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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24,112 | I am doing my first photo shoot of a birthday party for a friend. I wanted to know which lens would be the better option to use for this.
I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens as well as the standard 18-55mm IS kit lens and a 55-250mm IS tele-zoom lens.
So far, just getting to know my camera I have mostly played around with the kit lens.
Now I'm not sure which of the others would be a better option. | 2012/06/07 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/24112",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/10090/"
] | I have the same 3 lenses that you mention with the Canon 550D and a Metz flash. I've found that the 18-55mm kit lens does quite well when stopped down to f/8 and used with the flash indoors (bounce flash in particular). Make sure that you have the portrait picture style preset in use if shooting JPEG to make the portraits look warm. The lens covers the ideal focal lengths for indoor portraits including group shots. You can also get by without flash by bumping up the ISO - 1600+ is usable on the 550D, especially if you plan to share online exclusively.
The 50mm f/1.8 prime is also quite useful for individual and small group portraits. You can use wide apertures to blur the background. It gives pretty sharp results without having to stop down, and you can do without a flash to get decent shutter speeds.
Since you are planning to shoot a birthday, make use of the burst\continuous shooting mode to capture the important moments like cake cutting. This is also handy for group photos to reduce the chance of capturing people with their eyes closed. The prime again helps here, as it can be used in burst mode without a flash.
Also, be careful when changing lenses during the party - good time to get unwanted particles into the camera\lens. | I'd go with the 50mm f/1.8. Assuming you are on a crop-sensor camera a 50mm lens will be roughly equivalent of about 80mm. Combined with the wide aperture this will afford you the ability to shoot wide open or even at f/2 - 2.8 with a great depth of field and sharpness that the 18-55 just won't give you. |
38,890 | I have just started using KiCAD (with no other experience e.g. in Eagle). I was basically able to put together a schematic and layout a board but I am struggling with some footprints. How would I search for, e.g., a footprint for [these](http://www.ebay.de/itm/170844394043?ssPageName=STRK%3aMEWNX%3aIT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649#ht_1915wt_1163)?
Can I expect footprints somewhere in the library for most components or is creating my own a common task? | 2012/08/27 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/38890",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/11333/"
] | I use Eagle and, despite its huge libraries, most of the time I prefer to create my own footprints since I can adjust them to suit my needs.
For example, I usually use a 0.25 grid and the 0603 capacitor as it is on the library doesn't allow a 0.25 mm trace to pass between pads with a 0.25 mm clearance without warnings so I redesigned the footprint so it generates no warnings.
Besides that, it is common not to find the components you need on the libraries or to make slight modifications to adjust them to your design preferences. | Make your own footprint from data available in the data sheet for the component you're using. In the long run, you'll spend more time making sure libraries you download are accurate than you would spend just making your own correct footprint. |
38,890 | I have just started using KiCAD (with no other experience e.g. in Eagle). I was basically able to put together a schematic and layout a board but I am struggling with some footprints. How would I search for, e.g., a footprint for [these](http://www.ebay.de/itm/170844394043?ssPageName=STRK%3aMEWNX%3aIT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649#ht_1915wt_1163)?
Can I expect footprints somewhere in the library for most components or is creating my own a common task? | 2012/08/27 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/38890",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/11333/"
] | I use Eagle and, despite its huge libraries, most of the time I prefer to create my own footprints since I can adjust them to suit my needs.
For example, I usually use a 0.25 grid and the 0603 capacitor as it is on the library doesn't allow a 0.25 mm trace to pass between pads with a 0.25 mm clearance without warnings so I redesigned the footprint so it generates no warnings.
Besides that, it is common not to find the components you need on the libraries or to make slight modifications to adjust them to your design preferences. | There are a lot of existing module and footprint libraries for KiCAD, but sometimes they may be difficult to locate. Here's the default starting point: <http://www.kicadlib.org/>. On the top of the page, there's also a link to a [KiCAD library search engine](http://per.launay.free.fr/kicad/kicad_php/composant.php).
Another option is converting existing libraries from another CAD tool to KiCAD format. Particularly, there's an [Eagle2Kicad conversion script](http://www.circuitbee.com/help/eagleimport).
Regardless of how you obtain a library, it's always a good practice to double-check the particular footprint against the component in your hand. For some components, there's just too much variation (and mini-USB receptacles are among those). |
49,262 | Ambedkar, author of the Indian Constitution, was a student of theology, approaching it from his lower caste experience.
He argued that the Gita was compiled as a philosophical defense of Hinduism for the ruling classes at a time when Buddhism, perceived as more egalitarian, was gaining power. He cites the Gita's defense of killing one's own relatives because their souls are fine, a statement that both can defend any killing and at odds with a religion that abhors even killing animals in many cases, as well as Krishna's divine approval of the varna system, as evidence it was compiled as a defense of the status quo, a defense of both political violence and maintenance of the caste system by the Hindu ruling classes.
My questions are double. Is there any
merit to this theory? And have any other scholars proposed it? | 2021/10/13 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/49262",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/26039/"
] | No, it is without any merit as will be shown in this point by point rebuttal.
**Is Buddhism egalitarian?**
Let me give an excerpt from Ambattha Sutta, Digha Nikaya:
>
> **'So even if a Khattiya has suffered extreme humiliation, he is superior and the Brahmins inferior.** 'Ambattha, this verse was
> pronounced by Brahma Sanankumara:
>
>
> "The Khattiya best among those who value clan; He with knowledge and
> conduct is best of gods and men."
>
>
> 'This verse was rightly sung, not wrongly, rightly spoken, not
> wrongly, connected with profit, not unconnected. And, Ambattha I too
> say this:
>
>
> "The **Khattiya's best** among those who value clan: **He with
> knowledge and conduct is best of gods and men**."
>
>
>
**Ambattha Sutta: About Ambattha Pride Humbled in The Long discourses of the Buddha translation of Digha Nikaya by Maurice Walshe**
I have an image of the text below to clear up any confusion.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gFFuc.png)
I am posting here Walshe's summary of Ambattha Sutta
>
> About Ambattha (Pride Humbled). Pokkharasti, a famous Brahmin teacher,
> sends his pupil Ambattha (supposedly fully trained in Brahmin lore) to
> find out if the 'ascetic Gotama' is the great man he is alleged to be
> (and if, therefore, he bears the 'thirty-two marks of a Great Man').
> Ambattha, proud of his Brahmin birth, behaves stupidly and arrogantly
> towards the Buddha, and thereby learns a thing or two about ancestry,
> **besides being made to realise that the Khattiyas (the warrier-noble caste) are superior to the Brahmins.** Humbled, he returns to
> Pokkharasti, who is furious at his conduct, hastens to see the Buddha,
> learns that he does indeed bear the thirty-two marks, and becomes a
> convert.
>
>
>
**A summary of the thirty-four Suttas in** **in The Long discourses of the Buddha translation of Digha Nikaya by Maurice Walshe**
**Does Gita defend any killing?**
Gita does not support pacifism in situations where one is facing oppression. No amount of pacifism will stop a Hitler from his oppression.
>
> Yield not to impotence, O Partha; it is not worthy of thee. Shake off
> this paltry faint-heartedness and arise, O Parantapa:
>
>
>
**Gita 2.3**
>
> The answer of a hero to hero, shall we say, but not that which we
> demand rather that he shall encourage always gentleness and saintliness and
> self-abnegation and the recoil from worldly aims and cessation from
> the ways of the world? The Gita expressly says that Arjuna has thus
> lapsed into unheroic weakness... because he is invaded by pity... Is
> this not a divine weakness? Is not pity a divine emotion which should
> not thus be discouraged by harsh rebuke? Or are we in face of a mere
> gospel of war and heroic emotion... The Teacher himself enumerating in
> a later chapter the qualities of the godlike nature in man places
> among them compassion to creatures, gentleness, freedom from wrath and
> from the desire to slay and do hurt, no less than fearlessness and
> high spirit and energy. Harshness and hardness and fierceness and a
> satisfaction in slaying enemies and amassing wealth and unjust
> enjoyments are Asuric qualities; they come from the violent Titanic
> nature which denies the Divine in the world and the Divine in man and
> worships desire only as its deity. It is not then from any such
> standpoint that the weakness of Arjuna merits rebuke..........
>
>
> There is a divine compassion which descends to us from on high ...
> This compassion observes with an eye of love and wisdom and calm
> strength the battle and the struggle, the strength and weakness of
> man, his virtues and sins, his joy and suffering, his knowledge and
> his ignorance, his wisdom and folly, his aspiration and his failure
> and it enters into it all to help and to heal. In the saint and the
> philosopher it may cast itself into the mould of plenitude of love and
> charity; in the thinker and hero it assumes the largeness and the
> force of a helpful wisdom and strength. **It is this compassion in the
> Aryan fighter, the soul of his chivalry, which will not break the
> bruised reed, but helps and protects the weak and the oppressed and the
> wounded and the fallen. But it is also the divine compassion that
> smites down the strong tyrant and the confident oppressor,** not in
> wrath and with hatred, - for those are not the high divine
> qualities...
>
>
> But such is not the compassion which actuates Arjuna in the rejection
> of his work and mission. That is not compassion but an impotence full
> of weak self-pity, a recoil from the mental suffering which his act
> must entail on himself... and of all things self-pity is among the
> most ignoble and un-Aryan of moods. Its pity for others is also a form
> of self-indulgence; it is the physical shrinking of the nerves from
> the act of slaughter, the egoistic emotional shrinking of the heart
> from the destruction of the Dhritarashtrians because they are 'One's
> own people" and without then life will be empty. This pity is a
> weakness of mind and senses ......
>
>
>
**Commentary on Gita 2.3 by Sri Aurobindo**
**Does Gita defend the caste system?**
Gita's Varna system has nothing to do with the caste system.
>
> According to the aptitudes resulting from the dispositions of Nature
> (gunas) and works (karma), the social order of fourfold division has
> been created by Me. Though I am their originator, know me to be an
> agent but the spirit unchanging.
>
>
>
**Gita 4.13**
>
> Caturvarnya or the social order of fourfold division is not the caste
> system, which is a system of social grouping solely based on birth.
> Brahmana, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudra, as conceived in the Vedas, is
> a division based on the natural constitution of man arising from the
> dominance of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, the constituents of nature
> (Gunas), as also on the duties they are fit to perform according to
> the aptitudes arising from their constitution. They are mere character
> types. …………………..
>
>
>
**Commentary on Gita 4.13 by Swami Tapasyananda in his English translation of Srimad Bhagavad Gita**
>
> O great hero! The duties of Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and also
> Sudras have been divided according to the quality born of their own
> nature.
>
>
>
[Gita 18.41]
>
> Serenity, control of the sense, austerity, purity,
> straight-forwardness, knowledge, insight, and faith in the Supreme
> Being - these are a Brahman's duties born of his own nature.
>
>
>
[Gita 18.42]
>
> Prowess, splendor of personality, unfailing courage, resourcefulness,
> dauntless in battle, generosity, leadership - these are a Ksatriya's
> duties born of his specific nature.
>
>
>
[Gita 18.43]
>
> Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade form the duty of the Vaisya
> springing from his own nature, while the natural duty of a Sudra
> consists in subordinate service under others.
>
>
>
[Gita 18.44]
>
> A great doctrine of the social philosophy of ancient India, regarding
> the fourfold class system, is here propounded. There has been no
> doctrine so much misapplied, misunderstood and misrepresented as this
> doctrine. The four Varnas of Brahmana, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras
> are today and for a long time past, understood as four hereditary
> castes. But the Varnas, as understood by the best Indian thinkers, are
> not castes based on birth in particular groups, but character types
> based on the domination of the Sattvika, Rajasika and Tamasika
> elements entering into the constitution of their body-mind, and this
> is determined by their evolution in their past lives. At least such is
> the Gita view. To have identified character types with endogamous
> castes is nothing but an aberration. …….
>
>
> These four character types are universal all the world over and the
> prosperity of a society will depend on the man of the right nature and
> character being put to the right type of duty. For the individuals
> also doing the duty that is natural to his psycho-physical
> constitution, is the way of higher evolution.
>
>
>
**Commentary on Gita 18.41 to 18.44 by Swami Tapasyananda in his English translation of Srimad Bagavad Gita**
**Timeline of Mahabharat War**
Mahabharata war took place around 1300 BCE almost 800 years before Buddha. Is Ambedkar suggesting that Sri Krishna anticipated Buddhism 800 years before Buddha? I am not suggesting here that the Gita was composed in 1300 BCE. Gita may well have been composed after the time of Buddha. What I am suggesting is that the author of the Gita would know that it would be anachronistic to make the Gita talk against Buddhism **since the event described in the Gita predates Buddha by centuries.** This is the reason why no one has been able to show any direct argument in the Gita against or for Buddhism. | I am baffled as to how ruben2020's answer was upvoted and even approved, the answer Ruben gives is an extremely surface level reading of the Bhagvad Gita.
>
> To me, the Bhagavad Gita seems to be composed in Classical Sanskrit,
> and not Vedic Sanskrit or any of the later Prakrit dialects, such as
> the ones upon which the Buddhist and Jain scriptures were authored in.
> Classical Sanskrit was formalized by Panini around 500 BCE according
> to wikipedia, which is around the time of the Buddha's life. So,
> linguistically, it doesn't make sense that the Bhagavad Gita was
> composed 800 years before the Buddha's lifetime.
>
>
>
Yet the same wikipedia article claims that the earliest reference of the Mahabharata comes from *Panini*, so yeah? Is the wiki article wrong here? If Mahabharata was composed after Panini, why does the trustworthy Wikipedia article claim that?
Tho the article does claim that it is uncertain if Panini did mention *this* Mahabharata, it also claims that he talks about characters from the Mahabharata.
The dating of Hindu scriptures is very ambiguous, so let's leave it at there and discuss the content of the Gita.
>
> According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed
> to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me. And,
> although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am
> yet the non-doer, being unchangeable. BG 4.13 (translated by Srila
> Prabhupada)
>
>
> "O son of Prthä, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower
> birth — women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers]—can attain the
> supreme destination." BG 9.32 (translated by Srila Prabhupada)
>
>
> It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may
> perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and
> perform it perfectly. Prescribed duties, according to one's nature,
> are never affected by sinful reactions. BG 18.47 (translated by Srila
> Prabhupada)
>
>
>
Do these three verses *defend* the ruling upper class? First let us examine the second verse, the verse clearly talks about how *everyone* can attain the Lord, regardless of their caste or gender, but this seems very contradictory to calling them "of lower birth" or unintelligent, this is because those were the times of that day, there was caste based discrimination an gender based discrimination in society during those times.
>
> The four-fold order was created by Me according to the divisions of
> quality and work. Though I am its creator, know Me to be incapable of
> action or change. 4:13
>
>
>
the Lord here says that he divided the castes based on the *qualities* and *work* of that person, i.e Sattvas, rajas and Tamas.
The verified comment acknowledges that Gita states that everyone can attain the Lord but ignores this and claims Gita justifies ruling class supremacy while Buddhism advocates that everybody can get liberation regardless of this caste.
If Krishna was advocating for the supremacy of the ruling elite, he would've never said that everybody even "*lower birthed*" can attain him.
Iscon's Swami Prabhupada himself comments that the Lord removes the distinction between higher and lower (context of this verse).
The first and the third verse and completely philosophical, the Paramatma is the origin of the 3 modes of material nature yet is not the doer of the actions since he is beyond the concept of acting under the three modes.
The Gita "defending" Ethical War does not mean that the content of he Gita was something which was a counter to the Buddhist criticism, the times before Buddha too were very war like, it is a known fact that during the Mahajanapada Era, the states had standing armies and organized raids on one another.
>
> I'm just extrapolating here but according to the Gita, it is better
> for a kshatriya to fulfill his duty and kill in battle, than to try to
> become a monk, which seems to be a type of role which may be better
> suited to brahmins.
>
>
>
What exactly is *being a monk* here? In the next statement Ruben2020 talks about how the Great Buddha talks about how everyone will get liberated whatever their social classes may be, so I'll assume that they're talking about Kshatriyas and other achieving Liberation.
This is completely false, I wonder if this person actually read the Gita or not (no offense!), Lord Krishna in the Gita explains multiple different paths one can attain salvation, he never said that these paths can only be accessed by Bramhana "monks", but he explains these to a Kshatriya who is Arjuna.
It is true that Lord Krishna was against intermixing of Varnas but so was the Great Buddha, Sona Sutta is where Buddha mocks Bramhanas for intermixing with other Varnas.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xfTXm.png)
I'd like to end this with a quote from Buddha who advocated that everyone should be liberated.
>
> “Of all the scents that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of
> a woman. Of all the tastes that can enslave, none is more lethal than
> that of a woman. Of all the voices that can enslave, none is more
> lethal than that of a woman. Of all the caresses that can enslave,
> none is more lethal than that of a woman.”
>
>
> |
108,856 | If there was another Dark Lord in making, he would have found out the mentions of Horcruxes. Then he would have tried to find the books and of course may have tried the summoning charm Hermione used. Being that easy, did Dumbledore apply any protective charms so that it can only be summoned by people he chose. If not, wouldn't have that been a highly dangerous step? | 2015/11/27 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/108856",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/54738/"
] | A few reasons that spring to mind:
1. **Horcuxes are a very rare branch of magic. You sure you want to destroy that knowledge?**
The information in those books could be used by somebody trying to create horcruxes… but also by somebody trying to understand them. I’m sure Dumbledore has used those books to learn about horcruxes, and find out how he might destroy Voldemort’s (which he’s guessing might exist). If he destroys the books, that information is lost. You might regret that later.
2. **There’s no guarantee that a future dark wizard would learn about horcruxes.**
There have been many dark magicians through history, but only two (Herpo the Foul and Voldemort) are known to have made a horcrux. They’re such a rare branch of magic that many will never have heard of them.
Even with Voldemort, only a handful of people knew he was using horcruxes – Slughorn, Harry, Ron, Hermione and perhaps Neville. They’re unlikely to talk about it much:
* Slughorn doesn’t want to admit his role
* Harry and the trio know how dangerous they are
* Neville doesn’t actually know that these are horcruxes or involve soul fragments, just that Nagini needs to die
As such, the potential risk of somebody knowing to seek out these books for information is small.
3. **Destroying these books may not be so easy.**
We know that books can get defensive (fancy destroying the Monster Book of Monsters?). These books contain very rare and dangerous dark magic – it would be folly to assume there weren’t some defences placed by their authors.
It’s probably within Dumbledore’s capability to destroy them, but he has better things to spend his time on. | I believe the main reason is that Dumbledore is like [many of us](http://www.madore.org/~david/weblog/d.2005-10-11.1118.html#d.2005-10-11.1118), and believes that destroying books is intrinsically a bad thing, especially for old books that would be hard to replace. Closing the books away from the library is a temporary decision that can be reversed any time, but destroying the books would be permanent damage. He's not the only one who thinks like that. A very similar example is in Umberto Eco's novel *The Name of the Rose*, in which a character does not want others to read a certain old book, but also does not destroy it.
A secondary reason may be that the books aren't his personal property, but the property of the Hogwarts library, so he does not have the right to destroy them.
(Update) The third reason is that the Dark Lord's Horcruxes were still around and had to be destroyed. Those books may contain important information on what protections the Horcruxes may have and how they can be destroyed. |
2,815 | [Bus Factor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor) ([Youtube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE&feature=youtu.be#t=16m15s)) is the
>
> total number of key developers who would need to be incapacitated (as
> by getting hit by a bus) to send the project into such disarray that
> it would not be able to proceed
>
>
>
What is the current bus factor of the Bitcoin standard client? | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2815",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/78/"
] | **As of today, perhaps 20**
Generally what makes a "core developer" as opposed to a "contributing developer" is an ongoing interest in the codebase that typically equates to near full-time employment. Should all core developers fall under the wheels of this continent-spanning bus of doom then Bitcoin would suffer a significant blow.
For a while.
Then various contributing developers (of which there are legion) would likely step up to act as replacements. The discussions on the forums, IRC channels, mailing lists and version control systems will be read and acted upon. Bugs will be fixed and life will go on.
Edit: So where does this number "20" come from? Well it's based largely on my experiences from reading the [development mailing list](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development), [IRC logs](http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bitcoin&uio=d4) and various Google+ circles. There is no real exact number, though, activity varies over time and various people are "core" to a particular issue as it passes through. | It's somewhere between zero and a hundred million. I don't think anyone can place it any more narrowly than that. |
2,815 | [Bus Factor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor) ([Youtube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE&feature=youtu.be#t=16m15s)) is the
>
> total number of key developers who would need to be incapacitated (as
> by getting hit by a bus) to send the project into such disarray that
> it would not be able to proceed
>
>
>
What is the current bus factor of the Bitcoin standard client? | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2815",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/78/"
] | Eleven. The answer is definitely eleven. | It's somewhere between zero and a hundred million. I don't think anyone can place it any more narrowly than that. |
2,815 | [Bus Factor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor) ([Youtube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE&feature=youtu.be#t=16m15s)) is the
>
> total number of key developers who would need to be incapacitated (as
> by getting hit by a bus) to send the project into such disarray that
> it would not be able to proceed
>
>
>
What is the current bus factor of the Bitcoin standard client? | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2815",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/78/"
] | **As of today, perhaps 20**
Generally what makes a "core developer" as opposed to a "contributing developer" is an ongoing interest in the codebase that typically equates to near full-time employment. Should all core developers fall under the wheels of this continent-spanning bus of doom then Bitcoin would suffer a significant blow.
For a while.
Then various contributing developers (of which there are legion) would likely step up to act as replacements. The discussions on the forums, IRC channels, mailing lists and version control systems will be read and acted upon. Bugs will be fixed and life will go on.
Edit: So where does this number "20" come from? Well it's based largely on my experiences from reading the [development mailing list](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development), [IRC logs](http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bitcoin&uio=d4) and various Google+ circles. There is no real exact number, though, activity varies over time and various people are "core" to a particular issue as it passes through. | Eleven. The answer is definitely eleven. |
20,358,270 | I'm looking for a solution for my problem with TextField. I need add masks on my textfields but I don't know how do this....I did try use MaskedTextField addon but I think that does not work on vaadin7.
I need masks: uppercase text, phone numbers, postal code, date and money values.
Any idea ?
thanks | 2013/12/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/20358270",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1483084/"
] | I'm not sure what exactly you mean by Masks, but you could just add your own [`Validator`](https://vaadin.com/api/com/vaadin/data/Validator.html) implementation to the field.
If you need client side validation and even want to prevent invalid input, the [CSValidation add-on](https://vaadin.com/directory#addon/csvalidation) might be what you are looking for. | You could do it with a [Converter](https://vaadin.com/api/com/vaadin/data/util/converter/Converter.html). More information [here](https://vaadin.com/book/vaadin7/-/page/datamodel.properties.html) under 9.2.3. |
36,735 | If I make an app (free) that has ads inside of it, does that count as income and do I have to pay taxes on it? | 2014/09/07 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/36735",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/20164/"
] | It's income. It's almost certainly subject to income tax. As miscellaneous income, if nothing else. (That's what hobby income usually falls under.)
If you kept careful records of the cost of developing the app, you *might* be able to offset those against the income... again, as with hobby income. | In general, all income is taxable, regardless of the source.
If you living in the U.S. -- I don't think you said anywhere where you live -- then if you are donating this money to charity, you would have to declare the income, and then declare a deduction for the charitable contribution. At that point the two would cancel out and the net result is that you wouldn't have to pay any tax on the income, but you can't just leave it off your tax return. Well, even if you donated all of it to charity to that you don't have to pay income taxes on it, you would still have to pay social security taxes, and it would still affect your social security benefits when you retire.
If you're saying that the organization receiving the money is itself a charity, as opposed to donating the money to some other organization that is a charity, than you usually have to be registered as a charity with the IRS to avoid income taxes. There are still forms to file to report the income, but you wouldn't have to pay taxes. There are some exceptions to the requirement to register, basically if your organization is very small and for certain religious organizations. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | Have successfully wired 3 Lutron motion sensors to control a common light fixture so that light would be activated regardless of point of entry into room, hall, etc. | Yes, you can, under code, but you will also need to have 'real' switches also installed. As far as the second part write on a bit of paper, in marker, and stuff it in the the motion sensor junction box.
Will both of the sensors cover the entire stairway? This is the game changer. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | As far as changing bulbs, LED moots that issue. You can also use LED fixtures which are bulbless - the LED proper will outlive all of us, however quality matters in the electronic driver.
For that matter, one option these days is use a 4-5 watt LED *and simply burn it 24x7*. This sets you back about a dollar a watt a year, so it's not a crippling cost. At that point it does not require a light switch at all, but it must *still* be designed so someone does not turn it off thoughtlessly or carelessly.
Marking wires for "the next guy" is a good idea. However you can imagine what will happen: a paper note will be considered trash, and instantly get lost.
Your best bet is to mark the wires *directly*. You can do this with [colored electrical tape](https://www.homedepot.com/p/Gardner-Bender-1-2-in-x-20-ft-Colored-Electrical-Tape-5-Pack-GTPC-550/100054213). There is a risk of (especially cheap non-3M tape) getting warm and unwinding off the wires, leaving a sticky mess and no useful markings.
To avoid *that*, use shrink tubing (the hair dryer will need power, don't use a match, it doesn't shrink evenly, and setting your house on fire defeats the purpose of careful electrical work!) | There no code (NEC) preventing the output from motion detectors on the same circuit from being combined. I did this at my last home for a very long circular drive, 1 detector at each end and 1 in the middle it is still working today almost 20 years later but 1 of the sensors did require replacement after a tangle with a weed eater. To wire this up I used 12/3 with ground the motion detectors get the hot(black) and neutral (white) at each location then the lights are tied to the red (switched output from each detector) and the neutral (white) to each lamp , grounds to the fixtures and junction boxes. Works great, for a stairwell you may want a motion switch with override, I think this may be one of the areas some one may have a problem with automatic only. My plant had areas of automatic only lighting that had to be updated with Manuel overrides. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | For American readers: I cannot find any language in the NEC expressly prohibiting the use of switches (motion-sensing or manual) in parallel for ORed lighting configurations such as the OPs. However, there's another problem, and that's user expectancy; even with manual switches installed, most people will see this setup and think "three-way switch", not realizing it's really been wired differently. I, personally, would insist on having labels on the faceplates of both motion sensors mentioning that this is not a three way setup, and pointing up or downstairs at the other switch, as appropriate -- there's an off-chance it could get a clumsy bulb-changer bit because they only overrode one of the sensors, not both.
Considering that you have stairway coverage accounted for, and a way to label this, I'd go ahead with it. | There no code (NEC) preventing the output from motion detectors on the same circuit from being combined. I did this at my last home for a very long circular drive, 1 detector at each end and 1 in the middle it is still working today almost 20 years later but 1 of the sensors did require replacement after a tangle with a weed eater. To wire this up I used 12/3 with ground the motion detectors get the hot(black) and neutral (white) at each location then the lights are tied to the red (switched output from each detector) and the neutral (white) to each lamp , grounds to the fixtures and junction boxes. Works great, for a stairwell you may want a motion switch with override, I think this may be one of the areas some one may have a problem with automatic only. My plant had areas of automatic only lighting that had to be updated with Manuel overrides. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | As far as changing bulbs, LED moots that issue. You can also use LED fixtures which are bulbless - the LED proper will outlive all of us, however quality matters in the electronic driver.
For that matter, one option these days is use a 4-5 watt LED *and simply burn it 24x7*. This sets you back about a dollar a watt a year, so it's not a crippling cost. At that point it does not require a light switch at all, but it must *still* be designed so someone does not turn it off thoughtlessly or carelessly.
Marking wires for "the next guy" is a good idea. However you can imagine what will happen: a paper note will be considered trash, and instantly get lost.
Your best bet is to mark the wires *directly*. You can do this with [colored electrical tape](https://www.homedepot.com/p/Gardner-Bender-1-2-in-x-20-ft-Colored-Electrical-Tape-5-Pack-GTPC-550/100054213). There is a risk of (especially cheap non-3M tape) getting warm and unwinding off the wires, leaving a sticky mess and no useful markings.
To avoid *that*, use shrink tubing (the hair dryer will need power, don't use a match, it doesn't shrink evenly, and setting your house on fire defeats the purpose of careful electrical work!) | Lutron Maestro line of switches can communicate wirelessly to multiple ceiling mounted occupy sensor that use a battery.
The switches work the lights as normal if the sensors battery dies.
I've installed them and give it a thumbs up.
[Battery Version](http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Products/Pages/Sensors/Occupancy-Vacancy/WirelessRadioPowrSavr/Overview.aspx) |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | This is a perfect situation for smart switches as mentioned in another answer.
Small suggestion regarding labeling - I wouldn't put a label on combustible paper inside an electrical box. Use something made to be in there. A little electrical tape flag with PARALLEL written on it, on the wire nut, might be a good way to go. | There no code (NEC) preventing the output from motion detectors on the same circuit from being combined. I did this at my last home for a very long circular drive, 1 detector at each end and 1 in the middle it is still working today almost 20 years later but 1 of the sensors did require replacement after a tangle with a weed eater. To wire this up I used 12/3 with ground the motion detectors get the hot(black) and neutral (white) at each location then the lights are tied to the red (switched output from each detector) and the neutral (white) to each lamp , grounds to the fixtures and junction boxes. Works great, for a stairwell you may want a motion switch with override, I think this may be one of the areas some one may have a problem with automatic only. My plant had areas of automatic only lighting that had to be updated with Manuel overrides. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | Have successfully wired 3 Lutron motion sensors to control a common light fixture so that light would be activated regardless of point of entry into room, hall, etc. | There no code (NEC) preventing the output from motion detectors on the same circuit from being combined. I did this at my last home for a very long circular drive, 1 detector at each end and 1 in the middle it is still working today almost 20 years later but 1 of the sensors did require replacement after a tangle with a weed eater. To wire this up I used 12/3 with ground the motion detectors get the hot(black) and neutral (white) at each location then the lights are tied to the red (switched output from each detector) and the neutral (white) to each lamp , grounds to the fixtures and junction boxes. Works great, for a stairwell you may want a motion switch with override, I think this may be one of the areas some one may have a problem with automatic only. My plant had areas of automatic only lighting that had to be updated with Manuel overrides. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | For American readers: I cannot find any language in the NEC expressly prohibiting the use of switches (motion-sensing or manual) in parallel for ORed lighting configurations such as the OPs. However, there's another problem, and that's user expectancy; even with manual switches installed, most people will see this setup and think "three-way switch", not realizing it's really been wired differently. I, personally, would insist on having labels on the faceplates of both motion sensors mentioning that this is not a three way setup, and pointing up or downstairs at the other switch, as appropriate -- there's an off-chance it could get a clumsy bulb-changer bit because they only overrode one of the sensors, not both.
Considering that you have stairway coverage accounted for, and a way to label this, I'd go ahead with it. | Yes, you can, under code, but you will also need to have 'real' switches also installed. As far as the second part write on a bit of paper, in marker, and stuff it in the the motion sensor junction box.
Will both of the sensors cover the entire stairway? This is the game changer. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | This is a perfect situation for smart switches as mentioned in another answer.
Small suggestion regarding labeling - I wouldn't put a label on combustible paper inside an electrical box. Use something made to be in there. A little electrical tape flag with PARALLEL written on it, on the wire nut, might be a good way to go. | Yes, you can, under code, but you will also need to have 'real' switches also installed. As far as the second part write on a bit of paper, in marker, and stuff it in the the motion sensor junction box.
Will both of the sensors cover the entire stairway? This is the game changer. |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | This is a perfect situation for smart switches as mentioned in another answer.
Small suggestion regarding labeling - I wouldn't put a label on combustible paper inside an electrical box. Use something made to be in there. A little electrical tape flag with PARALLEL written on it, on the wire nut, might be a good way to go. | Lutron Maestro line of switches can communicate wirelessly to multiple ceiling mounted occupy sensor that use a battery.
The switches work the lights as normal if the sensors battery dies.
I've installed them and give it a thumbs up.
[Battery Version](http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Products/Pages/Sensors/Occupancy-Vacancy/WirelessRadioPowrSavr/Overview.aspx) |
62,052 | Can multiple 2-way occupancy (AKA motion) sensor switches be used together?
For the top and bottom of a staircase, I want the lights to be on if *either* switch senses motion and the lights stay on until *both* switches time out after not sensing motion.
I know how to wire such a circuit but I want to know if doing so is by-the-code OK (Canada) and how to mark the wires so someone in the future will understand what has been done.
Thanks.
Edit 1: The building is my private home, so I can be confident of (mostly) who will use the stairs and their knowledge of the set-up. However, I could certainly make some tidy P-Touch labels for the faceplates. Writing on the backside of the faceplates and adding a note inside the junction box is possible too. (Are we certain paper in the box isn't a fire hazzard?)
The bulb-changing scenario is something I didn't think of. Perhaps a 3'rd, manual toggle, master circuit kill switch would be possible? Or would that be getting too far away from K.I.S.S. ?
The sensors will face perpendicular to the stairs, detecting people as they enter but only partially while they are on the staircase. I see the concern for the sensors timing out while a person is in mid-climb. However, the staircase is only 12 feet long and receives some natural light during day. A person would need to stop mid-way, out of sight of both sensors and eat a sandwich for enough time to pass to expire the lights. I could mitigate this by adjusting the time-outs, leaving the staircase lit for up to 30 minutes after a sensor last detected motion.
I trust that I am answering questions correctly by "editing" my post. That seems to be what the options suggests I should do. | 2015/03/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/62052",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/34661/"
] | Have successfully wired 3 Lutron motion sensors to control a common light fixture so that light would be activated regardless of point of entry into room, hall, etc. | Lutron Maestro line of switches can communicate wirelessly to multiple ceiling mounted occupy sensor that use a battery.
The switches work the lights as normal if the sensors battery dies.
I've installed them and give it a thumbs up.
[Battery Version](http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Products/Pages/Sensors/Occupancy-Vacancy/WirelessRadioPowrSavr/Overview.aspx) |
10,105 | My 2 month old puppy is teething and has a natural proclivity for biting things; anything and everything. While I understand that this behavior is natural and might stop after a while, he also bites people and that's becoming a problem as he grows older.
I've tried saying a firm, "**No**" and ignoring him for about 10-20 minutes after he starts biting, but he'll still jump and bark and try to bite the flesh. He'll follow me if I distance myself from him and then bite me, so there's really no ignoring him. It's particularly more concerning when he tries to bite people that are sleeping.
I looked through the comments and answers posted [here](https://pets.stackexchange.com/q/1976/5644) and [here](https://pets.stackexchange.com/a/1628/5644) and I like the idea of temporarily confining my puppy (e.g. using baby gates) but I don't have those so I resort to putting a leash on him and tying him to a newel post.
That results in him calming down after a while but not before he barks incessantly and tries to break free of the leash. After a few minutes, he'll whine and guilt-trip me into cutting him loose, which I do. However, the biting behavior will still continue albeit after a little while.
So my question is this: "Is it okay if I tie him to a post temporarily if I am unable to effectively distance myself from him while he's biting? If not, what's a better alternative?" | 2015/08/23 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/10105",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/5644/"
] | Overall, I'm not too fond with the post (or seeing people tying up dogs in general). It might help, but it really depends on the individual dog and your actual situation, I guess.
>
> **Always keep this in mind**: Just because something worked (or didn't work) for someone else, it doesn't mean it's the same in your case.
>
>
>
The important part in your situation is the fact that the dog understands "biting = getting on the pole" and that's something it won't understand, if overused or in any and all situations. If you tie it up to calm down, you can't do it, if you have to leave the dog alone. Otherwise you'll most likely mess up impressions/understanding.
Imagine tying up the dog and leaving. It might immediately think it did something bad (not necessarily biting). This could be a completely unintentional association. Let's assume the post is outside. The dog peed on the grass. Seconds after, you tie up the dog (because you go to work). Now the dog thinks "peeing on the grass = bad". What's next? Try to pee on the carpet instead?
---
Instead, I'd try different things:
First, try to get the puppy something it's allowed to chew on. There's a huge selection of toys, just make sure it's robust and made for puppies.
You can buy special tied up ropes for pulling and biting. Play together with one of those. If you're bitten, try to make a high pitched noise, stop playing, grab the toy, push the puppy off, and turn away. If the puppy follows, push it away again and try to growl a bit. Leaving the room might be optional.
As an alternative distraction, try buying some dried lamb ears (or rabbit ears in case of bigger dogs): They're a nice distraction, won't screw up nutrition values (stay reasonable) and will tire the dog out a bit. Bonus, they're fine for dogs of all ages and will help with teeth as well.
You don't need any baby gate. Just leaving the room might be enough, if you have to. To push a bit further, just close the door for a few minutes. Make sure there's nothing left behind the puppy might destroy or eat. This doesn't have to be long, even half a minute might be enough. Just make sure the dog doesn't get the signal to bite you, if it wants to be alone for a bit (e.g. to sleep).
Also try to not give in too easily. Otherwise the dog will learn to just cry if it wants something, every single time.
In more extreme cases, let's assume you've been bitten and got a small tiny wound (like a red dot of blood or some scratch), stop playing immediately, turn away repeatedly, play a bit "fearful" (don't exaggerate), you could even try to sob a bit yourself, and while doing so, give your puppy a chance to sniff on the wound. I can't vouch for this, but at least in our case our puppy immediately noticed "whoa, I screwed up, sorry, sorry, sorry", started to lick me and the biting was over for the rest of the day. | With puppies, they generally don't realize how much they are being hurtful, they don't know their own strength yet. I've had a lot of success in teaching that simply by over-reacting and acting like I'm really, really hurt. 1-3 times doing this and the dog figured it out and stopped. (Note that the dog might not seem to 'care' or be concerned, but a successful 'teaching' occurs when the dog appears to be watching).
I've also had a lot of luck in teaching him not to bite. Some owners like to play games with the dogs teeth and their hands and that doesn't translate well when the dog is older. Ignoring works really well, especially when combined in rewarding the right behavior (say, sitting calm when petting is wanted). |
10,105 | My 2 month old puppy is teething and has a natural proclivity for biting things; anything and everything. While I understand that this behavior is natural and might stop after a while, he also bites people and that's becoming a problem as he grows older.
I've tried saying a firm, "**No**" and ignoring him for about 10-20 minutes after he starts biting, but he'll still jump and bark and try to bite the flesh. He'll follow me if I distance myself from him and then bite me, so there's really no ignoring him. It's particularly more concerning when he tries to bite people that are sleeping.
I looked through the comments and answers posted [here](https://pets.stackexchange.com/q/1976/5644) and [here](https://pets.stackexchange.com/a/1628/5644) and I like the idea of temporarily confining my puppy (e.g. using baby gates) but I don't have those so I resort to putting a leash on him and tying him to a newel post.
That results in him calming down after a while but not before he barks incessantly and tries to break free of the leash. After a few minutes, he'll whine and guilt-trip me into cutting him loose, which I do. However, the biting behavior will still continue albeit after a little while.
So my question is this: "Is it okay if I tie him to a post temporarily if I am unable to effectively distance myself from him while he's biting? If not, what's a better alternative?" | 2015/08/23 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/10105",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/5644/"
] | Overall, I'm not too fond with the post (or seeing people tying up dogs in general). It might help, but it really depends on the individual dog and your actual situation, I guess.
>
> **Always keep this in mind**: Just because something worked (or didn't work) for someone else, it doesn't mean it's the same in your case.
>
>
>
The important part in your situation is the fact that the dog understands "biting = getting on the pole" and that's something it won't understand, if overused or in any and all situations. If you tie it up to calm down, you can't do it, if you have to leave the dog alone. Otherwise you'll most likely mess up impressions/understanding.
Imagine tying up the dog and leaving. It might immediately think it did something bad (not necessarily biting). This could be a completely unintentional association. Let's assume the post is outside. The dog peed on the grass. Seconds after, you tie up the dog (because you go to work). Now the dog thinks "peeing on the grass = bad". What's next? Try to pee on the carpet instead?
---
Instead, I'd try different things:
First, try to get the puppy something it's allowed to chew on. There's a huge selection of toys, just make sure it's robust and made for puppies.
You can buy special tied up ropes for pulling and biting. Play together with one of those. If you're bitten, try to make a high pitched noise, stop playing, grab the toy, push the puppy off, and turn away. If the puppy follows, push it away again and try to growl a bit. Leaving the room might be optional.
As an alternative distraction, try buying some dried lamb ears (or rabbit ears in case of bigger dogs): They're a nice distraction, won't screw up nutrition values (stay reasonable) and will tire the dog out a bit. Bonus, they're fine for dogs of all ages and will help with teeth as well.
You don't need any baby gate. Just leaving the room might be enough, if you have to. To push a bit further, just close the door for a few minutes. Make sure there's nothing left behind the puppy might destroy or eat. This doesn't have to be long, even half a minute might be enough. Just make sure the dog doesn't get the signal to bite you, if it wants to be alone for a bit (e.g. to sleep).
Also try to not give in too easily. Otherwise the dog will learn to just cry if it wants something, every single time.
In more extreme cases, let's assume you've been bitten and got a small tiny wound (like a red dot of blood or some scratch), stop playing immediately, turn away repeatedly, play a bit "fearful" (don't exaggerate), you could even try to sob a bit yourself, and while doing so, give your puppy a chance to sniff on the wound. I can't vouch for this, but at least in our case our puppy immediately noticed "whoa, I screwed up, sorry, sorry, sorry", started to lick me and the biting was over for the rest of the day. | The other answers give helpful advice, and I would like to emphasize a couple of points:
1. Retrievers are very mouthy in general -- they were bred to pick up game in their mouths and bring it back to the hunter. So they tend to play biting games more than many other breeds.
2. Bite inhibition is THE most important lesson a puppy must learn. A two-month-old puppy cannot harm you. If they bite as hard as they able, they might inflict a minor wound but nothing serious. A six-month-old Labrador puppy, however, can do serious damage with a hard bite. When puppies play together, and one puppy bites another too hard, the wounded puppy will yelp with a loud cry. Try this with your puppy: when he bites, say "Ouch!" loudly with a high-pitched voice, and turn away. You can gradually decrease the pressure you accept without an "Ouch!", and the puppy learns that humans cannot tolerate the game at anything other then a gentle level. But it is a big mistake to never tolerate a puppy mouthing you, because they will not understand how to inhibit bite pressure.
Here is a more detailed explanation: [Dr. Ian Dunbar's puppy bite inhibition](https://www.siriuspup.com/behavior-problems/puppy-biting) |
10,105 | My 2 month old puppy is teething and has a natural proclivity for biting things; anything and everything. While I understand that this behavior is natural and might stop after a while, he also bites people and that's becoming a problem as he grows older.
I've tried saying a firm, "**No**" and ignoring him for about 10-20 minutes after he starts biting, but he'll still jump and bark and try to bite the flesh. He'll follow me if I distance myself from him and then bite me, so there's really no ignoring him. It's particularly more concerning when he tries to bite people that are sleeping.
I looked through the comments and answers posted [here](https://pets.stackexchange.com/q/1976/5644) and [here](https://pets.stackexchange.com/a/1628/5644) and I like the idea of temporarily confining my puppy (e.g. using baby gates) but I don't have those so I resort to putting a leash on him and tying him to a newel post.
That results in him calming down after a while but not before he barks incessantly and tries to break free of the leash. After a few minutes, he'll whine and guilt-trip me into cutting him loose, which I do. However, the biting behavior will still continue albeit after a little while.
So my question is this: "Is it okay if I tie him to a post temporarily if I am unable to effectively distance myself from him while he's biting? If not, what's a better alternative?" | 2015/08/23 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/10105",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/5644/"
] | Overall, I'm not too fond with the post (or seeing people tying up dogs in general). It might help, but it really depends on the individual dog and your actual situation, I guess.
>
> **Always keep this in mind**: Just because something worked (or didn't work) for someone else, it doesn't mean it's the same in your case.
>
>
>
The important part in your situation is the fact that the dog understands "biting = getting on the pole" and that's something it won't understand, if overused or in any and all situations. If you tie it up to calm down, you can't do it, if you have to leave the dog alone. Otherwise you'll most likely mess up impressions/understanding.
Imagine tying up the dog and leaving. It might immediately think it did something bad (not necessarily biting). This could be a completely unintentional association. Let's assume the post is outside. The dog peed on the grass. Seconds after, you tie up the dog (because you go to work). Now the dog thinks "peeing on the grass = bad". What's next? Try to pee on the carpet instead?
---
Instead, I'd try different things:
First, try to get the puppy something it's allowed to chew on. There's a huge selection of toys, just make sure it's robust and made for puppies.
You can buy special tied up ropes for pulling and biting. Play together with one of those. If you're bitten, try to make a high pitched noise, stop playing, grab the toy, push the puppy off, and turn away. If the puppy follows, push it away again and try to growl a bit. Leaving the room might be optional.
As an alternative distraction, try buying some dried lamb ears (or rabbit ears in case of bigger dogs): They're a nice distraction, won't screw up nutrition values (stay reasonable) and will tire the dog out a bit. Bonus, they're fine for dogs of all ages and will help with teeth as well.
You don't need any baby gate. Just leaving the room might be enough, if you have to. To push a bit further, just close the door for a few minutes. Make sure there's nothing left behind the puppy might destroy or eat. This doesn't have to be long, even half a minute might be enough. Just make sure the dog doesn't get the signal to bite you, if it wants to be alone for a bit (e.g. to sleep).
Also try to not give in too easily. Otherwise the dog will learn to just cry if it wants something, every single time.
In more extreme cases, let's assume you've been bitten and got a small tiny wound (like a red dot of blood or some scratch), stop playing immediately, turn away repeatedly, play a bit "fearful" (don't exaggerate), you could even try to sob a bit yourself, and while doing so, give your puppy a chance to sniff on the wound. I can't vouch for this, but at least in our case our puppy immediately noticed "whoa, I screwed up, sorry, sorry, sorry", started to lick me and the biting was over for the rest of the day. | I think there are a lot of good answers here, but I still wanted to add a couple of things. One, I think several of the posters are correct in saying that you should yelp or say "ouch!" loud and sharp and quit playing. That is how puppies socialize with one another. If one plays too hard, the other puppy lets them know this way and quits playing with them. They learn that they don't get what they want by doing this.
Another good way to help teach a puppy this is if you can find the right older dog. I've had two that were good at this. A puppy would try to play and they'd ignore them. When the puppy got too rambunctious they'd growl, if they didn't desist immediately, they'd snap and knock them down. They didn't hurt them or actually make contact with their teeth, but they shocked the puppy and made their point. Typically, the puppy would look shocked, hunker and come back licking at them, and if the dog growled again, they'd go off and play somewhere else. They didn't act afraid of that dog, but they definitely respected them more from that point on. That's what you're trying to imitate. You warn them, then deal with the issue in an appropriate way.
Another example are two of my horses. I've had them since they were born and they're full brothers. Both of them were with their mother in a pasture beside another mare. The babies both worried their mother to death, jumping on her, biting her, etc... She'd squeal and hump her butt up, but wouldn't every actually correct them. When they got old enough, the next door mare they grew up with would be the first one to get turned in with them. She was sweet and wasn't an aggressive mare, but she did protect her personal space. Both babies, a year apart, did the same thing. As soon as she was let in, she walked to a patch of grass and started grazing. They ran right up and reared up on her back and bit at her neck like they did with their mother and she let loose and kicked them in the chest. They all ran around for a while and settled down. The baby came back, being apologetic to the other mare and kept getting closer. She warned them several times, but when they touched her, she let loose again. They were stunned, but they listened to her signals from then on and also paid attention to other horses when they signaled this way. She wasn't trying to hurt them and they were more shocked than hurt, but they learned a lesson.
Now, I'm not telling you to hit your dog. The point I'm trying to make is that you have to find a correction that fixes the issue in a way the dog understands. I don't believe tying them or putting them in a kennel solves the issue. I think letting them out when they whine is creating another issue that you won't want.
Basically, try to think of how you want your perfect dog to be and work on it a little every day. To fix the biting issue, I'd do a couple of things. One is be consistent with whatever you do. For instance, if a dog begs for food and you say 'no' one time, but slip them a snack anther time, or someone else does, then you've basically taught them that they should keep begging, because sometimes it works. If you always consistently say 'no', then eventually they stop asking. Another thing to do is to make sure the dog is exercised, mentally and physically. Playing in the yard burns off physical energy, but you need to burn that mental energy as well. Structured walks, where they aren't allowed to stop and do stuff at random are good at this. They get physical exercise, but they also have to focus on matching your pace and watch for your turns. Puzzle toys can help as well. A tired dog isn't as liable to jump and bite. Granted, as a puppy, the stamina isn't going to be great, but we have a 1-mile walking path and when I have puppies I take them on it. When they seem tired and lagging, I carry them. When they squirm I let them walk. It doesn't take long before they can keep up the whole mile and are ready to out pace me.
Next is something hard to describe. When you correct your puppy and have something you don't want him to do, such as jumping and biting, many people say 'no', maybe they even yell/scream it. However, you have to wait for the dog to give in. A good example of this is a dog that focuses in on a cat or squirrel or whatever. The dog focuses in and tries to go for it. The owner tugs and pulls on the leash. Then they get in front of their dog to body block it. Then they walk toward it and back it up. They say they stopped their dog and they're doing some of the right things, but the whole time, the dog is focused beyond them on whatever it is they want and they haven't given up on it. You aren't correcting it till they've broken their focus and given up on the bad behavior. Another example would be people who try to put their animals off the furniture. They are lying there and the dog's all over them. They tell the dog to get off and it doesn't, so they push it off. It stands there and stares at them and the make it stay there for a while and then let it back up. They feel like they've accomplished something because they put the dog off and made it stay for a little while, but the whole time the dog was just waiting till it could get back on the couch. I would want to tell the dog to get off, then drive it off more than put it off. Sometime clapping the hands or flapping a blanket will work best, though with some dogs, this can encourage rough play and biting the blanket, which you don't want, so don't do this if you have this type of dog. Keep in mind that they more you claim a space and ask your dog to leave it, the easier it is in other situations, so if you've made a habit of asking your dog to move off, they will easily do so when asked to leave the couch.
A good alternative is to teach your dog the 'Spot' command. This is where the dog has a 'spot', such as a kennel with an open door, a mat, wherever. When you say 'Spot', the dog goes there. He can't be on the couch or jumping on you and be in his 'spot' too. I also wouldn't want the dog standing there staring at me, because he's still focused on what he wants. I will send him/her off if they do this. With repetition, you'll be able to say 'off' and they'll hop up and go find somewhere else that's comfortable for them. That's ideal for me.
So keeping all this in mind for your jumping issue. You'll want to make sure he doesn't have an abundance of energy to use to be destructive, you want to let him know that it's not okay to jump on or bite you. If he's persistent, you need to tell him 'no' and back him down. He can't just keep staring at you. He needs to give up on wanting to jump on you. Lastly, offer him an alternative to with a chew toy or puzzle toy to keep him occupied. Good luck and I hope this helped. |
67,618 | I made caramel with condensed milk one month ago. Now I want to use it again, but it has sugar granules on it. So what should I do to make it smooth again? | 2016/03/20 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44367/"
] | If the crystals have formed in the same way the crystals form in Honey, then you could try warming the caramel. Honey forms crystals over time, and these are removed by placing the honey in hot water for an hour (you will need to keep the water hot, above body temperature but not boiling). | Once crystals appear in dulce de leche you can't remove them (a far as I know).
But there are several methods to help not getting the crystals. Industry adds β-D-galactosidase. Adding lactose micro crystals, as they do in ice cream manufacturing, isn't practical due to technical limitations.
[Effect of cooling temperature and formulation in Dulce de Leche manufacturing, SPANISH](http://bdigital.zamorano.edu/bitstream/11036/728/1/T2257.pdf)
For home manufacturing some options are using a thick iron pot that cools down slowly. If you open the can, you can add marbles to avoid it getting stuck to the bottom, never introduce spoons to stir it. |
12,314,481 | I am trying to start developing android apps. I think I need to install support library-revision 10 first.However I get error...
I tried to install it by using sdk manager. It gives an error like this:
>
> Downloading Android Support Library, revision 10
>
>
>
> >
> > File not found: C:\Program Files
> > (x86)\Android\android-sdk\temp\support\_r10.zip (access is denied)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Done. Nothing was installed.
>
>
>
Can anybody help me? | 2012/09/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12314481",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1559359/"
] | Try running whichever program you are using to install as an administrator,
run your SDK Manager as an administrator. Right click on it and choose "Run as administrator" It should install it then.(Right Click -> Run As Administrator). | This can happen when SDK Manager tries to modify the file that is being used by eclipse. Try this Exit eclipse(you may need to restart your system aslo) - go to your android sdk folder - open SDK manager directly from there(not from eclipse)- now update the libraries. |
45,476 | I've worked with certain causal/predictive techniques when handling two time series, but this problem is different from what I am used to and I'm not sure how to proceed.
I would like to see the causal influence of a single event on multiple time series. For example, an earthquake on a particular day having an influence on future stock prices of different companies.
Is there a technique/method that allows me to address this type of question? | 2012/12/09 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45476",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/17629/"
] | Causal Events ( a.k.a as KNOWN Intervention Series ) can be incorporated into a Transfer Function which might normally include ARIMA structure and also the impact of unspecified (unknown Intervention Series .. but identifiable via Intervention Detection schemes). Software to do this , possible incorporating parameter changes and/or variance changes are not available in the "free software domain" . One can use SAS or SPSS to attempt to construct models requiring you to be an expert in this area of modelling. In terms of full disclosure this is an area that I have specializied in for many years. I suggest that you review my posts on stackexchange for more discussions on this. | I think there are several approaches to this:
1) [Latent variable growth models](http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/seminars/muthen_07/part2.pdf): A psychometric approach that uses the concept of "latent variables" (in this case, most probably some idea of "confidence") that explains some extent of variability that is introduced by the discrete event and the subsequent trends in stock, since these trends are easily conceptualized as "self-effecting" (that is perturbations in variance can cause long term ascending or descending trends).
2) Regression analysis: There are a number of approaches here: lagged effects, mixed modeling with ARIMA, cumulative effects, etc. etc. Understanding specification of covariance structure in mixed models is essential to capturing ongoing trends in the outcome.
3) [Granger causality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality): similar to the latent variable approach, this is a method of causal inference similar to a dag approach that tries to isolate specific causal pathways.
4) [Marginal Structural Models](http://www.epiresearch.org/playlists/files/Robins_EPI_2000_11_550.pdf) can be deployed when you are longitudinally measuring other markers for a company's performance over time, such as staffing turnover and layoffs, etc. This is because some exposures vary with time and intensity and their lasting affects modify exposures causing a "cascading" effect in the outcome which may be biased.
Personally, I favor 2. I think that the naive approach for detecting a difference in means in a carefully adjusted regression model, especially in the presence of a well identified control group (such as companies of similar stature in the same country *not* affected by the earthquake) will provide: 1-easily interprettable effects, 2-high power, and 3-greater generalizability. What some may call a bias in estimates of efficacy *in-vitro* (such as foolish business leadership mistakes causing a decrease in profitability after the earthquake), are actually unbiased in estimates of effectiveness or *in-vivo*, because you can't tell whether the foolish business decision would have been made had the earthquake not happened. This highlights the importance of having a well identified control group in any analysis you intend to do. |
95,001 | I just noticed a question that had two different numbered lists with different numbers but both were rendered as "1". Screen shot:
Is this supposed to be happening? | 2011/06/13 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95001",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/145819/"
] | Yes, it's supposed to be happening: – that's how Markdown [defines it](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#list):
>
> It’s important to note that the actual numbers you use to mark the list have no effect on the HTML output Markdown produces.
>
>
>
It's probably one of the more debated features of Markdown, but it's indeed thusly defined in the “spec” (scare quotes because the Markdown spec is more of a “description of behaviour” than an actual specification). | Yes, it's a bug and it isn't. It appears to be by design. I can reproduce it here (edit to see the problem). If you hit enter after placing the second list item, then this problem goes away:
1. List item
or
2. List item |
95,001 | I just noticed a question that had two different numbered lists with different numbers but both were rendered as "1". Screen shot:
Is this supposed to be happening? | 2011/06/13 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95001",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/145819/"
] | Yes, it's an unfortunate trait of markdown. You can get around it by indenting each entire list item by 4 spaces however.
1. This is a multi-paragraph list item.
It has lots of teeny paragraphs.
But there is a way around it...
2. It's not ideal, but it gets the job done!
3. Ta da!
(found this out from the [markdown reference on daringfireball](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#list)) | Yes, it's a bug and it isn't. It appears to be by design. I can reproduce it here (edit to see the problem). If you hit enter after placing the second list item, then this problem goes away:
1. List item
or
2. List item |
95,001 | I just noticed a question that had two different numbered lists with different numbers but both were rendered as "1". Screen shot:
Is this supposed to be happening? | 2011/06/13 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95001",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/145819/"
] | Yes, it's supposed to be happening: – that's how Markdown [defines it](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#list):
>
> It’s important to note that the actual numbers you use to mark the list have no effect on the HTML output Markdown produces.
>
>
>
It's probably one of the more debated features of Markdown, but it's indeed thusly defined in the “spec” (scare quotes because the Markdown spec is more of a “description of behaviour” than an actual specification). | Yes, it's an unfortunate trait of markdown. You can get around it by indenting each entire list item by 4 spaces however.
1. This is a multi-paragraph list item.
It has lots of teeny paragraphs.
But there is a way around it...
2. It's not ideal, but it gets the job done!
3. Ta da!
(found this out from the [markdown reference on daringfireball](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#list)) |
665,903 | I need to create a new db in **SQL Server**, and move some data from an **Oracle** db to this SQLServer db;
I read that this function can be implemented by using **SSIS** or the **SQL Server Migration Assistant for Oracle**;
I wonder if someone can point me to a tutorial or a document where I can see how this task is performed step by step
The data moved from the **Oracle** db is updated on a day basis, so the data moved has to be updated regularly. | 2009/03/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/665903",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Have you looked at the [SQL Server Migration Assistant for Oracle](http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/migration-oracle.aspx)?
[Step by step document on how to use it](http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/c/8/ec8d5025-7ef7-4dcc-a9f3-9c297cf5350e/SSMAOracle.docx). | How about this:
<http://aspalliance.com/947_building_a_sql_server_2005_integration_services_package_using_visual_studio_2005>
and this:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms169917.aspx> |
41,004 | As we are all descendants of Prophet Adam A.S., I understood the explanation of Hawa A.S. giving birth to various sets of twins of different race and thereafter the marrying of the males to females of a different set to produce various race. However, i then learned we are all descended from Prophet Nuh A.S and that all other lineages had perished *(which is mentioned in this [answer](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/2063/15201))*.
**Question:** If we are all descendants of Prophet Nuh A.S., why are we so many races? | 2017/06/25 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/41004",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/23164/"
] | Islam is meant to be for spiritual well being and attainment. Some may call it closeness to God and others may call it something else. Some, not all, Muslims (actually religious people in general) think that religion has the answer to every question. However, that is not the case. It has answers to most questions, especially, questions related to spiritual well being: This includes social and judicial laws since they are needed for spiritual well being. But it does not have answers for all question and this question is one of them.
Answer to a question such as this will not be found in Quran or Hadith because it is outside the context of what Islam brings to this world. Therefore, for questions such as these, one should not depend on religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc.) but depend on History, Science etc.
There are Muslims who would argue and say that Quran has answers to every question one can possibly have, and I am not disagreeing with them because they would point me to a verse such as [this](http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-315-3185.htm):
>
> If you can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the Earth, then pass!
>
>
>
which they claim speaks of travelling to space. Now whether they are correct or not is beyond the argument here. What I am trying to say is that sure everything in this world ties to Quran (if you are a Muslim) or Bible (if you are Christian) in some way but it would be foolish if one was to look inside The Holy Quran, or Hadith or The Bible to try and find how binary arithmetic works.
In conclusion, you will have better luck and a more informed answer if you were to ask this question on another site. | If we are all descendants of Prophet Noah, why do we have so many races?
In some narrations, the existence of differences in the color of the mud from which Adam and Eve were created, has been introduced as the cause of the difference in the color and race of human beings. The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was asked: ... Was Adam created from all mud or from a single mud? The Imam said: Of all the flowers, and if it had been created from a single flower, some people would not have known others (that is, they would all be alike).
A hadith from Imam Ali (as) has been narrated about the difference between human beings: “The reason for the difference between different people is their nature. Because from the beginning, human beings were a combination of salty and sweet soil, hard and soft ... one beautiful and short-sighted, another tall and low-minded, and one ugly and virtuous, and one short and well-thought-out, and one pure in nature and immoral. ... »
In some hadiths, the prayer of Prophet Noah (pbuh) is introduced as the cause of differences between races and colors. In the commentary of Noor al-Thaqalin, he narrates from Hazrat Abdul Azim Hasani: I heard Ali ibn Muhammad Asgari (peace be upon him) say: He prayed for them and said: خ "O God, change their crucifixion so that only black children will be born from their crucifixion ..."
But from the Qur'anic point of view, the will of God Almighty is that human beings are different in terms of color, race and shape. God, who is able to create man from inanimate mud, can make some of Adam's children black and some white, etc., for his personal and social interests. It is stated in Surah Al-Hujurat: "O people, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into great clans and small clans, that you may know one another."
And in verse 22 of Surah Romans, God Almighty expresses the difference of languages and colors as signs of His power.
Ref:<https://hawzah.net/fa/Question/View/65359/> |
13,704 | Is there a good source to download free SharePoint Themes (.thmx) ? | 2011/06/01 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/13704",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/1102/"
] | Couldn't find a site which hosts only SharePoint 2010 themes. Two good themese are here <http://www.topsharepoint.com/themes> | There is a vast quantity of web designs out there, but they are not designed for SharePoint. However, what you can do is render a page in SharePoint that will support some of these themes. So for example if you render HTML that looks like the CSS Garden HTML template you have a starting point to use their themes. But it's not going to be easy. Begin with a simplified [starter master page](http://startermasterpages.codeplex.com/), which is a normal practice for developing Internet sites on SharePoint anyway.
You are probably not going to get your HTML spot on without either using control adaptors and other techniques. So it is more likely that you will end up adapting the CSS. |
13,704 | Is there a good source to download free SharePoint Themes (.thmx) ? | 2011/06/01 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/13704",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/1102/"
] | Couldn't find a site which hosts only SharePoint 2010 themes. Two good themese are here <http://www.topsharepoint.com/themes> | Themes can be created in PowerPoint, exported, and imported into Sharepoint. This will allow you to create styles, color palletes and fonts appropriate to your organization's style guides. |
13,704 | Is there a good source to download free SharePoint Themes (.thmx) ? | 2011/06/01 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/13704",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/1102/"
] | Couldn't find a site which hosts only SharePoint 2010 themes. Two good themese are here <http://www.topsharepoint.com/themes> | Not free. <http://tuning.bind.pt/Sharepoint-Themes.aspx> |
13,704 | Is there a good source to download free SharePoint Themes (.thmx) ? | 2011/06/01 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/13704",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/1102/"
] | Not free. <http://tuning.bind.pt/Sharepoint-Themes.aspx> | There is a vast quantity of web designs out there, but they are not designed for SharePoint. However, what you can do is render a page in SharePoint that will support some of these themes. So for example if you render HTML that looks like the CSS Garden HTML template you have a starting point to use their themes. But it's not going to be easy. Begin with a simplified [starter master page](http://startermasterpages.codeplex.com/), which is a normal practice for developing Internet sites on SharePoint anyway.
You are probably not going to get your HTML spot on without either using control adaptors and other techniques. So it is more likely that you will end up adapting the CSS. |
13,704 | Is there a good source to download free SharePoint Themes (.thmx) ? | 2011/06/01 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/13704",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/1102/"
] | Not free. <http://tuning.bind.pt/Sharepoint-Themes.aspx> | Themes can be created in PowerPoint, exported, and imported into Sharepoint. This will allow you to create styles, color palletes and fonts appropriate to your organization's style guides. |
550 | I've installed craft on some terrible hoster (I know, under force). Because of that I had to install craft in the public folder, next to the index.php file. I've set the path to ./craft and activated the .htaccess file. Now it will show the installation page, but halfway stops
with the attached errors.
The odd thing is that it searches for /garnish-0.1.min.map in the site root, while it's in the app/resources etc folder?
[(Click to enlarge)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1XEy0.jpg)
EDIT: Placing the file garnish-0.1.min.map in the root removes the first error, apparently it's really looking for the files in that place? | 2014/06/27 | [
"https://craftcms.stackexchange.com/questions/550",
"https://craftcms.stackexchange.com",
"https://craftcms.stackexchange.com/users/421/"
] | The log file got me on my way after a tip from Brad Bell:
>
> 'CDbException' with message 'CDbCommand failed during the SQL statement: SQLSTATE[42S01]: Base table or view already exists: 1050 Table 'craft\_assetfiles' already exists' in ...craft/app/framework/db/CDbCommand.php:358
>
>
>
Removing the database and doing a fresh install solved the issue. | I'm throwing out a wild guess only, but what happens if you temporarily remove the .htaccess file in the top level of the "craft" folder. It's contents (i.e. "deny from all") may be causing some problem. Could that be causing some files not to be found? |
35,124 | There's an excellent simile in the Theravada non canonical literature explaining the difference between piti and sukha in the first 3 jhanas, reminiscent of the lotus pond in this sutta MN 40. (citation?)
As I remember it:
* Piti = you're in a desert, dying of thirst, as you're approaching oasis/pond, you realize there's water in the distance, that you're not going to die, and you're going to drink that water soon. The thrill and excitement of that is piti.
* sukha = you've arrived at the oasis/pond, now you're drinking the water. The pleasure from actually drinking the water is sukha.
Three questions:
1. what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?
2. might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?
3. What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?
MN 40 excerpt here:
[MN 40: what is the meaning of the lotus pond simile?](https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/09/mn-40-what-is-meaning-of-lotus-pond.html) | 2019/09/20 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/35124",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/16297/"
] | >
> 1. what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?
>
>
>
It's from the [Visuddhimagga](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf)-Ch IV.100 (pg. 139):
>
> And wherever the two are associated, happiness is the contentedness at getting a desirable object, and bliss is the actual experiencing of it when got. Where there is happiness there is bliss (pleasure); but where there is bliss there is not necessarily happiness. Happiness is included in the formations aggregate; bliss is included in the feeling aggregate. If a man, exhausted31 in a desert, saw or heard about a pond on the edge of a wood, he would have happiness; if he went into the wood’s shade and used the water, he would have bliss. And it should be understood that this is said because they are obvious on such occasions.
>
>
>
.
>
> 2. might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?
>
>
>
Possibly. But notice the context is different between MN 40 and Vism IV.100. In MN 40, the lotus pond simile was used to illustrate the benefits of cultivating the [Four Divine Abodes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara) and how it benefits everyone; while the Vism's simile was for describing the Piti/Sukha absorption factors of the Jhanas concentration practices.
>
> 3. What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?
>
>
>
The Four Divine Abodes. | >
> **what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?**
>
>
>
The citation is from the Visuddhimagga, used to explain piti (rapture) is mental formation (sankhara) rather than a feeling (vedana). Here, the Visuddhimagga says piti is something mental rather than originating from the physical; thus appears to contradict the meaning of 'rupa jhana' and contradicting the sutta terms "vedanāsu vedanānupassī" and "cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṃvedī" (where 'cittasaṅkhāra' means feelings, per MN 44).
>
> **might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?**
>
>
>
MN 40 is not about jhana. While, similar to the Visuddhimagga, the pāmojjaṃ (joy) & pīti (rapture) in MN 40 appear to be born of mental formations (sankhara), as said, MN 40 is not about jhana where as Visuddhimagga claims to be about jhana. Therefore, there seems to be a contradiction here between MN 40 and Visuddhimagga. However, if the writer of the Visuddhimagga, similar to FrankK, misinterpreted MN 40, then yes, MN 40 might be what inspired that (false) simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation
>
> **What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?**
>
>
>
MN 40 does not appear to be about jhana. MN 40 describes the mental joy of knowing or recognising the mind is pure; similar to the worldly idea of "self-esteem". Using AN 11.2 to explain, MN 40 is describing the joy arising from an absence of remorse.
However, the rapture of jhana is unrelated to any mental recognition, judgment, knowing or perception. The rapture of jhana is "physical" in its origins and is born from the stress in the physical body being thoroughly calmed & dissolved (to the degree that the mind can longer feel/discern the physical body, which consumates the 1st jhana, in which there is no knowing of the physical body, as explained by Bhikkhus Buddhadasa, Brahmavamso, Sujato, etc).
I recall I have explained before the meaning or types "rapture" ("piti") are not always the same. There are at least five different types of rapture found in the suttas, namely:
1. Rapture when hearing about there is a path to an end to suffering (SN 12.23).
2. Rapture when free from remorse and when feeling morally righteous (AN 11.2; MN 40).
3. Rapture when first successfully having mindfulness & insight (SN 45.3; rapture factor of enlightenment).
4. Rapture of neighbourhood concentration (MN 118)
5. Rapture of attainment concentration/jhana (MN 4; MN 19; MN 111). |
37,521,819 | Good day all, we have AWS account almost set up. What is left is to activate MFA, but the button that activates is grayed out and unclickable. Through the user tab we manually assigned MFA and when we login it asked us to insert the code, which is nice. But button that manages MFA is grayed out as shown in the image.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/m5DC4.jpg) | 2016/05/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37521819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6399623/"
] | You have to be logged in as root user to change that setting. Even an user with Administrator access would find it disabled.
Administrator can activate the MFA by clicking on the particular user, then under the 'Security Credentials' there is a 'Assigned MFA device' setting. If it indicates 'No' then MFA device is not set up for that user. Administrator/root user could change this setting to set up MFA device for that particular user.
Credit-Shazic
<https://acloud.guru/forums/aws-certified-solutions-architect-associate/discussion/-KYMx91XRAyy_6cDfj5F/manage-mfa-is-disabled> | What I did was in my root account I created a IAM user with full admin access.
I logged in as this user then went to
IAM -> users -> click the admin user -> Click the security credentials tab -> look under sign-in credentials
Where it says Assigned MFA device is what you want to edit I think.
Not sure if this if this is the best way to do this but it's what I did. Not sure why that button doesn't work. |
37,521,819 | Good day all, we have AWS account almost set up. What is left is to activate MFA, but the button that activates is grayed out and unclickable. Through the user tab we manually assigned MFA and when we login it asked us to insert the code, which is nice. But button that manages MFA is grayed out as shown in the image.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/m5DC4.jpg) | 2016/05/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37521819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6399623/"
] | You have to be logged in as root user to change that setting. Even an user with Administrator access would find it disabled.
Administrator can activate the MFA by clicking on the particular user, then under the 'Security Credentials' there is a 'Assigned MFA device' setting. If it indicates 'No' then MFA device is not set up for that user. Administrator/root user could change this setting to set up MFA device for that particular user.
Credit-Shazic
<https://acloud.guru/forums/aws-certified-solutions-architect-associate/discussion/-KYMx91XRAyy_6cDfj5F/manage-mfa-is-disabled> | To see that button enabled, you have to login as root user. Actually this button says: "Activate multi-factor authentication (MFA) on your AWS root account to add another layer of protection to help keep your account secure." So, this is just for root account.
Now, a user with admin privileges (not root) even can activate other user's (or self) MFA. To do this, we have to select that particular user from user's tab and under security credentials, activate MFA. |
18,320 | Are there any examples of pressure fed engines used on launch vehicles? I already know of the ones on the wikipedia page which include
* Firefly Space Systems
* OTRAG (rocket)
* Quad (rocket) of Armadillo Aerospace
* XCOR EZ-Rocket of XCOR Aerospace
* Masten Space Systems
* Aquarius Launch Vehicle
* NASA Project Morpheus prototype lander
* NASA Mighty Eagle mini lunar lander
* CONAE Tronador II upper stage | 2016/09/22 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18320",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/16180/"
] | Here are some pressure-fed engines that have been flown:
* The [Diamant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamant) used a first stage ([Emeraude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeraude_(rocket))) with 1 Vexin engine. It was used in 12 launches, including the one that put the first French satellite (Astérix) into orbit.
* On the ELDO [Europa I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(rocket)) rocket, the second stage (Coralie) used 4 Vexin engines. The 11 Europa launches all failed.
* The Apollo [LEM ascent engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_Propulsion_System) and [descent engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_Propulsion_System) were pressure-fed too. They used Helium tanks as their pressure source.
The Emeraude and Coralie were inefficient stages due to their heavy tanks. Also, the pressure in the tanks was created by a gas generator, so instead of having a stage without gas generator they just split up the engine (the GG was installed at the top of the stage). | Reaching orbit with a pressure fed engine is really tough because of the need of high thrust and to achieve high thrust, high combustion chamber pressure is needed. And hence the pressure, at which propellants are stored, have to be very high leading to very high mass of the propellant tanks.
Because of the above reason pump fed engines are being used till date (23/11/2018) which reduces mass and require less propellants to reach the orbit compared to pressure fed engines.
For small thrust requirement (like thrust vector control, orbit change, etc.), pressure fed engines are the best option because it reduces complexities in making pumps & turbines system and are quite compact in size.Now companies are coming up with pressure fed engine but just for the last stage where they have to do minute corrections in trajectories.
Armadillo, Masten, XCOR, etc. are companies who have made landers and are low in mass and hence require less thrust. Because of which they are able to use pressure fed engine. And most importantly these landers are designed for the moon where gravity is less and requires lesser thrust to lift-off the same mass than the earth.
In recent times, a lot of new student space programs are coming forward, like SDSU, dareTuDelft, USCLPL, etc. (get to know more on this [website](https://mach5lowdown.com/)), who are using liquid propellants and pressure fed engine system.
Finally, by the increase in material research, to find better material in strength to weight ratio, making a launch vehicle with just pressure fed engine system is not impossible in near future. |
115,421 | I'm trying to use multiseat with Ubuntu, but I can't make this work.
I've read a lot of "how to", and the most of them are about doing a multiseat with some distro with GDM2, or KDM. But, I'm using the lightdm of Ubuntu.
So now I'm trying to make this multiseat with Xephyr, which I've already used to make a multiseat with the Debian 4 version. But I don't know how to call Xephyr in lightdm.conf. | 2012/03/23 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/115421",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/51771/"
] | try xrdp it will be the easiest solution. I installed vnc4server and then installed xrdp. and then I used rdesktop / tsclient / remmina to connect xrdp machine using IP Address. | There is a [wonderful blog](http://beforeafterx.blogspot.com/) detailing the process of getting an Xephyr based multiseat set up. He also is using Lightdm. Hope it helps. |
213,236 | I have a few batch files I need to run frequently in developing a certain project. I'd like to create a Visual Studio toolbar called "MyProject" and have commands underneath to execute these batch files. What is the easiest way to accomplish this? | 2008/10/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/213236",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3615/"
] | In the *Tools...* menu, select *External Tools...* and add references to the batch files. Then right-click on a toolbar, select *Customize...*, go to the *Toolbars* tab, click on *New...*, name your new toolbar, click on *OK*, go to the *Commands* tab, select the *Tools* category and drag-drop the appropriate *External Command* Command onto your custom tool bar.
If you need to run batch files that always run right before or after a build, you're probably better off making use of [build events](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e2s2128d.aspx). | 1. How to install an icon in Visual Studio to run a batch file.
2. On the menu go to Tools > External Tools
3. Click Add and fill in the following:
1. Title: The name that shows up for the icon name.
2. Command: Browse to the file name and click ok or put the file path and file name here.
3. Check Use Output window if you want to see the batch files output in visual Studio.
4. Click OK.
4. Make note of the position # of the Menu contents you just added starting from position 1 at top. You will use this as External Command # later on.
5. Go to Tools > Customize or right click in the toolbar area and click Customize.
6. Go to the Toolbars tab click New, Name the Toolbar name and click Ok.
7. Go to the Commands tab, select the Toolbar radio button, in the dropdown to the right select your toolbar name.
8. Click the Add Command Button. In the Categories select Tools and in the Commands to the right pick External Command # from above and click ok. It will appear in the tool bar now ready to go. |
3,871 | I'm analysing the technologies for an IoT device that would need to be installed in a commercial environment. The requirement is to install thousands (or maybe even tens of thousands) of small sensors/devices in a commercial setting, like a hotel, or an office building. I need these devices to have bidirectional connectivity to a central server/control dashboard. The connection doesn't have to be super fast, but it should be reliable.
No power usage restrictions present, but I also don't want to considerably stress the existing infrastructure or spend lots for a new one.
So, what are my options? The following ones come to mind:
1. Wi-Fi. The obvious choice, but it has the following issues:
a) Too many of the devices in the same area will definitely stress the radio space, cause interference and possibly make the connections unreliable for both iot devices and the existing devices (computers, tablets, phones, printers, whatnot)
b) Might need lots of routers/repeaters to cover large areas, which may impact the cost of the project.
2. ZigBee. Has issues with WiFi in the same space, also kinda limited in number of devices? Will also require specialised hardware and bridge to IP network for control dashboard.
Mesh networks also have their limits.
I'd love to hear opinions, ideas, suggestions and resources to look into. | 2019/02/11 | [
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/questions/3871",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/users/9279/"
] | LoRaWAN matches the requirements of...
1. Hosting 1000s of devices
2. Not super fast. 300 bps to ~20 Kbps
3. Simple star-of-stars topology
4. Operates in sub-GHz ISM band (863—925MHz). So no interference to WiFi
5. Covers more than a kilometre
Ref.: <https://lora-alliance.org/about-lorawan> | LoRaWAN is a great option, as mentioned above. But the complexity does not end there, in terms of the databases to be used, with that number of devices publishing data at all times, it is a very good option to think in an elasticsearch database. |
3,871 | I'm analysing the technologies for an IoT device that would need to be installed in a commercial environment. The requirement is to install thousands (or maybe even tens of thousands) of small sensors/devices in a commercial setting, like a hotel, or an office building. I need these devices to have bidirectional connectivity to a central server/control dashboard. The connection doesn't have to be super fast, but it should be reliable.
No power usage restrictions present, but I also don't want to considerably stress the existing infrastructure or spend lots for a new one.
So, what are my options? The following ones come to mind:
1. Wi-Fi. The obvious choice, but it has the following issues:
a) Too many of the devices in the same area will definitely stress the radio space, cause interference and possibly make the connections unreliable for both iot devices and the existing devices (computers, tablets, phones, printers, whatnot)
b) Might need lots of routers/repeaters to cover large areas, which may impact the cost of the project.
2. ZigBee. Has issues with WiFi in the same space, also kinda limited in number of devices? Will also require specialised hardware and bridge to IP network for control dashboard.
Mesh networks also have their limits.
I'd love to hear opinions, ideas, suggestions and resources to look into. | 2019/02/11 | [
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/questions/3871",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/users/9279/"
] | LoRaWAN matches the requirements of...
1. Hosting 1000s of devices
2. Not super fast. 300 bps to ~20 Kbps
3. Simple star-of-stars topology
4. Operates in sub-GHz ISM band (863—925MHz). So no interference to WiFi
5. Covers more than a kilometre
Ref.: <https://lora-alliance.org/about-lorawan> | If you need higher data rates than the already mentioned LoRaWAN can provide you can consider Bluetooth. BLE can theoretically support 32k nodes in mesh configuration or more in point-to-point (though range might be a factor then). <https://www.bluetooth.com/bluetooth-technology/topology-options#mesh> |
3,871 | I'm analysing the technologies for an IoT device that would need to be installed in a commercial environment. The requirement is to install thousands (or maybe even tens of thousands) of small sensors/devices in a commercial setting, like a hotel, or an office building. I need these devices to have bidirectional connectivity to a central server/control dashboard. The connection doesn't have to be super fast, but it should be reliable.
No power usage restrictions present, but I also don't want to considerably stress the existing infrastructure or spend lots for a new one.
So, what are my options? The following ones come to mind:
1. Wi-Fi. The obvious choice, but it has the following issues:
a) Too many of the devices in the same area will definitely stress the radio space, cause interference and possibly make the connections unreliable for both iot devices and the existing devices (computers, tablets, phones, printers, whatnot)
b) Might need lots of routers/repeaters to cover large areas, which may impact the cost of the project.
2. ZigBee. Has issues with WiFi in the same space, also kinda limited in number of devices? Will also require specialised hardware and bridge to IP network for control dashboard.
Mesh networks also have their limits.
I'd love to hear opinions, ideas, suggestions and resources to look into. | 2019/02/11 | [
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/questions/3871",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/users/9279/"
] | LoRaWan is clearly a good options, however take care about duty-cycle restriction that can apply depending on the Zone (US/EU/AS).
This Duty-cycle can be a difficult point to handle from Gateway perspective (and so Network planning) if you have lot of devices with Downlink (or Uplink acknowledge).
For example in EU you will have channel with 0.1, 1 and 10% limitation.
It will be interesting to have more information about size of data payload in UL/DL and period of the messages (if periodic).
Other things is that you might need multicast option in downlink. | LoRaWAN is a great option, as mentioned above. But the complexity does not end there, in terms of the databases to be used, with that number of devices publishing data at all times, it is a very good option to think in an elasticsearch database. |
3,871 | I'm analysing the technologies for an IoT device that would need to be installed in a commercial environment. The requirement is to install thousands (or maybe even tens of thousands) of small sensors/devices in a commercial setting, like a hotel, or an office building. I need these devices to have bidirectional connectivity to a central server/control dashboard. The connection doesn't have to be super fast, but it should be reliable.
No power usage restrictions present, but I also don't want to considerably stress the existing infrastructure or spend lots for a new one.
So, what are my options? The following ones come to mind:
1. Wi-Fi. The obvious choice, but it has the following issues:
a) Too many of the devices in the same area will definitely stress the radio space, cause interference and possibly make the connections unreliable for both iot devices and the existing devices (computers, tablets, phones, printers, whatnot)
b) Might need lots of routers/repeaters to cover large areas, which may impact the cost of the project.
2. ZigBee. Has issues with WiFi in the same space, also kinda limited in number of devices? Will also require specialised hardware and bridge to IP network for control dashboard.
Mesh networks also have their limits.
I'd love to hear opinions, ideas, suggestions and resources to look into. | 2019/02/11 | [
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/questions/3871",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com",
"https://iot.stackexchange.com/users/9279/"
] | LoRaWan is clearly a good options, however take care about duty-cycle restriction that can apply depending on the Zone (US/EU/AS).
This Duty-cycle can be a difficult point to handle from Gateway perspective (and so Network planning) if you have lot of devices with Downlink (or Uplink acknowledge).
For example in EU you will have channel with 0.1, 1 and 10% limitation.
It will be interesting to have more information about size of data payload in UL/DL and period of the messages (if periodic).
Other things is that you might need multicast option in downlink. | If you need higher data rates than the already mentioned LoRaWAN can provide you can consider Bluetooth. BLE can theoretically support 32k nodes in mesh configuration or more in point-to-point (though range might be a factor then). <https://www.bluetooth.com/bluetooth-technology/topology-options#mesh> |
9,537 | The Temple in Salt Lake has several inverted pentagrams as decorations. *(To see a few, just google "lds temple salt lake inverted pentagrams" and click on images. Or click [here](http://isearch.avg.com/images?s=sideNav&q=lds%20temple%20inverted%20pentagrams%20salt%20lake&sap=dsp&lang=en&mid=8e2de528dcdc47d0ba0fd1681c2200fd-f6cabc1589393c29baf97c23cc761ebfd42eb1c0&cid=%7B6020D23B-7EC3-422C-BE07-73F67E74C58D%7D&v=12.2.0.5&ds=gl011&d=8/20/2012%207:48:41%20AM&pr=sa&snd=hdr))*
According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram), the inverted pentagram symbol is used in Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and magick, as well as Freemasonry.
How exactly did it become a symbol of the LDS church? *(It seems like an odd symbol to use, given how it's used by others.)* What does it represent according to LDS teaching? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9537",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/207/"
] | The symbol has no specific meaning within LDS theology, and there are no teachings regarding it. According to [an article found among the Wikipedia page's sources](http://web.archive.org/web/20080229073604/http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stars.pdf), the pentagram symbol actually has a long history in Christian and Jewish art and architecture, and only first began to be associated with Satanism and the occult in the 1850s. By this point, the design for the Salt Lake temple had already been drafted.
The star symbolism in the temple was included, along with carved depictions of other celestial bodies, as symbolic of heavenly glory, which is described in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, as being similar to the brightness of the sun, the moon and the stars. | The inverted star represents the second coming of Jesus Christ. This symbol is also on the Nauvoo Temple and this is what I was told when I asked around about it. |
9,537 | The Temple in Salt Lake has several inverted pentagrams as decorations. *(To see a few, just google "lds temple salt lake inverted pentagrams" and click on images. Or click [here](http://isearch.avg.com/images?s=sideNav&q=lds%20temple%20inverted%20pentagrams%20salt%20lake&sap=dsp&lang=en&mid=8e2de528dcdc47d0ba0fd1681c2200fd-f6cabc1589393c29baf97c23cc761ebfd42eb1c0&cid=%7B6020D23B-7EC3-422C-BE07-73F67E74C58D%7D&v=12.2.0.5&ds=gl011&d=8/20/2012%207:48:41%20AM&pr=sa&snd=hdr))*
According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram), the inverted pentagram symbol is used in Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and magick, as well as Freemasonry.
How exactly did it become a symbol of the LDS church? *(It seems like an odd symbol to use, given how it's used by others.)* What does it represent according to LDS teaching? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9537",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/207/"
] | The symbol has no specific meaning within LDS theology, and there are no teachings regarding it. According to [an article found among the Wikipedia page's sources](http://web.archive.org/web/20080229073604/http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stars.pdf), the pentagram symbol actually has a long history in Christian and Jewish art and architecture, and only first began to be associated with Satanism and the occult in the 1850s. By this point, the design for the Salt Lake temple had already been drafted.
The star symbolism in the temple was included, along with carved depictions of other celestial bodies, as symbolic of heavenly glory, which is described in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, as being similar to the brightness of the sun, the moon and the stars. | Joseph Smith was a [freemason](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry) and many of the [symbols](http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/masonicsymbolsandtheldstemple.htm) on the temple are also used in freemasonry. As Mason noted, this doesn't give any meaning to the symbol (unless you have conspiracy theories regarding freemasonry,) but simply seems to be one possibility for the architectural influence.
Some have also suggested that there are also some influences between some of the garments used in the LDS temple and the robes of the Freemasons and also having members-only ceremonies, though these may be more coincidental. |
9,537 | The Temple in Salt Lake has several inverted pentagrams as decorations. *(To see a few, just google "lds temple salt lake inverted pentagrams" and click on images. Or click [here](http://isearch.avg.com/images?s=sideNav&q=lds%20temple%20inverted%20pentagrams%20salt%20lake&sap=dsp&lang=en&mid=8e2de528dcdc47d0ba0fd1681c2200fd-f6cabc1589393c29baf97c23cc761ebfd42eb1c0&cid=%7B6020D23B-7EC3-422C-BE07-73F67E74C58D%7D&v=12.2.0.5&ds=gl011&d=8/20/2012%207:48:41%20AM&pr=sa&snd=hdr))*
According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram), the inverted pentagram symbol is used in Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and magick, as well as Freemasonry.
How exactly did it become a symbol of the LDS church? *(It seems like an odd symbol to use, given how it's used by others.)* What does it represent according to LDS teaching? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9537",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/207/"
] | The inverted star represents the second coming of Jesus Christ. This symbol is also on the Nauvoo Temple and this is what I was told when I asked around about it. | Joseph Smith was a [freemason](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry) and many of the [symbols](http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/masonicsymbolsandtheldstemple.htm) on the temple are also used in freemasonry. As Mason noted, this doesn't give any meaning to the symbol (unless you have conspiracy theories regarding freemasonry,) but simply seems to be one possibility for the architectural influence.
Some have also suggested that there are also some influences between some of the garments used in the LDS temple and the robes of the Freemasons and also having members-only ceremonies, though these may be more coincidental. |
128,206 | I want to set up an automatic task that will automatically delete files older than X days from a specific folder. I'd prefer to do it without having to install any 3rd party software, but I'll be ok if it's a very small and simple utility.
I want this to force me to keep my files organized. I am setting my browser to download to a standard folder, and then with this script to automatically delete files older than a week, I will be forced to move & organize downloaded files I want to keep. | 2010/04/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/128206",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/5199/"
] | How about [Belvedere](http://lifehacker.com/5510961/how-to-automatically-clean-and-organize-your-desktop-downloads-and-other-folders) from one of [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/)'s editors.
 | There's a windows command called forfiles. I think it was on the windows 2000 resource kit.
I found a link to it from petri's web site: <http://www.petri.co.il/download_free_reskit_tools.htm>
It has a lot you can do with it including removing individual files based on how old they are or whole directories. |
2,981,859 | I have an assembly and want to restrict the assemblies and applications that can call/use this assemblies functionality. Can anyone provide detailed information on how this can be achieved ?
From what I have read on the internet this is not possible because any "fully trusted" assembly will automatically be granted access.
I am using .NET 2.0 and 3.5 and the solution needs to be compatible with both versions of the framework.
Thanks in advance ;-) | 2010/06/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2981859",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | I asked something similar maybe the answer will be of some help: [Ensuring an assembly is called via a specified assembly](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2852812/c-ensuring-an-assembly-is-called-via-a-specified-assembly) | I like Adam's answer (from link), but want to add one more way. you can make everything internal instead of public, then use attribute InternalsVisibleTo attribute ( <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.runtime.compilerservices.internalsvisibletoattribute.aspx> ) |
112,989 | When I drag and drop image files from Windows Explorer to Excel,
nothing happens.
Can you make it work?
I’m particularly interested in jpg/png or ico files,
but I’d like to be able to do it with all image types.
I have been inserting them using Excel’s insert image features,
but it doesn't seem to be super productive.
I was looking for a faster, efficient option to improve productivity. | 2010/02/24 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/112989",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/3165/"
] | Here is a workaround: drag into MS Word and then drag into Excel.
Definitely better then going through the Insert system. | The easiest way I've found is to copy the image itself by viewing it first and then copy it into the clipboard. Then it can be pasted into Excel. |
214,322 | Just a question about Physics I'm doing at school.
If the speed of sound is inversely proportional to the density of a material, why does sound travel faster in solids (it is the most dense).
I have read that it takes more energy for sound to travel in dense materials so it takes longer but then neighbouring molecules are closer so sound does not have to travel that far, making it faster. This doesn't make any sense because it says the more dense a medium is, sound is both faster and slower.
Also, how does bulk modulus affect the speed of sound. | 2015/10/24 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/214322",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/96484/"
] | NOTE: THIS WAS EDITED TO ADD INTUITION(ESPECIALLY IN THE END OF THE ANSWER)
The speed of sound is proportional to the bulk modulus and inversely proportional to the density of the material. In most cases(or all, please correct me if somebody knows for sure), the bulk modulus in solids is much bigger when the solid has higher density. So, while the higher density tends to give you a smaller speed, the much larger bulk modulus gives a larger speed.
Or to rephrase, the difference in density is much lower in the difference in the bulk modulus for two materials, so the speed of sound gets bigger from the less dense to the more dense material. So, the compressibility factor wins over the density factor, and thus "ruling" over the final answer.
"I have read that it takes more energy for sound to travel in dense materials so it takes longer but then neighboring molecules are closer so sound does not have to travel that far, making it faster. This doesn't make any sense because it says the more dense a medium is, sound is both faster and slower."
The power(the rate at which energy travels dE/dt) is given by the relation P=0.5\*ρ\*(ω)^2\*(ξ)^2\*Α\*u
where ρ=density
ω=angular frequency and its equal to 2πf
ξ=displacement amplitude
A=cross section area of material in which wave travels through
u=the speed of propagation
Now, say we produce a sound of a given energy in air(and thus constant power if we don't include loss of energy in our analysis). When the sound reaches the solid material, then it starts to propagate within the solid(and not the air). Now, for a less dense material(we consider the same bulk modulus between the two materials so as to just see the effects that the density has on the speed of propagation), in a given volume you will have less mass than the denser material for the same volume. So, in order for the power to remain constant, for more mass per unit volume(which is the density) and the same bulk modulus we must get a lower speed(check the relation that I wrote above about the power).
More intuition:
Density: The higher the density, the more mass you have in a given volume that tries to oscillate. But that also means that we have more inertial forces, so the material "resists" more, so the harder it is to accelerate the molecules in the volume.
Bulk modulus: The bigger it is, the solid is not easily compressed. So, this means that when a force of given magnitude gets applied to that volume, the volume will not be easily compressed and so it will be accelerated more pushing the volume of the material that is next to it. For low bulk modulus, it is easily compressed and thus for that same force it will be compressed more and so move less, pushing the volume of the material next to it less. So, the bigger the bulk modulus, the more a volume pushes(or pulls) the volume next to it, thus giving us a wave of propagation that is bigger than that that we would get for a lower bulk modulus. | short answer: wave speed (indeed, its square) is the ratio of rigidity and mass. For (most) solids and liquids, as compare to gaz, the point is not that they are denser, but that they are near-incompressible: numerator wins. |
17,961,950 | It's over ten years since C99 was published. However, so far there have been few, if any, compilers that have support for all the new features of C99. Why?
BTW: Are there really any compilers that fully comply with C99? | 2013/07/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/17961950",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1779068/"
] | According to [Wikipedia: C99 Implementations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations), Most popular compilers (except Visual Studio) have support for most but not all C99 features(like gcc or clang), but, yes, some compilers have already fully comply with C99.
I think one of the reasons is that some of the C99 features are not useful to some compiler vendors. The newest standard, C11, on the other hand, allows implementations to not support certain parts of the standard — including some that had been mandatory to support in C99, like complex types and variable length arrays. (See C11 §6.10.8.3 *Conditional feature macros*) | >
> BTW: Are there really any compilers that fully comply with C99?
>
>
>
The two major public domain compilers clang and gcc are as far as one can get. There maybe some small issues that remain in the C library, but the C library is usually a different project from the compilers.
clang has C99 as its default and is moving relatively quickly towards C11.
gcc with flag `-std=c99` is compliant for any practical purposes. |
19,173 | I have a number of analog watches that run on button batteries. The batteries run down, get replaced, and then I have to reset the time and date. I remember the original instructions they all came with about setting the date outside the range of roughly 9:00 PM to 3:00 AM, but I always have a 50:50 chance of the date subsequently changing at noon instead of midnight. I've tried setting the date at all hours of the day, but nothing changes my odds. Is there some trick to ensure that the date changes at midnight after setting it? | 2018/09/10 | [
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/19173",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/2830/"
] | The problem is that **you** know what time of day it is when you set the watch, but the watch doesn't. The trick is to do it in reverse and let the date be the basis for the time of day. It's a three-step process. In most cases the watch stem has three positions: all the way out to adjust the time, half way out to adjust the date, and all the way in to disengage the stem.
1. The window of 9:00 PM - 3:00 AM when you aren't supposed to set the date actually has nothing to do with defining the date change trigger. It's to avoid damaging the gears that drive the date change. So the first step is to set the time on the watch to anything outside that range and then push the stem closed. That avoids potential damage when setting the date.
2. Pull the stem halfway out and set the date **to yesterday's date**, and push the stem back in.
3. Pull the stem all the way out and start moving the time forward. As you approach 12:00, the date will start to change, but it might be on the first time you approach 12:00 or the second. When you hit 12:00 and the date changes, the watch is at 12:00 AM, the start of today, with today's date. From that point set today's actual time. If it is past noon, make a full circuit past 12:00 again and then set the time.
[*Source*](https://forums.watchuseek.com/f365/how-set-day-date-analog-watch-329517.html) | The hour hand on your watch passes 12 twice a day. On only **one** of these passes will you see a change in the date showing in the date window. You can hence know whether your watch is showing an AM or a PM time by pulling the crown out whatever number of notches allows you to set the time, then wind the watch forwards (backwards may cause issues) until the time passes 12.
* If the date window changed, then the time the watch now shows (e.g. 1 o'clock) is in the *morning* (1 am).
* If the date window didn't change, then the time the watch currently shows is a PM time
Now you know whether the watch is showing an AM or PM time you can adjust the time accordingly
* If the actual time of day is 6am, wind the watch forwards 5 hours til it reads 6 o'clock.
* If the actual time of day is 3pm, wind the watch forwards 14 hours (so it passes 12 again) and reads 3 o'clock.
If you determined that your watch was showing AM, and it's actually 3pm but you only wind the watch forwards 2 hours (so it reads 3 o'clock) then the watch will effectively be showing 3am and it will change the date at midday tomorrow instead of midnight tonight.
Finally, set the date by pulling the crown out whatever number of notches engages date setting mode. |
3,781,385 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Rails 3 deprecated methods and APIs](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3648063/rails-3-deprecated-methods-and-apis)
>
>
>
What resources are out there (free or paid) that help walk you through the process of migrating a Ruby on Rails 2 application to Rails 3? I've seen some blog posts (some of which seem out of date) and an eBook for sale somewhere on the RoR website, but what can you recommend as an accurate and complete explanation of what changed from version 2 to version 3 and what needs to be updated when porting to a Rails 3 environment? | 2010/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3781385",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/318760/"
] | Watch this <http://railscasts.com/episodes/225-upgrading-to-rails-3-part-1> | According to <http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2010/9/4/ruby-on-rails-2-3-9-released> (official Rails blog) it is recommended to first migrate to Rails 2.3.9 - this would help to identify all deprecations and generally get you closer to Rails 3.
BTW, we are also facing the imminent migration to Rails 3, our marketing guys are already horrified! :) |
3,781,385 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Rails 3 deprecated methods and APIs](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3648063/rails-3-deprecated-methods-and-apis)
>
>
>
What resources are out there (free or paid) that help walk you through the process of migrating a Ruby on Rails 2 application to Rails 3? I've seen some blog posts (some of which seem out of date) and an eBook for sale somewhere on the RoR website, but what can you recommend as an accurate and complete explanation of what changed from version 2 to version 3 and what needs to be updated when porting to a Rails 3 environment? | 2010/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3781385",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/318760/"
] | Aside from a [number of RailsCasts](http://railscasts.com/tags/27), on the paid front, BDDCasts has one entitled [Upgrading to Rails 3](http://bddcasts.com/series/urlagg/episodes/upgrading-to-rails-3) for only $5. I can't vouch for the quality of the latter (they have some free episodes too), but Ryan's stuff at RailsCasts is top notch.
[Gregg Pollack's videos](http://rubyonrails.org/screencasts/rails3/) on the official site give a great overview as well.
Peepcode also has a [Rails 3 Upgrade Handbook](http://peepcode.com/products/rails-3-upgrade-handbook-pdf) for purchase. | Watch this <http://railscasts.com/episodes/225-upgrading-to-rails-3-part-1> |
3,781,385 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Rails 3 deprecated methods and APIs](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3648063/rails-3-deprecated-methods-and-apis)
>
>
>
What resources are out there (free or paid) that help walk you through the process of migrating a Ruby on Rails 2 application to Rails 3? I've seen some blog posts (some of which seem out of date) and an eBook for sale somewhere on the RoR website, but what can you recommend as an accurate and complete explanation of what changed from version 2 to version 3 and what needs to be updated when porting to a Rails 3 environment? | 2010/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3781385",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/318760/"
] | Aside from a [number of RailsCasts](http://railscasts.com/tags/27), on the paid front, BDDCasts has one entitled [Upgrading to Rails 3](http://bddcasts.com/series/urlagg/episodes/upgrading-to-rails-3) for only $5. I can't vouch for the quality of the latter (they have some free episodes too), but Ryan's stuff at RailsCasts is top notch.
[Gregg Pollack's videos](http://rubyonrails.org/screencasts/rails3/) on the official site give a great overview as well.
Peepcode also has a [Rails 3 Upgrade Handbook](http://peepcode.com/products/rails-3-upgrade-handbook-pdf) for purchase. | According to <http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2010/9/4/ruby-on-rails-2-3-9-released> (official Rails blog) it is recommended to first migrate to Rails 2.3.9 - this would help to identify all deprecations and generally get you closer to Rails 3.
BTW, we are also facing the imminent migration to Rails 3, our marketing guys are already horrified! :) |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | Freewill is actually most commonly discussed with regard to the Self. Freewill is the defining attribute of an entity that has "agency" over their actions. The exact meaning of this concept is one which has not been fully resolved, creating disagreement among philosophers. It doesn't even always cross cultural barriers, for Eastern philosophers often have very different things to say about the Self than Western philosophers do.
If one has experienced a spiritual experience which has lead one to believe all is connected and that the Self is an illusion, then is it not unreasonable to presume that agency is also an illusion, at least as the layman's version we consider today. However, this would only be half of the story, for the meaning of freewill, self, and agency are not universally agreed upon. One who has had such a Oneness event would most likely find the most valuable questions and resounding statements of truth be made with respect to universal concepts within that Oneness, not simply human words which have highly divisive meanings.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to surmise that those who have such spiritual experiences find these questions to simply be the wrong questions. They may be useful in the lesser scheme of things to further one towards the right questions, but such spiritual individuals often advise against becoming attached to them.
As for many specifics in your questions, they show a tendency to refer to Buddhist philosophy. You may be able to ask a similar, more narrowly phrased, question or questions on [Buddhism.SE](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/) address the particular attributes of Buddhist philosophy rather than that of philosophy in general.
Edit: One approach seen in Western philosophy which is close to what you describe is to use deeper and wider selves to explore these scenarios. One I can think of is Arne Naess's "Ecological Self:" "The Ecological Self is that with which the Self relates to." This does not remove Self completely from the equation, but it does explore alternatives to the layman's approaches. | In the Western tradition, there is the scepticism of Hume; and Kants response - the self at one level, being a stream of raw impressions from sense and concepts from the intellect; but this is bound into a unity - the unity of apperception - through synthesis.
To put it differently - and maybe allegorically, the surface of the coffee, in this cup of coffee is a flat unitary surface, but looking more closely it's unitary surface dissolves into a stream of molecules in thermal equilibrium with the air above it, and the coffee below it; this in one view, is the more 'fundamental'; from another view, both obtain.
This view appears to be consonant in some ways with Buddhism; if one takes into account, as you say, of *dependent arising* (*pratitya samutpada*); then Nagarjuna, wrote in his *Verses on the Centre* (*Madhyamaka*):
>
> Whatever arises dependently is explained as nothing
>
>
> Thus dependent attribution is the middle way
>
>
> Since there is nothing whatever that is not dependently existent
>
>
> For that reason there is nothing whatsoever that is not empty
>
>
>
Emptiness, or *sunyata*, is roughly not to have *svabhava*, existence that is its own ground.
Dignana, the Buddhist logician, given dependent arising, inferred that atoms must be momentary: they come to be - are - and pass away; this is unlike the atomism of Democritus, where atoms are permanent.
Intriguingly this does rather sound like the virtual particle swarms in QFT...!
Free will is a Western concept; and Kant, I take it, fits it somehow into his architecture of the self - but I'm not sure of the details; perhaps some scholar knowing Kant more, may come along and fill in this sketch.
I'm not sure, either, how it fits into Buddhist notions of the self. |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | Freewill is actually most commonly discussed with regard to the Self. Freewill is the defining attribute of an entity that has "agency" over their actions. The exact meaning of this concept is one which has not been fully resolved, creating disagreement among philosophers. It doesn't even always cross cultural barriers, for Eastern philosophers often have very different things to say about the Self than Western philosophers do.
If one has experienced a spiritual experience which has lead one to believe all is connected and that the Self is an illusion, then is it not unreasonable to presume that agency is also an illusion, at least as the layman's version we consider today. However, this would only be half of the story, for the meaning of freewill, self, and agency are not universally agreed upon. One who has had such a Oneness event would most likely find the most valuable questions and resounding statements of truth be made with respect to universal concepts within that Oneness, not simply human words which have highly divisive meanings.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to surmise that those who have such spiritual experiences find these questions to simply be the wrong questions. They may be useful in the lesser scheme of things to further one towards the right questions, but such spiritual individuals often advise against becoming attached to them.
As for many specifics in your questions, they show a tendency to refer to Buddhist philosophy. You may be able to ask a similar, more narrowly phrased, question or questions on [Buddhism.SE](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/) address the particular attributes of Buddhist philosophy rather than that of philosophy in general.
Edit: One approach seen in Western philosophy which is close to what you describe is to use deeper and wider selves to explore these scenarios. One I can think of is Arne Naess's "Ecological Self:" "The Ecological Self is that with which the Self relates to." This does not remove Self completely from the equation, but it does explore alternatives to the layman's approaches. | From Buddhist perspective,
>
> What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
>
>
>
In absence of Self, free will could be separate phenomenon in itself. It's act of *free-will* to have free will. (Sort of like *adverbialism*.) And let's define free-will phenomenon further, as will which is *intentional* (as opposed to involuntary or unconscious act). This will is caused by other phenomena to arise.
>
> What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
>
>
>
1. Person. As long as person's *will* is not suppressed she is free willing.
2. Action itself. Any voluntary, conscious action is free-willed. (And action could be blamed or praised.) By causality action will bring consequences as type of responsibility.
3. And on deeper level, conscious attitude towards action. (Consciousness which is arranged in a way to be supportive of producing wrong actions, is in same time supporting arising of consequences for such actions.)
>
> How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
>
>
>
Free will is already misattributed to Self. Thus, destruction of wrong concept of Self does not affect free-will at all.
>
> Who has free will in the absence of a Self?
>
>
>
On a conventional level, it's Person. On phenomenological level, 'who' is not a question, if there is no Self as phenomenon. There will be *will*, which is characterized as being *free*, and which is worked out by other consciousness phenomena. |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | Freewill is actually most commonly discussed with regard to the Self. Freewill is the defining attribute of an entity that has "agency" over their actions. The exact meaning of this concept is one which has not been fully resolved, creating disagreement among philosophers. It doesn't even always cross cultural barriers, for Eastern philosophers often have very different things to say about the Self than Western philosophers do.
If one has experienced a spiritual experience which has lead one to believe all is connected and that the Self is an illusion, then is it not unreasonable to presume that agency is also an illusion, at least as the layman's version we consider today. However, this would only be half of the story, for the meaning of freewill, self, and agency are not universally agreed upon. One who has had such a Oneness event would most likely find the most valuable questions and resounding statements of truth be made with respect to universal concepts within that Oneness, not simply human words which have highly divisive meanings.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to surmise that those who have such spiritual experiences find these questions to simply be the wrong questions. They may be useful in the lesser scheme of things to further one towards the right questions, but such spiritual individuals often advise against becoming attached to them.
As for many specifics in your questions, they show a tendency to refer to Buddhist philosophy. You may be able to ask a similar, more narrowly phrased, question or questions on [Buddhism.SE](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/) address the particular attributes of Buddhist philosophy rather than that of philosophy in general.
Edit: One approach seen in Western philosophy which is close to what you describe is to use deeper and wider selves to explore these scenarios. One I can think of is Arne Naess's "Ecological Self:" "The Ecological Self is that with which the Self relates to." This does not remove Self completely from the equation, but it does explore alternatives to the layman's approaches. | The answer to your question is that you cannot give up self and cling to will. Relinquishing will is part of no-self in Buddhism, e.g.
>
> "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything],
> there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. ... Such is
> the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
>
>
>
[SN 12.38 Cetana Sutta: Intention](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.than.html)
>
> "For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
> I realize the knowledge & vision of release.'"
>
>
>
[AN 11.2 Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html) |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | Freewill is actually most commonly discussed with regard to the Self. Freewill is the defining attribute of an entity that has "agency" over their actions. The exact meaning of this concept is one which has not been fully resolved, creating disagreement among philosophers. It doesn't even always cross cultural barriers, for Eastern philosophers often have very different things to say about the Self than Western philosophers do.
If one has experienced a spiritual experience which has lead one to believe all is connected and that the Self is an illusion, then is it not unreasonable to presume that agency is also an illusion, at least as the layman's version we consider today. However, this would only be half of the story, for the meaning of freewill, self, and agency are not universally agreed upon. One who has had such a Oneness event would most likely find the most valuable questions and resounding statements of truth be made with respect to universal concepts within that Oneness, not simply human words which have highly divisive meanings.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to surmise that those who have such spiritual experiences find these questions to simply be the wrong questions. They may be useful in the lesser scheme of things to further one towards the right questions, but such spiritual individuals often advise against becoming attached to them.
As for many specifics in your questions, they show a tendency to refer to Buddhist philosophy. You may be able to ask a similar, more narrowly phrased, question or questions on [Buddhism.SE](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/) address the particular attributes of Buddhist philosophy rather than that of philosophy in general.
Edit: One approach seen in Western philosophy which is close to what you describe is to use deeper and wider selves to explore these scenarios. One I can think of is Arne Naess's "Ecological Self:" "The Ecological Self is that with which the Self relates to." This does not remove Self completely from the equation, but it does explore alternatives to the layman's approaches. | We should not let go of either of these, we should let go of the notion of dichotomy that infects the idea of illusion.
We tend to badly overuse the notion of illusion, and the answer to questions like this depend very heavily on what is really meant by the word illusion in particular circumstances.
You seem to have oversimplified our grasp of Self from one kind of partial reality into 'an illusion' and translated that into 'a mere convention', then jumped to the conclusion that anything contingent on a mere convention must also be a mere convention.
But you give no 1) argument against the Self being some more stable form of partial reality. And give no 2) consideration of consider whether mere conventions can have real effects.
You need to address those two things, before your complaint makes any sense. Because both of them are highly debatable.
**There are many forms of partial reality**
In some sense, language is always deceptive, and anything with a name is therefore an illusion. There is no rule for deciding which molecules make up any given supposed 'chair' or 'brain'. But you are still using words, so you are obviously not put off by the fact of that 'illusion'. Because we see how it is simply a *simplification*, and a convention for coping.
If we are going to address questions like this, we need to refine our notions of relative reality much more closely, and discard the ones that are childishly dismissive, like the notion of 'illusion' itself.
How is a collection of psychological dispositions not at thing? It has effects, it makes the world more predictable, and in order to do so, it has to exist in some sense. If that is what the Self is, then, how is that an illusion? That is not an illusion, it is an *epiphenomenon*: It has reality and arises from things that have reality, but we misunderstand the direction of causation (or imagine a direction in a case of mutual causation). How does that make the concept less useful, or the pattern less effective?
If reality is a continuum, instead of a collection of isolated entities, again, how does that make any of it an illusion? Each thing is an *unattained approximation*, but that does not, again, make the concept less useful, or the pattern less effective. Newton's use of the calculus as a basis for physics has shown us very well how unattained approximations have enough reality to base a metaphysics that works.
If all is one and distinctions are conventions, how does that make those conventions into illusions? Our language and our culture is a set of conventions, but they are *negotiated conventions* and hardly arbitrary. We know our culture, we hold it and use it, as a repository of earlier thinking negotiated by relative survival, the trials of politics, and a shared group aesthetic.
There is a huge distinction between "Human understanding of the world is never perfect and endlessly incomplete" and "All is illusion". The former is an obvious deduction from the modernist enterprise, the latter is a pointless canard, meant to forestall real philosophical inquiry (and protect religions from unwanted challenges.)
The notion of 'illusion' itself is as much of an illusion as anything you might try to label an illusion.
Things like 'optical illusions' are the closest meaningful use, but they are themselves useful features of sensation that do not reconcile with our overall model of space and its features. So they are gaps between two levels of *multiple realization* of the same emergent continuum, which have evolved quirks for different local goals. They are neither wrong nor misleading when used together in context. And when observed out of context, historically, they have guided most of us to the notion that neither the data, nor the model is paramount and uncorrupted, but both are real.
Given this range of options Free Will is unlikely to be mere convention, and more likely to be, like almost everything else, an epiphenomenon, an unattained approximation, an apparent inconsistency between multiple realizations of an emergent phenomenon, a simplification of some real effect by negotiated convention, or some other aspect of reality that does not fit well with our intuitive presumptions. But none of those things is *just* an illusion, each is partially illusory, but still real.
**Less real things can create more real things**
Traffic laws, a fiction of convenience, create delays in real time, and occasional tragedies in real lives -- you miss your court date and lose custody, you end up stuck on bridge in an earthquake and die.
Religions generate wars that obliterate millions of lives.
To the extent that personalities are epiphenomena of mental traits derived from physical systems shaped by social development, and ... Human pairing, and which actual children are born, is decided by things with a very limited claim to independent reality. |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | >
> It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that [i.e. loss of self and oneness with the world] without much issue — is that a fair impression?
>
>
>
Most of the people in the West (or I should specify in the US) I have met who subscribe to some form of Eastern mysticism seem to interpret "loss of self" as "loss of selfishness" and "loss of pride", not as a metaphysical loss of self.
Similarly the feeling of oneness you mention that results from meditation is more of an acceptance of the world as it is, a willingness to "go with the flow", a loss of the distinction between good and bad and a letting go of anger, and an ability to no longer judge people, more so than a phenomenological "oneness" with their surroundings or some sort of ontological connection with the trees and the birds, etc....
As you mention further in your question, they are usually philosophical laymen/laywomen who don't really bother to study the full philosophical implications of whatever buddhist/hindu/sufi/kabalistic teaching they picked up in yoga class.
>
> Why are people happy to let go of one (the Self) and not of the other (Free Will)?
>
>
>
As I mentioned above, the loss of self in question isn't a true metaphysical loss of self, and so it doesn't really scare them the way the loss of free will does.
Also as mentioned above, many are philosophical laymen, and they don't investigate the full philosophical implications of the positions they adopt. Most "lay atheists" I know for example are happy to brandish their materialist/physicalist worldview until confronted with the fact that this implies that they have no selves and likely no free will either, at which point they either withdraw into paradox or start to have their "atheistic faith" shaken (Full disclosure, I am such a shaken atheist myself).
The prospect of a true loss of self truly does scare people, and they are not willing to give it up so easily, that's probably why dualsim remains a popular position among otherwise atheistically and materialistically minded philosophers (Searle, Chalmers, Nagel, etc...).
Daniel Dennett mentions in this [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDch5ElHzx8), among other places, that the implied loss of free will is the main reason why people attribute so much importance to qualia and the hard problem of consciousness, despite what he thinks is the very thin ground on which qualia based defenses of dualism stand.
>
> What is that which merits desert or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
>
>
>
I personally have always marveled at this central contradiction in Buddhism: If there is no self, then what entity exactly is losing or gaining karma points? And more importantly, what exactly is being copied over from one life to another in the cycle of reincarnation?
Here I think lies a contradiction similar to the problem of evil in Abrahamic religions. The answers won't be pretty, but maybe we might find something in approaches to solving the [ship of theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) paradox, or maybe even borrow from the ideas of [structural realism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/) in philosophy of science.
>
> But what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self?
> And what is a non-compatibilist Free Will in a reality of dependent arising?
> What is that which has non-compatibilist Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
>
>
>
As I mentioned in the comments, there are some good answers in my previous [post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24251/how-can-a-stream-of-thoughts-and-perceptions-have-freewill). James, Kane, and somehow Kant (I've yet to completely comprehend Kant's approach, or if Mozibur's mention of Kant is relevant at all, but the possibility is intriguing), all provide possible approaches to this question.
In the months since I posted that question, my thinking has evolved on the question. Here a couple of comments:
* For a materialist who also believes in non-compatibilist free will, the question can get turned around: To "what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self or in a reality of dependent arising?" they can answer that you have the order wrong: The self **is** the free will that binds the thoughts and perceptions together into an illusion of consciousness. A sort of "self-of-the-gaps" that lives in, or actually is, the space between the microscopic determinism of neural processes and the macroscopic indeterminism of conscious agents.
* Emergentism: In the Dennett interview I mentioned above, despite himself being a compatibilist, he provides an interesting avenue for a non-compatibilist materialist free will as an emergent property, the way color is an emergent property of light waves and particles none of which have the property of color themselves. He also mentions Buddhism somewhere in passing, but you will have to listen to the whole interview, since I can't remember exactly where he mentions it. | In the Western tradition, there is the scepticism of Hume; and Kants response - the self at one level, being a stream of raw impressions from sense and concepts from the intellect; but this is bound into a unity - the unity of apperception - through synthesis.
To put it differently - and maybe allegorically, the surface of the coffee, in this cup of coffee is a flat unitary surface, but looking more closely it's unitary surface dissolves into a stream of molecules in thermal equilibrium with the air above it, and the coffee below it; this in one view, is the more 'fundamental'; from another view, both obtain.
This view appears to be consonant in some ways with Buddhism; if one takes into account, as you say, of *dependent arising* (*pratitya samutpada*); then Nagarjuna, wrote in his *Verses on the Centre* (*Madhyamaka*):
>
> Whatever arises dependently is explained as nothing
>
>
> Thus dependent attribution is the middle way
>
>
> Since there is nothing whatever that is not dependently existent
>
>
> For that reason there is nothing whatsoever that is not empty
>
>
>
Emptiness, or *sunyata*, is roughly not to have *svabhava*, existence that is its own ground.
Dignana, the Buddhist logician, given dependent arising, inferred that atoms must be momentary: they come to be - are - and pass away; this is unlike the atomism of Democritus, where atoms are permanent.
Intriguingly this does rather sound like the virtual particle swarms in QFT...!
Free will is a Western concept; and Kant, I take it, fits it somehow into his architecture of the self - but I'm not sure of the details; perhaps some scholar knowing Kant more, may come along and fill in this sketch.
I'm not sure, either, how it fits into Buddhist notions of the self. |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | >
> It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that [i.e. loss of self and oneness with the world] without much issue — is that a fair impression?
>
>
>
Most of the people in the West (or I should specify in the US) I have met who subscribe to some form of Eastern mysticism seem to interpret "loss of self" as "loss of selfishness" and "loss of pride", not as a metaphysical loss of self.
Similarly the feeling of oneness you mention that results from meditation is more of an acceptance of the world as it is, a willingness to "go with the flow", a loss of the distinction between good and bad and a letting go of anger, and an ability to no longer judge people, more so than a phenomenological "oneness" with their surroundings or some sort of ontological connection with the trees and the birds, etc....
As you mention further in your question, they are usually philosophical laymen/laywomen who don't really bother to study the full philosophical implications of whatever buddhist/hindu/sufi/kabalistic teaching they picked up in yoga class.
>
> Why are people happy to let go of one (the Self) and not of the other (Free Will)?
>
>
>
As I mentioned above, the loss of self in question isn't a true metaphysical loss of self, and so it doesn't really scare them the way the loss of free will does.
Also as mentioned above, many are philosophical laymen, and they don't investigate the full philosophical implications of the positions they adopt. Most "lay atheists" I know for example are happy to brandish their materialist/physicalist worldview until confronted with the fact that this implies that they have no selves and likely no free will either, at which point they either withdraw into paradox or start to have their "atheistic faith" shaken (Full disclosure, I am such a shaken atheist myself).
The prospect of a true loss of self truly does scare people, and they are not willing to give it up so easily, that's probably why dualsim remains a popular position among otherwise atheistically and materialistically minded philosophers (Searle, Chalmers, Nagel, etc...).
Daniel Dennett mentions in this [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDch5ElHzx8), among other places, that the implied loss of free will is the main reason why people attribute so much importance to qualia and the hard problem of consciousness, despite what he thinks is the very thin ground on which qualia based defenses of dualism stand.
>
> What is that which merits desert or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
>
>
>
I personally have always marveled at this central contradiction in Buddhism: If there is no self, then what entity exactly is losing or gaining karma points? And more importantly, what exactly is being copied over from one life to another in the cycle of reincarnation?
Here I think lies a contradiction similar to the problem of evil in Abrahamic religions. The answers won't be pretty, but maybe we might find something in approaches to solving the [ship of theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) paradox, or maybe even borrow from the ideas of [structural realism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/) in philosophy of science.
>
> But what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self?
> And what is a non-compatibilist Free Will in a reality of dependent arising?
> What is that which has non-compatibilist Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
>
>
>
As I mentioned in the comments, there are some good answers in my previous [post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24251/how-can-a-stream-of-thoughts-and-perceptions-have-freewill). James, Kane, and somehow Kant (I've yet to completely comprehend Kant's approach, or if Mozibur's mention of Kant is relevant at all, but the possibility is intriguing), all provide possible approaches to this question.
In the months since I posted that question, my thinking has evolved on the question. Here a couple of comments:
* For a materialist who also believes in non-compatibilist free will, the question can get turned around: To "what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self or in a reality of dependent arising?" they can answer that you have the order wrong: The self **is** the free will that binds the thoughts and perceptions together into an illusion of consciousness. A sort of "self-of-the-gaps" that lives in, or actually is, the space between the microscopic determinism of neural processes and the macroscopic indeterminism of conscious agents.
* Emergentism: In the Dennett interview I mentioned above, despite himself being a compatibilist, he provides an interesting avenue for a non-compatibilist materialist free will as an emergent property, the way color is an emergent property of light waves and particles none of which have the property of color themselves. He also mentions Buddhism somewhere in passing, but you will have to listen to the whole interview, since I can't remember exactly where he mentions it. | From Buddhist perspective,
>
> What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
>
>
>
In absence of Self, free will could be separate phenomenon in itself. It's act of *free-will* to have free will. (Sort of like *adverbialism*.) And let's define free-will phenomenon further, as will which is *intentional* (as opposed to involuntary or unconscious act). This will is caused by other phenomena to arise.
>
> What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
>
>
>
1. Person. As long as person's *will* is not suppressed she is free willing.
2. Action itself. Any voluntary, conscious action is free-willed. (And action could be blamed or praised.) By causality action will bring consequences as type of responsibility.
3. And on deeper level, conscious attitude towards action. (Consciousness which is arranged in a way to be supportive of producing wrong actions, is in same time supporting arising of consequences for such actions.)
>
> How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
>
>
>
Free will is already misattributed to Self. Thus, destruction of wrong concept of Self does not affect free-will at all.
>
> Who has free will in the absence of a Self?
>
>
>
On a conventional level, it's Person. On phenomenological level, 'who' is not a question, if there is no Self as phenomenon. There will be *will*, which is characterized as being *free*, and which is worked out by other consciousness phenomena. |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | >
> It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that [i.e. loss of self and oneness with the world] without much issue — is that a fair impression?
>
>
>
Most of the people in the West (or I should specify in the US) I have met who subscribe to some form of Eastern mysticism seem to interpret "loss of self" as "loss of selfishness" and "loss of pride", not as a metaphysical loss of self.
Similarly the feeling of oneness you mention that results from meditation is more of an acceptance of the world as it is, a willingness to "go with the flow", a loss of the distinction between good and bad and a letting go of anger, and an ability to no longer judge people, more so than a phenomenological "oneness" with their surroundings or some sort of ontological connection with the trees and the birds, etc....
As you mention further in your question, they are usually philosophical laymen/laywomen who don't really bother to study the full philosophical implications of whatever buddhist/hindu/sufi/kabalistic teaching they picked up in yoga class.
>
> Why are people happy to let go of one (the Self) and not of the other (Free Will)?
>
>
>
As I mentioned above, the loss of self in question isn't a true metaphysical loss of self, and so it doesn't really scare them the way the loss of free will does.
Also as mentioned above, many are philosophical laymen, and they don't investigate the full philosophical implications of the positions they adopt. Most "lay atheists" I know for example are happy to brandish their materialist/physicalist worldview until confronted with the fact that this implies that they have no selves and likely no free will either, at which point they either withdraw into paradox or start to have their "atheistic faith" shaken (Full disclosure, I am such a shaken atheist myself).
The prospect of a true loss of self truly does scare people, and they are not willing to give it up so easily, that's probably why dualsim remains a popular position among otherwise atheistically and materialistically minded philosophers (Searle, Chalmers, Nagel, etc...).
Daniel Dennett mentions in this [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDch5ElHzx8), among other places, that the implied loss of free will is the main reason why people attribute so much importance to qualia and the hard problem of consciousness, despite what he thinks is the very thin ground on which qualia based defenses of dualism stand.
>
> What is that which merits desert or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
>
>
>
I personally have always marveled at this central contradiction in Buddhism: If there is no self, then what entity exactly is losing or gaining karma points? And more importantly, what exactly is being copied over from one life to another in the cycle of reincarnation?
Here I think lies a contradiction similar to the problem of evil in Abrahamic religions. The answers won't be pretty, but maybe we might find something in approaches to solving the [ship of theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) paradox, or maybe even borrow from the ideas of [structural realism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/) in philosophy of science.
>
> But what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self?
> And what is a non-compatibilist Free Will in a reality of dependent arising?
> What is that which has non-compatibilist Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
>
>
>
As I mentioned in the comments, there are some good answers in my previous [post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24251/how-can-a-stream-of-thoughts-and-perceptions-have-freewill). James, Kane, and somehow Kant (I've yet to completely comprehend Kant's approach, or if Mozibur's mention of Kant is relevant at all, but the possibility is intriguing), all provide possible approaches to this question.
In the months since I posted that question, my thinking has evolved on the question. Here a couple of comments:
* For a materialist who also believes in non-compatibilist free will, the question can get turned around: To "what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self or in a reality of dependent arising?" they can answer that you have the order wrong: The self **is** the free will that binds the thoughts and perceptions together into an illusion of consciousness. A sort of "self-of-the-gaps" that lives in, or actually is, the space between the microscopic determinism of neural processes and the macroscopic indeterminism of conscious agents.
* Emergentism: In the Dennett interview I mentioned above, despite himself being a compatibilist, he provides an interesting avenue for a non-compatibilist materialist free will as an emergent property, the way color is an emergent property of light waves and particles none of which have the property of color themselves. He also mentions Buddhism somewhere in passing, but you will have to listen to the whole interview, since I can't remember exactly where he mentions it. | The answer to your question is that you cannot give up self and cling to will. Relinquishing will is part of no-self in Buddhism, e.g.
>
> "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything],
> there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. ... Such is
> the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
>
>
>
[SN 12.38 Cetana Sutta: Intention](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.than.html)
>
> "For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
> I realize the knowledge & vision of release.'"
>
>
>
[AN 11.2 Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html) |
31,008 | I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.
That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.
People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.
It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.
But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.
What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
Have any philosophers discussed this last question?
---
**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.
---
**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book. | 2015/12/29 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31008",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8556/"
] | >
> It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that [i.e. loss of self and oneness with the world] without much issue — is that a fair impression?
>
>
>
Most of the people in the West (or I should specify in the US) I have met who subscribe to some form of Eastern mysticism seem to interpret "loss of self" as "loss of selfishness" and "loss of pride", not as a metaphysical loss of self.
Similarly the feeling of oneness you mention that results from meditation is more of an acceptance of the world as it is, a willingness to "go with the flow", a loss of the distinction between good and bad and a letting go of anger, and an ability to no longer judge people, more so than a phenomenological "oneness" with their surroundings or some sort of ontological connection with the trees and the birds, etc....
As you mention further in your question, they are usually philosophical laymen/laywomen who don't really bother to study the full philosophical implications of whatever buddhist/hindu/sufi/kabalistic teaching they picked up in yoga class.
>
> Why are people happy to let go of one (the Self) and not of the other (Free Will)?
>
>
>
As I mentioned above, the loss of self in question isn't a true metaphysical loss of self, and so it doesn't really scare them the way the loss of free will does.
Also as mentioned above, many are philosophical laymen, and they don't investigate the full philosophical implications of the positions they adopt. Most "lay atheists" I know for example are happy to brandish their materialist/physicalist worldview until confronted with the fact that this implies that they have no selves and likely no free will either, at which point they either withdraw into paradox or start to have their "atheistic faith" shaken (Full disclosure, I am such a shaken atheist myself).
The prospect of a true loss of self truly does scare people, and they are not willing to give it up so easily, that's probably why dualsim remains a popular position among otherwise atheistically and materialistically minded philosophers (Searle, Chalmers, Nagel, etc...).
Daniel Dennett mentions in this [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDch5ElHzx8), among other places, that the implied loss of free will is the main reason why people attribute so much importance to qualia and the hard problem of consciousness, despite what he thinks is the very thin ground on which qualia based defenses of dualism stand.
>
> What is that which merits desert or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
>
>
>
I personally have always marveled at this central contradiction in Buddhism: If there is no self, then what entity exactly is losing or gaining karma points? And more importantly, what exactly is being copied over from one life to another in the cycle of reincarnation?
Here I think lies a contradiction similar to the problem of evil in Abrahamic religions. The answers won't be pretty, but maybe we might find something in approaches to solving the [ship of theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) paradox, or maybe even borrow from the ideas of [structural realism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/) in philosophy of science.
>
> But what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self?
> And what is a non-compatibilist Free Will in a reality of dependent arising?
> What is that which has non-compatibilist Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
>
>
>
As I mentioned in the comments, there are some good answers in my previous [post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24251/how-can-a-stream-of-thoughts-and-perceptions-have-freewill). James, Kane, and somehow Kant (I've yet to completely comprehend Kant's approach, or if Mozibur's mention of Kant is relevant at all, but the possibility is intriguing), all provide possible approaches to this question.
In the months since I posted that question, my thinking has evolved on the question. Here a couple of comments:
* For a materialist who also believes in non-compatibilist free will, the question can get turned around: To "what is a non-compatibilist Free Will without a Self or in a reality of dependent arising?" they can answer that you have the order wrong: The self **is** the free will that binds the thoughts and perceptions together into an illusion of consciousness. A sort of "self-of-the-gaps" that lives in, or actually is, the space between the microscopic determinism of neural processes and the macroscopic indeterminism of conscious agents.
* Emergentism: In the Dennett interview I mentioned above, despite himself being a compatibilist, he provides an interesting avenue for a non-compatibilist materialist free will as an emergent property, the way color is an emergent property of light waves and particles none of which have the property of color themselves. He also mentions Buddhism somewhere in passing, but you will have to listen to the whole interview, since I can't remember exactly where he mentions it. | We should not let go of either of these, we should let go of the notion of dichotomy that infects the idea of illusion.
We tend to badly overuse the notion of illusion, and the answer to questions like this depend very heavily on what is really meant by the word illusion in particular circumstances.
You seem to have oversimplified our grasp of Self from one kind of partial reality into 'an illusion' and translated that into 'a mere convention', then jumped to the conclusion that anything contingent on a mere convention must also be a mere convention.
But you give no 1) argument against the Self being some more stable form of partial reality. And give no 2) consideration of consider whether mere conventions can have real effects.
You need to address those two things, before your complaint makes any sense. Because both of them are highly debatable.
**There are many forms of partial reality**
In some sense, language is always deceptive, and anything with a name is therefore an illusion. There is no rule for deciding which molecules make up any given supposed 'chair' or 'brain'. But you are still using words, so you are obviously not put off by the fact of that 'illusion'. Because we see how it is simply a *simplification*, and a convention for coping.
If we are going to address questions like this, we need to refine our notions of relative reality much more closely, and discard the ones that are childishly dismissive, like the notion of 'illusion' itself.
How is a collection of psychological dispositions not at thing? It has effects, it makes the world more predictable, and in order to do so, it has to exist in some sense. If that is what the Self is, then, how is that an illusion? That is not an illusion, it is an *epiphenomenon*: It has reality and arises from things that have reality, but we misunderstand the direction of causation (or imagine a direction in a case of mutual causation). How does that make the concept less useful, or the pattern less effective?
If reality is a continuum, instead of a collection of isolated entities, again, how does that make any of it an illusion? Each thing is an *unattained approximation*, but that does not, again, make the concept less useful, or the pattern less effective. Newton's use of the calculus as a basis for physics has shown us very well how unattained approximations have enough reality to base a metaphysics that works.
If all is one and distinctions are conventions, how does that make those conventions into illusions? Our language and our culture is a set of conventions, but they are *negotiated conventions* and hardly arbitrary. We know our culture, we hold it and use it, as a repository of earlier thinking negotiated by relative survival, the trials of politics, and a shared group aesthetic.
There is a huge distinction between "Human understanding of the world is never perfect and endlessly incomplete" and "All is illusion". The former is an obvious deduction from the modernist enterprise, the latter is a pointless canard, meant to forestall real philosophical inquiry (and protect religions from unwanted challenges.)
The notion of 'illusion' itself is as much of an illusion as anything you might try to label an illusion.
Things like 'optical illusions' are the closest meaningful use, but they are themselves useful features of sensation that do not reconcile with our overall model of space and its features. So they are gaps between two levels of *multiple realization* of the same emergent continuum, which have evolved quirks for different local goals. They are neither wrong nor misleading when used together in context. And when observed out of context, historically, they have guided most of us to the notion that neither the data, nor the model is paramount and uncorrupted, but both are real.
Given this range of options Free Will is unlikely to be mere convention, and more likely to be, like almost everything else, an epiphenomenon, an unattained approximation, an apparent inconsistency between multiple realizations of an emergent phenomenon, a simplification of some real effect by negotiated convention, or some other aspect of reality that does not fit well with our intuitive presumptions. But none of those things is *just* an illusion, each is partially illusory, but still real.
**Less real things can create more real things**
Traffic laws, a fiction of convenience, create delays in real time, and occasional tragedies in real lives -- you miss your court date and lose custody, you end up stuck on bridge in an earthquake and die.
Religions generate wars that obliterate millions of lives.
To the extent that personalities are epiphenomena of mental traits derived from physical systems shaped by social development, and ... Human pairing, and which actual children are born, is decided by things with a very limited claim to independent reality. |
38,150,837 | My IntelliJ version is **15.0.3**, and have python plugin installed.
And when I open a python file in IntelliJ it's like below
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qrmPE.png)
Situation here is like below:
1. when I import these flagged modules in terminal, everything works fine.
2. running this python file in IntelliJ, is also fine
It's **only the red underlying warning** annoying me.
I tried [this one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6102908/how-do-i-get-intellij-to-recognize-common-python-modules), [this one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13994846/intellij-python-plugin-run-classpath) and [this one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26069254/importerror-no-module-named-bottle-pycharm), but none works for me.
Could anyone please tell me how to get rid of it? Thanks a lot. | 2016/07/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38150837",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2782554/"
] | You have to add the site-packages path of your interpreter.
For that you have to:
1. go to Project Structure
2. choose Global Libraries
3. choose your Python interpreter
4. press + at the upper left corner
5. choose the site-package path of your interpreter
6. choose "Classes"
also add your python interpreter root directory in the same way. | I have similar problems: cannot import manually installed module. I try to add classpath in Mac environment parameters and intellij SDKs, but it doesn't work. My final solution is to add the classpath of the module to Run/Debug Configurations:
Open Run/Debug Configurations and select your unittest class:
>
> Run --> Edit Configurations...
>
>
>
Add your module's classpath to Environment variables:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k4UdO.jpg) |
93,001 | I'm currently working for a company in Phoenix AZ, in a position that only has a specific amount of paid time off (PTO) there are no dedicated 'sick days', just PTO.
What I'm starting to realize is that this means any time I'm too sick to come into work, I'm losing a day of a future vacation, therefore pushing out the date that I would be able to take a similar-length vacation by a month (How long it takes me to re-accrue that PTO).
Many other positions I've been in recognize the concept of taking [either paid or unpaid] time off for illnesses, or to get things done that come up (Like if you have to handle a personal matter during the day, as many businesses that you have to interact are only open during the weekdays).
However, the one I'm working in right now only has PTO.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
It seems like something that I overlooked when accepting this offer, as I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations. | 2017/06/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/93001",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60246/"
] | In the US, companies are under no federal1 obligation to provide *any* sort of paid vacation time. The concept of an employer paying you for time you're not actually working has many names and variations but these days people often use the umbrella term of "paid time-off" or PTO. The reason is that PTO often replaced the classic system of sick days and vacation days, instead giving employees a single bank of hours to draw from for any reason. But **PTO has become the common term used when discussing vacation benefits**, whether the system the employer uses is a real PTO system or he's just using PTO to sum up X sick days and Y vacation days.
>
> Is is common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?
>
>
>
So yes, this is absolutely common. A PTO system has upsides and downsides, [this article](https://www.thebalance.com/sick-leave-vs-paid-time-off-pto-2275775) is a decent overview, though it seems directed at employers and biased against employees. Generally speaking a PTO program is a good thing *if* the amount of time provided is reasonable.
So **the big question to ask in this case is whether the PTO granted is generous enough**. If you're used to getting 15 vacation days and 10 sick days and you now have an offer with 20 days' PTO that may or may not be a good thing. If an employer goes from 15/10 to 15 days PTO then their employees obviously receive a net loss if they end up needing to take a sick day.
>
> Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?
>
>
>
Of course! **PTO is part of your benefits package** and should absolutely figure in to your evaluation of an offer! One major question that you should always ask but especially when the company uses a PTO program, is whether the company encourages people to use up their PTO. Some companies heavily discourage people from taking vacation days *and* sick days, despite them being part of your benefits package. The culture around taking days off is just as important as knowing how many you can take. And if you're a workaholic with an iron constitution who doesn't care about taking time off you'll want to ask whether you can get all that 'useless' PTO paid out.2
As for how to use your PTO, that's up to you. Part of the system is giving employees more responsibility in managing their own time. If you get 20 days' PTO then you shouldn't take a 4 week holiday early in the year. The reasons might be obvious to you and me but plenty of people fall into this trap and burn through their PTO, giving them no choice but to take days unpaid when they fall sick. It's a balancing act that not everyone is good at. And the risk to employees is that they end up not using PTO and are also unable to use it up in the final week(s) of the year. Whether you prefer a split system or PTO is a personal decision but **typically you'll want to focus more on *how much* time-off you get rather than what system is being used.**
>
> I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations.
>
>
>
If you've got less combined PTO than the sum of the vacation days and sick days you used to have then yes, you can't take as many days off. You'd need to mentally subtract the number of sick days you want to keep in reserve and use the remainder as your "vacation time". But it's up to you how many days you want to keep in reserve. As mentioned it's common for people to keep five or so days in reserve and use it up during the final week(s) of the year. Some employers may allow you to carry a balance where you roll over your remaining hours to the next year. All that impacts how you can plan your time off.
---
1 - I'm unaware whether any states have legislation requiring a system of paid time off work. Generally though it's considered a perk and not a right, which is in sharp contrast with the rest of the developed world.
2 - To be clear, you should absolutely use your time-off! The benefits of taking time away from work, especially in the form of a real vacation, have been scientifically proven many times over. A [2016 article](http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/personal-finance/2016/12/25/unused-vacation-days-pile-across-nation/95842234/) referenced a study which found that the average American left **19** vacation days unused. That's more than most people get in a year but the median is still at 7. The US surplus for 2015 was **685 million days**. Unplugging from work is essential for your mental well-being. If PTO is a part of your benefits package you should be using it. | >
> Is is common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide
> employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?
>
>
>
I've worked for several companies that used PTO rather than separate vacation/sick time.
I'm not sure if it's common, but it's not all that unusual. And it's perfectly normal.
At least for me, it never became a big deal. But then I almost never take sick time anyway.
>
> Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm
> being compensated in future positions?
>
>
>
You should consider the entire benefits package when choosing your next employer. |
93,001 | I'm currently working for a company in Phoenix AZ, in a position that only has a specific amount of paid time off (PTO) there are no dedicated 'sick days', just PTO.
What I'm starting to realize is that this means any time I'm too sick to come into work, I'm losing a day of a future vacation, therefore pushing out the date that I would be able to take a similar-length vacation by a month (How long it takes me to re-accrue that PTO).
Many other positions I've been in recognize the concept of taking [either paid or unpaid] time off for illnesses, or to get things done that come up (Like if you have to handle a personal matter during the day, as many businesses that you have to interact are only open during the weekdays).
However, the one I'm working in right now only has PTO.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
It seems like something that I overlooked when accepting this offer, as I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations. | 2017/06/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/93001",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60246/"
] | This is really just a different take on Lilienthal's answer. I may end up deleting this. But I think there is enough new information here that may help.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
Yes, this is becoming very common. The general idea from a employers perspective is that the employees no longer have to lie about getting sick. They can just take time off. Employers no longer have to keep track of why you were out. They don't need to verify sick leave with doctors etc.
For example, if you have "explosive diarrhea", there is no reason to go to the doctor. You just need to stay in bed, drink fluids, and don't go back to that sushi bar. But at the same time, no one want's you to come into work.
For more extensive medical issues FMLA takes control in the US. There are legal requirements and medical requirements. But for a simple flu, or stomach ache, cold etc. just stay home and get better.
What employers realized is the culture (there are many here in the US.) dictates different practices on when to go to the doctor, when to seek help, and what information to share with "the boss". Trying to force all cultures into one set of rules doesn't work well.
From the perspective of vacation days, many parents (for example) would take "vacation days" to take kids on field trips or school activities, etc (including doctors). They would run out, and start taking sick days. Same for singles and people without children. Run out of "time off" just take sick days. There is no way the employer can really prove that your not sick.
So, they (employers) favor combining the days. Here take 30 days a year. We don't care why. Do what you need to do.
From the employee perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Most people what to be honest, but if they have to make a decision between, using our earlier example, taking care of their kids, or lieing to their boss. Easy choice. For most employees this removes that problem.
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
110% YES!!!! This is your vacation time. Rather you can reward your self by taking a 3 week vacation or a 6 week vacation is a serious consideration.
You also need to consider your other life balance issues. This "PTO" style approach allows you to take days off for what ever reason. Even if it's just spending more time with the family. Maybe you need to get your car fixed and want to take a day off to focus on that. Maybe you just want to sit around the house in your fat people pants and eat ice cream, go for it. Take a "you day" that's what it's there for. How many paid "you days" is a huge part of a benefits package.
For example a company that only gives 10 days PTO in a year. Is that even going to be enough to cover the times you get sick? Let's assume you never get sick, that's a 2 week vacation taken all at once. One sick day, or one day where you come in for the second half and use your PTO for the morning, and now you don't get a 2 week vacation. This is pretty strict.
Another example is a company that allows 60 days a year. (obviously these are polar extremes). Now you get a "free day" a week and still can take some sick time.
While they are a bit extreme, it's a good example. Which company do you want to work at. The one where every Friday is a paid day off, or the one where you never get a vacation if you catch a cold?
**Other things to look for**
Because your new to PTO here are some things to look for.
* Is it hours our days. I prefer hours, as a boss, I can deduct those hours if people are late. As an employee I can use those hours to cover things like going to the bank or doctor without missing an entire day. Your preference may very.
* Do you get time per year or does it add up over time. Some systems give 8 hours per 3 weeks (for example) some give 20 days per year. Make sure you understand how it adds up.
* Understand how it carries over. Some companies pay out unspent time, but this is rare. Most is "use it or loose it." Some allow for carry over.
* Be aware of what happens when your out. High turn over jobs may fire you if you start missing days not covered by PTO. Some may just not pay. Some may offer flex time of some kind. I favor (as a boss) no flex time. "You were supposed to be here at 9 why you messin' up the schedule?" as an employee flex time is awesome. A lot will depend on position an staffing but make sure you understand. (A office that is open from 9 to 5 may be more reluctant to offer flex time, a factory position that spans many shifts may love flex time if you can cover many positions)
* Be aware of how time on the job effects PTO. May old "vacation days" systems gave more vacation days the longer you were with the company. Make sure, if that's something you want, that your PTO days go up as well. | In the USA, it's fairly common, and it is called a "time bank". So many people use sick time as additional PTO anyway that companies have said, what the heck, and just combined it into a pool of time off, and let people deal with it. |
93,001 | I'm currently working for a company in Phoenix AZ, in a position that only has a specific amount of paid time off (PTO) there are no dedicated 'sick days', just PTO.
What I'm starting to realize is that this means any time I'm too sick to come into work, I'm losing a day of a future vacation, therefore pushing out the date that I would be able to take a similar-length vacation by a month (How long it takes me to re-accrue that PTO).
Many other positions I've been in recognize the concept of taking [either paid or unpaid] time off for illnesses, or to get things done that come up (Like if you have to handle a personal matter during the day, as many businesses that you have to interact are only open during the weekdays).
However, the one I'm working in right now only has PTO.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
It seems like something that I overlooked when accepting this offer, as I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations. | 2017/06/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/93001",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60246/"
] | >
> Is is common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide
> employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?
>
>
>
I've worked for several companies that used PTO rather than separate vacation/sick time.
I'm not sure if it's common, but it's not all that unusual. And it's perfectly normal.
At least for me, it never became a big deal. But then I almost never take sick time anyway.
>
> Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm
> being compensated in future positions?
>
>
>
You should consider the entire benefits package when choosing your next employer. | I can't speak for other states but Massachusetts now has an Earned Sick Time law on the books. So sick time would be separate from vacation time.
>
> Employers with 11 or more employees must provide paid sick time.
> Employers with fewer than 11 employees must provide earned sick time,
> but it does not need to be paid.
>
>
>
[Earned Sick Time for Massachusetts](http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-business-in-massachusetts/workplace-rights/leave-time/earned-sick-time.html) |
93,001 | I'm currently working for a company in Phoenix AZ, in a position that only has a specific amount of paid time off (PTO) there are no dedicated 'sick days', just PTO.
What I'm starting to realize is that this means any time I'm too sick to come into work, I'm losing a day of a future vacation, therefore pushing out the date that I would be able to take a similar-length vacation by a month (How long it takes me to re-accrue that PTO).
Many other positions I've been in recognize the concept of taking [either paid or unpaid] time off for illnesses, or to get things done that come up (Like if you have to handle a personal matter during the day, as many businesses that you have to interact are only open during the weekdays).
However, the one I'm working in right now only has PTO.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
It seems like something that I overlooked when accepting this offer, as I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations. | 2017/06/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/93001",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60246/"
] | In the US, companies are under no federal1 obligation to provide *any* sort of paid vacation time. The concept of an employer paying you for time you're not actually working has many names and variations but these days people often use the umbrella term of "paid time-off" or PTO. The reason is that PTO often replaced the classic system of sick days and vacation days, instead giving employees a single bank of hours to draw from for any reason. But **PTO has become the common term used when discussing vacation benefits**, whether the system the employer uses is a real PTO system or he's just using PTO to sum up X sick days and Y vacation days.
>
> Is is common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?
>
>
>
So yes, this is absolutely common. A PTO system has upsides and downsides, [this article](https://www.thebalance.com/sick-leave-vs-paid-time-off-pto-2275775) is a decent overview, though it seems directed at employers and biased against employees. Generally speaking a PTO program is a good thing *if* the amount of time provided is reasonable.
So **the big question to ask in this case is whether the PTO granted is generous enough**. If you're used to getting 15 vacation days and 10 sick days and you now have an offer with 20 days' PTO that may or may not be a good thing. If an employer goes from 15/10 to 15 days PTO then their employees obviously receive a net loss if they end up needing to take a sick day.
>
> Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?
>
>
>
Of course! **PTO is part of your benefits package** and should absolutely figure in to your evaluation of an offer! One major question that you should always ask but especially when the company uses a PTO program, is whether the company encourages people to use up their PTO. Some companies heavily discourage people from taking vacation days *and* sick days, despite them being part of your benefits package. The culture around taking days off is just as important as knowing how many you can take. And if you're a workaholic with an iron constitution who doesn't care about taking time off you'll want to ask whether you can get all that 'useless' PTO paid out.2
As for how to use your PTO, that's up to you. Part of the system is giving employees more responsibility in managing their own time. If you get 20 days' PTO then you shouldn't take a 4 week holiday early in the year. The reasons might be obvious to you and me but plenty of people fall into this trap and burn through their PTO, giving them no choice but to take days unpaid when they fall sick. It's a balancing act that not everyone is good at. And the risk to employees is that they end up not using PTO and are also unable to use it up in the final week(s) of the year. Whether you prefer a split system or PTO is a personal decision but **typically you'll want to focus more on *how much* time-off you get rather than what system is being used.**
>
> I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations.
>
>
>
If you've got less combined PTO than the sum of the vacation days and sick days you used to have then yes, you can't take as many days off. You'd need to mentally subtract the number of sick days you want to keep in reserve and use the remainder as your "vacation time". But it's up to you how many days you want to keep in reserve. As mentioned it's common for people to keep five or so days in reserve and use it up during the final week(s) of the year. Some employers may allow you to carry a balance where you roll over your remaining hours to the next year. All that impacts how you can plan your time off.
---
1 - I'm unaware whether any states have legislation requiring a system of paid time off work. Generally though it's considered a perk and not a right, which is in sharp contrast with the rest of the developed world.
2 - To be clear, you should absolutely use your time-off! The benefits of taking time away from work, especially in the form of a real vacation, have been scientifically proven many times over. A [2016 article](http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/personal-finance/2016/12/25/unused-vacation-days-pile-across-nation/95842234/) referenced a study which found that the average American left **19** vacation days unused. That's more than most people get in a year but the median is still at 7. The US surplus for 2015 was **685 million days**. Unplugging from work is essential for your mental well-being. If PTO is a part of your benefits package you should be using it. | I can't speak for other states but Massachusetts now has an Earned Sick Time law on the books. So sick time would be separate from vacation time.
>
> Employers with 11 or more employees must provide paid sick time.
> Employers with fewer than 11 employees must provide earned sick time,
> but it does not need to be paid.
>
>
>
[Earned Sick Time for Massachusetts](http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-business-in-massachusetts/workplace-rights/leave-time/earned-sick-time.html) |
93,001 | I'm currently working for a company in Phoenix AZ, in a position that only has a specific amount of paid time off (PTO) there are no dedicated 'sick days', just PTO.
What I'm starting to realize is that this means any time I'm too sick to come into work, I'm losing a day of a future vacation, therefore pushing out the date that I would be able to take a similar-length vacation by a month (How long it takes me to re-accrue that PTO).
Many other positions I've been in recognize the concept of taking [either paid or unpaid] time off for illnesses, or to get things done that come up (Like if you have to handle a personal matter during the day, as many businesses that you have to interact are only open during the weekdays).
However, the one I'm working in right now only has PTO.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
It seems like something that I overlooked when accepting this offer, as I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations. | 2017/06/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/93001",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60246/"
] | >
> Is is common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide
> employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?
>
>
>
I've worked for several companies that used PTO rather than separate vacation/sick time.
I'm not sure if it's common, but it's not all that unusual. And it's perfectly normal.
At least for me, it never became a big deal. But then I almost never take sick time anyway.
>
> Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm
> being compensated in future positions?
>
>
>
You should consider the entire benefits package when choosing your next employer. | Arizona voters recently passed a proposition (Number 206) which employees will be entitled to paid sick leave. From the FAQ found at [The Industrial Commission of Arizona](https://www.azica.gov/frequently-asked-questions-about-wage-and-earned-paid-sick-time-laws), "Employees can begin accruing earned paid sick time at the commencement of employment or July 1, 2017, whichever is later." Also:
For employers with 15 or more employees: Employees must accrue a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, but employees are not entitled to accrue or use more than 40 hours of earned paid sick time per year, unless the employer selects a higher limit.
For employers with fewer than 15 employees: Employees must accrue a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, but they are not entitled to accrue or use more than 24 hours of earned paid sick time per year, unless the employer sets a higher limit.
Also, for companies that exist in multiple states:
>
> Is an employer with employees outside of Arizona required to include those employees when calculating its total employees for earned paid sick time purposes?
>
>
>
**...The Industrial Commission will not include an employer’s non-Arizona employees in an employer’s total employee count for earned paid sick time purposes.** |
93,001 | I'm currently working for a company in Phoenix AZ, in a position that only has a specific amount of paid time off (PTO) there are no dedicated 'sick days', just PTO.
What I'm starting to realize is that this means any time I'm too sick to come into work, I'm losing a day of a future vacation, therefore pushing out the date that I would be able to take a similar-length vacation by a month (How long it takes me to re-accrue that PTO).
Many other positions I've been in recognize the concept of taking [either paid or unpaid] time off for illnesses, or to get things done that come up (Like if you have to handle a personal matter during the day, as many businesses that you have to interact are only open during the weekdays).
However, the one I'm working in right now only has PTO.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
It seems like something that I overlooked when accepting this offer, as I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations. | 2017/06/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/93001",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60246/"
] | This is really just a different take on Lilienthal's answer. I may end up deleting this. But I think there is enough new information here that may help.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
Yes, this is becoming very common. The general idea from a employers perspective is that the employees no longer have to lie about getting sick. They can just take time off. Employers no longer have to keep track of why you were out. They don't need to verify sick leave with doctors etc.
For example, if you have "explosive diarrhea", there is no reason to go to the doctor. You just need to stay in bed, drink fluids, and don't go back to that sushi bar. But at the same time, no one want's you to come into work.
For more extensive medical issues FMLA takes control in the US. There are legal requirements and medical requirements. But for a simple flu, or stomach ache, cold etc. just stay home and get better.
What employers realized is the culture (there are many here in the US.) dictates different practices on when to go to the doctor, when to seek help, and what information to share with "the boss". Trying to force all cultures into one set of rules doesn't work well.
From the perspective of vacation days, many parents (for example) would take "vacation days" to take kids on field trips or school activities, etc (including doctors). They would run out, and start taking sick days. Same for singles and people without children. Run out of "time off" just take sick days. There is no way the employer can really prove that your not sick.
So, they (employers) favor combining the days. Here take 30 days a year. We don't care why. Do what you need to do.
From the employee perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Most people what to be honest, but if they have to make a decision between, using our earlier example, taking care of their kids, or lieing to their boss. Easy choice. For most employees this removes that problem.
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
110% YES!!!! This is your vacation time. Rather you can reward your self by taking a 3 week vacation or a 6 week vacation is a serious consideration.
You also need to consider your other life balance issues. This "PTO" style approach allows you to take days off for what ever reason. Even if it's just spending more time with the family. Maybe you need to get your car fixed and want to take a day off to focus on that. Maybe you just want to sit around the house in your fat people pants and eat ice cream, go for it. Take a "you day" that's what it's there for. How many paid "you days" is a huge part of a benefits package.
For example a company that only gives 10 days PTO in a year. Is that even going to be enough to cover the times you get sick? Let's assume you never get sick, that's a 2 week vacation taken all at once. One sick day, or one day where you come in for the second half and use your PTO for the morning, and now you don't get a 2 week vacation. This is pretty strict.
Another example is a company that allows 60 days a year. (obviously these are polar extremes). Now you get a "free day" a week and still can take some sick time.
While they are a bit extreme, it's a good example. Which company do you want to work at. The one where every Friday is a paid day off, or the one where you never get a vacation if you catch a cold?
**Other things to look for**
Because your new to PTO here are some things to look for.
* Is it hours our days. I prefer hours, as a boss, I can deduct those hours if people are late. As an employee I can use those hours to cover things like going to the bank or doctor without missing an entire day. Your preference may very.
* Do you get time per year or does it add up over time. Some systems give 8 hours per 3 weeks (for example) some give 20 days per year. Make sure you understand how it adds up.
* Understand how it carries over. Some companies pay out unspent time, but this is rare. Most is "use it or loose it." Some allow for carry over.
* Be aware of what happens when your out. High turn over jobs may fire you if you start missing days not covered by PTO. Some may just not pay. Some may offer flex time of some kind. I favor (as a boss) no flex time. "You were supposed to be here at 9 why you messin' up the schedule?" as an employee flex time is awesome. A lot will depend on position an staffing but make sure you understand. (A office that is open from 9 to 5 may be more reluctant to offer flex time, a factory position that spans many shifts may love flex time if you can cover many positions)
* Be aware of how time on the job effects PTO. May old "vacation days" systems gave more vacation days the longer you were with the company. Make sure, if that's something you want, that your PTO days go up as well. | I can't speak for other states but Massachusetts now has an Earned Sick Time law on the books. So sick time would be separate from vacation time.
>
> Employers with 11 or more employees must provide paid sick time.
> Employers with fewer than 11 employees must provide earned sick time,
> but it does not need to be paid.
>
>
>
[Earned Sick Time for Massachusetts](http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-business-in-massachusetts/workplace-rights/leave-time/earned-sick-time.html) |
93,001 | I'm currently working for a company in Phoenix AZ, in a position that only has a specific amount of paid time off (PTO) there are no dedicated 'sick days', just PTO.
What I'm starting to realize is that this means any time I'm too sick to come into work, I'm losing a day of a future vacation, therefore pushing out the date that I would be able to take a similar-length vacation by a month (How long it takes me to re-accrue that PTO).
Many other positions I've been in recognize the concept of taking [either paid or unpaid] time off for illnesses, or to get things done that come up (Like if you have to handle a personal matter during the day, as many businesses that you have to interact are only open during the weekdays).
However, the one I'm working in right now only has PTO.
**Is it common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?**
**Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?**
It seems like something that I overlooked when accepting this offer, as I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations. | 2017/06/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/93001",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/60246/"
] | In the US, companies are under no federal1 obligation to provide *any* sort of paid vacation time. The concept of an employer paying you for time you're not actually working has many names and variations but these days people often use the umbrella term of "paid time-off" or PTO. The reason is that PTO often replaced the classic system of sick days and vacation days, instead giving employees a single bank of hours to draw from for any reason. But **PTO has become the common term used when discussing vacation benefits**, whether the system the employer uses is a real PTO system or he's just using PTO to sum up X sick days and Y vacation days.
>
> Is is common for companies to give just PTO time, and not provide employees separate amounts of time to take for sick leave?
>
>
>
So yes, this is absolutely common. A PTO system has upsides and downsides, [this article](https://www.thebalance.com/sick-leave-vs-paid-time-off-pto-2275775) is a decent overview, though it seems directed at employers and biased against employees. Generally speaking a PTO program is a good thing *if* the amount of time provided is reasonable.
So **the big question to ask in this case is whether the PTO granted is generous enough**. If you're used to getting 15 vacation days and 10 sick days and you now have an offer with 20 days' PTO that may or may not be a good thing. If an employer goes from 15/10 to 15 days PTO then their employees obviously receive a net loss if they end up needing to take a sick day.
>
> Is this something that I should consider when evaluating how much I'm being compensated in future positions?
>
>
>
Of course! **PTO is part of your benefits package** and should absolutely figure in to your evaluation of an offer! One major question that you should always ask but especially when the company uses a PTO program, is whether the company encourages people to use up their PTO. Some companies heavily discourage people from taking vacation days *and* sick days, despite them being part of your benefits package. The culture around taking days off is just as important as knowing how many you can take. And if you're a workaholic with an iron constitution who doesn't care about taking time off you'll want to ask whether you can get all that 'useless' PTO paid out.2
As for how to use your PTO, that's up to you. Part of the system is giving employees more responsibility in managing their own time. If you get 20 days' PTO then you shouldn't take a 4 week holiday early in the year. The reasons might be obvious to you and me but plenty of people fall into this trap and burn through their PTO, giving them no choice but to take days unpaid when they fall sick. It's a balancing act that not everyone is good at. And the risk to employees is that they end up not using PTO and are also unable to use it up in the final week(s) of the year. Whether you prefer a split system or PTO is a personal decision but **typically you'll want to focus more on *how much* time-off you get rather than what system is being used.**
>
> I feel that it's going to have an impact on how frequently I can actually take vacations.
>
>
>
If you've got less combined PTO than the sum of the vacation days and sick days you used to have then yes, you can't take as many days off. You'd need to mentally subtract the number of sick days you want to keep in reserve and use the remainder as your "vacation time". But it's up to you how many days you want to keep in reserve. As mentioned it's common for people to keep five or so days in reserve and use it up during the final week(s) of the year. Some employers may allow you to carry a balance where you roll over your remaining hours to the next year. All that impacts how you can plan your time off.
---
1 - I'm unaware whether any states have legislation requiring a system of paid time off work. Generally though it's considered a perk and not a right, which is in sharp contrast with the rest of the developed world.
2 - To be clear, you should absolutely use your time-off! The benefits of taking time away from work, especially in the form of a real vacation, have been scientifically proven many times over. A [2016 article](http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/personal-finance/2016/12/25/unused-vacation-days-pile-across-nation/95842234/) referenced a study which found that the average American left **19** vacation days unused. That's more than most people get in a year but the median is still at 7. The US surplus for 2015 was **685 million days**. Unplugging from work is essential for your mental well-being. If PTO is a part of your benefits package you should be using it. | Arizona voters recently passed a proposition (Number 206) which employees will be entitled to paid sick leave. From the FAQ found at [The Industrial Commission of Arizona](https://www.azica.gov/frequently-asked-questions-about-wage-and-earned-paid-sick-time-laws), "Employees can begin accruing earned paid sick time at the commencement of employment or July 1, 2017, whichever is later." Also:
For employers with 15 or more employees: Employees must accrue a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, but employees are not entitled to accrue or use more than 40 hours of earned paid sick time per year, unless the employer selects a higher limit.
For employers with fewer than 15 employees: Employees must accrue a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, but they are not entitled to accrue or use more than 24 hours of earned paid sick time per year, unless the employer sets a higher limit.
Also, for companies that exist in multiple states:
>
> Is an employer with employees outside of Arizona required to include those employees when calculating its total employees for earned paid sick time purposes?
>
>
>
**...The Industrial Commission will not include an employer’s non-Arizona employees in an employer’s total employee count for earned paid sick time purposes.** |
191,786 | At the [109th UCLA Faculty Research lecture](http://youtu.be/i6RutDwO3XU), Seth Putterman gave a talk on Sonoluminescence. During the lecture he emphasized that "The Navier Stokes equations cannot be derived from first principles [of physics]".
In physics there are lots of first principles, and so the first question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?
And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail? Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics? | 2015/06/29 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/45613/"
] | None of the interesting equations in physics can be derived from simpler principles, because if they could they wouldn't give any new information. That is, those simpler principles would already fully describe the system. Any new equation, whether it's the Navier-Stokes equations, Einstein's equations, the Schrodinger equation, or whatever, must be consistent with the known simpler principles but it has also to incorporate something new.
In this case you appear to have the impression that an attempt to derive the Navier-Stokes equations runs into some impassable hurdle and therefore fails, but this isn't the case. If you [search for derivations of the Navier-Stokes equations](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=navier%20stokes%20derivation) you will find dozens of such articles, including (as usual) [one on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivation_of_the_Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations). But these are not derivations in the sense that mathematicians will derive theorems from some initial axioms because they require some extra assumptions, for example that the stress tensor is a linear function of the strain rates. I assume this is what Putterman means.
**Later:**
[Phil H takes me to task in a comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786/why-cant-the-navier-stokes-equations-be-derived-from-first-principle-physics/191792#comment407840_191792), and he's right to do so. My first paragraph considerably overstates the case as the number of equations that introduce a fundamentally new principle are very small.
My answer was aimed at explaining why Putterman says the Navier-Stokes equations can't be derived but actually they can be, as can most equations. Physics is based on [reductionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism), and while I hesitate to venture into deep philosophical waters physicists basically mean by this that everything can be explained from a small number of basic principles. This is the reason we (some of us) believe that a [theory of everything](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) exists. If such a theory does exist then the Navier-Stokes equations could in principle, though not in practice, be derived from it.
Actually the Navier-Stokes equations could in principle be derived from a statistical mechanics treatment of fluids. They don't require any new principles (e.g. relativity or quantum mechanics) that aren't already included in a the theoretical treatment of ideal fluids. In practice they are not derivable because those derivations based on a continuum approach rather than a truly fundamental treatment. | They are derivable from classical mechanics using either the continuum or molecular points of view.
Starting with a continuum view, one applies conservation of mass, momentum, and energy to a control volume and the result is the Navier Stokes equations. The Navier Stokes equations, in the usual form, apply to Newtonian fluids, that is fluids whose stress and rate-of-strain are linearly related. One might regard this as an assumption but it can also be viewed as the first term in a power law expansion.
Starting with a microscopic point of view, one can derive the Navier-Stokes equations from taking moments of the Boltzmann equation. In this approach, the linear relation between stress and rate-of-strain appears naturally as the first term in the Chapman-Enskog expansion.
Many undergraduate fluids textbooks include a derivation from the continuum point of view. The derivation from a molecular point of view is done in first-year graduate textbooks such as *Introduction to Physical Gas Dynamics* by Vincenti and Kruger. |
191,786 | At the [109th UCLA Faculty Research lecture](http://youtu.be/i6RutDwO3XU), Seth Putterman gave a talk on Sonoluminescence. During the lecture he emphasized that "The Navier Stokes equations cannot be derived from first principles [of physics]".
In physics there are lots of first principles, and so the first question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?
And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail? Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics? | 2015/06/29 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/45613/"
] | None of the interesting equations in physics can be derived from simpler principles, because if they could they wouldn't give any new information. That is, those simpler principles would already fully describe the system. Any new equation, whether it's the Navier-Stokes equations, Einstein's equations, the Schrodinger equation, or whatever, must be consistent with the known simpler principles but it has also to incorporate something new.
In this case you appear to have the impression that an attempt to derive the Navier-Stokes equations runs into some impassable hurdle and therefore fails, but this isn't the case. If you [search for derivations of the Navier-Stokes equations](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=navier%20stokes%20derivation) you will find dozens of such articles, including (as usual) [one on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivation_of_the_Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations). But these are not derivations in the sense that mathematicians will derive theorems from some initial axioms because they require some extra assumptions, for example that the stress tensor is a linear function of the strain rates. I assume this is what Putterman means.
**Later:**
[Phil H takes me to task in a comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786/why-cant-the-navier-stokes-equations-be-derived-from-first-principle-physics/191792#comment407840_191792), and he's right to do so. My first paragraph considerably overstates the case as the number of equations that introduce a fundamentally new principle are very small.
My answer was aimed at explaining why Putterman says the Navier-Stokes equations can't be derived but actually they can be, as can most equations. Physics is based on [reductionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism), and while I hesitate to venture into deep philosophical waters physicists basically mean by this that everything can be explained from a small number of basic principles. This is the reason we (some of us) believe that a [theory of everything](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) exists. If such a theory does exist then the Navier-Stokes equations could in principle, though not in practice, be derived from it.
Actually the Navier-Stokes equations could in principle be derived from a statistical mechanics treatment of fluids. They don't require any new principles (e.g. relativity or quantum mechanics) that aren't already included in a the theoretical treatment of ideal fluids. In practice they are not derivable because those derivations based on a continuum approach rather than a truly fundamental treatment. | I once asked Putterman after a similar colloquium what he meant by this statement, and his answer was "long time tails". Long time tails are fractional powers that appear in the long time behavior of correlation functions, see, for example, [here](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370157375900198) and [here](http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.6.776). These fractional powers are seen in molecular dynamics (they are more difficult to see experimentally), but they are not accounted for by the Navier-Stokes (NS) equation, and it is not completely obvious where these effects are hidden in the standard derivations of the NS equation from kinetic theory.
Long time tails are related to fluctuations, and so are ultimately a reflection of the fact that any coarse grained description must depend on a scale, and that the most general theory of non-equilibrium correlation functions at long distances and long times must involve more than a deterministic, continuous partial differential equation such as the Navier-Stokes equation.
The role of noise terms has been studied by a number of people, beginning with Landau and Lifschitz. The basic conclusions are:
1) There is a systematic low energy (long time) theory of correlation functions, which involves a gradient expansion of the conserved currents, and averaging over noise terms fixed by fluctuation-dissipation relations. The Navier-Stokes approximation corresponds to linear derivatives in the stress tensor, and no noise terms. This is a consistent approximation in three dimensions (but not in two).
2) At higher order noise terms have to be included, and kinetic coefficients become scale dependent. The hydrodynamic equations require a cutoff, and the best we can hope for is that low energy (long time) predictions are cutoff independent order by order in the low energy expansion. |
191,786 | At the [109th UCLA Faculty Research lecture](http://youtu.be/i6RutDwO3XU), Seth Putterman gave a talk on Sonoluminescence. During the lecture he emphasized that "The Navier Stokes equations cannot be derived from first principles [of physics]".
In physics there are lots of first principles, and so the first question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?
And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail? Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics? | 2015/06/29 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/45613/"
] | None of the interesting equations in physics can be derived from simpler principles, because if they could they wouldn't give any new information. That is, those simpler principles would already fully describe the system. Any new equation, whether it's the Navier-Stokes equations, Einstein's equations, the Schrodinger equation, or whatever, must be consistent with the known simpler principles but it has also to incorporate something new.
In this case you appear to have the impression that an attempt to derive the Navier-Stokes equations runs into some impassable hurdle and therefore fails, but this isn't the case. If you [search for derivations of the Navier-Stokes equations](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=navier%20stokes%20derivation) you will find dozens of such articles, including (as usual) [one on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivation_of_the_Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations). But these are not derivations in the sense that mathematicians will derive theorems from some initial axioms because they require some extra assumptions, for example that the stress tensor is a linear function of the strain rates. I assume this is what Putterman means.
**Later:**
[Phil H takes me to task in a comment](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786/why-cant-the-navier-stokes-equations-be-derived-from-first-principle-physics/191792#comment407840_191792), and he's right to do so. My first paragraph considerably overstates the case as the number of equations that introduce a fundamentally new principle are very small.
My answer was aimed at explaining why Putterman says the Navier-Stokes equations can't be derived but actually they can be, as can most equations. Physics is based on [reductionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism), and while I hesitate to venture into deep philosophical waters physicists basically mean by this that everything can be explained from a small number of basic principles. This is the reason we (some of us) believe that a [theory of everything](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) exists. If such a theory does exist then the Navier-Stokes equations could in principle, though not in practice, be derived from it.
Actually the Navier-Stokes equations could in principle be derived from a statistical mechanics treatment of fluids. They don't require any new principles (e.g. relativity or quantum mechanics) that aren't already included in a the theoretical treatment of ideal fluids. In practice they are not derivable because those derivations based on a continuum approach rather than a truly fundamental treatment. | *First question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?*
This question is Simple. In physics, a calculation is said to be from [first principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle#In_physics), or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established laws of physics and **does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.**
*And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail?*
The main Problem in Turbulence is it's scaling. We need to use empirical factors to correct the results if the dimensions of the system is changed. Due to the complexity of 3D flow equations, this key problem has lead to a situation where practically all problem solving efforts are trying to mathematically found the link between Measured data and the equations themselves.
This must fail because the current equations are WRONG. ([Feynman, Key to Science](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0))
This comes from the simple fact, that it disagrees with the experiment.
*Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics?*
This obviously must be the case. And as the equations clearly can't be made any more simple as they already are, they must be too simple at the moment. Some aspect must be missing.
I have personally made an invention, which I have [patented](https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2702265A1/fi) and also tested in full [scale in a Lab](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itkf0cZxzG8). This invention was based on my idea about the cause of Turbulence; and I indeed really managed to make the [[noisiest turbomachine ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95)][5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95) to a high efficiency and vibration free smoothly running machine.
I really killed the turbulence. This caused us to destroy a 3-hole pitot pipe in the Lab, due to a laminar-alike fluctuating flow. The flow just wasn't turbulent, as you would expect it to be.
The solution was based on the idea, that I need to prevent the fluid to "break on pieces" because of sudden shock. This meant in my thoughts that the viscous forces can't be transferred through the Fluid as there is intern surfaces, which can only interact with collision and friction.
Now, if you Look Navier Stokes Equations, you immediately notice that viscosity is just not handled that way. Though this idea is pretty simple, and [I immediately found some predicting success from it](https://www.researchgate.net/project/Turbulence-22/figures). It’s just a mathematical horror to try add these aspects on the 3D Navier stokes equations. First we need a scale free limit and definition, which tells us when exactly we should calculate viscosity, and when friction and collision.
Imagine a Kinetic gas theory, where you would have a particle velocity depended particle size?
But I actually found the way, and I was able to derive these modified Navier Stokes Equations in such a matter, that this "mess" can be handled statistically like in Kinetic gas theory. After I got the Idea of the path, it was just straight forward; [The equations were relatively simple](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325677372_Navier-Stokes_existency_and_smoothness_problem_-The_Answer_word-txt), and the mathematical results fitted perfectly [to old Measurement data](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322764857_Figure_8_from_HYD-399_USBR).
Just to verify that this works, I have also succesfully calculated few turbulent Pipeflow losses with this new model.
ANSWER;
Yes. The Navier-Stokes are incomplete. Universal Continuous and Smooth solutions does not exist, as the aspect that fluid breaks in pieces due to the accelerating conditions which can be defined with Froude number $\sqrt3$. The energy dissipation of this breakdown can be treated statistically, and this provides perfect match to experimental data on all scales. |
191,786 | At the [109th UCLA Faculty Research lecture](http://youtu.be/i6RutDwO3XU), Seth Putterman gave a talk on Sonoluminescence. During the lecture he emphasized that "The Navier Stokes equations cannot be derived from first principles [of physics]".
In physics there are lots of first principles, and so the first question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?
And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail? Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics? | 2015/06/29 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/45613/"
] | They are derivable from classical mechanics using either the continuum or molecular points of view.
Starting with a continuum view, one applies conservation of mass, momentum, and energy to a control volume and the result is the Navier Stokes equations. The Navier Stokes equations, in the usual form, apply to Newtonian fluids, that is fluids whose stress and rate-of-strain are linearly related. One might regard this as an assumption but it can also be viewed as the first term in a power law expansion.
Starting with a microscopic point of view, one can derive the Navier-Stokes equations from taking moments of the Boltzmann equation. In this approach, the linear relation between stress and rate-of-strain appears naturally as the first term in the Chapman-Enskog expansion.
Many undergraduate fluids textbooks include a derivation from the continuum point of view. The derivation from a molecular point of view is done in first-year graduate textbooks such as *Introduction to Physical Gas Dynamics* by Vincenti and Kruger. | *First question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?*
This question is Simple. In physics, a calculation is said to be from [first principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle#In_physics), or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established laws of physics and **does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.**
*And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail?*
The main Problem in Turbulence is it's scaling. We need to use empirical factors to correct the results if the dimensions of the system is changed. Due to the complexity of 3D flow equations, this key problem has lead to a situation where practically all problem solving efforts are trying to mathematically found the link between Measured data and the equations themselves.
This must fail because the current equations are WRONG. ([Feynman, Key to Science](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0))
This comes from the simple fact, that it disagrees with the experiment.
*Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics?*
This obviously must be the case. And as the equations clearly can't be made any more simple as they already are, they must be too simple at the moment. Some aspect must be missing.
I have personally made an invention, which I have [patented](https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2702265A1/fi) and also tested in full [scale in a Lab](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itkf0cZxzG8). This invention was based on my idea about the cause of Turbulence; and I indeed really managed to make the [[noisiest turbomachine ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95)][5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95) to a high efficiency and vibration free smoothly running machine.
I really killed the turbulence. This caused us to destroy a 3-hole pitot pipe in the Lab, due to a laminar-alike fluctuating flow. The flow just wasn't turbulent, as you would expect it to be.
The solution was based on the idea, that I need to prevent the fluid to "break on pieces" because of sudden shock. This meant in my thoughts that the viscous forces can't be transferred through the Fluid as there is intern surfaces, which can only interact with collision and friction.
Now, if you Look Navier Stokes Equations, you immediately notice that viscosity is just not handled that way. Though this idea is pretty simple, and [I immediately found some predicting success from it](https://www.researchgate.net/project/Turbulence-22/figures). It’s just a mathematical horror to try add these aspects on the 3D Navier stokes equations. First we need a scale free limit and definition, which tells us when exactly we should calculate viscosity, and when friction and collision.
Imagine a Kinetic gas theory, where you would have a particle velocity depended particle size?
But I actually found the way, and I was able to derive these modified Navier Stokes Equations in such a matter, that this "mess" can be handled statistically like in Kinetic gas theory. After I got the Idea of the path, it was just straight forward; [The equations were relatively simple](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325677372_Navier-Stokes_existency_and_smoothness_problem_-The_Answer_word-txt), and the mathematical results fitted perfectly [to old Measurement data](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322764857_Figure_8_from_HYD-399_USBR).
Just to verify that this works, I have also succesfully calculated few turbulent Pipeflow losses with this new model.
ANSWER;
Yes. The Navier-Stokes are incomplete. Universal Continuous and Smooth solutions does not exist, as the aspect that fluid breaks in pieces due to the accelerating conditions which can be defined with Froude number $\sqrt3$. The energy dissipation of this breakdown can be treated statistically, and this provides perfect match to experimental data on all scales. |
191,786 | At the [109th UCLA Faculty Research lecture](http://youtu.be/i6RutDwO3XU), Seth Putterman gave a talk on Sonoluminescence. During the lecture he emphasized that "The Navier Stokes equations cannot be derived from first principles [of physics]".
In physics there are lots of first principles, and so the first question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?
And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail? Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics? | 2015/06/29 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/191786",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/45613/"
] | I once asked Putterman after a similar colloquium what he meant by this statement, and his answer was "long time tails". Long time tails are fractional powers that appear in the long time behavior of correlation functions, see, for example, [here](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370157375900198) and [here](http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.6.776). These fractional powers are seen in molecular dynamics (they are more difficult to see experimentally), but they are not accounted for by the Navier-Stokes (NS) equation, and it is not completely obvious where these effects are hidden in the standard derivations of the NS equation from kinetic theory.
Long time tails are related to fluctuations, and so are ultimately a reflection of the fact that any coarse grained description must depend on a scale, and that the most general theory of non-equilibrium correlation functions at long distances and long times must involve more than a deterministic, continuous partial differential equation such as the Navier-Stokes equation.
The role of noise terms has been studied by a number of people, beginning with Landau and Lifschitz. The basic conclusions are:
1) There is a systematic low energy (long time) theory of correlation functions, which involves a gradient expansion of the conserved currents, and averaging over noise terms fixed by fluctuation-dissipation relations. The Navier-Stokes approximation corresponds to linear derivatives in the stress tensor, and no noise terms. This is a consistent approximation in three dimensions (but not in two).
2) At higher order noise terms have to be included, and kinetic coefficients become scale dependent. The hydrodynamic equations require a cutoff, and the best we can hope for is that low energy (long time) predictions are cutoff independent order by order in the low energy expansion. | *First question is what set of first principles would one expect to derive the Navier Stokes equations?*
This question is Simple. In physics, a calculation is said to be from [first principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle#In_physics), or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established laws of physics and **does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.**
*And the second, and main question is why does a derivation fail?*
The main Problem in Turbulence is it's scaling. We need to use empirical factors to correct the results if the dimensions of the system is changed. Due to the complexity of 3D flow equations, this key problem has lead to a situation where practically all problem solving efforts are trying to mathematically found the link between Measured data and the equations themselves.
This must fail because the current equations are WRONG. ([Feynman, Key to Science](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0))
This comes from the simple fact, that it disagrees with the experiment.
*Are we missing some yet to be discovered set of first principles in this area of physics?*
This obviously must be the case. And as the equations clearly can't be made any more simple as they already are, they must be too simple at the moment. Some aspect must be missing.
I have personally made an invention, which I have [patented](https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2702265A1/fi) and also tested in full [scale in a Lab](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itkf0cZxzG8). This invention was based on my idea about the cause of Turbulence; and I indeed really managed to make the [[noisiest turbomachine ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95)][5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95) to a high efficiency and vibration free smoothly running machine.
I really killed the turbulence. This caused us to destroy a 3-hole pitot pipe in the Lab, due to a laminar-alike fluctuating flow. The flow just wasn't turbulent, as you would expect it to be.
The solution was based on the idea, that I need to prevent the fluid to "break on pieces" because of sudden shock. This meant in my thoughts that the viscous forces can't be transferred through the Fluid as there is intern surfaces, which can only interact with collision and friction.
Now, if you Look Navier Stokes Equations, you immediately notice that viscosity is just not handled that way. Though this idea is pretty simple, and [I immediately found some predicting success from it](https://www.researchgate.net/project/Turbulence-22/figures). It’s just a mathematical horror to try add these aspects on the 3D Navier stokes equations. First we need a scale free limit and definition, which tells us when exactly we should calculate viscosity, and when friction and collision.
Imagine a Kinetic gas theory, where you would have a particle velocity depended particle size?
But I actually found the way, and I was able to derive these modified Navier Stokes Equations in such a matter, that this "mess" can be handled statistically like in Kinetic gas theory. After I got the Idea of the path, it was just straight forward; [The equations were relatively simple](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325677372_Navier-Stokes_existency_and_smoothness_problem_-The_Answer_word-txt), and the mathematical results fitted perfectly [to old Measurement data](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322764857_Figure_8_from_HYD-399_USBR).
Just to verify that this works, I have also succesfully calculated few turbulent Pipeflow losses with this new model.
ANSWER;
Yes. The Navier-Stokes are incomplete. Universal Continuous and Smooth solutions does not exist, as the aspect that fluid breaks in pieces due to the accelerating conditions which can be defined with Froude number $\sqrt3$. The energy dissipation of this breakdown can be treated statistically, and this provides perfect match to experimental data on all scales. |
22,230 | My daughter is 29 weeks pregnant and has been smoking the drug "flakka" (bath salts, pvp, and crystal meth mixed). She has gone to one doctor appointment, but she is scared the Department of Children and Families (DCF) will take the baby so she won't go anymore. She is not findable. Can the baby suffer damage and what type? | 2015/09/23 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/22230",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/19139/"
] | There is a wide range of horrible things that can happen to the baby, most of which involve either miscarriages, early infant death, or life long consequences for both the mother and the child. It is **very bad** for a baby if the mother took Meth.
Pulling some information from [this website](http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/What_are_the_Effects_of_Crystal_Meth_during_Pregnancy), potential complications from meth use during pregnancy are:
* High blood pressure, which can cause kidney damage, heart damage, seizures, and maternal death
* Disruption of the placenta, which leads to internal bleeding and possibly death.
* Elevated risk of very-early-term delivery. Premature babies chances of survival outside of the hospital are small, so if your daughter refuses to go to hospital during delivery, that will be a big problem.
* DNA damage to the fetus. This is really bad and could cause the baby to die or be born deformed.
* Brain damage to the fetus. Again, really bad and potentially fatal.
There is also a long list of challenges the child could suffer during life, such as reduced IQ, depression, anxiety disorders, schizofrenia and more. | Unfortunately, not much is known about the effects of the drug Flakka on a fetus because the drug is so new. From what I've been able to glean through research, the baby has a very low chance of survival with chronic Flakka use and if the mother did manage to carry to term, the infant would likely have lots of physical and mental issues.
As unpleasant as this suggestion may sound, your best bet is to find her and have her picked up by local law enforcement if she won't listen to reason. Some side effects of Flakka are loss of touch with reality and hallucinations often leading to bodily harm of the user. You as a mother and grandmother have an obligation to care for mother (your daughter) and baby when the mother is incapable of or unwilling to do so. I know the thought of incarceration is horrible but with the current outbreak of this extremely cheap and easily obtained high it's probably your best (if not only) choice to protect your daughter and her child. |
22,506 | What is the best practices to display and switch between two languages. For example, I'm at *website.com/en/* and I want to switch in french (*website.com/fr/*). Do you think I should display the active language first or propose the other language available first?
For me, I think we should show the active state because it's the pattern that most user are accustomed. What do you think? | 2012/06/15 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/22506",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/14898/"
] | If you only have two options then a dropdown is pointless complexity. Replace your current implementation with a link such as "view this page in English" or the French alternative when the page is rendered with English text. | Show the current state. With the control minimized, it acts as a label.
(And what would you do if you had more than 2 languages?) |
355,350 | In this case, the sentence reads "You must have made your weekly claim for benefits for the week ending [date] by [date]".
This is referring to the fact that a person claimed a week of benefits too late, and should have claimed them earlier. However, while "must" is generally considered a stronger word, in this case it sounds more like we are saying "We think you claimed benefits this date, but we're not sure." Am I correct in reading it this way? Would the sentence be clearer if it said "You SHOULD have made your weekly claim for benefits for the week ending [date] by [date]"? | 2016/10/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/355350",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/202804/"
] | I agree with you. Most modals have a **deontic** sense (about necessities and obligations, and effects in the world) and an **epistemic** sense (about people's knowledge about the world).
"Must" is usually deontic when followed by a simple verb,
>
> You must go tomorrow.
>
>
>
but when followed by the so-called "perfect infinitive" - "have" + past-participle - it is much more likely to be epistemic.
>
> You must have been there!
>
>
>
This is much less so for "should": "should have" may be deontic:
>
> You should have left immediately.
>
>
>
or epistemic:
>
> They should have got home by now. I'll try ringing them.
>
>
> | This sentence:
>
> You **must** have made your weekly claim …
>
>
>
is a logical conclusion of what actually happened. We observe some facts, and conclude that you **did** make you weekly claim as described - otherwise the observed facts would have been different.
If you change it to:
>
> You **should** have made your weekly claim …
>
>
>
the meaning changes completely. Now it is a statement about what should have happened, but didn't. You **did not** make your weekly claim as described, although you should have. |
327,282 | I want to add a category name in bread crumb in product detail page?. Can you help me how to do that?
Here is the example I want it.
>
> Home > Main Category Name > Sub category name > Product name
>
>
>
Currently, I can see like this:
>
> Home > Product name
>
>
>
But, need to add a category into that.
Thanks you in advance! | 2020/12/02 | [
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/questions/327282",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/users/55220/"
] | Could it be you've used PWA studio version 8?
If so this does not support Magento 2.3 according to <https://magento.github.io/pwa-studio/technologies/magento-compatibility/>
Although if this was the case you should have been informed during installation:
>
> Since 2.1.0, PWA Studio includes a query validation step during the build process. This step reports on any GraphQL incompatibility it encounters.
>
>
>
Developers have two options for solving compatibility issues:
* Upgrade or downgrade the PWA Studio version to match the Magento 2 backend version
* Upgrade or downgrade the backend Magento 2 version to match the PWA Studio version | backend url needs to be https, please try that |
352,869 | Working through Learning the Art of Electronics, Hayes T, I'm stuck trying to build the diode clamp in Figure 3L.7 on page 137, as below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dGApT.png)
The text says to, "*Drive it with a sinewave from your
function generator... ...and observe the output.*" So presumably +ve from the function generator connects to "in", +ve from the power supply to "+5 volts", and scope probe to "out".
Having searched the web and studied various clamp schematics, I still can't work out the answer to my question which is, where to put the ground leads from function generator, power supply and oscilloscope?
Thanks
David | 2018/01/29 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/352869",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/175490/"
] | The schematic is missing a ground connection which would connect the ground of the power supply, function generator and oscilloscope probe together. | In the place which´s written 5 Volts you should put the positive of your power supply. The negative terminal would be the ground, along with all other grounds coming from function generator and oscilloscope. |
352,869 | Working through Learning the Art of Electronics, Hayes T, I'm stuck trying to build the diode clamp in Figure 3L.7 on page 137, as below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dGApT.png)
The text says to, "*Drive it with a sinewave from your
function generator... ...and observe the output.*" So presumably +ve from the function generator connects to "in", +ve from the power supply to "+5 volts", and scope probe to "out".
Having searched the web and studied various clamp schematics, I still can't work out the answer to my question which is, where to put the ground leads from function generator, power supply and oscilloscope?
Thanks
David | 2018/01/29 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/352869",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/175490/"
] | The schematic is missing a ground connection which would connect the ground of the power supply, function generator and oscilloscope probe together. | That is only a partial schematic, the rest is implied and is shown below. The scope goes across the two terminals on the right.
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fjJO0d.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/) |
352,869 | Working through Learning the Art of Electronics, Hayes T, I'm stuck trying to build the diode clamp in Figure 3L.7 on page 137, as below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dGApT.png)
The text says to, "*Drive it with a sinewave from your
function generator... ...and observe the output.*" So presumably +ve from the function generator connects to "in", +ve from the power supply to "+5 volts", and scope probe to "out".
Having searched the web and studied various clamp schematics, I still can't work out the answer to my question which is, where to put the ground leads from function generator, power supply and oscilloscope?
Thanks
David | 2018/01/29 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/352869",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/175490/"
] | I would draw the schematic like this:
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fiS8TJ.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
That (for me) makes it easy to see that the diode will start to conduct when the voltage at **out** exceeds 5 V + the diode's forward voltage, so at about 5.6 V. | The schematic is missing a ground connection which would connect the ground of the power supply, function generator and oscilloscope probe together. |
352,869 | Working through Learning the Art of Electronics, Hayes T, I'm stuck trying to build the diode clamp in Figure 3L.7 on page 137, as below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dGApT.png)
The text says to, "*Drive it with a sinewave from your
function generator... ...and observe the output.*" So presumably +ve from the function generator connects to "in", +ve from the power supply to "+5 volts", and scope probe to "out".
Having searched the web and studied various clamp schematics, I still can't work out the answer to my question which is, where to put the ground leads from function generator, power supply and oscilloscope?
Thanks
David | 2018/01/29 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/352869",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/175490/"
] | I would draw the schematic like this:
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fiS8TJ.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
That (for me) makes it easy to see that the diode will start to conduct when the voltage at **out** exceeds 5 V + the diode's forward voltage, so at about 5.6 V. | In the place which´s written 5 Volts you should put the positive of your power supply. The negative terminal would be the ground, along with all other grounds coming from function generator and oscilloscope. |
352,869 | Working through Learning the Art of Electronics, Hayes T, I'm stuck trying to build the diode clamp in Figure 3L.7 on page 137, as below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dGApT.png)
The text says to, "*Drive it with a sinewave from your
function generator... ...and observe the output.*" So presumably +ve from the function generator connects to "in", +ve from the power supply to "+5 volts", and scope probe to "out".
Having searched the web and studied various clamp schematics, I still can't work out the answer to my question which is, where to put the ground leads from function generator, power supply and oscilloscope?
Thanks
David | 2018/01/29 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/352869",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/175490/"
] | I would draw the schematic like this:
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fiS8TJ.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
That (for me) makes it easy to see that the diode will start to conduct when the voltage at **out** exceeds 5 V + the diode's forward voltage, so at about 5.6 V. | That is only a partial schematic, the rest is implied and is shown below. The scope goes across the two terminals on the right.
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fjJO0d.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/) |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | This is largely a copy of a [previous answer of mine](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/198468/155668), with updating it for the current situation, and with recent experience.
Let's take a look at the problem. As of today, this queue is up to 95.8k questions in the queue. Assuming each has 1 closed vote, that means that a total of 380K actions are required to close all of the questions. Given 40 per day, that means that almost 10K new users with at least 3K reputation would have to clear out 40 in order to close the queue. Then after it is closed, then more people need to review them than have been doing so. So, how can these get reviewed? There are a few ways:
1. Increase the number of people reviewing.
2. Decrease the amount of things that need to be reviewed.
3. Increase the number of things that can be reviewed per day per person.
4. Decrease the time per review required
Okay, given these options, how could any of them be done?
**Increase number of reviewers?**
Close vote reviewing is a painful, thankless task. It largely goes almost unnoticed, except for the occasional badge. Sure, it's the easiest badge of the various custodial badges to earn, but a closed vote decision can be difficult sometimes, depending on the nature of the question. Perhaps there should be some incentive to encourage more reviewers, either in the form of reputation, or increased privileges.
Also, make the task seem more manageable will improve the likelihood that it can happen. Show the flags with a given tag. Let people see that for their tag of choice, the number of flags is going down! That will encourage them to try harder, and make a difference!
**Decrease the number of things to review**
There are a couple of ideas that I have that fit into this category. Either somehow things need to be automated better, or the number of close votes could be reduced. As the latter could be dangerous, perhaps we should just allow certain users to have more closed votes, perhaps those with a very high reputation, or maybe those who have reviewed more closed votes overall. Both help to filter out the relatively new closed voters, and leave those with more knowledge of how the site goes more power to help it out.
**Increase the number of things that can be reviewed**
This improves the situation so long as you don't burn people out. As the pile is getting deeper, it could be a quick short term solution.
**Decrease time per review**
Filtering by tag or closed reasons, better displays to help users figure out what's going on, anything to make the task of reviewing easier increases the likelihood that a user will use all of their closed votes per day, and come back tomorrow and use them too.
**Proposed Solution**
I'm sure there are other ideas out there, but here's my preferred method:
1. Allow users with a Reviewer Badge to get 2 close votes, and with a Steward to get 3 closed votes (Might need to be tweaked, but I'm putting out something here)
2. Increase the number of reviews per day for the closed queue, at least for a while.
3. Do some filtering automatically. The top questions I look at should be for tags I am familiar with. This will make the review queue simpler to manage, as I won't have to learn what the question is about before I look into it. I know that I can filter them manually if I want to, but it's not that obvious to a new reviewer, and thus I think it should be done automatically. This will help people to feel more comfortable reviewing the questions.
4. Some tweaks could be made to make reviewing closed questions easier.
5. Show the number of closed questions with a given tag. That will help people to think they are making a difference, encouraging them to come back more frequently.
6. Give physical rewards to people for taking such a massive undertaking. After all, closing questions is a very important part of SE, as moderators are, why not reward users for taking on such a task? Perhaps a gold badge user will be given something? | I review on occasion. Enough to watch the queue constantly grow at least.
However, there is a [**massive** undertaking](https://stackoverflow.com/review/close/history) going on at a constant rate for closing questions so I think undermining it is a terrible idea. A strike? *No thank you*.
Does something need to be done? Perhaps it could be made more efficient.
How? Lets break down the way the feature works.
Goal: Close all the bad things.
Requirements: Bad thing + 5 consenting votes of badness.
Priority: Address the newest thing that may be bad.
To me, this isn't the best way to organize the bad things. Some of the newest things may not be bad. However, some of the things with 4 consenting votes are more than likely bad.
Suggestion: Address the things which have the highest chance of being bad.
1/5 consenting votes is a low percent of being bad. 4/5 consenting votes is a high percent of being bad.
**The priority of the review queue should be aimed at reviewing those questions with the highest amount of close votes first**.
It could be built in, or perhaps just part of the filter feature. Sort by: "Newest","Oldest","Most Close Votes","Least Close Votes". |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | I'm in agreement with many of the arguments here (notably that the enormous size of the review queue may be causing a vicious cycle of discouraging those who'd otherwise help *clear* said review queue), but to say that there's *"no other option but to go on strike"*, seems a bit rash.
If there's *individual* apathy toward reviewing due to the queue seeming insurmountable by an unorganized mass of users (again, from the *individual's* perspective), then **why don't we first see how we'd feel about *collective*, *organized* efforts?** By the way, to those who've seen my proposal for the "non-competitive community event," this is **not** a plug for that idea; that idea requires an effort by the SE team, *e.g.* lifting the daily voting limits, the lack of which is OP's complaint to begin with. Instead, I'm suggesting we try something productive amongst ourselves, *without* needing to involve the SE team.
**To those interested in forming some kind of a weekly reviewing collective,** a "club" let's say, please join [this Google Group](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/stack-overflow-reviewers-club) (*or the highest-voted alternative in the comments*, in case Google Groups isn't what SO'ers prefer to use) **please join [this chat](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/info/41570/so-close-vote-reviewers?tab=access) and leave a comment**, and you'll be given explicit read access (as a way of getting a headcount).
Comment on this post with ideas about what this club should actually *do*. For example, *"Let's all meet in a chat room at 10:00am every 6 or 8 days (that way it's not always the same day of the week, giving everyone a chance to participate), and review close votes together."* If there's enough interest in such a club, then we'll go ahead and get started with the ideas expressed in the highest-voted comments.
\* I'm adding the first 2 comments immediately so that they may be voted on and compared to alternatives.
---
tl;dr
=====
Gather a roster of SO users who'd feel more enthusiastic about reviewing close votes in a group, and then TBD (via comments). **[Join this chat and leave a comment](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/info/41570/so-close-vote-reviewers?tab=access) to get started.** | The following are my suggestions:
Suggestion 1:
Hold mass cleaning day once a year. Some countries in the world who do not have the government officials to do the cleaning for them, have days where all the citizens get outside and start cleaning the streets. All businesses and everything closes and everyone aged 12 to 60 are required to clean the streets.
We can also just have one day where the whole site shuts down and every member visiting must do cleanup. Of course we can add incentive of giving medals and more rep for participation and such. And we will have a requirement that only members who have certain privileges/rep are allowed to clean.
Suggestion 2:
Already has been proposed.
1) Can't we lower the necessary rep to something lower? I am about to reach 1k, but I am very diligent and passionate about this website. If rep can not be lowered at least add active member since requirement. So that anyone who has 3k rep OR has been an active member for 2 year (has 2 yearling medals).
2) Give some incentive by giving more rep for reviewing questions.
3) I believe this is extremely stupid, but seeing how most of the close voted questions are compromised of php and javascript, why do we not get rid of them this one time only? Based on 1 and 2 and fact that there will be more people who will do maintaining this should help things. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | The problem is that the team might already work on a solution but does not communicate that.
We had a ton full of proposals how to reduce the close vote queue. But we do not seem to get responses to them. Not even in the form of a [status-\*] tag.
So please, let us know what is planned - even if nothing is planned right now. A status update would be really great.
Update
------
[There is the feedback of our community manager](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208311/regarding-the-stack-overflow-close-review-queue). Thank you. | Could a series of badges be introduced as an added incentive for *continuous* work on the close queue. This would be something similar to the "Fanatic" badge but with tiers similar to the "nice", "good", "great" question/answer badges.
* Reviewed 40 close votes per day for 7 consecutive days
* Reviewed 40 close votes per day for 30 consecutive days
* Reviewed 40 close votes per day for 100 consecutive days
It could be that 40 votes per day is too much and if the purpose is to get people to get into the habit of working on the close queue every day, then maybe reviewing 20 (or maybe even just 10) close votes per day is enough. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | Why not lower the bar for close/reopen votes a bit, so that us lowly 2k'ers can participate?
I know we may not be perceived as equal rights contributors by some of the high-rep folks, and rightfully so, but at this level you do have some fundamental grasp of the community and the quality requirements. There's also a higher level of voters required so it's not likely that this can be abused or fumbled by not-yet-truly-trusted low rep users (at least not something I can think of).
This should also address the point @dmckee raised, about the balance between users adding and removing from the queue.
**EDIT:** To elaborate a little over what he said - the queue size represents the difference between the people marking questions for close (including flags and low-quality queue reviewers), and the number of people able and willing to review them. Flags are probably not such a large portion of that, but the VLQ poses a lower rep bar so basically you need a single >2k rep user to add something, and 5 >3k users to complete the review. That makes the pipe completely unbalanced. | I find this post rather illogical. The queue is increasing in size, yes, but the devs aren't the ones that can fix that. It's the community.
Similarly, it's your site and ultimately, you review so that the site becomes a better place. Going on a strike and telling others to .. that just exacerbates the problem and bounces right back at you.
>
> Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
>
>
>
I don't know, I don't really think this is a problem the devs can fix.
* Expiring close votes earlier won't work because the posts aren't getting CV-ignored because of iffyness, they're getting ignored because of the queue size. So stuff doesn't get reviewed.
* Increasing the number of CVs one can use per day — well, the robo review problems are already large as it is.
Most of the request are along those lines. There are a few promising ones, but some tackle the ill effects of the full queue ([eg](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/198549/new-queue-for-moderators-questions-that-appear-stuck-in-close-votes-review-at-s)), and some are [aesthetics changes](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/202159/another-idea-for-close-vote-queue-rejuvenation-show-the-number-of-items-added-t) that may improve perception/motivation.
But there's not much the devs can do.
---
Here's a suggestion though, to those feeling burnt out: Use the filter option on the queue to look at stuff that you feel more comfortable in evaluating. This makes it easy to breeze through the 40 posts. If more people used this, we probably would be better off.
Of course, if you're feeling burned out, taking a break from the queue is the best thing you can do. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | * Force new users to take *and pass* a quiz on the FAQ before they can post any questions;
* **or** require a certain number of accepted answers before being able to post a question;
* **or** require a decent amount of rep before being able to post a question (and I've suggested this before).
Then we'll have fewer crap questions, and less to review.
Doesn't help with the backlog, but I think it'll attack the more fundamental issue here which is that SO has scaled out of hand. There's "being nice to new users", and there's letting yourself be walked all over. | How does having a large number of items in the review queue hamper your close vote reviewing experience?
Having a *small* queue would hamper your close vote reviewing experience *much more*. If the queue is very small, and often empty, like the other queues, then:
1. You can't review at your convenience, whenever you want to; you need to wait for there to be items to review
2. You need to worry much more about race conditions with lots of other people reviewing the same posts as you.
3. You know that you're not really needed. I used to review suggested edits all the time because the queue was often full. Me reviewing posts meant that more people could suggest good edits. These days, the queue is virtually always empty, so while I could help, my help isn't *needed*. All the work gets done (and quite quickly) without my help, so I can spend my time elsewhere where that work wouldn't be done without me.
There really aren't really any noticeable disadvantages, from the point of view of a reviewer, to having a queue that is very large.
It is the *job* of the review queue to draw attention to content that can use the attention of a knowledgeable reviewer so that the content can be improved in some way. When the queues are all sitting at empty it is a *failure of the queue to draw attention to problematic content*. Having a bunch of empty queues means that a reviewer is *forced* to not review content using the queues, and are forced to find content to review using their own methods, which is *what the queues were designed to prevent*. Given that there is almost certainly, given the shear amount of content on the site, going to be content that could use the attention of good reviewers, having an empty queue is simply ignoring that bad content, rather than recognizing that it's there. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | >
> **[Note From The Future]**
>
>
>
>
> This discussion moved forward since I posted this and my views have evolved. Originally, there was some conflation of the review queue ***size*** and the number of questions that ***needed to be closed***. In reality, many of those questions *don't* need to be closed - one or two users out there didn't like something about the post and thus flagged or voted to close. This was addressed very well by Shog:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > [Regarding the Stack Overflow close review queue](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208311/regarding-the-stack-overflow-close-review-queue)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > *See, the problem with a lot of the suggestions floating around here right now is that they make a couple of shaky assumptions:*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 1. *Most of the questions in the queue actually need to be closed.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2. *A handful of people working REALLY HARD could close them all in no time, if we just gave them more privileges / required fewer close votes / skipped the whole "review" thing and just closed them all automatically / etc.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > *#1 I'm just not seeing. Oh, for sure there's a lot of crap in there... But there's also a lot of stuff that's just in the queue because someone didn't know what the hell they were looking at and decided to flag it, or thought "minimal understanding" meant "already solved the problem and is just posting here for typing practice". Especially once you get outside the PHP tag.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > *#2 is true in theory, but... We've kinda been trying to move away from that - the big hope for review was that it would empower folks enough that we wouldn't need 15 moderators closing stuff all day long to keep up. And the truth is, it's a lot harder to review stuff when you don't know jack about the topic.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> My current opinion is that the *size* of the review queue is not really that big of a problem. Most questions that are going to be closed are already closed in relatively short order. For example, [80% of all questions *that were closed* in 2013 were **closed within 24 hours of being posted**](https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/157085/average-length-to-close-a-question-in-2013). The remaining questions that ended up being closed were closed not long after that - nearly all of them within a few days.
>
>
>
>
> To me, that's a strong signal that the questions which **need** to be closed ***are being closed***. The rest - well, the community clearly doesn't see a need to take action on them, so they hang around in the review queue until the votes expire (or, if the question is actually *good*, achieves enough "do not close" votes). While that may produce an ugly looking number, the reality is that there doesn't appear to be much of an underlying problem *with the queue*.
>
>
>
>
> **[/Note From The Future]**
>
>
>
---
I've suggested [something similar before](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168227/display-specific-earned-badges-as-profile-bling), but, personally, I'd be much more motivated to tackle the close-vote queue if I could get a little bling. Maybe a fancy hat or pin on my profile picture saying something like "I voted".
Others, seeing my awesome bling, would ask how they could get some. I'd say, "just review some close votes" - and off they'd run to get their own bling.
It'd be relatively easy to implement (it was [already done for Christmas](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/161188/what-do-you-think-of-winter-bash) last year - code must still be lying around somewhere) and would act as both an incentive and as an advertisement.
Bling could have an expiration date. Review 10 posts in the close vote queue and you can pick a hat. You keep the hat for 24 hours, then it expires. Review 10 more posts and you can pick another hat. Review 20 posts, and you get a bigger selection of hats, etc. Review 30 posts, and you can have a magic unicorn horn! (Oh the possibilities!)
The bling need only be part of an "initiative". Meaning, once the queue falls below 10k or 5k, the hat reward is retired. Any time the queue starts to grow again, hats could be turned back on.
Looks like I'm not the only person who thinks this is a good idea: [Provide incentives for reviewing close votes in upcoming Winterbash 2013](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/203801/upcoming-winterbash-2013)
In seeking to educate at the same time that we reduce the queue, what if we also had some special hats for using close queue features, such as a hat for [applying a filter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/151994/191410), etc. *(I love "etc."! Frees me up from having to work out the details myself.)* | When I raised the issue I wrote a reorganisation proposal: [Close vote review queue reorganization proposal](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/176060/close-vote-review-queue-reorganization-proposal)
While most of it is not true anymore, since the close votes have been refactored, but I think the close votes should still be split up into 5 or 6 different queues, based on the category than being inside one of them, as different categories require (sometimes completely) different ways of thinking, and checking whether the question is actually fine or not.
While this might not stop the piling up of the close votes, it would clearly show how the different types of close reasons pile up, and then another measure might be taken to fix that specific queue. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | This is largely a copy of a [previous answer of mine](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/198468/155668), with updating it for the current situation, and with recent experience.
Let's take a look at the problem. As of today, this queue is up to 95.8k questions in the queue. Assuming each has 1 closed vote, that means that a total of 380K actions are required to close all of the questions. Given 40 per day, that means that almost 10K new users with at least 3K reputation would have to clear out 40 in order to close the queue. Then after it is closed, then more people need to review them than have been doing so. So, how can these get reviewed? There are a few ways:
1. Increase the number of people reviewing.
2. Decrease the amount of things that need to be reviewed.
3. Increase the number of things that can be reviewed per day per person.
4. Decrease the time per review required
Okay, given these options, how could any of them be done?
**Increase number of reviewers?**
Close vote reviewing is a painful, thankless task. It largely goes almost unnoticed, except for the occasional badge. Sure, it's the easiest badge of the various custodial badges to earn, but a closed vote decision can be difficult sometimes, depending on the nature of the question. Perhaps there should be some incentive to encourage more reviewers, either in the form of reputation, or increased privileges.
Also, make the task seem more manageable will improve the likelihood that it can happen. Show the flags with a given tag. Let people see that for their tag of choice, the number of flags is going down! That will encourage them to try harder, and make a difference!
**Decrease the number of things to review**
There are a couple of ideas that I have that fit into this category. Either somehow things need to be automated better, or the number of close votes could be reduced. As the latter could be dangerous, perhaps we should just allow certain users to have more closed votes, perhaps those with a very high reputation, or maybe those who have reviewed more closed votes overall. Both help to filter out the relatively new closed voters, and leave those with more knowledge of how the site goes more power to help it out.
**Increase the number of things that can be reviewed**
This improves the situation so long as you don't burn people out. As the pile is getting deeper, it could be a quick short term solution.
**Decrease time per review**
Filtering by tag or closed reasons, better displays to help users figure out what's going on, anything to make the task of reviewing easier increases the likelihood that a user will use all of their closed votes per day, and come back tomorrow and use them too.
**Proposed Solution**
I'm sure there are other ideas out there, but here's my preferred method:
1. Allow users with a Reviewer Badge to get 2 close votes, and with a Steward to get 3 closed votes (Might need to be tweaked, but I'm putting out something here)
2. Increase the number of reviews per day for the closed queue, at least for a while.
3. Do some filtering automatically. The top questions I look at should be for tags I am familiar with. This will make the review queue simpler to manage, as I won't have to learn what the question is about before I look into it. I know that I can filter them manually if I want to, but it's not that obvious to a new reviewer, and thus I think it should be done automatically. This will help people to feel more comfortable reviewing the questions.
4. Some tweaks could be made to make reviewing closed questions easier.
5. Show the number of closed questions with a given tag. That will help people to think they are making a difference, encouraging them to come back more frequently.
6. Give physical rewards to people for taking such a massive undertaking. After all, closing questions is a very important part of SE, as moderators are, why not reward users for taking on such a task? Perhaps a gold badge user will be given something? | Could a series of badges be introduced as an added incentive for *continuous* work on the close queue. This would be something similar to the "Fanatic" badge but with tiers similar to the "nice", "good", "great" question/answer badges.
* Reviewed 40 close votes per day for 7 consecutive days
* Reviewed 40 close votes per day for 30 consecutive days
* Reviewed 40 close votes per day for 100 consecutive days
It could be that 40 votes per day is too much and if the purpose is to get people to get into the habit of working on the close queue every day, then maybe reviewing 20 (or maybe even just 10) close votes per day is enough. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | The problem is that the team might already work on a solution but does not communicate that.
We had a ton full of proposals how to reduce the close vote queue. But we do not seem to get responses to them. Not even in the form of a [status-\*] tag.
So please, let us know what is planned - even if nothing is planned right now. A status update would be really great.
Update
------
[There is the feedback of our community manager](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208311/regarding-the-stack-overflow-close-review-queue). Thank you. | * Force new users to take *and pass* a quiz on the FAQ before they can post any questions;
* **or** require a certain number of accepted answers before being able to post a question;
* **or** require a decent amount of rep before being able to post a question (and I've suggested this before).
Then we'll have fewer crap questions, and less to review.
Doesn't help with the backlog, but I think it'll attack the more fundamental issue here which is that SO has scaled out of hand. There's "being nice to new users", and there's letting yourself be walked all over. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | * Force new users to take *and pass* a quiz on the FAQ before they can post any questions;
* **or** require a certain number of accepted answers before being able to post a question;
* **or** require a decent amount of rep before being able to post a question (and I've suggested this before).
Then we'll have fewer crap questions, and less to review.
Doesn't help with the backlog, but I think it'll attack the more fundamental issue here which is that SO has scaled out of hand. There's "being nice to new users", and there's letting yourself be walked all over. | When I raised the issue I wrote a reorganisation proposal: [Close vote review queue reorganization proposal](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/176060/close-vote-review-queue-reorganization-proposal)
While most of it is not true anymore, since the close votes have been refactored, but I think the close votes should still be split up into 5 or 6 different queues, based on the category than being inside one of them, as different categories require (sometimes completely) different ways of thinking, and checking whether the question is actually fine or not.
While this might not stop the piling up of the close votes, it would clearly show how the different types of close reasons pile up, and then another measure might be taken to fix that specific queue. |
208,220 | I know this question is going to make me unpopular here – but I feel I have no other options.
**I have been concerned by the size of the close votes review queue for quite a while.**
When I started reviewing (less than a year ago) this queue already had ~30K questions pending review. Time passes and the queue only gets bigger. It is close to 95K now and **increasing** all the time.
This queue size issue has troubled many users, that [raised flags, proposed changes and asked questions](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vote-to-close+stackoverflow+review). Yet it seems like SO dev team is doing close to nothing to handle this pressing matter.
Therefore, I see no other option but to go on a strike: I will not review any close vote question until a **serious** effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
Where do you stand on this matter?
---
**Making this question more concrete:**
The vote-to-close queue size has actually two issues:
1. A one-time effort to bring its size to (or very close to) zero.
2. A long-lasting solution that will reverse the trend of more questions entering the queue than leaving it, thus keeping this queue at manageable size.
Without addressing the second issue, any solution that covers only the first one will be only a temporary patch and will not last long.
---
*Edit/Update*: I do not ask SO dev team to drop everything they are doing and work 24/7 on this issue. However, I *do* expect to get some long-term attention of the team: to take the time to implement one (or even several) solution(s) and follow up on them to see if they have the right impact.
---
### What's up? (Dec 3rd,2013)
I started my strike two weeks ago with queue size ~95K. Today it hit 100K!
>
> 
>
>
>
A lot of words were written (and put on hold/marked as duplicate) questions were asked, answers were given - but we see little **action** actually taking place to reverse this worrying trend, the steady growth of the close-vote review queue.
So, I see no reason to quit my strike just yet...
---
**A note regarding marking this post as duplicate:**
Well, I looked into [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/183840/what-can-be-done-about-the-massive-close-votes-queue-on-stack-overflow), apparently it is also a duplicate of [this question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151833/huge-close-votes-review-queue-on-stack-overflow). All these questions were asked to raise the flag "Hey, we SO users are CONCERNED by the HUGE queue size". Since no significant change has been made, and the queue is just getting longer, this red flag needs to be raised OVER and OVER again. Closing these questions only sends the message "we don't care about this issue" – which judging by the lively discussion here is not the message you want to send.
So please, consider not closing this question as a duplicate of those questions. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208220",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/202617/"
] | You said:
>
> I will not review any close vote question until a serious effort will be made by SO dev team to address the close vote queue size issue.
>
>
>
Well, now a serious effort [*has* been made](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223349/238586). I hope you'll end your strike and join [these guys (and gals)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/223497/lets-burn-down-the-close-queue) in their flamethrowing shenanigans!
---
Update five days later:
Hooray, you've ended your strike! With, lets see...uh, well...it looks like...ah...one review.
??? | At least judging from my (very) short flagging experience,
1. most flags get handled in a day
2. some flags take a couple of days
3. some flags take forever to close
so it's possible people skip close queries that they can't make up their mind about and vote on ones that are obvious.
**If this is so, then the reason for the large queue size is because when people skip questions they basically mean *"abstain from voting, I'm not sure"* and it should be handled *somehow* as a kind of a "no" vote.**
If there's not enough consensus to close a question then perhaps after a timeout period (couple days or so) an automatic resolution for the close vote would be a reasonable measure?
Perhaps something in the lines of:
* "close the vote because there's not enough consensus for closing the question" **OR**
* "if total reputation of users voted so far exceeds a threshold then close the question automatically, else close the vote automatically"
It sure fixes the queue size elegantly :P
Also, lowering the entry point for the close votes system might help, depending on reputation distribution of current active users |
7,500,623 | In multicore systems, such as 2, 4, 8 cores, we typically use mutexes and semaphores to access shared memory. However, I can foresee that these methods would induce a high overhead for future systems with many cores. Are there any alternative methods that would be better for future many core systems for accessing shared memories. | 2011/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7500623",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/760807/"
] | [Transactional memory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_memory) is one such method. | 1) Lock only the memory part your are accessing, and not the entire table ! This is done with the help of a big hash table. The bigger the table, the finer the lock mechanism is.
2) If you can, only lock on writing, not on reading (this requires that there is no problem in reading the "previous value" while it is being updated, which is very often a valid case). |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.