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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,004,699 | I have a requirement to document the assembly dependencies in a vb6/dotnet application.
What techniques / tools are good for performing this sort of document.
I was planning on using Visio for drawing. | 2009/06/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1004699",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4490/"
] | As a start, try [Dependency Visualizer](http://www.codeplex.com/dependencyvisualizer). I've also used [GraphViz's Dot](http://www.graphviz.org) and some custom code for simple dependency generation. The custom code invoked SysInternal's depends.exe recursively and parsed the output. [.NET Reflector](http://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/index.htm) with the [Graph](http://reflectoraddins.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?title=Graph) plugin looks pretty promising, too, though I haven't tried that (yet).
What I've always run into was the fact that my graph, unless generated automatically, has to be recreated every time I add to the project and sometimes when I simply change something. So, for me, a manual solution that I became married to for the updates was no solution at all.
I just found the [Dependency Structure Matrix Plug-in](http://tcdev.free.fr/) for .NET Reflector. | Dependency visualizer is good for small projects. For projects or solutions with many inter dependencies it becomes too clumsy to even trace the dependency graph. |
1,004,699 | I have a requirement to document the assembly dependencies in a vb6/dotnet application.
What techniques / tools are good for performing this sort of document.
I was planning on using Visio for drawing. | 2009/06/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1004699",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4490/"
] | Have you had a look at [NDepend](http://www.ndepend.com/)? | To complete the Eric answer, NDepend comes indeed with a [dependency graph](http://www.ndepend.com/Doc_VS_Arch.aspx) coupled with a [dependency matrix](http://www.ndepend.com/Doc_Matrix.aspx).
The dependency Graph is easier to understand, but when the number of nodes grow (> 40) often the dependency Matrix will provide a clearer view of the situation. For example, below the Matrix represents the same dependency data than the Graph, but it is obviously clearer.
 |
1,004,699 | I have a requirement to document the assembly dependencies in a vb6/dotnet application.
What techniques / tools are good for performing this sort of document.
I was planning on using Visio for drawing. | 2009/06/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1004699",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4490/"
] | To complete the Eric answer, NDepend comes indeed with a [dependency graph](http://www.ndepend.com/Doc_VS_Arch.aspx) coupled with a [dependency matrix](http://www.ndepend.com/Doc_Matrix.aspx).
The dependency Graph is easier to understand, but when the number of nodes grow (> 40) often the dependency Matrix will provide a clearer view of the situation. For example, below the Matrix represents the same dependency data than the Graph, but it is obviously clearer.
 | Dependency visualizer is good for small projects. For projects or solutions with many inter dependencies it becomes too clumsy to even trace the dependency graph. |
1,004,699 | I have a requirement to document the assembly dependencies in a vb6/dotnet application.
What techniques / tools are good for performing this sort of document.
I was planning on using Visio for drawing. | 2009/06/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1004699",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4490/"
] | Well for .NET you could also try VS2010 Beta 1 and the Architecture Explorer [(Arch Explorer screen shots)](http://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/visual-studio-2010-architecture-edition/).
As for VB6, I'd like to have a tool for that also. This tool from Microsoft [Visual Basic 6.0 to Visual Basic .NET Upgrade Assessment Tool](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=10C491A2-FC67-4509-BC10-60C5C039A272&displaylang=en) creates a call graph in HTML for a single VBP, not sure how useful it would for you. Other than that I have not found may tools for VB6. | You can create dependency graphs of .NET assemblies and application projects in VS 2010 Ultimate. You can generate assembly dependency graphs as one of the standard graphs, or you can use Architecture Explorer to browse your solution, select projects and the relationships that you want to visualize, and then create a dependency graph from your selection.
For more info, see the following topics:
**How to: Generate Graph Documents from Code**: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd409453%28VS.100%29.aspx#SeeSpecificSource>
**How to: Find Code Using Architecture Explorer**: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd409431%28VS.100%29.aspx>
**RC download**: <http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=457bab91-5eb2-4b36-b0f4-d6f34683c62a>.
**Visual Studio 2010 Architectural Discovery & Modeling Tools** forum: <http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vsarch/threads> |
1,004,699 | I have a requirement to document the assembly dependencies in a vb6/dotnet application.
What techniques / tools are good for performing this sort of document.
I was planning on using Visio for drawing. | 2009/06/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1004699",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4490/"
] | As a start, try [Dependency Visualizer](http://www.codeplex.com/dependencyvisualizer). I've also used [GraphViz's Dot](http://www.graphviz.org) and some custom code for simple dependency generation. The custom code invoked SysInternal's depends.exe recursively and parsed the output. [.NET Reflector](http://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/index.htm) with the [Graph](http://reflectoraddins.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?title=Graph) plugin looks pretty promising, too, though I haven't tried that (yet).
What I've always run into was the fact that my graph, unless generated automatically, has to be recreated every time I add to the project and sometimes when I simply change something. So, for me, a manual solution that I became married to for the updates was no solution at all.
I just found the [Dependency Structure Matrix Plug-in](http://tcdev.free.fr/) for .NET Reflector. | Have you had a look at [NDepend](http://www.ndepend.com/)? |
42,499 | Simon Blackburn is describing the Poetic Interpretation of ascending from Plato's Cave:
>
> Part of the charm of Plato is the sense of being in a world in which these fractures did not exist. Ours may be a world in which there is a division between fact on the one hand, and value on the other. But his world is, in the phrase of the godfather of modern sociology, Max Weber, an enchanted world, in which ideas like proportion and harmony efface any such division. Beauty makes both goodness and truth manifest, so its perception and the love it engenders together give us the first step out of the Cave. Beauty is the first erasure of the distinction between fact and value. It is borne in upon us, in erotic experience, like facts. But it is intrinsically or essentially connected with the values of pleasure and love. And just as it erases the fact-value distinction, so beauty erases the tyranny of the self. In loving something or someone for beauty’s sake we are, as Iris Murdoch says, ‘unselfed’. **Selfish desire has no place in the pure aesthetic experience.**
>
>
>
Does it mean that purity comes with the consequence of selflessness? That if one is clean and pure they must be selfless? | 2017/05/18 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/42499",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4506/"
] | "Does [Selfish desire has no place in the pure aesthetic experience] mean that purity comes with the consequence of selflessness? That if one is clean and pure they must be selfless?"
No, no, no. the causal relationship is the other way around. It is not the selflessness that allows you to experience purity, but it is the purity of (aesthetic) experience that allows you to become self-less. Purity of (aesthetic) experience happens, when you read a great poem or watch an awesome movie, and you lose you spatio-temporal self and become the person in the poem or the movie. When I finally understood Robert Francis' Pitcher, I lost myself and became the Pitcher for a moment (the poem provided at the end of this post).
Selflessness, for Blackburn, is not meant to be the opposite to selfishness. Rather it is the sublime self who is able to see things for their intrinsic values, no longer interpreting everything as an instrument to further one's needs and desires. By this way, the sublime self can also experience other values like the goodness. The hitherto self-interested self comes to understand that experiencing (doing) the good is intrinsically valuable, just as experiencing the beauty. In other words, the selflessness activated by the aesthetic experience is transmitted into the moral self (other-regarding self). This is why some argue that aesthetics is the mother of ethics (e.g., Marcia Eaton)
The possibility of self-lessness through the aesthetic experience is important to Blackburn since such a possibility allows him to elaborate his projection theory. According to him, the reason that this world is a moral world, despite the absence of moral facts in this world (so-called the analytic world, world inhabited by brute facts), is that our moral values, just like aesthetic values, acquired through language games, are projected (or spread) onto the analytic world.
Pitcher
-------
His art is eccentricity, his aim
How not to hit the mark he seems to aim at,
---
His passion how to avoid the obvious,
His technique how to vary the avoidance.
---
The others throw to be comprehended. He
Throws to be a moment misunderstood.
---
Yet not too much. Not errant, arrant, wild,
But every seeming aberration willed.
---
Not to, yet still, still to communicate
Making the batter understand too late. | I believe that the phrase explains that beauty in aesthetics is an a priori knowledge that is simultaneously the highest positive value and personification of truth. Aesthetics is an experiential phenomena that is external to ourselves and, ostensibly, is an appreciation for the truth of beauty (which is perceived as a universal concept in the author's theory). It is not related to one's person satisfaction, but an a priori truth and value accessed through this appreciation. Therefore, it is intrinsically "unselfed".
>
> Does it mean that purity comes with the consequence of selflessness? That if one is clean and pure they must be selfless?
>
>
>
I believe that the author's intent is that the practice of aesthetics -*appreciation of true beauty* - is itself unselfish - neither the beautiful thing, nor the actor, is unselfish. It is more descriptive of the person's experiencing the beauty (in that moment), rather than the beautiful thing in-itself. |
224,709 | I'm looking at writing a simple app indicator and I need it to update it's information whenever it's clicked on to open the menu. Is there any kind of on\_click action thing?
Let me rephrase it then: How to perform an action (any action) when the user clicks on the appindicator to open its menu? | 2012/12/02 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/224709",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/101066/"
] | An app indicator can only open its menu. It can't perform any other action and your program doesn't get notified when the menu is displayed.
You could either include some kind of "Update" menu item or find other events that trigger the update. | I have used the middle mouse click in one of my indicators to perform an action, so I think you could do the same... See related [answer](https://askubuntu.com/a/501050/67335).
*Note it only seems to work on Ubuntu (not Lubuntu/Xubuntu).* |
152,421 | What do you call the V-shaped figure one uses to check a checkbox? How about the X-shaped figure? | 2014/02/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/152421",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11268/"
] | You might be looking for "check" or "tick", or "check mark" or "tick mark". | Do you mean a check mark (also called a tick)? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_mark>
The x-shaped mark can be called simply an x or a cross.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_mark> |
152,421 | What do you call the V-shaped figure one uses to check a checkbox? How about the X-shaped figure? | 2014/02/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/152421",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/11268/"
] | You might be looking for "check" or "tick", or "check mark" or "tick mark". | In the UK we were usually told to put [a tick or a cross](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a%20tick%20or%20a%20cross&year_start=1930&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,a%20tick%20or%20a%20cross;,c0) in the appropriate box...
...but if you follow the link and switch between British and American corpuses, you'll see that the "relative prevalence" (number of instances per 100M words) for BrE is about 8 times higher than that for AmE.
---
Just a guess, but I wonder if maybe the (historically) higher proportion of immigrants less familiar with English (for reading the instructions on filling out the form) might mean that US forms were always more likely to expect just a single mark (tick ***or*** cross) to mean "this is the one that applies".
Some years ago a friend who helped out counting the ballot papers after a General Election told me she was amazed at how many were classed as "spoiled" because the voter had put a tick against their preferred candidate, and a cross against each of the others. The intended vote was obvious, but they weren't allowed to count it. We both thought this probably caused disproportionate (hopefully, *unintended*) disenfranchisement of recent immigrants who might not understand the instructions. |
333,467 | OK, I have an Alienware M14X and the keyboard backlight is always on and I can't turn it off... Google didn't me much. I want to turn it off because it's disturbing sometimes
I uninstalled Windows OS from my laptop so I can't really disable it from there | 2013/08/16 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/333467",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/180793/"
] | Change the color to black and it will be off. | For GNU-Linux systems you can use [alienware-kbl](http://rsm.imap.cc/software/gnu-linux/software/alienware-kbl). With that program you can control the lights of alienware computers. |
42 | One thing that we are starting to see are variations of the question of "what martial art should I practice." For example:
* [Is aikido a good addition to Karate? Or shoud I go for jiu-jitsu?](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/94/is-aikido-a-good-addition-to-karate-or-shoud-i-go-for-jiu-jitsu)
* [Which martial arts focus on self defense?](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/159/which-martial-arts-focus-on-self-defense)
I would argue that we should consider these questions, unless they are very specific in scope, to be *off topic* in general, for many of the same reasons that [Board Games.SE](https://boardgames.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/656/should-we-ban-game-recommendation-questions-done) and [Gaming.SE](https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/997/handling-game-recommendations-how-can-we-solve-these-two-problems-of-quality) have banned game recommendation questions: They are not a good fit for a Q&A format. There are just too many answers and too many of those answered are grounded in personal opinions or for which the reasons one art may be a better selection than another are highly debatable.
There are, of course, going to be edge cases and recommendations that might fit better with the format (e.g., [What characteristics should I look for in a sensei?](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/160/what-characteristics-should-i-look-for-in-a-sensei)), but particularly when it comes down to the arts themselves I'd go with declaring such questions as off topic. | 2012/02/02 | [
"https://martialarts.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/42",
"https://martialarts.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://martialarts.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11/"
] | **"What martial arts focus on x?" -style questions**
Where x is "grappling" or "self-defense" or "high kicks" or "joint manipulation" seem perfectly valid to me. Some arts *do* focus on certain areas more than others. It seems plausible that the answers to these types of questions could provide valid, factual responses beyond mere opinion or anecdote.
And if simple opinions of the style "my art is best" are offered, then it seems natural to avoid voting these up or to vote them down if they don't offer clear references as to why these arts are suited for the given requirement.
Another approach is not to recommend individual arts, but instead to explain how to evaluate arts and schools for whatever requirement is given. In the closed ["What martial arts focus on self-defense?"](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/159/which-martial-arts-focus-on-self-defense) question, I attempted to provide an answer that didn't champion a particular art, but rather offered advice about what elements make a school better set up for teaching self-defense.
**"What martial arts are suitable for y" -style questions**
Where y is "blind and partially sighted people" or "children under five" or "amputees" are equally valid in my opinion. Again, this is likely to solicit opinion, but provided that opinions are backed by solid explanations, they're likely to offer useful information for the asker and future visitors.
### Avoiding the word "best"
I think the key might be to avoid loaded words like "best" that will encourage arguments. Questions adopting this format should be edited to use "suitable" and "focus on" instead.
### Using "martial arts" instead of "martial art"
Again, I think it's less contentious to ask "what martial *arts* are suitable" than it is to say "what martial *art* is suitable...". The plural form shows that the asker accepts that there's not necessarily one "best" art and is looking for three or four to evaluate. It may also be less likely to encourage "my art is best" -style responses.
### Choosing a martial art is difficult; we can help
Finally, choosing a martial art to study is a common question because it's very difficult for beginners to evaluate individual arts and schools. There is no site on the web presently that attempts to do this from a neutral standpoint. I think we should accept it as a challenge and do our best to help.
It might be valuable to have a "How to choose a martial art and martial arts school" wiki for a general overview. But I don't think it worth closing more specific questions about suitability for a particular area or person -- instead, we can simply rewrite questions where necessary to solicit facts rather than opinion. | I agree. The problem with these questions is that they are both subjective and too localised - the question of what martial art to practice depends on too many factors (age, location, past experience).
Possibly a question "**How do I choose** what martial art to practice?" would be useful. Something like this would stand the best chance of answering these sorts of questions and would provide a suitable question for closing duplicates and possibly linking in the FAQ. |
42 | One thing that we are starting to see are variations of the question of "what martial art should I practice." For example:
* [Is aikido a good addition to Karate? Or shoud I go for jiu-jitsu?](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/94/is-aikido-a-good-addition-to-karate-or-shoud-i-go-for-jiu-jitsu)
* [Which martial arts focus on self defense?](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/159/which-martial-arts-focus-on-self-defense)
I would argue that we should consider these questions, unless they are very specific in scope, to be *off topic* in general, for many of the same reasons that [Board Games.SE](https://boardgames.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/656/should-we-ban-game-recommendation-questions-done) and [Gaming.SE](https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/997/handling-game-recommendations-how-can-we-solve-these-two-problems-of-quality) have banned game recommendation questions: They are not a good fit for a Q&A format. There are just too many answers and too many of those answered are grounded in personal opinions or for which the reasons one art may be a better selection than another are highly debatable.
There are, of course, going to be edge cases and recommendations that might fit better with the format (e.g., [What characteristics should I look for in a sensei?](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/160/what-characteristics-should-i-look-for-in-a-sensei)), but particularly when it comes down to the arts themselves I'd go with declaring such questions as off topic. | 2012/02/02 | [
"https://martialarts.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/42",
"https://martialarts.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://martialarts.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11/"
] | **"What martial arts focus on x?" -style questions**
Where x is "grappling" or "self-defense" or "high kicks" or "joint manipulation" seem perfectly valid to me. Some arts *do* focus on certain areas more than others. It seems plausible that the answers to these types of questions could provide valid, factual responses beyond mere opinion or anecdote.
And if simple opinions of the style "my art is best" are offered, then it seems natural to avoid voting these up or to vote them down if they don't offer clear references as to why these arts are suited for the given requirement.
Another approach is not to recommend individual arts, but instead to explain how to evaluate arts and schools for whatever requirement is given. In the closed ["What martial arts focus on self-defense?"](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/159/which-martial-arts-focus-on-self-defense) question, I attempted to provide an answer that didn't champion a particular art, but rather offered advice about what elements make a school better set up for teaching self-defense.
**"What martial arts are suitable for y" -style questions**
Where y is "blind and partially sighted people" or "children under five" or "amputees" are equally valid in my opinion. Again, this is likely to solicit opinion, but provided that opinions are backed by solid explanations, they're likely to offer useful information for the asker and future visitors.
### Avoiding the word "best"
I think the key might be to avoid loaded words like "best" that will encourage arguments. Questions adopting this format should be edited to use "suitable" and "focus on" instead.
### Using "martial arts" instead of "martial art"
Again, I think it's less contentious to ask "what martial *arts* are suitable" than it is to say "what martial *art* is suitable...". The plural form shows that the asker accepts that there's not necessarily one "best" art and is looking for three or four to evaluate. It may also be less likely to encourage "my art is best" -style responses.
### Choosing a martial art is difficult; we can help
Finally, choosing a martial art to study is a common question because it's very difficult for beginners to evaluate individual arts and schools. There is no site on the web presently that attempts to do this from a neutral standpoint. I think we should accept it as a challenge and do our best to help.
It might be valuable to have a "How to choose a martial art and martial arts school" wiki for a general overview. But I don't think it worth closing more specific questions about suitability for a particular area or person -- instead, we can simply rewrite questions where necessary to solicit facts rather than opinion. | 'What martial arts should I practice' is off-topic, because too personal - but this question comes up often, so the community should probably examine the possibility of a community wiki and/or a series of questions that can help someone decide. Not being able to offer insight into this question would be, I feel, a flaw.
Of course, the answer, in *my* head, is "It depends on where you are, what's available to you, and who the teachers are", but that's just me - and I'm not the community :) |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | I believe it was to complaint to the band of some other aspect of the performance(intonation,rhythm, etc) he did not like. I do not have any specific source to back this at the moment, though I know that he was extremely sensitive of musicians playing slightly out of tune. | I always interpreted it as he was asking the band to "listen" - pay close attention to what is happening. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | I believe it was to complaint to the band of some other aspect of the performance(intonation,rhythm, etc) he did not like. I do not have any specific source to back this at the moment, though I know that he was extremely sensitive of musicians playing slightly out of tune. | I would suspect that he had temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction and pain below the ear. It’s only a guess, but common to press or rub the muscles around that joint where the lower jaw (mandible) articulates with upper jaw. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | Watching the Tonight Show from 1964, it seems he was angry about some aspect of the sound balance. When he does it during the blues, he changes where he's playing on the mic, putting his bell way past it, so maybe he thought he was way too hot and not balanced with the rest of the band. During So What, when he does it, he completely walks away from the mic and plays without any amplification. | I always interpreted it as he was asking the band to "listen" - pay close attention to what is happening. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | I've seen him do this countless times and I believe it's either some tick, OR it's something he consciously does on purpose simply to add to the mysteriousness that of which is... Miles Davis. | I always interpreted it as he was asking the band to "listen" - pay close attention to what is happening. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | The best I found via lmgtfy was these:
From [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jazz/comments/2kqxly/miles_davis_plugging_his_ears_during_a_lester/?st=itved15t&sh=8636e34b)
>
> I always heard Miles would cover his ears to hear the other soloist
> better.
>
>
>
OTOH, an [interview](http://hepcat1950.com/mdiv_sy.html) side note suggests it's purely a habit:
>
> "Had to drink some water 'cause I get dehydrated," Miles explained.
> "Loretta knows. Sometimes I'll say, 'Loretta, something's funny about
> me. What is it?' And she'll look at me and say, 'Fix your hair. It's
> sticking out over there.'"
>
>
> Miles touches his hair behind the right ear.
>
>
> "You know, Sy, chicks just know about you. Cicely [Tyson] knows when I
> don't feel good, and she'll call me up and say, 'What's the matter,
> Miles?'"
>
>
>
As does [this review](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/arts/miles-davis-the-chameleon-of-cool-a-jazz-genius-in-the-guise-of-a-hustler.html?_r=0):
>
> Every gesture seems choreographed but effortless, the way he
> nonchalantly walks onstage, rubs just behind his ear, puts his
> impeccably manicured fingers to his lips just before bringing the horn
> to his mouth.
>
>
> | I would suspect that he had temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction and pain below the ear. It’s only a guess, but common to press or rub the muscles around that joint where the lower jaw (mandible) articulates with upper jaw. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | The best I found via lmgtfy was these:
From [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jazz/comments/2kqxly/miles_davis_plugging_his_ears_during_a_lester/?st=itved15t&sh=8636e34b)
>
> I always heard Miles would cover his ears to hear the other soloist
> better.
>
>
>
OTOH, an [interview](http://hepcat1950.com/mdiv_sy.html) side note suggests it's purely a habit:
>
> "Had to drink some water 'cause I get dehydrated," Miles explained.
> "Loretta knows. Sometimes I'll say, 'Loretta, something's funny about
> me. What is it?' And she'll look at me and say, 'Fix your hair. It's
> sticking out over there.'"
>
>
> Miles touches his hair behind the right ear.
>
>
> "You know, Sy, chicks just know about you. Cicely [Tyson] knows when I
> don't feel good, and she'll call me up and say, 'What's the matter,
> Miles?'"
>
>
>
As does [this review](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/arts/miles-davis-the-chameleon-of-cool-a-jazz-genius-in-the-guise-of-a-hustler.html?_r=0):
>
> Every gesture seems choreographed but effortless, the way he
> nonchalantly walks onstage, rubs just behind his ear, puts his
> impeccably manicured fingers to his lips just before bringing the horn
> to his mouth.
>
>
> | I always interpreted it as he was asking the band to "listen" - pay close attention to what is happening. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | Watching the Tonight Show from 1964, it seems he was angry about some aspect of the sound balance. When he does it during the blues, he changes where he's playing on the mic, putting his bell way past it, so maybe he thought he was way too hot and not balanced with the rest of the band. During So What, when he does it, he completely walks away from the mic and plays without any amplification. | I believe it was to complaint to the band of some other aspect of the performance(intonation,rhythm, etc) he did not like. I do not have any specific source to back this at the moment, though I know that he was extremely sensitive of musicians playing slightly out of tune. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | I've seen him do this countless times and I believe it's either some tick, OR it's something he consciously does on purpose simply to add to the mysteriousness that of which is... Miles Davis. | I would suspect that he had temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction and pain below the ear. It’s only a guess, but common to press or rub the muscles around that joint where the lower jaw (mandible) articulates with upper jaw. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | Watching the Tonight Show from 1964, it seems he was angry about some aspect of the sound balance. When he does it during the blues, he changes where he's playing on the mic, putting his bell way past it, so maybe he thought he was way too hot and not balanced with the rest of the band. During So What, when he does it, he completely walks away from the mic and plays without any amplification. | I've seen him do this countless times and I believe it's either some tick, OR it's something he consciously does on purpose simply to add to the mysteriousness that of which is... Miles Davis. |
49,271 | Watching films of Miles Davis performing in the 50's and 60's I noticed that whenever his solo was done he would take his index finger and press it beneath his right ear. Sometimes he would also shake his head as if it were painful to do so. I'm not sure if he did this later in his career or not. He acted very differently on stage in the 70's and later.
Is the pressure from blowing the horn forcing air into someplace it shouldn't? Why only his right ear? Is this common among trumpet players?
Here are a few stills of him doing this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEcSMm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/syMChm.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/POFuAm.jpg) | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/49271",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/23661/"
] | Watching the Tonight Show from 1964, it seems he was angry about some aspect of the sound balance. When he does it during the blues, he changes where he's playing on the mic, putting his bell way past it, so maybe he thought he was way too hot and not balanced with the rest of the band. During So What, when he does it, he completely walks away from the mic and plays without any amplification. | I would suspect that he had temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction and pain below the ear. It’s only a guess, but common to press or rub the muscles around that joint where the lower jaw (mandible) articulates with upper jaw. |
30,654 | How would you describe the **Power Law** in simple words? The Wikipedia entry is too long and verbose. I would like to understand the concept of the power law and how and why it shows up everywhere.
For example, a recent Economist article **[Cry havoc! And let slip the maths of war](http://www.economist.com/node/18483411)**, shows that terrorist attacks follow an inverted power law curve. | 2011/04/03 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/30654",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/8941/"
] | Just to expand on Ross Millikan's answer. Power-laws are important and pop up all the time because they obey [scale-invariance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance). Scale-invariance is the property that a system behaves the same when all length-scales are multiplied with a common factor. System show scale invariance if there is no characteristic length scale associated which, e.g., happens at phase transitions. | An easy to read article with data: <http://www.jmir.org/2015/6/e160/> |
2,862,370 | I'm building a Route Planner Webapp using Spring/Hibernate/Tomcat and a mysql database,
I have a database containing read only data, such as Bus Stop Coordinates, Bus times which is never updated. I'm trying to make the app run faster, each time the application is run it will preform approx 1000 reads to the database to calculate a route.
I have setup a Ehcache which greatly improves the read from database times.
I'm now setting terracotta + Ehcache distributed caching to share the cache with multiple Tomcat JVMs. This seems a bit complicated. I've tried memcached but it was not performing as fast as ehcache.
I'm wondering if a MongoDb or Redis would be better suited. I have no experience with nosql but I would appreciate if anyone has any ideas. What i need is quick access to the read only database. | 2010/05/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2862370",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/310783/"
] | >
> I have setup a Ehcache which greatly improves the read from database times. I'm now setting terracotta + Ehcache distributed caching to share the cache with multiple Tomcat JVMs. This seems a bit complicated.
>
>
>
Since your data are read-only, I'm tempted to say that you could live without [distributed and replicated caching](http://ehcache.org/documentation/distributed_caching.html), unless the overhead of the initial load of caches is **that critical** (and in that case, it is not that hard to configure Ehcache, you just need to know where you go). So, if you think you really need this, maybe ask for more specific guidance.
>
> I'm wondering if a MongoDb or Redis would be better suited. I have no experience with nosql but I would appreciate if anyone has any ideas. What i need is quick access to the read only database.
>
>
>
First of all, if you go the NoSQL way, forget Hibernate (might not be an issue though). Secondly, I really wonder what is more complicated: (not) configuring Ehcache to be distributed (I'm still not convinced you need it) or changing your approach for something radically different (that the VAST majority of enterprise business don't need). Thirdly, **nothing will be faster than reading data from memory** in the same JVM.
To summarize: I would 1. consider not using distributed caching (and say goodbye to the configuration problem) or 2. configure Ehcache for distributed caching (I think this is less complicated than changing your whole approach). | First of all mongodb is not a cache per se. its a persistent data store just like mysql is a persistent data store.
so now your question boils down to "should i use ehcache or redis". having used ehcache i can tell you that is a pretty good solution for a distributed cache that does replication/clustering, cache invalidation, monitoring and instrumentation capability.
since your data is read only, a simple distributed map like hazelcast would work as well. its pretty simple to use. |
2,862,370 | I'm building a Route Planner Webapp using Spring/Hibernate/Tomcat and a mysql database,
I have a database containing read only data, such as Bus Stop Coordinates, Bus times which is never updated. I'm trying to make the app run faster, each time the application is run it will preform approx 1000 reads to the database to calculate a route.
I have setup a Ehcache which greatly improves the read from database times.
I'm now setting terracotta + Ehcache distributed caching to share the cache with multiple Tomcat JVMs. This seems a bit complicated. I've tried memcached but it was not performing as fast as ehcache.
I'm wondering if a MongoDb or Redis would be better suited. I have no experience with nosql but I would appreciate if anyone has any ideas. What i need is quick access to the read only database. | 2010/05/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2862370",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/310783/"
] | if you want to try routing, you even might look at Neo4j, see [the blog on using an A\* algo for](http://blogs.neotechnology.com/peter/2010/04/cool-spatial-algos-with-neo4j-part1-routing-with-a.html) | First of all mongodb is not a cache per se. its a persistent data store just like mysql is a persistent data store.
so now your question boils down to "should i use ehcache or redis". having used ehcache i can tell you that is a pretty good solution for a distributed cache that does replication/clustering, cache invalidation, monitoring and instrumentation capability.
since your data is read only, a simple distributed map like hazelcast would work as well. its pretty simple to use. |
2,388 | This question has been closed as general reference: [Who is the cat in chapter 17 of Prisoner of Azkaban?](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/26481/who-was-the-cat-in-the-chapter-17-of-3rd-book)
I think the question deserves downvotes but not close votes. If you see comments there, CVers have chosen Wikia and Google as a ground of general reference which is wrong as per community standards.
Why was the question closed? Should it have been? | 2012/11/03 | [
"https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2388",
"https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/users/931/"
] | The Wikipedia entry for [Prisoner of Azkaban](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_azkaban) describes clearly the relevant plot from chapter 17.
>
> While at his cabin, **Hermione discovers *Scabbers* in Hagrid's milk jug**.
> They leave, and Buckbeak is executed. As Ron, Harry, and Hermione are
> leaving Hagrid's house and reeling from the sound of the axe, **the
> *large black dog* approaches them**, pounces on Ron, and drags him under
> the Whomping Willow. **Harry and Hermione and *Crookshanks* dash down
> after them**; oddly, Crookshanks knows the secret knob to press to still
> the flailing tree. They move through an underground tunnel and arrive
> at the Shrieking Shack. They find that the black dog has turned into
> Sirius Black and is in a room with Ron. Harry, Ron, and Hermione
> manage to disarm Black, and before Harry can kill Black, avenging his
> parents' deaths, Professor Lupin enters the room and disarms him.
> Harry, Ron, and Hermione are aghast as Lupin and Black exchange a
> series of nods and embrace. Once the three students calm down enough
> to listen, Lupin and Black explain everything. Lupin is a werewolf who
> remains tame through a special steaming potion made for him by Snape.
> While Lupin was a student at Hogwarts, his best friends, James Potter,
> Sirius Black, and Peter Pettigrew, became Animagi (humans able to take
> on animal forms) so that they could romp in the grounds with Lupin at
> the full moon. They explain how Snape once followed Lupin toward his
> transformation site in a practical joke set up by Sirius, and was
> rescued narrowly by James Potter. At this moment, Snape reveals
> himself from underneath Harry's dropped invisibility cloak, but Harry,
> Ron, and Hermione disarm him, rendering him unconscious. Lupin and
> Black then explain that the real murderer of Harry's parents is not
> Black, but Peter Pettigrew, who has been presumed dead but really
> hidden all these years disguised as Scabbers. Lupin transforms
> Scabbers into Pettigrew, who squeals and hedges but ultimately
> confesses, revealing himself to be Voldemort's servant, and Black to
> be innocent. They all travel back to Hogwarts, but at the sight of the
> full moon, Lupin, who has forgotten to take his controlling potion
> (the steaming liquid), turns into a werewolf. Sirius Black responds by
> turning into the large black dog in order to protect Harry, Ron, and
> Hermione from Lupin. As Black returns from driving the werewolf into
> the woods, a swarm of Dementors approaches, and Black is paralyzed
> with fear. One of the Dementors prepares to suck the soul out of
> Harry, whose patronus charm is simply not strong enough. Out of
> somewhere comes a patronus that drives the Dementors away. Harry
> faints.
>
>
>
The Cat, Rat, and Dog clearly listed in the Wikipedia article are Crookshanks, Scabbers, and Black. Unless we are to make the logical leap to assume that Crookshanks transubstantiated himself into McGonagall or some other Cat within the Shrieking Shack, it clearly answers this question. | >
> [We should only consider as general reference questions that can be easily answered by typing all or part of the question into Google](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/689/3267)
>
>
>
[Who is the cat in Prisoner of Azkaban](https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les;&gs_nf=3&tok=gtK427mJW24YjdkLF-IbcA&cp=37&gs_id=1j&xhr=t&q=Who+is+the+cat+in+Prisoner+of+Azkaban&pf=p&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Who+is+the+cat+in+Prisoner+of+Azkaban&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=6b5bfdee152656d4&bpcl=37189454&biw=1360&bih=606)
What is the *very first word* of the results?
>
> Crookshanks
>
>
> |
29,642 | I noticed in the book "A Beautiful Mind", by Sylvia Nasar, that a recommendation letter, for PhD applications, written for John F. Nash runs as follows: *This man is a genius.*
Then, out of curiosity, I wonder that if such reference letters for PhD applications work in the present days?
Image taken from the [Graduate Alumni Records](http://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/AC105/c3) of Princeton University:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p7gtk.jpg) | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29642",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18107/"
] | Even though the event that inspired this questions may or may not have actually happened, the question is still a valid one.
I suspect it greatly depends on who wrote the recommendation. If the person writing that recommendation is a great authority in this field and is known for not giving praise easily, then such a recommendation letter might help. On the other hand, if I were to write such a letter... | A letter that simply states "This man is a genius" is not helpful for judging the likelihood of a PhD applicant being successful since it takes a lot more than genius to succeed at a PhD and genius is not a requirement for success. Further, the skills required to become "academically famous" do not necessarily make you better at judging the abilities of others. Academically famous people many see more good students than others, but that is not enough for me to take their word at face value, I want to see evidence of why the recommender thinks the person is a genius. Finally, if the student is so good that nothing more needs to be said about, I would be worried about why an academically famous person would be unable to convince his department to accept the genius and convince the genius to attend. |
29,642 | I noticed in the book "A Beautiful Mind", by Sylvia Nasar, that a recommendation letter, for PhD applications, written for John F. Nash runs as follows: *This man is a genius.*
Then, out of curiosity, I wonder that if such reference letters for PhD applications work in the present days?
Image taken from the [Graduate Alumni Records](http://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/AC105/c3) of Princeton University:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p7gtk.jpg) | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29642",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18107/"
] | Even though the event that inspired this questions may or may not have actually happened, the question is still a valid one.
I suspect it greatly depends on who wrote the recommendation. If the person writing that recommendation is a great authority in this field and is known for not giving praise easily, then such a recommendation letter might help. On the other hand, if I were to write such a letter... | In my experience, most communities of high achieving people don't openly value intelligence. Generally they dismiss it and say that hard work and luck is what's really important. And they would laugh at you if you wrote your IQ score on your resume.
If someone said "Person X is very smart" and didn't write anything else, I would see it as a backhanded compliment. Like "X is smart, but he doesn't have the traits that are *actually* valuable in academia."
In fact, if I don't like a professor, and someone asks me what it's like to work with them, I usually say something like "this guy is brilliant." Which is true for pretty much every professor at a good university. |
29,642 | I noticed in the book "A Beautiful Mind", by Sylvia Nasar, that a recommendation letter, for PhD applications, written for John F. Nash runs as follows: *This man is a genius.*
Then, out of curiosity, I wonder that if such reference letters for PhD applications work in the present days?
Image taken from the [Graduate Alumni Records](http://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/AC105/c3) of Princeton University:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p7gtk.jpg) | 2014/10/09 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29642",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18107/"
] | A letter that simply states "This man is a genius" is not helpful for judging the likelihood of a PhD applicant being successful since it takes a lot more than genius to succeed at a PhD and genius is not a requirement for success. Further, the skills required to become "academically famous" do not necessarily make you better at judging the abilities of others. Academically famous people many see more good students than others, but that is not enough for me to take their word at face value, I want to see evidence of why the recommender thinks the person is a genius. Finally, if the student is so good that nothing more needs to be said about, I would be worried about why an academically famous person would be unable to convince his department to accept the genius and convince the genius to attend. | In my experience, most communities of high achieving people don't openly value intelligence. Generally they dismiss it and say that hard work and luck is what's really important. And they would laugh at you if you wrote your IQ score on your resume.
If someone said "Person X is very smart" and didn't write anything else, I would see it as a backhanded compliment. Like "X is smart, but he doesn't have the traits that are *actually* valuable in academia."
In fact, if I don't like a professor, and someone asks me what it's like to work with them, I usually say something like "this guy is brilliant." Which is true for pretty much every professor at a good university. |
120,940 | I am creating a resumé. I want to know whether mentioning stackoverflow profile counts for much in terms of interview factors, e.g. showing my knowledgeability and performance. | 2012/02/01 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120940",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/177840/"
] | It entirely depends on the person who is going to interview you, I guess. And of course, what your profile looks like. In general, Stack Overflow has become a very well-known resource over the past years - especially in the US, there is a good chance your interviewer knows the site.
If you are referring to your [current Stack Overflow profile](https://stackoverflow.com/users/1053416/yellow-page), I'd say it won't impress a recruiter much in it current state - it contains 4 questions, one of them downvoted, and only one answer that, while probably helpful, doesn't help prove that you are a knowledgeable person. | Currently the answer is No, as Pekka [already said](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/120941/152859).
However, if and when you will gain enough reputation you will be invited to create a professional profile [here](http://careers.stackoverflow.com/). ( Stack Overflow Careers site)
This can be introduced in job interviews and will even help you find jobs, pretty similar to LinkedIn. |
10,789 | I was riding late in the night and weather was colder than what we normally have.
(May not be cold for others, but it was cold for us, people used to with typical subcontinental weather. Temperature had dropped to 5 oC, which is wayyy cold for us)
While riding my way back home which takes hours, I kept on getting tempted to stand nearby a bonfire set up in villages on the way.
I wasn't having enough clothing to keep me warm, which I agree is a stupid thing to go with. Though, despite of being tempted to stand by a bonfire, I refrained from doing so, because I thought I would have felt a bit warm and better, but would have to start riding again which would make me cold and may be I'd end up feeling colder than before.
Was it the right thing to do? | 2016/02/04 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/10789",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/2303/"
] | **EDIT:** Please also read the other answer, which tells you why wrong (well perhaps not for 100% of the cases=)
This is just *my* experience: I would warm up if I felt cold and had the opportunity to do so. Sure, slowly getting cold again is not comfortable, but staying cold for an even longer time is worse.
Another effect that I noticed is that warming up really brightens the mood (especially if you are with other people), which obviously again helps bearing the cold. E.g. in outdoor camps we used to say that the *moodkillers* were
* being cold/soaken
* being hungry (or only having bad food)
* being tired
And any combination of those makes the others worse. And sums it up pretty well in my experience. | I think part of what is missing in your question and the answer by flawr is core body temperature.
When you first get cold your body automatically shunts blood away from the surface of your skin to decrease heat loss. As you get colder your core body temperature falls (you could think of it like the cold sinking in, but that is not literally true).
When you stand next to the fire, your outer skin starts to warm, but your core temperature does not respond as quickly. Most of your nerves for temperature are in your skin, not in your muscles and insides. When your skin gets to a certain temperature, your body responds by pushing more blood to the surface, trying to keep you from overheating.
You step away from the fire and your skin is still warm and flushed with blood, you will likely have increased heat loss until your blood vessels in your skin shunt the blood back to your core.
In much the same way that a fire in a fireplace (as opposed to an airtight stove) can result in a net heat loss to the house, a short heating next to a hot fire on a cold day can result in a net heat loss to your body. There are of course many variables, but if you are feeling colder, you probably are.
**Edit**
Per request in comments I looked for research specific to the scenario I described. I have included several references to the basic principals of heat exchange related to blood at the skin level. I did not find anything specific to net heat loss **OR** gain from a short warming near the fire. I have experienced this perceived colder after a brief warming, and while I believe my hypothesis above is realistic, it seems to be untested under scientific conditions.
References
* [NEUROPHYSIOLOGY OF THERMOREGULATION](http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c01/c01links/www.science.mcmaster.ca/biology/4s03/thermoregulation.html)
* [PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO THE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT](http://www.ilocis.org/documents/chpt42e.htm)
* [Outdoor Action Guide to
Hypothermia And Cold Weather Injuries](https://www.princeton.edu/~oa/safety/hypocold.shtml) |
1,435,959 | Does PHP have global variables that can be modified by one running script and read by another? | 2009/09/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1435959",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41021/"
] | No, by design PHP is a "share nothing" architecture, which means nothing is shared between processes running at the same time or between requests running one after another. There are ways to share data, but you have to do it explicitly.
If you just want to share between 2 requests from the same user, sessions or cookies might be the way to go.
If you want to share between multiple users, you probably want some sort of shared persistence, either short term in a cache (eg. memcached) or more robust like a database.
Either way, the data is actually being retrieved and reconstructed on each request. It's just handled automatically for you in the case of sessions. | Not as such, but you can use cookies or sessions to maintain data for duration of a user's browsing experience, or you can write to a database or file on-disk if the information needs to persist beyond that. |
1,435,959 | Does PHP have global variables that can be modified by one running script and read by another? | 2009/09/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1435959",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41021/"
] | Each request is handled by a php instance of its own. Global variables in php are only accessible from within the same php instance. However you can use something like the [memchached module](http://docs.php.net/memcached) to share data between different instances (which should usually be faster than writing the data to the filesystem). | Global variables are bad in most programming. They're especially bad in multithreaded/multiuser systems like webapps. Avoid. If you must use global variables (rather than global constants) put them in a database with transactions guarding updates.
Since you talk about different scripts though, it sounds like what you really want is a web application framework in a more application oriented language --- something like Django (python) or Rails (ruby). These let you think of your code much more like a cohesive PROGRAM, rather than a lot of loosely connected scripts that process web requests. |
1,435,959 | Does PHP have global variables that can be modified by one running script and read by another? | 2009/09/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1435959",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41021/"
] | Not as such, but you can use cookies or sessions to maintain data for duration of a user's browsing experience, or you can write to a database or file on-disk if the information needs to persist beyond that. | Global variables are bad in most programming. They're especially bad in multithreaded/multiuser systems like webapps. Avoid. If you must use global variables (rather than global constants) put them in a database with transactions guarding updates.
Since you talk about different scripts though, it sounds like what you really want is a web application framework in a more application oriented language --- something like Django (python) or Rails (ruby). These let you think of your code much more like a cohesive PROGRAM, rather than a lot of loosely connected scripts that process web requests. |
1,435,959 | Does PHP have global variables that can be modified by one running script and read by another? | 2009/09/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1435959",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41021/"
] | Each request is handled by a php instance of its own. Global variables in php are only accessible from within the same php instance. However you can use something like the [memchached module](http://docs.php.net/memcached) to share data between different instances (which should usually be faster than writing the data to the filesystem). | Not as such, but you can use cookies or sessions to maintain data for duration of a user's browsing experience, or you can write to a database or file on-disk if the information needs to persist beyond that. |
1,435,959 | Does PHP have global variables that can be modified by one running script and read by another? | 2009/09/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1435959",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41021/"
] | You can actually do this using [shared memory](http://us.php.net/sem), or [APC](http://php.net/apc) (which is using shared memory itself). | Not as such, but you can use cookies or sessions to maintain data for duration of a user's browsing experience, or you can write to a database or file on-disk if the information needs to persist beyond that. |
314,892 | I've been using MongoDB on CentOS with ext4 for a few months now with no problems. I'm potentially going to be moving to Joyentcloud, and their SmartOS is based off of OpenSolaris and uses ZFS. I'm wondering if there could be some downsides to switching to this for MongoDB? | 2011/09/23 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/314892",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/8964/"
] | If you want all mails redirected to Gmail, then you can accept it there instead. Without redirecting. All mails are handled at Google directly. This is called [Google Apps](http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html) and is free for no charge for a limited amount of users. And as I understood you only have one per domain. | MailEnable is a lightwieght and free Windows mail server, dead easy too
Google for it, you can set it up as easy or as complex as you like
Good luck |
130,682 | As far as I can see a cape and a hood are mostly identical type of clothing. Does that mean that they are synonyms? What's the difference between them?
I was watching the cartoon and the movie and she isn't wearing a hood, she wears a cape and a hat there. Why is her name Red Riding Hood, what does riding mean? And why is her clothing called a hood?
P.s. Why *red riding hood* while it should be *red hat*. | 2017/05/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/130682",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/44134/"
] | Capes and hoods are not identical. They can be worn together, but they are separate pieces of clothing. Capes are sleeveless cloaks, often associated with superhero attire. Long, flowing pieces of material affixed to the neck/shoulder area in some fashion.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MUFOo.jpg)
Hoods are a form of headwear, that cover the head and neck and expose the face. They often form part of a coat or cloak, and inspire the name *hoodie* for hooded sweatshirts and jackets.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FU1tV.jpg)
As you can see, these are very different pieces of clothing.
With regards to your postscript, this is because hats and hoods are different classes of headwear. Hats generally do not cover the neck and have brims, which hoods do not have. | A riding hood is [*an enveloping hood or hooded cloak worn for riding and as an outdoor wrap by women and children.* - M-W](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riding%20hood) This kind of garb was probably more common when people routinely got around on horseback (like in the days when popular old children's stories were written). Pulling the hood back off the head would make it blend in with the rest of the cloak.
But in re-envisioning old stories into modern picture books or cartoons, original meaning is often lost. "Little Red Riding Hood" becomes the girl's name instead of a nickname based on a reference to her red cloak, and her outfit might be revised to be more modern and familiar to what children relate to. Similarly, "Goldilocks" becomes the girl's literal name instead of a reference to her hair color (if the story had been written today, she might have been called "Blondie"). |
2,410 | We often seem to accept the idea that there were periods of time in which the entire surface of Earth was frozen, for the most part. This implies that there were periods of time in which the entire surface was NOT frozen over. Thus, there must have been heat and energy present on the surface. How did all that energy move to cause an ice age? It seems absurd for all that energy to just radiate into space or move deep into the Earth. | 2014/08/27 | [
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2410",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/users/813/"
] | I'm not quite sure if the question is asking about glacial, ice ages, or snowball Earth, and whether it's about the onset or end of a glacial period. I'll try to hit all three.
Ice Ages and Milankovitch Cycles
--------------------------------
Ice ages are long spans of time that marked by periods of time during which ice reaches far from the poles, interspersed by periods during which the ice retreats (but never quite goes away). The periods of time during which ice covers a good sized fraction of the Earth are called glacials; the periods during which ice retreats to only cover areas in the far north and far south are called interglacials. We are living in ice age conditions, right now. There's still ice on Antarctica and Greenland. We are also in an interglacial period within that larger ice age. The current ice age began about 33 million years ago while the current interglacial began about 11,700 years ago.
The [Milankovitch cycles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) determine whether the Earth is in a glacial or interglacial period. Conditions are right for ice to form and spread when precession puts northern hemisphere summer near aphelion and winter near perihelion and when both obliquity and eccentricity are low. The Earth currently satisfies the first of those conditions, but obliquity and eccentricity are a bit too high. That makes our northern hemisphere summers are a bit too warm, our winters a bit too cold.
The Milankovitch cycles] provides several answers to the question "where does the energy go?" Those times when conditions are ripe for glaciation have energy in the northern hemisphere spread more uniformly across the year than times not conducive to glaciation. Summers are milder, which means accumulated snow doesn't melt as much. Winters are milder, which means more snow falls.
Once ice does become ubiquitous, another answer to the "where does the energy go" question is into space. Ice and snow are white. Their presence reduces the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth.
The first paper listed below by Hays et al. is the seminal paper that brought the concept of Milankovitch cycles to the forefront. The second paper by Abe-Ouchi et al. dicusses a recent climate simulation that successfully recovers many salient features of the most recent glaciations. Most importantly, this paper appears to have solved the 100,000 year mystery and shows why deglaciation operates so quickly.
[Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J., & Shackleton, N. J. (1976, December). "Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages." *American Association for the Advancement of Science.*](http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/Hays-Pacemaker_of_Ice_Ages-Sci76.pdf)
[Abe-Ouchi, A., Saito, F., Kawamura, K., Raymo, M. E., Okuno, J. I., Takahashi, K., & Blatter, H. (2013). "Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume." *Nature*, 500(7461), 190-193.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/abs/nature12374.html)
Icehouse Earth vs Greenhouse Earth
----------------------------------
The Earth's climate appears to have been toggling between two climate extremes for much of the Earth's existence, one where things are cold and ice is likely to form and the other where ice is absent worldwide except maybe right at the poles. Dinosaurs roamed the arctic and Antarctica when the Earth was in one of its greenhouse phases. The Earth has been in a greenhouse phase for most of the Earth's existence.
Milankovitch cycles don't cause glaciation during greenhouse Earth periods. Ice ages happen when the Earth is in an icehouse phase. What appears to distinguish greenhouse and icehouse phases are the positions and orientations of the continents. Having a continent located over a pole helps cool the climate. Having continents oriented so they channel ocean circulation in a way that keeps the ocean cool also helps cool the climate.
The Earth transitioned from its hothouse mode to its icehouse mode 33 million years ago or so. That's right about when two key events happened in the ocean. Up until then, Antarctica was still connected to both Australia and South America. The separation from Tasmania formed the Tasmanian Gateway, while the separation from South America formed the Drake Passage. This marked the birth of the very cold Southern Ocean, it marked the buildup of ice on Antarctica, and it marked the end of the Eocene.
[Bijl, P. K., Bendle, J. A., Bohaty, S. M., Pross, J., Schouten, S., Tauxe, L., ... & Yamane, M. (2013). "Eocene cooling linked to early flow across the Tasmanian Gateway." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 110(24), 9645-9650.](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/24/9645.abstract)
[Exon, N., Kennett, J., & Malone, M. Leg 189 Shipboard Scientific Party (2000). "The opening of the Tasmanian gateway drove global Cenozoic paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic changes: Results of Leg 189." *JOIDES J*, 26(2), 11-18.](http://a.ennyu.com/pdf/Exon_JoiJour_00.pdf)
Snowball Earth and the Faint Young Sun Paradox
----------------------------------------------
Snowball Earth episodes were not your average ice age. Ice typically doesn't come near the tropics, even in the worst of ice ages. Snowball Earth means just that; the snow and ice encroached well into the tropics, possibly extending all the way to the equator.
The problem with snowball Earth isn't explaining where all the energy went. The real problem is explaining why the ancient Earth wasn't in a permanent snowball Earth condition, starting from shortly after the Earth radiated away the initial heat from the formation of the Earth.
The solar constant is not quite constant. While it doesn't change much at all from year to year, or even century to century, it changes a lot over the course of billions of years. Young G class stars produce considerably less energy than do middle aged G class stars, which in turn produce considerably less energy than do older G class stars. When our Sun was young, it produced only 75% or so as much energy than it does now.
By all rights, the Earth should have been completely covered with ice. The young Sun did not produce enough energy to support open oceans. This obviously was not the case. There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth had open oceans even when the Earth was quite young.
This 40 year old conundrum, first raised by Carl Sagan and George Mullen, is the [faint young Sun paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox). There have been a number of proposed ways out of the paradox, but none of them quite line up with the geological evidence.
One obvious way out is that the Earth's early atmosphere was very different from our nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and contained significantly more greenhouse gases. The amount of greenhouse gases needed to avert a permanent snowball Earth is highly debated, ranging from not much at all to extreme amounts. Another way out is a reduced albedo due to the significantly smaller early continents and lack of life. The young Earth would have been mostly ocean, and ocean water is rather dark (unless it's covered with ice). Lack of life means no biogenic cloud condensation nuclei, which means fewer clouds.
[Goldblatt, C., & Zahnle, K. J. (2011). "Faint young Sun paradox remains." *Nature*, 474(7349), E1-E1.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/abs/nature09961.html)
[Kienert, H., Feulner, G., & Petoukhov, V. (2012). "Faint young Sun problem more severe due to ice‐albedo feedback and higher rotation rate of the early Earth." *Geophysical Research Letters*, 39(23).](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract)
[Rosing, M. T., Bird, D. K., Sleep, N. H., & Bjerrum, C. J. (2010). "No climate paradox under the faint early Sun." *Nature*, 464(7289), 744-747.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/abs/nature08955.html) | What's not been touched yet, and the current answers do cover a lot of ground, is the variability of solar input.
Even IF the amount of energy radiated out by the earth remains the same (and it probably would, roughly), solar input is highly variable and is a major factor in determining the total energy budget of the planet.
Even a small change can have far reaching consequences. Thus if the sun's output goes down by only a few percent (and that's well within its variability even over the 11 year sunspot cycle) temperatures on earth will swing with that (over that short a cycle that's pretty much averaged out by changes in ocean currents). If such a "dip" lasts longer, think a few centuries, you get a "little ice age" as we just emerged from in the 19th century (and by some accounts may be on the verge of slipping into the next, as the sun is again seemingly rather inactive).
And the sun has longer cycles, such a low activity cycle lasting a few thousand years can well drop the earth into a full scale ice age. And as the ice sheets grow, reflection goes up, less energy heats the planet, less clouds form. Until the sun enters a high activity phase again, the planet will remain (relatively) cold.
As said, this is unlikely to cause the entire planet to disappear under a blanket of ice. The last major ice age "only" came down to about the latitude of the Rhine delta in Europe for example. |
2,410 | We often seem to accept the idea that there were periods of time in which the entire surface of Earth was frozen, for the most part. This implies that there were periods of time in which the entire surface was NOT frozen over. Thus, there must have been heat and energy present on the surface. How did all that energy move to cause an ice age? It seems absurd for all that energy to just radiate into space or move deep into the Earth. | 2014/08/27 | [
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2410",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/users/813/"
] | I'm not quite sure if the question is asking about glacial, ice ages, or snowball Earth, and whether it's about the onset or end of a glacial period. I'll try to hit all three.
Ice Ages and Milankovitch Cycles
--------------------------------
Ice ages are long spans of time that marked by periods of time during which ice reaches far from the poles, interspersed by periods during which the ice retreats (but never quite goes away). The periods of time during which ice covers a good sized fraction of the Earth are called glacials; the periods during which ice retreats to only cover areas in the far north and far south are called interglacials. We are living in ice age conditions, right now. There's still ice on Antarctica and Greenland. We are also in an interglacial period within that larger ice age. The current ice age began about 33 million years ago while the current interglacial began about 11,700 years ago.
The [Milankovitch cycles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) determine whether the Earth is in a glacial or interglacial period. Conditions are right for ice to form and spread when precession puts northern hemisphere summer near aphelion and winter near perihelion and when both obliquity and eccentricity are low. The Earth currently satisfies the first of those conditions, but obliquity and eccentricity are a bit too high. That makes our northern hemisphere summers are a bit too warm, our winters a bit too cold.
The Milankovitch cycles] provides several answers to the question "where does the energy go?" Those times when conditions are ripe for glaciation have energy in the northern hemisphere spread more uniformly across the year than times not conducive to glaciation. Summers are milder, which means accumulated snow doesn't melt as much. Winters are milder, which means more snow falls.
Once ice does become ubiquitous, another answer to the "where does the energy go" question is into space. Ice and snow are white. Their presence reduces the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth.
The first paper listed below by Hays et al. is the seminal paper that brought the concept of Milankovitch cycles to the forefront. The second paper by Abe-Ouchi et al. dicusses a recent climate simulation that successfully recovers many salient features of the most recent glaciations. Most importantly, this paper appears to have solved the 100,000 year mystery and shows why deglaciation operates so quickly.
[Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J., & Shackleton, N. J. (1976, December). "Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages." *American Association for the Advancement of Science.*](http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/Hays-Pacemaker_of_Ice_Ages-Sci76.pdf)
[Abe-Ouchi, A., Saito, F., Kawamura, K., Raymo, M. E., Okuno, J. I., Takahashi, K., & Blatter, H. (2013). "Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume." *Nature*, 500(7461), 190-193.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/abs/nature12374.html)
Icehouse Earth vs Greenhouse Earth
----------------------------------
The Earth's climate appears to have been toggling between two climate extremes for much of the Earth's existence, one where things are cold and ice is likely to form and the other where ice is absent worldwide except maybe right at the poles. Dinosaurs roamed the arctic and Antarctica when the Earth was in one of its greenhouse phases. The Earth has been in a greenhouse phase for most of the Earth's existence.
Milankovitch cycles don't cause glaciation during greenhouse Earth periods. Ice ages happen when the Earth is in an icehouse phase. What appears to distinguish greenhouse and icehouse phases are the positions and orientations of the continents. Having a continent located over a pole helps cool the climate. Having continents oriented so they channel ocean circulation in a way that keeps the ocean cool also helps cool the climate.
The Earth transitioned from its hothouse mode to its icehouse mode 33 million years ago or so. That's right about when two key events happened in the ocean. Up until then, Antarctica was still connected to both Australia and South America. The separation from Tasmania formed the Tasmanian Gateway, while the separation from South America formed the Drake Passage. This marked the birth of the very cold Southern Ocean, it marked the buildup of ice on Antarctica, and it marked the end of the Eocene.
[Bijl, P. K., Bendle, J. A., Bohaty, S. M., Pross, J., Schouten, S., Tauxe, L., ... & Yamane, M. (2013). "Eocene cooling linked to early flow across the Tasmanian Gateway." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 110(24), 9645-9650.](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/24/9645.abstract)
[Exon, N., Kennett, J., & Malone, M. Leg 189 Shipboard Scientific Party (2000). "The opening of the Tasmanian gateway drove global Cenozoic paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic changes: Results of Leg 189." *JOIDES J*, 26(2), 11-18.](http://a.ennyu.com/pdf/Exon_JoiJour_00.pdf)
Snowball Earth and the Faint Young Sun Paradox
----------------------------------------------
Snowball Earth episodes were not your average ice age. Ice typically doesn't come near the tropics, even in the worst of ice ages. Snowball Earth means just that; the snow and ice encroached well into the tropics, possibly extending all the way to the equator.
The problem with snowball Earth isn't explaining where all the energy went. The real problem is explaining why the ancient Earth wasn't in a permanent snowball Earth condition, starting from shortly after the Earth radiated away the initial heat from the formation of the Earth.
The solar constant is not quite constant. While it doesn't change much at all from year to year, or even century to century, it changes a lot over the course of billions of years. Young G class stars produce considerably less energy than do middle aged G class stars, which in turn produce considerably less energy than do older G class stars. When our Sun was young, it produced only 75% or so as much energy than it does now.
By all rights, the Earth should have been completely covered with ice. The young Sun did not produce enough energy to support open oceans. This obviously was not the case. There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth had open oceans even when the Earth was quite young.
This 40 year old conundrum, first raised by Carl Sagan and George Mullen, is the [faint young Sun paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox). There have been a number of proposed ways out of the paradox, but none of them quite line up with the geological evidence.
One obvious way out is that the Earth's early atmosphere was very different from our nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and contained significantly more greenhouse gases. The amount of greenhouse gases needed to avert a permanent snowball Earth is highly debated, ranging from not much at all to extreme amounts. Another way out is a reduced albedo due to the significantly smaller early continents and lack of life. The young Earth would have been mostly ocean, and ocean water is rather dark (unless it's covered with ice). Lack of life means no biogenic cloud condensation nuclei, which means fewer clouds.
[Goldblatt, C., & Zahnle, K. J. (2011). "Faint young Sun paradox remains." *Nature*, 474(7349), E1-E1.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/abs/nature09961.html)
[Kienert, H., Feulner, G., & Petoukhov, V. (2012). "Faint young Sun problem more severe due to ice‐albedo feedback and higher rotation rate of the early Earth." *Geophysical Research Letters*, 39(23).](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract)
[Rosing, M. T., Bird, D. K., Sleep, N. H., & Bjerrum, C. J. (2010). "No climate paradox under the faint early Sun." *Nature*, 464(7289), 744-747.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/abs/nature08955.html) | ,
I propose that the “snow ball Earth” was brought to a close by the dust from a huge meteorite (the largest known on Earth) impacting Australia (see <http://charles_w.tripod.com/antipode.html> ) settling onto the ice and melting it by a bare soil warming affect (see <http://charles_w.tripod.com/climate.html> ) and thus initiating the Cambrian. The dust fertilizing the ocean probably contributed considerably to the explosion of life then. That initiation was probably considerably assisted by the subsequent release of methane gas from methane ice under the ocean floor and by dust from volcanic eruptions from the Bahamas Islands, which are located at the antipode (opposite side of a sphere) of the above impact. The close correlation of volcanoes on Mars with meteorite impacts at their antipodes gives supporting evidence for such a phenomenon.
.
Sincerely, Charles Weber |
2,410 | We often seem to accept the idea that there were periods of time in which the entire surface of Earth was frozen, for the most part. This implies that there were periods of time in which the entire surface was NOT frozen over. Thus, there must have been heat and energy present on the surface. How did all that energy move to cause an ice age? It seems absurd for all that energy to just radiate into space or move deep into the Earth. | 2014/08/27 | [
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2410",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/users/813/"
] | I'm not quite sure if the question is asking about glacial, ice ages, or snowball Earth, and whether it's about the onset or end of a glacial period. I'll try to hit all three.
Ice Ages and Milankovitch Cycles
--------------------------------
Ice ages are long spans of time that marked by periods of time during which ice reaches far from the poles, interspersed by periods during which the ice retreats (but never quite goes away). The periods of time during which ice covers a good sized fraction of the Earth are called glacials; the periods during which ice retreats to only cover areas in the far north and far south are called interglacials. We are living in ice age conditions, right now. There's still ice on Antarctica and Greenland. We are also in an interglacial period within that larger ice age. The current ice age began about 33 million years ago while the current interglacial began about 11,700 years ago.
The [Milankovitch cycles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) determine whether the Earth is in a glacial or interglacial period. Conditions are right for ice to form and spread when precession puts northern hemisphere summer near aphelion and winter near perihelion and when both obliquity and eccentricity are low. The Earth currently satisfies the first of those conditions, but obliquity and eccentricity are a bit too high. That makes our northern hemisphere summers are a bit too warm, our winters a bit too cold.
The Milankovitch cycles] provides several answers to the question "where does the energy go?" Those times when conditions are ripe for glaciation have energy in the northern hemisphere spread more uniformly across the year than times not conducive to glaciation. Summers are milder, which means accumulated snow doesn't melt as much. Winters are milder, which means more snow falls.
Once ice does become ubiquitous, another answer to the "where does the energy go" question is into space. Ice and snow are white. Their presence reduces the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth.
The first paper listed below by Hays et al. is the seminal paper that brought the concept of Milankovitch cycles to the forefront. The second paper by Abe-Ouchi et al. dicusses a recent climate simulation that successfully recovers many salient features of the most recent glaciations. Most importantly, this paper appears to have solved the 100,000 year mystery and shows why deglaciation operates so quickly.
[Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J., & Shackleton, N. J. (1976, December). "Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages." *American Association for the Advancement of Science.*](http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/Hays-Pacemaker_of_Ice_Ages-Sci76.pdf)
[Abe-Ouchi, A., Saito, F., Kawamura, K., Raymo, M. E., Okuno, J. I., Takahashi, K., & Blatter, H. (2013). "Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume." *Nature*, 500(7461), 190-193.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/abs/nature12374.html)
Icehouse Earth vs Greenhouse Earth
----------------------------------
The Earth's climate appears to have been toggling between two climate extremes for much of the Earth's existence, one where things are cold and ice is likely to form and the other where ice is absent worldwide except maybe right at the poles. Dinosaurs roamed the arctic and Antarctica when the Earth was in one of its greenhouse phases. The Earth has been in a greenhouse phase for most of the Earth's existence.
Milankovitch cycles don't cause glaciation during greenhouse Earth periods. Ice ages happen when the Earth is in an icehouse phase. What appears to distinguish greenhouse and icehouse phases are the positions and orientations of the continents. Having a continent located over a pole helps cool the climate. Having continents oriented so they channel ocean circulation in a way that keeps the ocean cool also helps cool the climate.
The Earth transitioned from its hothouse mode to its icehouse mode 33 million years ago or so. That's right about when two key events happened in the ocean. Up until then, Antarctica was still connected to both Australia and South America. The separation from Tasmania formed the Tasmanian Gateway, while the separation from South America formed the Drake Passage. This marked the birth of the very cold Southern Ocean, it marked the buildup of ice on Antarctica, and it marked the end of the Eocene.
[Bijl, P. K., Bendle, J. A., Bohaty, S. M., Pross, J., Schouten, S., Tauxe, L., ... & Yamane, M. (2013). "Eocene cooling linked to early flow across the Tasmanian Gateway." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 110(24), 9645-9650.](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/24/9645.abstract)
[Exon, N., Kennett, J., & Malone, M. Leg 189 Shipboard Scientific Party (2000). "The opening of the Tasmanian gateway drove global Cenozoic paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic changes: Results of Leg 189." *JOIDES J*, 26(2), 11-18.](http://a.ennyu.com/pdf/Exon_JoiJour_00.pdf)
Snowball Earth and the Faint Young Sun Paradox
----------------------------------------------
Snowball Earth episodes were not your average ice age. Ice typically doesn't come near the tropics, even in the worst of ice ages. Snowball Earth means just that; the snow and ice encroached well into the tropics, possibly extending all the way to the equator.
The problem with snowball Earth isn't explaining where all the energy went. The real problem is explaining why the ancient Earth wasn't in a permanent snowball Earth condition, starting from shortly after the Earth radiated away the initial heat from the formation of the Earth.
The solar constant is not quite constant. While it doesn't change much at all from year to year, or even century to century, it changes a lot over the course of billions of years. Young G class stars produce considerably less energy than do middle aged G class stars, which in turn produce considerably less energy than do older G class stars. When our Sun was young, it produced only 75% or so as much energy than it does now.
By all rights, the Earth should have been completely covered with ice. The young Sun did not produce enough energy to support open oceans. This obviously was not the case. There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth had open oceans even when the Earth was quite young.
This 40 year old conundrum, first raised by Carl Sagan and George Mullen, is the [faint young Sun paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox). There have been a number of proposed ways out of the paradox, but none of them quite line up with the geological evidence.
One obvious way out is that the Earth's early atmosphere was very different from our nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and contained significantly more greenhouse gases. The amount of greenhouse gases needed to avert a permanent snowball Earth is highly debated, ranging from not much at all to extreme amounts. Another way out is a reduced albedo due to the significantly smaller early continents and lack of life. The young Earth would have been mostly ocean, and ocean water is rather dark (unless it's covered with ice). Lack of life means no biogenic cloud condensation nuclei, which means fewer clouds.
[Goldblatt, C., & Zahnle, K. J. (2011). "Faint young Sun paradox remains." *Nature*, 474(7349), E1-E1.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/abs/nature09961.html)
[Kienert, H., Feulner, G., & Petoukhov, V. (2012). "Faint young Sun problem more severe due to ice‐albedo feedback and higher rotation rate of the early Earth." *Geophysical Research Letters*, 39(23).](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract)
[Rosing, M. T., Bird, D. K., Sleep, N. H., & Bjerrum, C. J. (2010). "No climate paradox under the faint early Sun." *Nature*, 464(7289), 744-747.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/abs/nature08955.html) | One cause of glaciation on earth is dust from volcanic activities ie you have heard the term volcanic or nuclear winter.
During glaciation continental plates with a mile or two of ice piled upon them increase vastly in weight and actually sink. When we see a rock we see a hard stone object, but that rock within the earth under a vast amount of pressure is not "rock" solid, it is more the like peanut butter, it is soft and pliable. This is how continental plates are able to sink under the weight of a mile or two thick sheet of ice.
Not only do the continental plates have weight pushing down on this peanut butter like rock beneath us, the oceans also have weight and they as well push the plates beneath them down into this peanut butter like stone.
During glacial maximums ocean levels drop by as much as 400 feet, so what is currently 400 feet underwater was dry land during the last glacial maximum. This loss of 400 feet of water across all the oceans of the earth greatly reduces weight upon the ocean floors. That same water is turned to snow and collects as ice on the continental plates this adds that same weight now to the continental plates. So the oceanic plates raise while the continental plates drop.
During interglacial periods you get a lightening of continental plates and the oceanic plates become heavier with the return of high ocean water levels ie global sea level rise such as we are experiencing currently. Continental plates rise and oceanic plates drop. This reaction is not immediate, again if you imagine peanut butter if you put a board over several inches of peanut butter and add weight to the board it takes some time for the peanut butter to squish out the sides, the same with the continental plates and the soft stone they sit atop of. It takes thousands of years for the continental plates to rebound to their original height. During this rebounding of the continental plates and the dropping of the oceanic plates volcanic activity slowly starts to increase. Eventually it is only a matter of time before you get another great volcanic eruption due the plate movement that produces a great deal of ash in the atmosphere, this continues again and again with increased levels of volcanic activity. This ash reflects light back into space before it is able to reach and warm the surface, thereby reducing average global temperatures.
This is certainly not the only mechanism that controls glacial maximum and interglacial periods but it does work in concert with the afore written answers to your question. The normal condition for our planet during human existence is glacial maximum conditions, what we are experiencing now an "interglacial" period exists only about 20% of the time somewhere on average of about 20k years per 100k years. This is the second interglacial period in the last 100k years. You have go back to 120k to 130k years for the next previous interglacial period. |
2,410 | We often seem to accept the idea that there were periods of time in which the entire surface of Earth was frozen, for the most part. This implies that there were periods of time in which the entire surface was NOT frozen over. Thus, there must have been heat and energy present on the surface. How did all that energy move to cause an ice age? It seems absurd for all that energy to just radiate into space or move deep into the Earth. | 2014/08/27 | [
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2410",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/users/813/"
] | What's not been touched yet, and the current answers do cover a lot of ground, is the variability of solar input.
Even IF the amount of energy radiated out by the earth remains the same (and it probably would, roughly), solar input is highly variable and is a major factor in determining the total energy budget of the planet.
Even a small change can have far reaching consequences. Thus if the sun's output goes down by only a few percent (and that's well within its variability even over the 11 year sunspot cycle) temperatures on earth will swing with that (over that short a cycle that's pretty much averaged out by changes in ocean currents). If such a "dip" lasts longer, think a few centuries, you get a "little ice age" as we just emerged from in the 19th century (and by some accounts may be on the verge of slipping into the next, as the sun is again seemingly rather inactive).
And the sun has longer cycles, such a low activity cycle lasting a few thousand years can well drop the earth into a full scale ice age. And as the ice sheets grow, reflection goes up, less energy heats the planet, less clouds form. Until the sun enters a high activity phase again, the planet will remain (relatively) cold.
As said, this is unlikely to cause the entire planet to disappear under a blanket of ice. The last major ice age "only" came down to about the latitude of the Rhine delta in Europe for example. | ,
I propose that the “snow ball Earth” was brought to a close by the dust from a huge meteorite (the largest known on Earth) impacting Australia (see <http://charles_w.tripod.com/antipode.html> ) settling onto the ice and melting it by a bare soil warming affect (see <http://charles_w.tripod.com/climate.html> ) and thus initiating the Cambrian. The dust fertilizing the ocean probably contributed considerably to the explosion of life then. That initiation was probably considerably assisted by the subsequent release of methane gas from methane ice under the ocean floor and by dust from volcanic eruptions from the Bahamas Islands, which are located at the antipode (opposite side of a sphere) of the above impact. The close correlation of volcanoes on Mars with meteorite impacts at their antipodes gives supporting evidence for such a phenomenon.
.
Sincerely, Charles Weber |
2,410 | We often seem to accept the idea that there were periods of time in which the entire surface of Earth was frozen, for the most part. This implies that there were periods of time in which the entire surface was NOT frozen over. Thus, there must have been heat and energy present on the surface. How did all that energy move to cause an ice age? It seems absurd for all that energy to just radiate into space or move deep into the Earth. | 2014/08/27 | [
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2410",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com",
"https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/users/813/"
] | What's not been touched yet, and the current answers do cover a lot of ground, is the variability of solar input.
Even IF the amount of energy radiated out by the earth remains the same (and it probably would, roughly), solar input is highly variable and is a major factor in determining the total energy budget of the planet.
Even a small change can have far reaching consequences. Thus if the sun's output goes down by only a few percent (and that's well within its variability even over the 11 year sunspot cycle) temperatures on earth will swing with that (over that short a cycle that's pretty much averaged out by changes in ocean currents). If such a "dip" lasts longer, think a few centuries, you get a "little ice age" as we just emerged from in the 19th century (and by some accounts may be on the verge of slipping into the next, as the sun is again seemingly rather inactive).
And the sun has longer cycles, such a low activity cycle lasting a few thousand years can well drop the earth into a full scale ice age. And as the ice sheets grow, reflection goes up, less energy heats the planet, less clouds form. Until the sun enters a high activity phase again, the planet will remain (relatively) cold.
As said, this is unlikely to cause the entire planet to disappear under a blanket of ice. The last major ice age "only" came down to about the latitude of the Rhine delta in Europe for example. | One cause of glaciation on earth is dust from volcanic activities ie you have heard the term volcanic or nuclear winter.
During glaciation continental plates with a mile or two of ice piled upon them increase vastly in weight and actually sink. When we see a rock we see a hard stone object, but that rock within the earth under a vast amount of pressure is not "rock" solid, it is more the like peanut butter, it is soft and pliable. This is how continental plates are able to sink under the weight of a mile or two thick sheet of ice.
Not only do the continental plates have weight pushing down on this peanut butter like rock beneath us, the oceans also have weight and they as well push the plates beneath them down into this peanut butter like stone.
During glacial maximums ocean levels drop by as much as 400 feet, so what is currently 400 feet underwater was dry land during the last glacial maximum. This loss of 400 feet of water across all the oceans of the earth greatly reduces weight upon the ocean floors. That same water is turned to snow and collects as ice on the continental plates this adds that same weight now to the continental plates. So the oceanic plates raise while the continental plates drop.
During interglacial periods you get a lightening of continental plates and the oceanic plates become heavier with the return of high ocean water levels ie global sea level rise such as we are experiencing currently. Continental plates rise and oceanic plates drop. This reaction is not immediate, again if you imagine peanut butter if you put a board over several inches of peanut butter and add weight to the board it takes some time for the peanut butter to squish out the sides, the same with the continental plates and the soft stone they sit atop of. It takes thousands of years for the continental plates to rebound to their original height. During this rebounding of the continental plates and the dropping of the oceanic plates volcanic activity slowly starts to increase. Eventually it is only a matter of time before you get another great volcanic eruption due the plate movement that produces a great deal of ash in the atmosphere, this continues again and again with increased levels of volcanic activity. This ash reflects light back into space before it is able to reach and warm the surface, thereby reducing average global temperatures.
This is certainly not the only mechanism that controls glacial maximum and interglacial periods but it does work in concert with the afore written answers to your question. The normal condition for our planet during human existence is glacial maximum conditions, what we are experiencing now an "interglacial" period exists only about 20% of the time somewhere on average of about 20k years per 100k years. This is the second interglacial period in the last 100k years. You have go back to 120k to 130k years for the next previous interglacial period. |
8,581 | ### Context:
I'm a Psychology PhD student. As with many psychology PhD students, I know how to perform various statistical analyses using statistical software, up to techniques such as PCA, classification trees, and cluster analysis.
But it's not really satisfying because though I can explain why I did an analysis and what the indicators mean, I can't explain how the technique works.
The real problem is that mastering statistical software is easy, but it is limited. To learn new techniques in articles requires that I understand how to read mathematical equations. At present I couldn't calculate eigenvalues or K-means. Equations are like a foreign language to me.
### Question:
* Is there a comprehensive guide that helps with understanding equations in journal articles?
---
### Edit:
I thought the question would be more self explanatory: above a certain complexity, statistical notation becomes gibberish for me; let's say I would like to code my own functions in R or C++ to understand a technique but there's a barrier. I can't transform an equation into a program.
And really: I don't know the situation in US doctoral schools, but in mine (France), the only courses I can follow is about some 16th century litterary movement... | 2011/03/21 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8581",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/3827/"
] | ### Overview:
* My impression is that your experience is common to a lot of students in the social sciences.
* The starting point is a motivation to learn.
* You can go down either **self-taught** or **formal instruction** routes.
### Formal instruction:
There are many options in this regard.
You might consider a masters in statistics or just taking a few subjects in a statistics department.
However, you'd probably want to check that you have the necessary mathematical background. Depending on the course, you may find that you need to revisit pre-calculus mathematics, and perhaps some material such as calculus and linear algebra before tackling university-level mathematically rigorous statistics subjects.
### Self-taught
Alternatively, you could go down the self-taught route.
There are heaps of good resources on the internet.
In particular, reading and doing exercises in mathematics text books is important, but probably not sufficient. It's important to listen to instructors talking about mathematics and watch them solve problems.
It's also important to think about your mathematical goals and the mathematical prerequisites required to achieve those goals. If equations are like a foreign language to you, then you may find that you need to first study elementary mathematics.
I've prepared a few resources aimed at assisting people who are making the transition from using statistical software to understanding the underlying mathematics.
* **Videos**: [List of Free Online Mathematics Videos](http://jeromyanglim.blogspot.com/2009/05/online-mathematics-video-courses-for.html) - This post also provides some guidance regarding what would be an appropriate mathematical sequence starting from pre-calculus and working through calculus, linear algebra, probability, and mathematical statistics.
Also see this question on [mathematical statistics videos](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/485/mathematical-statistics-videos).
* **Reading and pronunciation** - One of the first challenges is learning how to pronounce and read mathematical equations. I wrote two posts, one on [pronunciation](http://jeromyanglim.blogspot.com/2009/05/pronunciation-guides-for-mathematical.html) and another on [tips for reading mathematics for the non-mathematician](http://jeromyanglim.blogspot.com/2010/01/tips-on-reading-mathematics-for-non.html).
* **Writing** - Learning to write mathematics can help with reading mathematics. Try learning LaTeX and check out some of the guides on [mathematics in LaTeX](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Mathematics)
* **Books**: When it comes to learning mathematics, I think it is worth investing in a few good textbooks. However, there are a lot of [free online options](http://jeromyanglim.blogspot.com/2010/01/free-online-mathematics-books.html) these days | I get the impression that you think that you can get insight into a statistical equation
by programming it into either R or C++; you can't. To understand a statistical equation,
find an "undergraduate" textbook with lots of homework problems at the end of each chapter that contains the equation, and then do the homework at the end of the chapter containing the equation.
For example, to understand PCA you do need a good understanding of linear algebra and in particular singular value decomposition. While learning quantum computing through Michael Nielsen's book, it became apparent to me that I needed to review linear algebra. I came across Gilbert Strang's videos, they were extremely helpful in establishing a foundational understanding of concepts. However, the nuance of the material did not get through until
I found a linear algebra book containing alot of homework problems, and then I needed to do them. |
210,811 | So I created the text with the add text button - I'm using version 2.91 - then I went to the right tab with all the properties functions: world properties, materials properties, physics properties, etc., then I extruded the text a bit(stretched it).
Next, I went to the materials tab to color it, clicked on new , the sphere showed up, then I clicked on the color line(base color) and chose a color, but nothing happened to the text. | 2021/02/06 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/210811",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/116368/"
] | You probably need to switch preview modes. Press Z in the 3D viewport and pick either "Material Preview" or "Rendered" from the pie menu. The Preview Modes and Viewport Shading Options can also be accessed from the 4 circles and the little down arrow, respectively, at the top right of the viewport:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zQgRN.png) | Make sure you are on Render preview or material preview tab
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3dQ7G.png) |
21,419 | For us IIS URL Rewrite module is the way to go.
How can sitemanager maintain Urls and publish on demand?
Do we need to make an exception in cd deployer to publish it to disk?
Before DXA we published Rewrite.config to filesystem and used that file from web.config.
With DXA it can be created [like this](http://www.mrgn.co/2015/05/25/redirects-friendly-urls-with-sdl-tridion/). | 2021/01/24 | [
"https://tridion.stackexchange.com/questions/21419",
"https://tridion.stackexchange.com",
"https://tridion.stackexchange.com/users/3158/"
] | You can publish the rewrite.config to the broker and extend something like the [URLRewrite.NET](https://github.com/Bikeman868/UrlRewrite.Net) module to load the configuration from the database instead of the filesystem. The cool thing is that you can use it ahead of the DXA Static context module and before DXA starts processing the URLs.
One thing to consider is how you are loading the config from the broker since you could have many topology websites with multiple web applications hosted as a single website in IIS. Coming up with regex patterns for all of them and managing the configuration would be key to keeping the solution scalable.
A poor man's solution would to have a Razor template (or anything for that matter) publish a custom extension to the deployer. You can then configure your deployer to copy the custom extension to a filesystem instead of the broker database. You can include this in your IIS module for it to be picked up OOTB, This would still work but need to consider scaling among other considerations / configuration. Hope it helps! | Please refer to the link from the documentation [link](https://docs.sdl.com/792164/573605/sdl-digital-experience-accelerator-2-0/adding-a-redirect-page)
If you still want to manage the redirection you can use the re-write module on IIS web config |
21,419 | For us IIS URL Rewrite module is the way to go.
How can sitemanager maintain Urls and publish on demand?
Do we need to make an exception in cd deployer to publish it to disk?
Before DXA we published Rewrite.config to filesystem and used that file from web.config.
With DXA it can be created [like this](http://www.mrgn.co/2015/05/25/redirects-friendly-urls-with-sdl-tridion/). | 2021/01/24 | [
"https://tridion.stackexchange.com/questions/21419",
"https://tridion.stackexchange.com",
"https://tridion.stackexchange.com/users/3158/"
] | You can publish the rewrite.config to the broker and extend something like the [URLRewrite.NET](https://github.com/Bikeman868/UrlRewrite.Net) module to load the configuration from the database instead of the filesystem. The cool thing is that you can use it ahead of the DXA Static context module and before DXA starts processing the URLs.
One thing to consider is how you are loading the config from the broker since you could have many topology websites with multiple web applications hosted as a single website in IIS. Coming up with regex patterns for all of them and managing the configuration would be key to keeping the solution scalable.
A poor man's solution would to have a Razor template (or anything for that matter) publish a custom extension to the deployer. You can then configure your deployer to copy the custom extension to a filesystem instead of the broker database. You can include this in your IIS module for it to be picked up OOTB, This would still work but need to consider scaling among other considerations / configuration. Hope it helps! | We have come across a legacy solution which was maintaining URL redirects and rewrites in a component and publish that as a config file to the file system (you need to configure .config extension in the storage config to publish this to the file system).
Here is an issue with this approach:
* The config file have it's limit (256 KB) as per Microsoft - so if you have couple of thousands of redirects and rewrites across your sites, then this won't work unless you hack some settings in the registry.
* The solution is not long term considering publishing to the file system is on deprecated path.
So, while this is possible, I can confirm we are on a path to revamp this as a whole as the solution is not flexible/scalable (and becomes unsecured if you have to hack to support thousands of redirects/rewrites). |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | Does John teach Universalism? Yes and NO! Let me be more specific.
There is an important difference between the **provision** of salvation and the reality of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that the **provision** of salvation is universal but the **actuality** is not. In the writings of John we have:
* John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
* John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave …”
* John 12:32, “I [Jesus] … will draw all people to myself.”
* 1 John 2:2, “He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours [Christians to whom John writes] only but also for the whole world.”
Elsewhere in the Bible we also have:
* Acts 17:30, “God … commands all people everywhere to repent.”
* Rom 3:23, 24, “… for all have sinned … and all are freely forgiven...”
* Rom 5:8, 10, “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. … if, while were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him by the death of His Son, …”
* Rom 5:15, “But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s [Adam’s] offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.” [Note the same word, “many” applies to all people.]
* Rom 5:18, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all people, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all people, resulting in justification of life.”
* Rom 11:32, “For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”
* 2 Cor 5:14, “…we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.”
* 2 Cor 5:18, 19, “…God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ …”
* 1 Tim 2:3, 4, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
* 1 Tim 2:6, “[Jesus Christ] gave Himself as a ransom for all people.”
* Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to all people.”
* Heb 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
* 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
* Isa 53:6, “We all like sheep have gone astray … and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Now, the universal **provision** of salvation does not mean that all people will be saved - far from it. For example:
* The Bible has many references to the final destruction of the wicked such as Ps 37:28, 92:7, 94:23, Prov 14:11, 2 Thess 2:8-10, Matt 5:29, 30, 10:28, 2 Peter 2:3, 3:6, 7, Rom 9:22, Phil 3:19, Ps 68:2.
* The wicked are destroyed because they reject God and choose to be destroyed. Contrast the two groups at the second Advent of Jesus:
. o Isa 25:9, “In that day they [the righteous] will say, ‘Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.’”
. o Rev 6:16, “They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!’”
**CONCLUSION**
Therefore, the **provision** of salvation is universal but the actuality means that many will reject God's gracious offer to be saved and many wicked will be destroyed. | I believe the correct answer is YES.
In John 1:7
>
> The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that **all men through him might believe**.
>
>
>
John 3:17 states that God sent the Son, who is the God's Word to save the world
>
> For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to **save the world through him**.
>
>
>
according to Isaiah 55:11 the word will not return to God **until it accomplishes it's purpose**
John 17:1-2
>
> These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
>
>
> As thou hast **given him power over all flesh**, that he should **give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him**
>
>
>
John 17:6-8 establishes that at that point only some were saved because only some out of the world had believed.
>
> I have manifested thy name unto **the men which thou gavest me out of the world**: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
>
>
> Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
>
>
> For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and **they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me**.
>
>
>
John 17:9 confirms that at this point this is only about the apostles
>
> I pray for them: **I pray not for the world**, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
>
>
>
later in the prayer Jesus expands the target:
John 17:20
>
> Neither pray I for these alone, but **for them also which shall believe on me through their word**
>
>
>
on 17:21 Jesus says that the entire world WILL believe that the Father sent Him (like the first group in 17:8)
>
> That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: **that the world may believe that thou hast sent me**.
>
>
>
Now, all these "might" and "may" that we see in 1:7, 17:2 and 17:21 are not mere possibilities, they express a purpose, an implication.
These "may" are known as subjunctives, and are being used in Purpose Clauses and they indicate something that is not necessarily yet true, but that will be the outcome if the first part of the sentence occurs. See [this article](https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/my-second-thoughts-about-subjunctives-purpose-clauses) from the greek scholar Bill Mounce (who is the founder and President of BiblicalTraining.org, serves on the Committee for Bible Translation, was the New Testament Chair for the ESV, and has written the best-selling biblical Greek textbook, Basics of Biblical Greek, and many other Greek resources) |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | Does John teach Universalism? Yes and NO! Let me be more specific.
There is an important difference between the **provision** of salvation and the reality of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that the **provision** of salvation is universal but the **actuality** is not. In the writings of John we have:
* John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
* John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave …”
* John 12:32, “I [Jesus] … will draw all people to myself.”
* 1 John 2:2, “He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours [Christians to whom John writes] only but also for the whole world.”
Elsewhere in the Bible we also have:
* Acts 17:30, “God … commands all people everywhere to repent.”
* Rom 3:23, 24, “… for all have sinned … and all are freely forgiven...”
* Rom 5:8, 10, “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. … if, while were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him by the death of His Son, …”
* Rom 5:15, “But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s [Adam’s] offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.” [Note the same word, “many” applies to all people.]
* Rom 5:18, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all people, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all people, resulting in justification of life.”
* Rom 11:32, “For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”
* 2 Cor 5:14, “…we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.”
* 2 Cor 5:18, 19, “…God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ …”
* 1 Tim 2:3, 4, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
* 1 Tim 2:6, “[Jesus Christ] gave Himself as a ransom for all people.”
* Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to all people.”
* Heb 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
* 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
* Isa 53:6, “We all like sheep have gone astray … and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Now, the universal **provision** of salvation does not mean that all people will be saved - far from it. For example:
* The Bible has many references to the final destruction of the wicked such as Ps 37:28, 92:7, 94:23, Prov 14:11, 2 Thess 2:8-10, Matt 5:29, 30, 10:28, 2 Peter 2:3, 3:6, 7, Rom 9:22, Phil 3:19, Ps 68:2.
* The wicked are destroyed because they reject God and choose to be destroyed. Contrast the two groups at the second Advent of Jesus:
. o Isa 25:9, “In that day they [the righteous] will say, ‘Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.’”
. o Rev 6:16, “They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!’”
**CONCLUSION**
Therefore, the **provision** of salvation is universal but the actuality means that many will reject God's gracious offer to be saved and many wicked will be destroyed. | The question is a bit ambiguous, for it gives two quotes - John 1:29 an John 12:47 - which have quite different connotations: the first clearly shows that according to John Jesus' ministry is for the entire world and not just for one chosen nation of Jews, and there are quite a few passages in John that confirm the same. Thus, if in "universalism" is meant this, then of course, quite unambiguously, John's Gospel speaks about it.
However, the second quotation speaks about semantics of divine judgment and gives to this term a new twist, for we learn that Jesus who is God and equal to Father does not judge and neither does Father (John 5:22), but how then is God still the Judge who will judge all mankind? When names are applied to God, they change meaning drastically, and thus, we learn that God-the Judge does not judge - and if does not judge, then also does not condemn, for condemning is just a portion of judgment, which is a more general category - in the sense that He only forgives, He only loves, He only forbears, infinitely so, for He cannot help loving His creatures created in His image and likeness. Yet, when we reject all those divine actions towards us, close our hearts from them, then we condemn ourselves through the breach of communion with God and in a vulgar non-theological way this is called "God's condemnation", but, if one understands this vulgarly and in terms of positive human law-enforcement, one will obtain a sacrilegious calumny on all-merciful God, who in His own words "does judge nobody".
Thus, if in "universalism" is meant whether God saves all humans, then the answer is YES, He indeed saves all humans and cannot help saving them according to His nature, which can be defined as "love" (1 John 4:8), however, as being created free, we can reject His love and exactly through this free rejection self-inflict the condemnation on ourselves, His infinite forgiveness notwithstanding; for such real and horrible our freedom and responsibility is. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | Does John teach Universalism? Yes and NO! Let me be more specific.
There is an important difference between the **provision** of salvation and the reality of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that the **provision** of salvation is universal but the **actuality** is not. In the writings of John we have:
* John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
* John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave …”
* John 12:32, “I [Jesus] … will draw all people to myself.”
* 1 John 2:2, “He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours [Christians to whom John writes] only but also for the whole world.”
Elsewhere in the Bible we also have:
* Acts 17:30, “God … commands all people everywhere to repent.”
* Rom 3:23, 24, “… for all have sinned … and all are freely forgiven...”
* Rom 5:8, 10, “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. … if, while were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him by the death of His Son, …”
* Rom 5:15, “But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s [Adam’s] offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.” [Note the same word, “many” applies to all people.]
* Rom 5:18, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all people, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all people, resulting in justification of life.”
* Rom 11:32, “For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”
* 2 Cor 5:14, “…we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.”
* 2 Cor 5:18, 19, “…God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ …”
* 1 Tim 2:3, 4, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
* 1 Tim 2:6, “[Jesus Christ] gave Himself as a ransom for all people.”
* Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to all people.”
* Heb 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
* 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
* Isa 53:6, “We all like sheep have gone astray … and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Now, the universal **provision** of salvation does not mean that all people will be saved - far from it. For example:
* The Bible has many references to the final destruction of the wicked such as Ps 37:28, 92:7, 94:23, Prov 14:11, 2 Thess 2:8-10, Matt 5:29, 30, 10:28, 2 Peter 2:3, 3:6, 7, Rom 9:22, Phil 3:19, Ps 68:2.
* The wicked are destroyed because they reject God and choose to be destroyed. Contrast the two groups at the second Advent of Jesus:
. o Isa 25:9, “In that day they [the righteous] will say, ‘Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.’”
. o Rev 6:16, “They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!’”
**CONCLUSION**
Therefore, the **provision** of salvation is universal but the actuality means that many will reject God's gracious offer to be saved and many wicked will be destroyed. | That the Father sent the Son to be the saviour of the world and that John declares of him ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world’, does not suggest, in any way, a ‘Christian Universalism’, that is to say the notion that, automatically, all humankind shall be saved irrespective of their behaviour, irrespective of faith or irrespective of the purposes of God in salvation.
In order that there should be a world to come, at all, necessitated the coming of Christ and the death of Christ. It is clear from what the scriptures teach regarding restoration (unhelpfully translated ‘reconciliation’) that salvation is effected by the death of Christ and by union with Him, under his Headship, in a righteous restoration out from under the headship of Adam and out of the former human state in Adam.
Part of this restoration is the fact that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who taketh away the ‘sin of the world’ which does not refer to the specific actions of individuals (which is dealt with in other parts of the doctrine of Christ) but refers to the entry of sin into the world from the beginning, in Adam.
Being ‘made’ sin, or being effected sin (some translate this as ‘being made a sin offering’ but I suggest that that falls short of the full concept) sin, itself, was condemned within the humanity of Jesus Christ - a clean humanity - and sin was eradicated in the sight of God, righteously.
No individual is condemned, personally, for the liability of flesh and blood, or for the propensities of created humanity, or for the failure of man in the flesh, or for the transgression of the head of humanity, Adam. This liability and this sin is taken away by the Saviour and borne by him in his death.
That removal, righteously, is necessary for there to be a world at all. That removal was necessary even to grant a continuance to humanity after the Flood. The judgment on the world, by water, was to end all flesh because of the consequences of sin and because of the multiplication of evil on earth to the extent it could not be tolerated any further.
Eight persons were preserved and that preservation was in order for the purposes of God to be fulfilled, despite the transgression : a continuance being granted, due to a foreseen sacrifice (by Christ) that gave a righteous basis for the extension of the world, in time, for those divine purposes to progress.
Else, in righteousness, there could be no world at all. The world would have ended at the time of the Flood.
He is the ‘Saviour of the world’ in that humanity is granted existence, time, forbearance and the testimony of the gospel (whether by figure and ritual under the old covenant, or whether by full revelation under the New Testament) that they might be saved.
But if there is unbelief and rejection then that is the responsibility of each individual. And the consequence is to their own account, personally.
The further notion that the sufferings of Christ (within his body, prior to his death) were effective for the sins of all humankind (but only if certain individuals took advantage and added their own effectiveness) is nowhere expressed in scripture and is, in effect, salvation by works. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | John is a fascinating philosophical take. Its perception in scholarship has also evolved remarkably. Pretty much everything we thought we knew about John has changed in the 20th century, particularly since the 1980s. There has been new knowledge about John that has come from excavation of the pool of Bethesda to the relationship between the "children of light" and the "beloved teacher" in the documents uncovered in the Qumran scrolls from that community. I'll frame my answer as someone who has gone through a religious trajectory that has included traditional mainline protestantism as well as universalist frameworks.
The distinction between universalism and particularism seems to bend around two separate takes. Calvinists, for example, believe in particularism, but that we have no say in the matter at all. This is called double predestination. From the beginning of time, everyone is already sorted into Heaven or Hell, and it is in no way up to us. It is important to note that Calvin was not a determinist. He believed we had enough free will to warrant all of us going to hell, and that it impossible for us to work to develop merit to goto heaven. Salvation was entirely up to God and was already determined. Today, through the theology of Karl Barth and others, the Presbyterians (those who inherit the Reformed church dogma of Calvin) have more of a universalist bent (at least in the PCUSA branch).
This particularism is contrast with the catholic, methodist, episcopal, or evangelical doctrine that it is up to us to choose to accept Christ as our own savior. In this mind, we get to choose. And not everyone chooses. So only a particular set goto Heaven. This creates what we call the protestant work ethic upon which the USA is built. Unlike with Catholics, where a priest is all you need for salvation (and he will tell you this), for the protestants, we can never know if we are saved for sure, so we work work work...
Given those two kinds of particularism (and they have their defenders in the Bible), Universalism stands in contrast. For a universalist, Jesus descended into hell, kicked open the doors, and all are saved. For the universalist, salvation is also not in our hands (as with the Calvinists).
In John, support for this is drawn from the theme of John 1:12-13 where the text says that "for all who received him, he gave the power to become *children of God*, but not by their will or the will of others, but by God." Then in John 6:44 and John 14:6, we have this paradoxical pairing of statements. In 6:44, no one can come to Jesus unless they are "dragged against their will" by the father.
The verb here is "[ἑλκύω](https://biblehub.com/greek/1670.htm)" and is a technical term in John used exactly six times. I suggest exploring those uses as it is enlightening and talks much about our ability to participate in our salvation. The BDB Lexicon has: "drag a person forcibly and against his will"
And in John 14:6, we have the famous statement that no-one comes to the father except through Jesus.
So there is this paradoxical framework that says that none of it us up to us. In fact, you might say that the idea that we have our own free will or merit is questioned entirely in John. The only way is through Jesus, you can't come to Jesus unless dragged against your will by God, and then in [John 12:32](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/12-32.htm), we have Jesus' statement that "if he is lifted up [on the cross], then he will drag all to himself." Again, the verb "to drag against your will" is used here, as well as the greek word "πάντας" meaning ALL.
So with that trio of verses, you get this round rejection of our role in salvation and a statement that God is in charge of it, especially when coupled with the theme in John 1:12-13 that it is not up to us.
Some scholars see a "protology" in John. This is that John points back to Eden. Instead of being born of blood/flesh, we are to be born of water and spirit, just like Adam was. Instead of eating food from the cursed ground, we are to eat food from above (end of John 6). These were the major punishments upon exile from eden. And the "sin" in eden was to reach out and grasp at something against God's will. But that was also paradoxically, the knowledge of right and wrong itself. So before this act, we could not have known right and wrong and would not have been moral agents in the act.
Compare this idea to what Jesus says it means to be a child of God in John 5:19, "Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise."
There is a sense here that Jesus is utterly obedient to God. This again is in contrast to the seeming disobedience in Eden. Furthermore, it would seem that the only reason that a person could reach out to choose to be saved in the first place is if they thought this was a "GOOD" thing to do... which, in the eden context, is more fruit of the knowledge of good and bad. The concept of "dragging against the will" and making it clear that we cannot do it ourselves removes the idea that we are chasing it because we think it is good, or chasing it because we are avoiding hell which we think is bad.
In fact, there is simply no other reason that we can move as beings. We only act to achieve what we think is good or avoid what we think is bad. So it is literally impossible for us to act outside of the knowledge of good and bad. Hence you get a take that it simply cannot be up to us that is well supported in John.
I'll frame this with some meta-commentary by saying that universalism has persisted throughout Christianity (Origen being one of the first recorded explicitly open Universalists). But it is extremely hard to sell this. There is no value proposition behind Universalism. You walk into a universalist church and they say, "nah, you're good, all are saved." Then you walk out and don't come back. It takes the fear of hell to keep you in the pews, which is why the Universalism doesn't play well. In the early history of the USA, there was a huge backlash against Universalists and Calvinists in a very similar way to the backlash against Atheists. There is an idea that if it is out of your hands, then there will be no motivation for these people to be moral.
That is another long take, but it informs why it is challenging to find broad institutional support for Universalism even though it may be well supported in the text. | The greater question of the question posed is, ***“Does Scripture support the Universalism?”*** And do the passages-John 1:29 & 12:47 support the Universalism?
**1. The Universalism** (differ from the Universal atonement)
The modern-day Universalism -Christian Universalism - is a specific theological term for a belief that **ultimately all human beings - all people/ every person of all human history, and the fallen angelic beings eventually will come into final salvation and spend eternity with God in heaven** (often confused with the universal atonement view -the provision of salvation and our acceptance of the salvation.)
(Note: Two main versions: The ultra-Universalism-everyone at death will have the second chance to accept the Salvation and go to heaven; The *Purgationists* - unsaved people after a certain cleansing period, God will free the inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself. Now the universalist prefers to call it, Universal restoration, Universal reconciliation, Universal restitution, and Universal salvation, or The victorious Gospel of Grace, Jesus, the Chosen One, Saves All.)
The main arguments of the universalist are:
* God is love, therefore, He “must” love all and will the salvation for all -all intelligent beings He created.
* The loving God by nature would condemn no one to eternal torment in
hell,
* That after a certain cleansing period, God will free "all"
inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself.
* The word “all (πᾶς)” and the “world” in certain passages have universal implications and support the Universalism -i.e., justification and life(eternal) for “all men” ([Rom. 5:18, 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; John 1:29; 4:42; 12:32; Acts 3:21; Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10; 1 John 2:2; 4:14)](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.1.29%20John.4.42%20John.12.32%20Acts.3.21%20Rom.5.18%20Rom.11.32%201Cor.15.22%20Eph.1.10%20Col.1.20%201John.2.2%201John.4.14&options=HNVUG&pos=1)
While the argument appears logical, but it is the ***same ol’*** circular reasoning - God cannot be perfect love while punishing sinners in hell. It is a logical fallacy imposing human judgment upon God, defective logic blinded by the love of God for creatures, but blinded to the love of God for His only-begotten Son. It is the faulty logic of **abstracting the eternal attributes of God** revealed in God’s revelations and is the same deception of the serpent first used at the Garden.
Universalism ignores the fact that the loving God, forsaken His only-begotten Son, put through a cruel death on the cross to save the created beings who reveled against Him and condemned to eternal damnation in hell. In effect, according to their "perfect love" logic, God is still a failure because He loved created beings but NOT loved His only-begotten Son. Furthermore, according to their line of thinking, the loving and sovereign God could /should have prevented the causes of sin in the first place, and if He did not, He is NOT perfect love; if He could not, He is NOT almighty; if He did not see it coming, He is NOT all-knowing, etc. **All their logics and arguments are to make a total mockery of God of the Scripture!**
**In sum**: The Scripture says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverb 14:12). Here, "right **יָשָׁר**" has ranges of meanings - right, correct, pleasing, and smooth." The Universalism - though more palatable to many - is "***The Devil's Redemption***" (M. McClymond,) and that says it all!
**2. The Universal Atonement**
The Universal Atonement (Unlimited Atonement -Arminianism), though shares with the Universalism on - i.e., Christ died for all sins of the world, it entirely differs with it- from the scope and efficacy of the atonement to eschatological outcome. Most importantly, no human judgments on God and His Word- the Scripture! The universal atonement is one of the 5 points that differ from the limited atonement (Calvinism). Both Calvinism and Arminianism -two opposing views- have good Scriptural supports for all their 5 points, yet both are in agreement on the main point - Salvation by grace through the "faith" in Jesus Christ.
One thing is clear: a) that two opposing views -as they are- cannot be right, nor totally represent the Scripture on every and all doctrinal points, unless both come to the Scripture. b) And also one’s belief in the scope of Christ's Atonement, and theological affiliation and familiarity of doctrines does not “save,” but the Word of Jesus gives the life ([John 6:63](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.6.63&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). Jesus said, “truly, truly I say, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life (1John 5:12), “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it" ([Luke 11:28](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=Luke.11.28&options=HNVUG&pos=1)).
Jesus says, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12-ESV). In Revelation, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15).
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the truth, and He will guide and teach us the Word ([John 15:26,16:13](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.15.26%20John.16.13&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). NO theologians and bible teachers can come to your help on that day.
* \*\*Sola scriptura
* Sola fide
* Sola gratia
* Solus Christus
* Soli Deo gloria\*\*
**3. Do John 1:29 & 12: 47 support the Universalism?**
The text John 1:29 connotes the universal atonement, but NOT the universalism. John 12:47 (& 48), the very words - if any man hears my words, and believe not… the word that I have spoken will judge… speak against the Universalism. In sum, in the immediate, larger, and context of the whole Bible, are many conditional/restrictive words against Universalism. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | The greater question of the question posed is, ***“Does Scripture support the Universalism?”*** And do the passages-John 1:29 & 12:47 support the Universalism?
**1. The Universalism** (differ from the Universal atonement)
The modern-day Universalism -Christian Universalism - is a specific theological term for a belief that **ultimately all human beings - all people/ every person of all human history, and the fallen angelic beings eventually will come into final salvation and spend eternity with God in heaven** (often confused with the universal atonement view -the provision of salvation and our acceptance of the salvation.)
(Note: Two main versions: The ultra-Universalism-everyone at death will have the second chance to accept the Salvation and go to heaven; The *Purgationists* - unsaved people after a certain cleansing period, God will free the inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself. Now the universalist prefers to call it, Universal restoration, Universal reconciliation, Universal restitution, and Universal salvation, or The victorious Gospel of Grace, Jesus, the Chosen One, Saves All.)
The main arguments of the universalist are:
* God is love, therefore, He “must” love all and will the salvation for all -all intelligent beings He created.
* The loving God by nature would condemn no one to eternal torment in
hell,
* That after a certain cleansing period, God will free "all"
inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself.
* The word “all (πᾶς)” and the “world” in certain passages have universal implications and support the Universalism -i.e., justification and life(eternal) for “all men” ([Rom. 5:18, 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; John 1:29; 4:42; 12:32; Acts 3:21; Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10; 1 John 2:2; 4:14)](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.1.29%20John.4.42%20John.12.32%20Acts.3.21%20Rom.5.18%20Rom.11.32%201Cor.15.22%20Eph.1.10%20Col.1.20%201John.2.2%201John.4.14&options=HNVUG&pos=1)
While the argument appears logical, but it is the ***same ol’*** circular reasoning - God cannot be perfect love while punishing sinners in hell. It is a logical fallacy imposing human judgment upon God, defective logic blinded by the love of God for creatures, but blinded to the love of God for His only-begotten Son. It is the faulty logic of **abstracting the eternal attributes of God** revealed in God’s revelations and is the same deception of the serpent first used at the Garden.
Universalism ignores the fact that the loving God, forsaken His only-begotten Son, put through a cruel death on the cross to save the created beings who reveled against Him and condemned to eternal damnation in hell. In effect, according to their "perfect love" logic, God is still a failure because He loved created beings but NOT loved His only-begotten Son. Furthermore, according to their line of thinking, the loving and sovereign God could /should have prevented the causes of sin in the first place, and if He did not, He is NOT perfect love; if He could not, He is NOT almighty; if He did not see it coming, He is NOT all-knowing, etc. **All their logics and arguments are to make a total mockery of God of the Scripture!**
**In sum**: The Scripture says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverb 14:12). Here, "right **יָשָׁר**" has ranges of meanings - right, correct, pleasing, and smooth." The Universalism - though more palatable to many - is "***The Devil's Redemption***" (M. McClymond,) and that says it all!
**2. The Universal Atonement**
The Universal Atonement (Unlimited Atonement -Arminianism), though shares with the Universalism on - i.e., Christ died for all sins of the world, it entirely differs with it- from the scope and efficacy of the atonement to eschatological outcome. Most importantly, no human judgments on God and His Word- the Scripture! The universal atonement is one of the 5 points that differ from the limited atonement (Calvinism). Both Calvinism and Arminianism -two opposing views- have good Scriptural supports for all their 5 points, yet both are in agreement on the main point - Salvation by grace through the "faith" in Jesus Christ.
One thing is clear: a) that two opposing views -as they are- cannot be right, nor totally represent the Scripture on every and all doctrinal points, unless both come to the Scripture. b) And also one’s belief in the scope of Christ's Atonement, and theological affiliation and familiarity of doctrines does not “save,” but the Word of Jesus gives the life ([John 6:63](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.6.63&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). Jesus said, “truly, truly I say, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life (1John 5:12), “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it" ([Luke 11:28](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=Luke.11.28&options=HNVUG&pos=1)).
Jesus says, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12-ESV). In Revelation, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15).
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the truth, and He will guide and teach us the Word ([John 15:26,16:13](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.15.26%20John.16.13&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). NO theologians and bible teachers can come to your help on that day.
* \*\*Sola scriptura
* Sola fide
* Sola gratia
* Solus Christus
* Soli Deo gloria\*\*
**3. Do John 1:29 & 12: 47 support the Universalism?**
The text John 1:29 connotes the universal atonement, but NOT the universalism. John 12:47 (& 48), the very words - if any man hears my words, and believe not… the word that I have spoken will judge… speak against the Universalism. In sum, in the immediate, larger, and context of the whole Bible, are many conditional/restrictive words against Universalism. | The question is a bit ambiguous, for it gives two quotes - John 1:29 an John 12:47 - which have quite different connotations: the first clearly shows that according to John Jesus' ministry is for the entire world and not just for one chosen nation of Jews, and there are quite a few passages in John that confirm the same. Thus, if in "universalism" is meant this, then of course, quite unambiguously, John's Gospel speaks about it.
However, the second quotation speaks about semantics of divine judgment and gives to this term a new twist, for we learn that Jesus who is God and equal to Father does not judge and neither does Father (John 5:22), but how then is God still the Judge who will judge all mankind? When names are applied to God, they change meaning drastically, and thus, we learn that God-the Judge does not judge - and if does not judge, then also does not condemn, for condemning is just a portion of judgment, which is a more general category - in the sense that He only forgives, He only loves, He only forbears, infinitely so, for He cannot help loving His creatures created in His image and likeness. Yet, when we reject all those divine actions towards us, close our hearts from them, then we condemn ourselves through the breach of communion with God and in a vulgar non-theological way this is called "God's condemnation", but, if one understands this vulgarly and in terms of positive human law-enforcement, one will obtain a sacrilegious calumny on all-merciful God, who in His own words "does judge nobody".
Thus, if in "universalism" is meant whether God saves all humans, then the answer is YES, He indeed saves all humans and cannot help saving them according to His nature, which can be defined as "love" (1 John 4:8), however, as being created free, we can reject His love and exactly through this free rejection self-inflict the condemnation on ourselves, His infinite forgiveness notwithstanding; for such real and horrible our freedom and responsibility is. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | Does John teach Universalism? Yes and NO! Let me be more specific.
There is an important difference between the **provision** of salvation and the reality of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that the **provision** of salvation is universal but the **actuality** is not. In the writings of John we have:
* John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
* John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave …”
* John 12:32, “I [Jesus] … will draw all people to myself.”
* 1 John 2:2, “He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours [Christians to whom John writes] only but also for the whole world.”
Elsewhere in the Bible we also have:
* Acts 17:30, “God … commands all people everywhere to repent.”
* Rom 3:23, 24, “… for all have sinned … and all are freely forgiven...”
* Rom 5:8, 10, “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. … if, while were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him by the death of His Son, …”
* Rom 5:15, “But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s [Adam’s] offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.” [Note the same word, “many” applies to all people.]
* Rom 5:18, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all people, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all people, resulting in justification of life.”
* Rom 11:32, “For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”
* 2 Cor 5:14, “…we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.”
* 2 Cor 5:18, 19, “…God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ …”
* 1 Tim 2:3, 4, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
* 1 Tim 2:6, “[Jesus Christ] gave Himself as a ransom for all people.”
* Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to all people.”
* Heb 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
* 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
* Isa 53:6, “We all like sheep have gone astray … and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Now, the universal **provision** of salvation does not mean that all people will be saved - far from it. For example:
* The Bible has many references to the final destruction of the wicked such as Ps 37:28, 92:7, 94:23, Prov 14:11, 2 Thess 2:8-10, Matt 5:29, 30, 10:28, 2 Peter 2:3, 3:6, 7, Rom 9:22, Phil 3:19, Ps 68:2.
* The wicked are destroyed because they reject God and choose to be destroyed. Contrast the two groups at the second Advent of Jesus:
. o Isa 25:9, “In that day they [the righteous] will say, ‘Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.’”
. o Rev 6:16, “They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!’”
**CONCLUSION**
Therefore, the **provision** of salvation is universal but the actuality means that many will reject God's gracious offer to be saved and many wicked will be destroyed. | The greater question of the question posed is, ***“Does Scripture support the Universalism?”*** And do the passages-John 1:29 & 12:47 support the Universalism?
**1. The Universalism** (differ from the Universal atonement)
The modern-day Universalism -Christian Universalism - is a specific theological term for a belief that **ultimately all human beings - all people/ every person of all human history, and the fallen angelic beings eventually will come into final salvation and spend eternity with God in heaven** (often confused with the universal atonement view -the provision of salvation and our acceptance of the salvation.)
(Note: Two main versions: The ultra-Universalism-everyone at death will have the second chance to accept the Salvation and go to heaven; The *Purgationists* - unsaved people after a certain cleansing period, God will free the inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself. Now the universalist prefers to call it, Universal restoration, Universal reconciliation, Universal restitution, and Universal salvation, or The victorious Gospel of Grace, Jesus, the Chosen One, Saves All.)
The main arguments of the universalist are:
* God is love, therefore, He “must” love all and will the salvation for all -all intelligent beings He created.
* The loving God by nature would condemn no one to eternal torment in
hell,
* That after a certain cleansing period, God will free "all"
inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself.
* The word “all (πᾶς)” and the “world” in certain passages have universal implications and support the Universalism -i.e., justification and life(eternal) for “all men” ([Rom. 5:18, 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; John 1:29; 4:42; 12:32; Acts 3:21; Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10; 1 John 2:2; 4:14)](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.1.29%20John.4.42%20John.12.32%20Acts.3.21%20Rom.5.18%20Rom.11.32%201Cor.15.22%20Eph.1.10%20Col.1.20%201John.2.2%201John.4.14&options=HNVUG&pos=1)
While the argument appears logical, but it is the ***same ol’*** circular reasoning - God cannot be perfect love while punishing sinners in hell. It is a logical fallacy imposing human judgment upon God, defective logic blinded by the love of God for creatures, but blinded to the love of God for His only-begotten Son. It is the faulty logic of **abstracting the eternal attributes of God** revealed in God’s revelations and is the same deception of the serpent first used at the Garden.
Universalism ignores the fact that the loving God, forsaken His only-begotten Son, put through a cruel death on the cross to save the created beings who reveled against Him and condemned to eternal damnation in hell. In effect, according to their "perfect love" logic, God is still a failure because He loved created beings but NOT loved His only-begotten Son. Furthermore, according to their line of thinking, the loving and sovereign God could /should have prevented the causes of sin in the first place, and if He did not, He is NOT perfect love; if He could not, He is NOT almighty; if He did not see it coming, He is NOT all-knowing, etc. **All their logics and arguments are to make a total mockery of God of the Scripture!**
**In sum**: The Scripture says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverb 14:12). Here, "right **יָשָׁר**" has ranges of meanings - right, correct, pleasing, and smooth." The Universalism - though more palatable to many - is "***The Devil's Redemption***" (M. McClymond,) and that says it all!
**2. The Universal Atonement**
The Universal Atonement (Unlimited Atonement -Arminianism), though shares with the Universalism on - i.e., Christ died for all sins of the world, it entirely differs with it- from the scope and efficacy of the atonement to eschatological outcome. Most importantly, no human judgments on God and His Word- the Scripture! The universal atonement is one of the 5 points that differ from the limited atonement (Calvinism). Both Calvinism and Arminianism -two opposing views- have good Scriptural supports for all their 5 points, yet both are in agreement on the main point - Salvation by grace through the "faith" in Jesus Christ.
One thing is clear: a) that two opposing views -as they are- cannot be right, nor totally represent the Scripture on every and all doctrinal points, unless both come to the Scripture. b) And also one’s belief in the scope of Christ's Atonement, and theological affiliation and familiarity of doctrines does not “save,” but the Word of Jesus gives the life ([John 6:63](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.6.63&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). Jesus said, “truly, truly I say, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life (1John 5:12), “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it" ([Luke 11:28](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=Luke.11.28&options=HNVUG&pos=1)).
Jesus says, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12-ESV). In Revelation, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15).
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the truth, and He will guide and teach us the Word ([John 15:26,16:13](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.15.26%20John.16.13&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). NO theologians and bible teachers can come to your help on that day.
* \*\*Sola scriptura
* Sola fide
* Sola gratia
* Solus Christus
* Soli Deo gloria\*\*
**3. Do John 1:29 & 12: 47 support the Universalism?**
The text John 1:29 connotes the universal atonement, but NOT the universalism. John 12:47 (& 48), the very words - if any man hears my words, and believe not… the word that I have spoken will judge… speak against the Universalism. In sum, in the immediate, larger, and context of the whole Bible, are many conditional/restrictive words against Universalism. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | Does John teach Universalism? Yes and NO! Let me be more specific.
There is an important difference between the **provision** of salvation and the reality of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that the **provision** of salvation is universal but the **actuality** is not. In the writings of John we have:
* John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
* John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave …”
* John 12:32, “I [Jesus] … will draw all people to myself.”
* 1 John 2:2, “He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours [Christians to whom John writes] only but also for the whole world.”
Elsewhere in the Bible we also have:
* Acts 17:30, “God … commands all people everywhere to repent.”
* Rom 3:23, 24, “… for all have sinned … and all are freely forgiven...”
* Rom 5:8, 10, “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. … if, while were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him by the death of His Son, …”
* Rom 5:15, “But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s [Adam’s] offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.” [Note the same word, “many” applies to all people.]
* Rom 5:18, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all people, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all people, resulting in justification of life.”
* Rom 11:32, “For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”
* 2 Cor 5:14, “…we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.”
* 2 Cor 5:18, 19, “…God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ …”
* 1 Tim 2:3, 4, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
* 1 Tim 2:6, “[Jesus Christ] gave Himself as a ransom for all people.”
* Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to all people.”
* Heb 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
* 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
* Isa 53:6, “We all like sheep have gone astray … and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Now, the universal **provision** of salvation does not mean that all people will be saved - far from it. For example:
* The Bible has many references to the final destruction of the wicked such as Ps 37:28, 92:7, 94:23, Prov 14:11, 2 Thess 2:8-10, Matt 5:29, 30, 10:28, 2 Peter 2:3, 3:6, 7, Rom 9:22, Phil 3:19, Ps 68:2.
* The wicked are destroyed because they reject God and choose to be destroyed. Contrast the two groups at the second Advent of Jesus:
. o Isa 25:9, “In that day they [the righteous] will say, ‘Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.’”
. o Rev 6:16, “They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!’”
**CONCLUSION**
Therefore, the **provision** of salvation is universal but the actuality means that many will reject God's gracious offer to be saved and many wicked will be destroyed. | John is a fascinating philosophical take. Its perception in scholarship has also evolved remarkably. Pretty much everything we thought we knew about John has changed in the 20th century, particularly since the 1980s. There has been new knowledge about John that has come from excavation of the pool of Bethesda to the relationship between the "children of light" and the "beloved teacher" in the documents uncovered in the Qumran scrolls from that community. I'll frame my answer as someone who has gone through a religious trajectory that has included traditional mainline protestantism as well as universalist frameworks.
The distinction between universalism and particularism seems to bend around two separate takes. Calvinists, for example, believe in particularism, but that we have no say in the matter at all. This is called double predestination. From the beginning of time, everyone is already sorted into Heaven or Hell, and it is in no way up to us. It is important to note that Calvin was not a determinist. He believed we had enough free will to warrant all of us going to hell, and that it impossible for us to work to develop merit to goto heaven. Salvation was entirely up to God and was already determined. Today, through the theology of Karl Barth and others, the Presbyterians (those who inherit the Reformed church dogma of Calvin) have more of a universalist bent (at least in the PCUSA branch).
This particularism is contrast with the catholic, methodist, episcopal, or evangelical doctrine that it is up to us to choose to accept Christ as our own savior. In this mind, we get to choose. And not everyone chooses. So only a particular set goto Heaven. This creates what we call the protestant work ethic upon which the USA is built. Unlike with Catholics, where a priest is all you need for salvation (and he will tell you this), for the protestants, we can never know if we are saved for sure, so we work work work...
Given those two kinds of particularism (and they have their defenders in the Bible), Universalism stands in contrast. For a universalist, Jesus descended into hell, kicked open the doors, and all are saved. For the universalist, salvation is also not in our hands (as with the Calvinists).
In John, support for this is drawn from the theme of John 1:12-13 where the text says that "for all who received him, he gave the power to become *children of God*, but not by their will or the will of others, but by God." Then in John 6:44 and John 14:6, we have this paradoxical pairing of statements. In 6:44, no one can come to Jesus unless they are "dragged against their will" by the father.
The verb here is "[ἑλκύω](https://biblehub.com/greek/1670.htm)" and is a technical term in John used exactly six times. I suggest exploring those uses as it is enlightening and talks much about our ability to participate in our salvation. The BDB Lexicon has: "drag a person forcibly and against his will"
And in John 14:6, we have the famous statement that no-one comes to the father except through Jesus.
So there is this paradoxical framework that says that none of it us up to us. In fact, you might say that the idea that we have our own free will or merit is questioned entirely in John. The only way is through Jesus, you can't come to Jesus unless dragged against your will by God, and then in [John 12:32](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/12-32.htm), we have Jesus' statement that "if he is lifted up [on the cross], then he will drag all to himself." Again, the verb "to drag against your will" is used here, as well as the greek word "πάντας" meaning ALL.
So with that trio of verses, you get this round rejection of our role in salvation and a statement that God is in charge of it, especially when coupled with the theme in John 1:12-13 that it is not up to us.
Some scholars see a "protology" in John. This is that John points back to Eden. Instead of being born of blood/flesh, we are to be born of water and spirit, just like Adam was. Instead of eating food from the cursed ground, we are to eat food from above (end of John 6). These were the major punishments upon exile from eden. And the "sin" in eden was to reach out and grasp at something against God's will. But that was also paradoxically, the knowledge of right and wrong itself. So before this act, we could not have known right and wrong and would not have been moral agents in the act.
Compare this idea to what Jesus says it means to be a child of God in John 5:19, "Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise."
There is a sense here that Jesus is utterly obedient to God. This again is in contrast to the seeming disobedience in Eden. Furthermore, it would seem that the only reason that a person could reach out to choose to be saved in the first place is if they thought this was a "GOOD" thing to do... which, in the eden context, is more fruit of the knowledge of good and bad. The concept of "dragging against the will" and making it clear that we cannot do it ourselves removes the idea that we are chasing it because we think it is good, or chasing it because we are avoiding hell which we think is bad.
In fact, there is simply no other reason that we can move as beings. We only act to achieve what we think is good or avoid what we think is bad. So it is literally impossible for us to act outside of the knowledge of good and bad. Hence you get a take that it simply cannot be up to us that is well supported in John.
I'll frame this with some meta-commentary by saying that universalism has persisted throughout Christianity (Origen being one of the first recorded explicitly open Universalists). But it is extremely hard to sell this. There is no value proposition behind Universalism. You walk into a universalist church and they say, "nah, you're good, all are saved." Then you walk out and don't come back. It takes the fear of hell to keep you in the pews, which is why the Universalism doesn't play well. In the early history of the USA, there was a huge backlash against Universalists and Calvinists in a very similar way to the backlash against Atheists. There is an idea that if it is out of your hands, then there will be no motivation for these people to be moral.
That is another long take, but it informs why it is challenging to find broad institutional support for Universalism even though it may be well supported in the text. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | That the Father sent the Son to be the saviour of the world and that John declares of him ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world’, does not suggest, in any way, a ‘Christian Universalism’, that is to say the notion that, automatically, all humankind shall be saved irrespective of their behaviour, irrespective of faith or irrespective of the purposes of God in salvation.
In order that there should be a world to come, at all, necessitated the coming of Christ and the death of Christ. It is clear from what the scriptures teach regarding restoration (unhelpfully translated ‘reconciliation’) that salvation is effected by the death of Christ and by union with Him, under his Headship, in a righteous restoration out from under the headship of Adam and out of the former human state in Adam.
Part of this restoration is the fact that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who taketh away the ‘sin of the world’ which does not refer to the specific actions of individuals (which is dealt with in other parts of the doctrine of Christ) but refers to the entry of sin into the world from the beginning, in Adam.
Being ‘made’ sin, or being effected sin (some translate this as ‘being made a sin offering’ but I suggest that that falls short of the full concept) sin, itself, was condemned within the humanity of Jesus Christ - a clean humanity - and sin was eradicated in the sight of God, righteously.
No individual is condemned, personally, for the liability of flesh and blood, or for the propensities of created humanity, or for the failure of man in the flesh, or for the transgression of the head of humanity, Adam. This liability and this sin is taken away by the Saviour and borne by him in his death.
That removal, righteously, is necessary for there to be a world at all. That removal was necessary even to grant a continuance to humanity after the Flood. The judgment on the world, by water, was to end all flesh because of the consequences of sin and because of the multiplication of evil on earth to the extent it could not be tolerated any further.
Eight persons were preserved and that preservation was in order for the purposes of God to be fulfilled, despite the transgression : a continuance being granted, due to a foreseen sacrifice (by Christ) that gave a righteous basis for the extension of the world, in time, for those divine purposes to progress.
Else, in righteousness, there could be no world at all. The world would have ended at the time of the Flood.
He is the ‘Saviour of the world’ in that humanity is granted existence, time, forbearance and the testimony of the gospel (whether by figure and ritual under the old covenant, or whether by full revelation under the New Testament) that they might be saved.
But if there is unbelief and rejection then that is the responsibility of each individual. And the consequence is to their own account, personally.
The further notion that the sufferings of Christ (within his body, prior to his death) were effective for the sins of all humankind (but only if certain individuals took advantage and added their own effectiveness) is nowhere expressed in scripture and is, in effect, salvation by works. | The question is a bit ambiguous, for it gives two quotes - John 1:29 an John 12:47 - which have quite different connotations: the first clearly shows that according to John Jesus' ministry is for the entire world and not just for one chosen nation of Jews, and there are quite a few passages in John that confirm the same. Thus, if in "universalism" is meant this, then of course, quite unambiguously, John's Gospel speaks about it.
However, the second quotation speaks about semantics of divine judgment and gives to this term a new twist, for we learn that Jesus who is God and equal to Father does not judge and neither does Father (John 5:22), but how then is God still the Judge who will judge all mankind? When names are applied to God, they change meaning drastically, and thus, we learn that God-the Judge does not judge - and if does not judge, then also does not condemn, for condemning is just a portion of judgment, which is a more general category - in the sense that He only forgives, He only loves, He only forbears, infinitely so, for He cannot help loving His creatures created in His image and likeness. Yet, when we reject all those divine actions towards us, close our hearts from them, then we condemn ourselves through the breach of communion with God and in a vulgar non-theological way this is called "God's condemnation", but, if one understands this vulgarly and in terms of positive human law-enforcement, one will obtain a sacrilegious calumny on all-merciful God, who in His own words "does judge nobody".
Thus, if in "universalism" is meant whether God saves all humans, then the answer is YES, He indeed saves all humans and cannot help saving them according to His nature, which can be defined as "love" (1 John 4:8), however, as being created free, we can reject His love and exactly through this free rejection self-inflict the condemnation on ourselves, His infinite forgiveness notwithstanding; for such real and horrible our freedom and responsibility is. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | I believe the correct answer is YES.
In John 1:7
>
> The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that **all men through him might believe**.
>
>
>
John 3:17 states that God sent the Son, who is the God's Word to save the world
>
> For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to **save the world through him**.
>
>
>
according to Isaiah 55:11 the word will not return to God **until it accomplishes it's purpose**
John 17:1-2
>
> These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
>
>
> As thou hast **given him power over all flesh**, that he should **give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him**
>
>
>
John 17:6-8 establishes that at that point only some were saved because only some out of the world had believed.
>
> I have manifested thy name unto **the men which thou gavest me out of the world**: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
>
>
> Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
>
>
> For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and **they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me**.
>
>
>
John 17:9 confirms that at this point this is only about the apostles
>
> I pray for them: **I pray not for the world**, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
>
>
>
later in the prayer Jesus expands the target:
John 17:20
>
> Neither pray I for these alone, but **for them also which shall believe on me through their word**
>
>
>
on 17:21 Jesus says that the entire world WILL believe that the Father sent Him (like the first group in 17:8)
>
> That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: **that the world may believe that thou hast sent me**.
>
>
>
Now, all these "might" and "may" that we see in 1:7, 17:2 and 17:21 are not mere possibilities, they express a purpose, an implication.
These "may" are known as subjunctives, and are being used in Purpose Clauses and they indicate something that is not necessarily yet true, but that will be the outcome if the first part of the sentence occurs. See [this article](https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/my-second-thoughts-about-subjunctives-purpose-clauses) from the greek scholar Bill Mounce (who is the founder and President of BiblicalTraining.org, serves on the Committee for Bible Translation, was the New Testament Chair for the ESV, and has written the best-selling biblical Greek textbook, Basics of Biblical Greek, and many other Greek resources) | The greater question of the question posed is, ***“Does Scripture support the Universalism?”*** And do the passages-John 1:29 & 12:47 support the Universalism?
**1. The Universalism** (differ from the Universal atonement)
The modern-day Universalism -Christian Universalism - is a specific theological term for a belief that **ultimately all human beings - all people/ every person of all human history, and the fallen angelic beings eventually will come into final salvation and spend eternity with God in heaven** (often confused with the universal atonement view -the provision of salvation and our acceptance of the salvation.)
(Note: Two main versions: The ultra-Universalism-everyone at death will have the second chance to accept the Salvation and go to heaven; The *Purgationists* - unsaved people after a certain cleansing period, God will free the inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself. Now the universalist prefers to call it, Universal restoration, Universal reconciliation, Universal restitution, and Universal salvation, or The victorious Gospel of Grace, Jesus, the Chosen One, Saves All.)
The main arguments of the universalist are:
* God is love, therefore, He “must” love all and will the salvation for all -all intelligent beings He created.
* The loving God by nature would condemn no one to eternal torment in
hell,
* That after a certain cleansing period, God will free "all"
inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself.
* The word “all (πᾶς)” and the “world” in certain passages have universal implications and support the Universalism -i.e., justification and life(eternal) for “all men” ([Rom. 5:18, 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; John 1:29; 4:42; 12:32; Acts 3:21; Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10; 1 John 2:2; 4:14)](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.1.29%20John.4.42%20John.12.32%20Acts.3.21%20Rom.5.18%20Rom.11.32%201Cor.15.22%20Eph.1.10%20Col.1.20%201John.2.2%201John.4.14&options=HNVUG&pos=1)
While the argument appears logical, but it is the ***same ol’*** circular reasoning - God cannot be perfect love while punishing sinners in hell. It is a logical fallacy imposing human judgment upon God, defective logic blinded by the love of God for creatures, but blinded to the love of God for His only-begotten Son. It is the faulty logic of **abstracting the eternal attributes of God** revealed in God’s revelations and is the same deception of the serpent first used at the Garden.
Universalism ignores the fact that the loving God, forsaken His only-begotten Son, put through a cruel death on the cross to save the created beings who reveled against Him and condemned to eternal damnation in hell. In effect, according to their "perfect love" logic, God is still a failure because He loved created beings but NOT loved His only-begotten Son. Furthermore, according to their line of thinking, the loving and sovereign God could /should have prevented the causes of sin in the first place, and if He did not, He is NOT perfect love; if He could not, He is NOT almighty; if He did not see it coming, He is NOT all-knowing, etc. **All their logics and arguments are to make a total mockery of God of the Scripture!**
**In sum**: The Scripture says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverb 14:12). Here, "right **יָשָׁר**" has ranges of meanings - right, correct, pleasing, and smooth." The Universalism - though more palatable to many - is "***The Devil's Redemption***" (M. McClymond,) and that says it all!
**2. The Universal Atonement**
The Universal Atonement (Unlimited Atonement -Arminianism), though shares with the Universalism on - i.e., Christ died for all sins of the world, it entirely differs with it- from the scope and efficacy of the atonement to eschatological outcome. Most importantly, no human judgments on God and His Word- the Scripture! The universal atonement is one of the 5 points that differ from the limited atonement (Calvinism). Both Calvinism and Arminianism -two opposing views- have good Scriptural supports for all their 5 points, yet both are in agreement on the main point - Salvation by grace through the "faith" in Jesus Christ.
One thing is clear: a) that two opposing views -as they are- cannot be right, nor totally represent the Scripture on every and all doctrinal points, unless both come to the Scripture. b) And also one’s belief in the scope of Christ's Atonement, and theological affiliation and familiarity of doctrines does not “save,” but the Word of Jesus gives the life ([John 6:63](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.6.63&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). Jesus said, “truly, truly I say, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life (1John 5:12), “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it" ([Luke 11:28](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=Luke.11.28&options=HNVUG&pos=1)).
Jesus says, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12-ESV). In Revelation, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15).
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the truth, and He will guide and teach us the Word ([John 15:26,16:13](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.15.26%20John.16.13&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). NO theologians and bible teachers can come to your help on that day.
* \*\*Sola scriptura
* Sola fide
* Sola gratia
* Solus Christus
* Soli Deo gloria\*\*
**3. Do John 1:29 & 12: 47 support the Universalism?**
The text John 1:29 connotes the universal atonement, but NOT the universalism. John 12:47 (& 48), the very words - if any man hears my words, and believe not… the word that I have spoken will judge… speak against the Universalism. In sum, in the immediate, larger, and context of the whole Bible, are many conditional/restrictive words against Universalism. |
52,725 | John 1:29 KJV
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 12:47 KJV
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. | 2020/10/31 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52725",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/38999/"
] | That the Father sent the Son to be the saviour of the world and that John declares of him ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world’, does not suggest, in any way, a ‘Christian Universalism’, that is to say the notion that, automatically, all humankind shall be saved irrespective of their behaviour, irrespective of faith or irrespective of the purposes of God in salvation.
In order that there should be a world to come, at all, necessitated the coming of Christ and the death of Christ. It is clear from what the scriptures teach regarding restoration (unhelpfully translated ‘reconciliation’) that salvation is effected by the death of Christ and by union with Him, under his Headship, in a righteous restoration out from under the headship of Adam and out of the former human state in Adam.
Part of this restoration is the fact that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who taketh away the ‘sin of the world’ which does not refer to the specific actions of individuals (which is dealt with in other parts of the doctrine of Christ) but refers to the entry of sin into the world from the beginning, in Adam.
Being ‘made’ sin, or being effected sin (some translate this as ‘being made a sin offering’ but I suggest that that falls short of the full concept) sin, itself, was condemned within the humanity of Jesus Christ - a clean humanity - and sin was eradicated in the sight of God, righteously.
No individual is condemned, personally, for the liability of flesh and blood, or for the propensities of created humanity, or for the failure of man in the flesh, or for the transgression of the head of humanity, Adam. This liability and this sin is taken away by the Saviour and borne by him in his death.
That removal, righteously, is necessary for there to be a world at all. That removal was necessary even to grant a continuance to humanity after the Flood. The judgment on the world, by water, was to end all flesh because of the consequences of sin and because of the multiplication of evil on earth to the extent it could not be tolerated any further.
Eight persons were preserved and that preservation was in order for the purposes of God to be fulfilled, despite the transgression : a continuance being granted, due to a foreseen sacrifice (by Christ) that gave a righteous basis for the extension of the world, in time, for those divine purposes to progress.
Else, in righteousness, there could be no world at all. The world would have ended at the time of the Flood.
He is the ‘Saviour of the world’ in that humanity is granted existence, time, forbearance and the testimony of the gospel (whether by figure and ritual under the old covenant, or whether by full revelation under the New Testament) that they might be saved.
But if there is unbelief and rejection then that is the responsibility of each individual. And the consequence is to their own account, personally.
The further notion that the sufferings of Christ (within his body, prior to his death) were effective for the sins of all humankind (but only if certain individuals took advantage and added their own effectiveness) is nowhere expressed in scripture and is, in effect, salvation by works. | The greater question of the question posed is, ***“Does Scripture support the Universalism?”*** And do the passages-John 1:29 & 12:47 support the Universalism?
**1. The Universalism** (differ from the Universal atonement)
The modern-day Universalism -Christian Universalism - is a specific theological term for a belief that **ultimately all human beings - all people/ every person of all human history, and the fallen angelic beings eventually will come into final salvation and spend eternity with God in heaven** (often confused with the universal atonement view -the provision of salvation and our acceptance of the salvation.)
(Note: Two main versions: The ultra-Universalism-everyone at death will have the second chance to accept the Salvation and go to heaven; The *Purgationists* - unsaved people after a certain cleansing period, God will free the inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself. Now the universalist prefers to call it, Universal restoration, Universal reconciliation, Universal restitution, and Universal salvation, or The victorious Gospel of Grace, Jesus, the Chosen One, Saves All.)
The main arguments of the universalist are:
* God is love, therefore, He “must” love all and will the salvation for all -all intelligent beings He created.
* The loving God by nature would condemn no one to eternal torment in
hell,
* That after a certain cleansing period, God will free "all"
inhabitants of hell and reconcile them to himself.
* The word “all (πᾶς)” and the “world” in certain passages have universal implications and support the Universalism -i.e., justification and life(eternal) for “all men” ([Rom. 5:18, 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; John 1:29; 4:42; 12:32; Acts 3:21; Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10; 1 John 2:2; 4:14)](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.1.29%20John.4.42%20John.12.32%20Acts.3.21%20Rom.5.18%20Rom.11.32%201Cor.15.22%20Eph.1.10%20Col.1.20%201John.2.2%201John.4.14&options=HNVUG&pos=1)
While the argument appears logical, but it is the ***same ol’*** circular reasoning - God cannot be perfect love while punishing sinners in hell. It is a logical fallacy imposing human judgment upon God, defective logic blinded by the love of God for creatures, but blinded to the love of God for His only-begotten Son. It is the faulty logic of **abstracting the eternal attributes of God** revealed in God’s revelations and is the same deception of the serpent first used at the Garden.
Universalism ignores the fact that the loving God, forsaken His only-begotten Son, put through a cruel death on the cross to save the created beings who reveled against Him and condemned to eternal damnation in hell. In effect, according to their "perfect love" logic, God is still a failure because He loved created beings but NOT loved His only-begotten Son. Furthermore, according to their line of thinking, the loving and sovereign God could /should have prevented the causes of sin in the first place, and if He did not, He is NOT perfect love; if He could not, He is NOT almighty; if He did not see it coming, He is NOT all-knowing, etc. **All their logics and arguments are to make a total mockery of God of the Scripture!**
**In sum**: The Scripture says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverb 14:12). Here, "right **יָשָׁר**" has ranges of meanings - right, correct, pleasing, and smooth." The Universalism - though more palatable to many - is "***The Devil's Redemption***" (M. McClymond,) and that says it all!
**2. The Universal Atonement**
The Universal Atonement (Unlimited Atonement -Arminianism), though shares with the Universalism on - i.e., Christ died for all sins of the world, it entirely differs with it- from the scope and efficacy of the atonement to eschatological outcome. Most importantly, no human judgments on God and His Word- the Scripture! The universal atonement is one of the 5 points that differ from the limited atonement (Calvinism). Both Calvinism and Arminianism -two opposing views- have good Scriptural supports for all their 5 points, yet both are in agreement on the main point - Salvation by grace through the "faith" in Jesus Christ.
One thing is clear: a) that two opposing views -as they are- cannot be right, nor totally represent the Scripture on every and all doctrinal points, unless both come to the Scripture. b) And also one’s belief in the scope of Christ's Atonement, and theological affiliation and familiarity of doctrines does not “save,” but the Word of Jesus gives the life ([John 6:63](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.6.63&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). Jesus said, “truly, truly I say, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life (1John 5:12), “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it" ([Luke 11:28](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=Luke.11.28&options=HNVUG&pos=1)).
Jesus says, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12-ESV). In Revelation, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15).
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the truth, and He will guide and teach us the Word ([John 15:26,16:13](http://localhost:8989/?q=version=ESV%7Creference=John.15.26%20John.16.13&options=HNVUG&pos=1)). NO theologians and bible teachers can come to your help on that day.
* \*\*Sola scriptura
* Sola fide
* Sola gratia
* Solus Christus
* Soli Deo gloria\*\*
**3. Do John 1:29 & 12: 47 support the Universalism?**
The text John 1:29 connotes the universal atonement, but NOT the universalism. John 12:47 (& 48), the very words - if any man hears my words, and believe not… the word that I have spoken will judge… speak against the Universalism. In sum, in the immediate, larger, and context of the whole Bible, are many conditional/restrictive words against Universalism. |
54,006 | Does Virgin Galatic go into space high enough to experience real weightlessness?
A CNBC article states it's more microgravity centrifugal:
>
> The spacecraft essentially does a slow back flip at the edge of space, with passengers spending a few minutes floating in microgravity
>
>
>
*[How SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin and others compete in the growing space tourism market](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/26/space-tourism-how-spacex-virgin-galactic-blue-origin-axiom-compete.html)* (CNBC) | 2021/07/06 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/54006",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/42278/"
] | Yes, for a few minutes. It is similar to what is done in a zero gravity airplane flight, but a longer period of time.
Also, orbital weightlessness is basically the same thing, the spacecraft and you are falling at the same rate. | Virgin Galactic's flights are sub-orbital and pass below the [Kármán line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line) (about 100 km up), so technically the passengers don't qualify as astronauts in space, but while they experience weightlessness, this is a consequence of the trajectory of their spacecraft rather than them being unaffected by Earths gravity.
The force of gravity on the occupants of their craft is actually very similar to that acting on us on the surface, but the astronauts are in freefall along with the spacecraft - this is exactly the same as what happens to occupants of the aircraft that follow a freefall trajectory ([vomit comet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft)) who also experience what is referred to as weightlessness.
There is little difference between these two situations, and that of someone in deep space (say on route to Mars). However, the article you read is correct and the effect is really an effective matching of the force of gravity with the force that is attempting to keep them travelling in a straight line (as per Newton's first law of motion). Gravity is what is preventing the occupants and spacecraft from following the straight line they would otherwise have.
Theoretically you can experience the same effect travelling on a train at hypersonic speeds on the surface of Earth. If the train was able to travel fast enough you would experience the same thing on a train (even if it was at same altitude throughout). Actually, if it was possible for the train to travel fast enough you could even experience -1g and be sat on the roof of the train (the -1g would in reality be centripetal force being twice the force of gravity, but in the opposite direction, and producing an overall force of -1g).
p.s. Updated answer after obtaining confirmation that they only reached 53 miles altitude. It would seem that the astronaut wings awarded to the passengers are more symbolic than official recognition of entering space (it would seem a different standard it being met here). |
54,006 | Does Virgin Galatic go into space high enough to experience real weightlessness?
A CNBC article states it's more microgravity centrifugal:
>
> The spacecraft essentially does a slow back flip at the edge of space, with passengers spending a few minutes floating in microgravity
>
>
>
*[How SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin and others compete in the growing space tourism market](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/26/space-tourism-how-spacex-virgin-galactic-blue-origin-axiom-compete.html)* (CNBC) | 2021/07/06 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/54006",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/42278/"
] | This is a point worth emphasizing: When you dive off a high dive, or go on a free fall ride at an amusement park, or fly on Virgin Galactic, you are experiencing weightlessness in exactly the same way as the astronauts on the ISS.
At the height of the ISS, the earth's gravity is about [90% of what it is at sea level](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#:%7E:text=Gravity%20at%20the%20altitude%20of,an%20apparent%20state%20of%20weightlessness.). You could launch a rocket straight up and hover until your engines ran out, and be walking around in your spacecraft while the ISS whizzed by at 5 miles a second. The reason the astronauts float around in the ISS is that they, like the space station, are themselves in orbit. When you dive off a diving board, you are technically in orbit too, but it is a *very* skinny orbit that intersects the surface of the earth.
So the answer to your question is yes, the weightlessness advertised by Virgin Galactic is real. But they may not want you to think about how you could get the same weightlessness more cheaply (but without the probably amazing view). | Virgin Galactic's flights are sub-orbital and pass below the [Kármán line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line) (about 100 km up), so technically the passengers don't qualify as astronauts in space, but while they experience weightlessness, this is a consequence of the trajectory of their spacecraft rather than them being unaffected by Earths gravity.
The force of gravity on the occupants of their craft is actually very similar to that acting on us on the surface, but the astronauts are in freefall along with the spacecraft - this is exactly the same as what happens to occupants of the aircraft that follow a freefall trajectory ([vomit comet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft)) who also experience what is referred to as weightlessness.
There is little difference between these two situations, and that of someone in deep space (say on route to Mars). However, the article you read is correct and the effect is really an effective matching of the force of gravity with the force that is attempting to keep them travelling in a straight line (as per Newton's first law of motion). Gravity is what is preventing the occupants and spacecraft from following the straight line they would otherwise have.
Theoretically you can experience the same effect travelling on a train at hypersonic speeds on the surface of Earth. If the train was able to travel fast enough you would experience the same thing on a train (even if it was at same altitude throughout). Actually, if it was possible for the train to travel fast enough you could even experience -1g and be sat on the roof of the train (the -1g would in reality be centripetal force being twice the force of gravity, but in the opposite direction, and producing an overall force of -1g).
p.s. Updated answer after obtaining confirmation that they only reached 53 miles altitude. It would seem that the astronaut wings awarded to the passengers are more symbolic than official recognition of entering space (it would seem a different standard it being met here). |
177,098 | <https://stackoverflow.com/a/16086837/438992> (10k+)
The question is (redux) "Is there an advantage/difference" but it's a simple shortcut method, and the says so explicitly. Few of the other answers offer significantly more information, except for Stefan's.
At least partially I suspect it's some intra-user hostility as I often need to correct the original commenter's answers, but I doubt that's all of it. So I want to know how it isn't an answer.
(And, curiously, *after* the question was deleted, it got another downvote--AFAICT that means someone w/ an ability to undelete a question undeleted it, downvoted it, and re-deleted it?!) | 2013/04/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/177098",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/168933/"
] | It seems to me that your answer is too terse to qualify. 'The docs'? The docs of what? I know you mean jQuery, but to the google-landing reader, it's potentially opaque. A slightly more verbose formulation ("They do exactly the same thing, one is a notational shortcut for the other, see the jQuery doc") would pass in my book. Not that I'm one of the reviewers here. | Since it was my question, I would say that my only gripe with your answer was that I was interested in the theoretical, not the practical differences, and why people would have a preference. I stated in the question that I knew both methods worked, so while I didn't necessarily agree that yours wasn't a valid answer, it wasn't overly helpful in understanding the observed existence of a preference.
And that was kind of the heart of the question, so telling me they both work, and overlooking the fact that the shortcut sets certain defaults and prevents using certain options, your answer missed the question.
But I'm the newb, so I don't know if that's a fair criteria to say that it's *not* an answer. |
177,098 | <https://stackoverflow.com/a/16086837/438992> (10k+)
The question is (redux) "Is there an advantage/difference" but it's a simple shortcut method, and the says so explicitly. Few of the other answers offer significantly more information, except for Stefan's.
At least partially I suspect it's some intra-user hostility as I often need to correct the original commenter's answers, but I doubt that's all of it. So I want to know how it isn't an answer.
(And, curiously, *after* the question was deleted, it got another downvote--AFAICT that means someone w/ an ability to undelete a question undeleted it, downvoted it, and re-deleted it?!) | 2013/04/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/177098",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/168933/"
] | It seems to me that your answer is too terse to qualify. 'The docs'? The docs of what? I know you mean jQuery, but to the google-landing reader, it's potentially opaque. A slightly more verbose formulation ("They do exactly the same thing, one is a notational shortcut for the other, see the jQuery doc") would pass in my book. Not that I'm one of the reviewers here. | I was going to answer "Too terse", but that was too terse. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | You have to realize that Google's or Bing's job as search engine is not worry about the behavior of their users with regards to how deep they are willing to dig to get results.
Their role is provide relevant search results based upon the keywords entered and the matching SEO of the site.Though Google (and Bing) use [algorithms](http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/10-likely-elements-of-googles-local-search-algorithm/519/) to determine the optimal search results based upon the keywords entered, the success of the search results depend on two factors
1. The keywords entered : Though Google does try to help out by features like Google instant,spell correct and autocomplete,it cant account for all unique cases for which the user is searching for and if the users keywords are not specific enough, he might not get the search results he wants
2. The SEO of the site : If the site has relevant content but doesnt have a decent SEO you might not find it at the top of the pile (within 10 pages) especially if its about a common topic
You also need to account for the fact that the popularity of Google and Bing depend upon the number of pages they index and hence they need to show as many search results as
possible.
Another reason Google provides the full number of search results, sometimes in the millions, to provide the user with an idea of how much more the search query would need to be refined. This encourages the user to make better use of the engine by making them do smarter searches and they account for people using incorrect keywords or having very specific or ambiguous requirements. However they do restrict the number to 1000 results as going beyond a thousand would eat up their resources because they have to rank each hit, and crawling the Net every day, several times a day, makes that unrealistic and unnecessary.
**Bottom line**: Its not really about UX,but its about showing people that there is a ton of information out there about any subject they choose to search for and Google/Bing can help them find it for them and also provide incentive's to users to perform smarter search results after a while
That said here is a nice article on how to [build an effective search results page](http://www.uxbooth.com/blog/create-effective-search-result-pages/) | Users often do not find a good result in the first page - this depends on how specific of a result they are looking for and how many false matches fit their query.
I personally often go through a few pages of search results before refining the search query to try and improve the quality of the results. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | Why not show them? The data is there, and on the first dozens of pages it's still pretty relevant. In terms of UI it doesn't cost you anything because you're using the same paging control that lets the users navigate through the first pages. If you tell your users that you've got millions of results but you only let them view a hundred, it makes them wonder why. For an "arbitrary" cut-off, 100 pages is very reasonable, while 10 or 20 is a bit strange. | Users often do not find a good result in the first page - this depends on how specific of a result they are looking for and how many false matches fit their query.
I personally often go through a few pages of search results before refining the search query to try and improve the quality of the results. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | It's a way to improve search result quality by letting users explore information found in long tail of the result.
More importantly, having long tail mitigates a dangerous feedback loop in which the first few pages results get disproportionately higher ranking. | Users often do not find a good result in the first page - this depends on how specific of a result they are looking for and how many false matches fit their query.
I personally often go through a few pages of search results before refining the search query to try and improve the quality of the results. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | Search engines such as Google or Bing devote their resources to having high-precision queries for common, precision-oriented information needs. Think of them as recommender systems for popular documents. This works great when you're interested (as many people seem to be) in what Britney Spears is up to, for example.
If, however, a user's information need is recall-oriented, then settling for one of the top few results may not be appropriate. Think about searching for symptoms related to a disease, doing research, or trying to make a new connection between seemingly unrelated concepts. These kinds of searches may require people to dig into the results more deeply. | Users often do not find a good result in the first page - this depends on how specific of a result they are looking for and how many false matches fit their query.
I personally often go through a few pages of search results before refining the search query to try and improve the quality of the results. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | You have to realize that Google's or Bing's job as search engine is not worry about the behavior of their users with regards to how deep they are willing to dig to get results.
Their role is provide relevant search results based upon the keywords entered and the matching SEO of the site.Though Google (and Bing) use [algorithms](http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/10-likely-elements-of-googles-local-search-algorithm/519/) to determine the optimal search results based upon the keywords entered, the success of the search results depend on two factors
1. The keywords entered : Though Google does try to help out by features like Google instant,spell correct and autocomplete,it cant account for all unique cases for which the user is searching for and if the users keywords are not specific enough, he might not get the search results he wants
2. The SEO of the site : If the site has relevant content but doesnt have a decent SEO you might not find it at the top of the pile (within 10 pages) especially if its about a common topic
You also need to account for the fact that the popularity of Google and Bing depend upon the number of pages they index and hence they need to show as many search results as
possible.
Another reason Google provides the full number of search results, sometimes in the millions, to provide the user with an idea of how much more the search query would need to be refined. This encourages the user to make better use of the engine by making them do smarter searches and they account for people using incorrect keywords or having very specific or ambiguous requirements. However they do restrict the number to 1000 results as going beyond a thousand would eat up their resources because they have to rank each hit, and crawling the Net every day, several times a day, makes that unrealistic and unnecessary.
**Bottom line**: Its not really about UX,but its about showing people that there is a ton of information out there about any subject they choose to search for and Google/Bing can help them find it for them and also provide incentive's to users to perform smarter search results after a while
That said here is a nice article on how to [build an effective search results page](http://www.uxbooth.com/blog/create-effective-search-result-pages/) | Why not show them? The data is there, and on the first dozens of pages it's still pretty relevant. In terms of UI it doesn't cost you anything because you're using the same paging control that lets the users navigate through the first pages. If you tell your users that you've got millions of results but you only let them view a hundred, it makes them wonder why. For an "arbitrary" cut-off, 100 pages is very reasonable, while 10 or 20 is a bit strange. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | You have to realize that Google's or Bing's job as search engine is not worry about the behavior of their users with regards to how deep they are willing to dig to get results.
Their role is provide relevant search results based upon the keywords entered and the matching SEO of the site.Though Google (and Bing) use [algorithms](http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/10-likely-elements-of-googles-local-search-algorithm/519/) to determine the optimal search results based upon the keywords entered, the success of the search results depend on two factors
1. The keywords entered : Though Google does try to help out by features like Google instant,spell correct and autocomplete,it cant account for all unique cases for which the user is searching for and if the users keywords are not specific enough, he might not get the search results he wants
2. The SEO of the site : If the site has relevant content but doesnt have a decent SEO you might not find it at the top of the pile (within 10 pages) especially if its about a common topic
You also need to account for the fact that the popularity of Google and Bing depend upon the number of pages they index and hence they need to show as many search results as
possible.
Another reason Google provides the full number of search results, sometimes in the millions, to provide the user with an idea of how much more the search query would need to be refined. This encourages the user to make better use of the engine by making them do smarter searches and they account for people using incorrect keywords or having very specific or ambiguous requirements. However they do restrict the number to 1000 results as going beyond a thousand would eat up their resources because they have to rank each hit, and crawling the Net every day, several times a day, makes that unrealistic and unnecessary.
**Bottom line**: Its not really about UX,but its about showing people that there is a ton of information out there about any subject they choose to search for and Google/Bing can help them find it for them and also provide incentive's to users to perform smarter search results after a while
That said here is a nice article on how to [build an effective search results page](http://www.uxbooth.com/blog/create-effective-search-result-pages/) | It's a way to improve search result quality by letting users explore information found in long tail of the result.
More importantly, having long tail mitigates a dangerous feedback loop in which the first few pages results get disproportionately higher ranking. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | You have to realize that Google's or Bing's job as search engine is not worry about the behavior of their users with regards to how deep they are willing to dig to get results.
Their role is provide relevant search results based upon the keywords entered and the matching SEO of the site.Though Google (and Bing) use [algorithms](http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/10-likely-elements-of-googles-local-search-algorithm/519/) to determine the optimal search results based upon the keywords entered, the success of the search results depend on two factors
1. The keywords entered : Though Google does try to help out by features like Google instant,spell correct and autocomplete,it cant account for all unique cases for which the user is searching for and if the users keywords are not specific enough, he might not get the search results he wants
2. The SEO of the site : If the site has relevant content but doesnt have a decent SEO you might not find it at the top of the pile (within 10 pages) especially if its about a common topic
You also need to account for the fact that the popularity of Google and Bing depend upon the number of pages they index and hence they need to show as many search results as
possible.
Another reason Google provides the full number of search results, sometimes in the millions, to provide the user with an idea of how much more the search query would need to be refined. This encourages the user to make better use of the engine by making them do smarter searches and they account for people using incorrect keywords or having very specific or ambiguous requirements. However they do restrict the number to 1000 results as going beyond a thousand would eat up their resources because they have to rank each hit, and crawling the Net every day, several times a day, makes that unrealistic and unnecessary.
**Bottom line**: Its not really about UX,but its about showing people that there is a ton of information out there about any subject they choose to search for and Google/Bing can help them find it for them and also provide incentive's to users to perform smarter search results after a while
That said here is a nice article on how to [build an effective search results page](http://www.uxbooth.com/blog/create-effective-search-result-pages/) | Search engines such as Google or Bing devote their resources to having high-precision queries for common, precision-oriented information needs. Think of them as recommender systems for popular documents. This works great when you're interested (as many people seem to be) in what Britney Spears is up to, for example.
If, however, a user's information need is recall-oriented, then settling for one of the top few results may not be appropriate. Think about searching for symptoms related to a disease, doing research, or trying to make a new connection between seemingly unrelated concepts. These kinds of searches may require people to dig into the results more deeply. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | Why not show them? The data is there, and on the first dozens of pages it's still pretty relevant. In terms of UI it doesn't cost you anything because you're using the same paging control that lets the users navigate through the first pages. If you tell your users that you've got millions of results but you only let them view a hundred, it makes them wonder why. For an "arbitrary" cut-off, 100 pages is very reasonable, while 10 or 20 is a bit strange. | It's a way to improve search result quality by letting users explore information found in long tail of the result.
More importantly, having long tail mitigates a dangerous feedback loop in which the first few pages results get disproportionately higher ranking. |
19,204 | There is a study that users do not go past top 3-5 pages in a Google search, on which predominantly everybody would agree. If you would get your best results - it means to be within the top 5 page at least. Merely users abandon to search or change the query if the results do not get laid in the first few pages. In that case, why do we have MORE search results, pages 10, 11, 12, ... and beyond? What meaningful impact does it serve when users rarely do get to that page? Is there any useful content lying far deep? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19204",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/11604/"
] | Search engines such as Google or Bing devote their resources to having high-precision queries for common, precision-oriented information needs. Think of them as recommender systems for popular documents. This works great when you're interested (as many people seem to be) in what Britney Spears is up to, for example.
If, however, a user's information need is recall-oriented, then settling for one of the top few results may not be appropriate. Think about searching for symptoms related to a disease, doing research, or trying to make a new connection between seemingly unrelated concepts. These kinds of searches may require people to dig into the results more deeply. | It's a way to improve search result quality by letting users explore information found in long tail of the result.
More importantly, having long tail mitigates a dangerous feedback loop in which the first few pages results get disproportionately higher ranking. |
10,141 | This is a very grey area, because while excel is fun to enter, and play around with, often times it's seen as a pseudo-programming language.
In Excel, one can drag-down formulas to automatically match cell entries, and other minor patterns. Usually, these formulas are dragged to the bottom of the input index, or (often times) all the way down to the bottom of the sheet.
One can start to see how this gets strange very quick, as these drag-downs are useful, but hard to score.
**Note, I'm not talking about answers where [dragging down is part of the input](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/87614/turtles-all-the-way-down/88761#88761). I'm explicitly referring to answers that already have the formulas in them before any input.**
How should we handle these answers? Should they be ignored? Scored? | 2016/09/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10141",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Just count the bytes
--------------------
This is a common question for oddball languages, from Scratch to Minecraft to Lego WeDo. The answer is usually ([from what I've seen](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9680/14215)) to just count the bytes of the saved file.
It's a simple method, easily understood by anyone. Will this make the score go up? Probably, but if you cared about having a super low score you probably wouldn't be using one of these languages in the first place.
Note: If you can save it one of several Excel formats, choose the one with the lower byte count. Assuming that format has the features necessary to then open it back up and run it properly. | Score as a polynomial
---------------------
The way I wanted to suggest scoring these is to leave the score as a polynomial.
for example, say you have some code in excel like the following:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eJfDg.png)
because "=(some more code)" is at a single point in the sheet, this will be the 0th term in the polynomial. In this case it is **17 bytes**.
The "=(Some code)" snippet occurs along one dimension in the array (the A column), so that would be the 1st term in the polynomial. In this case it would be **12n bytes**.
And in the rare case that someone has a multidimensional formula, then it will be considered the 2nd term in the polynomial. In this case it would be **25n² bytes**
so, if we were to score this sheet all together, it would be **25n² + 12n + 17 bytes**.
While this method describes the nature of the entry well, it still lacks a proper method of scoring. |
10,141 | This is a very grey area, because while excel is fun to enter, and play around with, often times it's seen as a pseudo-programming language.
In Excel, one can drag-down formulas to automatically match cell entries, and other minor patterns. Usually, these formulas are dragged to the bottom of the input index, or (often times) all the way down to the bottom of the sheet.
One can start to see how this gets strange very quick, as these drag-downs are useful, but hard to score.
**Note, I'm not talking about answers where [dragging down is part of the input](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/87614/turtles-all-the-way-down/88761#88761). I'm explicitly referring to answers that already have the formulas in them before any input.**
How should we handle these answers? Should they be ignored? Scored? | 2016/09/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10141",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Scored answers must be keyboard-only
------------------------------------
Given that the [`Range`](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff838238.aspx) operator exists that can replace the mouse drag-down operation, and the arrow keys can move between cells to (for example) enter multiple snippets of code in separate areas, I can't think of a reason why the mouse needs to be involved.
This also has the benefit of being able to be scored similar to Vim, for example, based on keystrokes. | Score as a polynomial
---------------------
The way I wanted to suggest scoring these is to leave the score as a polynomial.
for example, say you have some code in excel like the following:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eJfDg.png)
because "=(some more code)" is at a single point in the sheet, this will be the 0th term in the polynomial. In this case it is **17 bytes**.
The "=(Some code)" snippet occurs along one dimension in the array (the A column), so that would be the 1st term in the polynomial. In this case it would be **12n bytes**.
And in the rare case that someone has a multidimensional formula, then it will be considered the 2nd term in the polynomial. In this case it would be **25n² bytes**
so, if we were to score this sheet all together, it would be **25n² + 12n + 17 bytes**.
While this method describes the nature of the entry well, it still lacks a proper method of scoring. |
10,141 | This is a very grey area, because while excel is fun to enter, and play around with, often times it's seen as a pseudo-programming language.
In Excel, one can drag-down formulas to automatically match cell entries, and other minor patterns. Usually, these formulas are dragged to the bottom of the input index, or (often times) all the way down to the bottom of the sheet.
One can start to see how this gets strange very quick, as these drag-downs are useful, but hard to score.
**Note, I'm not talking about answers where [dragging down is part of the input](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/87614/turtles-all-the-way-down/88761#88761). I'm explicitly referring to answers that already have the formulas in them before any input.**
How should we handle these answers? Should they be ignored? Scored? | 2016/09/22 | [
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10141",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Scored answers must be keyboard-only
------------------------------------
Given that the [`Range`](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ff838238.aspx) operator exists that can replace the mouse drag-down operation, and the arrow keys can move between cells to (for example) enter multiple snippets of code in separate areas, I can't think of a reason why the mouse needs to be involved.
This also has the benefit of being able to be scored similar to Vim, for example, based on keystrokes. | Just count the bytes
--------------------
This is a common question for oddball languages, from Scratch to Minecraft to Lego WeDo. The answer is usually ([from what I've seen](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9680/14215)) to just count the bytes of the saved file.
It's a simple method, easily understood by anyone. Will this make the score go up? Probably, but if you cared about having a super low score you probably wouldn't be using one of these languages in the first place.
Note: If you can save it one of several Excel formats, choose the one with the lower byte count. Assuming that format has the features necessary to then open it back up and run it properly. |
9,949,461 | I want to start developing graphic programing using OpenGl
To kick start I am following [OpenGL](http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Getting_started)
I came across programing with GLUT and without GLUT but as being new to OpenGL in am even more confuse how to go with it? | 2012/03/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9949461",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1278178/"
] | GLUT is the **OpenGL Utility Toolkit**
It does stuff like this:
* Multiple windows for OpenGL rendering
* Callback driven event processing
* Sophisticated input devices
* An 'idle' routine and timers
* A simple, cascading pop-up menu facility
* Utility routines to generate various solid and wire frame objects
* Support for bitmap and stroke fonts
* Miscellaneous window management functions
You can find more about it [here](http://www.opengl.org/resources/libraries/glut/). | GLUT was designed as a lib for simple demos and tutorials. Maybe one cannot create full AAA game title using it... but for learning/teaching it is a great tool.
GLUT is very old right now, so look for FreeGlut which is an alternative that handles not only basic GLUT features but also gives some more advanced features: like fullscreen game mode, etc.
<http://freeglut.sourceforge.net/> |
277,767 | If an educational company described their session methodology as "high in reach" does it mean:
1. the size of the audience
2. the effectiveness of the training
3. other?
The original sentence in a press release was just "Our trainings are low in cost, high in reach".
I see that this comparison with cost is sometimes being used together [for example](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957672/) "*Our interventions must be high in reach but low in cost in order to most persuasively demonstrate worth in intervention*" | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/277767",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/139423/"
] | It's a somewhat vague term, and can be interpreted in several ways. But think of a person simply jumping to touch the highest point on a wall that they can achieve. "High in reach" basically means challenging you to reach as far up as you can. | "High in reach" in this context would mean the goals are high but within reach. It's a motivational phrase that you have high and lofty goals but with your abilities they are well within reach, or that you are well within your ability to meet those goals. |
277,767 | If an educational company described their session methodology as "high in reach" does it mean:
1. the size of the audience
2. the effectiveness of the training
3. other?
The original sentence in a press release was just "Our trainings are low in cost, high in reach".
I see that this comparison with cost is sometimes being used together [for example](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957672/) "*Our interventions must be high in reach but low in cost in order to most persuasively demonstrate worth in intervention*" | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/277767",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/139423/"
] | "High in reach" is a non-idiomatic way of saying that it *reaches* many people. This uses the word *reach* in the following sense:
>
> **reach** *noun*
> 2 The extent or range of something's application, effect, or influence.
> ‘he told a story to illustrate the reach of his fame’
> [- ODO](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reach)
>
>
>
Consider the fuller quote of the [link you provided](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957672/) (emphasis, mine):
>
> When all is said, the promise of the history of diffusion scholarship and diffusion practice is a promise of efficiency in intervention: **Communicating** an innovation **to a special small subset** of potential adopters so that they, in turn, will **influence the vast majority of other potential adopters** to attend to, consider, adopt, implement, and maintain the use of worthy innovations. Our interventions must be high in reach but low in cost in order to most persuasively demonstrate worth in intervention.
>
>
>
It's talking about accessing a small group that would *reach* the larger (target) audience. | "High in reach" in this context would mean the goals are high but within reach. It's a motivational phrase that you have high and lofty goals but with your abilities they are well within reach, or that you are well within your ability to meet those goals. |
277,767 | If an educational company described their session methodology as "high in reach" does it mean:
1. the size of the audience
2. the effectiveness of the training
3. other?
The original sentence in a press release was just "Our trainings are low in cost, high in reach".
I see that this comparison with cost is sometimes being used together [for example](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957672/) "*Our interventions must be high in reach but low in cost in order to most persuasively demonstrate worth in intervention*" | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/277767",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/139423/"
] | "High in reach" is a non-idiomatic way of saying that it *reaches* many people. This uses the word *reach* in the following sense:
>
> **reach** *noun*
> 2 The extent or range of something's application, effect, or influence.
> ‘he told a story to illustrate the reach of his fame’
> [- ODO](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reach)
>
>
>
Consider the fuller quote of the [link you provided](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957672/) (emphasis, mine):
>
> When all is said, the promise of the history of diffusion scholarship and diffusion practice is a promise of efficiency in intervention: **Communicating** an innovation **to a special small subset** of potential adopters so that they, in turn, will **influence the vast majority of other potential adopters** to attend to, consider, adopt, implement, and maintain the use of worthy innovations. Our interventions must be high in reach but low in cost in order to most persuasively demonstrate worth in intervention.
>
>
>
It's talking about accessing a small group that would *reach* the larger (target) audience. | It's a somewhat vague term, and can be interpreted in several ways. But think of a person simply jumping to touch the highest point on a wall that they can achieve. "High in reach" basically means challenging you to reach as far up as you can. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | Since Fate points are mentioned, I'm going to mention the angle offered by the great [fate](/questions/tagged/fate "show questions tagged 'fate'") based game [diaspora](/questions/tagged/diaspora "show questions tagged 'diaspora'"). In Diaspora, players start every session with five Fate points. It does not matter if they ended the previous session with ten or zero, every new session resets the count. *Use it or lose it* is the key phrase here.
This pushes players to spend what they have. They won't be keeping it anyway. | **Give out bennies like candy.** No, really. As long as your PCs are comfortable with the "refresh rate" of their valuable resources, they stop being all that valuable.
Don't forget to award the antagonists with something also - more mooks, more bennies, whatever. Your players should not feel the game suddenly becoming easier, but the opposite (you're aiming for "Man, we're lucky we spent all those bennies, otherwise we'd be toast now!").
Once they grow out of hoarding, you can dial down a bit and reward only their best moments with ~~candy~~ bennies. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | Since Fate points are mentioned, I'm going to mention the angle offered by the great [fate](/questions/tagged/fate "show questions tagged 'fate'") based game [diaspora](/questions/tagged/diaspora "show questions tagged 'diaspora'"). In Diaspora, players start every session with five Fate points. It does not matter if they ended the previous session with ten or zero, every new session resets the count. *Use it or lose it* is the key phrase here.
This pushes players to spend what they have. They won't be keeping it anyway. | Something I do with fate points is impose a five point limit. So, the only way they can get additional points is to spend what they have first. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | **Give out bennies like candy.** No, really. As long as your PCs are comfortable with the "refresh rate" of their valuable resources, they stop being all that valuable.
Don't forget to award the antagonists with something also - more mooks, more bennies, whatever. Your players should not feel the game suddenly becoming easier, but the opposite (you're aiming for "Man, we're lucky we spent all those bennies, otherwise we'd be toast now!").
Once they grow out of hoarding, you can dial down a bit and reward only their best moments with ~~candy~~ bennies. | Another possibility besides "limited inventory/carry weight" and "expiry date" is **inflation**. Have the resources become worth less, the more the game advances.
At the start of the game, 10 gold is a lot of money. Mid-campaign, every common thief carries 50 gold, shopkeepers have raised their prices. You were better off spending the gold than hoarding it, since it's worth nothing. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | Interesting question and one that I'm gonna have to solve soon too for my gaming group has similar issues (They don't hoard. They sell it all to buy permanent magic items. But as you can see at least half of the solution I've adopted will apply to both situations.)
This mission/session only
-------------------------
The first half of the solution is taken from a videogame called Thief.
At the end of each mission you lose all your unused items and keep every treasure you collected during that mission.
At the beginning of the next mission, you can use that treasure to buy a wide array of arrows and other trinkets.
You might apply a similar strategy to your missions or even sessions, that heavily depends on your tastes and needs.
This applies greatly to mechanical resources as you requested in your clarification! But often potions and the like are just supposed to be used and not converted to some other type of advantage.
Let's take it to the next step:
The percentile issue
--------------------
The second half of the solution takes care of what happens if, seeing that these items are gonna disappear soon, the players try to monetize them.
Choose a percentage of treasure that should only be used to buy (or should be made of) consumables, while maybe the other treasure can't be used to buy potions and the like. (In this case remember to always include tham in your treasure parcels.)
In my D&D 3.5 game that would be 10% as suggested by the books.
Even if they sell those goods, that gold can only be used to buy different consumables (maybe a parallel economy system with different coins?). | Another possibility besides "limited inventory/carry weight" and "expiry date" is **inflation**. Have the resources become worth less, the more the game advances.
At the start of the game, 10 gold is a lot of money. Mid-campaign, every common thief carries 50 gold, shopkeepers have raised their prices. You were better off spending the gold than hoarding it, since it's worth nothing. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | I don't think you should think of this as a "trick". I think the players are being rational. They are doing all right without spending the resources, and they have no idea what is coming up, that may require them.
So just make it rational to spend them. Have lasting rewards that make spending them worthwhile even when there is some risk of running out of the resource and not having it when they really do need it, or, I suppose, have them suffer permanent adverse consequences for *not* spending them. | Are you trying to change your players'/characters' personalities? Maybe! (Of course since it's an RPG that could be fun... read on)
Your question is asking about fungible resources, has no uniquenesss value, but *stores* value, and can be *spent* to gain some benefit... hey, sounds a lot like the economic definition of money, don't you think?
When it comes to money you can lump people into two types of behavior: spenders, (living more or less paycheck to paycheck) and savers/investors. You have just identified some of your players as savers.
Now since it's an RPG, maybe you should encourage players who tend to be savers, to imagine their character as being a little different, act like a wild spender for a change! When phrased that way it could be a liberating experience.
Just try not to let it come out as 'Come on, you guys never spend anything!' as your player could just take it as personal criticism. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | I don't think you should think of this as a "trick". I think the players are being rational. They are doing all right without spending the resources, and they have no idea what is coming up, that may require them.
So just make it rational to spend them. Have lasting rewards that make spending them worthwhile even when there is some risk of running out of the resource and not having it when they really do need it, or, I suppose, have them suffer permanent adverse consequences for *not* spending them. | Interesting question and one that I'm gonna have to solve soon too for my gaming group has similar issues (They don't hoard. They sell it all to buy permanent magic items. But as you can see at least half of the solution I've adopted will apply to both situations.)
This mission/session only
-------------------------
The first half of the solution is taken from a videogame called Thief.
At the end of each mission you lose all your unused items and keep every treasure you collected during that mission.
At the beginning of the next mission, you can use that treasure to buy a wide array of arrows and other trinkets.
You might apply a similar strategy to your missions or even sessions, that heavily depends on your tastes and needs.
This applies greatly to mechanical resources as you requested in your clarification! But often potions and the like are just supposed to be used and not converted to some other type of advantage.
Let's take it to the next step:
The percentile issue
--------------------
The second half of the solution takes care of what happens if, seeing that these items are gonna disappear soon, the players try to monetize them.
Choose a percentage of treasure that should only be used to buy (or should be made of) consumables, while maybe the other treasure can't be used to buy potions and the like. (In this case remember to always include tham in your treasure parcels.)
In my D&D 3.5 game that would be 10% as suggested by the books.
Even if they sell those goods, that gold can only be used to buy different consumables (maybe a parallel economy system with different coins?). |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | Guarantee Results for Fate/Bennies/Roll Bonuses
-----------------------------------------------
We play D&D4e. I grant my players +1/-1 tokens for role-playing, doing out-of-character tasks (such as uploading photos, completing character histories, etc.), leveling, milestones, quests, etc. These tokens can by used to move any die-roll result +1 or -1 and may stack.
You'd think that they'd horde these like crazy, but *they usually run out before the end of a gaming session* - and here's why:
I tell them whenever a certain number would turn a miss into a hit - or when x points of additional damage would take the monster down - or how much more they need to make a critical skill check. ***They often decide to spend them.***
A guaranteed result is a huge incentive.
This has a great side-effect: The game (especially combat) moves forward quickly. With this little tweak the players have control of how fast they move through the story (burn resources.) | Are you trying to change your players'/characters' personalities? Maybe! (Of course since it's an RPG that could be fun... read on)
Your question is asking about fungible resources, has no uniquenesss value, but *stores* value, and can be *spent* to gain some benefit... hey, sounds a lot like the economic definition of money, don't you think?
When it comes to money you can lump people into two types of behavior: spenders, (living more or less paycheck to paycheck) and savers/investors. You have just identified some of your players as savers.
Now since it's an RPG, maybe you should encourage players who tend to be savers, to imagine their character as being a little different, act like a wild spender for a change! When phrased that way it could be a liberating experience.
Just try not to let it come out as 'Come on, you guys never spend anything!' as your player could just take it as personal criticism. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | Before any change, talk with your players to let them know it's a problem. If they don't fix it themselves, then here's a few options:
1. Limit the maximum number of beanies a player can have at any time.
2. Limit the number of total beanies available to all the players. Once they're in the players hands, no more are available.
3. Have a maximum number of beanies available to be carried over from one session to another, with the excess beanies vanish, turn into gold, XP, etc.
4. Be more conservative on your awarding of beanies.
5. Get rid of the beanie system altogether. If the players are hoarding the beanies, they don't need them.
6. Overwhelm the PC's so they're forced to use their beanies or die. | Are you trying to change your players'/characters' personalities? Maybe! (Of course since it's an RPG that could be fun... read on)
Your question is asking about fungible resources, has no uniquenesss value, but *stores* value, and can be *spent* to gain some benefit... hey, sounds a lot like the economic definition of money, don't you think?
When it comes to money you can lump people into two types of behavior: spenders, (living more or less paycheck to paycheck) and savers/investors. You have just identified some of your players as savers.
Now since it's an RPG, maybe you should encourage players who tend to be savers, to imagine their character as being a little different, act like a wild spender for a change! When phrased that way it could be a liberating experience.
Just try not to let it come out as 'Come on, you guys never spend anything!' as your player could just take it as personal criticism. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | It's their bennies to hoard, if they so wish. Personally, I wouldn't push or try to trick them as GM, but I would reinforce the benefits when the other players spend them. | Another possibility besides "limited inventory/carry weight" and "expiry date" is **inflation**. Have the resources become worth less, the more the game advances.
At the start of the game, 10 gold is a lot of money. Mid-campaign, every common thief carries 50 gold, shopkeepers have raised their prices. You were better off spending the gold than hoarding it, since it's worth nothing. |
22,260 | There's a certain kind of people who like to hoard whatever limited resources they get "just in case"; they usually end up never using them, always waiting for bigger emergency. On the other hand, there are game mechanics based on spending some limited resourse: like bennies in Savage Worlds, fortune points in Warhammer, etc. You're supposed to spend them liberally, getting some in-game benefits.
The "hoarders" never spend these, robbing themselves of part of enjoyment. Simply explaining that "those point are meant to be spent" doesn't always work: players seem to understand that rationally, but some force of habit still prevents them from actually using their resources. I think this happens more often in videogames (I myself am guilty of hoarding all goodies till the end boss, and then never needing them), but I've seen this kind of behaviour in tabletop games too.
Of course, some players do this because they just like hoarding, or because they like the additional challenge, but some do notice that they're "doing it wrong."
Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?
**Clarification**
I'm mostly interested in "mechanical" resources like fate points and bennies. If you hoard something material, like potions, or money, at least you (probably) have more money as a result. When you hoard bennies, you essentially forfeit your chance to *do* something that matters. This is probably not what players want. | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/3406/"
] | *Is there maybe some sort of trick to encourage resource spending?*
Yeah - have a look at real life first. What prevents you from hoarding anything you can afford to acquire? Two things:
1. storage space/costs.
2. some goods have a "best before" date (or require even more storage resources)
Note that 2 applies even to non-physical things. I.e. if you learned French in high school "just in case", you will probably lose most of it unless you practice it, watch French movies, go to refresh courses and so on.
So, if it's a in-world resource (like potions), see that points 1&2 apply. If the PC is hoarding stuff and carrying it along all the time, apply saving throws to see if any of that is damaged when he is hit, too (AD&D had something this since the oldest editions for example).
If it is a "meta-gaming" resource like bennies, experience points, fate points, hero points etc. ... enforce some "stale/storage" scheme.
Like "you can't ever hold more than your level in fate points - if you are 7th Level and get one extra fate point you lose it automatically". | **Give out bennies like candy.** No, really. As long as your PCs are comfortable with the "refresh rate" of their valuable resources, they stop being all that valuable.
Don't forget to award the antagonists with something also - more mooks, more bennies, whatever. Your players should not feel the game suddenly becoming easier, but the opposite (you're aiming for "Man, we're lucky we spent all those bennies, otherwise we'd be toast now!").
Once they grow out of hoarding, you can dial down a bit and reward only their best moments with ~~candy~~ bennies. |
3 | This is a question that has been posted at many different forums, I thought maybe someone here would have a better or more conceptual answer than I have seen before:
Why do physicists care about representations of Lie groups? For myself, when I think about a representation that means there is some sort of group acting on a vector space, what is the vector space that this Lie group is acting on?
Or is it that certain things have to be invariant under a group action?
maybe this is a dumb question, but i thought it might be a good start...
To clarify, I am specifically thinking of the symmetry groups that people think about in relation to the standard model. I do not care why it might be a certain group, but more how we see the group acting, what is it acting on? etc. | 2010/11/02 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/40/"
] | Let me give a try.
When we construct a theory, we suspect that the objects it deals with can be rather complicated. It is natural that we want to find the simplest «building blocks» which the complicated objects are made of. If our theory were absolutely arbitrary, we won't be able to classify these simple building blocks at all. Fortunately, when constructing theories we note that the lagrangian we specify and the vacuum state have certain symmetries. Once we noted it, then it is pure math to show that the simple objects in our theory should be classified according to representations of the symmetry group of the lagrangian and the vacuum state.
Note that there are some symmetries which are obvious to us, which we perceive (like invariance under the Poincare group), and there are some symmetries which we **invent** (like non-abelian gauge symmetries). In the latter case we know that, by construction, all the macroscopic states (including the vacuum state) must be invariant under this new internal symmetry group. This gives us a short-cut to the assertion that the simple object in our theory must be classified according to the representations of the new group.
And what concerns the specific question:
>
> so the fundamental particle is acting on the quantum states?
>
>
>
When we say that a particle or a field is in representation R of group G, we do not mean that the particles are associated with matrices of representation R acting on something else. We rather mean that the particle can be written in terms of **eigenstates** of matrices representing operators in R. So, it is the symmetry group transformations that act on the particles. | The vector space that is being acted on typically is a Hilbert space of states in quantum mechanics; very roughly, there's a basis of this vector space which is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of possibilities for a physical system. The simplest example to try to get your head around is that of the spin 1/2 particle (2 dim representation of SU(2)), which is explained in any introductory quantum mechanics book. |
3 | This is a question that has been posted at many different forums, I thought maybe someone here would have a better or more conceptual answer than I have seen before:
Why do physicists care about representations of Lie groups? For myself, when I think about a representation that means there is some sort of group acting on a vector space, what is the vector space that this Lie group is acting on?
Or is it that certain things have to be invariant under a group action?
maybe this is a dumb question, but i thought it might be a good start...
To clarify, I am specifically thinking of the symmetry groups that people think about in relation to the standard model. I do not care why it might be a certain group, but more how we see the group acting, what is it acting on? etc. | 2010/11/02 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/40/"
] | The vector space that is being acted on typically is a Hilbert space of states in quantum mechanics; very roughly, there's a basis of this vector space which is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of possibilities for a physical system. The simplest example to try to get your head around is that of the spin 1/2 particle (2 dim representation of SU(2)), which is explained in any introductory quantum mechanics book. | See the [Wigner theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_theorem), it explain rigorously the relationship between a group of symmetries and states of a physical particle. |
3 | This is a question that has been posted at many different forums, I thought maybe someone here would have a better or more conceptual answer than I have seen before:
Why do physicists care about representations of Lie groups? For myself, when I think about a representation that means there is some sort of group acting on a vector space, what is the vector space that this Lie group is acting on?
Or is it that certain things have to be invariant under a group action?
maybe this is a dumb question, but i thought it might be a good start...
To clarify, I am specifically thinking of the symmetry groups that people think about in relation to the standard model. I do not care why it might be a certain group, but more how we see the group acting, what is it acting on? etc. | 2010/11/02 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/40/"
] | Let me give a try.
When we construct a theory, we suspect that the objects it deals with can be rather complicated. It is natural that we want to find the simplest «building blocks» which the complicated objects are made of. If our theory were absolutely arbitrary, we won't be able to classify these simple building blocks at all. Fortunately, when constructing theories we note that the lagrangian we specify and the vacuum state have certain symmetries. Once we noted it, then it is pure math to show that the simple objects in our theory should be classified according to representations of the symmetry group of the lagrangian and the vacuum state.
Note that there are some symmetries which are obvious to us, which we perceive (like invariance under the Poincare group), and there are some symmetries which we **invent** (like non-abelian gauge symmetries). In the latter case we know that, by construction, all the macroscopic states (including the vacuum state) must be invariant under this new internal symmetry group. This gives us a short-cut to the assertion that the simple object in our theory must be classified according to the representations of the new group.
And what concerns the specific question:
>
> so the fundamental particle is acting on the quantum states?
>
>
>
When we say that a particle or a field is in representation R of group G, we do not mean that the particles are associated with matrices of representation R acting on something else. We rather mean that the particle can be written in terms of **eigenstates** of matrices representing operators in R. So, it is the symmetry group transformations that act on the particles. | See the [Wigner theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_theorem), it explain rigorously the relationship between a group of symmetries and states of a physical particle. |
5,253,732 | I want to put some restrictions to the images uploaded by the users, so the script that process them never runs out of memory.
The images that take more memory, are the ones with higher resolution. They don't need to have a big size in bytes. For example, a 46kb image, with 4000x2500 resolution, and some transparencies (PNG), took around 90mb to resize it.
Is there a way to precalculate the memory needed accurately?
Any ideas? | 2011/03/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5253732",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/459537/"
] | Generally, the rule of thumb is, width x height x 4 (rgba) for both the source and destination images, and don't forget about the amount of memory the script itself has already consumed. | Using the GD library once the file has been uploaded you can use [getimagesize()](http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.getimagesize.php). You can then check the height and width to determine if you want to process it or return an error, it also returns the number of bits used per color if you want to take that into account as well.
So your validation can be on file size and dimensions. |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Check NOAA's [GSHHG](http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/shorelines/gshhs.html) (Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography Database).
The database is constantly being updated and maintained (latest update since Im answering this Q: July 1, 2013)
GSHHG is:
>
> a high-resolution geography data set amalgamated from two data bases
> in the public domain: World Vector Shorelines (WVS) and CIA World Data
> Bank II (WDBII). The former is our basis for shorelines while the
> latter is the basis for lakes, although there are instances where
> differences in coastline representations necessitated adding WDBII
> islands to GSHHG. The WDBII source also provides all political borders
> and rivers. GSHHG data have undergone extensive processing and should
> be free of internal inconsistencies such as erratic points and
> crossing segments. The shorelines are constructed entirely from
> hierarchically arranged closed polygons
>
>
>
The data are available in hdf4/3, ESRI Shapefile and binary formats.
<http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pwessel/gshhg/index.html> | GSHHG is definitive your first choice, but depend on the scale you need take also a look at <http://www.naturalearthdata.com/> |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Check NOAA's [GSHHG](http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/shorelines/gshhs.html) (Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography Database).
The database is constantly being updated and maintained (latest update since Im answering this Q: July 1, 2013)
GSHHG is:
>
> a high-resolution geography data set amalgamated from two data bases
> in the public domain: World Vector Shorelines (WVS) and CIA World Data
> Bank II (WDBII). The former is our basis for shorelines while the
> latter is the basis for lakes, although there are instances where
> differences in coastline representations necessitated adding WDBII
> islands to GSHHG. The WDBII source also provides all political borders
> and rivers. GSHHG data have undergone extensive processing and should
> be free of internal inconsistencies such as erratic points and
> crossing segments. The shorelines are constructed entirely from
> hierarchically arranged closed polygons
>
>
>
The data are available in hdf4/3, ESRI Shapefile and binary formats.
<http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pwessel/gshhg/index.html> | Check Out <https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/> for both WSG84 and Mercator Projection. |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Natural Earth would be the place to go. The data is open source and generalised for use at different scales.
<http://naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-physical-vectors> | Check NOAA's [GSHHG](http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/shorelines/gshhs.html) (Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography Database).
The database is constantly being updated and maintained (latest update since Im answering this Q: July 1, 2013)
GSHHG is:
>
> a high-resolution geography data set amalgamated from two data bases
> in the public domain: World Vector Shorelines (WVS) and CIA World Data
> Bank II (WDBII). The former is our basis for shorelines while the
> latter is the basis for lakes, although there are instances where
> differences in coastline representations necessitated adding WDBII
> islands to GSHHG. The WDBII source also provides all political borders
> and rivers. GSHHG data have undergone extensive processing and should
> be free of internal inconsistencies such as erratic points and
> crossing segments. The shorelines are constructed entirely from
> hierarchically arranged closed polygons
>
>
>
The data are available in hdf4/3, ESRI Shapefile and binary formats.
<http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pwessel/gshhg/index.html> |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Check out <https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/> from Jochen Topf. The data has been derived from OpenStreetMap ways tagged with natural=coastline. See also the data update. | GSHHG is definitive your first choice, but depend on the scale you need take also a look at <http://www.naturalearthdata.com/> |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Natural Earth would be the place to go. The data is open source and generalised for use at different scales.
<http://naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-physical-vectors> | GSHHG is definitive your first choice, but depend on the scale you need take also a look at <http://www.naturalearthdata.com/> |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Check out <https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/> from Jochen Topf. The data has been derived from OpenStreetMap ways tagged with natural=coastline. See also the data update. | Check Out <https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/> for both WSG84 and Mercator Projection. |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Natural Earth would be the place to go. The data is open source and generalised for use at different scales.
<http://naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-physical-vectors> | Check out <https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/> from Jochen Topf. The data has been derived from OpenStreetMap ways tagged with natural=coastline. See also the data update. |
72,774 | Im developing an application to print flight paths on a world map.
To do this i need a dataset to describe the latitude and longitude of various coastlines (and country borders if possible) of the world so I can plot them.
Is there anywhere on the web I can find this kind of data? (preferably free/cheap)
Thanks! | 2013/09/28 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72774",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/22430/"
] | Natural Earth would be the place to go. The data is open source and generalised for use at different scales.
<http://naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-physical-vectors> | Check Out <https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/> for both WSG84 and Mercator Projection. |
231,661 | Could you tell me what’s wrong in this phrase:
"In this database, there are failed copies of the file."
Is it grammatically correct to write "In this database" at the beggining of a sentence?
Thank you. | 2015/03/04 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/231661",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/112554/"
] | You can keep the original-
* In this database there are failed copies of the file.
In this database, there are failed copies of the file.
>
> or can rephrase it to-
>
>
> * The failed copies of the file are in this database.
>
>
> | I think it's fine. Maybe you can drop that comma if you decide to say: "There are failed copies of the file in this database." Otherwise, I believe it's grammatically correct. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.