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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
106,450 | I want to write a story about a group of people playing Augmented Reality (AR) games in a city that similar to any city we have in the modern world. A game like the one in the new anime movie Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale, or something like Pokemon Go if you haven't watched that movie before. The problem is that I want it to be a game with money reward (the money are from advertisement and sponsor, more or less like cash price in eSports)
GPS is not a good solution, as you can see how easy it is to fake GPS location in Pokemon Go. In the Sword Art Online movie, it was solved by having small drones flying around the city to locate the players, where I doubt if any city would allow that legally, not to mention that would be very expensive.
So, are there there more secure way to report location for a AR games? | 2018/03/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106450",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20219/"
] | I left a comment to another answer but then it was starting to turn into an answer. So I'm copying it here and continuing the thread:
Using only the phone, you won't be able to tell whether it is a real person holding the phone or it is fastened to a drone that moves around in the city and the player is sitting home and operating their phone remotely. Maybe additionally, you could make pictures with the phone's front camera and see whether it is a person holding it but that could be faked by gluing a picture there. Voice commands can probably be issued from the remote location and don't identify the player.
I can't see a way around a means of identification that doesn't rely on the phone itself. So maybe install check points with cameras and a sort of handshake protocol with the phone itself. It would be expensive to install them, though, and probably unrealistic if you're developing this game on your own. Unless you got permission to piggyback on already existing systems.
ETA: I just thought of another way: real world communication between players: **your players get instructions to meet other players** who are close according to the GPS. When they meet up, they exchange sort of passwords: both players get a keyword or something on their phone and they give it to the other and the other player types it into their phone. This confirms that both players were at the location their GPS said they are and both were humans actually playing the game. To prevent two or more people from cheating by only meeting with each other this way, you give a bonus to players who meet someone they haven't encountered before and give only a diminishing percentage of the points if two people have met before (depending on how many times they met in the past x weeks.) This would be a lot cheaper. | You could use RFID chips.
One dawback is you would have to plant receivers all over the city. This is sort of a double edged deal. A. you have to plant the receivers, but B. because they are your receivers you control the network. So it's almost a necessary evil.
Even this, though, is not fool proof. The reason the GPS has an issue is not because of GPS its because of the public nature of the data. So even with RFID someone could hack your system and use it to tell were someone is.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification>
These are used at stores to keep stuff from walking off, and I've seen them used at hospitals too, especially on the "baby" floor to keep tabs on the location of newborns. |
106,450 | I want to write a story about a group of people playing Augmented Reality (AR) games in a city that similar to any city we have in the modern world. A game like the one in the new anime movie Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale, or something like Pokemon Go if you haven't watched that movie before. The problem is that I want it to be a game with money reward (the money are from advertisement and sponsor, more or less like cash price in eSports)
GPS is not a good solution, as you can see how easy it is to fake GPS location in Pokemon Go. In the Sword Art Online movie, it was solved by having small drones flying around the city to locate the players, where I doubt if any city would allow that legally, not to mention that would be very expensive.
So, are there there more secure way to report location for a AR games? | 2018/03/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106450",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20219/"
] | Radio direction finding from cell towers. That's how the police could triangulate on phones before GPS became ubiquitous.
Two not-big-deal issues:
1. The cell phone companies would need to be involved.
2. Real-line RDF isn't as near as accurate as GPS. Many towers and technobabble would make it very accurate.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_direction_finder>
>
> A radio direction finder (RDF) is a device for finding the direction, or bearing, to a radio source. The act of measuring the direction is known as radio direction finding or sometimes simply direction finding (DF). **Using two or more measurements from different locations**, the location of an unknown transmitter can be determined; alternately, using two or more measurements of known transmitters, the location of a vehicle can be determined. RDF is widely used as a radio navigation system, especially with boats and aircraft.
>
>
>
The cell towers are known locations. RDF from multiple (not just two) towers triangulates the location of the phone built into your AR headset. | You could use RFID chips.
One dawback is you would have to plant receivers all over the city. This is sort of a double edged deal. A. you have to plant the receivers, but B. because they are your receivers you control the network. So it's almost a necessary evil.
Even this, though, is not fool proof. The reason the GPS has an issue is not because of GPS its because of the public nature of the data. So even with RFID someone could hack your system and use it to tell were someone is.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification>
These are used at stores to keep stuff from walking off, and I've seen them used at hospitals too, especially on the "baby" floor to keep tabs on the location of newborns. |
106,450 | I want to write a story about a group of people playing Augmented Reality (AR) games in a city that similar to any city we have in the modern world. A game like the one in the new anime movie Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale, or something like Pokemon Go if you haven't watched that movie before. The problem is that I want it to be a game with money reward (the money are from advertisement and sponsor, more or less like cash price in eSports)
GPS is not a good solution, as you can see how easy it is to fake GPS location in Pokemon Go. In the Sword Art Online movie, it was solved by having small drones flying around the city to locate the players, where I doubt if any city would allow that legally, not to mention that would be very expensive.
So, are there there more secure way to report location for a AR games? | 2018/03/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106450",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20219/"
] | Realistically, they'd use multiple factors. Deriving location from multiple independent sources is always better than any single solution however neat.
Some suggestions:
**GPS**
Practically free, so there is absolutely no reason to use it.
**Celltowers and Wifi**
Gives independent verification that the phone is in the area reported by the GPS.
**Mesh networking**
The player devices can probably connect to each other. This is a useful addition since the players move. This means the set of connections a cheater needs to spoof is constantly changing and it would be difficult to control which devices are close to you reliably.
**Player cameras**
AR devices need to see the environment. This includes other players. This means the game will get a constant stream of random identity and position checks. This would make cheating risky unless you can control all the players in the area.
**Surveillance cameras**
Cities are filled with surveillance cameras. If the game can hook into this system it can see all players in many areas. And the game will know in advance where it can observe the players. By putting all critical targets in areas that the game can see or that require players to move thru areas the game can see, the difficulty of cheating goes up drastically.
**Required actions**
The game can require players to perform verification actions. AR devices are likely to have some biometric verification capability at least as good as with smartphones. The game can require actions that the surveillance cameras ot other players can see and verify. A player observing an action by another player acts as a verification on both players.
**Environment modelling**
The game can recognize what the players see and verify it matches what other players and cameras have seen. This can include changing elements such as cars, people, or weather which can be difficult to spoof over time, if the game has independent data sources.
**Behauvior modelling** The game can build models of how players act. This allows it to spot player characteristic actions to support positive identification and suspicious actions or patterns that trigger added verification by the system.
By combining these and other data the game should be able to verify player location and identity with high confidence. More importantly, the more factors the game uses the more difficult the system will be reliably to spoof. If your GPS says you are in a location where a surveillance camera sees nothing, the game will not be fooled by your GPS. If your location data suggests you can teleport or walk thru the walls the system will not trust it. If you see a red car when other players see an empty parking lot the system will not trust your video. | Crowd source your player location burdens by offering incentives to non-players who document the location of each player using their cell-phone cameras.
Supplement these observer contributed sightings with the feeds from traffic-cams, police-car-cams and public webcams.
*There is a movie which used this idea, but I can't recall its name right now.* |
106,450 | I want to write a story about a group of people playing Augmented Reality (AR) games in a city that similar to any city we have in the modern world. A game like the one in the new anime movie Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale, or something like Pokemon Go if you haven't watched that movie before. The problem is that I want it to be a game with money reward (the money are from advertisement and sponsor, more or less like cash price in eSports)
GPS is not a good solution, as you can see how easy it is to fake GPS location in Pokemon Go. In the Sword Art Online movie, it was solved by having small drones flying around the city to locate the players, where I doubt if any city would allow that legally, not to mention that would be very expensive.
So, are there there more secure way to report location for a AR games? | 2018/03/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106450",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20219/"
] | Realistically, they'd use multiple factors. Deriving location from multiple independent sources is always better than any single solution however neat.
Some suggestions:
**GPS**
Practically free, so there is absolutely no reason to use it.
**Celltowers and Wifi**
Gives independent verification that the phone is in the area reported by the GPS.
**Mesh networking**
The player devices can probably connect to each other. This is a useful addition since the players move. This means the set of connections a cheater needs to spoof is constantly changing and it would be difficult to control which devices are close to you reliably.
**Player cameras**
AR devices need to see the environment. This includes other players. This means the game will get a constant stream of random identity and position checks. This would make cheating risky unless you can control all the players in the area.
**Surveillance cameras**
Cities are filled with surveillance cameras. If the game can hook into this system it can see all players in many areas. And the game will know in advance where it can observe the players. By putting all critical targets in areas that the game can see or that require players to move thru areas the game can see, the difficulty of cheating goes up drastically.
**Required actions**
The game can require players to perform verification actions. AR devices are likely to have some biometric verification capability at least as good as with smartphones. The game can require actions that the surveillance cameras ot other players can see and verify. A player observing an action by another player acts as a verification on both players.
**Environment modelling**
The game can recognize what the players see and verify it matches what other players and cameras have seen. This can include changing elements such as cars, people, or weather which can be difficult to spoof over time, if the game has independent data sources.
**Behauvior modelling** The game can build models of how players act. This allows it to spot player characteristic actions to support positive identification and suspicious actions or patterns that trigger added verification by the system.
By combining these and other data the game should be able to verify player location and identity with high confidence. More importantly, the more factors the game uses the more difficult the system will be reliably to spoof. If your GPS says you are in a location where a surveillance camera sees nothing, the game will not be fooled by your GPS. If your location data suggests you can teleport or walk thru the walls the system will not trust it. If you see a red car when other players see an empty parking lot the system will not trust your video. | **Watch them.**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/m0OM8.jpg)
<https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/313563192797507356/>
A time tested way to keep track of another person: have someone watch that person. A watcher who is good at seeing and not being seen. If this is for a fiction, it would be a great way to inject the story with a contrasting human energy that has deep roots in pretech thrillers. |
106,450 | I want to write a story about a group of people playing Augmented Reality (AR) games in a city that similar to any city we have in the modern world. A game like the one in the new anime movie Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale, or something like Pokemon Go if you haven't watched that movie before. The problem is that I want it to be a game with money reward (the money are from advertisement and sponsor, more or less like cash price in eSports)
GPS is not a good solution, as you can see how easy it is to fake GPS location in Pokemon Go. In the Sword Art Online movie, it was solved by having small drones flying around the city to locate the players, where I doubt if any city would allow that legally, not to mention that would be very expensive.
So, are there there more secure way to report location for a AR games? | 2018/03/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106450",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20219/"
] | You need multiple systems.
Firstly, for location spoofing, you could use a combination of the GPS and radio location systems already discussed. If they disagree, they go with whatever's considered more accurate for that specific case. It's a lot harder to spoof two systems than one. You could roll this into other methods - occasional NFC/RFID tags to be read, QR codes to scan, 2FA passwords (hat tip real subtle), or even if there are other players "scoring" at the same time and location, group selfie!
Another concern - not being attached to the phone- is quite simply covered- have the phone request photos randomly when points are awarded. If it can't take the photo, no points are awarded and you must take a photo the next time you "score". Miss two in a row and you start *losing* points until you do take a photo with you in it. Face recognition tech exists already for this to work. Your winners have their history audited against similar photos. Any photos without their face in it, that don't match other photos taken at the same time, or could've been doctored= no prize! | Crowd source your player location burdens by offering incentives to non-players who document the location of each player using their cell-phone cameras.
Supplement these observer contributed sightings with the feeds from traffic-cams, police-car-cams and public webcams.
*There is a movie which used this idea, but I can't recall its name right now.* |
106,450 | I want to write a story about a group of people playing Augmented Reality (AR) games in a city that similar to any city we have in the modern world. A game like the one in the new anime movie Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale, or something like Pokemon Go if you haven't watched that movie before. The problem is that I want it to be a game with money reward (the money are from advertisement and sponsor, more or less like cash price in eSports)
GPS is not a good solution, as you can see how easy it is to fake GPS location in Pokemon Go. In the Sword Art Online movie, it was solved by having small drones flying around the city to locate the players, where I doubt if any city would allow that legally, not to mention that would be very expensive.
So, are there there more secure way to report location for a AR games? | 2018/03/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106450",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20219/"
] | Realistically, they'd use multiple factors. Deriving location from multiple independent sources is always better than any single solution however neat.
Some suggestions:
**GPS**
Practically free, so there is absolutely no reason to use it.
**Celltowers and Wifi**
Gives independent verification that the phone is in the area reported by the GPS.
**Mesh networking**
The player devices can probably connect to each other. This is a useful addition since the players move. This means the set of connections a cheater needs to spoof is constantly changing and it would be difficult to control which devices are close to you reliably.
**Player cameras**
AR devices need to see the environment. This includes other players. This means the game will get a constant stream of random identity and position checks. This would make cheating risky unless you can control all the players in the area.
**Surveillance cameras**
Cities are filled with surveillance cameras. If the game can hook into this system it can see all players in many areas. And the game will know in advance where it can observe the players. By putting all critical targets in areas that the game can see or that require players to move thru areas the game can see, the difficulty of cheating goes up drastically.
**Required actions**
The game can require players to perform verification actions. AR devices are likely to have some biometric verification capability at least as good as with smartphones. The game can require actions that the surveillance cameras ot other players can see and verify. A player observing an action by another player acts as a verification on both players.
**Environment modelling**
The game can recognize what the players see and verify it matches what other players and cameras have seen. This can include changing elements such as cars, people, or weather which can be difficult to spoof over time, if the game has independent data sources.
**Behauvior modelling** The game can build models of how players act. This allows it to spot player characteristic actions to support positive identification and suspicious actions or patterns that trigger added verification by the system.
By combining these and other data the game should be able to verify player location and identity with high confidence. More importantly, the more factors the game uses the more difficult the system will be reliably to spoof. If your GPS says you are in a location where a surveillance camera sees nothing, the game will not be fooled by your GPS. If your location data suggests you can teleport or walk thru the walls the system will not trust it. If you see a red car when other players see an empty parking lot the system will not trust your video. | I left a comment to another answer but then it was starting to turn into an answer. So I'm copying it here and continuing the thread:
Using only the phone, you won't be able to tell whether it is a real person holding the phone or it is fastened to a drone that moves around in the city and the player is sitting home and operating their phone remotely. Maybe additionally, you could make pictures with the phone's front camera and see whether it is a person holding it but that could be faked by gluing a picture there. Voice commands can probably be issued from the remote location and don't identify the player.
I can't see a way around a means of identification that doesn't rely on the phone itself. So maybe install check points with cameras and a sort of handshake protocol with the phone itself. It would be expensive to install them, though, and probably unrealistic if you're developing this game on your own. Unless you got permission to piggyback on already existing systems.
ETA: I just thought of another way: real world communication between players: **your players get instructions to meet other players** who are close according to the GPS. When they meet up, they exchange sort of passwords: both players get a keyword or something on their phone and they give it to the other and the other player types it into their phone. This confirms that both players were at the location their GPS said they are and both were humans actually playing the game. To prevent two or more people from cheating by only meeting with each other this way, you give a bonus to players who meet someone they haven't encountered before and give only a diminishing percentage of the points if two people have met before (depending on how many times they met in the past x weeks.) This would be a lot cheaper. |
1,110,388 | I would like to connect remotely to a machine. I know the IP address and I know the password associated to my username but I forgot my username.
Is it possible to list all usernames of a machine knowing only the IP address or would this represent a security issue?
I am on MAC OS X 10.11.3. The remote machine also runs on a recent MAC OS X version. | 2016/08/05 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1110388",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/313996/"
] | This would be an extreme security violation. There was a time when we could trust most of the users on the internet, but that time has long gone.
Spammers would love to have that ability so that they could better direct their spam. Instead they often resort to old lists containing user-ids deactivated over a decade ago.
Crackers would love to have that ability so they could try to login to known accounts. Given that many people use extremely simple passwords, this would make their life so much easier.
A list of valid users would make social engineering a break-in so much easier. It is often still relatively easy.
However, if you have legitimate access to a server, there are a number of ways you can get a list of valid (if not necessarily active) userids. | As mentioned, if it would be possible, it would be a security issue.
Unfortunately, recently there was one, [CVE-2015-8325](http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Jul/51), which allowed to check the user existence on the remote server based on the timing attack. It is possible that OS X does not have it fixed yet?
Footnote: Do not try this in production and on public servers! If you are the owner of the server, it is fine to try the script enclosed to the mail. But doing this against servers of others might be considered as a hacking attempt. |
1,110,388 | I would like to connect remotely to a machine. I know the IP address and I know the password associated to my username but I forgot my username.
Is it possible to list all usernames of a machine knowing only the IP address or would this represent a security issue?
I am on MAC OS X 10.11.3. The remote machine also runs on a recent MAC OS X version. | 2016/08/05 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1110388",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/313996/"
] | This would be an extreme security violation. There was a time when we could trust most of the users on the internet, but that time has long gone.
Spammers would love to have that ability so that they could better direct their spam. Instead they often resort to old lists containing user-ids deactivated over a decade ago.
Crackers would love to have that ability so they could try to login to known accounts. Given that many people use extremely simple passwords, this would make their life so much easier.
A list of valid users would make social engineering a break-in so much easier. It is often still relatively easy.
However, if you have legitimate access to a server, there are a number of ways you can get a list of valid (if not necessarily active) userids. | Yes it‘s possiable to get the username via the IP address.
You can have a try of this this:
wmic.exe /node:IP-or-HostName ComputerSystem Get UserName
it works for me! |
7,050,288 | Is there a dynamic keyword in Java or a keyword which is similar to the dynamic keyword of C# | 2011/08/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7050288",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/781764/"
] | No, there's no such thing in the Java Programming Language; it is a strictly [statically typed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system#Static_typing) language. There are, however, other programming languages that target the JVM, such as Groovy, that do indeed support dynamic typing. | No, not that I know of, but having said that, there are other languages supported by the JVM that do use dynamic typing, such as Jython and I believe Groovy, and so it *is* possible to have your cake and eat it too, just not the particular flavor of cake that you requested above. |
75,879 | My circuit needs a s-curve type of pot, that is a W pot but i cant find it in a store.
How can i make a W pot Either using a log or a linear pot?
w pot graph
W pot=G pot
[Does anyone have a G pot graph?](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/76313/does-anyone-have-a-g-pot-graph) | 2013/07/14 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/75879",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/25960/"
] | What are you going to do with the result? Things are mostly controlled digitally nowadays, which is why there is little point to non-linear pots anymore. Set up the pot to drive the A/D input of a microcontroller, then perform whatever non-linearities you want on the resulting linear reading.
Even in the unusual case where you really do want a non-linear analog voltage from the user setting, you can still use a cheap micro (under $.50) to read the pot, perform the non-linear function, produce PWM from than, then a R-C filter to make the average voltage level. The linear pot plus micro is often cheaper than the fancy low-volume non-linear pot. | It is possible using negative impedance convertor (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_impedance_converter>).
Connect its ground point to midpoint of a pot, and output to a wiper. If Rnic = -Rpot/2, then curve is nearly perfect.
(Rf is -2\*Rnic in this schema) |
6,991 | Victarion and Theon occasionally make reference to "paying the iron price" for acquiring stuff; what does this mean exactly? It seems like that's what they call plunder, but they're not really the ones paying so it sounds strange. Are their *foes* the ones who are "paying"?
Its dual "paying the gold price" (oh how the Ironmen loathe commerce?) seems more straightforward. | 2011/11/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6991",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/584/"
] | Paying the iron price is indeed just taking [plunder by force](http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Balon_Greyjoy).
>
> An Ironborn man took pride in not having to pay for jewelery but taking it from those too weak to hold it ("Paying the Iron price")
>
>
>
[Also:](http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Ironborn)
>
> The Old Ways, are still highly regarded on the Iron Islands. The Old Way embodies the remembered values of a culture based on raiding. A man’s worth was judged primarily on his skill as a raider, as evidenced in the surviving practice regarding jewellery. Men on the Iron Islands wear no tokens unless they have “paid the iron price,” i.e. not bought or bartered, only won by combat and taken from their fallen foes.
>
>
> | To pay the gold price is to buy an item with gold. (bought with currency)
To pay the iron price is to buy an item with iron. (weapons are made of iron, and the weapons are used to take what they want, so it is 'bought' with iron.) |
6,991 | Victarion and Theon occasionally make reference to "paying the iron price" for acquiring stuff; what does this mean exactly? It seems like that's what they call plunder, but they're not really the ones paying so it sounds strange. Are their *foes* the ones who are "paying"?
Its dual "paying the gold price" (oh how the Ironmen loathe commerce?) seems more straightforward. | 2011/11/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6991",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/584/"
] | Paying the iron price is indeed just taking [plunder by force](http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Balon_Greyjoy).
>
> An Ironborn man took pride in not having to pay for jewelery but taking it from those too weak to hold it ("Paying the Iron price")
>
>
>
[Also:](http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Ironborn)
>
> The Old Ways, are still highly regarded on the Iron Islands. The Old Way embodies the remembered values of a culture based on raiding. A man’s worth was judged primarily on his skill as a raider, as evidenced in the surviving practice regarding jewellery. Men on the Iron Islands wear no tokens unless they have “paid the iron price,” i.e. not bought or bartered, only won by combat and taken from their fallen foes.
>
>
> | Paying the "Iron price" means killing the people or person that owned the item before hand. Then just taking it from them.
A quote from "A Clash of Kings":
>
> It's been so long... In the old way, Women might decorate them selves
> with ornaments bought with coin, but a warrior wore only the jewlery
> he took off the corpses of enemies slain by his own hand. Paying the
> Iron Price is what it was called.
>
>
> |
6,991 | Victarion and Theon occasionally make reference to "paying the iron price" for acquiring stuff; what does this mean exactly? It seems like that's what they call plunder, but they're not really the ones paying so it sounds strange. Are their *foes* the ones who are "paying"?
Its dual "paying the gold price" (oh how the Ironmen loathe commerce?) seems more straightforward. | 2011/11/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6991",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/584/"
] | Paying the "Iron price" means killing the people or person that owned the item before hand. Then just taking it from them.
A quote from "A Clash of Kings":
>
> It's been so long... In the old way, Women might decorate them selves
> with ornaments bought with coin, but a warrior wore only the jewlery
> he took off the corpses of enemies slain by his own hand. Paying the
> Iron Price is what it was called.
>
>
> | To pay the gold price is to buy an item with gold. (bought with currency)
To pay the iron price is to buy an item with iron. (weapons are made of iron, and the weapons are used to take what they want, so it is 'bought' with iron.) |
369,163 | How do you express a person who never makes excuses under any difficult situations?
Example:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a \_\_\_\_\_ person./ He was a \_\_\_\_.
>
>
> | 2017/01/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/369163",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/168204/"
] | ***Stoical***, perhaps?
Resembling a Stoic in austerity, indifference to pleasure and pain, repression of all feeling, and the like.(OED) | ***Resilient,*** maybe? You can say "he was a resilient person." It's in the spectrum of what you're looking for, so it may or may not work for you. |
369,163 | How do you express a person who never makes excuses under any difficult situations?
Example:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a \_\_\_\_\_ person./ He was a \_\_\_\_.
>
>
> | 2017/01/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/369163",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/168204/"
] | ***Stoical***, perhaps?
Resembling a Stoic in austerity, indifference to pleasure and pain, repression of all feeling, and the like.(OED) | I would look at [synonyms for determined](http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/determined). Examples include:
* resolved
* single-minded
* tenacious
* persevering
* unwavering
I think these words more generally describe someone who doesn't give up, but someone who doesn't give up is much less likely to make excuses than someone who does give up. |
369,163 | How do you express a person who never makes excuses under any difficult situations?
Example:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a \_\_\_\_\_ person./ He was a \_\_\_\_.
>
>
> | 2017/01/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/369163",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/168204/"
] | Idiomatically, a common term for this type of behavior is *stand-up*. Here is the entry for that adjective (in its relevant sense) in Barbara Kipfer & Robert Chapman, *Dictionary of American Slang*, fourth edition (2007):
>
> **stand-up *adj*** Courageous and personally accountable; bold; GUTSY Most often used in the expression *stand-up guy* : *He handled the humiliating defeat like a stand-up guy*/ *And he's very, very stand-up* (1841+) ... {adjective sense perhaps fr *stand up and be counted* ["To announce and be accountable for one's convictions, opinions, etc.; not be afraid to speak up"]}
>
>
>
In the example sentences you give, the fill-in-the-blank terms would be as follows:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a **stand-up** person./ He was a **stand-up guy**.
>
>
> | ***Stoical***, perhaps?
Resembling a Stoic in austerity, indifference to pleasure and pain, repression of all feeling, and the like.(OED) |
369,163 | How do you express a person who never makes excuses under any difficult situations?
Example:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a \_\_\_\_\_ person./ He was a \_\_\_\_.
>
>
> | 2017/01/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/369163",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/168204/"
] | Idiomatically, a common term for this type of behavior is *stand-up*. Here is the entry for that adjective (in its relevant sense) in Barbara Kipfer & Robert Chapman, *Dictionary of American Slang*, fourth edition (2007):
>
> **stand-up *adj*** Courageous and personally accountable; bold; GUTSY Most often used in the expression *stand-up guy* : *He handled the humiliating defeat like a stand-up guy*/ *And he's very, very stand-up* (1841+) ... {adjective sense perhaps fr *stand up and be counted* ["To announce and be accountable for one's convictions, opinions, etc.; not be afraid to speak up"]}
>
>
>
In the example sentences you give, the fill-in-the-blank terms would be as follows:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a **stand-up** person./ He was a **stand-up guy**.
>
>
> | ***Resilient,*** maybe? You can say "he was a resilient person." It's in the spectrum of what you're looking for, so it may or may not work for you. |
369,163 | How do you express a person who never makes excuses under any difficult situations?
Example:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a \_\_\_\_\_ person./ He was a \_\_\_\_.
>
>
> | 2017/01/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/369163",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/168204/"
] | Idiomatically, a common term for this type of behavior is *stand-up*. Here is the entry for that adjective (in its relevant sense) in Barbara Kipfer & Robert Chapman, *Dictionary of American Slang*, fourth edition (2007):
>
> **stand-up *adj*** Courageous and personally accountable; bold; GUTSY Most often used in the expression *stand-up guy* : *He handled the humiliating defeat like a stand-up guy*/ *And he's very, very stand-up* (1841+) ... {adjective sense perhaps fr *stand up and be counted* ["To announce and be accountable for one's convictions, opinions, etc.; not be afraid to speak up"]}
>
>
>
In the example sentences you give, the fill-in-the-blank terms would be as follows:
>
> When he faced difficult situations, he never backed off or never complained. He was such a **stand-up** person./ He was a **stand-up guy**.
>
>
> | I would look at [synonyms for determined](http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/determined). Examples include:
* resolved
* single-minded
* tenacious
* persevering
* unwavering
I think these words more generally describe someone who doesn't give up, but someone who doesn't give up is much less likely to make excuses than someone who does give up. |
367,219 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3M5Sy.png)
That's the message that always keeps popping up when I'm trying to update my game. I don't really understand Japanese so I would appreciate if someone could help me out with this. | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/367219",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/342921/"
] | Here is a Google Translate of the characters in the pop up message image:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6QlT1.png)
The buttons キ ャ ン セ ル and 購 入 す る translate to Cancel and Purchase respectively. | You can use google translate's image feature in the app too. Allow camera access and import this screenshot.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xJhG9.png) |
24,322 | Why is water often added to the eggs when making an omelette?
Also, is there a recommended amount of water? | 2012/06/09 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315/"
] | Eggs are already 3/4 water anyway!
By mixing in a small quantity of extra water before you cook the eggs, you are slowing down the cooking process by making more water available that has be evaporated. This keeps the cooking temperature to less than 100°C (212°F) for longer, therefore increasing the the time for the egg proteins to foam and expand before setting
The amount of water you need to add depends on; personal preference, the type of egg, and how old it is. Older eggs generally require a little more water
Adding skim milk will enhance this process slightly too. Adding extra fat will generally not enhance this process
**BONUS TIP** To make even more spectacular omelettes place a loose fitting lid over the pan to increase the steam exposure all around, and let the egg fully develop | To get fluffier eggs.
When the water is heated to 100 degrees C, the water will begin to evaporate.
This will in turn make lots of small holes in the egg giving fluffy eggs.
Recommended amount of liquid (water or milk): 1 tbsp pr egg. |
24,322 | Why is water often added to the eggs when making an omelette?
Also, is there a recommended amount of water? | 2012/06/09 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315/"
] | To get fluffier eggs.
When the water is heated to 100 degrees C, the water will begin to evaporate.
This will in turn make lots of small holes in the egg giving fluffy eggs.
Recommended amount of liquid (water or milk): 1 tbsp pr egg. | Using water does make the taste a lot better because the protein is a lot richer. |
24,322 | Why is water often added to the eggs when making an omelette?
Also, is there a recommended amount of water? | 2012/06/09 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315/"
] | Eggs are already 3/4 water anyway!
By mixing in a small quantity of extra water before you cook the eggs, you are slowing down the cooking process by making more water available that has be evaporated. This keeps the cooking temperature to less than 100°C (212°F) for longer, therefore increasing the the time for the egg proteins to foam and expand before setting
The amount of water you need to add depends on; personal preference, the type of egg, and how old it is. Older eggs generally require a little more water
Adding skim milk will enhance this process slightly too. Adding extra fat will generally not enhance this process
**BONUS TIP** To make even more spectacular omelettes place a loose fitting lid over the pan to increase the steam exposure all around, and let the egg fully develop | Using water does make the taste a lot better because the protein is a lot richer. |
14,645,947 | I would like to have a tool which finds all the occurrences of a (Java) constructor/method and reports the actual parameter values for each invocation.
I guess there's not something already prepared and also that I will need Static Analysis.
Which library/program do you suggest to use ?
(I have to analyse Java code but can use any language to write the analyser) | 2013/02/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14645947",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1421428/"
] | You could use AspectJ. Define a Pointcut on constructors. Then write an aspect to execute on each invocation. Then apply the aspect to the entire project.
The code inside your aspect is given details to the call chain so you can interrogate the parameters yourself and log them anyway you want. | You need a tool that can parse Java, builds an AST capturing the code (so you can search the code for method calls), can resolve type and names (so you know the meaning of each symbol instance and can determine that a specific identifier names the method(s) of interest, not just a symbol with accidentally the same name), and can help you generate the method call.
The Java compiler offers APIs to support some of this. I don't know that it will help you regenerate the method call text.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit provides general program analysis and transformation capabilities, including parsing, AST building/visiting, symbol table construction, and prettyprinting (regeneration of text) for arbitrary subtrees. It has a full Java front end providing full name and type resolution. It would be pretty straightforward to code an accurate, reliable tool to do what you want with the support DMS provides. |
283,043 | I have just installed ubuntu alongside with windows, but I have switched the sizes I wished for their partitions, with windows with about 500GB and ubuntu with about 100GB, though I wanted the other way around.
Can I just change the sizes of the partitions with the boot dvd or I have to format the HDD and do it over again?
Edit:
Allright mates I lauched gparted as required. Thing is have my linux partition inside another one, "extended", which I am not allowed to unmount even when booting from live DVD. In other words, sda4 (the extended) includes sd65 (with ubuntu) and sda5 (the swap).
This happened after second installation process. I don't know why the installation process made that. Anyway, I cannot work with remaking sizes while not unmounting sda4.
Clues? | 2013/04/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/283043",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/150478/"
] | No need. Yes, the size of the iso exceeds that of the capacity of a standard CD. You can either create a live-dvd or live-usb with it. Yikes! The solution is to create a minimal cd. It downloads and installs all the missing packages after you've installed ubuntu. Follow this [link](https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) to download it. You don't need to download an old distribution, you can download a minimal cd of 12.10.
You may want to see answers for this [question](https://askubuntu.com/q/272323/114660) | dont go for older version. just make bootable predrive using unetbootin. you will save you CD also |
142,733 | I came across a bizarre instance where a Pact Blade Warlock with the Witch Sight invocation ended up fighting several lower-level mages, a few of which cast Mirror Image. The Warlock claimed that Witch Sight saw through these false images so that he could see the true mages only.
The [Mirror Image](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/mirror-image) spell says:
>
> A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it relies on senses other than sight, such as blindsight, or if it can perceive illusions as false, as with truesight.
>
>
>
The Witch Sight [eldritch invocation](https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/warlock#EldritchInvocations) says:
>
> You can see the true form of any shapechanger or creature concealed by illusion or transmutation magic while the creature is within 30 feet of you and within line of sight.
>
>
>
As the mages are not technically concealing themselves with Mirror Image, I am unsure whether Witch Sight can see through the illusory images, as it only shows you the "true form" of the creature or shapechanger "concealed" by illusion. | 2019/03/08 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/142733",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/49349/"
] | Yes, Witch Sight sees through Mirror Image
==========================================
Mirror Image is illusion magic, which Witch Sight sees through. While not concealing them in the same way Invisibility might, it is concealing them in the same way that hiding in a crowd would (the common definition of *conceal* being: "keep from sight; hide"). Thus, they should be able to see the real creature for what they are, by seeing the false ones for what they are not. | No, Witch Sight can't see through mirror image
==============================================
In the last part of [Mirror Image's description](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Mirror%20Image#content), it says (emphasis mine):
>
> A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it relies
> on senses other than sight, such as blindsight, **or if it can perceive
> illusions as false, as with truesight**.
>
>
>
[Witch Sight](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Classes:Warlock/#toc_46) is not a sense to be relied on - rather, it augments the sense of sight:
>
> You can see the true form of any Shapechanger or creature concealed by Illusion or Transmutation magic while the creature is within 30 feet of you and **within line of sight**.
>
>
>
So the remaining condition is whether or not it allows perception of "illusions as false, as with truesight".
[Truesight](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/The%20Environment#h-Truesight) is described as follows:
>
> A creature with Truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical Darkness, see Invisible creatures and Objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on Saving Throws against them, and perceives the original form of a Shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane.
>
>
>
This description explicitly gives Truesight the feature "automatically detect visual illusions" in addition to the ability to perceive "the original form of a Shapechanger or creature", the latter of which is almost a word-for-word copy of Witch Sight.
In summary: Truesight sees through Mirror Image because it can "perceive illusions as false", due to its ability to "automatically detect visual illusions". Witch Sight can only "see the true form", and thus cannot see through Mirror Image. If a Shapechanger used Mirror Image, Witch Sight would see duplicates of the Shapechanger's true form, but would still see the duplicates. |
9,572,360 | In Flash Builder when i want to change the layout design, I mostly need to do it in CSS. I'm wondering is there a software program that I can use to write out the CSS and i can just copy and paste on Flash Builder?
e.g. when i want to change a button design, i need to code CSS by hand in Flash Builder, is there any program that let me design the layout and write the CSS for me? I don't mind copying and pasting to FB, i just don't want to learn and write the CSS by hand.
Thanks | 2012/03/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9572360",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/329139/"
] | I don't think there's really a good one out there for Flex 4, partially due to the new way of creating skins via extensions of existing skin classes, however here's some links that may be of use:
* [Flex 2 Style explorer](http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/consulting/styleexplorer/Flex2StyleExplorer.html)
* [Flex 3 Style explorer](http://examples.adobe.com/flex3/consulting/styleexplorer/Flex3StyleExplorer.html#)
* [Flex 4 Style explorer](http://www.booster-technology.com/flex4/styleexplorer/)
[Adobe Flex Style Help and Getting Started](http://help.adobe.com/en_US/flex/using/WS2db454920e96a9e51e63e3d11c0bf69084-7fee.html) | If you use an external style sheet, you can just use design view to edit the CSS. |
54,418 | When I looked up the word "half", I've found "two and a half year" is a correct phrase. But I've seen some Americans use "two years and (a) half" quite often and it confuses me. Is it correct to use any of the following phrases in conversation or writing?
* >
> two years and a half
>
>
>
* >
> two years and half
>
>
>
* >
> two and a half years
>
>
> | 2015/04/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/54418",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/18798/"
] | I agree that "two and a half years" is the most common way to say it in English. But "two years and a half" is also very good English, perhaps a trifle on the literary side. You could also say "two years, and half of another". | Typically, we say **two and a half years**.
But if someone asks you how old a child is, "years" is usually omitted: "He's two and a half."
It's not really a question of grammaticality; one way is just much more common than the others. |
54,418 | When I looked up the word "half", I've found "two and a half year" is a correct phrase. But I've seen some Americans use "two years and (a) half" quite often and it confuses me. Is it correct to use any of the following phrases in conversation or writing?
* >
> two years and a half
>
>
>
* >
> two years and half
>
>
>
* >
> two and a half years
>
>
> | 2015/04/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/54418",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/18798/"
] | [comment:]
I do not see anything ungrammatical about any of the alternatives. Maybe there's something that I do not know yet. However, I think *two and half years* is more common among non-native speakers, a likely influence of mother-tongue structure.
---
All four forms are good and acceptable. However, the trend seems to have changed around the turn of the century from *two years and a half* (now considered too literary/ too formal, perhaps) to *two and a half years.* The other two forms are found to a very small extent.
[Google nGram](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=two%20years%20and%20a%20half%2Ctwo%20years%20and%20half%2Ctwo%20and%20a%20half%20years%2Ctwo%20and%20half%20years&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctwo%20years%20and%20a%20half%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctwo%20years%20and%20half%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctwo%20and%20a%20half%20years%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctwo%20and%20half%20years%3B%2Cc0) *two years and a half,two years and half,two and a half years,two and half years*
 | Typically, we say **two and a half years**.
But if someone asks you how old a child is, "years" is usually omitted: "He's two and a half."
It's not really a question of grammaticality; one way is just much more common than the others. |
364,967 | The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Emission_mechanism) on photoelectric effect has the following line:
>
> Electrons can absorb energy from photons when irradiated, but they usually follow an "all or nothing" principle. All of the energy from one photon must be absorbed and used to liberate one electron from atomic binding, or else the energy is re-emitted. If the photon energy is absorbed, some of the energy liberates the electron from the atom, and the rest contributes to the electron's kinetic energy as a free particle.
>
>
>
Now, the Wikipedia entry uses the word "usually" rather than "always", so are there any cases where this "all or nothing" principle is not followed?
PS: exclude the case in which an orbit transfer may occur. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/364967",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/113313/"
] | [Compton scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering) can be considered as a clear counter-example: a photon of reduced energy is in the final state, along with an electron of increased kinetic energy. | What you are looking for is the two photon photoelectric effect. In this case, the electron absorbs (part of) the energies of two photons, and gets ejected. Now it is very important to understand the work function of the electron. This is the minimum thermodynamic work to remove an electron from the solid lattice.
>
> The photoelectric work function is the minimum photon energy required to liberate an electron from a substance, in the photoelectric effect. If the photon's energy is greater than the substance's work function, photoelectric emission occurs and the electron is liberated from the surface.
> Excess photon energy results in a liberated electron with non-zero kinetic energy.
>
>
>
Now you are asking what happens when all of the energy of one photon is absorbed by one electron, but the electron is still not ejected, even though the photon's energy is above the work function. Or you are asking what happens when only part of the photon's energy is enough to eject the electron.
There are a few cases:
1. this is QM, all about probabilities, and thought the photon's energy is above the work function of the electron, the electron is still not ejected. In this case part of the photon's energy is transferred to the molecule's vibrational and rotational energies (heating up the material)
2. two photon absorption, where a single electron absorbs two photon's energy (in part), and gets ejected (because even part of the two photon's energy is above the work function)
>
> Two-photon absorption (TPA) is the absorption of two photons of identical or different frequencies in order to excite a molecule from one state (usually the ground state) to a higher energy, most commonly an excited electronic state.
>
>
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption>
>
> We report on the observation of two-photon electron emission from silver nanoparticles suspended in nitrogen flow resulting from irradiating them with continuous wave and pulsed laser light with photon energies below the threshold of the single-photon photoelectric effect. The photoelectron yield is quadratic in the light intensity, and the two-photon electron emission threshold is evident. The efficiency of the two-photon photoelectric effect is determined for nanoparticles of various sizes. These experiments offer the net information on nonlinear quantum properties of an isolated single nanoparticle which is crucial for developing theoretical models.
>
>
>
<https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/10/368> |
97,942 | I'm working on a large application written in asp.net web forms. It was developed under asp.net 1.0, and still uses DataGrid, though portions have been updated.
Most of the code resides in either the codebehind, or in controller classes that can't be instantiated outside of a running IIS. (The controller framework we use provides lifetime management tied to session state.) Data access is through a custom DAL, meaning that most of that code also requires a live database with proper data inside it.
I want to decouple the code from the database and the web server, so that I can run it under a test harness. Are there any good strategies for moving from this sort of code to a more testable structure? | 2011/08/02 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/97942",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/27253/"
] | The best way would be to refactor out the code-behind to logical layers (services, DAO/Repository, etc). Look at Model View Presenter for ideas how to abstract away the rest, but realistically an endeavor like this is usually better served by rewriting the thing properly; speaking from experience it's **very** hard to refactor WebForms when it's done terribly, chances are you will have to redo so much that you're basically rewriting the thing anyways. | The problem is. that with the information you give, the range of possible answers is theoretically infinite.
If I collect the *hard facts* I get the following picture:
* ASP.NET 1.0 Webform
* DataGrid
* Tight coupling
* Dataaccess via custom DAL
Besides that, you didn't say in which direction your refactoring is heading.
Simply »cleaning the mess« is a good starting point, but not enough. And as @Wayne poined out: it would end up effectively in a rewrite.
There are at least 2 possibilities:
1) Making a [SPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application) where you have a smart frontend and do most - or at least a good deal - of logic in the frontend
2) Making a *conventional* web application with [WebAPI](http://www.asp.net/web-api).
Besides, though I actually have not worked with it, but perhaps it is worth a glimpse: [NancyFX](http://nancyfx.org/)
Depending on how big your application / codebase is - and on how hip you want to be, you should think about using [microservices](http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html)
Some easy recommendations are:
* Replacing the Datagrid with a JS-equivalent: [datatables.net](http://datatables.net/) or [jqGrid](http://www.guriddo.net/demo/guriddojs/)
>
> Data access is through a custom DAL, meaning that most of that code also requires a live database with proper data inside it.
>
>
>
* This could be mocked or stubbed away
For the rest, it depends:
If the codebase is somehow in shape. Try to guess, what the code does. Write a test. See if your assumption holds. If so, write another test, to veriy another assumption. If the *PITA*-factor is too high, rewrite the business logic completely. Otherwise repeat and build an iterative refined understanding of the code and evolve a finegrained test suite. Step by step you are knitting a saftey net around the code. If it is tight enough, take the chainsaw and cut the code in handy pieces.
I have to admit, that this is a very general advice, but without further knowledge of your codebase, it is hard to give any concrete advice. |
62,267 | I bought some fresh eggs the other day which don't expire until next month.
They've remained in the fridge in their carton. I just realised that a few of the eggs are cracked.
Is it still safe to hard boil and eat the eggs from that carton that haven't been cracked? | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39786/"
] | It does seem dangerous to me. You don't know where they have been before you bought them, so bacteria and other stuff can contaminate the eggs with their shell broken. You can safely eat the eggs that didn't break. Their shell and membrane protects them. The broken ones should be thrown away if you want to be sure you are safe.
[This reference](http://www.livestrong.com/article/505321-what-are-the-dangers-of-eating-cracked-eggs/#page=1) puts it this way:
>
> Cracks in the shells of eggs can allow bacteria or other pathogens to contaminate the egg and make you sick. While cooking does reduce the amount of most contaminants, it does not remove them completely.
>
>
>
And from the [USDA](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/egg-products-preparation/shell-eggs-from-farm-to-table/!ut/p/a1/jZFBU8IwEIV_i4ceQwLFCt6YzjiC0g7TUUovTlo2aYc2qclWxF9vgJMOVZJLkv1eNu-FZjSlmeIfleRYacXr4z4L3tiKBcNpyBbxdPjA5tHrKn4KQzZJbh2w-QOI_Cv1PWPG_tMvrmgwMstwKWnWcixJpYSmqQQkXNk9GEtTofWWWC4AD0TwAoktAdAVQErSGr3tCrRuAS03p2Bo6oi6Jq5uiTC6cTLTENQEeV4DXdPs57PY0M155Cfjx0Xks3j8G7iQ2xnoD8Y5l7XOT5-0mancnziLBgQYMIPOuOMSsb33mMcKrXeVkgOLvNjBZ1FyJWFQ6MZj7x3YoyXrsWA0Cu4cbI7Q9mzunMqlDqW2SNPem2nbvKRfzzORzEmWH_Y33xql4-0!/#24):
>
> Bacteria can enter eggs through cracks in the shell. Never purchase cracked eggs. However, if eggs crack on the way home from the store, break them into a clean container, cover it tightly, keep refrigerated, and use within 2 days. If eggs crack during hard cooking, they are safe. Remember that all eggs should be thoroughly cooked.
>
>
> | I've left comments everywhere on this thread because food safety deserves a lot of visibility. Summary here:
While this may not be standard terminology, [these egg safety guidelines from the NSW government](http://www.fishersghost.com.au/Assets/1861/1/eggs_in_food_service_manufacturing.pdf) distinguish between *broken* and *cracked* eggs. (It also says that both are unsafe.)
* A broken egg has neither shell nor membrane intact
* A cracked egg has membrane intact, but shell not intact
**Cracked eggs shouldn't be eaten says the [FDA](http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm077342.htm), the [USDA](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/egg-products-preparation/shell-eggs-from-farm-to-table), the [NSW Food Authority](http://www.fishersghost.com.au/Assets/1861/1/eggs_in_food_service_manufacturing.pdf), and the Departments of Health for [Queensland](https://www.health.qld.gov.au/foodsafety/documents/fs-27-egg.pdf) and [Victoria](http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Food_safety_storing_eggs).**
As is common of regulatory documents, links to original, peer reviewed research do not exist in the documents I just shared, so I am willing to believe that cracked eggs still could be safe, but I will not believe it until appropriate citations are provided.
**My own speculation:** sure, shells are porous, but they're still protection. One of the documents I linked instructed *not* to wash eggs with water, because the shell is more porous when wet and more readily allows bacteria through. Surely if the membrane were perfect protection, then a more porous shell would not matter. |
62,267 | I bought some fresh eggs the other day which don't expire until next month.
They've remained in the fridge in their carton. I just realised that a few of the eggs are cracked.
Is it still safe to hard boil and eat the eggs from that carton that haven't been cracked? | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39786/"
] | It does seem dangerous to me. You don't know where they have been before you bought them, so bacteria and other stuff can contaminate the eggs with their shell broken. You can safely eat the eggs that didn't break. Their shell and membrane protects them. The broken ones should be thrown away if you want to be sure you are safe.
[This reference](http://www.livestrong.com/article/505321-what-are-the-dangers-of-eating-cracked-eggs/#page=1) puts it this way:
>
> Cracks in the shells of eggs can allow bacteria or other pathogens to contaminate the egg and make you sick. While cooking does reduce the amount of most contaminants, it does not remove them completely.
>
>
>
And from the [USDA](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/egg-products-preparation/shell-eggs-from-farm-to-table/!ut/p/a1/jZFBU8IwEIV_i4ceQwLFCt6YzjiC0g7TUUovTlo2aYc2qclWxF9vgJMOVZJLkv1eNu-FZjSlmeIfleRYacXr4z4L3tiKBcNpyBbxdPjA5tHrKn4KQzZJbh2w-QOI_Cv1PWPG_tMvrmgwMstwKWnWcixJpYSmqQQkXNk9GEtTofWWWC4AD0TwAoktAdAVQErSGr3tCrRuAS03p2Bo6oi6Jq5uiTC6cTLTENQEeV4DXdPs57PY0M155Cfjx0Xks3j8G7iQ2xnoD8Y5l7XOT5-0mancnziLBgQYMIPOuOMSsb33mMcKrXeVkgOLvNjBZ1FyJWFQ6MZj7x3YoyXrsWA0Cu4cbI7Q9mzunMqlDqW2SNPem2nbvKRfzzORzEmWH_Y33xql4-0!/#24):
>
> Bacteria can enter eggs through cracks in the shell. Never purchase cracked eggs. However, if eggs crack on the way home from the store, break them into a clean container, cover it tightly, keep refrigerated, and use within 2 days. If eggs crack during hard cooking, they are safe. Remember that all eggs should be thoroughly cooked.
>
>
> | Normally only safe for a few hours. Need to be cooked right away. Setting a few days I would not chance it. That is fresh eggs. Farm fresh that day's eggs. Not store bought & set for how long? |
62,267 | I bought some fresh eggs the other day which don't expire until next month.
They've remained in the fridge in their carton. I just realised that a few of the eggs are cracked.
Is it still safe to hard boil and eat the eggs from that carton that haven't been cracked? | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39786/"
] | It does seem dangerous to me. You don't know where they have been before you bought them, so bacteria and other stuff can contaminate the eggs with their shell broken. You can safely eat the eggs that didn't break. Their shell and membrane protects them. The broken ones should be thrown away if you want to be sure you are safe.
[This reference](http://www.livestrong.com/article/505321-what-are-the-dangers-of-eating-cracked-eggs/#page=1) puts it this way:
>
> Cracks in the shells of eggs can allow bacteria or other pathogens to contaminate the egg and make you sick. While cooking does reduce the amount of most contaminants, it does not remove them completely.
>
>
>
And from the [USDA](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/egg-products-preparation/shell-eggs-from-farm-to-table/!ut/p/a1/jZFBU8IwEIV_i4ceQwLFCt6YzjiC0g7TUUovTlo2aYc2qclWxF9vgJMOVZJLkv1eNu-FZjSlmeIfleRYacXr4z4L3tiKBcNpyBbxdPjA5tHrKn4KQzZJbh2w-QOI_Cv1PWPG_tMvrmgwMstwKWnWcixJpYSmqQQkXNk9GEtTofWWWC4AD0TwAoktAdAVQErSGr3tCrRuAS03p2Bo6oi6Jq5uiTC6cTLTENQEeV4DXdPs57PY0M155Cfjx0Xks3j8G7iQ2xnoD8Y5l7XOT5-0mancnziLBgQYMIPOuOMSsb33mMcKrXeVkgOLvNjBZ1FyJWFQ6MZj7x3YoyXrsWA0Cu4cbI7Q9mzunMqlDqW2SNPem2nbvKRfzzORzEmWH_Y33xql4-0!/#24):
>
> Bacteria can enter eggs through cracks in the shell. Never purchase cracked eggs. However, if eggs crack on the way home from the store, break them into a clean container, cover it tightly, keep refrigerated, and use within 2 days. If eggs crack during hard cooking, they are safe. Remember that all eggs should be thoroughly cooked.
>
>
> | If you dropped a carton of eggs while loading your groceries in the fridge i would cook those eggs ASAP the moment they dropped get that frying pan ready and cook them whether you're hungry or not other wise toss them out in the garbage.Eggs are not very expensive.Cracked eggs can easily be replaced with only a few dollars but a human life can not be replaced. Toss the cracked or broken eggs out. |
62,267 | I bought some fresh eggs the other day which don't expire until next month.
They've remained in the fridge in their carton. I just realised that a few of the eggs are cracked.
Is it still safe to hard boil and eat the eggs from that carton that haven't been cracked? | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39786/"
] | I've left comments everywhere on this thread because food safety deserves a lot of visibility. Summary here:
While this may not be standard terminology, [these egg safety guidelines from the NSW government](http://www.fishersghost.com.au/Assets/1861/1/eggs_in_food_service_manufacturing.pdf) distinguish between *broken* and *cracked* eggs. (It also says that both are unsafe.)
* A broken egg has neither shell nor membrane intact
* A cracked egg has membrane intact, but shell not intact
**Cracked eggs shouldn't be eaten says the [FDA](http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm077342.htm), the [USDA](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/egg-products-preparation/shell-eggs-from-farm-to-table), the [NSW Food Authority](http://www.fishersghost.com.au/Assets/1861/1/eggs_in_food_service_manufacturing.pdf), and the Departments of Health for [Queensland](https://www.health.qld.gov.au/foodsafety/documents/fs-27-egg.pdf) and [Victoria](http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Food_safety_storing_eggs).**
As is common of regulatory documents, links to original, peer reviewed research do not exist in the documents I just shared, so I am willing to believe that cracked eggs still could be safe, but I will not believe it until appropriate citations are provided.
**My own speculation:** sure, shells are porous, but they're still protection. One of the documents I linked instructed *not* to wash eggs with water, because the shell is more porous when wet and more readily allows bacteria through. Surely if the membrane were perfect protection, then a more porous shell would not matter. | Normally only safe for a few hours. Need to be cooked right away. Setting a few days I would not chance it. That is fresh eggs. Farm fresh that day's eggs. Not store bought & set for how long? |
62,267 | I bought some fresh eggs the other day which don't expire until next month.
They've remained in the fridge in their carton. I just realised that a few of the eggs are cracked.
Is it still safe to hard boil and eat the eggs from that carton that haven't been cracked? | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39786/"
] | I've left comments everywhere on this thread because food safety deserves a lot of visibility. Summary here:
While this may not be standard terminology, [these egg safety guidelines from the NSW government](http://www.fishersghost.com.au/Assets/1861/1/eggs_in_food_service_manufacturing.pdf) distinguish between *broken* and *cracked* eggs. (It also says that both are unsafe.)
* A broken egg has neither shell nor membrane intact
* A cracked egg has membrane intact, but shell not intact
**Cracked eggs shouldn't be eaten says the [FDA](http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm077342.htm), the [USDA](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/egg-products-preparation/shell-eggs-from-farm-to-table), the [NSW Food Authority](http://www.fishersghost.com.au/Assets/1861/1/eggs_in_food_service_manufacturing.pdf), and the Departments of Health for [Queensland](https://www.health.qld.gov.au/foodsafety/documents/fs-27-egg.pdf) and [Victoria](http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Food_safety_storing_eggs).**
As is common of regulatory documents, links to original, peer reviewed research do not exist in the documents I just shared, so I am willing to believe that cracked eggs still could be safe, but I will not believe it until appropriate citations are provided.
**My own speculation:** sure, shells are porous, but they're still protection. One of the documents I linked instructed *not* to wash eggs with water, because the shell is more porous when wet and more readily allows bacteria through. Surely if the membrane were perfect protection, then a more porous shell would not matter. | If you dropped a carton of eggs while loading your groceries in the fridge i would cook those eggs ASAP the moment they dropped get that frying pan ready and cook them whether you're hungry or not other wise toss them out in the garbage.Eggs are not very expensive.Cracked eggs can easily be replaced with only a few dollars but a human life can not be replaced. Toss the cracked or broken eggs out. |
62,267 | I bought some fresh eggs the other day which don't expire until next month.
They've remained in the fridge in their carton. I just realised that a few of the eggs are cracked.
Is it still safe to hard boil and eat the eggs from that carton that haven't been cracked? | 2015/10/04 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39786/"
] | If you dropped a carton of eggs while loading your groceries in the fridge i would cook those eggs ASAP the moment they dropped get that frying pan ready and cook them whether you're hungry or not other wise toss them out in the garbage.Eggs are not very expensive.Cracked eggs can easily be replaced with only a few dollars but a human life can not be replaced. Toss the cracked or broken eggs out. | Normally only safe for a few hours. Need to be cooked right away. Setting a few days I would not chance it. That is fresh eggs. Farm fresh that day's eggs. Not store bought & set for how long? |
3,354 | Given that the majority of the operation of a chemical rocket is at different altitudes / pressures than at ground level, how are hot fire ground tests conducted to gather useful information about efficiency, thrust, etc?
I imagine there is some process of 'truing' the thrust, as well - making sure the vector points in a particular direction, like a bike wheel. How is this confirmed?
Additionally...how do you gather information from a stream of hot exhaust that is several thousand degrees?
Maybe my assumptions are way off-base. Just curious what some of the actual engineering processes are. | 2014/01/10 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3354",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/794/"
] | I'm gonna say it straight off, I'm no expert. But the first part of your question seems relatively straightforward to answer. The easiest is by building test facilities at different altitudes, get the performance data you're after at each altitude you can, and then extrapolate for whichever atmospheric pressure you later require.
E.g. ISRO has a high-altitude test facility at [Mahendragiri, India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahendragiri) (1,654 m / 5,427 ft), JAXA can simulate atmospheric conditions of an altitude of approximately 30 km at their [High Altitude for Rocket Engine Test Facility](http://www.rocket.jaxa.jp/kspc/english/tf/hats.html), SpaceX is leasing a launch pad in Las Cruces, New Mexico (4,000 ft / 1,219 m), DLR has an [Altitude Simulation Test facility in Lampoldshausen](http://eucass.eu/files/u1/2-P41operation.pdf), and so on.
The thrust itself is usually measured by [load cells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_cell), which have multiple [strain gauges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_gauge) oriented at different angles (usually four of them, two on each side oriented perpendicular to each other) and convert deformations to them (strain / load) into electric signal. Placing multiple load cells to measure force loads on the rigid rocket engine frame it is mounted to during test-fire should be sufficient to measure the thrust vector, since you can measure forces each side of the frame is a subject to.
The exhaust plume itself is usually measured with multiple infrared cameras that record its heat signature from various angles in real-time. All this data would be combined with data from a variety of sensors built into the rocket engine itself, such as e.g. measuring propellants pressure in its injectors (injection rate), and so on. | In a [vacuum chamber in Ohio](http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/b2/index.html).
>
> NASA's Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) is the world's
> only facility capable of testing full-scale upper-stage launch
> vehicles and rocket engines under simulated high-altitude conditions.
>
>
>
There is also the [A3 test stand at NASA Stennis Space Center](http://sscwebpub.ssc.nasa.gov/etd/ETDTestFacilitiesA3.asp) which is capable of flight duration (up to 550 seconds) hot fire test of engines or (with modifications) of stages at a 100,000 foot simulated altitude. |
3,354 | Given that the majority of the operation of a chemical rocket is at different altitudes / pressures than at ground level, how are hot fire ground tests conducted to gather useful information about efficiency, thrust, etc?
I imagine there is some process of 'truing' the thrust, as well - making sure the vector points in a particular direction, like a bike wheel. How is this confirmed?
Additionally...how do you gather information from a stream of hot exhaust that is several thousand degrees?
Maybe my assumptions are way off-base. Just curious what some of the actual engineering processes are. | 2014/01/10 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3354",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/794/"
] | I'm gonna say it straight off, I'm no expert. But the first part of your question seems relatively straightforward to answer. The easiest is by building test facilities at different altitudes, get the performance data you're after at each altitude you can, and then extrapolate for whichever atmospheric pressure you later require.
E.g. ISRO has a high-altitude test facility at [Mahendragiri, India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahendragiri) (1,654 m / 5,427 ft), JAXA can simulate atmospheric conditions of an altitude of approximately 30 km at their [High Altitude for Rocket Engine Test Facility](http://www.rocket.jaxa.jp/kspc/english/tf/hats.html), SpaceX is leasing a launch pad in Las Cruces, New Mexico (4,000 ft / 1,219 m), DLR has an [Altitude Simulation Test facility in Lampoldshausen](http://eucass.eu/files/u1/2-P41operation.pdf), and so on.
The thrust itself is usually measured by [load cells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_cell), which have multiple [strain gauges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_gauge) oriented at different angles (usually four of them, two on each side oriented perpendicular to each other) and convert deformations to them (strain / load) into electric signal. Placing multiple load cells to measure force loads on the rigid rocket engine frame it is mounted to during test-fire should be sufficient to measure the thrust vector, since you can measure forces each side of the frame is a subject to.
The exhaust plume itself is usually measured with multiple infrared cameras that record its heat signature from various angles in real-time. All this data would be combined with data from a variety of sensors built into the rocket engine itself, such as e.g. measuring propellants pressure in its injectors (injection rate), and so on. | The effect of external pressure on a rocket engine is backpressure at the exit plane of the nozzle. The combustion chamber is well insulated from that by the sonic flow at the throat o the nozzle. High altitude engines have large nozzles that expand the gas to a pressure below ground atmosphere. It is quite a good approximation to put a smaller nozzle on engines that will operate at high altitudes and test them in atmospheric pressure. The effect on performance can then be modeled. |
3,354 | Given that the majority of the operation of a chemical rocket is at different altitudes / pressures than at ground level, how are hot fire ground tests conducted to gather useful information about efficiency, thrust, etc?
I imagine there is some process of 'truing' the thrust, as well - making sure the vector points in a particular direction, like a bike wheel. How is this confirmed?
Additionally...how do you gather information from a stream of hot exhaust that is several thousand degrees?
Maybe my assumptions are way off-base. Just curious what some of the actual engineering processes are. | 2014/01/10 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3354",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/794/"
] | In a [vacuum chamber in Ohio](http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/b2/index.html).
>
> NASA's Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) is the world's
> only facility capable of testing full-scale upper-stage launch
> vehicles and rocket engines under simulated high-altitude conditions.
>
>
>
There is also the [A3 test stand at NASA Stennis Space Center](http://sscwebpub.ssc.nasa.gov/etd/ETDTestFacilitiesA3.asp) which is capable of flight duration (up to 550 seconds) hot fire test of engines or (with modifications) of stages at a 100,000 foot simulated altitude. | The effect of external pressure on a rocket engine is backpressure at the exit plane of the nozzle. The combustion chamber is well insulated from that by the sonic flow at the throat o the nozzle. High altitude engines have large nozzles that expand the gas to a pressure below ground atmosphere. It is quite a good approximation to put a smaller nozzle on engines that will operate at high altitudes and test them in atmospheric pressure. The effect on performance can then be modeled. |
85,273 | I bought a board which the above MCU is the atmega328p. Since I haven't used atmel MCU before, now it's a bit confusing. Are the ATMEGA and STM32 programmers not universal? What programming methods can this chip support? Is there serial programming or SWD programming? Need help. Many thanks! | 2021/07/22 | [
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/85273",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/users/78378/"
] | >
> **Are the ATMEGA and STM32 programmers not universal?**
>
>
>
They are not the same. As far as I know their programming arrangements are completely distinct.
>
> **What programming methods can this chip support?**
>
>
>
* Traditional AVR In-Circuit-Serial-Programming ([ICSP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-system_programming)) using a 2x3 header pin connector and one of a variety of programmers such as the STK500 which has low-cost clones like the [Pololu AVR programmer](https://www.pololu.com/product/1300) (less than $10). These programmers typically connect to a PC's USB port and can be used either with the software development tools from Atmel (now Microchip) or using the Arduino integrated development environment (IDE) which uses a program named avrdude to communicate with the ATMega328P (or other AVR family MCUs). ICSP is sometimes called In System Programming (ISP). It uses the MCU's [SPI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Peripheral_Interface) interface and you have to be careful what other circuitry is attached to those pins when you program the device.
* Serial-port programming by communicating with a pre-loaded "bootloader" program installed in the ATMega328P. This is the normal way to use the Arduino IDE but it depends on having that bootloader installed. Most bare ATMega328Ps are sold without this bootloader installed. All "Arduino" boards will have a bootloader installed in their MCU and many will have a serial-to-USB interface on-board so that the board can be plugged in to a PC directly. Otherwise you would need a USB-to-Serial interface like the [Adafruit FTDI friend](https://learn.adafruit.com/ftdi-friend) or many others.
There is also a [high-voltage programming](https://microchipsupport.force.com/s/article/How-to-perform-High-Voltage-Programming-on-AVR-devices) method but that isn't something a novice would need to use. I believe it is most often needed when you have configured the MCU in such a way that the above methods cannot be used. For example after having disabled the reset pin so it can be used as an IO pin that can be pulled to GND without resetting the MCU.
You can use an Arduino to emulate a programmer and use that to program boards that lack a USB serial interface. This is called [Arduino as ISP](https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/BuiltInExamples/ArduinoISP)
Microchip's newer generation of AVR MCUs use a different programming method than ICSP called [UPDI](http://www.technoblogy.com/show?2OJT). | >
> What programming methods can this chip support? Is there serial programming or SWD programming?
>
>
>
The Arduino IDE (a free download) supports programming in C++. The IDE pre-processes your code (which they call a "sketch") slightly but it is still C++.
You can drop into assembler if you absolutely must, but the C++ compiler does a good job of producing efficient code, almost always.
With the assistance of a serial interface (many Arduinos, like the Uno, have one built-in connected to a USB interface) you can quickly and easily upload your code. The wherewithal to do that is built into the IDE. |
324,322 | Forgive me if this question has been asked before or is off-topic.
The past couple of security patches I've installed have been discovered from reading news articles, which publicly discuss security vulnerabilities that apply to software on my servers. Here are two examples of such exploits that I have read from an article.
* [Apache Fixes Range Header Flaw, Again](http://apache.slashdot.org/story/11/09/14/2033221/apache-fixes-range-header-flaw-again)
* [New JBOSS Worm Infecting Unpatched Servers](http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/10/22/0152232/new-jboss-worm-infecting-unpatched-servers)
Needless to say I am not pleased that I had to discover these exploits existed on Slashdot, of all places. I have patched these, but I would like to have some easy way to be notified, or location that I can easily search for known exploits in the wild that pertain to me.
I am already running on major negative time as it is, so regularly updating security patches as they are released is completely and unquestionably impossible. I **need** to ignore "theoretical vulnerabilities" until they become practical.
Do any of you have good information on where to find such a source of information?
If so, do any such services have the ability to alert you when a patch becomes available for a known exploit in software you are interested in?
EDIT:
-----
Not sure what the downvotes are about, was I not clear? Is my question OT? I just want to put it out there that I am not implying in any way that patching against theoretical vulnerabilities is a bad idea or a waste of time.
I'm merely stating the depressing reality of my situation, working for a tiny company in a horrible economy where I'm expected to do the work of 6 people. The reality of not making payroll as it is for next month is more likely to be the downfall of my company than theoretical security vulnerabilities that I don't have time to address. | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/324322",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/95012/"
] | I'd caution against ignoring vulnerabilities simply because they have no publicly available exploit code - while those that get published to slashdot are highly visible, there's important software fixes getting released all the time, with and without public exploit code available. Mostly without.
However, keep in mind that once a patch is released for a vulnerability, even one that's privately reported, the cat's out of the bag - attacks can often be reverse-engineered based on the changes in the patch.
---
All of that being said, I can certainly appreciate that it's fatiguing trying to keep up with patches for all of the software that you're interested in. There's a ton of resources out there.
One option is to let your systems keep an eye on things themselves - email updates from WSUS in the Microsoft world and package managers in the linux side of things are a good resource, but will often leave you with gaps - WSUS doesn't give you third party software, and package updates may be late, and won't cover software that wasn't installed from the package manager.
Keeping an eye on the announcement channels of vendors will give you a much better picture, but you'll need some research on each.
For those that you've cited:
* Apache HTTP Server: [Feed and email](http://httpd.apache.org/lists.html#http-announce)
* JBoss: [email](https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/jboss-watch-list)
There's also the firehose option of the [CVE RSS feeds](http://nvd.nist.gov/download.cfm#RSS), but that's probably not really what you're looking for on the notifications - but CVE is certainly a great resource for searching for information on a particular product, and the CVSS score that they provide is a good resource for determining how serious the vulnerabilities are.
Watching for "code in the wild" is probably going too far down the rabbit hole for your needs, honestly. I'd recommend placing your trust in your vendors, or else getting new vendors - but if you're determined, then here's a couple resources: the [Full Disclosure](http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/) list and [Exploit DB](http://www.exploit-db.com/). | Step 1: Subscribe to the -announce and/or -security mailing list for all that you have installed on said server. This way, you'll receive notification as soon as these are made public by the developers. These should be fairly low volume and it's been my experience that if a vulnerability is announced here, you should probably act on it.
Step 2: Subscribe to the bugtraq mailing list: <http://www.securityfocus.com/archive>. Bugtraq is the best place I can think of for keeping up with vulnerabilities as they emerge. This can be a pain to keep up with as it's a noisy mailing list. Still, it may be worthwhile tracking this list too. |
324,322 | Forgive me if this question has been asked before or is off-topic.
The past couple of security patches I've installed have been discovered from reading news articles, which publicly discuss security vulnerabilities that apply to software on my servers. Here are two examples of such exploits that I have read from an article.
* [Apache Fixes Range Header Flaw, Again](http://apache.slashdot.org/story/11/09/14/2033221/apache-fixes-range-header-flaw-again)
* [New JBOSS Worm Infecting Unpatched Servers](http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/10/22/0152232/new-jboss-worm-infecting-unpatched-servers)
Needless to say I am not pleased that I had to discover these exploits existed on Slashdot, of all places. I have patched these, but I would like to have some easy way to be notified, or location that I can easily search for known exploits in the wild that pertain to me.
I am already running on major negative time as it is, so regularly updating security patches as they are released is completely and unquestionably impossible. I **need** to ignore "theoretical vulnerabilities" until they become practical.
Do any of you have good information on where to find such a source of information?
If so, do any such services have the ability to alert you when a patch becomes available for a known exploit in software you are interested in?
EDIT:
-----
Not sure what the downvotes are about, was I not clear? Is my question OT? I just want to put it out there that I am not implying in any way that patching against theoretical vulnerabilities is a bad idea or a waste of time.
I'm merely stating the depressing reality of my situation, working for a tiny company in a horrible economy where I'm expected to do the work of 6 people. The reality of not making payroll as it is for next month is more likely to be the downfall of my company than theoretical security vulnerabilities that I don't have time to address. | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/324322",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/95012/"
] | I'd caution against ignoring vulnerabilities simply because they have no publicly available exploit code - while those that get published to slashdot are highly visible, there's important software fixes getting released all the time, with and without public exploit code available. Mostly without.
However, keep in mind that once a patch is released for a vulnerability, even one that's privately reported, the cat's out of the bag - attacks can often be reverse-engineered based on the changes in the patch.
---
All of that being said, I can certainly appreciate that it's fatiguing trying to keep up with patches for all of the software that you're interested in. There's a ton of resources out there.
One option is to let your systems keep an eye on things themselves - email updates from WSUS in the Microsoft world and package managers in the linux side of things are a good resource, but will often leave you with gaps - WSUS doesn't give you third party software, and package updates may be late, and won't cover software that wasn't installed from the package manager.
Keeping an eye on the announcement channels of vendors will give you a much better picture, but you'll need some research on each.
For those that you've cited:
* Apache HTTP Server: [Feed and email](http://httpd.apache.org/lists.html#http-announce)
* JBoss: [email](https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/jboss-watch-list)
There's also the firehose option of the [CVE RSS feeds](http://nvd.nist.gov/download.cfm#RSS), but that's probably not really what you're looking for on the notifications - but CVE is certainly a great resource for searching for information on a particular product, and the CVSS score that they provide is a good resource for determining how serious the vulnerabilities are.
Watching for "code in the wild" is probably going too far down the rabbit hole for your needs, honestly. I'd recommend placing your trust in your vendors, or else getting new vendors - but if you're determined, then here's a couple resources: the [Full Disclosure](http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/) list and [Exploit DB](http://www.exploit-db.com/). | You've got it all wrong. You'll waste more time trying to absorb and filter any news or vulnerability site(s) into something cohesive than you would just getting the updates done. What you are asking for just isn't done in the industry and thus there isn't an easy source filtered by "what you need". *Plus, there is the real, ugly, fact that bad guys don't tell us when they take a known, theoretical, threat and make it a live attack.*
What you should ask is how a completely underwater systems admin can possibly get back on track updating all their machines, services, and applications. **That is something bunches of us have had to do!** ;-) |
324,322 | Forgive me if this question has been asked before or is off-topic.
The past couple of security patches I've installed have been discovered from reading news articles, which publicly discuss security vulnerabilities that apply to software on my servers. Here are two examples of such exploits that I have read from an article.
* [Apache Fixes Range Header Flaw, Again](http://apache.slashdot.org/story/11/09/14/2033221/apache-fixes-range-header-flaw-again)
* [New JBOSS Worm Infecting Unpatched Servers](http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/10/22/0152232/new-jboss-worm-infecting-unpatched-servers)
Needless to say I am not pleased that I had to discover these exploits existed on Slashdot, of all places. I have patched these, but I would like to have some easy way to be notified, or location that I can easily search for known exploits in the wild that pertain to me.
I am already running on major negative time as it is, so regularly updating security patches as they are released is completely and unquestionably impossible. I **need** to ignore "theoretical vulnerabilities" until they become practical.
Do any of you have good information on where to find such a source of information?
If so, do any such services have the ability to alert you when a patch becomes available for a known exploit in software you are interested in?
EDIT:
-----
Not sure what the downvotes are about, was I not clear? Is my question OT? I just want to put it out there that I am not implying in any way that patching against theoretical vulnerabilities is a bad idea or a waste of time.
I'm merely stating the depressing reality of my situation, working for a tiny company in a horrible economy where I'm expected to do the work of 6 people. The reality of not making payroll as it is for next month is more likely to be the downfall of my company than theoretical security vulnerabilities that I don't have time to address. | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/324322",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/95012/"
] | I'd caution against ignoring vulnerabilities simply because they have no publicly available exploit code - while those that get published to slashdot are highly visible, there's important software fixes getting released all the time, with and without public exploit code available. Mostly without.
However, keep in mind that once a patch is released for a vulnerability, even one that's privately reported, the cat's out of the bag - attacks can often be reverse-engineered based on the changes in the patch.
---
All of that being said, I can certainly appreciate that it's fatiguing trying to keep up with patches for all of the software that you're interested in. There's a ton of resources out there.
One option is to let your systems keep an eye on things themselves - email updates from WSUS in the Microsoft world and package managers in the linux side of things are a good resource, but will often leave you with gaps - WSUS doesn't give you third party software, and package updates may be late, and won't cover software that wasn't installed from the package manager.
Keeping an eye on the announcement channels of vendors will give you a much better picture, but you'll need some research on each.
For those that you've cited:
* Apache HTTP Server: [Feed and email](http://httpd.apache.org/lists.html#http-announce)
* JBoss: [email](https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/jboss-watch-list)
There's also the firehose option of the [CVE RSS feeds](http://nvd.nist.gov/download.cfm#RSS), but that's probably not really what you're looking for on the notifications - but CVE is certainly a great resource for searching for information on a particular product, and the CVSS score that they provide is a good resource for determining how serious the vulnerabilities are.
Watching for "code in the wild" is probably going too far down the rabbit hole for your needs, honestly. I'd recommend placing your trust in your vendors, or else getting new vendors - but if you're determined, then here's a couple resources: the [Full Disclosure](http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/) list and [Exploit DB](http://www.exploit-db.com/). | A good listing of known vulnerabilities is the [SecurityFocus vulnerability listing](http://www.securityfocus.com/rss/vulnerabilities.xml). Actual in-the-wild exploits are often listed on the [Security Focus news feed](http://www.securityfocus.com/rss/news.xml) and the [Packetstorm feeds](http://packetstormsecurity.org/feeds/).
However, I agree with others that only focusing on publically-known vulnerabilities is a waste of time - it's the vulnerabilities that are known to the bad-guys but not the public that are the real danger.
All you can do is make sure all your software stays up-to-date, and rigorously follow best logging- and security-practices. |
33,581 | Some application (malware? adware?) is creating garbage icons on my Android desktop. How to know the application who does this?
I heard each application is a Linux user on android. Is it possible to see icon file owner ID then?
My device is Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Android is 3.2
**UPDATE**
Icons are different. Some of them mimic existing icons, other are entitled with question marks.
I can delete them, but they appearing again.
I need to have general way to know icon creator. | 2012/11/17 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/33581",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/13785/"
] | What are these icons:
=====================
Mysterious icons on your start screen or ads clogging your notification bar is a way developers have to monetize their software.
Usually the majority of these ads come from mobile marketing firms that work with app developers for some way to make money from their smartphone software.
There's an extensive article covering this subject at TechHive:
[Sneaky Mobile Ads Invade Android Phones](http://www.techhive.com/article/245305/sneaky_mobile_ads_invade_android_phones.html)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
What can you do:
================
You can use an app to scan and identify possible installed apps that are causing this on your device:
* [AirPush Detector](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brosmike.airpushdetector)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a simple Android application which detects other installed applications which appear to use known notification ad frameworks and offers the user the ability to easily uninstall them.
>
>
> If your device is running Android 4.1 "Jelly Bean" or higher, you don't need this app anymore! You can just press and hold on notifications and your device will tell you who is generating them.
>
>
>
* [Addons Detector](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.denper.addonsdetector)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Addons Detector detects addons used by your installed applications. It has all the tools to find push notification ads and icon ads.
>
>
> If you are looking for the app that uses AirPush or other push notifications, you can easily find the app and uninstall.
>
> Besides push notifications, using this app is a great way to see what advertising agencies apps use, and what tools they have integrated.
>
>
>
---
Not satisfied with the above apps:
==================================
Many more can be found with a search for [AirPush](https://play.google.com/store/search?q=AirPush&c=apps "Google Play Store search results for AirPush") at Google Play Store. | I had the same problem. The easy way to do it is to remove all those icons.
After this, check for default page on Internet navigator, sometime changed to some google like site.
Go to settings -> applications and look for any application you installed without Google Play. Delete every suspicious application.
I think you will be done with this. :) |
33,581 | Some application (malware? adware?) is creating garbage icons on my Android desktop. How to know the application who does this?
I heard each application is a Linux user on android. Is it possible to see icon file owner ID then?
My device is Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Android is 3.2
**UPDATE**
Icons are different. Some of them mimic existing icons, other are entitled with question marks.
I can delete them, but they appearing again.
I need to have general way to know icon creator. | 2012/11/17 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/33581",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/13785/"
] | What are these icons:
=====================
Mysterious icons on your start screen or ads clogging your notification bar is a way developers have to monetize their software.
Usually the majority of these ads come from mobile marketing firms that work with app developers for some way to make money from their smartphone software.
There's an extensive article covering this subject at TechHive:
[Sneaky Mobile Ads Invade Android Phones](http://www.techhive.com/article/245305/sneaky_mobile_ads_invade_android_phones.html)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
What can you do:
================
You can use an app to scan and identify possible installed apps that are causing this on your device:
* [AirPush Detector](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brosmike.airpushdetector)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a simple Android application which detects other installed applications which appear to use known notification ad frameworks and offers the user the ability to easily uninstall them.
>
>
> If your device is running Android 4.1 "Jelly Bean" or higher, you don't need this app anymore! You can just press and hold on notifications and your device will tell you who is generating them.
>
>
>
* [Addons Detector](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.denper.addonsdetector)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Addons Detector detects addons used by your installed applications. It has all the tools to find push notification ads and icon ads.
>
>
> If you are looking for the app that uses AirPush or other push notifications, you can easily find the app and uninstall.
>
> Besides push notifications, using this app is a great way to see what advertising agencies apps use, and what tools they have integrated.
>
>
>
---
Not satisfied with the above apps:
==================================
Many more can be found with a search for [AirPush](https://play.google.com/store/search?q=AirPush&c=apps "Google Play Store search results for AirPush") at Google Play Store. | The generic answer is that 'you should install an app that scans OTHER apps for modules that display ad Notifications and install apps that you didn't ask for'. I had this problem and I solved it by downloading such a program and scanning all my apps. Sure enough, something I had installed recently was loaded with modules that do these things.
If I am allowed to say the name of the program I used, it was called 'Addons Detector' |
2,576 | How can we define and categorize Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat in modern times?
Especially when a lot of groups who do not adhere to the principles of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat label themselves as Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat.
Is there a clear and agreed way to differentiate these groups from the actual Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat? | 2012/09/11 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2576",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/101/"
] | That is a big part of the journey that each and every individual Muslim must take, which is to do his very best to follow Allah's way.
Each and every group will (naturally) label itself as the most *correct* way of doing things, and only Allah knows which one of them really is 100% on the right path. So basically *no one* can tell you what the real righteous path is. It's up to you, and to each individual Muslim, to choose their own path. See this hadith:
>
> Hudhaifah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said:
>
>
> "Do not let yourselves be 'yes-men', saying: 'If the people are good
> then we will be good, and if they are wrong then we will be
> wrong.'Rather, make up your own minds, if the people are good then you
> are good, and if they are evil, then do not behave unjustly." (Hasan)
>
>
> [Jami` at-Tirmidhi](http://sunnah.com/urn/721330)
>
>
>
So it's clear from the above command and that you're not supposed to go out and find a group and just follow them. Learn Islam to the best of your ability, read and listen to what various scholars say, and then follow the path that looks like the right one. Yes, you may err. None of us are perfect and we are all sinners. All that we can do is do our best, and to repent once we learn that what we did was wrong. | Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatahu,
The path of muhammad sallalahu alaihiwasallam, the path of shahaba, the path of tabayi, the path of tabetabayi and the path of auliya Allah, so this is silsila of auliya Allah, so find them or find find folowers of auliya Allah then only u will get ALLAH or otherwise their are many sect who says that we r on corrct path so donot go to them, do not look at their beards and cap, donot look at their salah and fastings, they will be thrown in hell, so I made it very simple that find the auliya or his folowers. And this jamaat from Muhammad sallalhualaihi wasallam to auliya is the biggesy jamat, so b on this side, |
4,223,745 | I would like to capture a signature from (file, pad) in a WPF application. How can I implement this? Is there any API available? | 2010/11/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4223745",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/430297/"
] | Probably inherent inaccuracy of floating point representations. See [Why am I getting the wrong result when using float?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4152862/why-am-i-getting-the-wrong-result-when-using-float-closed) among many other similar questions | Not sure if this is the case, but floating points are never represented exactly in memory. Though, the two value are very close to each other, it may happen that first is slightly greater than second, causing the if condition to be false. |
4,223,745 | I would like to capture a signature from (file, pad) in a WPF application. How can I implement this? Is there any API available? | 2010/11/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4223745",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/430297/"
] | Probably inherent inaccuracy of floating point representations. See [Why am I getting the wrong result when using float?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4152862/why-am-i-getting-the-wrong-result-when-using-float-closed) among many other similar questions | <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Floating-point_arithmetic_operations> |
39,542,369 | If I have multiple browsers, can PWA share states or data? For example if I’m offline and I interact with the app on Firefox, save some data, etc. Can I access that same data when I open the app in Chrome? I tried it with <https://voice-memos.appspot.com/> but it doesn’t work. Perhaps an unimplemented feature? | 2016/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39542369",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1902919/"
] | No, you can't. The browsers implement the cache in different ways, they store the data in different directories, etc.. | Browsers have their own private storage for web apps, and there's no API designed specifically for direct, seamless cross-browser data sharing, so only workarounds are available.
When online you can share the data by synchronizing it via a server. This may even be near-realtime with the help of SSE/WebSockets or push notifications.
When offline I don't think you can in any sensible way. You could instruct the user download a file in one app and select it in a file picker in another app (or use drag'n'drop or copy'n'paste). Maybe (I haven't tested) you could establish WebRTC data connection between browsers while online and it'd survive going offline if the direct p2p connection was made over loopback/LAN. |
156,071 | I am using GIMP to create altitude profiles for the stages of a planned bicycle tour. Playing around on my first attempt, I created the profile below. (Note the smooth edge between the land and sky.)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pC39m.png)
After putting the project down for a day or so, I had forgotten my steps, but went ahead and tried to repeat the process for all stages. However, this time I could not achieve such a sharp, smooth edge between land and sky. (Note, particularly, the pixelation of the gentle rise at the beginning of the stage.) In the latter case, I have simply used feathering to smooth the edge of the land from green to alpha. The sky is a background layer.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BImia.png)
I suspect what I did unwittingly in the first instance is to leave a lighter green on the edges of the land, which thereby produced a more blended transition. In the second instance, I have used a hard, dark edge of a single colour, then feathered it with alpha. Even with the feathering, the pixels are clearly visible.
Does anyone know of a good technique to create a smoother edge between stark contrasts of tone, without increasing the blur radius? (I do not want the edge to look fuzzy.) Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. | 2022/02/19 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/156071",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/79575/"
] | The best way to get something sharp and smooth is to use a path:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/28joK.png)
Section zoomed in over your image:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RQSJu.png)
That's only 78 points, takes a couple of minutes. Once you have the path you create a selection from it and bucket-fill:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lwMG5.png)
Another good thing about a path is that if you have the data, you can make a CSV out of it, and have the CSV converted to a path. | For those who might be interested, whilst the answer above solved the problem perfectly, it was rather time-consuming. A suggestion in the comments from my original post was to use Inkscape to *trace path* around the bitmap, then import the vector image into GIMP again as a bitmap. This produced a tidy image, but it tended to simplify the edge detail too much. The solution to this was to scale the image along the y-axis—I used a factor of 5—and those details were preserved. I then simply scaled the traced image the other way before import into GIMP.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xmllO.png) |
99,090 | I have a car.
I would like to sell this car and purchase a different used car. Let's assume I am in no rush at to make the purchase+sale (purchase of my next vehicle, and sale of my current vehicle).
The question:
**Is there a statistically optimal year to sell a used car? 5 years? 10? 20?**
For example, I imagine there is some average age of a car where some expensive parts start to wear-out and require service / replacement. If so, it would obviously be more optimal to sell the car before this happens.
I realize this is a broad and generic question. Please tell me if this is too broad for this site.
***Edit: To address the ambiguity pointed out in multiple responses: I am simply interested in a statistical average over all used vehicles. If (after taking into account all makes and models) the disparity of this statistic for each of the different makes and models is so large that the final average answer is useless, then that conclusion itself answers my question.*** | 2018/08/27 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99090",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/32258/"
] | If the groups fronting her the money and selling the tickets were linked, there could be some [money laundering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering) going on.
Suppose the first group was a group of criminals and the second was their 'legitimate' (but perhaps not normally profitable) business. By using the girl to transfer money across, the business can now claim that they have witnesses showing that the money was earned from an innocent party.
Then again, as [Dheer](https://money.stackexchange.com/a/99098/75926) says, it might be some kind of psychology experiment. For that matter, *this* PF&M question might be some kind of psychology experiment. :) | >
> where a woman describes a truly bizarre series of events that occurred to her and made her think she was accidentally part of a scam
>
>
>
I wouldn't believe everything on YouTube. There are enough interesting videos created to increase views.
**Can this be true:**
To an extent yes, there are quite a few research institutions that try to understand human behavior and run similar kind of stuff. Maybe in this case it was to understand how the ticket sales would work with someone who is new. However spending around USD 720 [plus 20's for quite a few individuals] is quite a lot of spend for research. There will be very few research companies spending this kind of money on a single event / single person. There are quite a few research that spend USD 5 to 20 per person and overall 10K. And more often after the research is complete, the participants are advised that they were part of a research [more often in beginning, at time after completion]
**Can this be a scam:**
If so the only motive seems that you want someone who has a clean record participate in some kind of auction to book tickets on behalf of you. You can then sell the tickets in black market and make tons of money. However the efforts required to do such kind of stuff seems quite high. They could easily find friends / relatives who can participate in the scheme and get the tickets. Giving our $20 for first screening to tons of individuals is not exactly how scams operate. Plus they were not sure if this lady would show up on the specific day and buy the required tickets. It is too risky to had over 7K to someone without guarantee they will be able to buy the exact tickets that are needed.
**Is the story made up:**
The story is quite sketchy in some places. If the buying of tickets was auction and the date and place by invite only; then there was no checking of people and how this lady got in ... if it was public invitation; there are quite a few sporting fans and one would expect quite a few youngsters [not few people clad in suites]. Plus if the lady asked "who are you buying" and if there was a suspicion; there is no way someone will throw the cash and snatch the tickets and make a run. The ticketing counter has quite a few checks and balances. The cash is taken first, counted and then tickets handed over.
To me this looks more like some parts of real story taken and added a good deal of fiction to make it sound interesting. |
275,618 | I've been doing some reading about transformers and have gathered that they are only able to increase or decrease voltage when using AC. I was wondering whether a switching transistor circuit (the circuit that turns on and off really fast), would be enough to induce another voltage in the second coil of the transformer. I've heard that it's the switching property of AC that actually moves the electrons around. Will this constantly switching DC work? | 2016/12/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/275618",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/129143/"
] | Yes. In fact most MODERN power supplies use that principle. That is called "Switch-Mode Power Supply" (SMPS). It is almost required by law in new electronic equipment (including phone chargers, etc.) for efficiency greatly exceeding the old-style big "heavy-iron" transformers that ran at electric mains frequencies (50Hz and 60Hz). SMPS typically operate at 10s or 100s of KHz and use a much smaller ferrite transformer for equivalent power as the old-school "heavy iron". | You can use a couple of transistors to create an AC signal to feed the primary of a transformer and this works in many different applications: -
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP4fv.gif)
What this circuit attempts to avoid is a continuous DC current flowing in the primary because this can saturate the transformer core rendering the transformer inefficient and fairly useless.
A single transistor can be used and a typical example is a flyback transformer: -
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fYdkw.png)
Here, the energy stored in the primary coil's inductance (when the transistor is switched on) is released into the secondary when the transistor switches off. The diode and the 0.47uF capacitor are there to quench any unused energy and prevent the core gradually slipping into saturation. |
275,618 | I've been doing some reading about transformers and have gathered that they are only able to increase or decrease voltage when using AC. I was wondering whether a switching transistor circuit (the circuit that turns on and off really fast), would be enough to induce another voltage in the second coil of the transformer. I've heard that it's the switching property of AC that actually moves the electrons around. Will this constantly switching DC work? | 2016/12/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/275618",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/129143/"
] | Yes. In fact most MODERN power supplies use that principle. That is called "Switch-Mode Power Supply" (SMPS). It is almost required by law in new electronic equipment (including phone chargers, etc.) for efficiency greatly exceeding the old-style big "heavy-iron" transformers that ran at electric mains frequencies (50Hz and 60Hz). SMPS typically operate at 10s or 100s of KHz and use a much smaller ferrite transformer for equivalent power as the old-school "heavy iron". | Yes, this is done regularly. Look up something called a *flyback converter* for lots of information.
In fact, here is a example of where I did exactly what you're talking about in a recent design:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9oUcF.gif)
The IPULSE signal is straight from a spare PWM output of a microcontroller. When this line goes high, Q8 is turned on, which builds up current in the primary of TR1. When Q8 is shut off, the energy stored in TR1 is transferred to its secondaries. That causes a squirt of current thru D13.
This example is a classic flyback configuration in that the primary and secondary don't conduct at the same time. This allows wide latitude in the output to input voltage ratio. Basically, it transfers Watts thru the transformer, and the output load largely determines the V x A combination those Watts come out as.
Not shown in this schematic snippet, the resulting power voltage on the right side is threshold-detected, and the result of that fed back thru a opto-isolator to the microcontroller. That input of the micro is configured as a shutdown for the PWM generator. The net result is a isolated regulated power supply that runs itself without any firmware envolvement after initialization.
I have found that transformers intended for POE (power over ethernet) use are handy for applications like this up to a few Watts. In this case the isolated power required is well under a Watt. It runs a isolated serial interface that can do RS-232, RS-485, or RS-422, depending on configuration. |
49,625 | I've got a login/logout link using wp\_loginout(). After a user logs out their user info is still being shown by get\_currentuserinfo(), only after they visit a second page does it revert to not showing any user info. They are, however actually, logged out after the initial logout (as they can't access any protected pages).
If I disable the plugin I don't experience this issue. How can I ensure that when a user logs out the change is reflected without having to visit a second page?
<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/w3-total-cache/> | 2012/04/20 | [
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/questions/49625",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/users/1991/"
] | As the commenters have alluded to, this is a "feature" of using cookies. Changes to cookies are only enacted on the next page refresh.
You could try adding an extra page refresh (which will make the users browser page flash) or you could add some JavaScript to destroy the cookie dynamically. | Try to not cache the home page and also click on the checkbox to disabled caching for login/logout pages. I encountered the same issue with my site <http://www.techflict.com>, It got resolved after disabling caching for home page. Hope this helps...:) |
120,551 | If encoding is used for integrity someone can tamper it across the network because it is based on some publicly known scheme.
When do you use encoding and when do you use hashing for preserving the integrity?
my understanding is encoding is used to preserve integrity across heterogeneous system when confidentiality does not matter.
Why do people still use bases64 (Basic authentication)to send the username/password even though authentication information is confidential ? | 2016/04/15 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/120551",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/90340/"
] | >
> Why should I don't store passwords in plaintext?
>
>
>
There are 2 main reasons:
1. If a database dump is obtained, attackers can simply login with the plain-text password in the dump. If the passwords were hashed, the password would first need to be brute-forced.
2. Lots of users reuse passwords, as bad an idea as it is, so your security failure could compromise other systems too.
>
> If I'm a hacker and having access to database, it's unimportant, if the password is secure or not, because a password can be changed
>
>
>
That's only if you get write-access to the database. If you have obtained read-only access, or acquired a backup of the database, you would be able to login with the existing password, but not edit the live database. If the password were properly hashed and salted, you would have to brute-force it first, which if unique and well-secured would be infeasible.
---
>
> The same in my REST example: If I have the possibility, to grap the network traffic, it should be unimportant, of the Authorization token is placed inside the URL or the POST/PUT header.
>
>
>
It's not the transmission that's the problem, it's the inadvertent plain-text storage that's the problem (not unlike storing a password in plain-text). URL's are commonly logged to various log files. These log files are not always well-secured, and at best, doing this increases the places an attacker could obtain the token. The fewer places a secret is stored, the better. | There is a slew of reasons you shouldn't plaintext store passwords. I'll go through some of them (since realistically you should only need ONE reason not to do it - it's not hard)
1. travel - at some point your password has to be read from the database and that requires it to actually GO somewhere, having the passwords not in plaintext grants another level of privacy, let's assume you feel the same way about encryption as you do password storage and your sites internal communications are unencrypted - plaintext storing passwords provides an attacker with... well... the passwords!!
2. You say that ' If I'm a hacker and having access to database, it's unimportant, if the password is secure or not, because a password can be changed' that just isn't true, access doesn't necessarily mean *write* access, i.e. if you do a dump then you can only read and a plaintext stored password can be *read* quite easily.
3. a red-flag system: If your hypothetical hacker can change passwords as you say then your user wouldn't be able to log in and flag this to you, so you give them a password reset, let's say your hacker does his naughtiness again and your user flags it again - you know you have a problem. It's not ideal but what does storing your passwords in plaintext give you?
4. end-users are famously rubbish at security, they probably use that password on other sites/applications. Why would you want to compromise ALL of their platforms?
5. Possibly the most basic reason - IT ISN'T YOURS TO SEE |
120,551 | If encoding is used for integrity someone can tamper it across the network because it is based on some publicly known scheme.
When do you use encoding and when do you use hashing for preserving the integrity?
my understanding is encoding is used to preserve integrity across heterogeneous system when confidentiality does not matter.
Why do people still use bases64 (Basic authentication)to send the username/password even though authentication information is confidential ? | 2016/04/15 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/120551",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/90340/"
] | >
> Why should I don't store passwords in plaintext?
>
>
>
There are 2 main reasons:
1. If a database dump is obtained, attackers can simply login with the plain-text password in the dump. If the passwords were hashed, the password would first need to be brute-forced.
2. Lots of users reuse passwords, as bad an idea as it is, so your security failure could compromise other systems too.
>
> If I'm a hacker and having access to database, it's unimportant, if the password is secure or not, because a password can be changed
>
>
>
That's only if you get write-access to the database. If you have obtained read-only access, or acquired a backup of the database, you would be able to login with the existing password, but not edit the live database. If the password were properly hashed and salted, you would have to brute-force it first, which if unique and well-secured would be infeasible.
---
>
> The same in my REST example: If I have the possibility, to grap the network traffic, it should be unimportant, of the Authorization token is placed inside the URL or the POST/PUT header.
>
>
>
It's not the transmission that's the problem, it's the inadvertent plain-text storage that's the problem (not unlike storing a password in plain-text). URL's are commonly logged to various log files. These log files are not always well-secured, and at best, doing this increases the places an attacker could obtain the token. The fewer places a secret is stored, the better. | There's another aspect to this discussion beyond the technical: if it is your *design* to not secure passwords, then you, as the service operator, are responsible and liable for them. Passwords are security measure *for individuals*. They aren't the property of the service. If passwords are properly secured (hashed, etc.), then the service operator has done its due diligence and is only liable for protecting the access to the hashes.
For instance, if someone's account is accessed without authorization, the user can simply blame the service provider because the it is known provider knows all the credentials. And yes, this depends on this fact being known, which should be assumed (security should never depend on ignorance of design). |
120,551 | If encoding is used for integrity someone can tamper it across the network because it is based on some publicly known scheme.
When do you use encoding and when do you use hashing for preserving the integrity?
my understanding is encoding is used to preserve integrity across heterogeneous system when confidentiality does not matter.
Why do people still use bases64 (Basic authentication)to send the username/password even though authentication information is confidential ? | 2016/04/15 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/120551",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/90340/"
] | To make it simple, if passwords are in plain text, the security would be compromised by anyone having a glance at it.
Now, you need to remember that website log-in isn't the only access to a database. An attacker might be able to get some information from your database in various ways.
First you need to know that it happens. And a hacker typically won't leave a note saying "hey there, I was here, thanks for the data!". So unless you get to know about it, you can't change your password.
Now let's say that there are more users on your system/website. If you get to know about it, you need to inform all the others. How long would it last between the breach, you getting to know about it, you informing your users, covering the hole, and everyone having changed their passwords?
And if your system is open to the public, you can't rely on users not reusing the same passwords. So not only your lack of security compromised their account on your system, they may compromise their other accounts elsewhere.
Also, having passwords saved in plain text, means *you* know them. And as a user, I don't see any reason why you should know what my password is. | There is a slew of reasons you shouldn't plaintext store passwords. I'll go through some of them (since realistically you should only need ONE reason not to do it - it's not hard)
1. travel - at some point your password has to be read from the database and that requires it to actually GO somewhere, having the passwords not in plaintext grants another level of privacy, let's assume you feel the same way about encryption as you do password storage and your sites internal communications are unencrypted - plaintext storing passwords provides an attacker with... well... the passwords!!
2. You say that ' If I'm a hacker and having access to database, it's unimportant, if the password is secure or not, because a password can be changed' that just isn't true, access doesn't necessarily mean *write* access, i.e. if you do a dump then you can only read and a plaintext stored password can be *read* quite easily.
3. a red-flag system: If your hypothetical hacker can change passwords as you say then your user wouldn't be able to log in and flag this to you, so you give them a password reset, let's say your hacker does his naughtiness again and your user flags it again - you know you have a problem. It's not ideal but what does storing your passwords in plaintext give you?
4. end-users are famously rubbish at security, they probably use that password on other sites/applications. Why would you want to compromise ALL of their platforms?
5. Possibly the most basic reason - IT ISN'T YOURS TO SEE |
120,551 | If encoding is used for integrity someone can tamper it across the network because it is based on some publicly known scheme.
When do you use encoding and when do you use hashing for preserving the integrity?
my understanding is encoding is used to preserve integrity across heterogeneous system when confidentiality does not matter.
Why do people still use bases64 (Basic authentication)to send the username/password even though authentication information is confidential ? | 2016/04/15 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/120551",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/90340/"
] | To make it simple, if passwords are in plain text, the security would be compromised by anyone having a glance at it.
Now, you need to remember that website log-in isn't the only access to a database. An attacker might be able to get some information from your database in various ways.
First you need to know that it happens. And a hacker typically won't leave a note saying "hey there, I was here, thanks for the data!". So unless you get to know about it, you can't change your password.
Now let's say that there are more users on your system/website. If you get to know about it, you need to inform all the others. How long would it last between the breach, you getting to know about it, you informing your users, covering the hole, and everyone having changed their passwords?
And if your system is open to the public, you can't rely on users not reusing the same passwords. So not only your lack of security compromised their account on your system, they may compromise their other accounts elsewhere.
Also, having passwords saved in plain text, means *you* know them. And as a user, I don't see any reason why you should know what my password is. | There's another aspect to this discussion beyond the technical: if it is your *design* to not secure passwords, then you, as the service operator, are responsible and liable for them. Passwords are security measure *for individuals*. They aren't the property of the service. If passwords are properly secured (hashed, etc.), then the service operator has done its due diligence and is only liable for protecting the access to the hashes.
For instance, if someone's account is accessed without authorization, the user can simply blame the service provider because the it is known provider knows all the credentials. And yes, this depends on this fact being known, which should be assumed (security should never depend on ignorance of design). |
65,836 | We are running SQL Server 2012 SP1 on Windows Server 2012. The issue we have is that after some time the server automatically reboots.
Checking the logs did not show any errors. When looking into the SQL Server log we find these logsDate
>
> 24-5-2014 13:42:47
> SQL Server is terminating because of a system shutdown. This is an informational message only. No user action is required.
>
>
> 24-5-2014 10:01:18
> A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may result in a performance degradation. Duration: 14401 seconds. Working set (KB): 23684, committed (KB): 99988, memory utilization: 23%.
>
>
> 24-5-2014 08:01:16
> A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may result in a performance degradation. Duration: 7200 seconds. Working set (KB): 29868, committed (KB): 99972, memory utilization: 29%.
>
>
> 24-5-2014 07:01:48
> A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may result in a performance degradation. Duration: 3632 seconds. Working set (KB): 34376, committed (KB): 100004, memory utilization: 34%.
>
>
>
Searching the internet did not help very much. Most written about this is about server 2003.
The problem occurs frequently depending on the usage.
What steps do I need to take to fix this? | 2014/05/24 | [
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/65836",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/users/8414/"
] | The first message regarding the shutdown means that someone or something has initiated a shutdown of the machine. Take a look at the Windows system logs in Event Viewer for more information. You should look at log events leading up to and just after the shutdown time to look for messages indicated why Windows shutdown.
Is this a relatively newly installed server? If so, have you activated Windows? If not and you've passed the activation grace period this is one potential reason for Windows Server automatically rebooting. | In my case, I found high RAM consumption from System process. So after lot of googling the answer, I found [this post](https://superuser.com/questions/645650/what-is-superfetch-and-its-relation-to-svchost-exe-localsystemnetworkrestricte) that suggests to Disable a services called Superfetch. Worked for me. |
65,836 | We are running SQL Server 2012 SP1 on Windows Server 2012. The issue we have is that after some time the server automatically reboots.
Checking the logs did not show any errors. When looking into the SQL Server log we find these logsDate
>
> 24-5-2014 13:42:47
> SQL Server is terminating because of a system shutdown. This is an informational message only. No user action is required.
>
>
> 24-5-2014 10:01:18
> A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may result in a performance degradation. Duration: 14401 seconds. Working set (KB): 23684, committed (KB): 99988, memory utilization: 23%.
>
>
> 24-5-2014 08:01:16
> A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may result in a performance degradation. Duration: 7200 seconds. Working set (KB): 29868, committed (KB): 99972, memory utilization: 29%.
>
>
> 24-5-2014 07:01:48
> A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may result in a performance degradation. Duration: 3632 seconds. Working set (KB): 34376, committed (KB): 100004, memory utilization: 34%.
>
>
>
Searching the internet did not help very much. Most written about this is about server 2003.
The problem occurs frequently depending on the usage.
What steps do I need to take to fix this? | 2014/05/24 | [
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/65836",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/users/8414/"
] | The first message regarding the shutdown means that someone or something has initiated a shutdown of the machine. Take a look at the Windows system logs in Event Viewer for more information. You should look at log events leading up to and just after the shutdown time to look for messages indicated why Windows shutdown.
Is this a relatively newly installed server? If so, have you activated Windows? If not and you've passed the activation grace period this is one potential reason for Windows Server automatically rebooting. | [Enable Lock Pages In Memory](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190730.aspx) -
I would grant permissions to your SQL Engine service account. This will prevent the OS from coming and taking memory. You may also want to look at [setting your maximum allowed memory allocation](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178067.aspx). Just to make sure you don't run into the opposite problem :). |
86,739 | Are not the dictionary definitions of natural and unnatural inconsistent?
Why wouldn't whatever humans create (e.g. money, plastic bags, books, internet, laptop, lamp, buildings, airplanes, etc) be natural when humans are natural and part of nature themselves and their artificial creations come from a mixture of natural materials?
It seems to me that nothing can be unnatural when its substance initially comes from nature. Humans alter things, but that doesn't make it unnatural when the mechanisms used to alter a substance are natural, right? The processes used to alter are often an expression of [natural law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law).
A dam that a human builds is unnatural by general definition whereas a dam a beaver creates even if it almost identical in construction is natural. This opposition seems, pardon me, unnatural.
What does philosophy have to say about this opposition, and on what basis is it acceptable? Please provide references. | 2021/11/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86739",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/54776/"
] | This transparently is a philosophical question, because of the [appeal-to-nature fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). Also [the state of nature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature) plays a key role in social contract theory, as pictured contrastingly by Hobbes & Rousseau. What you have to look at is what service do people put a distinction between natural & unnatural to?
Blue-green algae poisoning themselves by creating our oxygen-rich atmosphere is 'natural', humans poisoning themselves with air pollution is 'unnatural'.
Heterosexual sex is 'natural' if you picture sex as purely for reproduction, homosexual sex is often alleged to be 'unnatural' despite being documented in at least 450 species including all apes.
The expensive skincare with ingredients you recognise is 'natural', the one with a long shelf life & ingredients with long names is 'unnatural'.
Intensive breeding is 'natural', genetic engineering even when it's doing the same thing but with markers of gene activation, is 'unnatural'.
It's a canard, a red herring, used polemically, usually to reject new things. Being time-tested is a good thing, it's not necessarily a bad instinct to question what's new, especially if the risks are substantial. But we should try to avoid the appeal to natural as intrinsically good, & unnatural as intrinsically bad. Natural & nature are terms for casual language, not philosophy, and they are likely to obscure points rather than illuminate.
On things to read (other than Hobbes & Rousseau), Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature is very good:
>
> "philosophers may, if they please, extend their reasoning to the
> suppos'd state of nature; provided they allow it to be a mere
> philosophical fiction, which never had, and never could have any
> reality"
>
>
> -book 3 part 2 section 2
>
>
>
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a famous [essay on Nature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(essay)).
Yeats' greatest poem [Sailing To Byzantium](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43291/sailing-to-byzantium) has interesting reflections on natural as time-bound, and unnatural artifice as what reaches beyond that. | Yes, but you'll have to believe in GOD. If GOD creates things perfectly (in harmony with all other parts), then it is ''natural'', we'll say.
Everything else, by Man, then, is imperfect. |
86,739 | Are not the dictionary definitions of natural and unnatural inconsistent?
Why wouldn't whatever humans create (e.g. money, plastic bags, books, internet, laptop, lamp, buildings, airplanes, etc) be natural when humans are natural and part of nature themselves and their artificial creations come from a mixture of natural materials?
It seems to me that nothing can be unnatural when its substance initially comes from nature. Humans alter things, but that doesn't make it unnatural when the mechanisms used to alter a substance are natural, right? The processes used to alter are often an expression of [natural law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law).
A dam that a human builds is unnatural by general definition whereas a dam a beaver creates even if it almost identical in construction is natural. This opposition seems, pardon me, unnatural.
What does philosophy have to say about this opposition, and on what basis is it acceptable? Please provide references. | 2021/11/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86739",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/54776/"
] | In one sense, something manufactured since it is possible (evidently) and was made using natural things, isn't itself also natural? This is a point made.
Something that cannot even exist because of other natural processes blocking its very possibility of existence would be necessarily unnatural.
In this sense everything realisable is natural and vice-versa.
But, many people would define natural in a more limited sense. Not everything that can be realized is natural if it can conflict with other natural processes of higher value. So in this sense a plastic bag is unnatural, since it degrades the environment.
So in this more limited sense, natural and realisable are not identical.
If one pushes this point far enough, one gets to primitivism. That the only things worth of being called natural are the ones which are not manufactured at all or use only very primitive means, that is, they are not artificial.
As a sidenote, as @CriglCragl's answer has noted, the terms are also loaded with ideological, sociopolitical nuances. Thus for example, someone may term "unnatural" anything that *contradicts*, or is *undesirable* to, a certain, historically settled, order of things or established tradition. This answer does not touch on this aspect. | Yes, but you'll have to believe in GOD. If GOD creates things perfectly (in harmony with all other parts), then it is ''natural'', we'll say.
Everything else, by Man, then, is imperfect. |
86,739 | Are not the dictionary definitions of natural and unnatural inconsistent?
Why wouldn't whatever humans create (e.g. money, plastic bags, books, internet, laptop, lamp, buildings, airplanes, etc) be natural when humans are natural and part of nature themselves and their artificial creations come from a mixture of natural materials?
It seems to me that nothing can be unnatural when its substance initially comes from nature. Humans alter things, but that doesn't make it unnatural when the mechanisms used to alter a substance are natural, right? The processes used to alter are often an expression of [natural law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law).
A dam that a human builds is unnatural by general definition whereas a dam a beaver creates even if it almost identical in construction is natural. This opposition seems, pardon me, unnatural.
What does philosophy have to say about this opposition, and on what basis is it acceptable? Please provide references. | 2021/11/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86739",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/54776/"
] | ### Short Answer
Instead of addressing your specific question, let's generalize, so that you might understand the larger picture. **Is any dichotomy in language defensible?** Yes and no. Sometimes. Maybe. Whether or not a definition is true depends on what you accept to be true of a definition. This is a perennial issue that rears its head in philosophical discussion because of the intimate relationship between [epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) and [ontology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology). In the case of the natural and unnatural, it is both defensible to accept a [binary category](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification) that accepts the [principle of bivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence) and to reject it in favor of [fuzzy categories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set#Fuzzy_categories) and [multivalued logics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic). It's even possible to embrace the [dialetheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism).
On the one hand, it is very pragmatic to use the natural/unnatural, or natural/artificial (I think you intend the latter) distinction because it works, and yet, in the definitions, one might see the seeds of a contradiction born of the [analytic meanings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction) that inhere to the words. The preferences and methods of philosophy that are brought to bear on the question ultimately determine the answers philosophers reject, or accept as weak or even strong arguments.
### Long Answer
#### Metaphysics or Philosophy of Language?
It may be tempting to go to [metaphysics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) to answer this question, and some here shall, I have no doubt, to discuss the impact on [ontological commitment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_commitment) required by the [predicate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predication_(philosophy)) natural. But I suggest [linguistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics) and the [philosophy of language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language) on the basis of a [naturalized epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_epistemology). Hence, what philosophers know about language is much more decisive in answering this question than what philosophers think about the nature of 'natural'.
#### The Linguistic Turn and Words as Tools
Let's accept the findings of the [linguistic turn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn). When you start talking about the nature of [definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition), you must first accept that definitions are to no small degree [normative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normativity). That is to say, the general definition of natural and unnatural is a [linguistic convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(norm)). No, people don't get together and vote on what words mean, but they do, in a way, cast a vote metaphorically by how they practice usage in their [idiolect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect). If 99 out of 100 people use definition X, then from a [descriptivist perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description), the definition is X regardless of its logical flaws. Is it possible that the general usage of natural and unnatural, therefore is logically inconsistent? You seem to offer a [prima facie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) argument for that.
So, what does philosophy have to say about this? Well, that depends on your metaphysical presuppositions about language. Some philosophical dispositions lend themselves towards [language prescription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription), where uses of definitions are compelled socially. A philosopher who believes in an [absolutist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)) notion of definition may try to argue that the definitions of natural and unnatural are correct not by virtue of their logical relationship, but perhaps because of the emancipatory politics of the governing body. For instance, in the USSR, [lysenkoism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) is an instance of whether or not the truth of definitions and ideas is determined by political fiat. An [instrumentalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism) view of language doesn't conceive definitions as right or wrong, so much as examines them for [pragmatic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) outcome. That is, does the definition work for the people who use it?
#### Dissolving the Problem
So, now, we are in a position to answer questions about the natural, unnatural, and the supernatural.
The dichotomy between the natural and the artificial in *general* usage is absolutely defensible on the pragmatic grounds that it quickly seeks to establish two classes of things for the exchange of meaning. If you are in the infantry, what you want to know is 'is that thing you are about to step on natural or artificial. If it's artificial, like an anti-personnel mine, then you have to exercise extra caution. Even it's the wristwatch dropped by a hostile, it tells you something about the state of affairs that a natural object wouldn't. It tells you the enemy may be near, and that has survival value. Does the dichotomy perhaps fail to capture some of the finer grades of meaning about the relationship and origin of the materials of the thing? Absolutely! But are we more likely to survive if you stand around pondering the definition on a battlefield? Absolutely not. Hence, from an epistemic perspective, the definition is [pragmatically true](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth) and the dichotomy is pragmatically defensible based on [defeasible reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeasible_reasoning) which strictly speaking may not be devoid of contradiction.
But let's now think about another context where a pragmatic definition might not suffice, where logical precision is much more important. Let's say you are defending an academic thesis, and the same question about whether an object on the table is natural or unnatural is posed, and it is important to answer to defend the thesis by impressing upon your advisor that you have a sophisticated use of language. In this case, the truth and utility of the definition might be a function of its [epistemic coherence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth). Let's say you are explicitly called to undermine the dichotomy!
What if your thesis evaluator says asks you if sheep are natural because they have been subject to [artificial selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding). Said thesis evaluator accepts that sheep before *Homo sapiens* are natural, that robotic sheep by [Boston Dynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Dynamics) are unnatural, but then asks you to classify a sheep that has been bred over generations to be woolier is natural or unnatural? Is the atmosphere still nature because there are trace pollutants in it? Is any of earth still natural because of the widespread impact of human action on its biological, chemical, and physical composition? Here now definitions of what constitutes natural have a different role.
This is what is meant when talking about the normativity of truth and language. Whether or not a definition is true or a dichotomy holds depends on what you accept to be true of definitions and dichotomies. :D | Yes, but you'll have to believe in GOD. If GOD creates things perfectly (in harmony with all other parts), then it is ''natural'', we'll say.
Everything else, by Man, then, is imperfect. |
86,739 | Are not the dictionary definitions of natural and unnatural inconsistent?
Why wouldn't whatever humans create (e.g. money, plastic bags, books, internet, laptop, lamp, buildings, airplanes, etc) be natural when humans are natural and part of nature themselves and their artificial creations come from a mixture of natural materials?
It seems to me that nothing can be unnatural when its substance initially comes from nature. Humans alter things, but that doesn't make it unnatural when the mechanisms used to alter a substance are natural, right? The processes used to alter are often an expression of [natural law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law).
A dam that a human builds is unnatural by general definition whereas a dam a beaver creates even if it almost identical in construction is natural. This opposition seems, pardon me, unnatural.
What does philosophy have to say about this opposition, and on what basis is it acceptable? Please provide references. | 2021/11/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86739",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/54776/"
] | Historically, most people considered that humans occupied a special place in the world. Western religions taught that humans were created in God's image and were endowed with unique traits. Prior to Darwin, almost all scientists considered that we were a unique species, and even after Darwin it took a while for most scientists to accept that we were genetically linked to other animals, and closely to apes.
Our use of language, posession of consciousness, and use of tools set us apart from the rest of nature. Consistent with this, anything created by humans was considered qualitatively different from things created by other processes in nature, whether they be purely physical (e.g. waves in the sea, clouds in the sky, rock crystals) or due to the action of animals (e.g. beehives, bird nests, beaver dams).
Going along with this dichotomy we have the concepts of natural and artificial. Artificial refers to the creations of humans, while natural refers to everything else.
And even when we admit that we're just part of nature, it can still be useful to make this distinction. Consider natural selection versus animal breeding. They both cause species to evolve, but in different ways. Natural selection is relatively slow and directionless -- changes tend to be beneficial, but which changes we get results from the happenstance of which mutations occur and how they relate to competition among individuals and groups. Animal breeding is faster because the breeders can directly control which individuals mate, and since they consciously decide which traits are preferred, it's directed by the desires of the breeders.
You could say that this is just a quantitative difference, but it's different to such an extent that most consider it a qualitative difference, much like the difference between animal communication and human language. | Yes, but you'll have to believe in GOD. If GOD creates things perfectly (in harmony with all other parts), then it is ''natural'', we'll say.
Everything else, by Man, then, is imperfect. |
86,739 | Are not the dictionary definitions of natural and unnatural inconsistent?
Why wouldn't whatever humans create (e.g. money, plastic bags, books, internet, laptop, lamp, buildings, airplanes, etc) be natural when humans are natural and part of nature themselves and their artificial creations come from a mixture of natural materials?
It seems to me that nothing can be unnatural when its substance initially comes from nature. Humans alter things, but that doesn't make it unnatural when the mechanisms used to alter a substance are natural, right? The processes used to alter are often an expression of [natural law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law).
A dam that a human builds is unnatural by general definition whereas a dam a beaver creates even if it almost identical in construction is natural. This opposition seems, pardon me, unnatural.
What does philosophy have to say about this opposition, and on what basis is it acceptable? Please provide references. | 2021/11/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86739",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/54776/"
] | This transparently is a philosophical question, because of the [appeal-to-nature fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). Also [the state of nature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature) plays a key role in social contract theory, as pictured contrastingly by Hobbes & Rousseau. What you have to look at is what service do people put a distinction between natural & unnatural to?
Blue-green algae poisoning themselves by creating our oxygen-rich atmosphere is 'natural', humans poisoning themselves with air pollution is 'unnatural'.
Heterosexual sex is 'natural' if you picture sex as purely for reproduction, homosexual sex is often alleged to be 'unnatural' despite being documented in at least 450 species including all apes.
The expensive skincare with ingredients you recognise is 'natural', the one with a long shelf life & ingredients with long names is 'unnatural'.
Intensive breeding is 'natural', genetic engineering even when it's doing the same thing but with markers of gene activation, is 'unnatural'.
It's a canard, a red herring, used polemically, usually to reject new things. Being time-tested is a good thing, it's not necessarily a bad instinct to question what's new, especially if the risks are substantial. But we should try to avoid the appeal to natural as intrinsically good, & unnatural as intrinsically bad. Natural & nature are terms for casual language, not philosophy, and they are likely to obscure points rather than illuminate.
On things to read (other than Hobbes & Rousseau), Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature is very good:
>
> "philosophers may, if they please, extend their reasoning to the
> suppos'd state of nature; provided they allow it to be a mere
> philosophical fiction, which never had, and never could have any
> reality"
>
>
> -book 3 part 2 section 2
>
>
>
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a famous [essay on Nature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(essay)).
Yeats' greatest poem [Sailing To Byzantium](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43291/sailing-to-byzantium) has interesting reflections on natural as time-bound, and unnatural artifice as what reaches beyond that. | In one sense, something manufactured since it is possible (evidently) and was made using natural things, isn't itself also natural? This is a point made.
Something that cannot even exist because of other natural processes blocking its very possibility of existence would be necessarily unnatural.
In this sense everything realisable is natural and vice-versa.
But, many people would define natural in a more limited sense. Not everything that can be realized is natural if it can conflict with other natural processes of higher value. So in this sense a plastic bag is unnatural, since it degrades the environment.
So in this more limited sense, natural and realisable are not identical.
If one pushes this point far enough, one gets to primitivism. That the only things worth of being called natural are the ones which are not manufactured at all or use only very primitive means, that is, they are not artificial.
As a sidenote, as @CriglCragl's answer has noted, the terms are also loaded with ideological, sociopolitical nuances. Thus for example, someone may term "unnatural" anything that *contradicts*, or is *undesirable* to, a certain, historically settled, order of things or established tradition. This answer does not touch on this aspect. |
86,739 | Are not the dictionary definitions of natural and unnatural inconsistent?
Why wouldn't whatever humans create (e.g. money, plastic bags, books, internet, laptop, lamp, buildings, airplanes, etc) be natural when humans are natural and part of nature themselves and their artificial creations come from a mixture of natural materials?
It seems to me that nothing can be unnatural when its substance initially comes from nature. Humans alter things, but that doesn't make it unnatural when the mechanisms used to alter a substance are natural, right? The processes used to alter are often an expression of [natural law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law).
A dam that a human builds is unnatural by general definition whereas a dam a beaver creates even if it almost identical in construction is natural. This opposition seems, pardon me, unnatural.
What does philosophy have to say about this opposition, and on what basis is it acceptable? Please provide references. | 2021/11/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86739",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/54776/"
] | The most fundamental opposition between natural and unnatural is purely logical. Once you have a notion of natural, you have a notion of not natural, i.e., unnatural.
The question, then, is whether you put these concepts to use, and eventually, how you do it. How you use the concept of natural, and therefore, possibly, the concept of unnatural, depends entirely on what you want to mean by "natural". The scientific discoveries of the last centuries have led to the idea, true or false, that humans were an integral part of nature. However, it is also clear that there is a strong tendency in humans to define themselves in opposition to nature. Accordingly, humans and everything they do is considered unnatural.
Who is right? Why not everybody? People who have a scientific outlook will probably see humans and everything they make as part of nature, while people not interested in science will want to maintain the opposition between humans and nature. There is absolutely not doubt that this opposition is based on hard facts. A human is not a monkey and a monkey is not a human. Science discovered that this opposition is not absolute since both humans and monkeys descend from a common ancestor species, however, everyday life is premised on a myriad of distinctions which are barely ever absolute, and yet are nonetheless useful. Whatever we may think of Trump, it is a fact that a monkey could not run for the American presidential election. Yet, it is also not at all absolutely impossible that one does so in some more or less distant future.
The opposition between nature and humanity is also used in the war between ideologies. Thus, some people will make the contradictory claims, perhaps not at the same time, that nothing human is natural and that only the marriage between a man and a woman is natural, which gives the special pleading game away.
So the beaver's dam is natural or unnatural depending on what we want to mean by "natural", and the same applies to the dams constructed by humans.
This is not much of a philosophical question. It is essentially an ideological one. By definition, most people will use "natural" and "unnatural" as per the everyday use of these concepts, i.e., either to emphasise either the similarity or the opposition between things, and this depending on their personal objective. Some political or religious groups will use the opposition between humans and nature to make a political point, but this isn't really a philosophical question.
When you disagree with how people use words, the first port of call should be the dictionary, if only to understand if this is a legitimate use. And then, it is up to you to explain why a particular use would be somehow erroneous, but don't expect people to change their dictionary because you object to a definition. | Yes, but you'll have to believe in GOD. If GOD creates things perfectly (in harmony with all other parts), then it is ''natural'', we'll say.
Everything else, by Man, then, is imperfect. |
86,739 | Are not the dictionary definitions of natural and unnatural inconsistent?
Why wouldn't whatever humans create (e.g. money, plastic bags, books, internet, laptop, lamp, buildings, airplanes, etc) be natural when humans are natural and part of nature themselves and their artificial creations come from a mixture of natural materials?
It seems to me that nothing can be unnatural when its substance initially comes from nature. Humans alter things, but that doesn't make it unnatural when the mechanisms used to alter a substance are natural, right? The processes used to alter are often an expression of [natural law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law).
A dam that a human builds is unnatural by general definition whereas a dam a beaver creates even if it almost identical in construction is natural. This opposition seems, pardon me, unnatural.
What does philosophy have to say about this opposition, and on what basis is it acceptable? Please provide references. | 2021/11/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86739",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/54776/"
] | ### Short Answer
Instead of addressing your specific question, let's generalize, so that you might understand the larger picture. **Is any dichotomy in language defensible?** Yes and no. Sometimes. Maybe. Whether or not a definition is true depends on what you accept to be true of a definition. This is a perennial issue that rears its head in philosophical discussion because of the intimate relationship between [epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) and [ontology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology). In the case of the natural and unnatural, it is both defensible to accept a [binary category](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification) that accepts the [principle of bivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence) and to reject it in favor of [fuzzy categories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set#Fuzzy_categories) and [multivalued logics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic). It's even possible to embrace the [dialetheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism).
On the one hand, it is very pragmatic to use the natural/unnatural, or natural/artificial (I think you intend the latter) distinction because it works, and yet, in the definitions, one might see the seeds of a contradiction born of the [analytic meanings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction) that inhere to the words. The preferences and methods of philosophy that are brought to bear on the question ultimately determine the answers philosophers reject, or accept as weak or even strong arguments.
### Long Answer
#### Metaphysics or Philosophy of Language?
It may be tempting to go to [metaphysics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) to answer this question, and some here shall, I have no doubt, to discuss the impact on [ontological commitment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_commitment) required by the [predicate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predication_(philosophy)) natural. But I suggest [linguistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics) and the [philosophy of language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language) on the basis of a [naturalized epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_epistemology). Hence, what philosophers know about language is much more decisive in answering this question than what philosophers think about the nature of 'natural'.
#### The Linguistic Turn and Words as Tools
Let's accept the findings of the [linguistic turn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn). When you start talking about the nature of [definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition), you must first accept that definitions are to no small degree [normative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normativity). That is to say, the general definition of natural and unnatural is a [linguistic convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(norm)). No, people don't get together and vote on what words mean, but they do, in a way, cast a vote metaphorically by how they practice usage in their [idiolect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect). If 99 out of 100 people use definition X, then from a [descriptivist perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description), the definition is X regardless of its logical flaws. Is it possible that the general usage of natural and unnatural, therefore is logically inconsistent? You seem to offer a [prima facie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) argument for that.
So, what does philosophy have to say about this? Well, that depends on your metaphysical presuppositions about language. Some philosophical dispositions lend themselves towards [language prescription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription), where uses of definitions are compelled socially. A philosopher who believes in an [absolutist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)) notion of definition may try to argue that the definitions of natural and unnatural are correct not by virtue of their logical relationship, but perhaps because of the emancipatory politics of the governing body. For instance, in the USSR, [lysenkoism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) is an instance of whether or not the truth of definitions and ideas is determined by political fiat. An [instrumentalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism) view of language doesn't conceive definitions as right or wrong, so much as examines them for [pragmatic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) outcome. That is, does the definition work for the people who use it?
#### Dissolving the Problem
So, now, we are in a position to answer questions about the natural, unnatural, and the supernatural.
The dichotomy between the natural and the artificial in *general* usage is absolutely defensible on the pragmatic grounds that it quickly seeks to establish two classes of things for the exchange of meaning. If you are in the infantry, what you want to know is 'is that thing you are about to step on natural or artificial. If it's artificial, like an anti-personnel mine, then you have to exercise extra caution. Even it's the wristwatch dropped by a hostile, it tells you something about the state of affairs that a natural object wouldn't. It tells you the enemy may be near, and that has survival value. Does the dichotomy perhaps fail to capture some of the finer grades of meaning about the relationship and origin of the materials of the thing? Absolutely! But are we more likely to survive if you stand around pondering the definition on a battlefield? Absolutely not. Hence, from an epistemic perspective, the definition is [pragmatically true](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth) and the dichotomy is pragmatically defensible based on [defeasible reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeasible_reasoning) which strictly speaking may not be devoid of contradiction.
But let's now think about another context where a pragmatic definition might not suffice, where logical precision is much more important. Let's say you are defending an academic thesis, and the same question about whether an object on the table is natural or unnatural is posed, and it is important to answer to defend the thesis by impressing upon your advisor that you have a sophisticated use of language. In this case, the truth and utility of the definition might be a function of its [epistemic coherence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth). Let's say you are explicitly called to undermine the dichotomy!
What if your thesis evaluator says asks you if sheep are natural because they have been subject to [artificial selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding). Said thesis evaluator accepts that sheep before *Homo sapiens* are natural, that robotic sheep by [Boston Dynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Dynamics) are unnatural, but then asks you to classify a sheep that has been bred over generations to be woolier is natural or unnatural? Is the atmosphere still nature because there are trace pollutants in it? Is any of earth still natural because of the widespread impact of human action on its biological, chemical, and physical composition? Here now definitions of what constitutes natural have a different role.
This is what is meant when talking about the normativity of truth and language. Whether or not a definition is true or a dichotomy holds depends on what you accept to be true of definitions and dichotomies. :D | In one sense, something manufactured since it is possible (evidently) and was made using natural things, isn't itself also natural? This is a point made.
Something that cannot even exist because of other natural processes blocking its very possibility of existence would be necessarily unnatural.
In this sense everything realisable is natural and vice-versa.
But, many people would define natural in a more limited sense. Not everything that can be realized is natural if it can conflict with other natural processes of higher value. So in this sense a plastic bag is unnatural, since it degrades the environment.
So in this more limited sense, natural and realisable are not identical.
If one pushes this point far enough, one gets to primitivism. That the only things worth of being called natural are the ones which are not manufactured at all or use only very primitive means, that is, they are not artificial.
As a sidenote, as @CriglCragl's answer has noted, the terms are also loaded with ideological, sociopolitical nuances. Thus for example, someone may term "unnatural" anything that *contradicts*, or is *undesirable* to, a certain, historically settled, order of things or established tradition. This answer does not touch on this aspect. |
243,646 | I've started a game with my friends. However, mid-way through the game, we noticed a turn limit (after saving the game for resuming later).
The odd thing though, is I never opted to enforce one (in the game creation screen).
Question:
=========
Is there any way I can remove the turn limit so that we can play on?
Right now, the limit is 333 turns (of which we're already at turn 120). | 2015/11/16 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/243646",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/75275/"
] | You won't be able to change it now that the game is started. The option is set at the start of a game, in the advanced options, there's a `Max turns` settings.
Setting it at 0 will remove the turns limit of a game. [Source from Steam](https://steamcommunity.com/app/65980/discussions/0/619569341137914262/#p3)
Linked page 3 as it is the page with the most important information on how to see that 0 is the proper value and this is from page 4 :
>
> 1) First game. Set up game, advanced options. Max Turns option was NOT checked (this appears to be the games default configuration unless you change it). Disabled all victory conditions. Started game, checked game details from menu, it listed "Time" as a victory condition (peculiar, but proceeded nonetheless). On Turn 400 the game abruptly ended (was playing vs 1 AI on easy, i was just ending turns over and over not doing anything... and again, all victory options were turned off). Game abruptly ends with the "Time" ending (shows the box art screen, a brief voice over about time running out, game ends)
>
>
> 2) 2nd game. Set up game, advanced options. Max Turns checked on, set to 0 turns. All victory coniditions disabled, otherwise identical settings as last game. After 560 turns the game was / is still continuing with no end in sight, game doesn't appear to end at turn 400 as the previous game did.. thus this worked.
>
>
> | I made a simple web app that will let you change the game parameters of a save file, including max turns: [Civilization V save editor](https://bmaupin.github.io/civ5save-editor/)
Just open your save file in the app and uncheck *Time victory* (it will automatically set *Max turns* to 0). Then download the save file with the changes and open it in the game. |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | You should never ever trust a new root CA unless you really (and I mean really really) believe that it is fully trustable. Even then you should get the CA certificate in a trusted way, i.e. definitely not by downloading it from a site which certificate is issued by the same yet untrusted CA.
The main problem with explicitly added root CA is that **any explicitly added CA is automatically trusted to issue a certificate for any domain**. This means even if example.com has usually a certificate signed by InnocentCA the browser will also accept without any notice a certificate signed by MaliciousCA, if you have added MaliciousCA as trusted CA. This makes man in the middle attacks or other kinds of domain impersonation by MaliciousCA easy.
Even certificate pinning (built-in or with HPKP) will not help since pinning is disabled in browsers if the certificate is signed by an explicitly added CA, to make legal SSL interception as used in enterprise firewalls and many desktop antivirus possible. | It's all to do with trust.
The root CA certificates of many come prelaoded within operating systems and some browsers. You may not even know this, but that's because these manufacturers have trusted them on your behalf (you can always remove any). If the CA site you are visiting does not have the root installed then you will receive an error - at this point you either trust the certificate and proceed so you can get the root to download, or you stop.
If you download and install a root CA then you are solely taking that trust on. If you do not trust the CA then do not install it's root certificate. If you are unsure whether to trust the CA then asking around is a good start, but that said if the root is not installed on other client machines then they will get a certificate error when they try to use the client certificate in the chain anyway. This therefore in your example means that you either chose to trust the error to proceed downloading the root certificate for that site, or you did not - as you would have received an error without the root certificate in the first place. |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | First, you have to consider *why* this organization believes they should be issuing their own root CA and distributing it to you.
Does this certificate belong to your own organization? Does your organization manage their own PKI and issue their own internal certificates, for internal boxes to communicate with each other? This is a common scenario in industry or other larger organizations, and is a perfectly legitimate reason to internally distribute certificates from an internal server to internal clients. At that point you're discussing obtaining the certificates via a private network, where your organization presumably has security and controls on the distribution of root certificates. Trusting such a server and certificate should pose little problem to you as a member of the organization.
If this is from some external site (perhaps one that doesn't understand certificate authorities and built their own PKI instead of paying for a certificate,) and is now asking their clients to trust their root CA, then no. There is no reason to trust their certificate as a root CA. So if this is a connection to a vendor's site, ask them to provision their server with a properly signed certificate from a well-known trusted root CA. You're paying them for the service, not to introduce security vulnerabilities. There is no reason they should put your systems at risk to use theirs.
If they are unwilling or unable to cooperate, you have to question their understanding of PKI and perhaps their competence in security in general. Consider finding an alternate vendor who poses less of a risk. If no alternative is possible and you have not choice but to use their services, you should act to minimize the risk to your organization. For example, you could stand up your own proxy server that trusts their certificate and would connect to their server; your clients would only use and trust your proxy to access the vendor's services. That would limit your risk to a single proxy system.
If you do have to accept their root CA on your client systems, be sure to import their certificate granting it only the minimum privileges. When importing a root CA certificate, most systems will prompt you with a series of check-boxes: "trust this certificate to identify web sites?" "trust this certificate for digital signatures?" "trust this certificate for software updates?" Be sure to only grant it the appropriate level of trust. | It's all to do with trust.
The root CA certificates of many come prelaoded within operating systems and some browsers. You may not even know this, but that's because these manufacturers have trusted them on your behalf (you can always remove any). If the CA site you are visiting does not have the root installed then you will receive an error - at this point you either trust the certificate and proceed so you can get the root to download, or you stop.
If you download and install a root CA then you are solely taking that trust on. If you do not trust the CA then do not install it's root certificate. If you are unsure whether to trust the CA then asking around is a good start, but that said if the root is not installed on other client machines then they will get a certificate error when they try to use the client certificate in the chain anyway. This therefore in your example means that you either chose to trust the error to proceed downloading the root certificate for that site, or you did not - as you would have received an error without the root certificate in the first place. |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | Already good answers. I will focus mine solely on **the chicken and egg problem**.
**Egg:** You are trying to validate a certificate, but the cert chains to a root that you have never seen before.
**Chicken:** To decide whether you should trust this CA, you look at who issued the root cert, but the issuer of a root CA cert is always ... itself, so we're back to the egg scenario.
---
Hence the name "root CA certs" for "root of trust". If you trust the root, then you trust the entire tree. If you don't trust the root, then you don't trust the entire tree. But how to determine if a root CA is trustworthy?
There is no automated way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy, and that's kinda the point. Basically, you need to get to know the organization (ie the humans) who run that CA and decide whether they are trustworthy and doing their jobs properly. As an example, let's look at Mozilla's process for deciding whether a CA should be included in the truststores of Firefox and other products.
First, see: [Mozilla's CA Certificate Program](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Overview) which overviews every detail of their process around the root trust store (huge kudos to them for making all this public!).
Next, we dive a little deeper into their [CA Application Process](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Application_Process). As you can see, there is a very rigorous and time-consuming process by which Mozilla determines whether a CA is "good enough" to be included in the Mozilla trust store.
---
**Bottom-line**: there is no over-the-internet way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy (I guess you could look them up on a forum or something, but how do you know if you should trust those people? See: chicken-egg). You need to first have in-real-life trust in the people running the CA. The other answers detail the risks of adding a malicious root cert, so I won't go over that.
Let's assume the CA you're thinking of adding is run by your company / school / friend: you believe them to be honest (not issuing fake certs to bad-guys), **and** you think they are have good security practices to prevent their CA from being hacked (highly unlikely unless, at a minimum, they have spent thousands of dollars on [Hardware Security Modules](https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiVg86Sn__UAhUEcD4KHVLVCFwQFggwMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHardware_security_module&usg=AFQjCNFgT1aEPOLgDF0bSpvUQi_mjPh8TQ) to store their CA private key, and firewalls to protect their admin interface), then go ahead and add it.
Otherwise, if this is some root cert that you stumbled across on the internet, you would need to reach out to the organization behind the CA by phone and go through your own version of the Mozilla check-list (which probably involves several months of your time and several plane tickets on both your part and the CA's part).
---
**Bottom-bottom-line:** Unless the root CA is your company / school and you are literally required to add it for your computer to work, **\*then don't\***. Mozilla / Google / Microsoft / Apple, etc have very rigorous processes for vetting CAs, so if that CA was not included, there's probably a reason. | It's all to do with trust.
The root CA certificates of many come prelaoded within operating systems and some browsers. You may not even know this, but that's because these manufacturers have trusted them on your behalf (you can always remove any). If the CA site you are visiting does not have the root installed then you will receive an error - at this point you either trust the certificate and proceed so you can get the root to download, or you stop.
If you download and install a root CA then you are solely taking that trust on. If you do not trust the CA then do not install it's root certificate. If you are unsure whether to trust the CA then asking around is a good start, but that said if the root is not installed on other client machines then they will get a certificate error when they try to use the client certificate in the chain anyway. This therefore in your example means that you either chose to trust the error to proceed downloading the root certificate for that site, or you did not - as you would have received an error without the root certificate in the first place. |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | It's all to do with trust.
The root CA certificates of many come prelaoded within operating systems and some browsers. You may not even know this, but that's because these manufacturers have trusted them on your behalf (you can always remove any). If the CA site you are visiting does not have the root installed then you will receive an error - at this point you either trust the certificate and proceed so you can get the root to download, or you stop.
If you download and install a root CA then you are solely taking that trust on. If you do not trust the CA then do not install it's root certificate. If you are unsure whether to trust the CA then asking around is a good start, but that said if the root is not installed on other client machines then they will get a certificate error when they try to use the client certificate in the chain anyway. This therefore in your example means that you either chose to trust the error to proceed downloading the root certificate for that site, or you did not - as you would have received an error without the root certificate in the first place. | You can copy the thumbprint(or fingerprint whatever) of the Root CA's certificate, then google it, if it is authentic, it will show results of the CA's name exactly as yours.
For detail, assume you are using Chrome browser, you enter your target https site to verify,
1. Ctrl+Shift+I or COMMAND+Opt+I to open developer tool
2. Click "Security" tab
3. Click "View Certificate"
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AKOX6.png)
4. Click "Certification Path"
5. Double-Click Root Item
6. Click "Details" tab header
7. Scroll to "Thumbprint" and click it
8. Copy thumbprint showed in lower pane
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CU8sn.png)
9. Google the thumbprint (better be quoted)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6xA1.png) |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | Already good answers. I will focus mine solely on **the chicken and egg problem**.
**Egg:** You are trying to validate a certificate, but the cert chains to a root that you have never seen before.
**Chicken:** To decide whether you should trust this CA, you look at who issued the root cert, but the issuer of a root CA cert is always ... itself, so we're back to the egg scenario.
---
Hence the name "root CA certs" for "root of trust". If you trust the root, then you trust the entire tree. If you don't trust the root, then you don't trust the entire tree. But how to determine if a root CA is trustworthy?
There is no automated way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy, and that's kinda the point. Basically, you need to get to know the organization (ie the humans) who run that CA and decide whether they are trustworthy and doing their jobs properly. As an example, let's look at Mozilla's process for deciding whether a CA should be included in the truststores of Firefox and other products.
First, see: [Mozilla's CA Certificate Program](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Overview) which overviews every detail of their process around the root trust store (huge kudos to them for making all this public!).
Next, we dive a little deeper into their [CA Application Process](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Application_Process). As you can see, there is a very rigorous and time-consuming process by which Mozilla determines whether a CA is "good enough" to be included in the Mozilla trust store.
---
**Bottom-line**: there is no over-the-internet way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy (I guess you could look them up on a forum or something, but how do you know if you should trust those people? See: chicken-egg). You need to first have in-real-life trust in the people running the CA. The other answers detail the risks of adding a malicious root cert, so I won't go over that.
Let's assume the CA you're thinking of adding is run by your company / school / friend: you believe them to be honest (not issuing fake certs to bad-guys), **and** you think they are have good security practices to prevent their CA from being hacked (highly unlikely unless, at a minimum, they have spent thousands of dollars on [Hardware Security Modules](https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiVg86Sn__UAhUEcD4KHVLVCFwQFggwMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHardware_security_module&usg=AFQjCNFgT1aEPOLgDF0bSpvUQi_mjPh8TQ) to store their CA private key, and firewalls to protect their admin interface), then go ahead and add it.
Otherwise, if this is some root cert that you stumbled across on the internet, you would need to reach out to the organization behind the CA by phone and go through your own version of the Mozilla check-list (which probably involves several months of your time and several plane tickets on both your part and the CA's part).
---
**Bottom-bottom-line:** Unless the root CA is your company / school and you are literally required to add it for your computer to work, **\*then don't\***. Mozilla / Google / Microsoft / Apple, etc have very rigorous processes for vetting CAs, so if that CA was not included, there's probably a reason. | You should never ever trust a new root CA unless you really (and I mean really really) believe that it is fully trustable. Even then you should get the CA certificate in a trusted way, i.e. definitely not by downloading it from a site which certificate is issued by the same yet untrusted CA.
The main problem with explicitly added root CA is that **any explicitly added CA is automatically trusted to issue a certificate for any domain**. This means even if example.com has usually a certificate signed by InnocentCA the browser will also accept without any notice a certificate signed by MaliciousCA, if you have added MaliciousCA as trusted CA. This makes man in the middle attacks or other kinds of domain impersonation by MaliciousCA easy.
Even certificate pinning (built-in or with HPKP) will not help since pinning is disabled in browsers if the certificate is signed by an explicitly added CA, to make legal SSL interception as used in enterprise firewalls and many desktop antivirus possible. |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | You should never ever trust a new root CA unless you really (and I mean really really) believe that it is fully trustable. Even then you should get the CA certificate in a trusted way, i.e. definitely not by downloading it from a site which certificate is issued by the same yet untrusted CA.
The main problem with explicitly added root CA is that **any explicitly added CA is automatically trusted to issue a certificate for any domain**. This means even if example.com has usually a certificate signed by InnocentCA the browser will also accept without any notice a certificate signed by MaliciousCA, if you have added MaliciousCA as trusted CA. This makes man in the middle attacks or other kinds of domain impersonation by MaliciousCA easy.
Even certificate pinning (built-in or with HPKP) will not help since pinning is disabled in browsers if the certificate is signed by an explicitly added CA, to make legal SSL interception as used in enterprise firewalls and many desktop antivirus possible. | You can copy the thumbprint(or fingerprint whatever) of the Root CA's certificate, then google it, if it is authentic, it will show results of the CA's name exactly as yours.
For detail, assume you are using Chrome browser, you enter your target https site to verify,
1. Ctrl+Shift+I or COMMAND+Opt+I to open developer tool
2. Click "Security" tab
3. Click "View Certificate"
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AKOX6.png)
4. Click "Certification Path"
5. Double-Click Root Item
6. Click "Details" tab header
7. Scroll to "Thumbprint" and click it
8. Copy thumbprint showed in lower pane
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CU8sn.png)
9. Google the thumbprint (better be quoted)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6xA1.png) |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | Already good answers. I will focus mine solely on **the chicken and egg problem**.
**Egg:** You are trying to validate a certificate, but the cert chains to a root that you have never seen before.
**Chicken:** To decide whether you should trust this CA, you look at who issued the root cert, but the issuer of a root CA cert is always ... itself, so we're back to the egg scenario.
---
Hence the name "root CA certs" for "root of trust". If you trust the root, then you trust the entire tree. If you don't trust the root, then you don't trust the entire tree. But how to determine if a root CA is trustworthy?
There is no automated way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy, and that's kinda the point. Basically, you need to get to know the organization (ie the humans) who run that CA and decide whether they are trustworthy and doing their jobs properly. As an example, let's look at Mozilla's process for deciding whether a CA should be included in the truststores of Firefox and other products.
First, see: [Mozilla's CA Certificate Program](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Overview) which overviews every detail of their process around the root trust store (huge kudos to them for making all this public!).
Next, we dive a little deeper into their [CA Application Process](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Application_Process). As you can see, there is a very rigorous and time-consuming process by which Mozilla determines whether a CA is "good enough" to be included in the Mozilla trust store.
---
**Bottom-line**: there is no over-the-internet way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy (I guess you could look them up on a forum or something, but how do you know if you should trust those people? See: chicken-egg). You need to first have in-real-life trust in the people running the CA. The other answers detail the risks of adding a malicious root cert, so I won't go over that.
Let's assume the CA you're thinking of adding is run by your company / school / friend: you believe them to be honest (not issuing fake certs to bad-guys), **and** you think they are have good security practices to prevent their CA from being hacked (highly unlikely unless, at a minimum, they have spent thousands of dollars on [Hardware Security Modules](https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiVg86Sn__UAhUEcD4KHVLVCFwQFggwMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHardware_security_module&usg=AFQjCNFgT1aEPOLgDF0bSpvUQi_mjPh8TQ) to store their CA private key, and firewalls to protect their admin interface), then go ahead and add it.
Otherwise, if this is some root cert that you stumbled across on the internet, you would need to reach out to the organization behind the CA by phone and go through your own version of the Mozilla check-list (which probably involves several months of your time and several plane tickets on both your part and the CA's part).
---
**Bottom-bottom-line:** Unless the root CA is your company / school and you are literally required to add it for your computer to work, **\*then don't\***. Mozilla / Google / Microsoft / Apple, etc have very rigorous processes for vetting CAs, so if that CA was not included, there's probably a reason. | First, you have to consider *why* this organization believes they should be issuing their own root CA and distributing it to you.
Does this certificate belong to your own organization? Does your organization manage their own PKI and issue their own internal certificates, for internal boxes to communicate with each other? This is a common scenario in industry or other larger organizations, and is a perfectly legitimate reason to internally distribute certificates from an internal server to internal clients. At that point you're discussing obtaining the certificates via a private network, where your organization presumably has security and controls on the distribution of root certificates. Trusting such a server and certificate should pose little problem to you as a member of the organization.
If this is from some external site (perhaps one that doesn't understand certificate authorities and built their own PKI instead of paying for a certificate,) and is now asking their clients to trust their root CA, then no. There is no reason to trust their certificate as a root CA. So if this is a connection to a vendor's site, ask them to provision their server with a properly signed certificate from a well-known trusted root CA. You're paying them for the service, not to introduce security vulnerabilities. There is no reason they should put your systems at risk to use theirs.
If they are unwilling or unable to cooperate, you have to question their understanding of PKI and perhaps their competence in security in general. Consider finding an alternate vendor who poses less of a risk. If no alternative is possible and you have not choice but to use their services, you should act to minimize the risk to your organization. For example, you could stand up your own proxy server that trusts their certificate and would connect to their server; your clients would only use and trust your proxy to access the vendor's services. That would limit your risk to a single proxy system.
If you do have to accept their root CA on your client systems, be sure to import their certificate granting it only the minimum privileges. When importing a root CA certificate, most systems will prompt you with a series of check-boxes: "trust this certificate to identify web sites?" "trust this certificate for digital signatures?" "trust this certificate for software updates?" Be sure to only grant it the appropriate level of trust. |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | First, you have to consider *why* this organization believes they should be issuing their own root CA and distributing it to you.
Does this certificate belong to your own organization? Does your organization manage their own PKI and issue their own internal certificates, for internal boxes to communicate with each other? This is a common scenario in industry or other larger organizations, and is a perfectly legitimate reason to internally distribute certificates from an internal server to internal clients. At that point you're discussing obtaining the certificates via a private network, where your organization presumably has security and controls on the distribution of root certificates. Trusting such a server and certificate should pose little problem to you as a member of the organization.
If this is from some external site (perhaps one that doesn't understand certificate authorities and built their own PKI instead of paying for a certificate,) and is now asking their clients to trust their root CA, then no. There is no reason to trust their certificate as a root CA. So if this is a connection to a vendor's site, ask them to provision their server with a properly signed certificate from a well-known trusted root CA. You're paying them for the service, not to introduce security vulnerabilities. There is no reason they should put your systems at risk to use theirs.
If they are unwilling or unable to cooperate, you have to question their understanding of PKI and perhaps their competence in security in general. Consider finding an alternate vendor who poses less of a risk. If no alternative is possible and you have not choice but to use their services, you should act to minimize the risk to your organization. For example, you could stand up your own proxy server that trusts their certificate and would connect to their server; your clients would only use and trust your proxy to access the vendor's services. That would limit your risk to a single proxy system.
If you do have to accept their root CA on your client systems, be sure to import their certificate granting it only the minimum privileges. When importing a root CA certificate, most systems will prompt you with a series of check-boxes: "trust this certificate to identify web sites?" "trust this certificate for digital signatures?" "trust this certificate for software updates?" Be sure to only grant it the appropriate level of trust. | You can copy the thumbprint(or fingerprint whatever) of the Root CA's certificate, then google it, if it is authentic, it will show results of the CA's name exactly as yours.
For detail, assume you are using Chrome browser, you enter your target https site to verify,
1. Ctrl+Shift+I or COMMAND+Opt+I to open developer tool
2. Click "Security" tab
3. Click "View Certificate"
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AKOX6.png)
4. Click "Certification Path"
5. Double-Click Root Item
6. Click "Details" tab header
7. Scroll to "Thumbprint" and click it
8. Copy thumbprint showed in lower pane
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CU8sn.png)
9. Google the thumbprint (better be quoted)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6xA1.png) |
164,816 | Verifying and trusting some root certificate of an unusual CA might present a problem. In fact, to download the root cert of this CA from its corresponding website one should verify and trust first the TLS cert presented by that website. Meaning trusting the root cert of the CA signing the website’s TLS cert. It seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. How could one solve that ? | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/164816",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/151918/"
] | Already good answers. I will focus mine solely on **the chicken and egg problem**.
**Egg:** You are trying to validate a certificate, but the cert chains to a root that you have never seen before.
**Chicken:** To decide whether you should trust this CA, you look at who issued the root cert, but the issuer of a root CA cert is always ... itself, so we're back to the egg scenario.
---
Hence the name "root CA certs" for "root of trust". If you trust the root, then you trust the entire tree. If you don't trust the root, then you don't trust the entire tree. But how to determine if a root CA is trustworthy?
There is no automated way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy, and that's kinda the point. Basically, you need to get to know the organization (ie the humans) who run that CA and decide whether they are trustworthy and doing their jobs properly. As an example, let's look at Mozilla's process for deciding whether a CA should be included in the truststores of Firefox and other products.
First, see: [Mozilla's CA Certificate Program](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Overview) which overviews every detail of their process around the root trust store (huge kudos to them for making all this public!).
Next, we dive a little deeper into their [CA Application Process](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Application_Process). As you can see, there is a very rigorous and time-consuming process by which Mozilla determines whether a CA is "good enough" to be included in the Mozilla trust store.
---
**Bottom-line**: there is no over-the-internet way to determine whether a root CA is trustworthy (I guess you could look them up on a forum or something, but how do you know if you should trust those people? See: chicken-egg). You need to first have in-real-life trust in the people running the CA. The other answers detail the risks of adding a malicious root cert, so I won't go over that.
Let's assume the CA you're thinking of adding is run by your company / school / friend: you believe them to be honest (not issuing fake certs to bad-guys), **and** you think they are have good security practices to prevent their CA from being hacked (highly unlikely unless, at a minimum, they have spent thousands of dollars on [Hardware Security Modules](https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiVg86Sn__UAhUEcD4KHVLVCFwQFggwMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHardware_security_module&usg=AFQjCNFgT1aEPOLgDF0bSpvUQi_mjPh8TQ) to store their CA private key, and firewalls to protect their admin interface), then go ahead and add it.
Otherwise, if this is some root cert that you stumbled across on the internet, you would need to reach out to the organization behind the CA by phone and go through your own version of the Mozilla check-list (which probably involves several months of your time and several plane tickets on both your part and the CA's part).
---
**Bottom-bottom-line:** Unless the root CA is your company / school and you are literally required to add it for your computer to work, **\*then don't\***. Mozilla / Google / Microsoft / Apple, etc have very rigorous processes for vetting CAs, so if that CA was not included, there's probably a reason. | You can copy the thumbprint(or fingerprint whatever) of the Root CA's certificate, then google it, if it is authentic, it will show results of the CA's name exactly as yours.
For detail, assume you are using Chrome browser, you enter your target https site to verify,
1. Ctrl+Shift+I or COMMAND+Opt+I to open developer tool
2. Click "Security" tab
3. Click "View Certificate"
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AKOX6.png)
4. Click "Certification Path"
5. Double-Click Root Item
6. Click "Details" tab header
7. Scroll to "Thumbprint" and click it
8. Copy thumbprint showed in lower pane
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CU8sn.png)
9. Google the thumbprint (better be quoted)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6xA1.png) |
449,611 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PQsrj.png)
**(For Theoretical Purposes and Understanding assume the diode is not in the circuit)**
I just have a bit of confusion regarding the buck convertor when the switch is off. Since an inductor cannot change instantaneously, when the switch is powered off, current will still flow towards the switch. Then a charge will build upon the switch terminal potentially causing a flashover etc (i get this is why we need the diode).
**However as the current is still flowing through the load when off, it will be powered on still right?** | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/449611",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/148421/"
] | The catch diode insures a proper return path for the inductors current. Without the diode there is risk of damage to the MOSFET switch and a greatly reduced output.
There is also a possibility of incorrect polarity at the output, possibly causing damage or drawing excessive current from the source. The diode solves many problems on both the ON and OFF cycle of the MOSFET.
To answer your question,yes, the current would keep flowing from source to load if the MOSFET stayed in an ON state. However Vout would equal Vin with no voltage or current control provided by the SMPS IC.
If the diode is missing, there can be NO current flow if the MOSFET is OFF, as the path has been broken. The capacitor will quickly drain to zero volts.
If the diode is missing and the switch is OFF after being ON, then the stored inductors current will pass through the MOSFET switch, likely destroying it. MOSFET's fail as a short, so it would have to be replaced. | As you say the inductor cannot allow current flowing through it, to change instantaneously. When you turn off your switch it is equivalent to raising the series resistance for the switch and hence the inductor in series.
If the current is not to change instantaneously when you change the resistance then the **voltage** will rise across the inductor to achieve the same current.
The inductor equation dI/dt\*L=V can be used to *sketch* the implications of hard-switching an inductor. For example dropping 1 ampere in 1 microsecond through a 100uH inductor coil will result in a 100 V spike!
(1A / 1us \* 100uH =100V) |
39,843,959 | I have seen the tutorail of setting up solr in tomcat . I am curious to know if it is possible to run apache kafka in tomcat container . if yes how can i do that . | 2016/10/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39843959",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6269583/"
] | For kafka its not possible. In case of solr its distribution comes with solr.war which runs on default jetty container, so that solr calls are exposed as rest service. You can deploy solr.war on tomcat as well with few configurations and running in tomcat acting as servlet container and can expose solr rest calls. In kafka distribution there is no such possibility. | kafka requires a running zookeeper server (which is bundled with the kafka server). Zookeeper runs as a separate service...no tomcat (or any other servlet container or JavaEE application server required).
Please read the "Quickstart" guide on the kafka website: <https://kafka.apache.org/quickstart>
It tells you exactly how to get started. |
281,084 | I made this object using geometry nodes.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lqEAG.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PaZjn.png)
I want red objects not to be rendered.
What node should I use?
[](https://blend-exchange.com/b/X1jQkAod/) | 2022/12/09 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/281084",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/123256/"
] | Remove the Join Geometry node by clicking it and pressing Ctrl + X. Only the Realize Instances should be connected to the geometry output. | If you want to see the red objects in the viewport to see what you're doing while editing but don't want to see them in the final render, you could use a *Switch* node in combination with the *Is Viewport* node.
Plug the *Is Viewport* into the *Switch* input, the instanced blue objects into the *False* input and the result of the *Join Geometry* node into the *True* input.
This way when *Is Viewport* is true i.e. watching the object in the viewport, you see both the red and blue objects. When you render the scene, the *Is Viewport* result is false and you only get the blue objects rendered.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEJwj.jpg)
If you don't need to see the red one in the viewport, simply don't join the geometry and plug only the instances in the *Group Output*. |
129,893 | The following quote is extracted from the book "The Field-The quest for the secret force":
>
> ...There was other, quite practical, unfinished business with quantum theory. Bohr and his colleagues only got so far in their experiments and understanding. The experiments they’d conducted demonstrating these quantum effects had occurred in the laboratory, with non-living subatomic particles.*From there, scientists in their wake naturally assumed that this strange quantum world only existed in the world of dead matter. Anything alive still operated according to the laws of Newton and Descartes, a view that has informed all of modern medicine and biology.* Even biochemistry depends upon Newtonian force and collision to work.
>
>
>
Are the above statements correct?
I always get stuck here, according to Newton's laws of motion, everybody continues in the state of motion or rest (w.r.t to an inertial frame), unless and until a force is applied on it. But, a rat, a dog, a girl!, always pass before me and fluctuate to rest and motion, rest and motion. Are they acted upon by any force to set them in motion or to get them into rest?
If muscles help them move (Pratyay gosh has noticed this significant point), which force make the muscles move. According to Newton's law, they must be acted upon by a force, right?
So, does Newton's laws of motion also apply for the matter which is not dead?
Is Quantum mechanics applicable only for dead matter? | 2014/08/07 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129893",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/29762/"
] | Quantum mechanics applies to EVERYTHING.
Macroscopic objects will have many degrees of freedom, and smoothed out energy levels, and will, to a very good approximation, obey the rules of classical mechanics.
Note however, that there are very many quantum mechanical processes going on inside of our bodies. Chemistry, for example, is pretty inherently quantum mechanical, and most of the undelying processes of the body involve chemistry pretty heavily. | Newton's law applies on anything of which we can precisely know the position and momentum (not the quantum mechanical particles), no matter whether it is dead or alive. In case of a cat or dog a normal force comes from its weight and the muscles. Due to this normal force frictional force is generated, that helps them move. |
129,893 | The following quote is extracted from the book "The Field-The quest for the secret force":
>
> ...There was other, quite practical, unfinished business with quantum theory. Bohr and his colleagues only got so far in their experiments and understanding. The experiments they’d conducted demonstrating these quantum effects had occurred in the laboratory, with non-living subatomic particles.*From there, scientists in their wake naturally assumed that this strange quantum world only existed in the world of dead matter. Anything alive still operated according to the laws of Newton and Descartes, a view that has informed all of modern medicine and biology.* Even biochemistry depends upon Newtonian force and collision to work.
>
>
>
Are the above statements correct?
I always get stuck here, according to Newton's laws of motion, everybody continues in the state of motion or rest (w.r.t to an inertial frame), unless and until a force is applied on it. But, a rat, a dog, a girl!, always pass before me and fluctuate to rest and motion, rest and motion. Are they acted upon by any force to set them in motion or to get them into rest?
If muscles help them move (Pratyay gosh has noticed this significant point), which force make the muscles move. According to Newton's law, they must be acted upon by a force, right?
So, does Newton's laws of motion also apply for the matter which is not dead?
Is Quantum mechanics applicable only for dead matter? | 2014/08/07 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129893",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/29762/"
] | When I start from rest and begin walking down the street, the force that accelerates me is the static frictional force from the sidewalk.
>
> If muscles help them move ..., which force make the muscles move...?
>
>
>
The muscles are attached to bones. When I start from rest and begin walking down the street, my muscles are accelerated and begin moving down the street, as well as oscillating as I stride. The forces that cause these accelerations are normal and adhesive forces from the bones.
A different issue is where the *energy* comes from. The energy is electrical potential energy from the food I ate, which gets transformed by my muscles into kinetic energy and heat. | Newton's law applies on anything of which we can precisely know the position and momentum (not the quantum mechanical particles), no matter whether it is dead or alive. In case of a cat or dog a normal force comes from its weight and the muscles. Due to this normal force frictional force is generated, that helps them move. |
129,893 | The following quote is extracted from the book "The Field-The quest for the secret force":
>
> ...There was other, quite practical, unfinished business with quantum theory. Bohr and his colleagues only got so far in their experiments and understanding. The experiments they’d conducted demonstrating these quantum effects had occurred in the laboratory, with non-living subatomic particles.*From there, scientists in their wake naturally assumed that this strange quantum world only existed in the world of dead matter. Anything alive still operated according to the laws of Newton and Descartes, a view that has informed all of modern medicine and biology.* Even biochemistry depends upon Newtonian force and collision to work.
>
>
>
Are the above statements correct?
I always get stuck here, according to Newton's laws of motion, everybody continues in the state of motion or rest (w.r.t to an inertial frame), unless and until a force is applied on it. But, a rat, a dog, a girl!, always pass before me and fluctuate to rest and motion, rest and motion. Are they acted upon by any force to set them in motion or to get them into rest?
If muscles help them move (Pratyay gosh has noticed this significant point), which force make the muscles move. According to Newton's law, they must be acted upon by a force, right?
So, does Newton's laws of motion also apply for the matter which is not dead?
Is Quantum mechanics applicable only for dead matter? | 2014/08/07 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129893",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/29762/"
] | OK, so it seems you are actually asking two separate (and very different) questions in a single post. What you call "dead matter" is what physicists usually simply call "matter", though some specific systems have the additional property of being alive. Being "dead", on the other hand, is not a property.
As such, the answer to your question
>
> Is Quantum mechanics not applicable for dead matter?
>
>
>
is that quantum mechanics **is** applicable for "dead matter": it is applicable to matter, plain and simple.
There *is* a question, though, on whether quantum mechanics is also applicable to matter which is also alive. During the 1920s and 30s, when Bohr formulated his Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the available experiments were enough to prove that quantum mechanics was necessary (and superseded newtonian mechanics) to describe atomic-level systems, but the evidence available at the time was not enough to say whether it would continue to hold or would need to be modified when applied to living beings.
Faced with that situation, many scientists took two mostly-compatible outlooks: (i) operationally, life was described using newtonian mechanics and worldviews, as there was no experimental reason to doubt their validity at that level (though you should note that this does not mean there was experimental reason to doubt QM at that level, either), and (ii) fundamentally, life would still "in principle" be governed by quantum mechanics, whatever that actually meant.
This is still pretty much the case today.
* There is no experimental evidence either way on whether quantum mechanics fails or continues to hold for living systems.
* There is considerable experimental evidence that quantum mechanics, including the 'quantum weirdness' of superposition states, also holds for (non-living) systems which are macroscopic, and even large enough to be visible to the naked eye. Such systems are bigger (but much less complex) than many organisms which are considered as living.
* There is no experimental reason to doubt that quantum mechanics does describe living beings, and a large body of evidence that it does. This does raise contradictions with everyday experience, because we never observe cats that are |alive⟩+|dead⟩, but
* those contradictions are still unresolved. This is the fundamental open problem in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and it is known as the measurement problem.
On the other hand, the statement that "even biochemistry depends upon Newtonian force and collision to work" is dubious at best. This depends on what size of biomolecule you mean, and computational chemistry for large molecules is notoriously hard, but you can be very accurate in your predictions for amino acids using some pretty hard quantum mechanics, and there are no other explanations for many of those properties that emanate purely from newtonian mechanics.
---
The rest of your question seems to stem from a fundamental confusion between "newtonian mechanics" and Newton's three Laws of Motion.
The former means the worldview and outlook of Newton when tackling physical problems, and in particular the assertion that particles and systems have definite positions, coordinates and momenta, and that these positions and momenta completely characterize the states of the system. It is this what the quote refers to as "the laws of Newton and Descartes".
The latter means the specific assertions that systems in isolation travel in straight lines, accelerations are due to forces, and that every force comes with an equal and opposite reaction. These are a distinct subset of the worldview implied by 'newtonian mechanics', but they also hold ([with a number of subtleties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem#General_example)) in quantum mechanics. These have not really been observed to fail, though of course in the systems where the newtonian worldview fails then they need to be examined very closely.
And, finally, regarding your question that
>
> But, a rat, a dog, a girl!, always pass before me and fluctuate to rest and motion, rest and motion. Are they acted upon by any force to set them in motion or to get them into rest?
>
>
>
the answer is (a) obviously yes, and (b) completely independent of the validity of quantum mechanics. Rats, dogs and girls move by using their muscles to exert forces on the ground and the objects around them. By Newton's third law, there is a corresponding reaction from the ground which propels them forward. | Newton's law applies on anything of which we can precisely know the position and momentum (not the quantum mechanical particles), no matter whether it is dead or alive. In case of a cat or dog a normal force comes from its weight and the muscles. Due to this normal force frictional force is generated, that helps them move. |
129,893 | The following quote is extracted from the book "The Field-The quest for the secret force":
>
> ...There was other, quite practical, unfinished business with quantum theory. Bohr and his colleagues only got so far in their experiments and understanding. The experiments they’d conducted demonstrating these quantum effects had occurred in the laboratory, with non-living subatomic particles.*From there, scientists in their wake naturally assumed that this strange quantum world only existed in the world of dead matter. Anything alive still operated according to the laws of Newton and Descartes, a view that has informed all of modern medicine and biology.* Even biochemistry depends upon Newtonian force and collision to work.
>
>
>
Are the above statements correct?
I always get stuck here, according to Newton's laws of motion, everybody continues in the state of motion or rest (w.r.t to an inertial frame), unless and until a force is applied on it. But, a rat, a dog, a girl!, always pass before me and fluctuate to rest and motion, rest and motion. Are they acted upon by any force to set them in motion or to get them into rest?
If muscles help them move (Pratyay gosh has noticed this significant point), which force make the muscles move. According to Newton's law, they must be acted upon by a force, right?
So, does Newton's laws of motion also apply for the matter which is not dead?
Is Quantum mechanics applicable only for dead matter? | 2014/08/07 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129893",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/29762/"
] | Quantum mechanics applies to EVERYTHING.
Macroscopic objects will have many degrees of freedom, and smoothed out energy levels, and will, to a very good approximation, obey the rules of classical mechanics.
Note however, that there are very many quantum mechanical processes going on inside of our bodies. Chemistry, for example, is pretty inherently quantum mechanical, and most of the undelying processes of the body involve chemistry pretty heavily. | When I start from rest and begin walking down the street, the force that accelerates me is the static frictional force from the sidewalk.
>
> If muscles help them move ..., which force make the muscles move...?
>
>
>
The muscles are attached to bones. When I start from rest and begin walking down the street, my muscles are accelerated and begin moving down the street, as well as oscillating as I stride. The forces that cause these accelerations are normal and adhesive forces from the bones.
A different issue is where the *energy* comes from. The energy is electrical potential energy from the food I ate, which gets transformed by my muscles into kinetic energy and heat. |
129,893 | The following quote is extracted from the book "The Field-The quest for the secret force":
>
> ...There was other, quite practical, unfinished business with quantum theory. Bohr and his colleagues only got so far in their experiments and understanding. The experiments they’d conducted demonstrating these quantum effects had occurred in the laboratory, with non-living subatomic particles.*From there, scientists in their wake naturally assumed that this strange quantum world only existed in the world of dead matter. Anything alive still operated according to the laws of Newton and Descartes, a view that has informed all of modern medicine and biology.* Even biochemistry depends upon Newtonian force and collision to work.
>
>
>
Are the above statements correct?
I always get stuck here, according to Newton's laws of motion, everybody continues in the state of motion or rest (w.r.t to an inertial frame), unless and until a force is applied on it. But, a rat, a dog, a girl!, always pass before me and fluctuate to rest and motion, rest and motion. Are they acted upon by any force to set them in motion or to get them into rest?
If muscles help them move (Pratyay gosh has noticed this significant point), which force make the muscles move. According to Newton's law, they must be acted upon by a force, right?
So, does Newton's laws of motion also apply for the matter which is not dead?
Is Quantum mechanics applicable only for dead matter? | 2014/08/07 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/129893",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/29762/"
] | Quantum mechanics applies to EVERYTHING.
Macroscopic objects will have many degrees of freedom, and smoothed out energy levels, and will, to a very good approximation, obey the rules of classical mechanics.
Note however, that there are very many quantum mechanical processes going on inside of our bodies. Chemistry, for example, is pretty inherently quantum mechanical, and most of the undelying processes of the body involve chemistry pretty heavily. | OK, so it seems you are actually asking two separate (and very different) questions in a single post. What you call "dead matter" is what physicists usually simply call "matter", though some specific systems have the additional property of being alive. Being "dead", on the other hand, is not a property.
As such, the answer to your question
>
> Is Quantum mechanics not applicable for dead matter?
>
>
>
is that quantum mechanics **is** applicable for "dead matter": it is applicable to matter, plain and simple.
There *is* a question, though, on whether quantum mechanics is also applicable to matter which is also alive. During the 1920s and 30s, when Bohr formulated his Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the available experiments were enough to prove that quantum mechanics was necessary (and superseded newtonian mechanics) to describe atomic-level systems, but the evidence available at the time was not enough to say whether it would continue to hold or would need to be modified when applied to living beings.
Faced with that situation, many scientists took two mostly-compatible outlooks: (i) operationally, life was described using newtonian mechanics and worldviews, as there was no experimental reason to doubt their validity at that level (though you should note that this does not mean there was experimental reason to doubt QM at that level, either), and (ii) fundamentally, life would still "in principle" be governed by quantum mechanics, whatever that actually meant.
This is still pretty much the case today.
* There is no experimental evidence either way on whether quantum mechanics fails or continues to hold for living systems.
* There is considerable experimental evidence that quantum mechanics, including the 'quantum weirdness' of superposition states, also holds for (non-living) systems which are macroscopic, and even large enough to be visible to the naked eye. Such systems are bigger (but much less complex) than many organisms which are considered as living.
* There is no experimental reason to doubt that quantum mechanics does describe living beings, and a large body of evidence that it does. This does raise contradictions with everyday experience, because we never observe cats that are |alive⟩+|dead⟩, but
* those contradictions are still unresolved. This is the fundamental open problem in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and it is known as the measurement problem.
On the other hand, the statement that "even biochemistry depends upon Newtonian force and collision to work" is dubious at best. This depends on what size of biomolecule you mean, and computational chemistry for large molecules is notoriously hard, but you can be very accurate in your predictions for amino acids using some pretty hard quantum mechanics, and there are no other explanations for many of those properties that emanate purely from newtonian mechanics.
---
The rest of your question seems to stem from a fundamental confusion between "newtonian mechanics" and Newton's three Laws of Motion.
The former means the worldview and outlook of Newton when tackling physical problems, and in particular the assertion that particles and systems have definite positions, coordinates and momenta, and that these positions and momenta completely characterize the states of the system. It is this what the quote refers to as "the laws of Newton and Descartes".
The latter means the specific assertions that systems in isolation travel in straight lines, accelerations are due to forces, and that every force comes with an equal and opposite reaction. These are a distinct subset of the worldview implied by 'newtonian mechanics', but they also hold ([with a number of subtleties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem#General_example)) in quantum mechanics. These have not really been observed to fail, though of course in the systems where the newtonian worldview fails then they need to be examined very closely.
And, finally, regarding your question that
>
> But, a rat, a dog, a girl!, always pass before me and fluctuate to rest and motion, rest and motion. Are they acted upon by any force to set them in motion or to get them into rest?
>
>
>
the answer is (a) obviously yes, and (b) completely independent of the validity of quantum mechanics. Rats, dogs and girls move by using their muscles to exert forces on the ground and the objects around them. By Newton's third law, there is a corresponding reaction from the ground which propels them forward. |
265,743 | I calculated NDVI in ENVI by band math. When I drag and drop the image in ArcMap it becomes a black image with stretched value =0 for all pixels. However, by identity clicking each pixel has a value equal to NDVI.
Is there any solution to solve the problem?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KgVH9.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xeHey.png) | 2017/12/18 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/265743",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/56203/"
] | I guess that you have to calculate the image statistic in ArcGIS. You can do that by using the [Calculate Statistics](http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/data-management-toolbox/calculate-statistics.htm) tool or via the context menu (right-click on the raster file) in ArcCatalog. After that, you can apply the appropriate stretching method in ArcMap.
If you have Nodata values in your raster file you have to specify them as Jessica already mentioned. | I'm not sure if this will solve your problem (I haven't used ArcMap in ages, and without knowing more about your files it's hard to say what's going on), but you could check to make sure ArcMap is properly handling any no data or NaN values that ENVI might have been handling automatically (e.g. to deal with 0 in the denominator). You should also manually change the layer display options in ArcMap to match those in ENVI (ENVI will often automatically display based on a stretch between the max and min values of your data, but this display information is not stored as part of the file). |
1,597,110 | I'm just learning about Flex and I'm loving it. Unfortunatly I still have to make the decision on which RIA technology to use and its dependent on, among other things, from the following case:
How can we wrap a java applet around a Flex application? More specifically, I would like to wrap/integrate NASA's World Wind applet in a Flex panel, similar to what Adrew Trice did with the [Google Earth API](http://cynergysystems.com/blogs/page/andrewtrice?entry=google_eath_flex_source_code).
An alternative would be id Flex would support direct access to the 3D hardware through OpenGL or DirectX. But I do not think that that is the case yet, not even through AIR.
Any information on the above items would be great. Thanks | 2009/10/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1597110",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/175336/"
] | If you're going to be running in a browser, you can definitely do something much like the example you cite, which essentially runs both the Flash player and the Google Earth plug-in alternatingly on top of one another (in that case, Google Earth situated atop Flash), using JavaScript as the glue responsible for hooking the two together.
As for wrapping Java applets, accessing the hardware, etc., though, no -- you're pretty much confined to the player in that sense. If you're hosting the Flash player in an installed application (as we often do here), or in a browser (e.g., as described above), you can reach out of the box using ExternalInterface, or if you're not, you can plug in to another app using AS3's Socket classes, but that's about it; Flash Player has no facilities for wrapping/embedding non-Flash binaries.
Hope that helps -- feel free to post back in comments and I'll try to help explain whatever additional questions you might have. | What you need to ask yourself is why on Google Earth would you want to do such a thing? Flex is Flex, not a Java wrapper. There's a reason Flex exists: Java Applet FAIL. |
272,653 | Often, gravity in relativity is depicted as and the orbit of a celestial body around another body like a ball spinning in a deep bowl, which is said to be space influenced by the presence of a large mass. But could not also Newtonian mechanics be used to make the same analogy (although neither Newton nor anybody else did so)?
Would Newton´s ball not spin fine in a curved surface? | 2016/08/04 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/272653",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36127/"
] | You could use the same analogy of the Sun sinking into a grid lined floor, for both theories, but the Newtonian view of space and time was shown to be wrong in at least three different ways
1. Newton's law of gravity implied the immediate effects of an action at a distance, as I'm sure you know, this means that if the Sun disappeared now, the Earth would immediately fly off at a tangent, instead of the 8 minutes it really would take for us to detect anything. GR resolved this by combining space and time into spacetime
2. The Sun suddenly vanishing is not a very likely situation, but what really stumped 19th century astronomers was that their predictions of Mercury's orbit were not in agreement with experimental results. Newtonian mechanics could not account for this, but GR could, by taking into account the non-absolute nature of space and time.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KRbTg.gif)
>
> The theory of relativity predicts that, as it orbits the Sun, Mercury does not exactly retrace the same path each time, but rather swings around over time. We say therefore that the perihelion -- the point on its orbit when Mercury is closest to the Sun -- advances.
>
>
> In the diagram shown here, the amount of the advance is greatly exaggerated. The actual advance is only 43 seconds of arc per century.
>
>
>
3. There are other effects, such as [Deflection of Starlight](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens), which was predicted by the earlier theory, but with an incorrect estimate of the deflection.
>
> The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. The observations were performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington, Frank Watson Dyson, and their collaborators during a total solar eclipse. The solar eclipse allowed the stars near the Sun to be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa. The observations demonstrated that the light from stars passing close to the Sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.
>
>
> | The idea of a planet running around the surface of a bowl is often used to discuss planetary orbits in GR. And the same analogy can be used to discuss orbits using Newtonian mechanics. The real question here is what is the difference between GR and Newtonian mechanics.
When Newton wrote Principia he could not explain the action of the gravitational force. In essence how does the Earth "know" that the sun is there to orbit around it. He called it a spooky action at a distance and left it as an open question. In the derivation of GR Einstein matched the stress energy tensor which models the matter and energy in space to the curvature of space-time. It is difficult to visualize that curvature of space-time so we try to to give an example. Because GR is a theory of potentials it is natural to describe this curvature in two dimensions in this way using the stretched sheet with a mass in the middle and the planet riding around the sheet. The same example can be used to discuss Newtonian orbits, but there is no explanation as to why the surface is curved without GR. |
272,653 | Often, gravity in relativity is depicted as and the orbit of a celestial body around another body like a ball spinning in a deep bowl, which is said to be space influenced by the presence of a large mass. But could not also Newtonian mechanics be used to make the same analogy (although neither Newton nor anybody else did so)?
Would Newton´s ball not spin fine in a curved surface? | 2016/08/04 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/272653",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/36127/"
] | The short answer is yes, sort of, but the reason is probably more subtle than you're thinking (i.e. it doesn't just follow from some physically intuitive argument).
You see, there is a mathematical framework known as Newton-Cartan theory, developed by Cartan and Friedrichs in the 1920s, in which Newton's theory of gravitation is re-expressed in the language of differential geometry in a manner very similar to that of General Relativity.
In this representation of Newton's theory of gravitation (which gives precisely the same empirical predictions as Newton's theory) we have the Equivalence Principle implemented through geodesic trajectories defined in a curved spacetime, which itself has a structure influenced by the matter in it, just like Einstein's theory.
In fact, this reformulation of Newton's theory provides, in my opinion, the most compelling means of deriving Newton's theory of gravitation as a limiting case of the general relativistic theory.
It is in this somewhat sophisticated sense that what you say is correct: both theories (Newton's and Einstein's) have equal claim to the ball-and-bowl or ball-and-rubber-sheet analogies, but I agree with another commenter that these physical models are very poor analogues of curved spacetime. | The idea of a planet running around the surface of a bowl is often used to discuss planetary orbits in GR. And the same analogy can be used to discuss orbits using Newtonian mechanics. The real question here is what is the difference between GR and Newtonian mechanics.
When Newton wrote Principia he could not explain the action of the gravitational force. In essence how does the Earth "know" that the sun is there to orbit around it. He called it a spooky action at a distance and left it as an open question. In the derivation of GR Einstein matched the stress energy tensor which models the matter and energy in space to the curvature of space-time. It is difficult to visualize that curvature of space-time so we try to to give an example. Because GR is a theory of potentials it is natural to describe this curvature in two dimensions in this way using the stretched sheet with a mass in the middle and the planet riding around the sheet. The same example can be used to discuss Newtonian orbits, but there is no explanation as to why the surface is curved without GR. |
327,070 | In [Arnel's Everday English Youtube video](https://youtu.be/1zWuafmkCJ8?list=PLwpPxXnl1gFR4MRaG-0AWvRSyVMIholyd&t=485) there is the following exchange:
>
> A: The client is refusing to pay. She owes us 1500
>
>
>
>
> B: Maybe she'll agree to paying in installment
>
>
>
why does B is using "to paying" rather than "to pay" to answer A's question? | 2022/11/09 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/327070",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/162434/"
] | "agree to pay" would be a normal way of expressing this. (agree to pay in installments)
But it is grammatically valid to have "agree to (something)" For example
>
> He agreed to a short lunch break.
>
>
>
The structure here is "Agree + prepositional phrase"
A prepostional phrase can also be formed from "to(preposition) + gerund/participle phrase".
Gerunds are verbs ending in -ing.
However the meaning is pretty much the same as "agree + to-infinitive" | Here's why paying is used in the second sentence:
* Maybe she'll agree to ||paying in installments.||
Using another form of this to clarify the structure:
Paying an installment is maybe something she'll agree to.
**paying is a gerund form of the verb that behaves like a noun.** Here, in fact, a noun phrase using the gerund.
The verb+ING + [direct object] is the subject of the sentence.
One can agree to paying some sum of money.
In this case, the **to** is not a to-infinitive.
Please note: It could also be said as: She agreed to pay in installments. But there, it is a to-infinitive.
She agrees to pay in installments. [to-infinitive, shows finality or purpose.
She agrees to paying in installments. [gerund, she agrees to performing that action.
You can agree to pay in installments and not be doing any paying at all at a particular time. |
327,070 | In [Arnel's Everday English Youtube video](https://youtu.be/1zWuafmkCJ8?list=PLwpPxXnl1gFR4MRaG-0AWvRSyVMIholyd&t=485) there is the following exchange:
>
> A: The client is refusing to pay. She owes us 1500
>
>
>
>
> B: Maybe she'll agree to paying in installment
>
>
>
why does B is using "to paying" rather than "to pay" to answer A's question? | 2022/11/09 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/327070",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/162434/"
] | "agree to pay" would be a normal way of expressing this. (agree to pay in installments)
But it is grammatically valid to have "agree to (something)" For example
>
> He agreed to a short lunch break.
>
>
>
The structure here is "Agree + prepositional phrase"
A prepostional phrase can also be formed from "to(preposition) + gerund/participle phrase".
Gerunds are verbs ending in -ing.
However the meaning is pretty much the same as "agree + to-infinitive" | “Paying” is the continuous form. Since there are instalments, the paint won’t be instantly, but over some range of time, therefore the continuous form.
(The difference is quite small, so nobody will take much notice if you say “I agree to pay in instalments”.) |
327,070 | In [Arnel's Everday English Youtube video](https://youtu.be/1zWuafmkCJ8?list=PLwpPxXnl1gFR4MRaG-0AWvRSyVMIholyd&t=485) there is the following exchange:
>
> A: The client is refusing to pay. She owes us 1500
>
>
>
>
> B: Maybe she'll agree to paying in installment
>
>
>
why does B is using "to paying" rather than "to pay" to answer A's question? | 2022/11/09 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/327070",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/162434/"
] | Here's why paying is used in the second sentence:
* Maybe she'll agree to ||paying in installments.||
Using another form of this to clarify the structure:
Paying an installment is maybe something she'll agree to.
**paying is a gerund form of the verb that behaves like a noun.** Here, in fact, a noun phrase using the gerund.
The verb+ING + [direct object] is the subject of the sentence.
One can agree to paying some sum of money.
In this case, the **to** is not a to-infinitive.
Please note: It could also be said as: She agreed to pay in installments. But there, it is a to-infinitive.
She agrees to pay in installments. [to-infinitive, shows finality or purpose.
She agrees to paying in installments. [gerund, she agrees to performing that action.
You can agree to pay in installments and not be doing any paying at all at a particular time. | “Paying” is the continuous form. Since there are instalments, the paint won’t be instantly, but over some range of time, therefore the continuous form.
(The difference is quite small, so nobody will take much notice if you say “I agree to pay in instalments”.) |
319 | I originally asked [this question](https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/313/calculating-zakat) which I am splitting up.
Fluctuating Net worth: Some months, one saves more and some months one spends more due to various reasons. How does one establish the correct "wealth" to pay zakat on? Since according to definition, it has to sit idle for 1 year before we pay zakat on it. The local imam I talked to suggested to take an average of the two net worths and pay zakat on that. | 2012/06/21 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/319",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/102/"
] | As far as I understand, you monthly salary does not fall under the category of zakat. In other word you do not need to pay Zakat on it because it is flowing money. It comes in and it goes away. You do not save most of it. Zakat is obligatory on 4 types of wealth
1. Animals that feed outside home
2. Gold or Silver
3. Goods that you use for business/trade
4. Agriculture and Treas
So for example you have 10 gm of Gold and keep it for 6 months, no Zakat is required on that Gold. The term 1 years basically means, you are wealthy enough to pay Zakat. It has not been made a burden on us. | For bank accounts you have to fix a day of the year(usually 1st of Ramadan but can be any day of the year) and pay zakat on it at the rate of 2.5%. If some money comes in the account a day before, it's zakat is due and if it goes a day before, it is exempted.
Usually banks set this to 1st Ramadan |
329,058 | I believe I've finally discovered the answer to the question was ... 42 ... or something like that. The only problem is that, many months after the question was asked, I now need to find the question.
Google searches and Stack Exchange searches have not found the question. But I know this was both one I edited (to clean up the English) and one I commented on.
Looking at my own activity tab, this narrows it down to around 500 questions. 500 is quite a lot to read through one by one. *I need to further narrow this search.*
Is there any way I can search my own activity? Specifically I'd like to search through *questions* I've edited and commented on. | 2019/06/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/329058",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/206656/"
] | Such a complicated search practically begs for a [SEDE query](https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/1060807/search-in-edited-commented-questions?UserId=453851). Since comments can be deleted, I've made that part optional.
Here is a list of questions you edited containing the word 'code':
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sE2hb.png)
Note that SEDE is updated once a week, on Sunday morning. If you want to experiment, [fork](https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/fork/1060807) the query, before or after you've read the awesome [tutorial](https://data.stackexchange.com/tutorial). | Go to your profile (click your flair in the upper right corner of the page).
To view edits, click the "X posts edited" link on the right side, under Impact.
To view your comments, click the "All actions" tab, then the "Comments" subtab. |
28,854,551 | I have got unexpected reboot while working in Android studio.
Before the reboot project was ok. After the reboot I started getting "Cannot resolve symbol ..." almost on every improt in the project.
Project setup (jdk and android sdk) looks ok. Even more - git shows me that no project files were changed since last commit.
Gradle build on the project passes successfully.
Android studio version is 1.1.0 (latest by now)
 | 2015/03/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28854551",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/184860/"
] | What finaly helped me. I am listing all my steps just in case.
Full uninstall of Android Studio
Deleting all AndroidStudio settings folders (in Documents And Settings)
Deleting Android and Gradle chache folders (in Documents And Settings .android and .gradle folders) - just in case
Fresh install of Android Studio and re-import of my project
The issue was completely gone.
What *didn't* help me before that:
Clean/rebuild/make the project
Checking all project and IDE settings
Updating Android SDK and Build tools | Clean, Rebuild and Make Project. Sometimes Android Studio goes crazy. |
28,854,551 | I have got unexpected reboot while working in Android studio.
Before the reboot project was ok. After the reboot I started getting "Cannot resolve symbol ..." almost on every improt in the project.
Project setup (jdk and android sdk) looks ok. Even more - git shows me that no project files were changed since last commit.
Gradle build on the project passes successfully.
Android studio version is 1.1.0 (latest by now)
 | 2015/03/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28854551",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/184860/"
] | The solution is to go: "File" -> "Invalidate Caches...", and select "Invalidate and Restart" option.
My android studios shut down during a power failure and on restart I experienced this problem. | Clean, Rebuild and Make Project. Sometimes Android Studio goes crazy. |
294,547 | >
> With great power comes great responsibility.
>
>
>
What is the subject of the sentence? Is “With great power” the subject? Could you please give me more sentences written in that grammar? | 2021/08/09 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/294547",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/141586/"
] | Your sentence looks like a saying, and it uses *[subject-verb inversion](https://study.com/academy/lesson/inverted-word-order-definition-examples.html#:%7E:text=before%20the%20verb.-,Inverted%20word%20order%20occurs%20when%20the%20subject%20comes%20after%20the,speech%20and%20the%20written%20word.)* to give more impact.
>
> Sometimes you must use ***inverted word order*** to communicate the intended idea. Inverted word order occurs when ***the subject comes after the verb***, in between verb parts, or is not included at all.
>
>
>
The normal word order would be:
>
> Great responsibility *[subject]* comes *[verb]* with great power [***[instrumental complement](https://englopedia.com/circumstantial-complements-with-its-types/)***].
>
>
>
As you can see, it sounds less emphatic than
>
> *With great power comes great responsibility*,
>
>
>
where the weight of the sentence falls on *great responsibility*.
Here are other examples:
>
> * “With age comes ***[verb]*** wisdom ***[subject]***, but sometimes age comes alone.” ([Oscar Wilde](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/329316-with-age-comes-wisdom-but-sometimes-age-comes-alone))
> * With sadness comes accuracy; with happiness, false memory: mood and the false memory effect. ([PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16181441/))
>
>
> | *Great responsibility* is the subject. The sentence is written in inverted form to emphasise that if you have power you also have responsibility.
>
> In the little house lived *an old man.*
>
>
> Without sunshine, *life on earth* would not be possible.
>
>
> |
294,547 | >
> With great power comes great responsibility.
>
>
>
What is the subject of the sentence? Is “With great power” the subject? Could you please give me more sentences written in that grammar? | 2021/08/09 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/294547",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/141586/"
] | *Great responsibility* is the subject. The sentence is written in inverted form to emphasise that if you have power you also have responsibility.
>
> In the little house lived *an old man.*
>
>
> Without sunshine, *life on earth* would not be possible.
>
>
> | As the other answers have pointed out, the normal word order would be, “Great responsibility comes with great power.” Inverting the word order doesn’t change the meaning, but makes the sentence sound more formal. It’s especially typical of old-fashioned poetry, which often needed to rearrange a sentence to fit a particular rhyme scheme and meter. This homily is also familiar enough that native speakers are likely to recognize it.
Leaving aside forerunners that were translated from other languages, such as Luke 12:48, we have [numerous versions of it in modern English,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_great_power_comes_great_responsibility) whose word order varies considerably. I’ll add emphasis to the subject of each sentence.
William Lamb, 1817: “**the possession** of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.”
Winston Churchill, 1906: “Where there is great power **there** is great responsibility, where there is less power there is less responsibility, and where there is no power there can, I think, be no responsibility.” (“Where there is ...” is a dependent clause, and this is a compound sentence.)
Theodore Roosevelt, 1908: “**responsibility** should go with power.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1945: “**power** must be linked with responsibility, and obliged to defend and justify itself within the framework of the general good.”
“Superman Comes to Earth,” 1948: “Because of these great powers—your speed and strength, your x-ray vision and super-sensitive hearing—**you** have a great responsibility.”
The version you give, though, is most associated with Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s *Spider-Man*. His first story in 1962 ends with a slightly-longer version:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zrBrt.jpg)
The 2002 film *Spider-Man* had Uncle Ben say, “Remember, with great power comes great responsibility,” in his last conversation with Peter Parker before he died. (Very similar to how Superman heard the same lesson from his father-figure before the latter died, fourteen years before Spider-Man was created.) This became the best-known version.
You can also see the adage getting shorter and pithier over time. The version that caught on is, explicitly, an abridgment of Stan Lee’s “... aware at last that in this world, *with great power* there must also *come*—*great responsibility.*” This itself is similar to the word order of Winston Churchill’s quote. “Where there is great power, there is great responsibility, ....” but shorter and simpler: Churchill said it as a compound sentence whose parts all have subordinate clauses. |
294,547 | >
> With great power comes great responsibility.
>
>
>
What is the subject of the sentence? Is “With great power” the subject? Could you please give me more sentences written in that grammar? | 2021/08/09 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/294547",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/141586/"
] | *Great responsibility* is the subject. The sentence is written in inverted form to emphasise that if you have power you also have responsibility.
>
> In the little house lived *an old man.*
>
>
> Without sunshine, *life on earth* would not be possible.
>
>
> | "Great responsibility" is the subject, and the normal word order, as mentioned in the other answers, would be "great responsibility comes with great power".
But this sentence does not work: One would understand it (outside the context of this discussion, at least) as "power flows from responsibility" which is the opposite of what is meant.
This is true for all such constructs: "Scorching heat comes with high pressure areas": The heat brings high pressure? Hm, *maybe.* I'm no meteorologist. "Unpleasant administrative work comes with lots of money" sounds outright funny: who ever got rich from administrative work!?
The word order in all these cases is essential: It must reflect the flow of causation. If we change it, like in the examples, the causal relationship is changed with it.
The actually interesting question may then be why the relation is not expressed the natural way: "Great Power comes with great responsibility." Unambiguous, straight-forward. Great power is there first, and it is inevitably accompanied by responsibility. But by having power be the subject, this sentence is perhaps too power-centric, while we actually would like to emphasize the responsibility. So we make responsibility the subject, the center of attention and not the sidekick. But then we lose the logical flow, so we have to invert the normal word order.
As a rhetorical side effect, the unusual word order creates a little stumble and may renew the attention of a sleepy audience; it is even pretty catchy, isn't it? |
294,547 | >
> With great power comes great responsibility.
>
>
>
What is the subject of the sentence? Is “With great power” the subject? Could you please give me more sentences written in that grammar? | 2021/08/09 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/294547",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/141586/"
] | Your sentence looks like a saying, and it uses *[subject-verb inversion](https://study.com/academy/lesson/inverted-word-order-definition-examples.html#:%7E:text=before%20the%20verb.-,Inverted%20word%20order%20occurs%20when%20the%20subject%20comes%20after%20the,speech%20and%20the%20written%20word.)* to give more impact.
>
> Sometimes you must use ***inverted word order*** to communicate the intended idea. Inverted word order occurs when ***the subject comes after the verb***, in between verb parts, or is not included at all.
>
>
>
The normal word order would be:
>
> Great responsibility *[subject]* comes *[verb]* with great power [***[instrumental complement](https://englopedia.com/circumstantial-complements-with-its-types/)***].
>
>
>
As you can see, it sounds less emphatic than
>
> *With great power comes great responsibility*,
>
>
>
where the weight of the sentence falls on *great responsibility*.
Here are other examples:
>
> * “With age comes ***[verb]*** wisdom ***[subject]***, but sometimes age comes alone.” ([Oscar Wilde](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/329316-with-age-comes-wisdom-but-sometimes-age-comes-alone))
> * With sadness comes accuracy; with happiness, false memory: mood and the false memory effect. ([PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16181441/))
>
>
> | As the other answers have pointed out, the normal word order would be, “Great responsibility comes with great power.” Inverting the word order doesn’t change the meaning, but makes the sentence sound more formal. It’s especially typical of old-fashioned poetry, which often needed to rearrange a sentence to fit a particular rhyme scheme and meter. This homily is also familiar enough that native speakers are likely to recognize it.
Leaving aside forerunners that were translated from other languages, such as Luke 12:48, we have [numerous versions of it in modern English,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_great_power_comes_great_responsibility) whose word order varies considerably. I’ll add emphasis to the subject of each sentence.
William Lamb, 1817: “**the possession** of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.”
Winston Churchill, 1906: “Where there is great power **there** is great responsibility, where there is less power there is less responsibility, and where there is no power there can, I think, be no responsibility.” (“Where there is ...” is a dependent clause, and this is a compound sentence.)
Theodore Roosevelt, 1908: “**responsibility** should go with power.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1945: “**power** must be linked with responsibility, and obliged to defend and justify itself within the framework of the general good.”
“Superman Comes to Earth,” 1948: “Because of these great powers—your speed and strength, your x-ray vision and super-sensitive hearing—**you** have a great responsibility.”
The version you give, though, is most associated with Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s *Spider-Man*. His first story in 1962 ends with a slightly-longer version:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zrBrt.jpg)
The 2002 film *Spider-Man* had Uncle Ben say, “Remember, with great power comes great responsibility,” in his last conversation with Peter Parker before he died. (Very similar to how Superman heard the same lesson from his father-figure before the latter died, fourteen years before Spider-Man was created.) This became the best-known version.
You can also see the adage getting shorter and pithier over time. The version that caught on is, explicitly, an abridgment of Stan Lee’s “... aware at last that in this world, *with great power* there must also *come*—*great responsibility.*” This itself is similar to the word order of Winston Churchill’s quote. “Where there is great power, there is great responsibility, ....” but shorter and simpler: Churchill said it as a compound sentence whose parts all have subordinate clauses. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.