the subject at a community college, so I guess I would count as an expert. However, my expertise is concentrated in a couple of areas. My Q:A ratio is 29:262. Sometimes I ask questions about subjects I don't know as much about, e.g., field theory. Sometimes I ask questions and get zero answers, which is discouraging. I recently offered a small bounty on a question and still got zero answers. Other times I'm very, very happy with the answers I get, e.g.: [Radio antennas that are much shorter than the wavelength](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65068/radio-antennas-that-are-much-shorter-than-the-wavelength) and [What determines the angle of the cushion on a pool table?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62619/what-determines-the-angle-of-the-cushion-on-a-pool-table) . (In the latter, the answer was given in a comment -- this seems to happen more with nontrivial questions, maybe because people are less sure their answers are right.) |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | I really like this kind of question. I will not really try to answer it, since I consider Mark Rovetta already answered it perfectly [somewhere else on this page](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4605/16689). Instead I will give my feeling and experience, as a user of this website from a research-like perspective.
I would like first to say that I already elaborated [somewhere else](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4138/16689) that the quality of the questions and answers sounds to me to depend on the topic. I pretty much like the condensed matter questions and answers on this website, as well as the quantum information ones for instance. And that's great because that's my research topics !
I have a background in superconductivity and quantum optics. So, as far as I can, I've tried to answer -- since less than one year I'm using SE -- the questions on superconductivity which were unanswered, and more generally on condensed matter when I know the answer. It appeared to me that the quantum optics questions are most of the time correctly answered, so I've nothing to add about them.
Since one year, I'm trying to learn -- as a post-doc -- more about topological issues in both condensed matter and quantum information topics. Clearly, I will not ask question here like
>
> Hey guys, I want to write an article about this or that, please do that for me !
>
>
>
which would be ridiculous. But at the same time, it's pretty hard to understand the problems at the edge of two topics.
How I'm using this site is as follow:
* Sometimes I just want to test some ideas with other communities people (especially high-energy physicists for instance) to compare their point of view with my poor-condensed-matter vision (like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46324/16689), or [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/65767/16689)).
* Sometimes I want easy access to a stream of articles, for which I would spend a lot of time finding relevant ones (like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69358/16689)), and which are related to my current problems.
* Sometimes I would like to understand in more details a point I've no time to stop on at the moment (like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71151/16689)), since it's just an aside of what I'm thinking at the moment.
* Sometimes I want to point out something I consider not well discussed in literature (like [this question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69141/16689), or [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/62282/16689)).
* Sometimes the questions are just something I consider funny when I think about them, and which could be interesting for someone else (like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/71587/16689)), but I've neither time nor interest to keep on thinking of.
* And yes, sometimes I'm asking purely fantasy, bulls... questions which are completely stupid (like [this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68456/16689)).
Most of the time, I try to make *useful* questions, not *clever* ones. I mean, I'm trying to ask questions which could be useful for others, not specifically dedicated to my problems of the moment. I'm usually writing on a piece of paper some questions I would like to answer, just inspired by the time I'm thinking about, most of the time after reading some papers. I feel some of them could be interesting for the SE community, so I try to publish them on this website. I do not think more than that !
The funny part is that two colleagues at my lab are using SE, too. We sometimes discuss the questions/answers together, to try to improve our understanding about specific staff for instance. What I want to point out here is that a researcher needs to discuss a lot in order to (un)validate her/his ideas, especially at the early stage of the elaboration of a new concept. To try to collect as much as possible opinions is the key I believe. This website is really useful for me in that respect. But still it's highly time consuming. As anything you have to type, you need to think about, read, write, clarify, read, write, think about ...
I'm trying to promote SE as much as I can around me (in the real life I mean). The most important reason why researchers do not use this website more often or as a working tool is simple I believe: **they don't have time** ! | I had a longer answer, but I will limit it to this, for what it is worth.
I do write many more answers than questions. I answer only relatively
simple questions, as my math is no longer what it used to be.
I am no expert in physics, but I am a scientist, and I can
often find my own answers. I also learn by answering questions
(typically what I did about the working of ABS brakes, on which I knew
practically nothing).
I did ask a very decent [question of physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69677/), for which I was downvoted
(-1) for no reason I could identify (52 views). A few comments, but no
answer. I provided an answer myself (read apparently by no one). The
purpose of the question was to understand how people make assumptions,
as the answer to that question contradicted assumptions made in a
previous one that was referenced. I still believe it was a good
question, even though the purpose of it was (barely) hidden. I think
understanding methods of reasonning is also part of science.
This is not encouraging.
I do have questions to ask. But I let them ripen. I feel that I will
not (should not ?) get many chances of asking, and I better ask the
right questions. |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | *Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more? I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there.*
Yes, we should encourage expert users to ask more questions in their area of expertise. I agree with you that the proportion of good questions would be greater if the experts shared more.
Here are five suggestions for experts considering contributing a question:
1) Answer your own questions.
2) Write questions for an audience of physicists trained outside your specialty.
3) Share the big, significant, important questions in your field.
4) Elaborate on the scientific news that does manage to get attention in the media.
5) Ask questions with answers that actually matter to the quality of life for people on our planet.
6) Be an example of reason, scientific methodology, and professionalism.
Reasons to contribute
1) We become what we write.
2) There are too few examples of scientific thinking available to people outside a university.
3) Good posts have a feedback effect by encouraging others – making physics.se more fun. | A view from the other side: why *did* I ask [a question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71184/are-quantum-effects-significant-in-lens-design) here? As with others, I am/was an "expert" (PhD in astrophysics, although that was 10 years ago and I left academia directly after it). However, that doesn't mean I know everything about physics.
Therefore when an interesting (to me, anyway) debate was occurring on Photography.SE about classical vs quantum optics, the obvious thing to do was to send it over here, where people who are better at optics than I am would be able to help out. Sure, I probably *could* have done the research myself (and I had a strong suspicion as to the answer), but if there are friendly, clever folk here who will help me to confirm my thoughts, why not take advantage of that.
At this point, it probably helps that I both have a more than passing knowledge of the subject matter and am also an experienced user across other bits of Stack Exchange, so writing a "good" question was relatively easy for me. However, I'm not going to be unique in this - there are going to be other physicists who want answers to a question from a different area of physics. |
4,571 | I've been kicking around this site for a little while now and I've realized that I'm very rarely even tempted to post a question. I'm an astronomy grad student with a background in physics, so naturally as I go about my life and work questions relevant to physics occur to me; it's one of my main areas of interest, after all. However, I feel like that same background/interests prevents me from actually wanting to post questions here. There is a very limited set of questions that (i) I think of and (ii) I can't reason out a plausible answer to, this is after all what my training as a physicist is supposed to make me capable of... or (iii) I can't find an answer to with a bit of research, another skill I think any self-respecting physicist possesses.
It seems I'm in good company. Most of the top answer authors on this site seem to have a ratio of questions to answers in the range of 1:100 or 1:1000. I wondered if this might be particular to Physics.SE (and other SE's where the topic is one that will naturally attract problem-solvers), and got sort of mixed results. SO's top answer authors barely ask anything, and likewise on Math.SE. Photography.SE, which I'd describe as a non-problem solving based topic, is similar as well. Bicycles.SE has somewhat more even Q:A ratios amongst its top users. Top users from Gaming.SE and RPG.SE ask a lot of questions, and I think I'd describe gamers as keen problem solvers. So hmm, not a lot of support for that hypothesis. It's probably a lot simpler; it's a lot easier to answer questions than to ask (good) questions, especially in the volume required to end up at the top of the rep scale.
Great questions can come from anywhere, and sometimes a simple question that anyone can ask can turn out to be very interesting and complex (my favourite example here is [A mirror flips left and right, but not up and down](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8227/a-mirror-flips-left-and-right-but-not-up-and-down)). But a piece of old wisdom goes that the more things you know about, the more things you find that you *don't* know about. An expert (I use the term loosely, what I really mean in the context of Physics.SE is anyone with about the equivalent knowledge required for a bachelor's degree in physics) should have some advantages when putting together a question, though. They should understand the basic physics underlying the topic, so they can really zero in on the concept they want to ask about. They know where to look for reliable information and can understand and evaluate the validity of whatever background material they come across. And I'm sure there are more reasons. Of course there are also potential drawbacks to being an expert trying to write a question, which I sort of outlined above.
So my question is: **Why do you think many clearly knowledgeable users don't ask more questions? Can we/should we/how can we encourage them/help them to ask more?** I feel like there may be an untapped wealth of great questions lurking out there. | 2013/07/15 | [
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4571",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11053/"
] | For me, if I have a question, I usually do the research myself and since I'm in grad school, I can use my library to get any paper I want to read.
But the other side of the coin is that I'm **paid** to ask questions and answer them. That's what research is about. And in my field, the competition for money is fierce and we have to be very careful to protect not just our results but the questions we are thinking about so we don't get sniped by our competition. So I **can't** ask my questions here.
And so I resort to answering questions rather than asking them. | I have a PhD in physics and teach the subject at a community college, so I guess I would count as an expert. However, my expertise is concentrated in a couple of areas. My Q:A ratio is 29:262. Sometimes I ask questions about subjects I don't know as much about, e.g., field theory. Sometimes I ask questions and get zero answers, which is discouraging. I recently offered a small bounty on a question and still got zero answers. Other times I'm very, very happy with the answers I get, e.g.: [Radio antennas that are much shorter than the wavelength](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65068/radio-antennas-that-are-much-shorter-than-the-wavelength) and [What determines the angle of the cushion on a pool table?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62619/what-determines-the-angle-of-the-cushion-on-a-pool-table) . (In the latter, the answer was given in a comment -- this seems to happen more with nontrivial questions, maybe because people are less sure their answers are right.) |
66,296 | In the beginning of season 6 of *Doctor Who*, The Doctor was shot by an astronaut which triggered the regeneration process of The Doctor. But, he was shot again in the middle of regeneration process which killed him permanently.
In the end of the season, we learned that that wasn't The Doctor who got killed. That was Teselecta (Justice Department Vehicle Number 6018 from the future) in the form of Doctor.
Maybe, a machine from the future can disguise regeneration special effects of a Time Lord, but why bother? I mean, why on the Earth The Doctor planned his own fake death? Whom was he making fool? Definitely, he couldn't make the Spacetime fool. His death was a fixed Spacetime event. So, if "original" he died originally, he couldn't replace himself with Teselecta or time would stop to create an alternate reality. It means, it was Teselecta whose fake death was shown in the beginning of season 6.
**Update:**
Fooling *The Silence* is out of question because:
1. By the time he hired Teselecta, he already knew that it was The Silence which was going/trying to kill him (in case it was his investigation approach according to you).
2. Escaping such way isn't The Doctor's style (even against Daleks; The Silence were just nothing). He could always and easily beat them with confidence. | 2014/08/22 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/66296",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/931/"
] | The Doctor was pulling a con, on basically two groups of people:
### Amy and Rory
Inviting Amy and Rory to his "death" allows the Doctor to prime them for two very important tasks:
1. **Guide *him* towards gaining knowledge of the Silence.** The Doctor is in an odd situation where he knows information *now* that he needed to know *then*, which means he has to rely on Amy and Rory to prod him in the right directions without asking too many questions
2. **Take on the Silence without him.** It's not controversial to say that the Silence are one of the Doctor's more dangerous enemies; there's a small list of people who have violated the sanctity of the TARDIS, after all. The Doctor knows that at some point in their 1969 adventure, he's going to be separated from Amy and Rory, and he needs them to appreciate the gravity of the situation they're in.
The Doctor has never been above using emotional moments to manipulate his companions, and Matt Smith's Doctor is no exception; that's basically the point of both "The God Complex" and "Amy's Choice", after all. Faking his death, and more importantly inviting Amy and Rory to witness it, is another manipulation towards a desired outcome: defeating the Silence.
The other thing it allows them to do is move on from him, which ties into the next group.
### History
Remember that the Doctor wants to disappear at this point. He discusses this with Dorium's head at the end of "The Wedding of River Song" (emphasis mine):
>
> **Dorium:** So you're going to do this, let them all think you're dead?
>
>
> **Doctor:** It's the only way. Then they can all forget me. **I got too big, Dorium, too noisy. Time to step back into the shadows.**
>
>
>
Remember that the Doctor is deeply affected by several revelations he receives in "A Good Man Goes to War", from both Madame Kovarian and River Song (emphasis mine):
>
> **Doctor:** What is [Melody Pond]?
>
>
> **Kovarian:** Hope. Hope in this endless, bitter war.
>
>
> **Doctor:** What war? Against who?
>
>
> **Kovarian:** **Against you, Doctor.**
>
>
> *[Later]*
>
>
> **Doctor:** You think I wanted this? I didn't do this. This, this wasn't me!
>
>
> **River:** **This was exactly you. All this; all of it. You make them so afraid.** When you began, all those years ago, sailing off to see the universe, did you ever think you'd become this? The man who can turn an army around at the mention of his name? Doctor: the word for healer and wise man throughout the universe. We get that word from you, you know. But if you carry on the way you are, what might that word come to mean? To the people of the Gamma Forests, the word "doctor" means "mighty warrior". How far you've come.
>
>
>
He wants to disappear, to stop being such a negative influence on people. He's not the first person in history to disappear by faking his own death1.
It's also important to his own timeline that River Song be incarcerated:
* A lot of the information he gains about the Silence comes from the data files of the Teselecta itself (in "Let's Kill Hitler"). The Teselecta only has these files because they're a justice robot and killing the Doctor makes River the worst criminal in all of history. Changing the past so River *doesn't* kill him would create a paradox
* If she's not in prison for his murder, he can't be sure that she'd be on the Byzantium, and the events of ["The Time of Angels"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_of_Angels)/["Flesh and Stone"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesh_and_Stone) may never happen, which would be utterly disastrous for history.
The other thing to consider is the fact that **this is exactly how it was supposed to happen.** The Doctor faking his death wasn't an attempt to cheat the Fixed Point, an there are two pieces of evidence:
1. The Doctor appeared to start regenerating. With benefit of hindsight, we know that the Eleventh Doctor was the end of the Doctor's natural regeneration cycle. If he were dying for real in "The Impossible Astronaut", he wouldn't have had any regeneration energy.
2. "The Wedding of River Song" showed us what happened when you try messing with fixed points in time, and it's pretty unequivocally bad. But **none of that happens when the Teselecta is shot.**
So the Doctor using the Teselecta to fake his death *was* the fixed point in time created by the Silence, and it always was.
---
1 Or maybe he is. [Wibbly wobbly...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TimeyWimeyBall) | He was fooling The Silence. They took his 'death' to be real, and figured they had finally succeeded. Admittedly, at that point, he didn't know it was The Silence. He faked his death to survive, so he could then find who was trying to kill him.
Due to events later in the series [we know](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/47336/why-did-the-doctor-start-to-regenerate-after-the-events-at-lake-silencio?rq=1) that it was always the Teselecta there, The Doctor never died at Lake Silencio in any timeline. If it was the Doctor there, then he wouldn't have started regenerating, as that would be impossible (see *Time of the Doctor*). |
66,296 | In the beginning of season 6 of *Doctor Who*, The Doctor was shot by an astronaut which triggered the regeneration process of The Doctor. But, he was shot again in the middle of regeneration process which killed him permanently.
In the end of the season, we learned that that wasn't The Doctor who got killed. That was Teselecta (Justice Department Vehicle Number 6018 from the future) in the form of Doctor.
Maybe, a machine from the future can disguise regeneration special effects of a Time Lord, but why bother? I mean, why on the Earth The Doctor planned his own fake death? Whom was he making fool? Definitely, he couldn't make the Spacetime fool. His death was a fixed Spacetime event. So, if "original" he died originally, he couldn't replace himself with Teselecta or time would stop to create an alternate reality. It means, it was Teselecta whose fake death was shown in the beginning of season 6.
**Update:**
Fooling *The Silence* is out of question because:
1. By the time he hired Teselecta, he already knew that it was The Silence which was going/trying to kill him (in case it was his investigation approach according to you).
2. Escaping such way isn't The Doctor's style (even against Daleks; The Silence were just nothing). He could always and easily beat them with confidence. | 2014/08/22 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/66296",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/931/"
] | The Doctor was pulling a con, on basically two groups of people:
### Amy and Rory
Inviting Amy and Rory to his "death" allows the Doctor to prime them for two very important tasks:
1. **Guide *him* towards gaining knowledge of the Silence.** The Doctor is in an odd situation where he knows information *now* that he needed to know *then*, which means he has to rely on Amy and Rory to prod him in the right directions without asking too many questions
2. **Take on the Silence without him.** It's not controversial to say that the Silence are one of the Doctor's more dangerous enemies; there's a small list of people who have violated the sanctity of the TARDIS, after all. The Doctor knows that at some point in their 1969 adventure, he's going to be separated from Amy and Rory, and he needs them to appreciate the gravity of the situation they're in.
The Doctor has never been above using emotional moments to manipulate his companions, and Matt Smith's Doctor is no exception; that's basically the point of both "The God Complex" and "Amy's Choice", after all. Faking his death, and more importantly inviting Amy and Rory to witness it, is another manipulation towards a desired outcome: defeating the Silence.
The other thing it allows them to do is move on from him, which ties into the next group.
### History
Remember that the Doctor wants to disappear at this point. He discusses this with Dorium's head at the end of "The Wedding of River Song" (emphasis mine):
>
> **Dorium:** So you're going to do this, let them all think you're dead?
>
>
> **Doctor:** It's the only way. Then they can all forget me. **I got too big, Dorium, too noisy. Time to step back into the shadows.**
>
>
>
Remember that the Doctor is deeply affected by several revelations he receives in "A Good Man Goes to War", from both Madame Kovarian and River Song (emphasis mine):
>
> **Doctor:** What is [Melody Pond]?
>
>
> **Kovarian:** Hope. Hope in this endless, bitter war.
>
>
> **Doctor:** What war? Against who?
>
>
> **Kovarian:** **Against you, Doctor.**
>
>
> *[Later]*
>
>
> **Doctor:** You think I wanted this? I didn't do this. This, this wasn't me!
>
>
> **River:** **This was exactly you. All this; all of it. You make them so afraid.** When you began, all those years ago, sailing off to see the universe, did you ever think you'd become this? The man who can turn an army around at the mention of his name? Doctor: the word for healer and wise man throughout the universe. We get that word from you, you know. But if you carry on the way you are, what might that word come to mean? To the people of the Gamma Forests, the word "doctor" means "mighty warrior". How far you've come.
>
>
>
He wants to disappear, to stop being such a negative influence on people. He's not the first person in history to disappear by faking his own death1.
It's also important to his own timeline that River Song be incarcerated:
* A lot of the information he gains about the Silence comes from the data files of the Teselecta itself (in "Let's Kill Hitler"). The Teselecta only has these files because they're a justice robot and killing the Doctor makes River the worst criminal in all of history. Changing the past so River *doesn't* kill him would create a paradox
* If she's not in prison for his murder, he can't be sure that she'd be on the Byzantium, and the events of ["The Time of Angels"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_of_Angels)/["Flesh and Stone"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesh_and_Stone) may never happen, which would be utterly disastrous for history.
The other thing to consider is the fact that **this is exactly how it was supposed to happen.** The Doctor faking his death wasn't an attempt to cheat the Fixed Point, an there are two pieces of evidence:
1. The Doctor appeared to start regenerating. With benefit of hindsight, we know that the Eleventh Doctor was the end of the Doctor's natural regeneration cycle. If he were dying for real in "The Impossible Astronaut", he wouldn't have had any regeneration energy.
2. "The Wedding of River Song" showed us what happened when you try messing with fixed points in time, and it's pretty unequivocally bad. But **none of that happens when the Teselecta is shot.**
So the Doctor using the Teselecta to fake his death *was* the fixed point in time created by the Silence, and it always was.
---
1 Or maybe he is. [Wibbly wobbly...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TimeyWimeyBall) | The assassination attempt by the lakeside was explicitly noted as a fixed point. The Doctor has always been able to tell which events are in flux ("The Fires of Pompeii", "Cold Blood", etc.) and which events are fixed. Therefore it *had* to happen, and he *had* to go through with it. The Doctor couldn't simply "easily beat [the Silence] with confidence" some other way, because history was fixed and it *had* to happen. However, the Doctor also realized at the last minute that the records and everything else that he had seen pertaining to his supposed "death" were ambiguous and that there was nothing that conclusively pegged him as really being there, so he opted to exploit that ambiguity of the situation by faking his death with the Teselecta. That way, he could still "fulfill" history as he had seen it while also tricking the Silence into thinking that they had won, which in turn gave him the opportunity to "step back into the shadows" as he had come to feel it was necessary to do. |
236,153 | "I think that’s what it means to be “real” as a parent or a teacher – to be vulnerable, to be capable of being hurt. The only way to avoid the pain of vulnerability is by shutting out all emotion and becoming cold, uncaring, heartless and selfish."
Above is a quote from headmaster's newsletter. In the text, can "to be capable of being hurt" mean "to be able to be hurt"?
Actually, I didn't think about the possibility. I interpreted it as "susceptible to being hurt" especially because of the previous word "vulnerable".
But my colleague (who spent most of her school years in an English-speaking environment) claimed that it was supposed to mean "to be able to be hurt" as a kind of ability, and that it shouldn't be viewed as a passive attitude.
Aside from the context, is this usage common? For me, it sounds really awkward that someone has a kind of ability to get hurt. It sounds as strange as being able to die."
Any comments would be greatly appreciated. I am definitely not a native English speaker. | 2015/03/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/236153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/115268/"
] | I think the second sentence of your quotation establishes the context in which your colleague properly regards “vulnerable” and “capable of being hurt” as active capacities rather than passive susceptibilities.
>
> The only way to avoid the pain of vulnerability is by shutting out all emotion and becoming cold, uncaring, heartless and selfish.
>
>
>
The headmaster intends the phrase (and your colleague understands it) as an ability to discard, willingly, the emotional and intellectual “armor” which protects you from the pain of emotional engagement with the sufferings of others. We often speak of its inverse as an ***in***ability to empathize. | Yes,
"**capable of** being hurt"
can have the meaning of
"**predisposed to/susceptible to** being hurt":
>
> **ca·pa·ble** adjective
>
>
> 5 : **marked by or possessed of a predisposition to : having**
> **characteristics or personality traits conducive to or admitting of** —
> used postpositively with *of*
>
>
> *all who are capable of absorption in an inward passion* — Bertrand Russell
>
>
> *this woman is capable of murder by violence* — Robert Graves
>
>
> *a grace and dexterity of which no common maid is capable* — Lafcadio Hearn
>
>
> Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary
>
>
>
However, mind the different
"capable of **feeling** **pain/[hurt]**" |
30,159 | This question is in connection with my previous [question](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/26728/are-the-upanishads-later-to-the-puranas) related to Puranas and upanishads. It is also a follow up to my [another](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/18989/what-are-the-vedas-technically-how-can-upanishads-be-called-vedas-when-some-par) question.
>
> Chhāndogya Upanishad verses 7.1.2 and 7.1.4 mention the **Itihasa**
> and **Puranas** as the **5th Veda**.
>
>
>
It also mentions about Lord Krishna the son of devakI.
Another verse from brihadaranyaka mentions vedas and upanishads itihasa etc separately. Which shows vedas were already arranged into upanishad brahmanas etc.
Here is the BrihadaranyAkopanishad's verse that mentions the four Vedas and Upanishads separately:
>
> The King Janaka asks YajnavAlkya "KA prajnata yAjnavalkya|" OR "What
> is PrajnA, YajnavAlkya?"
>
>
> To that YajnavAlkya replies:
>
>
> VAgeva samrariti hovAchA | VAchA vai samrAr vandhuh prajnAyatarigvedo
> yajurvedha sAmavedah atharvangirasa itihAsah purAnam
> vidyA upanishadshlokAh sutrAnya anuvyAkhyAnAni ... vAgvai samrAt param
> brahmam ||
>
>
> BrihadAranyakopanishat 4.1.2
>
>
> The meaning is:
>
>
> O king, the vAk is the prajnA. By VAk a firend can be known. By VAk
> the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the SAma Veda and the Atharva Veda, the
> ItihAsas, the PurAnas, the VidyAs, the Upanishads, the Shlokas,
> Sutras, the explanations of them and the supplementary explanations
> (anu vyAkhyAni) .. etc can be understood. That VAk is the Param
> Brahman.
>
>
> From the Upanishad's 4th adhyAya's 1st BrAhmana (called the
> ShadAchArya).
>
>
>
Since I discussed in [this](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/30100/when-were-the-vedas-classified-into-four) question about classification of the Vedas into four, people came up with references which show that the Vedas were classified into FOUR somewhere towards the end of dwapara yuga.
People came up with reasoning that the Purana and itihasa mentioned in the chandogya are actually not the texts like mahabharata, ramayana, and puranas written by Vyasa but it talks of events that happened in the past. Even if that is accepted, we still get a major question here.
Were the upanishads written when the vedas were already classified into FOUR during the end of dwapara yuga?
**If not then how come it talks of the fifth veda?**
Can it be concluded that the major upanishads (as chandogya is one of the oldest upanishads) were written around the era of veda vyasa ?
**PS:** Some people believe that everything repeats in every kalpa. However, they come into existence only when the event actually occurs in that particular yuga. Else the text should mention if it talks about prophesies of upcoming yugas. | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/30159",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/7853/"
] | Even Upanishads are to be considered part of Vedas(eternal). Perpetually all four Vedas co-exist, and because the yajur-mantras are the most prominent, the complete corpus can be called Yajur Veda by the hermeneutic rule, adhikyena vyapadesha bhavanti ("A name may be assigned according to the most prominent category of a mixed group.").
Before Shrila Veda-vyasa's editing, there was only one undivided Veda which actually means the four different kinds of mantras comprising the four basic Vedas were then mixed together indiscriminately, along with other explanatory and historical texts. Intelligent people before Kali-yuga were competent enough to locate the particular mantras they needed from the unordered collection. Only for the generally corrupt age of Kali is it necessary to divide the Vedas into separate parts. The Bhagavatam's analogy to explain this process is that of a rich man's collection of rare jewels. An owner of many diamonds, rubies, emeralds and sapphires who has been keeping them mixed in one box might have someone sort them out for him into four separate piles. After this has been done, nothing has changed substantially in the collection, only the order.
>
> rig-atharva-yajuh-samnam/ rashir uddhritya vargashah catasrah
> samhitash cakre/ mantrair mani-gana iva
>
>
> "Shrila Vyasadeva separated the mantras of the Rig, Atharva, Yajur and
> Sama Vedas into four divisions, just as one sorts out a mixed
> collection of jewels into piles. Thus he composed four distinct Vedic
> literatures" [Bhag. 12.6.50].
>
>
>
Which means the terminology of 4 Vedas is not invented at the end of Dwarpar yuga. Hence, there is no fault, if itihasas and puranas are referred in Upanishads as 5th Veda eternally. | I assume the questioner would easily be satisfied if we can share two aspects, one the historic lineage of Vedas and its branches. Second, the evolution of theory -- to the concept -- to practical applications. I will answer the first part, for the second part, I will copy past an amazing post written by Ram Abloh (Amazing Vedic Scholar) in Quora. I will also post its link.
**Part 1:** (Kindly bear with the complexity as this is a complex question).
We have to understand that there were over 1180 Shakas of Vedic studies and implementation. Today we have only 14 Shakas out of which 6 are in practical implementation (continued oral lineage, Gov. of India has created a portal and has invited these families so that they can record their recitation). If we do the math, less than 2% survived after thousand years of invasions, displacements of families, loss of soil fertility due to drought, flooding, death of cattle, death of family lineage. **Why is this important?** It's important because the readers have to realize that each Vedic shaka (branch) has its own Upanishad. This Upanishad is the philosophical concept that surrounds the mantras laid out in the Samhita section of that school. They also emulate the implementation of these mantras with their respective stories in the Brahmana/Aranyaka section of this school. Readers also have to recognize that Upanishad is not necessarily a separate book, for example: Taittiriya Upanishad is actually the 7th to 9th chapter of Black Yajur's Taittririya School's Aranyaka. Similarly, Aitareya Upanishad belongs to Rig Veda's Shakala School's Aranyaka (4 to 6th chapter). The same goes for BhrA Upanishad belongs to White Yajur's Madhyandina School's 14th Brahmana (3rd to 8th chapter). We can go on like this for many other Upanishads. By this time the questioner should realize that Upanishad is not a separate book composed at a later duration of time. Yet, one has to also ask **"Does this rule apply to all Upanishads?"**. Let's answer that with the following section.
**"Does these Upanisads have linkage back to Samhitas + Brahmanas + Aranyakas?"**
As we have seen above, there are various Shakas (schools), for example, the Kathak School of Black Yajur is lost forever, only a small portion of Aranyaka and its full Upanishad survived. So, **what does that mean?** It means, the linkage of this Upanishad back to its Vedic mantras in the Samhitas, plus the stories in the Brahmana section and the Aranyakas are now lost forever. This School of Katha predates Taittririya School. Hence, due to the loss of its parent Samhitas, many Upanishads look as if they are separate books. But this is not a blanket statement. Many later Upanishads were written to summarize various sections of Vedic Samhitas and their Primary Upanishads by various sects. Rudropanishad is a clear example that summarizes many aspects of Black and White Yajur and Shvetashvatara. Same goes to many Minor Upanishads which compiled by various sects at a later time. The questioner should also keep in mind that, over 1000 years there are statements added or edited to the original content, for example: the vedic heritage portal of Gov. of India has recoded two recessions of the same Narayanopanishad, which belongs to Black Yajur's Taittririya School's Aranyaka. If you open this literature you will see two Chapter 10s (Chapter 10A at page 242 and at 10B 337). Now, if you go to the Archive recordings you will find two recordings for both chapters. So later sectarians eliminated content to suit their preferred diety. Many hymns of Rudra got elimited from Narayopanishad belonging to Taittririya School in the first chapter. Many can arug that it's added but the linkage back to Samhitas and Brahmanas are the proof to any content laid in the Upanishad.
**Didn't our great Rishis foresee this danger? the loss of Shakas?** Yes, a child prodigy at a very young age saw this. This young boy, walked the entire land of Bharat on foot multiple times and re-organized the entire Vedic essence. He collected various Upanishads (Veda+anta = Vedantas) belonging to various Shakas/Schools. Then he added Brahma Sutras and extracted Gita out of Mahabharata Itihasa. Then He took content out of Tantras and created various hymns like Soundarya Lahiri and gave a thesis called Prapancha-Sara-Tantra (The transcendental (Tantric) essence (Sara) of the 5 elemental creation(prapancha)). With this, this young boy before the age of 30 established 4 schools surrounding Bharat. He foresaw the loss of various Vedic Schools and gave this massive collection of literature that is extracted out of Vedic essence. 1000 years later many sectarian acharyas emerged and created their own subset schools specific to the diety (among the 5 major Dieites) of their preference.
**PART 2:** (content from Ram Abloh. [Link](https://qr.ae/pG0iYa)).
The Upanishads that have a tradition of being an integral part of a particular Veda are only few in number, as some answers have said.
I had written an answer listing the major Upanishads and their location in the Vedas:
ईश केन कठा प्रश्न मुण्ड माण्डूक्य तैत्तिरी ।
ऐतरेयं च छान्दोग्यं बृहदारण्यकं दशम् ॥
“Isha kena kaThA prashna muNDa mANDUkya taittirI;
aitareyam ca chAndogyam bRhadAraNyakam dasham.”
These are the 10 Upanishads that actually form integral parts of Vedic texts (i.e. samhitA, brAhmaNam or AraNyakam):
Isha — shukla yajur veda (40th chapter of vAjasaneyi samhitA)
kena — sAma veda (last section of talavakAra brAhmaNam)
kaThA — kRShNa yajur veda (ending chapters of kAThaka brAhmaNam)
prashna — atharva veda (paippalAda samhitA)
muNDaka — atharva veda (uncertain of shAkhA)
mANDUkya — atharva veda (uncertain of shAkhA)
taittirIya — kRShNa yajur veda (chapters 7–9 of taittirIya AraNyakam)
aitareya — Rg veda (chapters 4–6 of aitareya AraNyakam)
chAndogya — sAma veda (AraNyakam of tANDya brAhmaNam)
bRhadAraNyaka — shukla yajur veda (AraNyakam of shatapatha brAhmaNam)
Other than these, two more are considered ancient and authoritative:
kauShItaki — Rg veda (embedded in the kauShItaki brAhmaNam)
shvetAshvatara — associated with kRShNa yajur veda but uncertain of textual position
So you see, most of these Upanishads are prose texts that naturally form part of the other Vedic prose texts, the brAhmaNas and AraNyakas. These prose texts have always been considered as the first commentaries on the Veda samhitAs (i.e. the metrical verses). The prose texts form an integral part of the definition of a Veda.
The word “upaniShat” itself means a secret or hidden meaning. This would not make sense unless there is something else that the Upanishad is referring to. In other words, what is the Upanishad an inner meaning of? The answer is: Veda samhitA mantras. The existence of the Upanishad implies the pre-existence of the Veda samhitA, of which the Upanishad is said to be the hidden meaning. So the Upanishad is an integral part of the Veda to fully understand the meaning of the Veda.
It cannot be said that the Upanishad came later than the Veda samhitA. The assumption is that the “original” came before the “commentary” as is usually seen in the world. However, if you look at the Krishna Yajur Veda, the Taittiriya samhitA is already a mixture of verse and prose. So the “original” and the “commentary” go hand-in-hand like a convenient guide book. So the discussions recorded in the Upanishads were most probably happening at the same time that the rishis were composing the mantras that went into the Veda samhitAs. This is why Taittiriya Upanishad says, “eShA vedopaniShat (एषा वेदोपनिषत्)” — “This is the secret meaning of the Veda”.
The arrangement into separate parts is only for the convenience of study and application.
To give a modern analogy, the Veda samhitA is like the chemistry textbook, with the theoretical expositions and the chemical equations. The commentaries (brAhmaNam, AraNyakam, upaniShat) are like notes and special instructions given by the professor only in the chemistry lab when doing experiments. Without reading the textbook, a student cannot go and do experiments in the lab. But, without the special instructions in the lab to do the experiments, the student will not understand the theories in the textbook. Both of them go hand-in-hand.
Similarly, Veda samhitA and Upanishad go hand-in-hand. |
226,567 | I have a large (≈ 20 million nodes) directed Graph with in-edges & out-edges. I want to figure out which parts of of the graph deserve the most attention. Often most of the graph is boring, or at least it is already well understood. The way I am defining "attention" is by the concept of "connectedness" i.e. How can i find the most connected node(s) in the graph?
In what follows, One can assume that nodes by themselves have no score, the edges have no weight & they are either connected or not.
[This website suggest](http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/a-gentle-introduction-to-finding-the-most-important-node-in-graph-connected-data/) some pretty complicated procedures like n-dimensional space, Eigen Vectors, graph centrality concepts, pageRank etc. Is this problem that complex?
Can I not do a simple Breadth-First Traversal of the entire graph where at each node I figure out a way to find the number of in-edges. The node with most in-edges is the most important node in the graph. Am I missing something here? | 2014/02/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/226567",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/6345/"
] | Not knowing the real problem your graph solves or the details of your graph, this may not be relevant. But, I suspect your basic solution will be inaccurate in two ways: tie-breaking and what I might call "megalomaniacs." In other words, if you're just counting inbound connections, you'll likely run into nodes with the "same" importance; but, I suspect the intention is that one should be more important. And, in some cases, you may have "islands" of nodes that are all highly interconnected amongst themselves, but loosely so with the majority, yielding nodes that appear much more important than they are (megalomaniacs).
The solution? Well ... Something like pagerank, I imagine! | I assume that you want to calculate only 1st-order connectedness (i.e. counting how many edges link directly to the node).
I'll further assume you already have a list of all nodes with some place to store node weights and a list of all edges.
You'll need:
1. A list of all nodes, and a place to store the calculated weight for each node.
2. A list of all edges. As you proposed, any full traversal technique (such as breadth- or depth-first) should work as long as the graph is connected (although you may need additional space to track the exploration status of each node).
The algorithm is simple: iterate over each edge, and increment the weights of the From and To nodes referenced to by that edge.
Interpretation of the results to find "interesting" nodes is going to depend on the data-set. For example, web pages may be interesting if they have a high ratio of incoming to outgoing edges, but a graph of airports and flights might just look at the total traffic. |
226,567 | I have a large (≈ 20 million nodes) directed Graph with in-edges & out-edges. I want to figure out which parts of of the graph deserve the most attention. Often most of the graph is boring, or at least it is already well understood. The way I am defining "attention" is by the concept of "connectedness" i.e. How can i find the most connected node(s) in the graph?
In what follows, One can assume that nodes by themselves have no score, the edges have no weight & they are either connected or not.
[This website suggest](http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/a-gentle-introduction-to-finding-the-most-important-node-in-graph-connected-data/) some pretty complicated procedures like n-dimensional space, Eigen Vectors, graph centrality concepts, pageRank etc. Is this problem that complex?
Can I not do a simple Breadth-First Traversal of the entire graph where at each node I figure out a way to find the number of in-edges. The node with most in-edges is the most important node in the graph. Am I missing something here? | 2014/02/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/226567",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/6345/"
] | I've found the following picture a good key for the difference between different measures (although undirected graphs are depicted, some apply to directed as well). Degree centrality [D] is straightforward: who has most in/out links. Eigenvector-centrality [C] captures the notion of indirect influence better. See [Centrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality) on wikipedia for the definitions and details.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tQeb6.png) | If it is not important which nodes connect to which, use a simple 2x2 matrix, which has a column for every node and a row that represent one node. each node that is connected get a value of 1 for the column. then add an extra column at the end of each row that counts the number of connections for that node. this does have huge over head up front but will get the most connected node and make node insertion and deletion easy if you know the size up front. If the size of the graph is dynamic then this will not work, works only for static graphs. Memory will also be an issue since you will have to use an array. But if finding the most connect node is the big issue this is a simple way to do it. |
226,567 | I have a large (≈ 20 million nodes) directed Graph with in-edges & out-edges. I want to figure out which parts of of the graph deserve the most attention. Often most of the graph is boring, or at least it is already well understood. The way I am defining "attention" is by the concept of "connectedness" i.e. How can i find the most connected node(s) in the graph?
In what follows, One can assume that nodes by themselves have no score, the edges have no weight & they are either connected or not.
[This website suggest](http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/a-gentle-introduction-to-finding-the-most-important-node-in-graph-connected-data/) some pretty complicated procedures like n-dimensional space, Eigen Vectors, graph centrality concepts, pageRank etc. Is this problem that complex?
Can I not do a simple Breadth-First Traversal of the entire graph where at each node I figure out a way to find the number of in-edges. The node with most in-edges is the most important node in the graph. Am I missing something here? | 2014/02/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/226567",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/6345/"
] | Not knowing the real problem your graph solves or the details of your graph, this may not be relevant. But, I suspect your basic solution will be inaccurate in two ways: tie-breaking and what I might call "megalomaniacs." In other words, if you're just counting inbound connections, you'll likely run into nodes with the "same" importance; but, I suspect the intention is that one should be more important. And, in some cases, you may have "islands" of nodes that are all highly interconnected amongst themselves, but loosely so with the majority, yielding nodes that appear much more important than they are (megalomaniacs).
The solution? Well ... Something like pagerank, I imagine! | Algorithms typically try to optimize one thing or the other. Even NP problems are solvable, except that they require all possible combinations to be tried, which makes them computationally expensive. In the problem you are trying to solve, the question is what is it that you are trying to optimize: time, memory, or something else?
Given that it is 2 million nodes, it is unclear whether they are all read in memory at once, or if they reside on disk and thus memory management and minimization of I/O might be a factor.
Assuming that your entire graph is in memory, the question is who creates the graph? Can you keep a count of the edges for nodes in the graph during creation (or when reading from disk) and keep them in an ordered list?
The other thing is that sometimes a graph can have two or more completely disconnected parts in practical life (I have had to deal with one such graph). In such cases, I have found it more useful to iterate through all the nodes (no matter breadth first or depth first), and then count all the edges on every node -- in most cases, modern languages will keep all the edges in some sort of a collection and you will already have a property or method to get the length or count on that collection, thus saving iteration over all the edges).
The complexity for both these solutions can be O(n log n) where n is the no. of nodes.
Although time and memory is often of concern, but sometimes simplicity is more important than those attributes, so I keep that in my equation too. In many situations, such as this, I would consider complexity of implementation as yet another factor in my pro/con list before deciding what to implement. |
226,567 | I have a large (≈ 20 million nodes) directed Graph with in-edges & out-edges. I want to figure out which parts of of the graph deserve the most attention. Often most of the graph is boring, or at least it is already well understood. The way I am defining "attention" is by the concept of "connectedness" i.e. How can i find the most connected node(s) in the graph?
In what follows, One can assume that nodes by themselves have no score, the edges have no weight & they are either connected or not.
[This website suggest](http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/a-gentle-introduction-to-finding-the-most-important-node-in-graph-connected-data/) some pretty complicated procedures like n-dimensional space, Eigen Vectors, graph centrality concepts, pageRank etc. Is this problem that complex?
Can I not do a simple Breadth-First Traversal of the entire graph where at each node I figure out a way to find the number of in-edges. The node with most in-edges is the most important node in the graph. Am I missing something here? | 2014/02/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/226567",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/6345/"
] | I've found the following picture a good key for the difference between different measures (although undirected graphs are depicted, some apply to directed as well). Degree centrality [D] is straightforward: who has most in/out links. Eigenvector-centrality [C] captures the notion of indirect influence better. See [Centrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality) on wikipedia for the definitions and details.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tQeb6.png) | I assume that you want to calculate only 1st-order connectedness (i.e. counting how many edges link directly to the node).
I'll further assume you already have a list of all nodes with some place to store node weights and a list of all edges.
You'll need:
1. A list of all nodes, and a place to store the calculated weight for each node.
2. A list of all edges. As you proposed, any full traversal technique (such as breadth- or depth-first) should work as long as the graph is connected (although you may need additional space to track the exploration status of each node).
The algorithm is simple: iterate over each edge, and increment the weights of the From and To nodes referenced to by that edge.
Interpretation of the results to find "interesting" nodes is going to depend on the data-set. For example, web pages may be interesting if they have a high ratio of incoming to outgoing edges, but a graph of airports and flights might just look at the total traffic. |
226,567 | I have a large (≈ 20 million nodes) directed Graph with in-edges & out-edges. I want to figure out which parts of of the graph deserve the most attention. Often most of the graph is boring, or at least it is already well understood. The way I am defining "attention" is by the concept of "connectedness" i.e. How can i find the most connected node(s) in the graph?
In what follows, One can assume that nodes by themselves have no score, the edges have no weight & they are either connected or not.
[This website suggest](http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/a-gentle-introduction-to-finding-the-most-important-node-in-graph-connected-data/) some pretty complicated procedures like n-dimensional space, Eigen Vectors, graph centrality concepts, pageRank etc. Is this problem that complex?
Can I not do a simple Breadth-First Traversal of the entire graph where at each node I figure out a way to find the number of in-edges. The node with most in-edges is the most important node in the graph. Am I missing something here? | 2014/02/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/226567",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/6345/"
] | I've found the following picture a good key for the difference between different measures (although undirected graphs are depicted, some apply to directed as well). Degree centrality [D] is straightforward: who has most in/out links. Eigenvector-centrality [C] captures the notion of indirect influence better. See [Centrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality) on wikipedia for the definitions and details.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tQeb6.png) | Algorithms typically try to optimize one thing or the other. Even NP problems are solvable, except that they require all possible combinations to be tried, which makes them computationally expensive. In the problem you are trying to solve, the question is what is it that you are trying to optimize: time, memory, or something else?
Given that it is 2 million nodes, it is unclear whether they are all read in memory at once, or if they reside on disk and thus memory management and minimization of I/O might be a factor.
Assuming that your entire graph is in memory, the question is who creates the graph? Can you keep a count of the edges for nodes in the graph during creation (or when reading from disk) and keep them in an ordered list?
The other thing is that sometimes a graph can have two or more completely disconnected parts in practical life (I have had to deal with one such graph). In such cases, I have found it more useful to iterate through all the nodes (no matter breadth first or depth first), and then count all the edges on every node -- in most cases, modern languages will keep all the edges in some sort of a collection and you will already have a property or method to get the length or count on that collection, thus saving iteration over all the edges).
The complexity for both these solutions can be O(n log n) where n is the no. of nodes.
Although time and memory is often of concern, but sometimes simplicity is more important than those attributes, so I keep that in my equation too. In many situations, such as this, I would consider complexity of implementation as yet another factor in my pro/con list before deciding what to implement. |
226,567 | I have a large (≈ 20 million nodes) directed Graph with in-edges & out-edges. I want to figure out which parts of of the graph deserve the most attention. Often most of the graph is boring, or at least it is already well understood. The way I am defining "attention" is by the concept of "connectedness" i.e. How can i find the most connected node(s) in the graph?
In what follows, One can assume that nodes by themselves have no score, the edges have no weight & they are either connected or not.
[This website suggest](http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/a-gentle-introduction-to-finding-the-most-important-node-in-graph-connected-data/) some pretty complicated procedures like n-dimensional space, Eigen Vectors, graph centrality concepts, pageRank etc. Is this problem that complex?
Can I not do a simple Breadth-First Traversal of the entire graph where at each node I figure out a way to find the number of in-edges. The node with most in-edges is the most important node in the graph. Am I missing something here? | 2014/02/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/226567",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/6345/"
] | I assume that you want to calculate only 1st-order connectedness (i.e. counting how many edges link directly to the node).
I'll further assume you already have a list of all nodes with some place to store node weights and a list of all edges.
You'll need:
1. A list of all nodes, and a place to store the calculated weight for each node.
2. A list of all edges. As you proposed, any full traversal technique (such as breadth- or depth-first) should work as long as the graph is connected (although you may need additional space to track the exploration status of each node).
The algorithm is simple: iterate over each edge, and increment the weights of the From and To nodes referenced to by that edge.
Interpretation of the results to find "interesting" nodes is going to depend on the data-set. For example, web pages may be interesting if they have a high ratio of incoming to outgoing edges, but a graph of airports and flights might just look at the total traffic. | If it is not important which nodes connect to which, use a simple 2x2 matrix, which has a column for every node and a row that represent one node. each node that is connected get a value of 1 for the column. then add an extra column at the end of each row that counts the number of connections for that node. this does have huge over head up front but will get the most connected node and make node insertion and deletion easy if you know the size up front. If the size of the graph is dynamic then this will not work, works only for static graphs. Memory will also be an issue since you will have to use an array. But if finding the most connect node is the big issue this is a simple way to do it. |
226,567 | I have a large (≈ 20 million nodes) directed Graph with in-edges & out-edges. I want to figure out which parts of of the graph deserve the most attention. Often most of the graph is boring, or at least it is already well understood. The way I am defining "attention" is by the concept of "connectedness" i.e. How can i find the most connected node(s) in the graph?
In what follows, One can assume that nodes by themselves have no score, the edges have no weight & they are either connected or not.
[This website suggest](http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/a-gentle-introduction-to-finding-the-most-important-node-in-graph-connected-data/) some pretty complicated procedures like n-dimensional space, Eigen Vectors, graph centrality concepts, pageRank etc. Is this problem that complex?
Can I not do a simple Breadth-First Traversal of the entire graph where at each node I figure out a way to find the number of in-edges. The node with most in-edges is the most important node in the graph. Am I missing something here? | 2014/02/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/226567",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/6345/"
] | Not knowing the real problem your graph solves or the details of your graph, this may not be relevant. But, I suspect your basic solution will be inaccurate in two ways: tie-breaking and what I might call "megalomaniacs." In other words, if you're just counting inbound connections, you'll likely run into nodes with the "same" importance; but, I suspect the intention is that one should be more important. And, in some cases, you may have "islands" of nodes that are all highly interconnected amongst themselves, but loosely so with the majority, yielding nodes that appear much more important than they are (megalomaniacs).
The solution? Well ... Something like pagerank, I imagine! | If it is not important which nodes connect to which, use a simple 2x2 matrix, which has a column for every node and a row that represent one node. each node that is connected get a value of 1 for the column. then add an extra column at the end of each row that counts the number of connections for that node. this does have huge over head up front but will get the most connected node and make node insertion and deletion easy if you know the size up front. If the size of the graph is dynamic then this will not work, works only for static graphs. Memory will also be an issue since you will have to use an array. But if finding the most connect node is the big issue this is a simple way to do it. |
14,098 | I am from Madagascar. We are in what is called a "povery trap".
Building a business is very difficult because the population is agglomerating in the capital and the competition is very high. Moreover, there is a lack of public infrastructure that freezes the economy.
What do you suggest me to do as a citizen without any governmental control to have a good impact in the economy? | 2016/11/04 | [
"https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/14098",
"https://economics.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.stackexchange.com/users/10977/"
] | I think the best way for an individual citizen to improve their country's economic development is to raise their productivity, while also following ethical standards. "Raising productivity" is a very traditional economic viewpoint, and it basically requires one to move away from rural or subsistence living and towards activities that contribute to society, as measured by the income that you generate. But, I think there also needs to be a focus on long-term developmental outcomes, which may not necessarily be tied to economic profit because of negative externalities.
I haven't done a lot of research into the lives of poor people, but after reading some chapters from Banerjee and Duflo's *Poor Economics*, I would say that the economy loses out when people are not persistent, motivated, or when they make economically irrational decisions. For example, poor people in India do not use the most cost-effective treatment for diarrhea (rehydration liquid with salt and sugar) because they do not trust and are not accustomed to Western medicine. Another example is that poor people in Morocco who can't afford food buy televisions, but I understand the reason for this. The reason is that poor people cannot be expected to cut out all luxuries in their lives, because they also need things that make their life bearable and pleasurable. If poor people didn't buy expensive food and other luxury items, the generations below them might rise out of poverty sooner, but such a process takes a long time. Income-earners would not want to forego a better life for themselves just so that their children's children will not live in poverty.
All in all, I advise you to become a change agent in your community. Strive to motivate others to do work. Technology will help, so you will need to try to find out what the most technologically advanced way of doing your work is. That knowledge comes with education, which may be difficult to access in your situation, but nevertheless try to find it. Lastly, public participation in governance is important for economic development, so try to actively participate in your country's governance. | The best kinds of economic stimulus come with making people better at making businesses locally and internationally.
1/Making skilled tradesmen, new trades, apprenticeship schems, education
2/Making communication with distant rich markets
3/Building organized advanced civil services (town halls, post boxes, churches, police houses) in buildings that encourage fair play and national cooperation.
For the first issue, That is probably where you can intervene...
Education ranges from... giving children dinosaurs and science things to see with their eyes and lego bricks and maths books and soduko... To teaching young and old people trades like: Online Salesman, Treck Guide, Jewelry Fabricator, Honey Farmer, Agricultor... Using modern technologies and latest advances from other countries, for example, you supply some young men with bee-hive construction guide and keeping guide information.
Mostly you have to find knowledge to do things better from international information sources of researchers of every trade, which means that you have to be able to PRINT information and distribute it... Give people interesting papers to read with plans, techniques, products, on very cheap newspaper. A truck load of paper and a printer is good for printing guides about business development, you can apply abroad for a truck load of paper and a printer.
2/the second is also a trade, it's like pairing cities up, so that a city in madagascar sais what resources it his and what knowledge it has, and a city in denmark sais what knowledge and resources it has, and they exchange communicationto make direct business expansions based on common interests, like vanilla or something to all the local shops, or local crystals.
3/it requires investment, but every country should have a prestigious nice architecture for post boxes and town halls and government buildings and police which help for nationality, civility, pride to avoid corruption, and that requires architecture adn funding. |
14,098 | I am from Madagascar. We are in what is called a "povery trap".
Building a business is very difficult because the population is agglomerating in the capital and the competition is very high. Moreover, there is a lack of public infrastructure that freezes the economy.
What do you suggest me to do as a citizen without any governmental control to have a good impact in the economy? | 2016/11/04 | [
"https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/14098",
"https://economics.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.stackexchange.com/users/10977/"
] | I appreciate your question because there is an assumed level of individual responsibility.
Before I offer my answer, I want to make a recommendation. There is a fantastic book that addresses this question in great detail. It's called, "The Poverty of Nations" by Barry Asmus and Wayne Grudem. If you can get a hold of a copy (it's even available in digital forms), please do. They outline a path that a country a can take to move from poverty to prosperity, and make a very persuasive case.
The simplest answer to your question is, a citizen can contribute to moving his country out of poverty and into prosperity by producing more goods and services. The more wide-spread this type of change is in the country, the greater you will see the move away from poverty and into prosperity. This will lead to people having a greater sense of earned success in their lives. To borrow a quote from Arthur C. Brooks, "Earned success means the ability to create value honestly— not by winning the lottery, not by inheriting a fortune, not by picking up a welfare check. It doesn’t even mean making money itself. Earned success is the creation of value in our lives or in the lives of others."
Now, telling someone that they need to produce more goods and services and have a sense of earned success is easier said than done. Several things can either help or hinder this. If the people are in a country with a lousy economic system, it will dramatically reduce their production of goods and services. Jut a few of these poor economic systems include Hunting and gathering, Subsistence farming, Slavery, Tribal ownership, Socialism and communism. When these types of systems are in play, it will prevent people from getting out of the poverty trap. The more free a people can be, and the more protected from abuse, the more opportunity they will have to succeed.
In short, a free market will give people the chance and the motivation to produce more goods and services. The right kind of government, which is one where the leaders know and believe that they exist for the good and well-being of the people as a whole, and not just themselves or their family and friends, is one that is going to produce a safe environment for the people. | The best kinds of economic stimulus come with making people better at making businesses locally and internationally.
1/Making skilled tradesmen, new trades, apprenticeship schems, education
2/Making communication with distant rich markets
3/Building organized advanced civil services (town halls, post boxes, churches, police houses) in buildings that encourage fair play and national cooperation.
For the first issue, That is probably where you can intervene...
Education ranges from... giving children dinosaurs and science things to see with their eyes and lego bricks and maths books and soduko... To teaching young and old people trades like: Online Salesman, Treck Guide, Jewelry Fabricator, Honey Farmer, Agricultor... Using modern technologies and latest advances from other countries, for example, you supply some young men with bee-hive construction guide and keeping guide information.
Mostly you have to find knowledge to do things better from international information sources of researchers of every trade, which means that you have to be able to PRINT information and distribute it... Give people interesting papers to read with plans, techniques, products, on very cheap newspaper. A truck load of paper and a printer is good for printing guides about business development, you can apply abroad for a truck load of paper and a printer.
2/the second is also a trade, it's like pairing cities up, so that a city in madagascar sais what resources it his and what knowledge it has, and a city in denmark sais what knowledge and resources it has, and they exchange communicationto make direct business expansions based on common interests, like vanilla or something to all the local shops, or local crystals.
3/it requires investment, but every country should have a prestigious nice architecture for post boxes and town halls and government buildings and police which help for nationality, civility, pride to avoid corruption, and that requires architecture adn funding. |
34,553 | We have just received a device with 10Gig BaseT ports (for copper cable with RJ45 endings) that needs to be connected to a Cisco Nexus 5548. This switch only has SFP+ ports and we're connecting them right now using a couple 1Gbps SFP. We really would like to use the 10Gig connection.
I googled 10Gig Media converters and found some brands but i have doubts regarding stability and compatibility. The final scenerio would be like this:
[Nexus 5k]--[10G SFP+]---Optical Fiber Jumper---[Media converter]--Cat 6a--[DataDomain]
Does anyone out there have a similar combination of equipment? How has it worked for you? | 2016/09/02 | [
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/34553",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/users/30154/"
] | Third party SFPs can be hit or miss. Make sure to check the compatibility matrix that cisco has.
If the module is an unsupported module then it will not work right off the bat. There is a command to enable them, but a warning will pop up stating that Cisco doesn't recommend it and that they can't guarantee performance. Also, if you choose to enable the Third Party modules via that command Cisco reserves the right to stop troubleshooting, if memory serves. | The third party components will work fine. If you find otherwise, I would love to hear back...
Don't resell them as Cisco though. People have gone to prison for doing so...
Also, if you tell Cisco TAC they will void your SMARTnet contract out. |
34,553 | We have just received a device with 10Gig BaseT ports (for copper cable with RJ45 endings) that needs to be connected to a Cisco Nexus 5548. This switch only has SFP+ ports and we're connecting them right now using a couple 1Gbps SFP. We really would like to use the 10Gig connection.
I googled 10Gig Media converters and found some brands but i have doubts regarding stability and compatibility. The final scenerio would be like this:
[Nexus 5k]--[10G SFP+]---Optical Fiber Jumper---[Media converter]--Cat 6a--[DataDomain]
Does anyone out there have a similar combination of equipment? How has it worked for you? | 2016/09/02 | [
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/34553",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/users/30154/"
] | So the obvious question is how much all that media converter stuff costs versus just buying a cheap 10G NIC with an SFP+ port and using fiber, twinax or AOC to achieve a sane and supportable result? Will the converter work? Sure - most likely... will it be supportable and stable? It's definitely outside the realm of best practice. | Third party SFPs can be hit or miss. Make sure to check the compatibility matrix that cisco has.
If the module is an unsupported module then it will not work right off the bat. There is a command to enable them, but a warning will pop up stating that Cisco doesn't recommend it and that they can't guarantee performance. Also, if you choose to enable the Third Party modules via that command Cisco reserves the right to stop troubleshooting, if memory serves. |
34,553 | We have just received a device with 10Gig BaseT ports (for copper cable with RJ45 endings) that needs to be connected to a Cisco Nexus 5548. This switch only has SFP+ ports and we're connecting them right now using a couple 1Gbps SFP. We really would like to use the 10Gig connection.
I googled 10Gig Media converters and found some brands but i have doubts regarding stability and compatibility. The final scenerio would be like this:
[Nexus 5k]--[10G SFP+]---Optical Fiber Jumper---[Media converter]--Cat 6a--[DataDomain]
Does anyone out there have a similar combination of equipment? How has it worked for you? | 2016/09/02 | [
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/34553",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/users/30154/"
] | So the obvious question is how much all that media converter stuff costs versus just buying a cheap 10G NIC with an SFP+ port and using fiber, twinax or AOC to achieve a sane and supportable result? Will the converter work? Sure - most likely... will it be supportable and stable? It's definitely outside the realm of best practice. | The third party components will work fine. If you find otherwise, I would love to hear back...
Don't resell them as Cisco though. People have gone to prison for doing so...
Also, if you tell Cisco TAC they will void your SMARTnet contract out. |
10,293 | I am playing a violin with a bridge sensor (currently a Schertler STAT-V <http://www.schertler.com/homepage_schertler/statv-en.html>). I am looking for good ideas for :
* Delay pedals
* Distortion / Overdrive pedals
Much of the tests available on the web are done with electric guitars and although it can help to see basically how the pedal works, it can produce a very different effect on the violin.
I am looking for:
* A pointer to some good tests for pedals and electric violin
* List of delay pedals (resp. disto pedals) that could give interesting sounds with a violin input (maybe even designed for violin)
[EDITED to be more specific. Since I believe the topic itself is already quite specific because people are usually asking for guitar effects (very different in terms of attack, impedance, etc...), I think this is enough] | 2013/04/10 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/10293",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/1036/"
] | As someone who uses various effects with my electric violin as well as with electric guitars, I can tell you that you don't need any special tests or reviews.
* Delay pedals
You are right that without the pick attack, a delay sounds different for a violin than for a strummed guitar, but it does sound very similar to a bowed guitar, or when you use volume shaping, so don't worry about this factor. Concern yourself more with quality of sound, accuracy of echoes etc.
If you prefer analogue delay, use that. If you prefer digital, use that, but above all - test a few to see what you prefer.
* Distortion
Very similar guidance here but the source of sound is less important. As you have less strings, you will have less notes clashing with each other, but you have a wider variety of notes as a guitar is mostly fret-based (excluding bends etc)
Play with some pedals - decide whether you like distortion, fuzz, harsh, buzzy, squealing etc etc etc
**tl;dr** - follow guitar pedal reviews for general quality guidance, then play with some to find out what you prefer, as effects are incredibly subjective | Many years ago in the 1980s I favoured a cheap Phaser pedal and processing through an old analogue synth to filter the sound. At the time I was pleased with the unique quality I obtained by this novel combination. I recommend experimenting with unlikely combinations of processing but try to keep it subtle. |
28,818 | I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
Who am I?
Related:
>
> [The Happy Prisoner](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28595)
>
>
>
Also
>
> The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
>
> | 2016/03/11 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28818",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/19179/"
] | You're:
>
> Lady Luck.
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
>
> Self explanatory.
>
>
>
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> You're completely **constricted** by the laws of probably.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
>
> All riches come from some sort of luck. Even if you're born into it, your birth alone had some luck involved.
>
>
>
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Luck has no possessions.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
>
> Everything, right down to quantum mechanics has some factor (however large or small) of probability/luck involved. Even the earth's orbit has a slight wobble to it's **bend** around the sun do to probability.
>
>
>
Yet I possess no power.
>
> But luck itself doesn't have any power. It disperses energy in a random manner.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
>
> All girls (and boys) want to be the lucky one.
>
>
>
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Luck doesn't **chose** to do anything and when you're dead "your *luck* is up".
>
>
>
Pun:
>
> The title and hint refer to this being a story (**tale**) of Lady Luck and the luck of heads or **tail**s in a coin toss. You might not **catch it** (the coin, riddle or pun) if you're *unlucky*.
>
>
> | It better not be
>
> Chell (from the Portal series).
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> Only person around.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Again, only person around. Unlike most video game characters, has zero inventory space.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
>
> She has no poowers, but bends the world with her portal gun.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> She chose not to come to the party with cake, she is in the facility against her will, and only leaves when either she or the boss dies.
>
>
>
A Tail of One Lady
>
> She has a ponytail.
>
> Also, didn't she get mocked for being born with a tail? I can't remember.
>
>
> |
28,818 | I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
Who am I?
Related:
>
> [The Happy Prisoner](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28595)
>
>
>
Also
>
> The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
>
> | 2016/03/11 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28818",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/19179/"
] | You're:
>
> Lady Luck.
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
>
> Self explanatory.
>
>
>
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> You're completely **constricted** by the laws of probably.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
>
> All riches come from some sort of luck. Even if you're born into it, your birth alone had some luck involved.
>
>
>
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Luck has no possessions.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
>
> Everything, right down to quantum mechanics has some factor (however large or small) of probability/luck involved. Even the earth's orbit has a slight wobble to it's **bend** around the sun do to probability.
>
>
>
Yet I possess no power.
>
> But luck itself doesn't have any power. It disperses energy in a random manner.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
>
> All girls (and boys) want to be the lucky one.
>
>
>
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Luck doesn't **chose** to do anything and when you're dead "your *luck* is up".
>
>
>
Pun:
>
> The title and hint refer to this being a story (**tale**) of Lady Luck and the luck of heads or **tail**s in a coin toss. You might not **catch it** (the coin, riddle or pun) if you're *unlucky*.
>
>
> | You could be
>
> Queen Elizabeth II
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> Many people consider coins good luck, her portrait is on British coinage. As a portrait on a coin she cannot go anywhere so she is very restricted. Also, she herself is lucky to be the queen, but she is restricted in the things she can do by her station.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Again, as a portrait on a money, she "has" lots of money yet doesn't own it. Also, as queen she is wealthy, yet her wealth ultimately belongs to the British nation.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
>
> The world's behavior is influenced by the money with her portrait on it. Yet as queen, she's a figurehead that doesn't have political power.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Every girl dreams of being the Queen. However, the Queen was born into her position and didn't choose it, and will be Queen until her death.
>
>
>
The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
> The "tail" in the title refers to the coins that bear her image. Also "catch it" might be referring to catching a coin after it is flipped in the air.
>
>
> |
28,818 | I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
Who am I?
Related:
>
> [The Happy Prisoner](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28595)
>
>
>
Also
>
> The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
>
> | 2016/03/11 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28818",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/19179/"
] | You're:
>
> Lady Luck.
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
>
> Self explanatory.
>
>
>
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> You're completely **constricted** by the laws of probably.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
>
> All riches come from some sort of luck. Even if you're born into it, your birth alone had some luck involved.
>
>
>
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Luck has no possessions.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
>
> Everything, right down to quantum mechanics has some factor (however large or small) of probability/luck involved. Even the earth's orbit has a slight wobble to it's **bend** around the sun do to probability.
>
>
>
Yet I possess no power.
>
> But luck itself doesn't have any power. It disperses energy in a random manner.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
>
> All girls (and boys) want to be the lucky one.
>
>
>
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Luck doesn't **chose** to do anything and when you're dead "your *luck* is up".
>
>
>
Pun:
>
> The title and hint refer to this being a story (**tale**) of Lady Luck and the luck of heads or **tail**s in a coin toss. You might not **catch it** (the coin, riddle or pun) if you're *unlucky*.
>
>
> | In line with my answer on the related question, I think you are:
>
> Eve
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
>
> Eve was blessed by God to enjoy the pleasures of life and Earth, but you could call His blessing luck. Plus, being made from a rib is pretty lucky.
>
>
>
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> She was tempted by the serpent. Some serpents are constrictors.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Eve was the first woman in her creation story, so she could claim anything she liked. However, the world (and Eve) were really God's creation.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
>
> God gave man (and *wo*man) dominion over all creatures that crawled the Earth, though neither Adam nor Eve possessed any especial powers themselves.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Eve was the only woman on Earth, and had all to herself an ~~Abel~~ *ahem*, able partner, as well as a garden of paradise to seemingly enjoy forever. Her expulsion from the garden was the first fall from grace of mankind. Outside the garden, Adam and Eve would be exposed to pains, trials, and death.
>
>
>
Who am I?
>
> Eve
>
>
>
Related:
>
> <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/28997/11452>
>
>
> |
28,818 | I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
Who am I?
Related:
>
> [The Happy Prisoner](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28595)
>
>
>
Also
>
> The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
>
> | 2016/03/11 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28818",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/19179/"
] | You could be
>
> Queen Elizabeth II
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> Many people consider coins good luck, her portrait is on British coinage. As a portrait on a coin she cannot go anywhere so she is very restricted. Also, she herself is lucky to be the queen, but she is restricted in the things she can do by her station.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Again, as a portrait on a money, she "has" lots of money yet doesn't own it. Also, as queen she is wealthy, yet her wealth ultimately belongs to the British nation.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
>
> The world's behavior is influenced by the money with her portrait on it. Yet as queen, she's a figurehead that doesn't have political power.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Every girl dreams of being the Queen. However, the Queen was born into her position and didn't choose it, and will be Queen until her death.
>
>
>
The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
> The "tail" in the title refers to the coins that bear her image. Also "catch it" might be referring to catching a coin after it is flipped in the air.
>
>
> | It better not be
>
> Chell (from the Portal series).
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> Only person around.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Again, only person around. Unlike most video game characters, has zero inventory space.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
>
> She has no poowers, but bends the world with her portal gun.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> She chose not to come to the party with cake, she is in the facility against her will, and only leaves when either she or the boss dies.
>
>
>
A Tail of One Lady
>
> She has a ponytail.
>
> Also, didn't she get mocked for being born with a tail? I can't remember.
>
>
> |
28,818 | I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
Who am I?
Related:
>
> [The Happy Prisoner](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28595)
>
>
>
Also
>
> The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
>
> | 2016/03/11 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/28818",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/19179/"
] | You could be
>
> Queen Elizabeth II
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> Many people consider coins good luck, her portrait is on British coinage. As a portrait on a coin she cannot go anywhere so she is very restricted. Also, she herself is lucky to be the queen, but she is restricted in the things she can do by her station.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Again, as a portrait on a money, she "has" lots of money yet doesn't own it. Also, as queen she is wealthy, yet her wealth ultimately belongs to the British nation.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
>
> The world's behavior is influenced by the money with her portrait on it. Yet as queen, she's a figurehead that doesn't have political power.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Every girl dreams of being the Queen. However, the Queen was born into her position and didn't choose it, and will be Queen until her death.
>
>
>
The title is a pun, but I doubt anyone will catch it.
>
> The "tail" in the title refers to the coins that bear her image. Also "catch it" might be referring to catching a coin after it is flipped in the air.
>
>
> | In line with my answer on the related question, I think you are:
>
> Eve
>
>
>
I am the luckiest lady around!
>
> Eve was blessed by God to enjoy the pleasures of life and Earth, but you could call His blessing luck. Plus, being made from a rib is pretty lucky.
>
>
>
I am the most constricted of all.
>
> She was tempted by the serpent. Some serpents are constrictors.
>
>
>
I am the richest lady on earth!
Yet I own nothing at all.
>
> Eve was the first woman in her creation story, so she could claim anything she liked. However, the world (and Eve) were really God's creation.
>
>
>
The world bends to my will!
Yet I possess no power.
>
> God gave man (and *wo*man) dominion over all creatures that crawled the Earth, though neither Adam nor Eve possessed any especial powers themselves.
>
>
>
Every girl wishes to be in my place!
But I chose not to come and only leave at death.
>
> Eve was the only woman on Earth, and had all to herself an ~~Abel~~ *ahem*, able partner, as well as a garden of paradise to seemingly enjoy forever. Her expulsion from the garden was the first fall from grace of mankind. Outside the garden, Adam and Eve would be exposed to pains, trials, and death.
>
>
>
Who am I?
>
> Eve
>
>
>
Related:
>
> <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/28997/11452>
>
>
> |
5,228,466 | I am new to highcharts with ruby on rails. Is there any tutorial or any idea how to fetch data from database ( SQLYog Community) and display it as chart ( Highchart) using Rails ?? | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5228466",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/631964/"
] | Yes you can. You just have to return json object. You can google 'highcharts json' for more information.
Example:
[Reload chart data via JSON with Highcharts](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4210879/reload-chart-data-via-json-with-highcharts) | I highly recommend the RailsCasts video tutorial for this.
[This is a great tutorial](http://railscasts.com/episodes/223-charts) on getting Highcharts up and running with Rails.
It will walk you through installing Highcharts and jQuery and getting your models and views set up to render charts nicely.
Once you have the basics up and running you should look through Highcharts sample code [in their demos](http://www.highcharts.com/demo/line-basic/gray). |
195,260 | A while back I was wondering why my dvd was so quiet on my computer then solved it by chosing the 2.0 track instead of the 5.1 track.
But now I have a DVD which only has 5.1, how can I watch it without losing the other channels?
If it helps, I'm using Media Player Classic. | 2010/10/03 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/195260",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/51157/"
] | Use the 5.1 track on the dvd, then set the output in the sound driver to stereo. it should mux the front and rear channels together in hardware. if it doesn't get a better soundcard | If you use VLC there is quite a few audio tweaks you can do, but in the standard Audio menu you can choose between 5.1, 2 front 2 rear, stereo and mono.
I only had a quick look around the preferences so there might be something even better among the many settings. To get to the cool/advanced menus be sure to click the `All` radio-button indicated in the picture.
 |
1,089 | I need to understand the fine details, possibilities and pricing of Salesforce OEM model. I can't find an official link about this on salesforce and google, only link available is this 2008 pdf : <http://www.developerforce.com/tdf/2008/april/Force_ISV_Partner.pdf>
Please share any good post/article on this. | 2012/09/02 | [
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/1089",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/users/266/"
] | We did something similar, however we created a specific boolean field for this purpose: "locked\_\_c".
The benefit of using this field instead of a 'first closed date', is it can be used in multiple ways and remains true to its meaning.
For example, you may want to lock an Opportunity for a reason other than it was closed 90 days ago, such as based on the Amount value or the Client. By having a generic 'locked' field, the same field is used and it's easy to report on, otherwise you'd have to create multiple fields to achieve the same result.
Our use was slightly different. We wanted certain profiles to have the ability to edit a record in a very small number of situations. We made it possible for those profiles to untick the 'locked' field, then edit it, and workflow would re-tick the field.
We wanted these users to be able to help themselves, but we also wanted to monitor it, so we had emails sent to the sys admins whenever the 'locked' field was unticked for auditing purposes. This approach worked out quite well as the users could perform their tasks, but we could also control it. | The best non-record type solution I can think of is to have a time-based workflow change the owner. You could then use sharing rules to give other users read-only access to the records.
In addition, while extra record types might be cumbersome to maintain they still might prove to be the simplest and cleanest solution in the end. |
1,089 | I need to understand the fine details, possibilities and pricing of Salesforce OEM model. I can't find an official link about this on salesforce and google, only link available is this 2008 pdf : <http://www.developerforce.com/tdf/2008/april/Force_ISV_Partner.pdf>
Please share any good post/article on this. | 2012/09/02 | [
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/1089",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/users/266/"
] | I recently wrote a blog post about [locking records using approval processes](http://verticalcode.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/locking-a-record-from-editing/). It is a pretty big hack, but it allows you to lock a record without having to use separate page layouts or record types. Here's how it could work:
1. Set a time-based workflow rule to update a boolean field called "Lock Record" 90 days after the Opportunity is closed.
2. Have a trigger that fires when the "Lock Record" field is checked.
3. The trigger invokes a simple approval process that when finished leaves the record locked.
Admins can unlock the record by clicking the Unlock button at the top of the page, but they can also edit the record without unlocking it. | The best non-record type solution I can think of is to have a time-based workflow change the owner. You could then use sharing rules to give other users read-only access to the records.
In addition, while extra record types might be cumbersome to maintain they still might prove to be the simplest and cleanest solution in the end. |
101,848 | To me, "over easy" seems to refer to the pan, because I think of a pan sitting atop an easy flame. "Over hard" makes me think it refers to the egg, because the liquid becomes solid. Then again, maybe it's something else altogether. | 2013/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/101848",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3354/"
] | There's not really such a thing as *over easy* scrambled eggs. It originates with fried eggs, where it means turn them over *gently* (easy, carefully) and cook for for a few seconds more before serving, so the white is fully set (not "snotty"). That's *gently* because you don't want to break the yolk.
The opposite to *over easy* is *sunny side up* (i.e. - *don't* do that turning over).
EDIT: Because *over easy* is so well-known in the above context, and because there are no other standard terms to describe how you want your eggs (unlike, say, *rare, medium, bloody, well-done* for steaks), people do sometimes extrapolate variants such as *over hard*, or apply *over easy* to scrambled eggs. They're easily understood, but such usages aren't really standard terminology.
---
EDIT2: It never occurred to me anyone would propose an alternative origin for *over easy*. Having scoured the Internet, I don't see anything looking remotely like an "authoritative" etymological reference - so unless someone else does, all I can offer is a couple of links supporting what I think...
>
> 1. The spatula edge should stay on the pan so that the rolling of the egg off the spatula is "[easy](http://www.ehow.com/how_2051043_fry-egg-over-easy.html#page=0)".
> 2. ...in order to faciliate lightly cooking the yolk, you would have to flip the eggs over, and to prevent the yolk from breaking (and rendering the eggs "cooked hard") you have to flip them over [easy](http://ask.metafilter.com/6002/eggs-over-I-can-understand-over-easy-though-is-hard).
>
>
> | Most likely, *easy* refers to going easy on the temperature and duration, and hard on the condition of the egg, as you suspect. We can play hard and work hard, but we don't really speak about cooking hard. The egg yolk gets solidifies atop even an easy flame, given enough time. And of course, *easy* doesn't refer to the liquid condition of the yolk. |
101,848 | To me, "over easy" seems to refer to the pan, because I think of a pan sitting atop an easy flame. "Over hard" makes me think it refers to the egg, because the liquid becomes solid. Then again, maybe it's something else altogether. | 2013/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/101848",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3354/"
] | I'm pretty sure that "over hard" came first: it's [diner jargon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diner_lingo) that the eggs should be flipped **over** and cooked until they are **hard**. Now if you want it flipped but not hard, well the opposite of hard is **easy**, right? (Sure, you could say soft or runny, but diner slang is often supposed to be funny, a bit of an in-joke, and opaque.) | Most likely, *easy* refers to going easy on the temperature and duration, and hard on the condition of the egg, as you suspect. We can play hard and work hard, but we don't really speak about cooking hard. The egg yolk gets solidifies atop even an easy flame, given enough time. And of course, *easy* doesn't refer to the liquid condition of the yolk. |
101,848 | To me, "over easy" seems to refer to the pan, because I think of a pan sitting atop an easy flame. "Over hard" makes me think it refers to the egg, because the liquid becomes solid. Then again, maybe it's something else altogether. | 2013/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/101848",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3354/"
] | There's not really such a thing as *over easy* scrambled eggs. It originates with fried eggs, where it means turn them over *gently* (easy, carefully) and cook for for a few seconds more before serving, so the white is fully set (not "snotty"). That's *gently* because you don't want to break the yolk.
The opposite to *over easy* is *sunny side up* (i.e. - *don't* do that turning over).
EDIT: Because *over easy* is so well-known in the above context, and because there are no other standard terms to describe how you want your eggs (unlike, say, *rare, medium, bloody, well-done* for steaks), people do sometimes extrapolate variants such as *over hard*, or apply *over easy* to scrambled eggs. They're easily understood, but such usages aren't really standard terminology.
---
EDIT2: It never occurred to me anyone would propose an alternative origin for *over easy*. Having scoured the Internet, I don't see anything looking remotely like an "authoritative" etymological reference - so unless someone else does, all I can offer is a couple of links supporting what I think...
>
> 1. The spatula edge should stay on the pan so that the rolling of the egg off the spatula is "[easy](http://www.ehow.com/how_2051043_fry-egg-over-easy.html#page=0)".
> 2. ...in order to faciliate lightly cooking the yolk, you would have to flip the eggs over, and to prevent the yolk from breaking (and rendering the eggs "cooked hard") you have to flip them over [easy](http://ask.metafilter.com/6002/eggs-over-I-can-understand-over-easy-though-is-hard).
>
>
> | I'm pretty sure that "over hard" came first: it's [diner jargon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diner_lingo) that the eggs should be flipped **over** and cooked until they are **hard**. Now if you want it flipped but not hard, well the opposite of hard is **easy**, right? (Sure, you could say soft or runny, but diner slang is often supposed to be funny, a bit of an in-joke, and opaque.) |
101,848 | To me, "over easy" seems to refer to the pan, because I think of a pan sitting atop an easy flame. "Over hard" makes me think it refers to the egg, because the liquid becomes solid. Then again, maybe it's something else altogether. | 2013/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/101848",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3354/"
] | There's not really such a thing as *over easy* scrambled eggs. It originates with fried eggs, where it means turn them over *gently* (easy, carefully) and cook for for a few seconds more before serving, so the white is fully set (not "snotty"). That's *gently* because you don't want to break the yolk.
The opposite to *over easy* is *sunny side up* (i.e. - *don't* do that turning over).
EDIT: Because *over easy* is so well-known in the above context, and because there are no other standard terms to describe how you want your eggs (unlike, say, *rare, medium, bloody, well-done* for steaks), people do sometimes extrapolate variants such as *over hard*, or apply *over easy* to scrambled eggs. They're easily understood, but such usages aren't really standard terminology.
---
EDIT2: It never occurred to me anyone would propose an alternative origin for *over easy*. Having scoured the Internet, I don't see anything looking remotely like an "authoritative" etymological reference - so unless someone else does, all I can offer is a couple of links supporting what I think...
>
> 1. The spatula edge should stay on the pan so that the rolling of the egg off the spatula is "[easy](http://www.ehow.com/how_2051043_fry-egg-over-easy.html#page=0)".
> 2. ...in order to faciliate lightly cooking the yolk, you would have to flip the eggs over, and to prevent the yolk from breaking (and rendering the eggs "cooked hard") you have to flip them over [easy](http://ask.metafilter.com/6002/eggs-over-I-can-understand-over-easy-though-is-hard).
>
>
> | These terms refer to the egg, namely to its degree of cooked-ness: *over-easy* is cooked on both sides but yolk is runny; *over-medium* is less runny than over-easy, and *over-hard* is when both the yolk and white is cooked all the way through. |
101,848 | To me, "over easy" seems to refer to the pan, because I think of a pan sitting atop an easy flame. "Over hard" makes me think it refers to the egg, because the liquid becomes solid. Then again, maybe it's something else altogether. | 2013/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/101848",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3354/"
] | I'm pretty sure that "over hard" came first: it's [diner jargon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diner_lingo) that the eggs should be flipped **over** and cooked until they are **hard**. Now if you want it flipped but not hard, well the opposite of hard is **easy**, right? (Sure, you could say soft or runny, but diner slang is often supposed to be funny, a bit of an in-joke, and opaque.) | These terms refer to the egg, namely to its degree of cooked-ness: *over-easy* is cooked on both sides but yolk is runny; *over-medium* is less runny than over-easy, and *over-hard* is when both the yolk and white is cooked all the way through. |
36,113 | The scriptures say there is no “God but one,” then there are ‘many gods,’ who or what are they?
>
> DNKJB 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is **none other God but one**. 5 For though there be that **are called gods**, whether in heaven or in earth, **(as there be gods many**, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but **one God**, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
>
>
>
Also is this a contradiction? | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/36113",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The apostle Paul does admit the existence of other “gods” and “lords” (whether in heaven or on earth). Later in his epistle, he elaborates that these “gods” are in fact demons.1
>
> 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. NKJV, ©1982
>
>
>
Compare the apostle Paul’s statement to Deuteronomy 32:17:
>
> 17 They sacrificed **to demons**, not God, **to gods** they had not known; to new gods who had recently come along, gods your ancestors had not known about. NET, ©1996
>
>
>
---
### Footnotes
1 1 Cor. 10:20 | Peace.
For me, the “other gods” are the doctrines and commandments of men scribed (the handwriting of ordinances…or rather dogmas) for others to worship and serve before the one God. The worship of the one God is then become vain.
>
> *Mark 7:7-9 KJV (7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.*
>
>
>
The commandment of the one God (to have love for one another) is put aside in order to hold the “tradition”….the transmissions of men (the handwritings passed down through generations) .
>
> *(8) **For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men**, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like
> things ye do.*
>
>
>
The commandment of God is rejected so that the transmission of men is kept. They become “other gods” as people worship and serve them more than the one God and His commandments.
>
> *(9) And he said unto them, **Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition**.*
>
>
>
The “creature” (the formation, ordinance) is worshipped and served MORE than the Creator. The commandments of men are used to judge others…which is not having love for one another as commanded by the Creator. God created us and everything we see. He is not the product of our own handwritings that have no power (as compared to God’s power) in the serving and worshipping of them.
>
> *Romans 1:25 KJV (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, **and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator**, who is
> blessed for ever. Amen.*
>
>
>
They changed the truth of God into ***the*** lie….the original lie….where they become judges (“gods”) of others knowing what and who is good and evil supposedly in His authority.
The woman in the garden added here own carnal commandment (“neither shall you touch it”) to God’s commandment and then presented it as though God commanded it when He did not. Added commandments of men become a basis to speak evil of/judging others (as "evil doers") who do not follow them.
>
> *Genesis 3:2-5 KJV (2) And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (3) But of the fruit of
> the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall
> not eat of it, **neither shall ye touch it,** lest ye die. (4) And the
> serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (5) For God
> doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
> opened, **and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil**.*
>
>
>
Setting aside the commandment of God (to have love for one another) in order to worship and serve the commandments of men do nothing for us even though they are being professed to be done in His name (authority).
>
> *Matthew 7:21-23 KJV (21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the
> will of my Father which is in heaven*.
>
>
>
Others are being judged as “devils” supposedly in His name (authority)….as they do not keep their particular handwriting of ordinances.
Part of the original lie is that “God does know….” ( judging of others as "devils" is supposedly done in His name or authority). For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Doing these things supposedly in His name (authority) as judges of others for God is not doing His commandment to have love for one another.
>
> *(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied **in thy name?** and **in thy name have cast out devils?** and **in
> thy name** done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto
> them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.*
>
>
>
We are the offspring of God and not the other way around. God is not the handwriting of dogmas (ordinances) that men have scribed for others to serve and worship. He is not graven by “art and man’s device”. He is not the “graven image” of man’s own thoughts.
>
> *Acts 17:28-29 KJV (28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, **For we are also
> his offspring**. (29) **Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we
> ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or
> stone, graven by art and man's device.***
>
>
>
Man's handwriting of ordinances (dogmas) are against us and contrary to us getting along with one another as they are used to judge others with (thereby setting aside the commandment of God to have love for one another).
>
> *Colossians 2:14-15 KJV (14) **Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it
> out of the way, nailing it to his cross**; (15) And having spoiled
> principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing
> over them in it.*
>
>
>
God has brought us out of the house of bondage.
>
> \*Exodus 20:1-6 KJV (1) And God spake all these words, saying, (2) I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
> out of the house of bondage. (3) **Thou shalt have no other gods before
> me. (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,** or any
> likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
> beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
> \*
>
>
>
But bowing ourselves down to man’s handwritings of ordinances and serving them brings us back into bondage. These transmissions of men are passed down through generations.
>
> *(5) **Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them**: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
> fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
> that hate me; (6) And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love
> me, and keep my commandments*
>
>
> |
36,113 | The scriptures say there is no “God but one,” then there are ‘many gods,’ who or what are they?
>
> DNKJB 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is **none other God but one**. 5 For though there be that **are called gods**, whether in heaven or in earth, **(as there be gods many**, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but **one God**, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
>
>
>
Also is this a contradiction? | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/36113",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The apostle Paul does admit the existence of other “gods” and “lords” (whether in heaven or on earth). Later in his epistle, he elaborates that these “gods” are in fact demons.1
>
> 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. NKJV, ©1982
>
>
>
Compare the apostle Paul’s statement to Deuteronomy 32:17:
>
> 17 They sacrificed **to demons**, not God, **to gods** they had not known; to new gods who had recently come along, gods your ancestors had not known about. NET, ©1996
>
>
>
---
### Footnotes
1 1 Cor. 10:20 | We have to focus on the Bible **definition** of the term ‘god’.
So, what is ‘god’ according the Scriptures? Paul wrote that ‘god’ (*θεος*) was equivalent to *σεβασμα* (2 Tes 2:4), that is ‘an object of veneration, or, worship’.
Really, given a worshipper, or some of them, **anything in the universe of the entia is able to become a ‘god’**. According the Bible, [1] a human person (Rev 19:10); [2] one or some of the animals (Eze 8:10-11); [3] a part of our body (Philippians 3:19), or any other ens, animated or inanimated, is able to become a 'god', or an 'idol' for us.
When Paul said that ‘*the idol is nothing*’ (1 Cor 8:4) we do not understand it like an **absolute** acceptation of ‘nothing’, but a **comparative** one. In fact, in the same Paul’s letter (1:28) he spoke about, for an example, “*the things that are not*” (*τα μη οντα*) that, very clearly, they **were** (and **are**) existing things (as the first part of the verse says). Those “things” “are not” in a comparative sense, in fact the parallelism fixes the equivalence between the ‘things’ that ‘are not’ and the ‘things ignoble’ (*αγενη*). **This aspect (comparative vs absolute acceptation) must be took in consideration also in 1 Cor 8:4**.
In other words, compared to IEUE, the Creator, any of these ‘idols’, or ‘gods’ are like ‘nothing’. Since they cannot put an obstacle before His plans, nor, they can help their worshippers, in a comparative sense they are ‘nothing’.
This is a sound conclusion also if we take into consideration the often-expressed God’s quality of ‘jelousy’ (Exo 34:14, and many other passages). In fact, **if the gods/idols were nothing in an absolute way, it is senseless – from God’s part – to demand his people not to serve ‘other gods/idols’**. I think you do not ever read in the Bible that the Israelites answered God in the following way: ‘*Excuse us, Lord IEUE, why you are concerned about to whom we are directing our worship? Since the ‘gods/idols’ you speak on are non-existing entia, at all, is there a basis for your ‘jealousy’?*'
Truly, if I and my wife found ourselves on a solitary little island, with no people on it, at all, it wouldn’t be stupid – for my part – feel jealous of her?
From the moment God allowed us to receive the gift of free will, **everyone of us is able to decide who or what to worship**. This is why God is jealous, because he is the Creator, and to him deserves rightly our worship, honor, and respect (Rev 4:11), in an exclusive way.
This conception of God, the Creator, that provides that He deserves an exclusive worship, along with the acknowledgement of the existence of other *σεβασμα* (‘an object of veneration, or, worship’) is called **monolatry**. It is different from monotheism. Despite the vast majority of people is persuaded that Bible teaches monotheism, in reality we found that the Bible teaches, instead, monolatry. For users’ sake understanding let me present a simple analogy to illustrate the point of difference between these two important concepts.
A (so to speak) ‘monotheistic’ U.S. newspaper reader would be who believe that exists only one printed newspaper in his country, and reads it. He not believe that, as a matter of fact, there are – in U.S.A. – hundreds (or, thousands?) of different printed newspaper, every day.
Differently, a (so to speak) ‘monolatric’ U.S. newspaper reader would be who knows, for a fact, that in U.S.A. exist hundreds (or, thousands?) of different printed newspaper, every day, but, in every case, **he chooses to read only one** newspaper among them all.
So, if we understand these basic concepts and apply them on the passage at issue (1 Cor 8:4-6) we will not spot any discrepance, at all. |
36,113 | The scriptures say there is no “God but one,” then there are ‘many gods,’ who or what are they?
>
> DNKJB 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is **none other God but one**. 5 For though there be that **are called gods**, whether in heaven or in earth, **(as there be gods many**, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but **one God**, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
>
>
>
Also is this a contradiction? | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/36113",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I think this question confuses two matters that the Bible is at pains to separate. In numerous places, the Bible freely discusses the many gods that there are but also declares that there is only one God. This is no contradiction.
There are numerous places where the Bible clearly says that there is only ONE true God who is Jehovah God Almighty! Deut 4:35, 6:4; Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6, 1 Cor 8:4; Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 1:17.
It then also says that while there are many gods (that declared gods by humans) they are not gods at all: 2 Kings 19:18, Isa 37:19, Jer 2;11, 5:7, 16:20, 1 Cor 8:4-6, Acts 19:26, Gal 4:8. Therefore, since these are not gods at all then, they are not gods! Deut 32:17 and 1 Cor 10:20 both say that some of these false gods are merely demons | Peace.
For me, the “other gods” are the doctrines and commandments of men scribed (the handwriting of ordinances…or rather dogmas) for others to worship and serve before the one God. The worship of the one God is then become vain.
>
> *Mark 7:7-9 KJV (7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.*
>
>
>
The commandment of the one God (to have love for one another) is put aside in order to hold the “tradition”….the transmissions of men (the handwritings passed down through generations) .
>
> *(8) **For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men**, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like
> things ye do.*
>
>
>
The commandment of God is rejected so that the transmission of men is kept. They become “other gods” as people worship and serve them more than the one God and His commandments.
>
> *(9) And he said unto them, **Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition**.*
>
>
>
The “creature” (the formation, ordinance) is worshipped and served MORE than the Creator. The commandments of men are used to judge others…which is not having love for one another as commanded by the Creator. God created us and everything we see. He is not the product of our own handwritings that have no power (as compared to God’s power) in the serving and worshipping of them.
>
> *Romans 1:25 KJV (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, **and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator**, who is
> blessed for ever. Amen.*
>
>
>
They changed the truth of God into ***the*** lie….the original lie….where they become judges (“gods”) of others knowing what and who is good and evil supposedly in His authority.
The woman in the garden added here own carnal commandment (“neither shall you touch it”) to God’s commandment and then presented it as though God commanded it when He did not. Added commandments of men become a basis to speak evil of/judging others (as "evil doers") who do not follow them.
>
> *Genesis 3:2-5 KJV (2) And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (3) But of the fruit of
> the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall
> not eat of it, **neither shall ye touch it,** lest ye die. (4) And the
> serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (5) For God
> doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
> opened, **and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil**.*
>
>
>
Setting aside the commandment of God (to have love for one another) in order to worship and serve the commandments of men do nothing for us even though they are being professed to be done in His name (authority).
>
> *Matthew 7:21-23 KJV (21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the
> will of my Father which is in heaven*.
>
>
>
Others are being judged as “devils” supposedly in His name (authority)….as they do not keep their particular handwriting of ordinances.
Part of the original lie is that “God does know….” ( judging of others as "devils" is supposedly done in His name or authority). For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Doing these things supposedly in His name (authority) as judges of others for God is not doing His commandment to have love for one another.
>
> *(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied **in thy name?** and **in thy name have cast out devils?** and **in
> thy name** done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto
> them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.*
>
>
>
We are the offspring of God and not the other way around. God is not the handwriting of dogmas (ordinances) that men have scribed for others to serve and worship. He is not graven by “art and man’s device”. He is not the “graven image” of man’s own thoughts.
>
> *Acts 17:28-29 KJV (28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, **For we are also
> his offspring**. (29) **Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we
> ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or
> stone, graven by art and man's device.***
>
>
>
Man's handwriting of ordinances (dogmas) are against us and contrary to us getting along with one another as they are used to judge others with (thereby setting aside the commandment of God to have love for one another).
>
> *Colossians 2:14-15 KJV (14) **Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it
> out of the way, nailing it to his cross**; (15) And having spoiled
> principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing
> over them in it.*
>
>
>
God has brought us out of the house of bondage.
>
> \*Exodus 20:1-6 KJV (1) And God spake all these words, saying, (2) I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
> out of the house of bondage. (3) **Thou shalt have no other gods before
> me. (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,** or any
> likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
> beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
> \*
>
>
>
But bowing ourselves down to man’s handwritings of ordinances and serving them brings us back into bondage. These transmissions of men are passed down through generations.
>
> *(5) **Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them**: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
> fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
> that hate me; (6) And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love
> me, and keep my commandments*
>
>
> |
36,113 | The scriptures say there is no “God but one,” then there are ‘many gods,’ who or what are they?
>
> DNKJB 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is **none other God but one**. 5 For though there be that **are called gods**, whether in heaven or in earth, **(as there be gods many**, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but **one God**, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
>
>
>
Also is this a contradiction? | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/36113",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The most important thing that should be mentioned is that there were no quotation marks in Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew. Therefore, it can be ambiguous on what the author originally intended to mean. So it can be hard to tell if the Apostle Paul meant gods or if he meant "gods" (as in "so-called" gods). Another example is that in the book of Jeremiah the false prophets are often simply referred to as prophets but it's understood to be in a figurative sense as in "prophets" ("so-called"). Considering Paul's repeated affirmation of monotheism it can be concluded that he meant "gods." | Peace.
For me, the “other gods” are the doctrines and commandments of men scribed (the handwriting of ordinances…or rather dogmas) for others to worship and serve before the one God. The worship of the one God is then become vain.
>
> *Mark 7:7-9 KJV (7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.*
>
>
>
The commandment of the one God (to have love for one another) is put aside in order to hold the “tradition”….the transmissions of men (the handwritings passed down through generations) .
>
> *(8) **For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men**, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like
> things ye do.*
>
>
>
The commandment of God is rejected so that the transmission of men is kept. They become “other gods” as people worship and serve them more than the one God and His commandments.
>
> *(9) And he said unto them, **Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition**.*
>
>
>
The “creature” (the formation, ordinance) is worshipped and served MORE than the Creator. The commandments of men are used to judge others…which is not having love for one another as commanded by the Creator. God created us and everything we see. He is not the product of our own handwritings that have no power (as compared to God’s power) in the serving and worshipping of them.
>
> *Romans 1:25 KJV (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, **and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator**, who is
> blessed for ever. Amen.*
>
>
>
They changed the truth of God into ***the*** lie….the original lie….where they become judges (“gods”) of others knowing what and who is good and evil supposedly in His authority.
The woman in the garden added here own carnal commandment (“neither shall you touch it”) to God’s commandment and then presented it as though God commanded it when He did not. Added commandments of men become a basis to speak evil of/judging others (as "evil doers") who do not follow them.
>
> *Genesis 3:2-5 KJV (2) And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (3) But of the fruit of
> the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall
> not eat of it, **neither shall ye touch it,** lest ye die. (4) And the
> serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (5) For God
> doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
> opened, **and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil**.*
>
>
>
Setting aside the commandment of God (to have love for one another) in order to worship and serve the commandments of men do nothing for us even though they are being professed to be done in His name (authority).
>
> *Matthew 7:21-23 KJV (21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the
> will of my Father which is in heaven*.
>
>
>
Others are being judged as “devils” supposedly in His name (authority)….as they do not keep their particular handwriting of ordinances.
Part of the original lie is that “God does know….” ( judging of others as "devils" is supposedly done in His name or authority). For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Doing these things supposedly in His name (authority) as judges of others for God is not doing His commandment to have love for one another.
>
> *(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied **in thy name?** and **in thy name have cast out devils?** and **in
> thy name** done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto
> them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.*
>
>
>
We are the offspring of God and not the other way around. God is not the handwriting of dogmas (ordinances) that men have scribed for others to serve and worship. He is not graven by “art and man’s device”. He is not the “graven image” of man’s own thoughts.
>
> *Acts 17:28-29 KJV (28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, **For we are also
> his offspring**. (29) **Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we
> ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or
> stone, graven by art and man's device.***
>
>
>
Man's handwriting of ordinances (dogmas) are against us and contrary to us getting along with one another as they are used to judge others with (thereby setting aside the commandment of God to have love for one another).
>
> *Colossians 2:14-15 KJV (14) **Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it
> out of the way, nailing it to his cross**; (15) And having spoiled
> principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing
> over them in it.*
>
>
>
God has brought us out of the house of bondage.
>
> \*Exodus 20:1-6 KJV (1) And God spake all these words, saying, (2) I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
> out of the house of bondage. (3) **Thou shalt have no other gods before
> me. (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,** or any
> likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
> beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
> \*
>
>
>
But bowing ourselves down to man’s handwritings of ordinances and serving them brings us back into bondage. These transmissions of men are passed down through generations.
>
> *(5) **Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them**: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
> fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
> that hate me; (6) And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love
> me, and keep my commandments*
>
>
> |
36,113 | The scriptures say there is no “God but one,” then there are ‘many gods,’ who or what are they?
>
> DNKJB 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is **none other God but one**. 5 For though there be that **are called gods**, whether in heaven or in earth, **(as there be gods many**, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but **one God**, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
>
>
>
Also is this a contradiction? | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/36113",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I think this question confuses two matters that the Bible is at pains to separate. In numerous places, the Bible freely discusses the many gods that there are but also declares that there is only one God. This is no contradiction.
There are numerous places where the Bible clearly says that there is only ONE true God who is Jehovah God Almighty! Deut 4:35, 6:4; Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6, 1 Cor 8:4; Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 1:17.
It then also says that while there are many gods (that declared gods by humans) they are not gods at all: 2 Kings 19:18, Isa 37:19, Jer 2;11, 5:7, 16:20, 1 Cor 8:4-6, Acts 19:26, Gal 4:8. Therefore, since these are not gods at all then, they are not gods! Deut 32:17 and 1 Cor 10:20 both say that some of these false gods are merely demons | We have to focus on the Bible **definition** of the term ‘god’.
So, what is ‘god’ according the Scriptures? Paul wrote that ‘god’ (*θεος*) was equivalent to *σεβασμα* (2 Tes 2:4), that is ‘an object of veneration, or, worship’.
Really, given a worshipper, or some of them, **anything in the universe of the entia is able to become a ‘god’**. According the Bible, [1] a human person (Rev 19:10); [2] one or some of the animals (Eze 8:10-11); [3] a part of our body (Philippians 3:19), or any other ens, animated or inanimated, is able to become a 'god', or an 'idol' for us.
When Paul said that ‘*the idol is nothing*’ (1 Cor 8:4) we do not understand it like an **absolute** acceptation of ‘nothing’, but a **comparative** one. In fact, in the same Paul’s letter (1:28) he spoke about, for an example, “*the things that are not*” (*τα μη οντα*) that, very clearly, they **were** (and **are**) existing things (as the first part of the verse says). Those “things” “are not” in a comparative sense, in fact the parallelism fixes the equivalence between the ‘things’ that ‘are not’ and the ‘things ignoble’ (*αγενη*). **This aspect (comparative vs absolute acceptation) must be took in consideration also in 1 Cor 8:4**.
In other words, compared to IEUE, the Creator, any of these ‘idols’, or ‘gods’ are like ‘nothing’. Since they cannot put an obstacle before His plans, nor, they can help their worshippers, in a comparative sense they are ‘nothing’.
This is a sound conclusion also if we take into consideration the often-expressed God’s quality of ‘jelousy’ (Exo 34:14, and many other passages). In fact, **if the gods/idols were nothing in an absolute way, it is senseless – from God’s part – to demand his people not to serve ‘other gods/idols’**. I think you do not ever read in the Bible that the Israelites answered God in the following way: ‘*Excuse us, Lord IEUE, why you are concerned about to whom we are directing our worship? Since the ‘gods/idols’ you speak on are non-existing entia, at all, is there a basis for your ‘jealousy’?*'
Truly, if I and my wife found ourselves on a solitary little island, with no people on it, at all, it wouldn’t be stupid – for my part – feel jealous of her?
From the moment God allowed us to receive the gift of free will, **everyone of us is able to decide who or what to worship**. This is why God is jealous, because he is the Creator, and to him deserves rightly our worship, honor, and respect (Rev 4:11), in an exclusive way.
This conception of God, the Creator, that provides that He deserves an exclusive worship, along with the acknowledgement of the existence of other *σεβασμα* (‘an object of veneration, or, worship’) is called **monolatry**. It is different from monotheism. Despite the vast majority of people is persuaded that Bible teaches monotheism, in reality we found that the Bible teaches, instead, monolatry. For users’ sake understanding let me present a simple analogy to illustrate the point of difference between these two important concepts.
A (so to speak) ‘monotheistic’ U.S. newspaper reader would be who believe that exists only one printed newspaper in his country, and reads it. He not believe that, as a matter of fact, there are – in U.S.A. – hundreds (or, thousands?) of different printed newspaper, every day.
Differently, a (so to speak) ‘monolatric’ U.S. newspaper reader would be who knows, for a fact, that in U.S.A. exist hundreds (or, thousands?) of different printed newspaper, every day, but, in every case, **he chooses to read only one** newspaper among them all.
So, if we understand these basic concepts and apply them on the passage at issue (1 Cor 8:4-6) we will not spot any discrepance, at all. |
36,113 | The scriptures say there is no “God but one,” then there are ‘many gods,’ who or what are they?
>
> DNKJB 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is **none other God but one**. 5 For though there be that **are called gods**, whether in heaven or in earth, **(as there be gods many**, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but **one God**, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
>
>
>
Also is this a contradiction? | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/36113",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The most important thing that should be mentioned is that there were no quotation marks in Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew. Therefore, it can be ambiguous on what the author originally intended to mean. So it can be hard to tell if the Apostle Paul meant gods or if he meant "gods" (as in "so-called" gods). Another example is that in the book of Jeremiah the false prophets are often simply referred to as prophets but it's understood to be in a figurative sense as in "prophets" ("so-called"). Considering Paul's repeated affirmation of monotheism it can be concluded that he meant "gods." | We have to focus on the Bible **definition** of the term ‘god’.
So, what is ‘god’ according the Scriptures? Paul wrote that ‘god’ (*θεος*) was equivalent to *σεβασμα* (2 Tes 2:4), that is ‘an object of veneration, or, worship’.
Really, given a worshipper, or some of them, **anything in the universe of the entia is able to become a ‘god’**. According the Bible, [1] a human person (Rev 19:10); [2] one or some of the animals (Eze 8:10-11); [3] a part of our body (Philippians 3:19), or any other ens, animated or inanimated, is able to become a 'god', or an 'idol' for us.
When Paul said that ‘*the idol is nothing*’ (1 Cor 8:4) we do not understand it like an **absolute** acceptation of ‘nothing’, but a **comparative** one. In fact, in the same Paul’s letter (1:28) he spoke about, for an example, “*the things that are not*” (*τα μη οντα*) that, very clearly, they **were** (and **are**) existing things (as the first part of the verse says). Those “things” “are not” in a comparative sense, in fact the parallelism fixes the equivalence between the ‘things’ that ‘are not’ and the ‘things ignoble’ (*αγενη*). **This aspect (comparative vs absolute acceptation) must be took in consideration also in 1 Cor 8:4**.
In other words, compared to IEUE, the Creator, any of these ‘idols’, or ‘gods’ are like ‘nothing’. Since they cannot put an obstacle before His plans, nor, they can help their worshippers, in a comparative sense they are ‘nothing’.
This is a sound conclusion also if we take into consideration the often-expressed God’s quality of ‘jelousy’ (Exo 34:14, and many other passages). In fact, **if the gods/idols were nothing in an absolute way, it is senseless – from God’s part – to demand his people not to serve ‘other gods/idols’**. I think you do not ever read in the Bible that the Israelites answered God in the following way: ‘*Excuse us, Lord IEUE, why you are concerned about to whom we are directing our worship? Since the ‘gods/idols’ you speak on are non-existing entia, at all, is there a basis for your ‘jealousy’?*'
Truly, if I and my wife found ourselves on a solitary little island, with no people on it, at all, it wouldn’t be stupid – for my part – feel jealous of her?
From the moment God allowed us to receive the gift of free will, **everyone of us is able to decide who or what to worship**. This is why God is jealous, because he is the Creator, and to him deserves rightly our worship, honor, and respect (Rev 4:11), in an exclusive way.
This conception of God, the Creator, that provides that He deserves an exclusive worship, along with the acknowledgement of the existence of other *σεβασμα* (‘an object of veneration, or, worship’) is called **monolatry**. It is different from monotheism. Despite the vast majority of people is persuaded that Bible teaches monotheism, in reality we found that the Bible teaches, instead, monolatry. For users’ sake understanding let me present a simple analogy to illustrate the point of difference between these two important concepts.
A (so to speak) ‘monotheistic’ U.S. newspaper reader would be who believe that exists only one printed newspaper in his country, and reads it. He not believe that, as a matter of fact, there are – in U.S.A. – hundreds (or, thousands?) of different printed newspaper, every day.
Differently, a (so to speak) ‘monolatric’ U.S. newspaper reader would be who knows, for a fact, that in U.S.A. exist hundreds (or, thousands?) of different printed newspaper, every day, but, in every case, **he chooses to read only one** newspaper among them all.
So, if we understand these basic concepts and apply them on the passage at issue (1 Cor 8:4-6) we will not spot any discrepance, at all. |
84 | Should we support tags of specific boards like the UDOO & Raspberry Pi? While a Raspberry Pi is different from an Arduino, the UDOO essentially is an Arduino Due and LInux Quad-core computer integrated into one device with shared processor communication. With that being said currently the UDOO has some issues with their IDE that doesn't allow certain Arduino Due related things to work properly. One of the main issues currently is that floats compile, but don't work properly on the Due and just crash the board. | 2014/02/24 | [
"https://arduino.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/84",
"https://arduino.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://arduino.meta.stackexchange.com/users/62/"
] | I think we could treat the UDOO as an "Arduino compatible" device, as per [this question](https://arduino.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22/is-it-ok-to-ask-questions-about-arduino-compatible-micros-not-clones). That means questions about the Arduino side of it would be relevant. However, if somebody is asking a wholly non-Arduino question about it (e.g. about its integrated graphics) then it should probably be considered off-topic.
The Raspberry Pi would seem to be off-topic as a general rule, as it's not trying to be Arduino compatible at all. Admittedly, there will probably be exceptions, e.g. where somebody is trying to program an Arduino from a Raspberry Pi (maybe via Gertboard or something). | I don't think most UDOO questions are on topic here... Unless the question is related to only the Arduino part of the system. If you can replace UDOO with Arduino in the question and it still makes sense, then it'd be on topic.
Problems with the UDOO IDE are totally off topic. If we allow people to ask any UDOO related questions, we will surely see some of those, but we can mark them as off topic, no problem. |
1,069,784 | I'm strugling to find any decent resources with regards consuming a webservice in an MVC/C# Asp.net App.
Any suggestions? | 2009/07/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1069784",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/52912/"
] | <http://asp.net/mvc> is always a good place to start in general. If you have something more specific, post it here on SO :) | For working with WebServices, look at <http://asp.net/ajax>
You use the ScriptManager to point to your web service, then you can call the web methods in about the same manner as you would in C#.
Alternatively you can look at JQuery's ajax method for calling web services. But the Microsoft Ajax ScriptManager is easier to get working with. |
1,069,784 | I'm strugling to find any decent resources with regards consuming a webservice in an MVC/C# Asp.net App.
Any suggestions? | 2009/07/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1069784",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/52912/"
] | Rick Strahl has an [awesome writeup](http://www.west-wind.com/presentations/jquery/jQueryPart2.aspx) on using JQuery with ASP.NET MVC to make AJAX callbacks to the server. Amongst other things, he covers:
* Returning and dealing with JSON
* Using JQuery with ASMX and WCF services
* Updating client side screens using services and JQuery templates | For working with WebServices, look at <http://asp.net/ajax>
You use the ScriptManager to point to your web service, then you can call the web methods in about the same manner as you would in C#.
Alternatively you can look at JQuery's ajax method for calling web services. But the Microsoft Ajax ScriptManager is easier to get working with. |
62,443 | I have a Macbook Pro with Snow Leopard OS X. I use it's bootcamp utility to install Windows-XP and it has worked fine for me until one day I eject boot camp from my desktop. After that, when I want to reboot from bootcamp, it does not recognize that Windows is installed on my laptop!!! | 2009/10/29 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/62443",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/6734/"
] | Have you tried holding the meta/alt key during startup? This should show you a list of all available partitions and devices. | I understand that this happen because a third-party software (NTFS-3g)
It's a known bug (for quite some time, now). When installed, you can no longer have the Windows partition in the Startup Disk prefpane.
[special Tanx to @Loïc Wolff](https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/419/what-are-some-of-your-best-itunes-add-ins) |
152,573 | When you play with a custom deck, you know every card that can show up, since you put each one of them in that deck. However, when you just pick a hero and play with his or her basic deck, you have anywhere between 10 and 20 basic cards that you can be sure of, depending on your progress with that hero, and the rest is made up from random other cards you own. Is there any way to find out which other cards are included? Are they all neutral, or can cards of your class occasionally fall in that mix? Are they picked randomly, or are there specific lists? Do different classes get different extra cards? | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/152573",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/66643/"
] | The basic deck attached to each character contains only free cards (neutral cards without gems) and the first 10 cards given to that class. These decks are always the same, and don't change when you receive additional basic class cards (while gaining levels) or open expert packs.
Their purpose is to provide a simple deck to start out with, or to play against someone who is just starting out. | Resorath has answered the other stuff.
>
> Do different classes get different extra cards?
>
>
>
Each class has a number of unique cards to that specific class. Example: Fireball and Pyroblast. These cards are unique to the mage class and there are many more cards the mage has that are unique to mages only.
A helpful site to review every card in the game, make decks, compare decks, view decks, etc... [www.Hearthpwn.com](http://www.Hearthpwn.com)
Additionally if you would rather review the cards in-game you can go into crafting mode. Cards you do not have will appear, but will be transparent, and unusable in your non-arena decks. This is helpful because you can still click them to review the card and see the cost in arcane dust or how much you will get if you already have the card and would like to disenchant it. |
152,573 | When you play with a custom deck, you know every card that can show up, since you put each one of them in that deck. However, when you just pick a hero and play with his or her basic deck, you have anywhere between 10 and 20 basic cards that you can be sure of, depending on your progress with that hero, and the rest is made up from random other cards you own. Is there any way to find out which other cards are included? Are they all neutral, or can cards of your class occasionally fall in that mix? Are they picked randomly, or are there specific lists? Do different classes get different extra cards? | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/152573",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/66643/"
] | I did some research of my own instead of waiting for another answer. I played 4 games with my Level 5 Mage (leveling her up to level 8 in the process). In none of the games did I manage to use the whole deck, but I wrote down all the cards that I drew throughout all 4 games.
First, to confirm Resorath's answer, none of the Level 2, 4, and 6 cards of the Mage ever showed up in the deck, but the original 5 cards that the Mage starts with all showed up in at least 3 games out of 4. So I can conclude that none of the later Mage cards are included into the basic deck as you level up.
Second, exactly ten other cards showed up in 2 to 4 games each out of 4, while no other cards ever showed up. So, only 15 different cards ever showed up for the Mage, some twice, making up the deck of 30. That means, it's not random, and the cards are set in for each basic deck. Most likely, they are tailored to each class. (For the curious, for Mage they are: Murloc Raider, Bloodfen Raptor, Novice Engineer, River Crocolisk, Raid Leader, Wolfrider, Oasis Snapjaw, Sen'jin Shieldmasta, Nightblade, and Boulderfist Ogre, plus the original 5 Mage cards)
Both of those conclusions could be very good coincidences, but, eyeballing the probabilities of these coincidences, I firmly believe that those conclusions are correct.
So, I did not experiment with all 9 classes, but I found my answer: The basic decks were pre-made by the creators of the game, and they do not change as you level up. I guess the results for the other 8 can be found the same way. | The basic deck attached to each character contains only free cards (neutral cards without gems) and the first 10 cards given to that class. These decks are always the same, and don't change when you receive additional basic class cards (while gaining levels) or open expert packs.
Their purpose is to provide a simple deck to start out with, or to play against someone who is just starting out. |
152,573 | When you play with a custom deck, you know every card that can show up, since you put each one of them in that deck. However, when you just pick a hero and play with his or her basic deck, you have anywhere between 10 and 20 basic cards that you can be sure of, depending on your progress with that hero, and the rest is made up from random other cards you own. Is there any way to find out which other cards are included? Are they all neutral, or can cards of your class occasionally fall in that mix? Are they picked randomly, or are there specific lists? Do different classes get different extra cards? | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/152573",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/66643/"
] | I did some research of my own instead of waiting for another answer. I played 4 games with my Level 5 Mage (leveling her up to level 8 in the process). In none of the games did I manage to use the whole deck, but I wrote down all the cards that I drew throughout all 4 games.
First, to confirm Resorath's answer, none of the Level 2, 4, and 6 cards of the Mage ever showed up in the deck, but the original 5 cards that the Mage starts with all showed up in at least 3 games out of 4. So I can conclude that none of the later Mage cards are included into the basic deck as you level up.
Second, exactly ten other cards showed up in 2 to 4 games each out of 4, while no other cards ever showed up. So, only 15 different cards ever showed up for the Mage, some twice, making up the deck of 30. That means, it's not random, and the cards are set in for each basic deck. Most likely, they are tailored to each class. (For the curious, for Mage they are: Murloc Raider, Bloodfen Raptor, Novice Engineer, River Crocolisk, Raid Leader, Wolfrider, Oasis Snapjaw, Sen'jin Shieldmasta, Nightblade, and Boulderfist Ogre, plus the original 5 Mage cards)
Both of those conclusions could be very good coincidences, but, eyeballing the probabilities of these coincidences, I firmly believe that those conclusions are correct.
So, I did not experiment with all 9 classes, but I found my answer: The basic decks were pre-made by the creators of the game, and they do not change as you level up. I guess the results for the other 8 can be found the same way. | Resorath has answered the other stuff.
>
> Do different classes get different extra cards?
>
>
>
Each class has a number of unique cards to that specific class. Example: Fireball and Pyroblast. These cards are unique to the mage class and there are many more cards the mage has that are unique to mages only.
A helpful site to review every card in the game, make decks, compare decks, view decks, etc... [www.Hearthpwn.com](http://www.Hearthpwn.com)
Additionally if you would rather review the cards in-game you can go into crafting mode. Cards you do not have will appear, but will be transparent, and unusable in your non-arena decks. This is helpful because you can still click them to review the card and see the cost in arcane dust or how much you will get if you already have the card and would like to disenchant it. |
6,304,937 | I was chatting frequently in Facebook and as I love to code more and more so I tried to create a Chat Script! Here it is :::
<http://wooflux.co.cc/ChatSystem.1.1/ChatSystem.1.1/>
You try it out. But it is just a beta version so there are some bugs in it. And one of the biggest bug is that it requires a good internet speed to get real time updates. But when I push my net's speed to it's maximum and then chat with one of my friends in Facebook, it work in real time! I was wondering how did they do that? Can anyone explain me how they achieved this. Currently I'm sending Ajax requests in number intervals to get real time update. So please help me out by explaining or giving a link that how did Facebook achieved real time Chats without using much of the Internet speed? | 2011/06/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6304937",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/637378/"
] | To do real time communication you need a proper connection.
You can use [WebSockets](http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/) to give you a real Browser - Server TCP connection.
The alternative to WebSockets would be a flash bridge (which uses websockets in flash) or [COMET](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29) techniques.
My personal recommendation is a WebSocket abstraction like [socket.io](http://socket.io/).
Socket.io builds on [node.js](http://nodejs.org/) which Serverside Javascript. It excels at evented asynchronous real time communication.
If your going down the node route you might aswell pick up [`now`](http://nowjs.com/) to make your life easy. It has a screencast about making a chat server in 12 lines. | I don't know how Facebook does it, but we use `Node.js` for pushing. Visit <http://www.no-margin-for-errors.com/blog/2010/07/26/deliver-real-time-information-to-your-users-using-node-js/> for an example. |
6,304,937 | I was chatting frequently in Facebook and as I love to code more and more so I tried to create a Chat Script! Here it is :::
<http://wooflux.co.cc/ChatSystem.1.1/ChatSystem.1.1/>
You try it out. But it is just a beta version so there are some bugs in it. And one of the biggest bug is that it requires a good internet speed to get real time updates. But when I push my net's speed to it's maximum and then chat with one of my friends in Facebook, it work in real time! I was wondering how did they do that? Can anyone explain me how they achieved this. Currently I'm sending Ajax requests in number intervals to get real time update. So please help me out by explaining or giving a link that how did Facebook achieved real time Chats without using much of the Internet speed? | 2011/06/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6304937",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/637378/"
] | To do real time communication you need a proper connection.
You can use [WebSockets](http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/) to give you a real Browser - Server TCP connection.
The alternative to WebSockets would be a flash bridge (which uses websockets in flash) or [COMET](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29) techniques.
My personal recommendation is a WebSocket abstraction like [socket.io](http://socket.io/).
Socket.io builds on [node.js](http://nodejs.org/) which Serverside Javascript. It excels at evented asynchronous real time communication.
If your going down the node route you might aswell pick up [`now`](http://nowjs.com/) to make your life easy. It has a screencast about making a chat server in 12 lines. | Use [COMET](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29) to push your messages to the client instead of polling your server all the time
See: [Using comet with PHP?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/603201/using-comet-with-php) |
165,506 | The Curse:
>
> **Clockwork Curse**
>
> All Attack Rolls the cursed target makes replace their d20 roll with a 10 instead of rolling, as per the effect of Clockwork Amulet.
>
>
>
Extra Details:
* This curse is expected to apply for at least a full in-game day.
* Encounters for the day will come from the Forest or Coastal Encounters (5-10) tables in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
* The character will be part of a 5-player group.
* The character's attacks are their ideal method of dealing damage.
The Goal:
* This curse is meant to be a setback or gameplay-shift to the player, not a crippling of the player.
+ I want the player to spend time affected by the curse to work with it or work around it.
* Since the players can decide not to remove it, the beneficial aspect of it should not be too strong.
The Question:
Is this curse too detrimental that it imposes more of a penalty than I expect? Is this curse too beneficial in the long-run? Or is it reasonably fair? | 2020/02/27 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/165506",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/14873/"
] | This punishes player fun more than character mechanics
======================================================
Dependant on the AC of your enemies this curse is either a massive buff due to never missing, or a massive penalty due to never hitting. Either way it takes away the uncertainty and suspense of combat by making the result a formality.
In my experience a lot of the fun of combat is encapsulated in the thrill of the unknown. This curse takes away that unknown by removing the agency from a cursed characters turn. The curse has two states:
1. 10 + Attack modifier >= enemy AC. The player knows they are going to hit so every turn they can skip straight to rolling damage. No need for clever tactics or positioning to gain advantage or cancel a disadvantage. The character is effective but boring to play.
2. 10 + Attack modifier < enemy AC. The player knows they can't hit. There is no point trying so they are instead forced to play a support role, depending on the type of character they may quickly run out of things they can do in this role. No interesting options and a lack of effectiveness makes this character frustrating to play.
In both scenarios **the mechanical penalty to the character is not as significant as the penalty to player enjoyment**. In my opinion that makes this a bad curse.
A good curse challenges both the player and character to find a way to overcome, cure or circumvent the limitations imposed by the curse. Something that forces them to change their typical combat style or think outside the box. This curse doesn't do that. It is either good or it is bad, and there is (almost) nothing the player can do about it. | Situational.
Sounds like it would make hitting most low to medium enemies easy, but make it impossible to hit a boss or demi-boss.
So useful for a front liner who will be wading through canon fodder mobs.
Not directly useful against a armored one or boss, but silver lining. Against those, it would encourage the player to use the "help" action to help their team hit the boss. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.