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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | If you don't mind it as an adjective, this person is either:
**insincere**
or
**disingenuous** | >
> Nixonian?
>
> As in "Well, when the President does it that means that it is not illegal." [via Wikipedia](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon)
>
>
> |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | I have heard someone use
>
> I am a prophet, not a saint.
>
>
>
A *prophet* is one who comes to the world to give us a message. Here it refers to how he criticizes others for their wrongdoings.
A *saint* is one who does good things. Here it refers to how he does the same bad thing that he criticizes others for. | >
> Nixonian?
>
> As in "Well, when the President does it that means that it is not illegal." [via Wikipedia](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon)
>
>
> |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | I have heard someone use
>
> I am a prophet, not a saint.
>
>
>
A *prophet* is one who comes to the world to give us a message. Here it refers to how he criticizes others for their wrongdoings.
A *saint* is one who does good things. Here it refers to how he does the same bad thing that he criticizes others for. | This sounds like a person who is making a *rationalization*. The noun form would be *rationalizer* (one who rationalizes), but I can't think of any times I've seen or heard that word used. |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | The idiom that describes this behavior is: "Do as I say and not as I do." However, it's usually said by the person exhibiting the contradictory behavior and not those categorizing them. | I have heard someone use
>
> I am a prophet, not a saint.
>
>
>
A *prophet* is one who comes to the world to give us a message. Here it refers to how he criticizes others for their wrongdoings.
A *saint* is one who does good things. Here it refers to how he does the same bad thing that he criticizes others for. |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | If you don't mind it as an adjective, this person is either:
**insincere**
or
**disingenuous** | Does it have to be one word? I suggest some sort of compound phrase:
>
> *open hypocrite*
>
>
>
The implication being that a normal hypocrite is closed because they hide their hypocrisy either intentionally or unintentionally.
>
> *apathetic hypocrite*
>
>
>
This person knows and communicates that they are among a group that acts in a way that is in conflict with the person's beliefs, but they are indifferent, unmotivated to change, or motivated to not change. |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | If you don't mind using a Biblical allusion which may not be immediately obvious to your audience, you could go with *whitewashed tomb*. | >
> Nixonian?
>
> As in "Well, when the President does it that means that it is not illegal." [via Wikipedia](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon)
>
>
> |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | If you don't mind using a Biblical allusion which may not be immediately obvious to your audience, you could go with *whitewashed tomb*. | Does it have to be one word? I suggest some sort of compound phrase:
>
> *open hypocrite*
>
>
>
The implication being that a normal hypocrite is closed because they hide their hypocrisy either intentionally or unintentionally.
>
> *apathetic hypocrite*
>
>
>
This person knows and communicates that they are among a group that acts in a way that is in conflict with the person's beliefs, but they are indifferent, unmotivated to change, or motivated to not change. |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | The idiom that describes this behavior is: "Do as I say and not as I do." However, it's usually said by the person exhibiting the contradictory behavior and not those categorizing them. | This sounds like a person who is making a *rationalization*. The noun form would be *rationalizer* (one who rationalizes), but I can't think of any times I've seen or heard that word used. |
6,961 | I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes.
This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group.
Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person?
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292603911) defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. | 2010/12/17 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6961",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2871/"
] | I have heard someone use
>
> I am a prophet, not a saint.
>
>
>
A *prophet* is one who comes to the world to give us a message. Here it refers to how he criticizes others for their wrongdoings.
A *saint* is one who does good things. Here it refers to how he does the same bad thing that he criticizes others for. | If you don't mind it as an adjective, this person is either:
**insincere**
or
**disingenuous** |
78,745 | I know the basic difference between Arminianism and Calvinism in the soteriology subject, but when Molinism comes I can't grasp the core doctrines that it teaches. I'm not asking for which is better, just a concise, easy, and helpful definition of each one without too much philosophical blather. | 2020/08/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78745",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/46961/"
] | ***I found an article*** that explains Molinism in simple, easy to understand language. The second part of the article asks whether it is biblical, but I have left that part out since this is not what you ask. Here is a partial quote:
>
> Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.
>
>
>
>
> ***The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge*** (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.
>
>
>
>
> **1. Natural Knowledge** – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.
>
>
>
>
> **2. Middle Knowledge** – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.
>
>
>
>
> **3. Creative Command** – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.
>
>
>
>
> **4. Free Knowledge** – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.
>
>
>
>
> Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.
>
>
>
>
> According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.
>
>
>
>
> Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal. Source: <https://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html>
>
>
>
As to how it differs from Arminianism and Calvinism, I doubt I could do justice to that. Perhaps you could draw from these articles:
<https://www.gotquestions.org/arminianism.html>
<https://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html>
<https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html>
Like Nigel J, I am simply presenting one particular point of view in the hope it will help to answer your question. I have permission to copy and paste the Got Questions article on Molinism. | Extract from [William Lane Craig](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism/) answering a question on the complexity of Molinism :
>
> Actually, I have no problem with certain classic statements of the Reformed view. For example, the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) declares that
>
>
>
>
> *God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.*
>
>
>
>
> **Now this is precisely what the Molinist believes!** The Confession affirms God’s preordination of everything that comes to pass as well as the liberty and contingency of the creaturely will, so that God is not the author of sin. It is a tragedy that in rejecting middle knowledge Reformed divines have cut themselves off from the most perspicuous explanation of the coherence of this wonderful confession.
>
>
>
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University.
The whole article is on [Reasonable Faith .org](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism/)
---
(I do not personally subscribe to these arguments and proposals. I simply report the existence of the references and statements.) |
78,745 | I know the basic difference between Arminianism and Calvinism in the soteriology subject, but when Molinism comes I can't grasp the core doctrines that it teaches. I'm not asking for which is better, just a concise, easy, and helpful definition of each one without too much philosophical blather. | 2020/08/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78745",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/46961/"
] | Extract from [William Lane Craig](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism/) answering a question on the complexity of Molinism :
>
> Actually, I have no problem with certain classic statements of the Reformed view. For example, the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) declares that
>
>
>
>
> *God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.*
>
>
>
>
> **Now this is precisely what the Molinist believes!** The Confession affirms God’s preordination of everything that comes to pass as well as the liberty and contingency of the creaturely will, so that God is not the author of sin. It is a tragedy that in rejecting middle knowledge Reformed divines have cut themselves off from the most perspicuous explanation of the coherence of this wonderful confession.
>
>
>
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University.
The whole article is on [Reasonable Faith .org](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism/)
---
(I do not personally subscribe to these arguments and proposals. I simply report the existence of the references and statements.) | TL;DR: Calvinists and Arminians disagree about whether man is able and/or free to choose God, Molinism is to do with God's knowledge and not salvation, so can fit with either.
Molinist here - Molinism isn't technically a view of soteriology (meaning to do with man's salvation), but is a view of God's knowledge, summed up pretty well by the gotquestions article referenced by Lesley. Molinism's two main points (or core doctrines) are:
1: God has Middle knowledge
2: Man, at least some of the time, has libertarian free will (although the precise definition is disputed, a reasonable interpretation of the term is 'the ability to do otherwise')
Arminianism and Calvinism, on the other hand, are directly opposing views that are to do with soteriology, not God's knowledge. Thus, you could be an Arminian Molinist or a Calvinist Molinist. The latter, however, is quite rare.
Calvinism is a very difficult doctrine to clearly define, but a working minimum of the system is summed up by the acronym TULIP. I won't go into a lengthy description of each of the letters (it's well documented in many places) but in summary Calvinism teaches that man, in his natural state, is completely unable to come to God (T) . God then 'elects' certain individuals whom He decides to save (U) and draws them to himself via irresistible grace (I) (literally irresistible, the elect person is unable to reject or refuse the grace). Additionally, Christ's atonement only covers and was only intended for these elect (L), and finally, the elect will never fall away or apostasize (P).
Arminianism is even harder to specifically define, but the gist is that although man would be unable to come to God alone, God's grace (prevenient grace) overcomes this state and enables all men to come to God and be saved, although it doesn't guarantee any will or force anyone. Christ's atonement covers any and all who come to Him, and is not limited. Beyond that, there are a lot of variations of Arminianism that I don't know as much as I should about.
It is worth noting that some (Many? Most?) Molinists hold to a soteriology which is similar to Arminianism but goes further in regards to God's providence and the election of individuals while maintaining free will, but that is beyond the scope of the question as it technically isn't Molinism proper.
Hope that helps |
78,745 | I know the basic difference between Arminianism and Calvinism in the soteriology subject, but when Molinism comes I can't grasp the core doctrines that it teaches. I'm not asking for which is better, just a concise, easy, and helpful definition of each one without too much philosophical blather. | 2020/08/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78745",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/46961/"
] | ***I found an article*** that explains Molinism in simple, easy to understand language. The second part of the article asks whether it is biblical, but I have left that part out since this is not what you ask. Here is a partial quote:
>
> Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.
>
>
>
>
> ***The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge*** (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.
>
>
>
>
> **1. Natural Knowledge** – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.
>
>
>
>
> **2. Middle Knowledge** – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.
>
>
>
>
> **3. Creative Command** – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.
>
>
>
>
> **4. Free Knowledge** – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.
>
>
>
>
> Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.
>
>
>
>
> According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.
>
>
>
>
> Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal. Source: <https://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html>
>
>
>
As to how it differs from Arminianism and Calvinism, I doubt I could do justice to that. Perhaps you could draw from these articles:
<https://www.gotquestions.org/arminianism.html>
<https://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html>
<https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html>
Like Nigel J, I am simply presenting one particular point of view in the hope it will help to answer your question. I have permission to copy and paste the Got Questions article on Molinism. | TL;DR: Calvinists and Arminians disagree about whether man is able and/or free to choose God, Molinism is to do with God's knowledge and not salvation, so can fit with either.
Molinist here - Molinism isn't technically a view of soteriology (meaning to do with man's salvation), but is a view of God's knowledge, summed up pretty well by the gotquestions article referenced by Lesley. Molinism's two main points (or core doctrines) are:
1: God has Middle knowledge
2: Man, at least some of the time, has libertarian free will (although the precise definition is disputed, a reasonable interpretation of the term is 'the ability to do otherwise')
Arminianism and Calvinism, on the other hand, are directly opposing views that are to do with soteriology, not God's knowledge. Thus, you could be an Arminian Molinist or a Calvinist Molinist. The latter, however, is quite rare.
Calvinism is a very difficult doctrine to clearly define, but a working minimum of the system is summed up by the acronym TULIP. I won't go into a lengthy description of each of the letters (it's well documented in many places) but in summary Calvinism teaches that man, in his natural state, is completely unable to come to God (T) . God then 'elects' certain individuals whom He decides to save (U) and draws them to himself via irresistible grace (I) (literally irresistible, the elect person is unable to reject or refuse the grace). Additionally, Christ's atonement only covers and was only intended for these elect (L), and finally, the elect will never fall away or apostasize (P).
Arminianism is even harder to specifically define, but the gist is that although man would be unable to come to God alone, God's grace (prevenient grace) overcomes this state and enables all men to come to God and be saved, although it doesn't guarantee any will or force anyone. Christ's atonement covers any and all who come to Him, and is not limited. Beyond that, there are a lot of variations of Arminianism that I don't know as much as I should about.
It is worth noting that some (Many? Most?) Molinists hold to a soteriology which is similar to Arminianism but goes further in regards to God's providence and the election of individuals while maintaining free will, but that is beyond the scope of the question as it technically isn't Molinism proper.
Hope that helps |
345,036 | I want to express a situation to a friend saying the following:
>
> I have received two offers. The first one is of a good salary, but I did not
> like the city, while regarding the 2nd offer, it is of a lower salary but
> the city is awesome. I do not know whether or not I should sacrifice the
> salary for living in a nice city.
>
>
>
I would like to find an alternative word for the word "sacrifice" in the last sentence, and I do not know if my attempt is right or wrong.
My attempt to re-write the last sentence is:
>
> I do not know whether or not I should forgo the salary
> for living in a nice city.
>
>
>
Please help me to find the best alternative for the word "sacrifice" in the last sentence. | 2016/08/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/345036",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/185732/"
] | **Sacrifice** and **forgo** both seem like perfectly good choices.
**Trade-off** (or **tradeoff**) would be a good possibility, but the dictionaries I've checked define it only as a noun. See <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trade-off>, <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tradeoff>, <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tradeoff?s=t>>, <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/trade-off?q=tradeoff>. Given that, you could use **trade off** as two separate words:
>
> I don't know if I should **trade off** the higher salary for living in
> a nicer city.
>
>
> I don't know if I should **trade off** living in a nicer city for the
> higher salary.
>
>
>
You could also use **compromise** or **exchange**:
>
> I don't know if I should **compromise** the higher salary for living
> in a nicer city.
>
>
> I don't know if I should **exchange** the higher salary for living in a nicer city.
>
>
>
Of these options, I would go with **trade off** (which is a slight twist on the suggestion of @KristinaLopez -- noun versus verb issue). | *Sacrifice* often has the connotation of giving up something you already had:
>
> **To surrender or give up (something)** for the attainment of some higher advantage or dearer object.
>
>
>
If I had a well-paying job in a crummy city, and I was offered a worse-paying job in a preferable city, I might consider sacrificing my high salary for the better living conditions.
*Forgo*, on the other hand, has the connotation of not partaking in something that you do not yet have:
>
> To abstain from, go without, deny to oneself; **to let go or pass, omit to take or use;** to give up, part with, relinquish, renounce, resign.
>
>
>
I think that "forgo" is a better choice here, since you do not yet have either job. That said, both options would be perfectly understandable.
(Both definitions are from the OED.) |
345,036 | I want to express a situation to a friend saying the following:
>
> I have received two offers. The first one is of a good salary, but I did not
> like the city, while regarding the 2nd offer, it is of a lower salary but
> the city is awesome. I do not know whether or not I should sacrifice the
> salary for living in a nice city.
>
>
>
I would like to find an alternative word for the word "sacrifice" in the last sentence, and I do not know if my attempt is right or wrong.
My attempt to re-write the last sentence is:
>
> I do not know whether or not I should forgo the salary
> for living in a nice city.
>
>
>
Please help me to find the best alternative for the word "sacrifice" in the last sentence. | 2016/08/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/345036",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/185732/"
] | *Sacrifice* often has the connotation of giving up something you already had:
>
> **To surrender or give up (something)** for the attainment of some higher advantage or dearer object.
>
>
>
If I had a well-paying job in a crummy city, and I was offered a worse-paying job in a preferable city, I might consider sacrificing my high salary for the better living conditions.
*Forgo*, on the other hand, has the connotation of not partaking in something that you do not yet have:
>
> To abstain from, go without, deny to oneself; **to let go or pass, omit to take or use;** to give up, part with, relinquish, renounce, resign.
>
>
>
I think that "forgo" is a better choice here, since you do not yet have either job. That said, both options would be perfectly understandable.
(Both definitions are from the OED.) | I agree with Michael Seifert on this one.
You are comparing the pros and cons of these two job opportunities.
And you can't really sacrifice something you don't have.
So your sentence could look something like:
"I have received two offers. The first one is of a good salary, but I did not like the city, while regarding the 2nd offer, it is of a lower salary but the city is awesome. I do not know whether or not if I should [settle for a lower salary, so I can live] in a nice city."
I say settle, because when you settle for something, you are accepting or agreeing to something that is less than satisfactory. |
345,036 | I want to express a situation to a friend saying the following:
>
> I have received two offers. The first one is of a good salary, but I did not
> like the city, while regarding the 2nd offer, it is of a lower salary but
> the city is awesome. I do not know whether or not I should sacrifice the
> salary for living in a nice city.
>
>
>
I would like to find an alternative word for the word "sacrifice" in the last sentence, and I do not know if my attempt is right or wrong.
My attempt to re-write the last sentence is:
>
> I do not know whether or not I should forgo the salary
> for living in a nice city.
>
>
>
Please help me to find the best alternative for the word "sacrifice" in the last sentence. | 2016/08/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/345036",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/185732/"
] | **Sacrifice** and **forgo** both seem like perfectly good choices.
**Trade-off** (or **tradeoff**) would be a good possibility, but the dictionaries I've checked define it only as a noun. See <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trade-off>, <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tradeoff>, <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tradeoff?s=t>>, <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/trade-off?q=tradeoff>. Given that, you could use **trade off** as two separate words:
>
> I don't know if I should **trade off** the higher salary for living in
> a nicer city.
>
>
> I don't know if I should **trade off** living in a nicer city for the
> higher salary.
>
>
>
You could also use **compromise** or **exchange**:
>
> I don't know if I should **compromise** the higher salary for living
> in a nicer city.
>
>
> I don't know if I should **exchange** the higher salary for living in a nicer city.
>
>
>
Of these options, I would go with **trade off** (which is a slight twist on the suggestion of @KristinaLopez -- noun versus verb issue). | I agree with Michael Seifert on this one.
You are comparing the pros and cons of these two job opportunities.
And you can't really sacrifice something you don't have.
So your sentence could look something like:
"I have received two offers. The first one is of a good salary, but I did not like the city, while regarding the 2nd offer, it is of a lower salary but the city is awesome. I do not know whether or not if I should [settle for a lower salary, so I can live] in a nice city."
I say settle, because when you settle for something, you are accepting or agreeing to something that is less than satisfactory. |
109,013 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HNN7W.jpg)
The photographer said it was done by using the built in flash, that's it and he never explained the process. Does anyone know how it was done?
<https://imgur.com/a/Zx1Zz3z> | 2019/06/18 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/109013",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/83170/"
] | The subject is in complete darkness, so a long exposure (1 or 2 seconds) combined with a bit of camera wobble makes the lights in the picture leave trails like that but you don't get a blurry subject.
Combine that with a camera flash (1/1000s maybe?) which illuminates the subject and there you have it. (the flash also dimly illuminates the objects in the bottom-right of the picture).
Edit - the flash will either fire at the start or at the end of the exposure, controlled by the first/second curtain sync setting. I don't think it would matter too much for this exposure, but for an effect like car light trails appearing to streak away BEHIND the car ([Car light trails, Google images](https://www.google.com/search?q=car%20light%20trail%20rear-curtain&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB807GB808&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiViM-8jfPiAhXCsKQKHaqpCzwQ_AUIECgB&biw=1619&bih=897)), you'd use second curtain. so with the shutter open for a second or two you capture the light trails, and then the flash fires as the shutter close (2nd curtain) to illuminate the car, frozen in the frame with the light trails behind it.
Default for curtain sync is usually first, which would illuminate the car as the shutter opens and THEN capture the light trails, which would then appear to streak AHEAD of the car. | Since all the "jiggles" have the same shape, I'd say that it was done with a double exposure.
One with a flash to (slightly under) expose the subject.
Another exposure was made on some lights with an extended exposure time while the camera was moved.
The two can be made in any order.
Some people do this on purpose with some effort and planning to position the image elements for effect.
It used to be done in error by older roll film cameras that did not require the shutter to be cocked before firing; and, the film was not manually turned to the next unexposed position on a roll of film automatically. |
143,651 | I am a junior at a large state university. Lately, as you all have probably heard, the coronavirus is spreading like a wildfire and we all should be scared.
My instructor is from China, and my school is also filled with Asian students. How do I ask for excused absences so that I can stay at home for the lectures so that I won't get the virus from my instructor or my Asian classmates? Do I contact the chair of the department that's offering the course or the dean of the school? Would it be better if I ask to switch to an online class instead (it's already after the add/drop period)
Some suggestion would be helpful. | 2020/01/31 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143651",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118937/"
] | You should do none of these things and we should not all be scared. This would be panic reaction.
You have not said in which country you are studying, but the Health authorities of most governments have issued official advice to their citizens which you should follow. Most institutions, such as universities, will also have issued official advice which you should also read and follow.
If you are in the UK the Department of Health has provided advice to UK universities.
If you wanted personal action, using hand cleansing gel dispensers provided by the university will reduce incidents of cross contamination and ensure regular hand-washing is your best defence. | "We should all be scared" [citation needed]
However, some concern is reasonable. For this reason it is likely that your university has developed policies around this topic. Ask your contact point at the university (e.g. a student service centre or similar). Please be careful to avoid racism against people who look Asian. |
143,651 | I am a junior at a large state university. Lately, as you all have probably heard, the coronavirus is spreading like a wildfire and we all should be scared.
My instructor is from China, and my school is also filled with Asian students. How do I ask for excused absences so that I can stay at home for the lectures so that I won't get the virus from my instructor or my Asian classmates? Do I contact the chair of the department that's offering the course or the dean of the school? Would it be better if I ask to switch to an online class instead (it's already after the add/drop period)
Some suggestion would be helpful. | 2020/01/31 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143651",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118937/"
] | You should do none of these things and we should not all be scared. This would be panic reaction.
You have not said in which country you are studying, but the Health authorities of most governments have issued official advice to their citizens which you should follow. Most institutions, such as universities, will also have issued official advice which you should also read and follow.
If you are in the UK the Department of Health has provided advice to UK universities.
If you wanted personal action, using hand cleansing gel dispensers provided by the university will reduce incidents of cross contamination and ensure regular hand-washing is your best defence. | If you have a special need, such as an immune deficiency, and must avoid all potential sources of infection, then your university will probably have some procedures to accommodate you. If you have deep psychological fears of disease then your university may have a counseling office to help you deal with your fears.
Otherwise, the other answers here, counseling you to relax should be considered as good advice.
Note, of course, that authorities are dealing with the problems of international travel by isolating travelers who might have become infected so that the problem is contained. It isn't Asians you need to be concerned with in any case. It is those frequent international travelers who don't comply with quarantine guidelines. |
143,651 | I am a junior at a large state university. Lately, as you all have probably heard, the coronavirus is spreading like a wildfire and we all should be scared.
My instructor is from China, and my school is also filled with Asian students. How do I ask for excused absences so that I can stay at home for the lectures so that I won't get the virus from my instructor or my Asian classmates? Do I contact the chair of the department that's offering the course or the dean of the school? Would it be better if I ask to switch to an online class instead (it's already after the add/drop period)
Some suggestion would be helpful. | 2020/01/31 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143651",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118937/"
] | If you have a special need, such as an immune deficiency, and must avoid all potential sources of infection, then your university will probably have some procedures to accommodate you. If you have deep psychological fears of disease then your university may have a counseling office to help you deal with your fears.
Otherwise, the other answers here, counseling you to relax should be considered as good advice.
Note, of course, that authorities are dealing with the problems of international travel by isolating travelers who might have become infected so that the problem is contained. It isn't Asians you need to be concerned with in any case. It is those frequent international travelers who don't comply with quarantine guidelines. | "We should all be scared" [citation needed]
However, some concern is reasonable. For this reason it is likely that your university has developed policies around this topic. Ask your contact point at the university (e.g. a student service centre or similar). Please be careful to avoid racism against people who look Asian. |
59,859 | I'm trying to test a simple WebForms (asp.net) based UI, and follow the MVP pattern to allow my UI to be more testable.
As I follow the TDD methodology for backend algorithms, I find that there are some unit test refactorings that happen in the spirit of the DRY principle (Don't Repeat Yourself). As I try to apply this to the UI using Rhino Mocks to verify my interactions, I see many commonalities in the Controller tests when setting up the view or model expectations.
My question is: how far do you typically take this refactoring, if at all? I'm curious to see how other TDDer's test their MVC/MVP based UIs. | 2008/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/59859",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5619/"
] | I would not refactor tests like standard code. Tests start to become more obscure as you refactor things into common base classes, helper methods, etc. Tests should be sufficiently clear on their own.
DRY is not a test concern.
That said, there are many plumbing things that are commonly done, and those should be abstracted away. | I use MVP, and on my tests I try to apply most of the refactoring I would in standard code. It normally doesn't work quite as well on the tests, due to the slight variations needed to test different scenarios, but within parts there can be commonality, and when possible I do consolidate. This does ease the needed changes later as the project evolves; just like in your standard code it is easier to change one place instead of 20. |
59,859 | I'm trying to test a simple WebForms (asp.net) based UI, and follow the MVP pattern to allow my UI to be more testable.
As I follow the TDD methodology for backend algorithms, I find that there are some unit test refactorings that happen in the spirit of the DRY principle (Don't Repeat Yourself). As I try to apply this to the UI using Rhino Mocks to verify my interactions, I see many commonalities in the Controller tests when setting up the view or model expectations.
My question is: how far do you typically take this refactoring, if at all? I'm curious to see how other TDDer's test their MVC/MVP based UIs. | 2008/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/59859",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5619/"
] | I would not refactor tests like standard code. Tests start to become more obscure as you refactor things into common base classes, helper methods, etc. Tests should be sufficiently clear on their own.
DRY is not a test concern.
That said, there are many plumbing things that are commonly done, and those should be abstracted away. | I'd prefer to treat unit test as pure functional programs, to avoid to have to test them. If an operation is enough common in between tests, then I would evaluate it for the standard codebase, but even then I'd avoid refactoring tests, because I tend to have lots of them, specially for gui driven BL. |
59,859 | I'm trying to test a simple WebForms (asp.net) based UI, and follow the MVP pattern to allow my UI to be more testable.
As I follow the TDD methodology for backend algorithms, I find that there are some unit test refactorings that happen in the spirit of the DRY principle (Don't Repeat Yourself). As I try to apply this to the UI using Rhino Mocks to verify my interactions, I see many commonalities in the Controller tests when setting up the view or model expectations.
My question is: how far do you typically take this refactoring, if at all? I'm curious to see how other TDDer's test their MVC/MVP based UIs. | 2008/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/59859",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5619/"
] | I would not refactor tests like standard code. Tests start to become more obscure as you refactor things into common base classes, helper methods, etc. Tests should be sufficiently clear on their own.
DRY is not a test concern.
That said, there are many plumbing things that are commonly done, and those should be abstracted away. | I use selenium for functional testing
and I'm using JUnit to test my controllers.
I'll mock out services or resources used by the controller and test to see what URI the controller is redirecting to, etc...
The only thing I'm not really testing at this point are the views. But I have employed functional testing to compensate. |
21,446,318 | I'm getting this error on running a python script (see screen shot). The rest of the menu are fine apart from the StaticIP menu that's causing the exception.
<https://github.com/turnkeylinux/confconsole/blob/master/confconsole.py>
Appreciate any leads.
 | 2014/01/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21446318",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1600047/"
] | It turned out the stock python-dialog package won't work.
So the author advised to install the forked version of pythondialog.
Works like a charm now!
<https://github.com/turnkeylinux/pythondialog> | The "dialog not supported" string/error message one can read on the screenshot is not part of (at least current) pythondialog from <http://pythondialog.sourceforge.net/>.
Did you report a bug at <https://sourceforge.net/p/pythondialog/_list/tickets> or ask your question on the [pythondialog mailing list](https://sourceforge.net/p/pythondialog/mailman/)? Which "author" suggested to use which "forked version"? This is rather unclear... |
54,933 | How are computers able to tell the correct time and date every time?
Whenever I close the computer (shut it down) all connections and processes inside stop. How is it that when I open the computer again it tells the exact correct time? Does the computer not shut down completely when I shut it down? Are there some processes still running in it? But then how does my laptop tell the correct time when I take out the battery (and thus forcibly stop all processes) and start it again after a few days? | 2016/03/25 | [
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/54933",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/48418/"
] | Computers have a "real-time clock" -- a special hardware device (e.g., containing a quartz crystal) on the motherboard that maintains the time. It is always powered, even when you shut your computer off. Also, the motherboard has a small battery that is used to power the clock device even when you disconnect your computer from power. The battery doesn't last forever, but it will last at least a few weeks. This helps the computer keep track of the time even when your computer is shut off. The real-time clock doesn't need much power, so it's not wasting energy. If you take out the clock battery in addition to removing the main battery and disconnecting the power cable then the computer will lose track of time and will ask you to enter the time and date when you restart the computer.
To learn more, see [Real-time clock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_clock) and [CMOS battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonvolatile_BIOS_memory#CMOS_battery) and [Why does my motherboard have a battery](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/why-does-my-motherboard-have-a-battery/).
Also, on many computers, when you connect your computer to an Internet connection, the OS will go find a time server on the network and query the time server for the current time. The OS can use this to very accurately set your computer's local clock. This uses the [Network Time Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol), also called NTP. | If you remove the battery on the motherboard then the computer wouldn't have any way to tell the time.
This is also the case with mobile phones. If you let a phone discharge and then not recharge it for more than a few weeks it will also "forget the time" because the small auxiliary battery is discharged completely and nothing is powering on the real-time clock.
You could try to power on an old mobile phone if you have one and check it yourself to see that it "forgot the time".
This is how the battery looks.
<https://yandex.com/images/touch/search?text=mobo%20battery&source=tabbar>
I had to buy one a few times when mine started to last less then a day. I had to configure the clock everytime i turned on the PC. |
54,933 | How are computers able to tell the correct time and date every time?
Whenever I close the computer (shut it down) all connections and processes inside stop. How is it that when I open the computer again it tells the exact correct time? Does the computer not shut down completely when I shut it down? Are there some processes still running in it? But then how does my laptop tell the correct time when I take out the battery (and thus forcibly stop all processes) and start it again after a few days? | 2016/03/25 | [
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/54933",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/48418/"
] | Computers have a "real-time clock" -- a special hardware device (e.g., containing a quartz crystal) on the motherboard that maintains the time. It is always powered, even when you shut your computer off. Also, the motherboard has a small battery that is used to power the clock device even when you disconnect your computer from power. The battery doesn't last forever, but it will last at least a few weeks. This helps the computer keep track of the time even when your computer is shut off. The real-time clock doesn't need much power, so it's not wasting energy. If you take out the clock battery in addition to removing the main battery and disconnecting the power cable then the computer will lose track of time and will ask you to enter the time and date when you restart the computer.
To learn more, see [Real-time clock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_clock) and [CMOS battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonvolatile_BIOS_memory#CMOS_battery) and [Why does my motherboard have a battery](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/why-does-my-motherboard-have-a-battery/).
Also, on many computers, when you connect your computer to an Internet connection, the OS will go find a time server on the network and query the time server for the current time. The OS can use this to very accurately set your computer's local clock. This uses the [Network Time Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol), also called NTP. | When you start Windows, it gains direct access to the memory of the Real Time Clock (RTC) and uses its date and time values to set the computer date and time. Timer interrupts maintain the computer time when Windows is running. A Time Daemon in Windows runs approximately once each hour after the Windows starts. The Time Daemon compares the time in Windows with the time in the RTC. If the two times are more than one minute apart, Windows changes the time and date to match the RTC. You cannot change the time interval for the Time Daemon to run.
If you use a time synchronizing service, such as the TimeServ.exe tool included with the Windows NT 4.0 Resource Kit, the tool updates the time in Windows and the computer's RTC.
If the Windows Time Service runs on a Windows 2000 based-computer, the Time Daemon in Windows cannot run approximately one time each hour after the Windows starts.
For more details visit this link:<http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724936.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724942.aspx> |
54,933 | How are computers able to tell the correct time and date every time?
Whenever I close the computer (shut it down) all connections and processes inside stop. How is it that when I open the computer again it tells the exact correct time? Does the computer not shut down completely when I shut it down? Are there some processes still running in it? But then how does my laptop tell the correct time when I take out the battery (and thus forcibly stop all processes) and start it again after a few days? | 2016/03/25 | [
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/54933",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/48418/"
] | If you remove the battery on the motherboard then the computer wouldn't have any way to tell the time.
This is also the case with mobile phones. If you let a phone discharge and then not recharge it for more than a few weeks it will also "forget the time" because the small auxiliary battery is discharged completely and nothing is powering on the real-time clock.
You could try to power on an old mobile phone if you have one and check it yourself to see that it "forgot the time".
This is how the battery looks.
<https://yandex.com/images/touch/search?text=mobo%20battery&source=tabbar>
I had to buy one a few times when mine started to last less then a day. I had to configure the clock everytime i turned on the PC. | When you start Windows, it gains direct access to the memory of the Real Time Clock (RTC) and uses its date and time values to set the computer date and time. Timer interrupts maintain the computer time when Windows is running. A Time Daemon in Windows runs approximately once each hour after the Windows starts. The Time Daemon compares the time in Windows with the time in the RTC. If the two times are more than one minute apart, Windows changes the time and date to match the RTC. You cannot change the time interval for the Time Daemon to run.
If you use a time synchronizing service, such as the TimeServ.exe tool included with the Windows NT 4.0 Resource Kit, the tool updates the time in Windows and the computer's RTC.
If the Windows Time Service runs on a Windows 2000 based-computer, the Time Daemon in Windows cannot run approximately one time each hour after the Windows starts.
For more details visit this link:<http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724936.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724942.aspx> |
387,528 | Consider that the outcome of Alice's efforts are understood to be satisfactory or even excellent, by her peers and the upper hierarchy. Given that Alice recognises she can deliver even better than she did, how should Alice formally state that she aims to do better than she has achieved without risking being misunderstood to imply she has been underachieving?
Assuming Alice had expressed the following in a written statement ***"my goal is to be more efficient and to close more deals per month"***, if Bob when reading that may be unaware of Alice's performance history, how could Alice have phrased her statement better to guarantee that someone like Bob would never perceive it negatively? | 2017/05/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/387528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/126985/"
] | Without substantially altering your sentence, the simplest way to convey that her current achievement is already very good, would be (in my opinion) to use 'even more' as an intensified form of 'more' as in
>
> "my goal is to be **even more efficient** and to close more deals per month"
>
>
>
where she can clearly convey the meaning 'I know I am efficient; I aim to be 'even more efficient!'
Note: You might be tempted to use 'even more' twice in the sentence as in
>
> 'my goal is to be **even more** efficient and to close **even more** more deals per month'
>
>
>
in order to be **even more** impressive, but beware! -- repetition of intensified statements actually reduces the impact and can even be misinterpreted in many ways, therefore best avoided. | Most people would not take the statement as negative. However the simplest change the emphasis to the positive is to add the word 'even' before the goals.
>
> My goal is to be *even* more efficient and to close *even* more sales per month.
>
>
>
It's not a subtle change. |
387,528 | Consider that the outcome of Alice's efforts are understood to be satisfactory or even excellent, by her peers and the upper hierarchy. Given that Alice recognises she can deliver even better than she did, how should Alice formally state that she aims to do better than she has achieved without risking being misunderstood to imply she has been underachieving?
Assuming Alice had expressed the following in a written statement ***"my goal is to be more efficient and to close more deals per month"***, if Bob when reading that may be unaware of Alice's performance history, how could Alice have phrased her statement better to guarantee that someone like Bob would never perceive it negatively? | 2017/05/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/387528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/126985/"
] | Without substantially altering your sentence, the simplest way to convey that her current achievement is already very good, would be (in my opinion) to use 'even more' as an intensified form of 'more' as in
>
> "my goal is to be **even more efficient** and to close more deals per month"
>
>
>
where she can clearly convey the meaning 'I know I am efficient; I aim to be 'even more efficient!'
Note: You might be tempted to use 'even more' twice in the sentence as in
>
> 'my goal is to be **even more** efficient and to close **even more** more deals per month'
>
>
>
in order to be **even more** impressive, but beware! -- repetition of intensified statements actually reduces the impact and can even be misinterpreted in many ways, therefore best avoided. | When taken without the full context, yes, it may appear that Alice is acknowledging inferior performance by saying "my goal is to be more efficient and to close more deals per month".
One way for Alice to restate this in a positive way would be
>
> My successes come from continuously looking for ways to improve.
>
>
>
Having a goal of continuous improvement is always taken as a positive attribute. Tying it to prior and ongoing successes emphasizes why she would do this. |
387,528 | Consider that the outcome of Alice's efforts are understood to be satisfactory or even excellent, by her peers and the upper hierarchy. Given that Alice recognises she can deliver even better than she did, how should Alice formally state that she aims to do better than she has achieved without risking being misunderstood to imply she has been underachieving?
Assuming Alice had expressed the following in a written statement ***"my goal is to be more efficient and to close more deals per month"***, if Bob when reading that may be unaware of Alice's performance history, how could Alice have phrased her statement better to guarantee that someone like Bob would never perceive it negatively? | 2017/05/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/387528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/126985/"
] | When taken without the full context, yes, it may appear that Alice is acknowledging inferior performance by saying "my goal is to be more efficient and to close more deals per month".
One way for Alice to restate this in a positive way would be
>
> My successes come from continuously looking for ways to improve.
>
>
>
Having a goal of continuous improvement is always taken as a positive attribute. Tying it to prior and ongoing successes emphasizes why she would do this. | Most people would not take the statement as negative. However the simplest change the emphasis to the positive is to add the word 'even' before the goals.
>
> My goal is to be *even* more efficient and to close *even* more sales per month.
>
>
>
It's not a subtle change. |
444,147 | I have been reading lately about electricity markets and I have stumbled upon the term ["volume risk"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_market#Risk_management).
>
> Volume risk is often used to denote the phenomenon whereby electricity market participants have uncertain volumes or quantities of consumption or production. For example, a retailer is unable to accurately predict consumer demand for any particular hour more than a few days into the future and a producer is unable to predict the precise time that they will have plant outage or shortages of fuel.
>
>
>
Basically, a fault in the prediction of both the buyer and seller may occur and either the electricity that has been purchased, may not end up being delivered or vice versa, the buyer may have ended up purchasing more electricity than needed.
However, I haven't found a clear explanation, what is done in these two cases. Who would cover the electricity difference if the generator does not end up producing the quantity stated in the trade or where would the overproduced electricity go, if the consumer has estimated his consumption poorly? | 2019/06/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444147",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/217809/"
] | >
> where would the overproduced electricity go, if the consumer has
> estimated his consumption poorly?
>
>
>
It doesn't go anywhere - if the consumer under-consumes compared to the original prediction then, that under-consumption is physically less-current being taken and less-power being supplied by the generator.
Electricity isn't like a delivery van setting off to deliver bread or cakes - it's much more instant than that and if a load takes less current or power then it's pretty much instantly reflected in the generator producing less power and the oil/coal/energy being used by the turbine and generator being less.
There is a financial deficit only and that gets resolved by credit arrangements (my guess). | The simple answer to "where would the overproduced electricity go" is that the generator will not produce excess electricity and that causes a reduction in the fuel that feeds the driver of the generator. It is more complex than that. Some types and sizes of generating equipment are easier to "throttle back" than others. Suppliers or groups of suppliers have a range of generating equipment. In general, small and inefficient generators are easy to throttle back and large, more efficient ones can not be efficiently throttled back very much without being shut down completely. Once they are shut down completely, the larger generators tend to require more time and effort (cost) to restart.
Suppliers that are interconnected can negotiate over how much energy will be produced by each supplier so that the most efficient mix of equipment is always in operation. A distribution system that does not have a good assortment of supply equipment may be forced, either economically or technically, to discontinue service to some customers in order to shut down some equipment that does not have sufficient customer demand. With interconnected suppliers, situations occasionally arise where one supplier pays another supplier to take "excess energy" for a short time to avoid shutting down equipment that will be difficult tor restart etc.
Suppliers will offer to sell energy at the lowest price to customers who accurately predict their demand. To get such a price, the customer may need to agree to compensate the supplier if the actual energy used deviates too much from the prediction. Large customers will have a contract that covers a range of possibilities. |
444,147 | I have been reading lately about electricity markets and I have stumbled upon the term ["volume risk"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_market#Risk_management).
>
> Volume risk is often used to denote the phenomenon whereby electricity market participants have uncertain volumes or quantities of consumption or production. For example, a retailer is unable to accurately predict consumer demand for any particular hour more than a few days into the future and a producer is unable to predict the precise time that they will have plant outage or shortages of fuel.
>
>
>
Basically, a fault in the prediction of both the buyer and seller may occur and either the electricity that has been purchased, may not end up being delivered or vice versa, the buyer may have ended up purchasing more electricity than needed.
However, I haven't found a clear explanation, what is done in these two cases. Who would cover the electricity difference if the generator does not end up producing the quantity stated in the trade or where would the overproduced electricity go, if the consumer has estimated his consumption poorly? | 2019/06/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444147",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/217809/"
] | >
> where would the overproduced electricity go, if the consumer has
> estimated his consumption poorly?
>
>
>
It doesn't go anywhere - if the consumer under-consumes compared to the original prediction then, that under-consumption is physically less-current being taken and less-power being supplied by the generator.
Electricity isn't like a delivery van setting off to deliver bread or cakes - it's much more instant than that and if a load takes less current or power then it's pretty much instantly reflected in the generator producing less power and the oil/coal/energy being used by the turbine and generator being less.
There is a financial deficit only and that gets resolved by credit arrangements (my guess). | >
> Who would cover the electricity difference if the generator does not
> end up producing the quantity stated in the trade or where would the
> overproduced electricity go, if the consumer has estimated his
> consumption poorly?
>
>
>
This is why continuous grid management is needed.
Electricity in the grid in most cases cannot be stored for later use. It is a good approximation to assume that at any instant the electric power consumed is exactly equal to the electric power produced.
As you know, there are different ways to generate electricity. Some of them are almost 100% predictable (e.g. nuclear power plant), others are not (wind/solar).
The challenge for grid management is now to first try and predict production and consumption for a certain period, then to acquire the predicted needed amount of production capacity for that period, and then to keep monitoring fluctuations in production or consumption, i.e. deviations from the predictions, and react on those fluctuations by adding or removing electricity production (sometimes also consumption) as quickly as possible.
This is done by employing a certain mix of power producers: A nuclear power plant takes significant time (hours maybe) to significantly increase or decrease power output, wind/solar can very quickly (seconds) be taken off the grid, but e.g. at night solar power cannot be requested to generate some extra power to accomodate increased demand. Gas-powered power plants can be regulated up or down relatively quickly and are thus in demand exactly to fill the gap between the constant base load of the big (e.g. nuclear) power plants and consumption which may vary faster than a nuclear plant could accomodate.
The whole thing works very much along the basic economical model, putting a certain price to a certain risk.
Nuclear plants produce cheap electricity, but are in-flexible. Solar/wind is also not very flexible. In fact, solar and wind energy are a grid operator's worst nightmare and they're not even cheap but are usually subsidized and otherwise politically encouraged. Gas is more flexible than nuclear and more controllable than solar/wind, but also more expensive per unit of energy (Joule, Wh,...) produced than nuclear and disliked due to CO².
Bottomline: Grid operators try to get the cheapest electricity they can, but at the same time they absolutely *must* make sure to always be able to adjust production to varying, unpredictable consumption (or production), because at every instant power supplied to the grid exactly matches the power taken from the grid. If they try and supply more or less than is actually demanded, installations connected to the grid will malfunction (under-supply, i.e. under-voltage) or be destroyed (over-supply, over-voltage). That's just physics. |
444,147 | I have been reading lately about electricity markets and I have stumbled upon the term ["volume risk"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_market#Risk_management).
>
> Volume risk is often used to denote the phenomenon whereby electricity market participants have uncertain volumes or quantities of consumption or production. For example, a retailer is unable to accurately predict consumer demand for any particular hour more than a few days into the future and a producer is unable to predict the precise time that they will have plant outage or shortages of fuel.
>
>
>
Basically, a fault in the prediction of both the buyer and seller may occur and either the electricity that has been purchased, may not end up being delivered or vice versa, the buyer may have ended up purchasing more electricity than needed.
However, I haven't found a clear explanation, what is done in these two cases. Who would cover the electricity difference if the generator does not end up producing the quantity stated in the trade or where would the overproduced electricity go, if the consumer has estimated his consumption poorly? | 2019/06/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/444147",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/217809/"
] | >
> where would the overproduced electricity go, if the consumer has
> estimated his consumption poorly?
>
>
>
It doesn't go anywhere - if the consumer under-consumes compared to the original prediction then, that under-consumption is physically less-current being taken and less-power being supplied by the generator.
Electricity isn't like a delivery van setting off to deliver bread or cakes - it's much more instant than that and if a load takes less current or power then it's pretty much instantly reflected in the generator producing less power and the oil/coal/energy being used by the turbine and generator being less.
There is a financial deficit only and that gets resolved by credit arrangements (my guess). | There are different kinds of generators. Some do supply constant electricity with monthly schedules like nuclear and thermal power plant, these can't dynamically change the production.
The variable part of the demand is supplied by power plants that can quickly turn on and off, these are gas turbine, hydroelectric plant, diesel. In case of increased demand, these power plants are turned on.
In case of unplanned decreased demand, and if all small power plants are off, they will try: fill the basins full for reversible power plants (generator/motor), to sell the electricity for small money (or even to pay for) to foreign country, contact steel forgeries to increase production, turn on street lights even in daylight,...whatever to gain time until the demand is repristinated. |
169,529 | I'd like to know whether "the survey online" or "an online survey" should be used in the following:
>
> World Gym has been under new management since July 3. For the new team to better serve our members, please take a few moments and click here to fill out **the survey online / an online survey**.
>
>
>
I'd appreciate your help. | 2018/06/14 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/169529",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/3865/"
] | The chosen article reveals the speaker's thought.
With **the** the speaker is indicating that he or she believes you will understand (you, being the visitor reading those words) that **a survey** is normally associated with attempts to get to know users better, and **the particular survey in this instance** can be reached by clicking the link.
That thought might not even be fully conscious on the speaker's part.
This "previously mentioned" rule must be understood very very very very very broadly, so that it would include under its aegis what is typical or usual under the circumstances. It is a previous *encounter* not necessarily a previous *mention*, and the encounter need not have taken place in the immediate speech context. The immediate speech context can allude to a general context where the encounter has occurred or is believed by the speaker to have occurred. | The survey is **very specific here.** How? Because it says *click here.* Anything specific i.e. *only that thing and nothing else* would have the definite article. Take another example and you may understand that -
>
> If you want to register, click here to go to **the registration form.**
>
>
>
So, registration here is specific for that login, for that page.
Had it been an indefinite article, I would think of some other *form or feedback* which could be related to the website *but* not specific to the matter you are talking about.
Finally, ask yourself, is that the **only survey** for that activity? If yes, then go for the definite article. |
110,430 | In a song I am learning, there is a section of the song that has the chord progression G#m | A#m7b5 | B6
I sometimes get the fingerings wrong and use dimished 7th chords on guitar instead of m7b5 chords and in this case I actually think the dimished7th chord sounds good too. So I wanted to ask, what is the difference functionally between the two? They both seem to work in most situations as leading tone chords to a tonic chord one semitone above (B in this case). | 2021/02/02 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/110430",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/35708/"
] | vii7b5 = (me),se,te,re => V7 without root tone
VIIdim7 = (me),se,te,re,fa => Vb9
**me or mi** in brackets as it can be considered as dropped root tone of the dom7 respectively dom7b9.
Critical point to decide which chord will better fit is the melody: if it contains the b9 (in F#,**A#,C#,E,G**) this would be **G** - then the **A#dim7** sounds better, if there is a **G#** you play the 7b5 chord:**A#m7b5** | I don't have much to add to other posts concerning the analysis, however I'd like to point another point. In some cases indeed either diminished and half-diminished chords might provide good harmonization of a melody, however they sound substantially different. If you play one or another randomly, due to mistakes, it might be very confusing for the rest of the band. It is very different from substituting e.g. Cmaj7 with C6, which can be innocent 90% of times. |
110,430 | In a song I am learning, there is a section of the song that has the chord progression G#m | A#m7b5 | B6
I sometimes get the fingerings wrong and use dimished 7th chords on guitar instead of m7b5 chords and in this case I actually think the dimished7th chord sounds good too. So I wanted to ask, what is the difference functionally between the two? They both seem to work in most situations as leading tone chords to a tonic chord one semitone above (B in this case). | 2021/02/02 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/110430",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/35708/"
] | The basic triad (which is what usually gives the main "color" to the chord) is the same, and being a diminshed fifth it creates a lots of tension towards the next one - usually a half tone above, and usually the tonic.
They *are* similar and often interchangeable. While they are not diatonic on both major and minor mode, they can "exist" in those modes:
* in minor mode, the root and seventh of m7b5 are the seventh and sixth melodic degrees ("augmented");
* in major mode, the seventh of dim7 is the harmonic ("lowered") sixth;
The lowered sixth "sounds good" in both modes because it creates a big tension that leads to the fifth, and also due to the fact that it creates another tritone with the third of the chord.
The m7b5 chord is usually considered less powerful than the dim7, as the seventh has less tension towards any resolution, but it can still create interesting effects. The choice depends on the composer/arranger/performer, but it obviously should not collide with any other voice (the melody) and should consider the overall harmony and current harmonic progression. | While m7♭5 chords and dim7 chords are fairly interchangeable as dominant-function chords (don't interchange them if the melody note is the 7th), the dim7 chord is a much better **pivot chord** between keys than the m7♭5 chord, as any given dim7 chord is an enharmonic re-spelling of 3 other dim7 chords, while a m7♭5 chord cannot be enharmonically re-spelled into any other m7♭5 chords. When a dim7 chord is acting as a pivot chord, interchanging it is unwise. |
110,430 | In a song I am learning, there is a section of the song that has the chord progression G#m | A#m7b5 | B6
I sometimes get the fingerings wrong and use dimished 7th chords on guitar instead of m7b5 chords and in this case I actually think the dimished7th chord sounds good too. So I wanted to ask, what is the difference functionally between the two? They both seem to work in most situations as leading tone chords to a tonic chord one semitone above (B in this case). | 2021/02/02 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/110430",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/35708/"
] | The basic triad (which is what usually gives the main "color" to the chord) is the same, and being a diminshed fifth it creates a lots of tension towards the next one - usually a half tone above, and usually the tonic.
They *are* similar and often interchangeable. While they are not diatonic on both major and minor mode, they can "exist" in those modes:
* in minor mode, the root and seventh of m7b5 are the seventh and sixth melodic degrees ("augmented");
* in major mode, the seventh of dim7 is the harmonic ("lowered") sixth;
The lowered sixth "sounds good" in both modes because it creates a big tension that leads to the fifth, and also due to the fact that it creates another tritone with the third of the chord.
The m7b5 chord is usually considered less powerful than the dim7, as the seventh has less tension towards any resolution, but it can still create interesting effects. The choice depends on the composer/arranger/performer, but it obviously should not collide with any other voice (the melody) and should consider the overall harmony and current harmonic progression. | I don't have much to add to other posts concerning the analysis, however I'd like to point another point. In some cases indeed either diminished and half-diminished chords might provide good harmonization of a melody, however they sound substantially different. If you play one or another randomly, due to mistakes, it might be very confusing for the rest of the band. It is very different from substituting e.g. Cmaj7 with C6, which can be innocent 90% of times. |
110,430 | In a song I am learning, there is a section of the song that has the chord progression G#m | A#m7b5 | B6
I sometimes get the fingerings wrong and use dimished 7th chords on guitar instead of m7b5 chords and in this case I actually think the dimished7th chord sounds good too. So I wanted to ask, what is the difference functionally between the two? They both seem to work in most situations as leading tone chords to a tonic chord one semitone above (B in this case). | 2021/02/02 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/110430",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/35708/"
] | The tritone A♯ and E resolves nicely to B and D♯. Other notes in the chords are less important.
That tritone is found in F♯7 (the standard dominant of B major). It's also found in A♯m7♭5 and in A♯dim7. (Also in C7, if we want to play with ♭5 substitutions.) So they'll all resolve in a nice functionally harmonic way to B major.
There are other ways to approach B major. You can 'plane' up from A♯ major or A major. Don't struggle to analyse this as functional - being the same chord shape and being adjacent are sufficient.
So does this mean a major triad, a dom7 chord, a dim7 and a half-dim7 all 'function the same'? No, that's far too general a statement. | While m7♭5 chords and dim7 chords are fairly interchangeable as dominant-function chords (don't interchange them if the melody note is the 7th), the dim7 chord is a much better **pivot chord** between keys than the m7♭5 chord, as any given dim7 chord is an enharmonic re-spelling of 3 other dim7 chords, while a m7♭5 chord cannot be enharmonically re-spelled into any other m7♭5 chords. When a dim7 chord is acting as a pivot chord, interchanging it is unwise. |
34,387 | Can lower stages of current rockets be replaced to reusable and more efficient boosters with parachutes? Would reusable rocket stages save money? | 2019/02/22 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/34387",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18879/"
] | At [12 launches per year](https://spacenews.com/ariane-6-could-use-reusable-prometheus-engine-designer-says/), Arianespace does not see a business case for a reusable first stage.
>
> “We still have not understood, would we save money by reusing? At least with our launch rate?” he asked. “We hope to launch 12 times a year. If we reuse 12 times, that means we only manufacture one time per year. It is difficult for us to have that.”
>
>
> Bonguet said reusability would essentially erase the production efficiencies ArianeGroup is striving for, starving the Ariane 6 industrial base of the work upon which it relies.
>
>
>
Now this is fairly specific to Arianespace's situation, where they have existing production facilities designed to build 12 stages a year, and no easy way to repurpose these for other work.
SpaceX solved that problem:
* they use 9 engines on the first stage (instead of just one)
* they designed the first and second stage to be as similar as possible, so the same facilities can be used, and a reduction in work on first stages is mostly compensated by work on second stages.
* they aim for much higher launch rates
Arianespace is hamstrung by lack of available capital to develop more radical changes, instead of the minimum-change Ariane 6 we have now. | Reusable first stages are already saving SpaceX money.
Parachute recovery has the drawback that your stage is going to splash down in corrosive salt water, requiring some cleaning and refurbishment before it's ready to fly again.
Falcon 9 style powered-landing boosters have to reserve a lot of fuel mass for landing and optionally flyback.
ULA is proposing parachute & helicopter recovery for just the first-stage engines of their next-generation Vulcan launcher. |
17,176 | What was the concept behind the staff that Loki used in the Avengers movie? It contained a blue crystal (presumably a part of the tesseract?) He uses it to put people like Hawkeye under a spell of sorts and also used it to blast stuff.
I assumed that the tesseract could only be used as an energy source. It is evidently not true if the tesseract is used to hypnotize people. Can humans also use the tesseract for such purposes or was Loki the only one who could harness these powers? What additional uses can a tesseract have? | 2012/05/24 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/17176",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/2288/"
] | ### Loki is an [Asgardian](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/16815/2765). In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, he is a member of a super-advanced race of beings that live on other planets far from Earth, but connected via technological tools. Loki's staff was believed to be one of those tools.
**UPDATE:** It appears Loki's Staff (or the Chitari Staff) does house the Infinity Mind Gem. Revealed in a recent trailer and expounded upon by **[ScreenRant](http://screenrant.com/thor-3-tom-hiddleston-loki-scepter-infinity-mind-gem/):**
>
> * **During the Avengers Infinity War teaser that was shown at the event, it was also confirmed that Loki’s scepter is one of the [Infinity Gems](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/43755/2765) Thanos (Josh Brolin) will have in his Gauntlet.**
>
>
>
---
1. Loki's staff is an alien device used to focus his power. The Asgardians use tools similar to the staff that appear to be a form of magic (but are just another super-advanced science hidden behind mummery and gestures) to augment their physical, mental or psychic abilities, of which Loki appears to have all three in abundance. If we use the meme of sorcery, the staff was nothing more than a focus for his power, allowing him to tap into and lock onto **The Tesseract/[Cosmic Cube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Cube)**.
2. There is no canon relationship between the crystal in the staff and the Tesseract/Cosmic cube. Since Cosmic Cubes have never needed any other tools to perform their powers, perhaps the similarity in color signified a synchronization process between the two devices. Perhaps the designers of the movie wanted to show there was a relationship between the two devices, especially since the staff is later used to disrupt the Cosmic Cube's dimensional doorway.
3. Later, it was mentioned by Professor Erik Selvig that he had encoded a shutdown sequence inside of the crystal by an as yet undisclosed means. All previous canon regarding the Cosmic Cube says they cannot be easily destroyed and pieces cannot be shaved off. So it is more another sign of a technological synchronization between the Cube and the staff.
4. The hypnosis power was more likely an aspect of Loki's psychic ability and as a well known trickster, a tool he was likely to employ in the presence of minds able to be dominated by his own. If he was using a linkage to the Cube, he may have opened the minds of his victims to the dimension inside of the Cosmic Cube making them more vulnerable to Loki's powers. | The staff is a magic weapon from Asgard and the crystal he uses is different from the gems from the infinity gauntlet. It is the mind gem, not part of the tesseract. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | There are two logical ways of dealing with time travel paradoxes:
* [**Stable time loop**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StableTimeLoop). When you travel to the past, whatever you do, you won't actually change anything (which pretty much implies there is no free will).
In fiction, the way this is often done is that the time traveller attempts to change the past, but doesn't succeed, because it was him who caused the final outcome in the first place. Or something like that.
* [**Alternate timelines**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateTimeline). When you travel back in time, you cause the creation of an alternate timeline. So there are now two timelines: the one where you left and the one where you arrived. This means that you can do anything and it won't change the original timeline, so no paradoxes are possible.
Though many films and TV shows (including BTTF and Doctor Who) don't use any of the two approaches and instead use approach that doesn't make sense (people slowly vanishing, monsters killing people because change occured, but only sometimes). | My belief is that the audience is guided towards the nonsensical belief that there are two dimensions of time - ordinary time, and "meta-time" - that is, that before "now" in "meta-time", the universe had such-and-such a history, but one second later in "meta-time", history was "changed", and the past became a different past.
This doesn't actually make sense from a physics point of view, and they are usually careful not to be explicit about it.
I am not talking about "personal time" - how time subjectively appears to a character - although it is easy to get confused between "personal time" and this idea of meta-time, because they are usually coterminous from the point of view of a particular protagonist.
The only way to make it really consistent is if the protagonist who "changes the past" is really God, and everything else is effectively just a figment of his imagination, or a dream in other words. Otherwise, as soon as you start thinking about what would happen if someone else also "changed the past", it all falls apart, because the "personal time" theory doesn't fit. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | My belief is that the audience is guided towards the nonsensical belief that there are two dimensions of time - ordinary time, and "meta-time" - that is, that before "now" in "meta-time", the universe had such-and-such a history, but one second later in "meta-time", history was "changed", and the past became a different past.
This doesn't actually make sense from a physics point of view, and they are usually careful not to be explicit about it.
I am not talking about "personal time" - how time subjectively appears to a character - although it is easy to get confused between "personal time" and this idea of meta-time, because they are usually coterminous from the point of view of a particular protagonist.
The only way to make it really consistent is if the protagonist who "changes the past" is really God, and everything else is effectively just a figment of his imagination, or a dream in other words. Otherwise, as soon as you start thinking about what would happen if someone else also "changed the past", it all falls apart, because the "personal time" theory doesn't fit. | If the time travel is branching, then it needs no explanation, but if it's linear, then I'd imagine it's because time travelling protected them? For example, and I hope this is not just in the CW show, the Reverse Flash, mortal enemy of the Flash (I hope you could've figured that one out on your own), is able to basically exist in every time period because the Speed Force protects him and there's versions of him... everywhen?
But Marty began to disappear in BTTF, whereas Reverse Flash isn't affected at all in his time travelling.
Different worlds have different rules so it depends on the specific universe. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | My belief is that the audience is guided towards the nonsensical belief that there are two dimensions of time - ordinary time, and "meta-time" - that is, that before "now" in "meta-time", the universe had such-and-such a history, but one second later in "meta-time", history was "changed", and the past became a different past.
This doesn't actually make sense from a physics point of view, and they are usually careful not to be explicit about it.
I am not talking about "personal time" - how time subjectively appears to a character - although it is easy to get confused between "personal time" and this idea of meta-time, because they are usually coterminous from the point of view of a particular protagonist.
The only way to make it really consistent is if the protagonist who "changes the past" is really God, and everything else is effectively just a figment of his imagination, or a dream in other words. Otherwise, as soon as you start thinking about what would happen if someone else also "changed the past", it all falls apart, because the "personal time" theory doesn't fit. | This is a variation of Flater's answer about the universe "preventing" the paradox. At first I was going to comment that it requires a sort of "God" or "Deus Ex Machina" to intervene on behalf of the plot. But think of it slightly differently:
Quantum physics tells us that there is an inherent randomness in the universe. Maybe someone with more knowledge of it can explain it better, but essentially each action and object is actually the average of zillions of probabilities. So while two things might appear identical, at a subatomic level they are completely different.
Now at first glance, the Grandfather paradox is an infinite loop. But what if because of the quantum randomness, each iteration is actually different at a quantum level if not at a macro level. This means that there is an infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that you will fail to kill your grandfather. (Or fail to travel back in time)
But with infinity, even the ridiculously improbable will eventually happen. So even if it takes a gazillion journeys through the time loop, one will eventually occur where you fail to kill your grandfather. And since this one does not prompt a recurrence of the loop, this is the one that will "stick".
You'll forget all the iterations of the loop that have been replaced by this one.
This will only happen with paradoxes of course, because if there isn't a paradox there isn't an infinite time loop.
Because it's a *time* loop, all occurrences of the loop happen at the same time so you don't notice the bazillions of epochs that the loop has been through. So it will appear that the universe or some power does intervene to prevent paradoxes. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | There are two logical ways of dealing with time travel paradoxes:
* [**Stable time loop**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StableTimeLoop). When you travel to the past, whatever you do, you won't actually change anything (which pretty much implies there is no free will).
In fiction, the way this is often done is that the time traveller attempts to change the past, but doesn't succeed, because it was him who caused the final outcome in the first place. Or something like that.
* [**Alternate timelines**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateTimeline). When you travel back in time, you cause the creation of an alternate timeline. So there are now two timelines: the one where you left and the one where you arrived. This means that you can do anything and it won't change the original timeline, so no paradoxes are possible.
Though many films and TV shows (including BTTF and Doctor Who) don't use any of the two approaches and instead use approach that doesn't make sense (people slowly vanishing, monsters killing people because change occured, but only sometimes). | The highest voted answer makes sense, but it seems to omit a third possibility, which happens to be the theory I subscribe to.
There are many theories. I like this one the most because it makes sense (to me) and is consistent with how the (real world) universe tries to solve similar paradoxes, e.g. when two objects try to occupy the same space at the same time.
First of all, I think we can agree that **if there is no paradox, there is no problem**. In other words, everything that's not a paradox can be assumed to work, since it doesn't create any problems. We only need to consider how the universe handles near-paradoxical situations.
**The universe will do everything it can (including breaking its own rules) in order to avoid a paradox. However, the universe will always favor using the path of least resistance (= the option which requires the least amount of breaking the rules).**
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's use the grandfather paradox. I go back in time, and try to kill my grandfather (before my father was born) by using a sword. The universe cannot allow that, since it could create a paradox. Therefore, I am unable to lethally wound my grandfather.
* When you try to force two objects to occupy the same space at the same time (by pushing really hard), you simply cannot do this. The objects will break long before you'll be able to have them occupy the same space.
* When you try to bring two very strong magnets (with the same polarity) together, they will not allow you to do that. Whenever you bring them close, the magnetic force tends to make you veer off.
* If you use **tremendous** force, you can bring the magnets together, as long as this tremendous force is (1) bigger than the magnetic repulsion force, (2) smaller than the force needed for the magnets to break and (3) continuously applied.
Therefore, if I try to stab my grandfather, the universe will make my sword veer off course, missing my grandfather. As much as I try to stab him, the universe will provide a counterforce. Just like how a magnet uses force to repel a magnet of the same polarity, the universe will use a force to repel the action that **invariably** introduces a paradox.
Suppose I don't intend to lethally wound my grandfather, I only stab him on the hand. Then the universe has several options to deal with this:
* If this wound does not change my grandfather's future (he will still end up having my father, my father will still end up having me), then the universe **allows** it. There is no paradox.
* If this wound precludes my grandfather from having my father (e.g. his injury makes him use his other hand, therefore not spilling the drink that he's supposed to spill on my grandmother when he is supposed to meet her), then the paradox should be **equally disallowed** (similar to when I try to lethally wound my grandfather).
Note that I mentioned how the universe favors **the path of least resistance**. Since the universe is "inventing" a force that would make my sword veer off course, that requires X amount of force. But if the universe has a way to avoid the paradox using less force (less than X), then it will favor this alternate route.
If the force needed to veer the sword off course is greater than the force needed to knock over that drink and spill it on my grandmother (thus introducing my grandparents, even if he wasn't the one who spilled the drink), then the paradox can be resolved this way and the universe will favor knocking over the glass as it is the path of least resistance.
**This is consistent with Back To The Future**.
* Marty mistakenly intervenes in how his parents fell in love, thus endangering his future. However, the universe has allowed this to happen, as no (unavoidable) paradox has yet been created.
* Marty does start fading away at the end of the movie, because the paradox is getting closer and closer to becoming **unavoidable**. For example, if Marty took several years to get his parents to fall in love, then they probably would have had Marty at a later stage in life (thus creating a paradox).
* However, so long as Marty's parents are still able to fall in love, on time to give birth to Marty at the right time, the universe has not yet deleted Marty, as he is still **possible**.
* Marty ends up fixing the problem by getting them to fall in love in a different way. Marty has changed the past, but in a way that **the future is unaffected**. Changes have been introduced, but no paradox, and therefore the universe does not intervene.
This is the same as the drink that gets spilt on my grandmother. Both the spilt drink and Marty's parents falling in love **invariably** leads to my grandparents giving birth to my father, and Marty's parents giving birth to Marty.
*Minor note: In my example, the glass gets knocked over by the universe. In BTTF, Marty is the driving force behind the correction. However, it's possible to argue that the universe helped Marty along in order to achieve his goal (e.g. making him run faster just so he gets to his destination on time, if being late causes the paradox to become unavoidable). This possibility only applies if helping Marty costs less effort than the universe fixing it by itself.*
**This is also consistent with Doctor Who**.
* In the episode where they are trapped inside a dying TARDIS, the Doctor, Clara and three guests are being chased by monsters (who look like burnt zombies).
* It is revealed that these burnt zombies are actually **future Clara and the future guests**, who have been burnt by the TARDIS' main reactor.
* Two zombies are attached to eachother. The Doctor realizes that these are the two remaining guests (the third one was already dead).
* The Doctor tells the alive guests to **never touch eachother again**, because not touching eachother makes it impossible for them to fuse together, thus creating a paradox (the Doctor **wants** to create a paradox here).
* As long as they never touch, their future selves (the merged zombie) is **impossible**. And if it is impossible, then the universe should delete that future (similar to how Marty fades once he becomes an impossible future).
* This works for a while, and the future seems to be rewritten. However, the guests forget about not touching eachother, and touch eachother. **As if by force**, they are **immediately** joined together and burnt, becoming the burnt zombies.
This force was supplied by the universe. Rather than deleting the future zombies (which takes a lot of effort to rewrite the future), the universe favors **bumping the two guests together**, as this requires less force and it ensures that the future is actually correct and therefore does not need to be deleted.
Note that **Clara** has managed to avoid her burnt future. Because the guests have managed to *stall* the inevitable (touching eachother) long enough, they have changed the future enough to delete burnt Clara (as she is no longer possible), but they did not stall long enough for their **own** futures to be rewritten.
I can't speak to Looper, as I haven't seen it.
Conclusion
----------
**That's proof of how it should work, according to me.** We've seen both cases: trying to prevent changes to the future (BTTF) and trying to create changes to the future (Doctor Who).
In both cases, the universe applies the same rules: it maintained logical consistency at all costs, even if that means it has to invent a "phantom force" (which breaks the rules of the universe, specifically [the first law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics)). In order to **minimize** how much it breaks its own rules, the universe tries to apply the least amount of "phantom force" (= the path of least resistance). |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | There are two logical ways of dealing with time travel paradoxes:
* [**Stable time loop**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StableTimeLoop). When you travel to the past, whatever you do, you won't actually change anything (which pretty much implies there is no free will).
In fiction, the way this is often done is that the time traveller attempts to change the past, but doesn't succeed, because it was him who caused the final outcome in the first place. Or something like that.
* [**Alternate timelines**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateTimeline). When you travel back in time, you cause the creation of an alternate timeline. So there are now two timelines: the one where you left and the one where you arrived. This means that you can do anything and it won't change the original timeline, so no paradoxes are possible.
Though many films and TV shows (including BTTF and Doctor Who) don't use any of the two approaches and instead use approach that doesn't make sense (people slowly vanishing, monsters killing people because change occured, but only sometimes). | If the time travel is branching, then it needs no explanation, but if it's linear, then I'd imagine it's because time travelling protected them? For example, and I hope this is not just in the CW show, the Reverse Flash, mortal enemy of the Flash (I hope you could've figured that one out on your own), is able to basically exist in every time period because the Speed Force protects him and there's versions of him... everywhen?
But Marty began to disappear in BTTF, whereas Reverse Flash isn't affected at all in his time travelling.
Different worlds have different rules so it depends on the specific universe. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | There are two logical ways of dealing with time travel paradoxes:
* [**Stable time loop**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StableTimeLoop). When you travel to the past, whatever you do, you won't actually change anything (which pretty much implies there is no free will).
In fiction, the way this is often done is that the time traveller attempts to change the past, but doesn't succeed, because it was him who caused the final outcome in the first place. Or something like that.
* [**Alternate timelines**](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateTimeline). When you travel back in time, you cause the creation of an alternate timeline. So there are now two timelines: the one where you left and the one where you arrived. This means that you can do anything and it won't change the original timeline, so no paradoxes are possible.
Though many films and TV shows (including BTTF and Doctor Who) don't use any of the two approaches and instead use approach that doesn't make sense (people slowly vanishing, monsters killing people because change occured, but only sometimes). | This is a variation of Flater's answer about the universe "preventing" the paradox. At first I was going to comment that it requires a sort of "God" or "Deus Ex Machina" to intervene on behalf of the plot. But think of it slightly differently:
Quantum physics tells us that there is an inherent randomness in the universe. Maybe someone with more knowledge of it can explain it better, but essentially each action and object is actually the average of zillions of probabilities. So while two things might appear identical, at a subatomic level they are completely different.
Now at first glance, the Grandfather paradox is an infinite loop. But what if because of the quantum randomness, each iteration is actually different at a quantum level if not at a macro level. This means that there is an infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that you will fail to kill your grandfather. (Or fail to travel back in time)
But with infinity, even the ridiculously improbable will eventually happen. So even if it takes a gazillion journeys through the time loop, one will eventually occur where you fail to kill your grandfather. And since this one does not prompt a recurrence of the loop, this is the one that will "stick".
You'll forget all the iterations of the loop that have been replaced by this one.
This will only happen with paradoxes of course, because if there isn't a paradox there isn't an infinite time loop.
Because it's a *time* loop, all occurrences of the loop happen at the same time so you don't notice the bazillions of epochs that the loop has been through. So it will appear that the universe or some power does intervene to prevent paradoxes. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | The highest voted answer makes sense, but it seems to omit a third possibility, which happens to be the theory I subscribe to.
There are many theories. I like this one the most because it makes sense (to me) and is consistent with how the (real world) universe tries to solve similar paradoxes, e.g. when two objects try to occupy the same space at the same time.
First of all, I think we can agree that **if there is no paradox, there is no problem**. In other words, everything that's not a paradox can be assumed to work, since it doesn't create any problems. We only need to consider how the universe handles near-paradoxical situations.
**The universe will do everything it can (including breaking its own rules) in order to avoid a paradox. However, the universe will always favor using the path of least resistance (= the option which requires the least amount of breaking the rules).**
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's use the grandfather paradox. I go back in time, and try to kill my grandfather (before my father was born) by using a sword. The universe cannot allow that, since it could create a paradox. Therefore, I am unable to lethally wound my grandfather.
* When you try to force two objects to occupy the same space at the same time (by pushing really hard), you simply cannot do this. The objects will break long before you'll be able to have them occupy the same space.
* When you try to bring two very strong magnets (with the same polarity) together, they will not allow you to do that. Whenever you bring them close, the magnetic force tends to make you veer off.
* If you use **tremendous** force, you can bring the magnets together, as long as this tremendous force is (1) bigger than the magnetic repulsion force, (2) smaller than the force needed for the magnets to break and (3) continuously applied.
Therefore, if I try to stab my grandfather, the universe will make my sword veer off course, missing my grandfather. As much as I try to stab him, the universe will provide a counterforce. Just like how a magnet uses force to repel a magnet of the same polarity, the universe will use a force to repel the action that **invariably** introduces a paradox.
Suppose I don't intend to lethally wound my grandfather, I only stab him on the hand. Then the universe has several options to deal with this:
* If this wound does not change my grandfather's future (he will still end up having my father, my father will still end up having me), then the universe **allows** it. There is no paradox.
* If this wound precludes my grandfather from having my father (e.g. his injury makes him use his other hand, therefore not spilling the drink that he's supposed to spill on my grandmother when he is supposed to meet her), then the paradox should be **equally disallowed** (similar to when I try to lethally wound my grandfather).
Note that I mentioned how the universe favors **the path of least resistance**. Since the universe is "inventing" a force that would make my sword veer off course, that requires X amount of force. But if the universe has a way to avoid the paradox using less force (less than X), then it will favor this alternate route.
If the force needed to veer the sword off course is greater than the force needed to knock over that drink and spill it on my grandmother (thus introducing my grandparents, even if he wasn't the one who spilled the drink), then the paradox can be resolved this way and the universe will favor knocking over the glass as it is the path of least resistance.
**This is consistent with Back To The Future**.
* Marty mistakenly intervenes in how his parents fell in love, thus endangering his future. However, the universe has allowed this to happen, as no (unavoidable) paradox has yet been created.
* Marty does start fading away at the end of the movie, because the paradox is getting closer and closer to becoming **unavoidable**. For example, if Marty took several years to get his parents to fall in love, then they probably would have had Marty at a later stage in life (thus creating a paradox).
* However, so long as Marty's parents are still able to fall in love, on time to give birth to Marty at the right time, the universe has not yet deleted Marty, as he is still **possible**.
* Marty ends up fixing the problem by getting them to fall in love in a different way. Marty has changed the past, but in a way that **the future is unaffected**. Changes have been introduced, but no paradox, and therefore the universe does not intervene.
This is the same as the drink that gets spilt on my grandmother. Both the spilt drink and Marty's parents falling in love **invariably** leads to my grandparents giving birth to my father, and Marty's parents giving birth to Marty.
*Minor note: In my example, the glass gets knocked over by the universe. In BTTF, Marty is the driving force behind the correction. However, it's possible to argue that the universe helped Marty along in order to achieve his goal (e.g. making him run faster just so he gets to his destination on time, if being late causes the paradox to become unavoidable). This possibility only applies if helping Marty costs less effort than the universe fixing it by itself.*
**This is also consistent with Doctor Who**.
* In the episode where they are trapped inside a dying TARDIS, the Doctor, Clara and three guests are being chased by monsters (who look like burnt zombies).
* It is revealed that these burnt zombies are actually **future Clara and the future guests**, who have been burnt by the TARDIS' main reactor.
* Two zombies are attached to eachother. The Doctor realizes that these are the two remaining guests (the third one was already dead).
* The Doctor tells the alive guests to **never touch eachother again**, because not touching eachother makes it impossible for them to fuse together, thus creating a paradox (the Doctor **wants** to create a paradox here).
* As long as they never touch, their future selves (the merged zombie) is **impossible**. And if it is impossible, then the universe should delete that future (similar to how Marty fades once he becomes an impossible future).
* This works for a while, and the future seems to be rewritten. However, the guests forget about not touching eachother, and touch eachother. **As if by force**, they are **immediately** joined together and burnt, becoming the burnt zombies.
This force was supplied by the universe. Rather than deleting the future zombies (which takes a lot of effort to rewrite the future), the universe favors **bumping the two guests together**, as this requires less force and it ensures that the future is actually correct and therefore does not need to be deleted.
Note that **Clara** has managed to avoid her burnt future. Because the guests have managed to *stall* the inevitable (touching eachother) long enough, they have changed the future enough to delete burnt Clara (as she is no longer possible), but they did not stall long enough for their **own** futures to be rewritten.
I can't speak to Looper, as I haven't seen it.
Conclusion
----------
**That's proof of how it should work, according to me.** We've seen both cases: trying to prevent changes to the future (BTTF) and trying to create changes to the future (Doctor Who).
In both cases, the universe applies the same rules: it maintained logical consistency at all costs, even if that means it has to invent a "phantom force" (which breaks the rules of the universe, specifically [the first law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics)). In order to **minimize** how much it breaks its own rules, the universe tries to apply the least amount of "phantom force" (= the path of least resistance). | If the time travel is branching, then it needs no explanation, but if it's linear, then I'd imagine it's because time travelling protected them? For example, and I hope this is not just in the CW show, the Reverse Flash, mortal enemy of the Flash (I hope you could've figured that one out on your own), is able to basically exist in every time period because the Speed Force protects him and there's versions of him... everywhen?
But Marty began to disappear in BTTF, whereas Reverse Flash isn't affected at all in his time travelling.
Different worlds have different rules so it depends on the specific universe. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | The highest voted answer makes sense, but it seems to omit a third possibility, which happens to be the theory I subscribe to.
There are many theories. I like this one the most because it makes sense (to me) and is consistent with how the (real world) universe tries to solve similar paradoxes, e.g. when two objects try to occupy the same space at the same time.
First of all, I think we can agree that **if there is no paradox, there is no problem**. In other words, everything that's not a paradox can be assumed to work, since it doesn't create any problems. We only need to consider how the universe handles near-paradoxical situations.
**The universe will do everything it can (including breaking its own rules) in order to avoid a paradox. However, the universe will always favor using the path of least resistance (= the option which requires the least amount of breaking the rules).**
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's use the grandfather paradox. I go back in time, and try to kill my grandfather (before my father was born) by using a sword. The universe cannot allow that, since it could create a paradox. Therefore, I am unable to lethally wound my grandfather.
* When you try to force two objects to occupy the same space at the same time (by pushing really hard), you simply cannot do this. The objects will break long before you'll be able to have them occupy the same space.
* When you try to bring two very strong magnets (with the same polarity) together, they will not allow you to do that. Whenever you bring them close, the magnetic force tends to make you veer off.
* If you use **tremendous** force, you can bring the magnets together, as long as this tremendous force is (1) bigger than the magnetic repulsion force, (2) smaller than the force needed for the magnets to break and (3) continuously applied.
Therefore, if I try to stab my grandfather, the universe will make my sword veer off course, missing my grandfather. As much as I try to stab him, the universe will provide a counterforce. Just like how a magnet uses force to repel a magnet of the same polarity, the universe will use a force to repel the action that **invariably** introduces a paradox.
Suppose I don't intend to lethally wound my grandfather, I only stab him on the hand. Then the universe has several options to deal with this:
* If this wound does not change my grandfather's future (he will still end up having my father, my father will still end up having me), then the universe **allows** it. There is no paradox.
* If this wound precludes my grandfather from having my father (e.g. his injury makes him use his other hand, therefore not spilling the drink that he's supposed to spill on my grandmother when he is supposed to meet her), then the paradox should be **equally disallowed** (similar to when I try to lethally wound my grandfather).
Note that I mentioned how the universe favors **the path of least resistance**. Since the universe is "inventing" a force that would make my sword veer off course, that requires X amount of force. But if the universe has a way to avoid the paradox using less force (less than X), then it will favor this alternate route.
If the force needed to veer the sword off course is greater than the force needed to knock over that drink and spill it on my grandmother (thus introducing my grandparents, even if he wasn't the one who spilled the drink), then the paradox can be resolved this way and the universe will favor knocking over the glass as it is the path of least resistance.
**This is consistent with Back To The Future**.
* Marty mistakenly intervenes in how his parents fell in love, thus endangering his future. However, the universe has allowed this to happen, as no (unavoidable) paradox has yet been created.
* Marty does start fading away at the end of the movie, because the paradox is getting closer and closer to becoming **unavoidable**. For example, if Marty took several years to get his parents to fall in love, then they probably would have had Marty at a later stage in life (thus creating a paradox).
* However, so long as Marty's parents are still able to fall in love, on time to give birth to Marty at the right time, the universe has not yet deleted Marty, as he is still **possible**.
* Marty ends up fixing the problem by getting them to fall in love in a different way. Marty has changed the past, but in a way that **the future is unaffected**. Changes have been introduced, but no paradox, and therefore the universe does not intervene.
This is the same as the drink that gets spilt on my grandmother. Both the spilt drink and Marty's parents falling in love **invariably** leads to my grandparents giving birth to my father, and Marty's parents giving birth to Marty.
*Minor note: In my example, the glass gets knocked over by the universe. In BTTF, Marty is the driving force behind the correction. However, it's possible to argue that the universe helped Marty along in order to achieve his goal (e.g. making him run faster just so he gets to his destination on time, if being late causes the paradox to become unavoidable). This possibility only applies if helping Marty costs less effort than the universe fixing it by itself.*
**This is also consistent with Doctor Who**.
* In the episode where they are trapped inside a dying TARDIS, the Doctor, Clara and three guests are being chased by monsters (who look like burnt zombies).
* It is revealed that these burnt zombies are actually **future Clara and the future guests**, who have been burnt by the TARDIS' main reactor.
* Two zombies are attached to eachother. The Doctor realizes that these are the two remaining guests (the third one was already dead).
* The Doctor tells the alive guests to **never touch eachother again**, because not touching eachother makes it impossible for them to fuse together, thus creating a paradox (the Doctor **wants** to create a paradox here).
* As long as they never touch, their future selves (the merged zombie) is **impossible**. And if it is impossible, then the universe should delete that future (similar to how Marty fades once he becomes an impossible future).
* This works for a while, and the future seems to be rewritten. However, the guests forget about not touching eachother, and touch eachother. **As if by force**, they are **immediately** joined together and burnt, becoming the burnt zombies.
This force was supplied by the universe. Rather than deleting the future zombies (which takes a lot of effort to rewrite the future), the universe favors **bumping the two guests together**, as this requires less force and it ensures that the future is actually correct and therefore does not need to be deleted.
Note that **Clara** has managed to avoid her burnt future. Because the guests have managed to *stall* the inevitable (touching eachother) long enough, they have changed the future enough to delete burnt Clara (as she is no longer possible), but they did not stall long enough for their **own** futures to be rewritten.
I can't speak to Looper, as I haven't seen it.
Conclusion
----------
**That's proof of how it should work, according to me.** We've seen both cases: trying to prevent changes to the future (BTTF) and trying to create changes to the future (Doctor Who).
In both cases, the universe applies the same rules: it maintained logical consistency at all costs, even if that means it has to invent a "phantom force" (which breaks the rules of the universe, specifically [the first law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics)). In order to **minimize** how much it breaks its own rules, the universe tries to apply the least amount of "phantom force" (= the path of least resistance). | This is a variation of Flater's answer about the universe "preventing" the paradox. At first I was going to comment that it requires a sort of "God" or "Deus Ex Machina" to intervene on behalf of the plot. But think of it slightly differently:
Quantum physics tells us that there is an inherent randomness in the universe. Maybe someone with more knowledge of it can explain it better, but essentially each action and object is actually the average of zillions of probabilities. So while two things might appear identical, at a subatomic level they are completely different.
Now at first glance, the Grandfather paradox is an infinite loop. But what if because of the quantum randomness, each iteration is actually different at a quantum level if not at a macro level. This means that there is an infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that you will fail to kill your grandfather. (Or fail to travel back in time)
But with infinity, even the ridiculously improbable will eventually happen. So even if it takes a gazillion journeys through the time loop, one will eventually occur where you fail to kill your grandfather. And since this one does not prompt a recurrence of the loop, this is the one that will "stick".
You'll forget all the iterations of the loop that have been replaced by this one.
This will only happen with paradoxes of course, because if there isn't a paradox there isn't an infinite time loop.
Because it's a *time* loop, all occurrences of the loop happen at the same time so you don't notice the bazillions of epochs that the loop has been through. So it will appear that the universe or some power does intervene to prevent paradoxes. |
15,539 | There are many movies and TV episodes in which a character "crosses his own timeline", sometimes even meeting his past or future self (e.g. *The Day of the Doctor*). Technically, I should say meeting his past self *and* meeting his future self, I suppose, since this is actually what happens.
When they supposedly alter their own future resulting in their never having travelled in time (as in *Back to The Future* or *Looper*), or narrowly avoid doing so, this is known as the "grandfather paradox".
How are we, the audience, supposed to make sense of this, if we actually think it through logically?
If you perform an action which has an effect that you never survived or were never ever born, then how did you travel in time in the first place? (Although it's not really "in the first place", if you travelled backwards in time...)
I know that there is some quantum mechanics theory relevant to this but the average cinema-goer doesn't know about all that stuff, surely... | 2013/12/01 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15539",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/729/"
] | This is a variation of Flater's answer about the universe "preventing" the paradox. At first I was going to comment that it requires a sort of "God" or "Deus Ex Machina" to intervene on behalf of the plot. But think of it slightly differently:
Quantum physics tells us that there is an inherent randomness in the universe. Maybe someone with more knowledge of it can explain it better, but essentially each action and object is actually the average of zillions of probabilities. So while two things might appear identical, at a subatomic level they are completely different.
Now at first glance, the Grandfather paradox is an infinite loop. But what if because of the quantum randomness, each iteration is actually different at a quantum level if not at a macro level. This means that there is an infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that you will fail to kill your grandfather. (Or fail to travel back in time)
But with infinity, even the ridiculously improbable will eventually happen. So even if it takes a gazillion journeys through the time loop, one will eventually occur where you fail to kill your grandfather. And since this one does not prompt a recurrence of the loop, this is the one that will "stick".
You'll forget all the iterations of the loop that have been replaced by this one.
This will only happen with paradoxes of course, because if there isn't a paradox there isn't an infinite time loop.
Because it's a *time* loop, all occurrences of the loop happen at the same time so you don't notice the bazillions of epochs that the loop has been through. So it will appear that the universe or some power does intervene to prevent paradoxes. | If the time travel is branching, then it needs no explanation, but if it's linear, then I'd imagine it's because time travelling protected them? For example, and I hope this is not just in the CW show, the Reverse Flash, mortal enemy of the Flash (I hope you could've figured that one out on your own), is able to basically exist in every time period because the Speed Force protects him and there's versions of him... everywhen?
But Marty began to disappear in BTTF, whereas Reverse Flash isn't affected at all in his time travelling.
Different worlds have different rules so it depends on the specific universe. |
5,060,583 | I'm looking for something like flex/bison that works with C# code. I want to be able to provide some language descriptors and a parser should be generated. | 2011/02/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5060583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/616840/"
] | [ANTLR](http://www.antlr.org/) is a very common parser generator with output bindings for many languages (including c#), but it is LLR which might make it a little more cumbersome than flex/bison if that's what you are accustomed to. | I've had my best luck with ANTLR, it can generate C# code as well. Good Language design support as well with ANTLR Works, an IDE for designing and testing your grammars, and quite a few tutorials to explain the whole thing.
Other option is the F# powerpack that has fsLex and fsYacc. Only brielfy poked at it, seems powerful but very little documentation.
For C# that's the two first thing to look at i think.
GJ |
5,060,583 | I'm looking for something like flex/bison that works with C# code. I want to be able to provide some language descriptors and a parser should be generated. | 2011/02/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5060583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/616840/"
] | There are several options. I've found Irony to be good. It's powerful, and it has a novel syntax utilizing C# operator overloads to convey the syntax of your grammars directly in C#.
Irony - .NET Language Implementation Kit.
<http://irony.codeplex.com/> | I've had my best luck with ANTLR, it can generate C# code as well. Good Language design support as well with ANTLR Works, an IDE for designing and testing your grammars, and quite a few tutorials to explain the whole thing.
Other option is the F# powerpack that has fsLex and fsYacc. Only brielfy poked at it, seems powerful but very little documentation.
For C# that's the two first thing to look at i think.
GJ |
74,284 | Is the phrase "I'm glad it helped" grammatically correct?
And if it is, does it express correctly that I am more than happy that I could help someone? | 2012/07/12 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/74284",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/20713/"
] | "I'm glad it helped" is grammatically correct. But it doesn't mean that you're glad *you* helped, it means you're glad that something helped. It might, from context, be clear that it was something you said, did, or gave them. But "I'm glad it helped" alone doesn't say that.
You can say "I'm glad I helped" or "I'm glad I was able to help" to indicate what you want. But you can't say "I'm glad it helped" unless it's clear what it is you are referring to -- some specific thing that helped. | *I'm glad it helped* is certainly grammatical, and it expresses the meaning you indicate. There are variations including, for example, *I’m glad I was able to help*. More briefly, you can say *My pleasure*. |
74,284 | Is the phrase "I'm glad it helped" grammatically correct?
And if it is, does it express correctly that I am more than happy that I could help someone? | 2012/07/12 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/74284",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/20713/"
] | *I'm glad it helped* is certainly grammatical, and it expresses the meaning you indicate. There are variations including, for example, *I’m glad I was able to help*. More briefly, you can say *My pleasure*. | This is very much comprehensible and commonly used, but it is not grammatically correct as the word "that" has been omitted. I know that it's pedantic but don't tell the guy that his sentence is absolutely correct. Of course, I would definitely advise a foreigner in England to use this phrase as it is polite and idiomatic. |
74,284 | Is the phrase "I'm glad it helped" grammatically correct?
And if it is, does it express correctly that I am more than happy that I could help someone? | 2012/07/12 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/74284",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/20713/"
] | "I'm glad it helped" is grammatically correct. But it doesn't mean that you're glad *you* helped, it means you're glad that something helped. It might, from context, be clear that it was something you said, did, or gave them. But "I'm glad it helped" alone doesn't say that.
You can say "I'm glad I helped" or "I'm glad I was able to help" to indicate what you want. But you can't say "I'm glad it helped" unless it's clear what it is you are referring to -- some specific thing that helped. | This is very much comprehensible and commonly used, but it is not grammatically correct as the word "that" has been omitted. I know that it's pedantic but don't tell the guy that his sentence is absolutely correct. Of course, I would definitely advise a foreigner in England to use this phrase as it is polite and idiomatic. |
401,950 | *I want to say up front, that this question involves minor modification (transient surge/current suppression) to the power supply side of a power tool. Usually I'd be the last to do anything like this (and never have). But in this case, my basic knowledge of electronics suggests that a trivial component inline with or across the mains supply, would have a very beneficial effect - no opening or changing of the tool itself is intended or would be acceptable. I think "anti surge" plugs also exist that do what I'm after, to underline that it's a safe intention. With that, on to my question.....*
I have a power tool. Actually it's [one of these](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Electric-Concrete-2400W-230V/dp/B003OJAOPA), a 2400W 230V rotary concrete saw. I've had one of this model for years, and it's robust and reliable, with one design flaw. If the blade happens to stick, it's handled safely, from a mechanical/safety perspective. But there's clearly some kind of suppression missing or skimped in the design, because it typically also blows the 13A amp mains fuse in the plug.
Since this doesn't happen that often and replacing a fuse is trivial, I've satisfied myself with just keeping a bag of 10 fuses to hand, and replacing if it happens. It's cheaper than any alternative, which is typically an extra £200 for more rigorously built brands such as Makita, Husqvarna and the like - and 230V saws of this kind aren't easily found, so it's a limited market.
But today it clearly stuck bigger than usual because the motor itself has, after 4 years, shorted out. Swap fuse, press start button, 1/2 a second spin and fuse consistently blows. Admittedly it was under heavy use, but still.
As the performance was good, and I never felt endangered by the occasional lapse in surge suppression (it stalled and blew the fuse but never in all that time "kicked" or showed other untoward behaviour), I've replaced it with another of the same. But I'm wondering if there is some kind of component I can put inline or across the supply, which would safely handle whatever happens when the engine seizes, so it doesn't blow fuses and perhaps even avoids burn out in future.
Is this possible to do safely? If so, what would one use? | 2018/10/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/401950",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/149027/"
] | What you are looking for is called an "electronic circuit breaker". Since it sounds like you're not qualified to design such a thing from scratch, it would probably be best to look for commercial products under that designation.
The key issue for you is that you need something that will allow the normal start-up surge of the saw, but trip on anything that exceeds that, such as getting the blade stuck. There might be a standard magenetic/thermal breaker that would work for you, but an all-electronic one would be adjustable to match the exact characteristics of your tool.
Even if the rate of "nuisance" trips remains about the same, it at least eliminates the need to continually buy one-time fuses. | You can choose a 10 or 12A breaker and mount in a electric box with a socket and plug.
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wylex-NHXB10-Single-Circuit-Breaker/dp/B075NPNYYV/ref=zg_bs_1938267031_9?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EA1QB085ATFXXF57A6RN> |
401,950 | *I want to say up front, that this question involves minor modification (transient surge/current suppression) to the power supply side of a power tool. Usually I'd be the last to do anything like this (and never have). But in this case, my basic knowledge of electronics suggests that a trivial component inline with or across the mains supply, would have a very beneficial effect - no opening or changing of the tool itself is intended or would be acceptable. I think "anti surge" plugs also exist that do what I'm after, to underline that it's a safe intention. With that, on to my question.....*
I have a power tool. Actually it's [one of these](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Electric-Concrete-2400W-230V/dp/B003OJAOPA), a 2400W 230V rotary concrete saw. I've had one of this model for years, and it's robust and reliable, with one design flaw. If the blade happens to stick, it's handled safely, from a mechanical/safety perspective. But there's clearly some kind of suppression missing or skimped in the design, because it typically also blows the 13A amp mains fuse in the plug.
Since this doesn't happen that often and replacing a fuse is trivial, I've satisfied myself with just keeping a bag of 10 fuses to hand, and replacing if it happens. It's cheaper than any alternative, which is typically an extra £200 for more rigorously built brands such as Makita, Husqvarna and the like - and 230V saws of this kind aren't easily found, so it's a limited market.
But today it clearly stuck bigger than usual because the motor itself has, after 4 years, shorted out. Swap fuse, press start button, 1/2 a second spin and fuse consistently blows. Admittedly it was under heavy use, but still.
As the performance was good, and I never felt endangered by the occasional lapse in surge suppression (it stalled and blew the fuse but never in all that time "kicked" or showed other untoward behaviour), I've replaced it with another of the same. But I'm wondering if there is some kind of component I can put inline or across the supply, which would safely handle whatever happens when the engine seizes, so it doesn't blow fuses and perhaps even avoids burn out in future.
Is this possible to do safely? If so, what would one use? | 2018/10/18 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/401950",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/149027/"
] | The term "surge suppressor" is used to describe something that protects against a surge in VOLTAGE, i.e. a problem with the line voltage coming from your utility service. What you are talking about would be something that operates on CURRENT. The technology is called is a "Current Sensing Relay" (CSR), also sometimes called an "Electronic Shear Pin" because it functions similar to a mechanical shear pin, which was a sacrificial device put into a machine that was made to break first if something jammed, but was easy and cheap to replace. CSRs are used all the time on industrial machinery for this very reason. But a CSR will turn it OFF, not limit the current. Limiting the current while also allowing it to stay running, is possible but not practical because the only way to limit the current that a motor wants to draw is to reduce the voltage getting to it. In the case of a power tool like yours that uses what's called a "Universal Motor", that then also severely reduces the speed and in doing so, may create a bad situation with regard to your blade, which could be ruined in a matter of seconds at too slow of a speed.
I looked around a little and couldn't find a CSR that would be simple to just plug your tool into, but there are plenty out there that you could mount into a box and run wires to and from it. Most likely the reason they don't exist is that it is REALLY cheap and simple to just build that into the tool! Most cutting tools that I use either have it in the electrics, or use a mechanical equivalent. Often on circular blades like that it is a specially designed washer that will "slip" if the blade jams. Perhaps your cutter came with one and you didn't realize why it was there? This isn't exactly what yours probably looks like, but it shows the concept. The "blade washers" here are designed to only grip the blade tight enough to do the desired work, but if the blade jams, they let the shaft keep turning until you can react to remove your finger from the trigger. Maybe you didn't understand the importance and discarded them or lost them? maybe you are over tightening your lock nut? It shouldn't be blowing the fuses!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0Y8Zk.jpg) | You can choose a 10 or 12A breaker and mount in a electric box with a socket and plug.
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wylex-NHXB10-Single-Circuit-Breaker/dp/B075NPNYYV/ref=zg_bs_1938267031_9?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EA1QB085ATFXXF57A6RN> |
939,397 | I've seen a lot of examples which use
**getAccessibleContext().setAccessibleDescription(...)**
to set some "magic" description.
What is the use of this description? Where can it be seen and
how should it support accessibility?
Why **setDescription(...)** is not used?
Additionally, what is your opinion / experience with Java accessibility
stuff? | 2009/06/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/939397",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/76393/"
] | I haven't actually used Swing's accessibility facilities in my applications (and I probably should), but I presume that it will aid in the use of screen readers and other technologies which to improve the accessibility of an application.
From the [Accessibility and the Swing Set](http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/accessibility/index.html) article:
>
> If an application fully supports the
> Java Accessibility API, it can be
> compatible with, and friendly toward,
> screen readers, screen magnifiers, and
> other kinds of assistive technologies.
>
>
>
The linked article goes in to some depth about the accessibility features of Swing and the [Accessibily API](http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/javax/accessibility/package-summary.html). | As pointed out the accessible information is used to expose information to assistive technologies such as screen readers (in short as a blind computer user I use a screen reader to gather useful information about what control has focus and other useful things happening in a application and then for it to speak it out to me. Examples of screen readers are NVDA www.nvda-project.org for windows, Orca <http://live.gnome.org/Orca> for the gnome desktop on unix platforms and voiceover included by default in MacOSX). For a number of standard controls which contain text you may be able to get away without having to explicitly set accessible information (eg. if you have a button with the text word "OK" then this probably will be spoken fine by a screen reader. The importance of setting accessible information comes in when you have no text showing (eg. a button with a graphic label) or when you are developing a custom control (from memory without going back through some of the Java swing docs, I think the accessible name is to identify the control and accessible description is to provide extra information, may be a clue as how to use it if its a custom control).
Now if you wish to see how this works, NVDA and Orca are opensource projects and voiceover is included in MacOSX 10.4 (I think) and higher, so you can try one of these at no cost (unlike some of the commercial offerings which can be very expensive). |
25,480 | Some of the boards in my hardwood floors (1949) are disintegrating.
Can anyone tell me what gives? And how I might go about stopping it?
 | 2013/02/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/25480",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/11749/"
] | Its either rot or termites.
The discoloring suggests a water leak that persisted long enough to rot. Do you have access under that spot? Is the subfloor similarly discolored? If so, it may need to be repaired at the same time as the board.
Board replacement is possible by any flooring contractor by sawing out the center of the board and chiseling/prying out the side pieces. The replacement piece will be dropped in by cutting off the lower half of its groove (of the tounge/groove pair) and glueing it in. Small finish nails can also be used to tack it down (and set and filled with colored wood putty).
The new piece may be a bit proud if the floor has been refinished more than once, and can be presanded to blend.
Here's a [video](http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/video/0,,1631521,00.html) found by Shirlock Hoimes on the TOH site | Looks like water damage. Did it occur while you owned the house? If so, and you don't remember any flooding, then the water is coming from underneath the floor. This needs to be fixed or you will continue to get rot and mold. Try to get access to the subfloor from below. The rotted pieces will need to be replaced so you could remove them to take a look at the subfloor to try to find how the water is spreading. |
131,299 | If I were to publicly display the 6 digit code from my google authenticator, would my account security be diminished beyond it's valid life time?
What if it were the code and the time it was generated?
What if it were N sequential codes?
I'd like to know why or why not for each case. | 2016/07/28 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/131299",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/118844/"
] | No. Thats the whole point of TOTP/HOTP. That it should be infeasible, given any sequence of valid codes, to generate future codes or recreate the seed.
The reason is that the TOTP/HOTP algoritm, use HMAC-SHA1 as hash, given the "challenge" (either current UNIX time or a counter of usages) and the secret "seed" as key. The resulting hash output is then truncated according to a very specific rule.
This would mean, in your first case, it would be impossible to do, as multiple valid keys will come up with the "correct" 6-digit code but will turn out to be incorrect as future codes from these "valid keys" will be invalid.
To successfully mount a bruteforce attack against a seed, you would atleast need 2 valid auth codes, possible more, and even in that case, its infeasible (eg, practically impossible) to do it. | The first OTP definition in RFC 2289 based on S/Key had even this design requirement.
It was not ment to implement two factor authentication but to merely protect the password or passphrase. It was simply used to avoid the password crossing the network - obviously it was assumed that the transmission could be evesdropped or unencrypted.
So as already stated, it is a fundamental design in all OTP systems (S/Key, mOTP, OATH) to not allow the guessing of future passwords based on used passwords.
**But:** With an event based algorithm like HOTP you can of course create OTP lists. If you generate an OTP value *now* and post it on the internet but don't use it for login, everyone else can use it. It only gets invalidated, when this very value gets used or a later value gets used. |
144,926 | I have upgraded my ubuntu with 11.10 i368,after completion of installation i have connected my EVDO card and configured all mobile broadband setting. At first it got connected and was able to surf properly....but after completion of installation and updating all packages (its was like 414 packages to download) i was no more able setup my broadband connection with EVDO.
I always Enable the mobile broadband before conneting,but still i was unable to connect my EVDO.
Any solution???? | 2012/06/01 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/144926",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/67627/"
] | Has the resolvconf got updated? Go through the following link and give it a shot. Worked for me for my BSNL EVDO (Prithvi dongle)
>
> You might have issues with resolvconf stomping on your DNS
> configuration in /etc/resolv.conf - but if you're getting an IP
> address from the remote peer then the modem is working, even if you
> can't access any websites etc. If you don't use resolvconf, consider
> just uninstalling it.
>
>
>
Source: <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NetworkManager/Hardware/3G/Probing> | Look for comparable reports in Launchpad: <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/?field.searchtext=evdo&search=Search&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=OPINION&field.status%3Alist=INVALID&field.status%3Alist=WONTFIX&field.status%3Alist=EXPIRED&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.status%3Alist=INPROGRESS&field.status%3Alist=FIXCOMMITTED&field.status%3Alist=FIXRELEASED&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.tag=&field.tags_combinator=ANY&field.status_upstream-empty-marker=1&field.upstream_target=&field.has_cve.used=&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.affects_me.used=&field.has_patch.used=&field.has_branches.used=&field.has_branches=on&field.has_no_branches.used=&field.has_no_branches=on&field.has_blueprints.used=&field.has_blueprints=on&field.has_no_blueprints.used=&field.has_no_blueprints=on> |
27,972 | This is in part a UX and a legal (UK) question.
Is there a best practice in terms of opt in statements for data protection for registration. I have had our CRM team suggest that we should include an automatic opt in as part of the T's & C's so a user has to receive communications (email / phone / post / text) from us and has no option but to proceed with this.
I am opposed to this on a user level and also on an ethical level as we are a good cause.
Any feedback on this greatly appreciated. | 2012/10/18 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/27972",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/17299/"
] | This is a really interesting question.
My understanding of the legal situation is a user doesn't have to specifically opt-in to your marketing, providing you give them a way to opt-out in every email you send them. This seems to be referred to as 'soft opt-in', or 'implied consent' - they give you their details as part of getting a quote (or signing up to something else on your site, or similar) and that's enough to think they might want to be on your mailing list.
However... Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'm definitely with you on the ethical level.
The other problem with not asking your users to specifically sign up to a mailing list is the spam button in their email client. Apparently, [30% of recipients click the spam button](http://kb.mailchimp.com/article/ask-before-you-blast) on marketing emails even if they have signed up. This becomes a whole lot more likely if they didn't actually ask to get the emails. Not sure how many times that button would need to be clicked before the ISP put you on the spam list, but I'm willing to bet it's not too many.
There's also a good UK-based write up [here](http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/sales-and-marketing/marketing-and-advertising/your-email-marketing-and-anti-spam-law) that articulates the issues a whole lot better than me. | This is the official line ( 'The Information Commissioner’s Office is *the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals*'
<http://www.ico.gov.uk/global/faqs/privacy_and_electronic_communications_regulations_for_the_public.aspx>
Q: I am receiving unsolicited marketing emails. What can I do about these?
The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations lay down rules for organisations sending unsolicited marketing by electronic means. The rules are different depending whether the recipient is an 'individual subscriber' (eg Jonsmith@yahoo) or a 'corporate subscriber' (eg Jonsmith@ico).
The regulations say that organisations must have prior consent to send unsolicited marketing material by electronic mail to individual subscribers, unless they have obtained the details during the course of a sale, or negotiations towards one, and they give you the opportunity to object in every message. If you are an individual subscriber receiving unsolicited marketing by electronic mail, and the organisation hasn't stopped even though you've tried to opt out, you can complain to the ICO.
If you are a corporate subscriber the prior consent rule does not apply. Marketing communications should still identify the sender and provide a valid address. Depending on the information the company holds about you, a corporate subscriber may also have rights under the Data Protection Act.
[Read our topic guide about spam email](http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/online/spam_emails.aspx) |
893 | I'm hosting a Minecraft server with 14 friends of mine playing on it. We peacefully build houses and structures, hold events, go kill the enderdragon, stuff like that. All is peaceful. Until one day, another friend of mine (let's call him "A") joined the server. Then our houses got griefed and burned. Our stuff is all gone. We (me, another owner, and 2 mods) took a month to investigate and finally found that "A" was griefing. We talked to him and told him not to grief again or else we'll kick him. And eventually we kicked him.
And now the problem begins. A moderator wrote to me saying that I should give "A" another chance, and that he apologized. So I thought, why not? Then, after I added him back -- on the very same day -- my best friend's house got filled with water. Checking the records, I found out that it was "A" again. I wanted to kick him, but it would hurt our friendship. I mean, we meet each other at school every day. He would be so mad at me. But if I don't kick him, 3 other players will leave the server.
What should I do to solve this mess? | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/893",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/708/"
] | It's always a bit tricky when you have a situation where real life and online life cross. Fundamentally, you have to decide which matters more, the real life situation or preventing the problems online.
If it is a friendship that you both value, then it may be worth having a chat with him offline about the behavior. Make sure he understands why it is a problem, that people, including you, don't like it and explain what the consequences will be. Get him to agree that he understands.
If he continues to do the behavior, follow through. You talked to him in real life and explained what would happen. He agreed to it and did it anyway. He doesn't have any right to be mad at that point. If he's willing to lie to your face, grief people, and then get upset about being removed, then he isn't really that good of a friend to begin with and probably isn't a big loss.
You could also consider allowing him back in eventually, but I'd suggest using increasing amounts of time that you don't let him back for, so he knows it will get more and more serious until hopefully his desire to spend time with you will offset his desire to cause trouble. | Create a second server where you can play and have fun and leave him a copy where he can destroy if that is his prefered way of playing. |
893 | I'm hosting a Minecraft server with 14 friends of mine playing on it. We peacefully build houses and structures, hold events, go kill the enderdragon, stuff like that. All is peaceful. Until one day, another friend of mine (let's call him "A") joined the server. Then our houses got griefed and burned. Our stuff is all gone. We (me, another owner, and 2 mods) took a month to investigate and finally found that "A" was griefing. We talked to him and told him not to grief again or else we'll kick him. And eventually we kicked him.
And now the problem begins. A moderator wrote to me saying that I should give "A" another chance, and that he apologized. So I thought, why not? Then, after I added him back -- on the very same day -- my best friend's house got filled with water. Checking the records, I found out that it was "A" again. I wanted to kick him, but it would hurt our friendship. I mean, we meet each other at school every day. He would be so mad at me. But if I don't kick him, 3 other players will leave the server.
What should I do to solve this mess? | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/893",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/708/"
] | It's always a bit tricky when you have a situation where real life and online life cross. Fundamentally, you have to decide which matters more, the real life situation or preventing the problems online.
If it is a friendship that you both value, then it may be worth having a chat with him offline about the behavior. Make sure he understands why it is a problem, that people, including you, don't like it and explain what the consequences will be. Get him to agree that he understands.
If he continues to do the behavior, follow through. You talked to him in real life and explained what would happen. He agreed to it and did it anyway. He doesn't have any right to be mad at that point. If he's willing to lie to your face, grief people, and then get upset about being removed, then he isn't really that good of a friend to begin with and probably isn't a big loss.
You could also consider allowing him back in eventually, but I'd suggest using increasing amounts of time that you don't let him back for, so he knows it will get more and more serious until hopefully his desire to spend time with you will offset his desire to cause trouble. | I think it is rather simple. You like this game, you enjoy playing it with other people.
Tell him that, if he values you as a friend, he will stop his behavior, if not just kick him.
People sometimes misses the real meaning of what is going on because they think is only an "online" event. But what if you were building real stuff, and he came and destroy it, would you accept that? What if you were writing a story on your computer, that is "virtual", would you like if he came and deleted it all?
You invest time in that game, is something you enjoy, the game is online, it may not be important, but your time and feelings are, if he can not accept/understand/respect that, do you think he will be able to understand in other contexts?
Value your time and feelings, and have friends that value them also. |
893 | I'm hosting a Minecraft server with 14 friends of mine playing on it. We peacefully build houses and structures, hold events, go kill the enderdragon, stuff like that. All is peaceful. Until one day, another friend of mine (let's call him "A") joined the server. Then our houses got griefed and burned. Our stuff is all gone. We (me, another owner, and 2 mods) took a month to investigate and finally found that "A" was griefing. We talked to him and told him not to grief again or else we'll kick him. And eventually we kicked him.
And now the problem begins. A moderator wrote to me saying that I should give "A" another chance, and that he apologized. So I thought, why not? Then, after I added him back -- on the very same day -- my best friend's house got filled with water. Checking the records, I found out that it was "A" again. I wanted to kick him, but it would hurt our friendship. I mean, we meet each other at school every day. He would be so mad at me. But if I don't kick him, 3 other players will leave the server.
What should I do to solve this mess? | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/893",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/708/"
] | It's always a bit tricky when you have a situation where real life and online life cross. Fundamentally, you have to decide which matters more, the real life situation or preventing the problems online.
If it is a friendship that you both value, then it may be worth having a chat with him offline about the behavior. Make sure he understands why it is a problem, that people, including you, don't like it and explain what the consequences will be. Get him to agree that he understands.
If he continues to do the behavior, follow through. You talked to him in real life and explained what would happen. He agreed to it and did it anyway. He doesn't have any right to be mad at that point. If he's willing to lie to your face, grief people, and then get upset about being removed, then he isn't really that good of a friend to begin with and probably isn't a big loss.
You could also consider allowing him back in eventually, but I'd suggest using increasing amounts of time that you don't let him back for, so he knows it will get more and more serious until hopefully his desire to spend time with you will offset his desire to cause trouble. | In an ideal case, he should have to be obey all the same rules as any other member of the server, even if you did not know him in real life.
There are two ways to achieve this, the first is by excluding people who break the rules, the second is by making the rules impossible to break.
As an aside, you say, *"He would be mad at me"*, but I'm not sure how that is more important than you being mad at him, let alone whether he is even actually justified in being angry. Consider that you are putting his wants above your own *and* your other friends.
---
1. Explain to him that he *will* be kicked if he does it again, that these are the rules on the server and *any* case of griefing is dealt with in the same way. Then follow through.
---
2. If you would rather enforce your rules by modifying the game itself, then there are some protective things you can do for you and your friends.
* Mods which restrict certain people to a "starter area" are common in most public minecraft servers
* Possibly other mods (*I'm not aware of what all is out there*), which restrict harmful behavior in some way
* Frequent and automatic backups of the server, just reload a backup when he goes on a destruction spree.
* A second server occasionally duplicated from the first one that he can run around in. |
893 | I'm hosting a Minecraft server with 14 friends of mine playing on it. We peacefully build houses and structures, hold events, go kill the enderdragon, stuff like that. All is peaceful. Until one day, another friend of mine (let's call him "A") joined the server. Then our houses got griefed and burned. Our stuff is all gone. We (me, another owner, and 2 mods) took a month to investigate and finally found that "A" was griefing. We talked to him and told him not to grief again or else we'll kick him. And eventually we kicked him.
And now the problem begins. A moderator wrote to me saying that I should give "A" another chance, and that he apologized. So I thought, why not? Then, after I added him back -- on the very same day -- my best friend's house got filled with water. Checking the records, I found out that it was "A" again. I wanted to kick him, but it would hurt our friendship. I mean, we meet each other at school every day. He would be so mad at me. But if I don't kick him, 3 other players will leave the server.
What should I do to solve this mess? | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/893",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/708/"
] | I think it is rather simple. You like this game, you enjoy playing it with other people.
Tell him that, if he values you as a friend, he will stop his behavior, if not just kick him.
People sometimes misses the real meaning of what is going on because they think is only an "online" event. But what if you were building real stuff, and he came and destroy it, would you accept that? What if you were writing a story on your computer, that is "virtual", would you like if he came and deleted it all?
You invest time in that game, is something you enjoy, the game is online, it may not be important, but your time and feelings are, if he can not accept/understand/respect that, do you think he will be able to understand in other contexts?
Value your time and feelings, and have friends that value them also. | Create a second server where you can play and have fun and leave him a copy where he can destroy if that is his prefered way of playing. |
893 | I'm hosting a Minecraft server with 14 friends of mine playing on it. We peacefully build houses and structures, hold events, go kill the enderdragon, stuff like that. All is peaceful. Until one day, another friend of mine (let's call him "A") joined the server. Then our houses got griefed and burned. Our stuff is all gone. We (me, another owner, and 2 mods) took a month to investigate and finally found that "A" was griefing. We talked to him and told him not to grief again or else we'll kick him. And eventually we kicked him.
And now the problem begins. A moderator wrote to me saying that I should give "A" another chance, and that he apologized. So I thought, why not? Then, after I added him back -- on the very same day -- my best friend's house got filled with water. Checking the records, I found out that it was "A" again. I wanted to kick him, but it would hurt our friendship. I mean, we meet each other at school every day. He would be so mad at me. But if I don't kick him, 3 other players will leave the server.
What should I do to solve this mess? | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/893",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/708/"
] | In an ideal case, he should have to be obey all the same rules as any other member of the server, even if you did not know him in real life.
There are two ways to achieve this, the first is by excluding people who break the rules, the second is by making the rules impossible to break.
As an aside, you say, *"He would be mad at me"*, but I'm not sure how that is more important than you being mad at him, let alone whether he is even actually justified in being angry. Consider that you are putting his wants above your own *and* your other friends.
---
1. Explain to him that he *will* be kicked if he does it again, that these are the rules on the server and *any* case of griefing is dealt with in the same way. Then follow through.
---
2. If you would rather enforce your rules by modifying the game itself, then there are some protective things you can do for you and your friends.
* Mods which restrict certain people to a "starter area" are common in most public minecraft servers
* Possibly other mods (*I'm not aware of what all is out there*), which restrict harmful behavior in some way
* Frequent and automatic backups of the server, just reload a backup when he goes on a destruction spree.
* A second server occasionally duplicated from the first one that he can run around in. | Create a second server where you can play and have fun and leave him a copy where he can destroy if that is his prefered way of playing. |
152,448 | I saw in a [recent answer](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/152447/15689) a reference to 1/3 casters and 1/2 casters, and have never encountered this terminology before:
>
> Paladin's are known as 1/2 casters, so their spell progression isn't as big as full casters.
>
>
>
What does it mean to be a 1/3 caster vs a 1/2 caster vs a full caster? How does one distinguish between the three, and which classes correspond to which types of caster? | 2019/07/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/152448",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15689/"
] | It refers to the speed at which classes gain spell slots and new levels of spells during their progression. Full casters (like a Wizard) gain spell slots fastest, while 1/3rd casters only gain slots and new spell levels at about a third that rate.
The name "1/2 caster" and "1/3 caster" comes from the Multiclassing rules, which state that if you have levels in multiple classes capable of casting spells, you use a specific table to determine your spell slots. You only get to add half and a third of the levels in those classes (rounded down) to determine your total spell slots.
You can read more about this in the PHB on page 164, under the header "Spellcasting".
Note that these terms only refer to classes that have the **Spellcasting** class feature. Classes that cast spells through a different system (like a Warlock or 4 Elements Monk) don't have a caster progression and don't stack with levels in other classes when multiclassing.
For a list of classes:
### Full casters
* Bard
* Cleric
* Druid
* Sorceror
* Wizard
### Half casters
* Paladin
* Ranger
### Third casters
* Eldritch Knight Fighters
* Arcane Trickster Rogues | The fractions here come from the multiclassing rules: when figuring out what level of “multiclassed spellcaster” you are, in order to figure out your spell slots, you need to add your full level in some classes (like wizard), half your level in other classes (like paladin), and a third of your level in yet other classes (like arcane trickster). These fractions roughly correspond to how much spellcasting those classes actually give: wizards and other “1” classes get 9th-level spells, paladins and other “½” classes get 5th-level spells, and arcane tricksters and other “⅓” classes get 4th-level spells. |
152,448 | I saw in a [recent answer](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/152447/15689) a reference to 1/3 casters and 1/2 casters, and have never encountered this terminology before:
>
> Paladin's are known as 1/2 casters, so their spell progression isn't as big as full casters.
>
>
>
What does it mean to be a 1/3 caster vs a 1/2 caster vs a full caster? How does one distinguish between the three, and which classes correspond to which types of caster? | 2019/07/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/152448",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15689/"
] | "1/X Caster" is shorthand for how quickly a character gains "spellcaster levels" (and with them, more spell slots)
==================================================================================================================
The progression for each of these spellcaster types looks like this, with the first column representing Character Level as a Single-classed X and the other columns representing the "Spellcaster Level" they have as that Single-classed X at a given level.
| **Character Level** | **Full** | **Half** | **Third** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1 | - | - |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | - |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 6 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| 7 | 7 | 4 | 3 |
| 8 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 9 | 5 | 3 |
| 10 | 10 | 5 | 4 |
| 11 | 11 | 6 | 4 |
| 12 | 12 | 6 | 4 |
| 13 | 13 | 7 | 5 |
| 14 | 14 | 7 | 5 |
| 15 | 15 | 8 | 5 |
| 16 | 16 | 8 | 6 |
| 17 | 17 | 9 | 6 |
| 18 | 18 | 9 | 6 |
| 19 | 19 | 10 | 7 |
| 20 | 20 | 10 | 7 |
The classes that fall into these categories are:
| **Full** | **Half** | **Third** | **Other** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bard | Artificer\* | Arcane Trickster | Warlock† |
| Cleric | Paladin | Artificer (Unearthed Arcana) | |
| Druid | Ranger | Eldritch Knight | |
| Sorcerer | | | |
| Wizard | | | |
\*The Artificer is a Half-Spellcaster, but unlike other Half Spellcasters, they gain their spellcasting feature at level 1, instead of level 2, and are treated like level 1 spellcasters at that level.
†Warlocks are unique in that their spell access *resembles* that of a Full Spellcaster, but their Spell Slots are completely divorced from the system that all other spellcasters use, so they need their own category.
Your spellcaster level determines how many spell slots you have, and the maximum level of spell slot that you'll have will (usually) be half your spellcasting level, rounded up.
So if you're a level 9 Paladin (Half Spellcaster), you have a Spellcaster level of 5 (See the Character Level 9 row for a Half Spellcaster). Therefore, you have spell slots equivalent to a level 5 Cleric (Full Spellcaster) and to a level 13 (or 14 or 15) Eldritch Knight (Third Spellcaster)—and for each of these characters, their Spell Slot total is:
* 4 1st Level Slots,
* 3 2nd Level Slots,
* 2 3rd Level Slots.
"1/X Caster" also comes into play in the Multiclassing Rules
============================================================
What kind of Spellcaster you are affects how your levels are added together when you Multiclass into multiple kinds of spellcaster.
>
> **Spell Slots.** You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature.† Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
>
>
> —**Multiclassing**, Player's Handbook, pg. 164
>
>
>
†Artificers have a special rule: when adding their levels for multiclassing purposes, you round up after dividing by two, instead of rounding down. Note also that Warlocks are not included in this list; again, their Spellcasting is completely different from other classes, so they aren't considered in calculating a character's normal spellcasting level.
For example, suppose we have a Multiclassed Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 11. We add their levels by first dividing them by the level of spellcaster they are, so we take 5 Wizard Levels (5 \* 1/1 = 5) and 11 Eldritch Knight Levels (11 \* 1/3 = 3.666 → Rounded Down to 3) and add them together to find that this character is the equivalent of a Level 8 Spellcaster, gaining 4 1st Level Slots, 3 2nd Level Slots, 3 3rd Level Slots, and 2 4th Level Slots. | The fractions here come from the multiclassing rules: when figuring out what level of “multiclassed spellcaster” you are, in order to figure out your spell slots, you need to add your full level in some classes (like wizard), half your level in other classes (like paladin), and a third of your level in yet other classes (like arcane trickster). These fractions roughly correspond to how much spellcasting those classes actually give: wizards and other “1” classes get 9th-level spells, paladins and other “½” classes get 5th-level spells, and arcane tricksters and other “⅓” classes get 4th-level spells. |
152,448 | I saw in a [recent answer](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/152447/15689) a reference to 1/3 casters and 1/2 casters, and have never encountered this terminology before:
>
> Paladin's are known as 1/2 casters, so their spell progression isn't as big as full casters.
>
>
>
What does it mean to be a 1/3 caster vs a 1/2 caster vs a full caster? How does one distinguish between the three, and which classes correspond to which types of caster? | 2019/07/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/152448",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15689/"
] | "1/X Caster" is shorthand for how quickly a character gains "spellcaster levels" (and with them, more spell slots)
==================================================================================================================
The progression for each of these spellcaster types looks like this, with the first column representing Character Level as a Single-classed X and the other columns representing the "Spellcaster Level" they have as that Single-classed X at a given level.
| **Character Level** | **Full** | **Half** | **Third** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1 | - | - |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | - |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 6 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| 7 | 7 | 4 | 3 |
| 8 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 9 | 5 | 3 |
| 10 | 10 | 5 | 4 |
| 11 | 11 | 6 | 4 |
| 12 | 12 | 6 | 4 |
| 13 | 13 | 7 | 5 |
| 14 | 14 | 7 | 5 |
| 15 | 15 | 8 | 5 |
| 16 | 16 | 8 | 6 |
| 17 | 17 | 9 | 6 |
| 18 | 18 | 9 | 6 |
| 19 | 19 | 10 | 7 |
| 20 | 20 | 10 | 7 |
The classes that fall into these categories are:
| **Full** | **Half** | **Third** | **Other** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bard | Artificer\* | Arcane Trickster | Warlock† |
| Cleric | Paladin | Artificer (Unearthed Arcana) | |
| Druid | Ranger | Eldritch Knight | |
| Sorcerer | | | |
| Wizard | | | |
\*The Artificer is a Half-Spellcaster, but unlike other Half Spellcasters, they gain their spellcasting feature at level 1, instead of level 2, and are treated like level 1 spellcasters at that level.
†Warlocks are unique in that their spell access *resembles* that of a Full Spellcaster, but their Spell Slots are completely divorced from the system that all other spellcasters use, so they need their own category.
Your spellcaster level determines how many spell slots you have, and the maximum level of spell slot that you'll have will (usually) be half your spellcasting level, rounded up.
So if you're a level 9 Paladin (Half Spellcaster), you have a Spellcaster level of 5 (See the Character Level 9 row for a Half Spellcaster). Therefore, you have spell slots equivalent to a level 5 Cleric (Full Spellcaster) and to a level 13 (or 14 or 15) Eldritch Knight (Third Spellcaster)—and for each of these characters, their Spell Slot total is:
* 4 1st Level Slots,
* 3 2nd Level Slots,
* 2 3rd Level Slots.
"1/X Caster" also comes into play in the Multiclassing Rules
============================================================
What kind of Spellcaster you are affects how your levels are added together when you Multiclass into multiple kinds of spellcaster.
>
> **Spell Slots.** You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature.† Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
>
>
> —**Multiclassing**, Player's Handbook, pg. 164
>
>
>
†Artificers have a special rule: when adding their levels for multiclassing purposes, you round up after dividing by two, instead of rounding down. Note also that Warlocks are not included in this list; again, their Spellcasting is completely different from other classes, so they aren't considered in calculating a character's normal spellcasting level.
For example, suppose we have a Multiclassed Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 11. We add their levels by first dividing them by the level of spellcaster they are, so we take 5 Wizard Levels (5 \* 1/1 = 5) and 11 Eldritch Knight Levels (11 \* 1/3 = 3.666 → Rounded Down to 3) and add them together to find that this character is the equivalent of a Level 8 Spellcaster, gaining 4 1st Level Slots, 3 2nd Level Slots, 3 3rd Level Slots, and 2 4th Level Slots. | It refers to the speed at which classes gain spell slots and new levels of spells during their progression. Full casters (like a Wizard) gain spell slots fastest, while 1/3rd casters only gain slots and new spell levels at about a third that rate.
The name "1/2 caster" and "1/3 caster" comes from the Multiclassing rules, which state that if you have levels in multiple classes capable of casting spells, you use a specific table to determine your spell slots. You only get to add half and a third of the levels in those classes (rounded down) to determine your total spell slots.
You can read more about this in the PHB on page 164, under the header "Spellcasting".
Note that these terms only refer to classes that have the **Spellcasting** class feature. Classes that cast spells through a different system (like a Warlock or 4 Elements Monk) don't have a caster progression and don't stack with levels in other classes when multiclassing.
For a list of classes:
### Full casters
* Bard
* Cleric
* Druid
* Sorceror
* Wizard
### Half casters
* Paladin
* Ranger
### Third casters
* Eldritch Knight Fighters
* Arcane Trickster Rogues |
16,817 | My question is what are potential reasons for Naive Bayes to perform well on a train set but poorly on a test set?
I am working with a variation of the [20news dataset](http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/). The dataset has documents, which are represented as "bag of words" with no metadata. My goal is to classify each document into 1 of 20 labels. My error rate on training data is 20%, but my error rate on test data is 90% (for comparison, guessing yields 95% error rate). For some reason, my classifier is predicting class 16 for almost all documents in test set. In train set this problem does not occur. Furthermore, this issue persists with different train/test splits. I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong.
Here are some things I've considered:
* Is Naive Bayes overfitting to the training set? If Naive Bayes is implemented correctly, I don't think it should be overfitting like this on a task that it's considered appropriate for (text classification).
* Is my train/test split bad? I've tried splitting the data in different ways, but it does not seem to make a difference. Right now I'm splitting the data by placing a random 90% sample of documents into the train set and the rest into the test set - separately for each label.
* Problems with numerical accuracy? I've implemented the calculations in log probabilities, but in any case, I would expect that problem to manifest in train set as well.
* Problems with unseen words? The fraction of unseen words relative to a particular newsgroup is the same, 20%, for both train and test sets.
* Problems with Laplace smoothing? I wasn't sure what was the appropriate way to implement Laplace smoothing for this task, so I tried a variety of ways. To my surprise they all yielded very similar results.
* Imbalanced dataset? Doesn't look like it. There are approximately as many unique words inside documents of label 16 as there are in other classes. Also the number of documents per each label is roughly even.
Edit: Turns out I had an implementation bug. I won't detail it here as it will be unlikely to help anyone with similar issues. | 2017/02/07 | [
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/16817",
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com",
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/users/23480/"
] | Text mining is rather a tricky field of machine learning application, since all you've got is "unstructured and semi structured data" and the preprocessing and feature extraction step matters a lot. [The text mining handbook](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/893219.The_Text_Mining_Handbook) is a priceless reference in this area of research. but to be specific about your case, I can suggest two answers:
* as noted, preprocessing step plays a very important role here. in text mining it is likely to get trapped inside the curse of dimensionality, since you probably have say around 1000 documents but more than 15000 unique words in a dataset. techniques such as stemming and lemmatizing, static and dynamic stopword and punctuation erasing all aim solving this issue. So preprocessing and feature extraction is not an option. it is a MUST
* Naive Bayes model is a linear classifier. Even though it is a very popular algorithm in text classification, there are still risks of rising such problems as yours. the main reason could be that your word-space matrix is highly sparse. you must have paid attention to the fact that in calculating the posterior probability of belonging to a class, Naive Bayes, naively multiplies all single probabilities of `P(y|x_i)`. and if there is at least one zero probability, your final answer would be zero, no matter what other inverse observation probabilities are. If you have implemented the algorithm yourself, try already-constructed tools in MATLAB, Python sci-kit learn library, or data mining softwares like KNIME and RapidMiner. they have delicately handled such practical issues in implementing Naive Bayes algorithm. | Unless you're doing it on some other related file, you're not removing stopwords. If label 16 makes a great use of such, that's a plausible explanation for such result.
On the other hand (unless again, you're doing it on some other file) you're not reducing words to their morphemes. Not doing so might cause these kind of anomalies. Check the Nltk documentation to learn how to do such thing. |
16,817 | My question is what are potential reasons for Naive Bayes to perform well on a train set but poorly on a test set?
I am working with a variation of the [20news dataset](http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/). The dataset has documents, which are represented as "bag of words" with no metadata. My goal is to classify each document into 1 of 20 labels. My error rate on training data is 20%, but my error rate on test data is 90% (for comparison, guessing yields 95% error rate). For some reason, my classifier is predicting class 16 for almost all documents in test set. In train set this problem does not occur. Furthermore, this issue persists with different train/test splits. I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong.
Here are some things I've considered:
* Is Naive Bayes overfitting to the training set? If Naive Bayes is implemented correctly, I don't think it should be overfitting like this on a task that it's considered appropriate for (text classification).
* Is my train/test split bad? I've tried splitting the data in different ways, but it does not seem to make a difference. Right now I'm splitting the data by placing a random 90% sample of documents into the train set and the rest into the test set - separately for each label.
* Problems with numerical accuracy? I've implemented the calculations in log probabilities, but in any case, I would expect that problem to manifest in train set as well.
* Problems with unseen words? The fraction of unseen words relative to a particular newsgroup is the same, 20%, for both train and test sets.
* Problems with Laplace smoothing? I wasn't sure what was the appropriate way to implement Laplace smoothing for this task, so I tried a variety of ways. To my surprise they all yielded very similar results.
* Imbalanced dataset? Doesn't look like it. There are approximately as many unique words inside documents of label 16 as there are in other classes. Also the number of documents per each label is roughly even.
Edit: Turns out I had an implementation bug. I won't detail it here as it will be unlikely to help anyone with similar issues. | 2017/02/07 | [
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/16817",
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com",
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/users/23480/"
] | Let me try to answer your questions point by point. Perhaps you already solved your problem, but your questions are interesting and so perhaps other people can benefit from this discussion.
* Is Naive Bayes overfitting to the training set? If Naive Bayes is implemented correctly, I don't think it should be overfitting like this on a task that it's considered appropriate for (text classification).
>
> Naive Bayes has shown to perform well on document classification, but that doesn't mean that it cannot overfit data. There is a difference between the task, document classification, and the data. Overfitting can happen even if Naive Bayes is implemented properly.
>
>
>
* Is my train/test split bad? I've tried splitting the data in different ways, but it does not seem to make a difference. Right now I'm splitting the data by placing a random 90% sample of documents into the train set and the rest into the test set - separately for each label.
>
> It's good that you're keeping the class distribution the same in your training and test set. Are you using cross-validation? Perhaps try it because, even though it's rare, it might happen that you just get unlucky with your splitting due to some seed.
>
>
>
* Problems with numerical accuracy? I've implemented the calculations in log probabilities, but in any case, I would expect that problem to manifest in train set as well.
>
> You're correct, if it was an issue, it would show in the training set as well.
>
>
>
* Problems with unseen words? The fraction of unseen words relative to a particular newsgroup is the same, 20%, for both train and test sets.
>
> This doesn't seem to be the issue then. You could perhaps reduce that percentage by using stemming or lemmatization.
>
>
>
* Problems with Laplace smoothing? I wasn't sure what was the appropriate way to implement Laplace smoothing for this task, so I tried a variety of ways. To my surprise they all yielded very similar results.
>
> Laplace smoothing is useful especially when you do not have a lot of data and you need to account for some uncertainty. For this dataset, this doesn't seem to be an issue, as shown by the similar results you've experienced.
>
>
>
* Imbalanced dataset? Doesn't look like it. There are approximately as many unique words inside documents of label 16 as there are in other classes. Also the number of documents per each label is roughly even.
>
> Are the documents of the same lengths? Because perhaps label 16 simply contains documents that are larger and therefore have bigger word frequencies. They might also contain very common words. It would be interesting to look at a histogram of the words in each class. This could be very informative in understanding whether label 16 is very different from the others.
>
>
> | Unless you're doing it on some other related file, you're not removing stopwords. If label 16 makes a great use of such, that's a plausible explanation for such result.
On the other hand (unless again, you're doing it on some other file) you're not reducing words to their morphemes. Not doing so might cause these kind of anomalies. Check the Nltk documentation to learn how to do such thing. |
16,817 | My question is what are potential reasons for Naive Bayes to perform well on a train set but poorly on a test set?
I am working with a variation of the [20news dataset](http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/). The dataset has documents, which are represented as "bag of words" with no metadata. My goal is to classify each document into 1 of 20 labels. My error rate on training data is 20%, but my error rate on test data is 90% (for comparison, guessing yields 95% error rate). For some reason, my classifier is predicting class 16 for almost all documents in test set. In train set this problem does not occur. Furthermore, this issue persists with different train/test splits. I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong.
Here are some things I've considered:
* Is Naive Bayes overfitting to the training set? If Naive Bayes is implemented correctly, I don't think it should be overfitting like this on a task that it's considered appropriate for (text classification).
* Is my train/test split bad? I've tried splitting the data in different ways, but it does not seem to make a difference. Right now I'm splitting the data by placing a random 90% sample of documents into the train set and the rest into the test set - separately for each label.
* Problems with numerical accuracy? I've implemented the calculations in log probabilities, but in any case, I would expect that problem to manifest in train set as well.
* Problems with unseen words? The fraction of unseen words relative to a particular newsgroup is the same, 20%, for both train and test sets.
* Problems with Laplace smoothing? I wasn't sure what was the appropriate way to implement Laplace smoothing for this task, so I tried a variety of ways. To my surprise they all yielded very similar results.
* Imbalanced dataset? Doesn't look like it. There are approximately as many unique words inside documents of label 16 as there are in other classes. Also the number of documents per each label is roughly even.
Edit: Turns out I had an implementation bug. I won't detail it here as it will be unlikely to help anyone with similar issues. | 2017/02/07 | [
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/16817",
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com",
"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/users/23480/"
] | Let me try to answer your questions point by point. Perhaps you already solved your problem, but your questions are interesting and so perhaps other people can benefit from this discussion.
* Is Naive Bayes overfitting to the training set? If Naive Bayes is implemented correctly, I don't think it should be overfitting like this on a task that it's considered appropriate for (text classification).
>
> Naive Bayes has shown to perform well on document classification, but that doesn't mean that it cannot overfit data. There is a difference between the task, document classification, and the data. Overfitting can happen even if Naive Bayes is implemented properly.
>
>
>
* Is my train/test split bad? I've tried splitting the data in different ways, but it does not seem to make a difference. Right now I'm splitting the data by placing a random 90% sample of documents into the train set and the rest into the test set - separately for each label.
>
> It's good that you're keeping the class distribution the same in your training and test set. Are you using cross-validation? Perhaps try it because, even though it's rare, it might happen that you just get unlucky with your splitting due to some seed.
>
>
>
* Problems with numerical accuracy? I've implemented the calculations in log probabilities, but in any case, I would expect that problem to manifest in train set as well.
>
> You're correct, if it was an issue, it would show in the training set as well.
>
>
>
* Problems with unseen words? The fraction of unseen words relative to a particular newsgroup is the same, 20%, for both train and test sets.
>
> This doesn't seem to be the issue then. You could perhaps reduce that percentage by using stemming or lemmatization.
>
>
>
* Problems with Laplace smoothing? I wasn't sure what was the appropriate way to implement Laplace smoothing for this task, so I tried a variety of ways. To my surprise they all yielded very similar results.
>
> Laplace smoothing is useful especially when you do not have a lot of data and you need to account for some uncertainty. For this dataset, this doesn't seem to be an issue, as shown by the similar results you've experienced.
>
>
>
* Imbalanced dataset? Doesn't look like it. There are approximately as many unique words inside documents of label 16 as there are in other classes. Also the number of documents per each label is roughly even.
>
> Are the documents of the same lengths? Because perhaps label 16 simply contains documents that are larger and therefore have bigger word frequencies. They might also contain very common words. It would be interesting to look at a histogram of the words in each class. This could be very informative in understanding whether label 16 is very different from the others.
>
>
> | Text mining is rather a tricky field of machine learning application, since all you've got is "unstructured and semi structured data" and the preprocessing and feature extraction step matters a lot. [The text mining handbook](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/893219.The_Text_Mining_Handbook) is a priceless reference in this area of research. but to be specific about your case, I can suggest two answers:
* as noted, preprocessing step plays a very important role here. in text mining it is likely to get trapped inside the curse of dimensionality, since you probably have say around 1000 documents but more than 15000 unique words in a dataset. techniques such as stemming and lemmatizing, static and dynamic stopword and punctuation erasing all aim solving this issue. So preprocessing and feature extraction is not an option. it is a MUST
* Naive Bayes model is a linear classifier. Even though it is a very popular algorithm in text classification, there are still risks of rising such problems as yours. the main reason could be that your word-space matrix is highly sparse. you must have paid attention to the fact that in calculating the posterior probability of belonging to a class, Naive Bayes, naively multiplies all single probabilities of `P(y|x_i)`. and if there is at least one zero probability, your final answer would be zero, no matter what other inverse observation probabilities are. If you have implemented the algorithm yourself, try already-constructed tools in MATLAB, Python sci-kit learn library, or data mining softwares like KNIME and RapidMiner. they have delicately handled such practical issues in implementing Naive Bayes algorithm. |
34,369,398 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hJUjp.png)
Hi All,
Does any of you face this problem before? My Android studio stuck on startup. I've tried restart/shut down. Btw, my android studio version is 1.5 on mac | 2015/12/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34369398",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2128070/"
] | If you experience system crash or system auto restart, then please be patient. It take sometime to startup and everything will back to normal :) cheer! | You should go to the %appdata% and delete InteliJ folder, after that run program as administrator.
This is probably caused by:
* No space on partition
* No write permission in %appdata%
* Bug
If it does not work, try to reinstall.
... 1 more!
* Slow write speed or compute speed so it takes much more time as usual. |
169,360 | **Plot Details/Summary**
Another one where I have only sketchy memories of the tale, I fear. The setting for this one is the near future (from the writer's perspective, which I think was the 1970s). Man's reached a point where bloodshed and loss of life are no longer necessary to settle conflicts. Instead, all disputes are settled through an annual combat held on the surface of the moon, using the best combat machines each nation can come up with.
The protagonist, as I recall, is an engineer for the Americans. He recollects past conflicts, and the circumstances for this years fracas. Much of the combat is told from his observers' perspective.
The actual conflict is a rather clever affair, with a description of each team's designs and all the tricks and gee-whiz things they built into them. The protagonist's team manages to prevail, when they managed to use an attack as a feint, with the real attack being a swarm of microscopic machines (they did not use the term nanites) that destroyed the opposing machine from the inside.
**Timeframe/Other Details**
I think this one dates from the 1970s. I don't think it more recent, given my recollections of when I read it, and also the technology descriptions they used in it. There is an outside chance that the combat is not between rival nations, but rival corporations. That would change the premise of "man evolving beyond bloodshed", of course. I think it's nations fighting, though. I am almost 100% certain this was in a sci-fi magazine, not an anthology. | 2017/09/10 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/169360",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/69621/"
] | ["A Short History of World War LXXVIII"](https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?50251), a short story by [Roy L. Prosterman](https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?12378) in [*Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact*, April 1977](https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?57054+c).
**Man's reached a point where bloodshed and loss of life are no longer necessary to settle conflicts. Instead, all disputes are settled through an annual combat held on the surface of the moon, using the best combat machines each nation can come up with.**
>
> "But, after the indescribable ravages of World War III, it had become clear that human survival demanded a wholly different approach to conflict. Fortunately, perhaps essentially, this realization coincided with the development of machines that were far superior in every way to human operators in carrying out acts of destruction. Even two hundred years ago"—here sections from an ancient communication called "Newsweek" and made, apparently, of cloth or some similar substance, flashed upon the screen—"technicians were talking about the possibility of an 'Automated Battlefield'." Here, computer animation took over, showing a series of still rather primitive machines confronting one another on a field. There were explosions, grindings, and tearings. Drones hummed through the air. Many of the machines disappeared. There were no humans present.
>
>
> [. . . .]
>
>
>
>
**The protagonist's team manages to prevail, when they managed to use an attack as a feint, with the real attack being a swarm of microscopic machines (they did not use the term nanites) that destroyed the opposing machine from the inside.**
>
> What won it for the Usa, as we later discovered, were the "brain eaters."
>
>
>
>
**I am almost 100% certain this was in a sci-fi magazine, not an anthology.**
As far as the ISFDB knows, the story has never been reprinted. | I read this one or something a whole lot like it, I think in a 1970s edition of Analog. The version I read was a "war" between "Usa" (that one I remember) and Arabia (although I don't think it was called that).
Two robots fight it out on the moon, Usa wins (of course). The kicker line was that oil prices would remain lower for a while as a result.
I believe the title was something along the lines of "World War 23", although my attempts to track it down in Google for all numbers between 18 and 25 always returned something about WWII. |
20,390,148 | I've been trying to search for an alternative for browsers that have disabled cookies in their browser and forms that require the antiforgerytoken for validation. How should a case like this be handled?
Any suggestions or alternatives to preventing CSRF in ASP.Net MVC forms would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks you! | 2013/12/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/20390148",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1930778/"
] | You can create your own CUSTOM ANTIFORGERYTOKEN FILTER for more details
check the links...
<http://forums.asp.net/t/1938599.aspx>
<http://www.prideparrot.com/blog/archive/2012/7/securing_all_forms_using_antiforgerytoken> | There are a number of alternatives to using AntiForgeryTokens stored in session as part of the Synchroniser Token Pattern. One method gaining traction is the [Encrypted Token Pattern](http://insidethecpu.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/encrypted-token-pattern/), implemented by a Framework called ARMOR. The premise here is that you need neither Session nor cookies in order to maintain CSRF protection in a stateless manner, which won't be interrupted by browser settings, particularly the disabling of cookies. |
21,041 | I have an RN-41 bluetooth module connected to an MSP430. I want to connect the RN-41 to an Android cellphone. Just by having power to the Bluetooth module, the cellphone finds the device. However, it is not able to make pairing the only documentation that I find about pairing on the RN-41 says that the default key for pairing should be 1234. In any case the cellphone doesn't even ask for the pass key but shows an error saying that is not able to pair. Can anyone provide some guidance? | 2011/10/19 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/21041",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/5712/"
] | The problem I was actually having with the module, was a hardware problem. I tried to connect the Bluetooth module power to the VCC pin of the target board of the MSP. It is a 3.3v source, which is appears to be compatible. But the maximum current that could pass through that pin was 15mA, which is enough to set the device discoverable but it stays short when trying to establish a connection (needs around 35mA). Hence, I was able to see it, but got an error upon establishing a connection. Hope this helps somebody else in the future. | It has been a while since I messed with my RN41 connecting to an android phone, but I will try to provide some advice for you.
The bluetooth module uses [SPP (Serial Port Profile)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_profile#Serial_Port_Profile_.28SPP.29) as its default profile. Essentially the way that it works is it opens up a serial port tunnel that can be used just as if you were using a RS232 connection on a computer. The problem with this profile is that it isn't always fully support because it isn't commonly used in consumer products. Here is a [StackOverflow post](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4031434/activate-bluetooth-spp-in-android) that talks about it a bit.
You can verify that it isn't a hardware issue by connecting it to a computer that supports SPP.
Depending on your goals, it may be better for you to use a different bluetooth profile which is described in the [datasheet](http://www.sparkfun.com/datasheets/Wireless/Bluetooth/rn-bluetooth-um.pdf) starting on page 18. |
236,743 | I'm looking into solid state relays for an application where I need to switch between two different transducers to allow two different modes of operation for an echo sounder. Basically a MUX that allows selecting either transducer #1 or transducer #2.
Short overview of how an echo sounder works: the echo sounder generates a short pulse (1-10 ms, 60 Vrms) which is emitted through the transducer. Then afterwards the echo sounder goes into listening mode receiving the returned echo which reflects of objects and the bottom as it travels through the water column.
Developing a MUX has some challenging requirements for this kind of signal:
* transmit requires a relatively high voltage signal to pass through (max 60 Vrms sinusoid of 1-10 ms duration), whereas when the echo sounder is listening it will receive a signal which has a low amplitude (< 10 mV).
* The signal should pass through without distortion (close to linear transfer curve).
* The received signal should not be colored by noise (high S/N ratio, > ~90 dB).
* Signal is bipolar.
Is this even possible with SSRs? A better device? With solid state relays I'm wondering if a device capable of relatively high current will not perform well for low signals during receiving (non-linearity or too noisy). Of course a mechanical relay would solve all these but might not last as long if switching frequently and reliability is important (i.e. years).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/39E7e.png)
Assumptions: Both transmit and received signals have no DC component. Transmit is a pure tone of e.g. 35 kHz. The received signals will be more wideband, but will be bandpass filtered in the receiver. The switching between transducer 1 and 2 can be restricted to only occur when system is turned off. Transducers are ceramic. Impedance of transducer at transmit frequency is on the order of 1.5 kOhm. Assume max 40 mA inst. current during transmit pulse. Assume there is no ringing in existing circuit as transmit pulse has smooth envelope (ramp up/down). The transmit circuitry is only connected for as long as the pulse is transmitted, afterwards the receiver is connected and listens until the next transmit ping. | 2016/05/27 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/236743",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/41060/"
] | The 74HC4051 has level shifters inside that allow you to use a logic supply that is GND to Vcc and another supply voltage Vee that is less than (or equal to) GND.
This is a great advantage when you want to use dual supplies such as +/-5V for the analog electronics, and the digital signals are 0 to +5 (or +/-3.3V with digital logic 0/3.3V), and if you don't need the feature you can just ground Vee.
I am not sure I believe the operating area shown here:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MadfI.png)
The early CD4051 clearly required Vee <= GND. | The CD4051 mux can work at +15 volts single-ended supply, or +/- 7.5 volts for bipolar supply handling bipolar signals to +/- 5 volts or so. The IC also needs a ground ref for the 3 to 5 volt logic used to select which of 8 input/outputs is selected to connect to the common I/O pin.
So for bipolar operation you need 3 power supply voltages and a gnd connection. The Vee pin is the negative power for the analog section. For bipolar operation it is connected to -7.5 volts. For single supply operation Vee is connected to ground. Even powered by +/- 7.5 volts for the CD4051, it is best to keep an analog signal in the range of +/- 5 volts, at the channel resistance goes way up close to the supply rails.
The 74HC4051 is limited to 11 volts single ended supply or +/- 5.5 volts for a bipolar supply. The signals are limited to about +/- 3.5 volts. |
74,776 | Do we have any standard for using ghost buttons? I know basic details on when to use ghost buttons but more detailed explanation will help
Can we use ghost button as well as solid button on same page?
If you notice, there is close icon next to close button. Do you think its very smalll and it should also be button? That close is to close page.
 | 2015/03/12 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/74776",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/52106/"
] | This question is quite broad for a single answer to cover everything, but I'll give it a go!
First of all, **motion sickness**. In actual fact it's not even motion sickness, it's the opposite - it's the brain telling you you're moving when other senses tell you you're not.
And in any case, it's not the manipulation of scene elements itself that is directly related to the problem of sickness (or v-sickness, simulator sickness, Rift Sickness, or whatever you want to call it).
I worked as a developer on VR games and simulation experiences at the beginning of the 1990's - the times of Virtuality and Sega VR. At that time we had a lot of trouble with sickness. In a typical end-user environment, games were kept to about 2 minutes of playtime because after that we found people quickly started feeling unwell. Experiences tended to be slower and less frantic than games so you could get more time, but still the problem persisted.
Getting students in to test our equipment (which they happily did!) often turned out to be a err.. messy business because of the longer testing times.
The causes of sickness in VR then were mostly down to the lag between motion of the body, especially the head, and the resulting visuals in the headset feeding back to the eyes. The more lag, the sooner you became disoriented and felt ill.
The headsets were heavy, the refresh rate on the display was relatively low compared to modern VR equipment, and the trackers themselves had relatively high latency and sample rates. All this has had *a lot* of money thrown at it in recent years in order to reduce the lag. Tracker sample rates are now up to 1kHz and the motion lag is down to just a couple of milliseconds, drastically reducing the risk of graphics entering the 'barfogenic zone'. Displays have changed (from LCD to OLED) in order to reduce smearing and increase sharpness and refresh rates. And the ability to fine-tune or calibrate the headsets for individual users is much better now compared to the 'one ring to rule them all' approach that has been used in the past which essentially meant that no user ever had it right!
Overwhelming the senses is another thing that can add to the sickness feeling. The games of the 1990's were played in tremendously loud bustling hot environments like London's Trocadero. Reducing brightness, volume, and environmental effects allows you to take back some control of your senses to 'manage' the situation better without being overwhelmed.
So my point this far is that the feeling of sickness comes from the experience as a whole. If you tried to use a mouse as a VR input device that would not in itself be a cause.
**The mouse is not an appropriate interaction mechanism** for VR, other than the fact that it has scrolly type wheel which can be useful.
The natural input method for VR is your hands (putting accessibility aside - just for the moment), not least because they are always with you, and you can't put them down, but also because you don't have to think about using them. A mouse essentially needs a flat surface which is a mismatch from manipulating a 3D environment.
In fact, even talk of using similar hand held controllers to existing games is probably naive. Leaving the hands free to 'do their thing' is I think a critical step in making VR usable for most people. The use of gestures or particular hand or arm positions will have meaning. Sign language might be useful.
So **drag and drop games** would need to cater for different orientations of the body, the game, the head and the hands. Luckily we're already quite used to device touchscreens and using them at different angles so touch, drag, swipe, pinch, expand gestures are already quite well known and these would translate quite well to a drag and drop game in a VR environment allowing the user to immerse themselves and orient themselves and the scene and it's elements to a comfortable point.
This is in fact the least of the worries. Most VR development probably starts out with exactly some simple drag and drop game, but the problems come when you start dealing with real detailed, meaningful, personal data, and interfacing between the virtual and real worlds, because that's what is going to be needed - in the same way that we talk about cross-channel and multi-channel experiences for desktop, mobile and brick & morter environments.
Finally - **I don't think you would ever 'port over'** the UI/UX of a drag and drop game to VR. You would have to completely rethink the interactions from the ground up. You would have to strip back the concept of the game to it's bare bones and then say 'how could we do that in VR'? That's not to say there won't be games of the same name carried over from the PC or consoles, but they'll take as much investment of time and money, if not more, to get perfect for VR as they did originally. | The reason why a mouse is a terrible UI for VR is because when you (inevitably) take your hand off of it (to type or itch or eat etc.), then you have to find the mouse without being able to see it! That can't happen in VR. You have to be able to see the things you're interacting with **or** the things you're interacting with have to be either 2-handed items that you won't put down **or** basically impossible to put down. e.g. gloves, a gun, an xbox controller or your own hands. |
2,202,271 | Is there a way to have an app write a into a file and then have another app read from that file?
I mean writting into the file system of the iPhone.
I want to do this without using an internet connection. So uploading the file and then downloading from the other app is not what i mean.
Thanks! | 2010/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2202271",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/217808/"
] | It appears that there are ways you can, but it won't get approved by Apple if you do.
See <http://blogs.oreilly.com/iphone/2008/09/sandbox-think-like-apple.html> for more information. | I'm not sure exactly what circumstances you're in here, but you could register app B as a handler for a particular protocol, and have app A try to open such a link (e.g. appB://yourinfohere). It depends on how much data you want to transfer and many other things, but it might work. |
2,202,271 | Is there a way to have an app write a into a file and then have another app read from that file?
I mean writting into the file system of the iPhone.
I want to do this without using an internet connection. So uploading the file and then downloading from the other app is not what i mean.
Thanks! | 2010/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2202271",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/217808/"
] | The current sand boxing of applications does not allow this, however it appears that this may be available in future iPhone OS versions. [Reference](http://www.techhail.com/gadgets/iphone-os-3-2-for-ipad-with-improved-text-file-document-support-xcode-tools/3088) | I'm not sure exactly what circumstances you're in here, but you could register app B as a handler for a particular protocol, and have app A try to open such a link (e.g. appB://yourinfohere). It depends on how much data you want to transfer and many other things, but it might work. |
15,196 | I am creating a SaaS that will be delivered through a Vertical Information Portal (VIP).
In my research I have found that by developing a custom lean web browser and installing it on the clients platform, I can better restrict access to the portal on the web by only allowing this custom browser to access it.
I realize there is a threat of duplicating the the client browser. but I feel it is better option instead of any browser being able to access the portal to receive the payed services, and much easier to flag for piracy.
However, in regards to security of a custom browser, I have not been able to find any useful information. I would elaborate on this point, but unless I am missing something (which is probably the case), I have nothing to go on.
Can you point me in the right direction to make a thorough threat assessment on a custom browser build for a VIP delivered SaaS?
**EDIT**
By looking at the possibilities of a customized connection from server to client, I am not trying to re-invent the wheel, but looking at innovative options to make improvements to the wheel.
I do not make the assumption that any system is totally secure, and I fully believe the practice of IT Security is a constant work in progress that must be improved on (hence, the purpose of this question). | 2012/05/21 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/15196",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/10090/"
] | It sounds to me like you want your Web based SaaS application to be accessed only by browser/client/hosts that have some system integrity properties that are usually lacking in a typical web client host -- e.g. absence of malware, resistance to malware. If that is so, then you should consider developing a client that is a hardened dedicated browser appliance:
a) delivered to users as a liveCD image to be booted on typical PC HW from RO media;
b) built using SE Linux and bootstrap to restrict the executable application software to consist of a web browser;
c) local packet filter configured to permit communication only with the host(s) of the server side of the application;
d) browser configured to trust only the server certificate of the server side of your application;
e) several other supporting characteristics, but that's the gist.
An worked example of hardened dedicated browser appliance is available at:
<https://github.com/trustthevote/BrowserAppliance>
In addition, you will probably want to build into the client image a key pair and PK certificate that the server requires as a pre-req for service. As you point out, it is certainly possible for the cert and key pair to be extracted and used by a different client host; but it is a strong measure to prevent casual or accidental use of "normal" client hosts such that the server would interact with these risky clients. If your application uses strong user authentication, then you de-scope your risk further by limiting the pool of people who would benefit from something as weird as cracking keys out of a perfectly usable hardened dedicated browser appliance, in order to rig up their existing PC as a client, without having to boot from RO media as a pre-req for using your application.
Hope this helps!
John Sebes
<http://osdv.org> | This is [(in)security though obscurity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity), I don't see how this improves the security of any system. Probably the reason why you can't find any information on this topic is because its not a good idea. I suspect you would also implement your own HTTP protocol, and then forbid clients from sniffing the wire with wireshark/tcpdump. Oah and you will have to forbid the client from opening their own socekts, and access to telnet...
But all that aside, I can still find and leverage xss/csrf/sql injection/whatever using just a web browser... What is keeping the attacker from putting sql statements into an html form or the address bar. So by reimplementing the wheal you are already giving the attacker a perfect tool to compromise your system.
Whats the point? |
33,945 | After the one ring was destroyed and Aragorn was crowned King of Gondor and Arnor, he and Arwen were married. Though he looks older than his bride, I'm learning that Arwen is actually older than Aragorn by at least 2,600 years. She's obviously robbing the cradle, but I can't get an exact fix on exactly how old they were when married. | 2013/04/07 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/33945",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/13090/"
] | Both Aragorn and Arwen's births, and their marriage, are listed in the Third Age section of The Tale of Years (Appendix B, at the back of *Return of the King*). Arwen was born in the year 241. Aragorn was born on March 1 of 2931. Since they were married at the end of June in 3019, this means Aragorn was 88 years old when they were married, and Arwen was either 2778 or 2777 (depending on whether she was born in the first or second half of the year). | Aragorn was 88 (having aged 45 years) and Arwen 2778 (having aged 33 years)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I can tell, Tolkien's last known writings about Arwen's growth is the work "Elvish Ages & Númenórean" written in 1965 and published in *The Nature of Middle-earth*.
Tolkien begins by describing the nature of elvish growth in Middle-earth in the Third Age, before giving examples of how it applies for different characters.
>
> Elves' ages must be counted in two different stages: growth-years (GY) and life-years (LY). The GYs were relatively swift and in Middle-earth= 3 Löar. The LYs were very slow and in Middle-earth = 144 löar. ... They reached "full growth" of body in 24 GY. ... They then had 48 LY of youth, and then 48 LY of "full age" or "steadfast body", by which time their knowledge ceased to increase. ... If we neglect the difference of speed and call each unit a "year", we then see that an elf reached maturity at 24, end of "youth" at 72, and "old age" at 120. In mortal equivalents the age in physical and other characteristics indicated can be found approximately by multiplying by ¾.
>
> *The Nature of Middle-earth* - "Elvish Ages & Númenórean"
>
>
>
Basically, for the first 72 years of an elf's life they age one elf year every 3 normal years, until they turn "24" (72). After that they only age one elf year every 144 normal years. However, each of these aforementioned elf years is really the equivalent of what a mortal grows in 3/4 of a year.
So to get an understanding of how old an elf is you need to figure out how many total Growth-Years and Life-Years they've lived, and then multiply that number by 3/4.
>
> *The case of Arwen.* **Taking her birth as T[hird]A[ge] 241**, she will then be "full-grown" in TA 313 (241 + 72). In 2951, when she first meets Aragorn, she will be (in Elven Growth- and Life-years) 24 + 18⅓ (nearly); (2951-313)/144 = 42⅓ = mortal equivalent 31¾. Aragorn was
> only 20.
>
>
> **In 3019, when they were married, she would have aged very little
> and would be nearly Elvish 43 (24 + (3019-313)/144) = mortal equivalent
> 32-3. But Aragorn would have lived 88 years and 4 months. His "age" would however be about "45".** ...
>
>
> The Númenórean scale fixed by the Valar (for other than Elros) was
> for a life in full (if not "resigned" earlier) of thrice that of ordinary men. This was reckoned so: A "Númenórean" reached "full-growth" at 24 (as with Elves; but this was for them reckoned in Sun-years); after that, 70 x 3 = 210 years were "permitted" = total 234. But decline set in (at first slow) at the 210th year (from birth); so that a Númenórean had an expectation of 186 fully active years after
> reaching physical maturity.
>
> *The Nature of Middle-earth* - "Elvish Ages & Númenórean"
>
>
> |
1,099,439 | Recently, I find out that somebody uses my network traffic. I found his `MAC` address and now I wanna find full details of his device. I tried: <http://www.macvendors.com/> and such this, but the response was only the name of manufacture. Tnx from anybody who helps me( or says a better solution to find him:) )
EDIT: Anybody who has another way to find him, tells me. | 2016/07/11 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1099439",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/613671/"
] | Just searching on the MAC will only give you the vendor. It will never show you in which hardware the component with the MAC was used. (Think of it as finding the vendor name for a lightbulb, which does not tell you in which device the bulb was used).
But given that you have the MAC and almost certainly the IP, you can use tools like nmap to find out more. If you do not like command line tools then try [the zenmap wrapper](https://nmap.org/zenmap/) around nmap. This usually will tell you which OS the device is running. That way you have a good idea if it is a phone (windows CE, android, ios or a PC (linux, BSD, windows).
Once you know that you can start to refine. E.g. if it turns out to be a windows device try `\\ip\c$`. | It is not possible to get device details via MAC address as @Hennes already said as the MAC address is only specific to the network card.
Another way to obtain more information is to log into your router/firewall and look for known devices with the found MAC. There you have the association MAC <-> IP address.
You the can use tools like nmap/zenmap to gather more information.
If you are just after locking him/her out of your network it may be possible (depending on your router) to block access for the device with the specific MAC address. |
1,099,439 | Recently, I find out that somebody uses my network traffic. I found his `MAC` address and now I wanna find full details of his device. I tried: <http://www.macvendors.com/> and such this, but the response was only the name of manufacture. Tnx from anybody who helps me( or says a better solution to find him:) )
EDIT: Anybody who has another way to find him, tells me. | 2016/07/11 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1099439",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/613671/"
] | Just searching on the MAC will only give you the vendor. It will never show you in which hardware the component with the MAC was used. (Think of it as finding the vendor name for a lightbulb, which does not tell you in which device the bulb was used).
But given that you have the MAC and almost certainly the IP, you can use tools like nmap to find out more. If you do not like command line tools then try [the zenmap wrapper](https://nmap.org/zenmap/) around nmap. This usually will tell you which OS the device is running. That way you have a good idea if it is a phone (windows CE, android, ios or a PC (linux, BSD, windows).
Once you know that you can start to refine. E.g. if it turns out to be a windows device try `\\ip\c$`. | I have another idea for this purpose: what if somebody , on purpose , set own wifi without any password and the thief could connect again!
I think in that case we have more chance to discover what device is connected to our router. |
1,099,439 | Recently, I find out that somebody uses my network traffic. I found his `MAC` address and now I wanna find full details of his device. I tried: <http://www.macvendors.com/> and such this, but the response was only the name of manufacture. Tnx from anybody who helps me( or says a better solution to find him:) )
EDIT: Anybody who has another way to find him, tells me. | 2016/07/11 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1099439",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/613671/"
] | I have another idea for this purpose: what if somebody , on purpose , set own wifi without any password and the thief could connect again!
I think in that case we have more chance to discover what device is connected to our router. | It is not possible to get device details via MAC address as @Hennes already said as the MAC address is only specific to the network card.
Another way to obtain more information is to log into your router/firewall and look for known devices with the found MAC. There you have the association MAC <-> IP address.
You the can use tools like nmap/zenmap to gather more information.
If you are just after locking him/her out of your network it may be possible (depending on your router) to block access for the device with the specific MAC address. |
107,973 | [iOS Human Interface Guidelines](https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/graphics/launch-screen/) say:
>
> Design a launch screen that’s nearly identical to the first screen
> of your app. If you include elements that look different when the app
> finishes launching, people can experience an unpleasant flash between
> the launch screen and the first screen of the app.
>
>
>
The quote from [iOS Human Interface Guidelines](https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/interaction/first-launch-experience/) about **splash screens**:
>
> Get to the action quickly. Avoid showing a splash screen, menus, and
> instructions that make it take longer to reach content and start using
> your app. Instead, let people dive right in.
>
>
>
But Twitter still has splash screen and designers are ignoring guidelines writing articles [how to use branding in splash sreen design](https://medium.com/ux-power-tools/dead-simple-techniques-for-using-branding-in-ui-d44cb44e40ee?ref=prototyprio).
What is their motivation and consequences on usability for ignoring these guidelines? | 2017/05/13 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/107973",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/68624/"
] | Maybe they are using other guidelines. You have the iOS Human Interface Guidelines, but also Material Design Guidelines. They are not OS-bound. Google applications on iOS also use Material Design. [Material Design guidelines](https://material.io/guidelines/patterns/launch-screens.html#launch-screens-types-of-launch-screens) for example talk about two kinds of splash screens.
>
> A **placeholder UI** displays core structural elements such as the
> status and app bars until the app has loaded.
>
>
>
And
>
> **Branded launch screens** display your logo or other elements that
> improve brand recognition.
>
>
>
We can't know for sure why they did what they did but the above mentioned **branded launch screen** makes sense for me. The rest of the Twitter application is pretty clean of branding. | I know that in some cases splash screens are a must due to technical reasons. Depending on how the code of the app is written, it may take some time for the app to load when launched so splash screens are used for that reason. |
146,570 | I am writing an app that requires multiple levels of users, where one user is an administrator and adds slave users.
I can't really seem to find a way to allow access to the slave users safely. Emailing a password is unsafe as emails are unencrypted, and I might as well just send the password if I'm sending a one-time link.
I can reduce the window exponentially by making a temporary password required to be changed on first login, emailing a one-time use link, setting a timeout on either of these, or any combination of all of these...
But the window still seems extremely large compared to asynchronous encryption, for example.
I could require an SSH communication or something, but obviously this is not even close to pragmatic.
What is the industry standard, and what solution, if any, can provide both a pragmatic user-friendly experience, as well as a secure channel? | 2016/12/27 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/146570",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/112167/"
] | Assuming you are talking about personal accounts not company accounts here. It's part of your identity and you should protect it as much as possible, risk is greater if they can find your address (fairly easy - online address finders, whois records if you own the website) or your date of birth.
There was a case a few years ago where a UK celebrity claimed nothing could be done with their acct no / sort code and published them in the press - a stranger used their details to set up a direct debit to a charity. [link to source (BBC)](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm)
Although you might have a number of trusted customers - your details will be available to anyone who can get to your site and some of those may be malicious. If you are in the UK, the direct debit guarantee may cover you if any one set up anything like that but your bank may consider it reckless to post your details in public. I certainly would be very uncomfortable doing so and would consider a payment gateway instead. | I think I could pay my car payment with just that information.
You could use PayPal for this kind of venture. |
32,019 | I understand that this circuit could be used as a treble control circuit with high frequency gain occuring when R3 is set so a=b (we'll call this k=0), and high frequency attenuation occuring when R3 is 22kOhms across a and b (k=1). So therefore, depending on R3's setting, this circuit is either a high pass (k=0) or low pass (k=1) filter.
When comparing this circuit to high and low pass filters, I do not understand what is happening: C2 will always have a lower impedance for high frequencies and so surely adjusting R3 will only alter positive gain for high frequencies.
I also understand that the capacitors act as an open circuit for low frequencies and so surely all low frequnencies would be attenuated.
Can you help me understand this?
Link to circuitlab.com schematic:
<https://www.circuitlab.com/circuit/x66cq6/basic-frequency-control-circuit/>
By the way, I realise I have discussed this schematic in previous questions.
Please note: I am asking something different to any of my previous questions. This is no duplicate question. | 2012/05/16 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/32019",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/9374/"
] | The AC feedback via C2 is negative feedback - it will decrease the gain.
Increasing the negative feedback with frequency will reduce the gain as frequency increases.
C2 impedance decreases as frequency increases so feedback via C2 increases so gain decreases if all feedback is applied to inverting input.
Final result will depend on where the feedback goes / how it is applied. Changing R3 split changes the overall "transfer function".
It's not obvious that this is a formal design. Can you give a reference to where you got it from? | Rather than thinking of the capactior as such, think of it as simply a resistor who's value decreases linearly with the increasing frequency of the current flowing through it.
An inductor can be considered in the same way except the frequency relationship is not inverse. (in this case rising 'reactance' with rising frequency)
Now imagine an number identical circuits to the one you draw, e.g. three of them. Each drawn with a 'frequency dependent resistor' who's value is infinate at zero Hz but is replaced in each redrawn circuit to one that is a lot smaller than the other gain components at some frequency, e.g. 10kHz.
You can now imagine what the gain does. 'Resistors' that reduce gain with increasing value will have the effect of a low pass filter. 'Resistors' that increase gain will have the effect of a high pass filter. |
6,005 | To the outside world, programmers, computer scientists, software engineers, and developers may all seem alike, but that's far from the case for the people who create software for a living. Any single programmer's ability and knowledge can range very widely, as well as their tools (OS, language, and yes, preferred editor), and that diversity spawns many sub-cultures in software - like programmers who actively use Stack Overflow and this site, versus many more who don't.
I'm curious to hear from others what software sub-cultures they've encountered, belonged to, admired, disliked, or even created. For starters, I've encountered:
* **Microsoft-driven companies and developers**: their entire stack is from Redmond, WA. E-mail is Outlook is e-mail. The web is IE and IIS. They have large binders of their MS Developer Network subscription full of multiple versions of VB, .net, Visual Studio, etc. Avoids working with a shell/command-line. Don't see what the fuss with open-source and such is all about. MS-centric companies tend to be 9-5 and quite corporate (driven by business managers, not software people). Nowadays (given the wide availability of non-MS tools), this is the antithesis of hacker culture.
* **Old-school CS people**: they often know Lisp and Unix extremely well; sometimes, they may have written a semi-popular Lisp themselves, or a system utility. Few, if any, "software engineering" things are new to them, nor are they impressed by such. Know the references, history, and higher-level implications of programming languages like Lisp, C, Prolog, and Smalltalk. Can be bitter about AI outcomes of the 80's and 90's. Tend to be Emacs users. Can type out multi-line shell commands without blinking an eye. Their advice can by cryptic, but contains gold once understood.
* **New-school web developers**: played with computers and video games growing up, but often only really started programming in the late '90s or early '00's. Comfortable with 1 to 1.5 scripting/dynamic languages; think C and languages outside of Ruby/Perl/Python are unnecessary/magical. May have considered HTML as programming initially. Tend to get a Mac and be fanatical/irrational about it. Use frameworks more than build them. Often overly-enthusiastic about NoSQL and/or Ruby On Rails.
* **New-school CS**: lots of training in statistics, Bayesian models and inference; don't say "AI," say "machine learning." More Java than Lisp, but could also be expert Haskell programmers. Seeing major real-world successes by experts in their field (Google, finance/quants) often makes them (over) confident. But big data, and the distributed processing of such, really are changing the world.
The examples above are by no means complete, correct, orthogonal, or objective. :) Just what I've seen personally, and provided to spark some discussion and outline of the broader question. Feel free to disagree! | 2010/09/21 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6005",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/2026/"
] | I'd consider myself part of the **Real-Time Systems** group. There are some 'Old School' characteristics but with less focus on CS, more on hardware.
The archetype:
* Has expert knowledge of 'C'
+ Has an original copy of K&R
+ Writes in other languages as if they were just an alternate syntax for 'C'
* Can predict the assembler output from their code.
* Can read a circuit diagram
* Doesn't know how to write code without doing 'premature optimization'.
* Is quite comfortable with the command line. | I represent the lonely contingent of Delphi Devs under 30. Our caucus is small, but our hearts are big. |
6,005 | To the outside world, programmers, computer scientists, software engineers, and developers may all seem alike, but that's far from the case for the people who create software for a living. Any single programmer's ability and knowledge can range very widely, as well as their tools (OS, language, and yes, preferred editor), and that diversity spawns many sub-cultures in software - like programmers who actively use Stack Overflow and this site, versus many more who don't.
I'm curious to hear from others what software sub-cultures they've encountered, belonged to, admired, disliked, or even created. For starters, I've encountered:
* **Microsoft-driven companies and developers**: their entire stack is from Redmond, WA. E-mail is Outlook is e-mail. The web is IE and IIS. They have large binders of their MS Developer Network subscription full of multiple versions of VB, .net, Visual Studio, etc. Avoids working with a shell/command-line. Don't see what the fuss with open-source and such is all about. MS-centric companies tend to be 9-5 and quite corporate (driven by business managers, not software people). Nowadays (given the wide availability of non-MS tools), this is the antithesis of hacker culture.
* **Old-school CS people**: they often know Lisp and Unix extremely well; sometimes, they may have written a semi-popular Lisp themselves, or a system utility. Few, if any, "software engineering" things are new to them, nor are they impressed by such. Know the references, history, and higher-level implications of programming languages like Lisp, C, Prolog, and Smalltalk. Can be bitter about AI outcomes of the 80's and 90's. Tend to be Emacs users. Can type out multi-line shell commands without blinking an eye. Their advice can by cryptic, but contains gold once understood.
* **New-school web developers**: played with computers and video games growing up, but often only really started programming in the late '90s or early '00's. Comfortable with 1 to 1.5 scripting/dynamic languages; think C and languages outside of Ruby/Perl/Python are unnecessary/magical. May have considered HTML as programming initially. Tend to get a Mac and be fanatical/irrational about it. Use frameworks more than build them. Often overly-enthusiastic about NoSQL and/or Ruby On Rails.
* **New-school CS**: lots of training in statistics, Bayesian models and inference; don't say "AI," say "machine learning." More Java than Lisp, but could also be expert Haskell programmers. Seeing major real-world successes by experts in their field (Google, finance/quants) often makes them (over) confident. But big data, and the distributed processing of such, really are changing the world.
The examples above are by no means complete, correct, orthogonal, or objective. :) Just what I've seen personally, and provided to spark some discussion and outline of the broader question. Feel free to disagree! | 2010/09/21 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6005",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/2026/"
] | I'd consider myself part of the **Real-Time Systems** group. There are some 'Old School' characteristics but with less focus on CS, more on hardware.
The archetype:
* Has expert knowledge of 'C'
+ Has an original copy of K&R
+ Writes in other languages as if they were just an alternate syntax for 'C'
* Can predict the assembler output from their code.
* Can read a circuit diagram
* Doesn't know how to write code without doing 'premature optimization'.
* Is quite comfortable with the command line. | I guess that there exists several cultures which somehow live alongside rather then fight and are somehow transcendent:
* **Hacker/Open Source culture**: sharing code, uses real name or not. Concentrated probably on small tools that solve one problem. Allows in-program hacks. Languages: *C*, *Lisp*, *C++*, *Python*. Probably overlaps with yours **Old-school CS people**.
* **Academia**: concentration on algorithms and doing things in the right way. The real name is must (it appears on paper anyway). Languages: *Java*, *Haskell*, (*F#*?)
* **Corportate**: concentration on solutions (probably of everything). If open source that [giving the name is not necessary](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_lucky_stiff). Languages: *Java*, *C#*, *VB.net*, *Ruby*.
* "**High School**": it goods if it work but it doesn't have to. Concentration on names like "SuperProgram 1.0 for Windows XP". (sorry - I haven't found good name but I mean the programmers who started mastering CS and are not good at it - at least yet). Languages: *PHP*, *VB*, *Ruby*
* **New School Web Developers**: As above.
Please note that:
* it is possible to mix the cultures in organizations and in single person. In fact it often does.
* The languages are **EXAMPLES** and it is for example quite large group of "hackers" working on C#. It is more of game of associations the real study so please don't be offended (yes - I do know that there are great programms written in PHP with good engeneering practice etc. but it tend to be first language for many people who don't know what for example XSS is)
* I didn't want to offend anyone by name High School. I meant that it is often first step into programming via this culture (and hopefully not last)
* ***Edit:*** **Academia** does not mean that person is in academia as well as being in academia does not mean that someone belongs to **academia** (despite being briliant scientist/researcher etc.). It denotes that he preferes the tools which gives clear, obviously correct solution even if it lacks performance/takes longer time/... Similary **Corporate** culture is not equivlent to corporations.
I think I'm currently mostly Open Source with slight influence of Academia (passive). |
6,005 | To the outside world, programmers, computer scientists, software engineers, and developers may all seem alike, but that's far from the case for the people who create software for a living. Any single programmer's ability and knowledge can range very widely, as well as their tools (OS, language, and yes, preferred editor), and that diversity spawns many sub-cultures in software - like programmers who actively use Stack Overflow and this site, versus many more who don't.
I'm curious to hear from others what software sub-cultures they've encountered, belonged to, admired, disliked, or even created. For starters, I've encountered:
* **Microsoft-driven companies and developers**: their entire stack is from Redmond, WA. E-mail is Outlook is e-mail. The web is IE and IIS. They have large binders of their MS Developer Network subscription full of multiple versions of VB, .net, Visual Studio, etc. Avoids working with a shell/command-line. Don't see what the fuss with open-source and such is all about. MS-centric companies tend to be 9-5 and quite corporate (driven by business managers, not software people). Nowadays (given the wide availability of non-MS tools), this is the antithesis of hacker culture.
* **Old-school CS people**: they often know Lisp and Unix extremely well; sometimes, they may have written a semi-popular Lisp themselves, or a system utility. Few, if any, "software engineering" things are new to them, nor are they impressed by such. Know the references, history, and higher-level implications of programming languages like Lisp, C, Prolog, and Smalltalk. Can be bitter about AI outcomes of the 80's and 90's. Tend to be Emacs users. Can type out multi-line shell commands without blinking an eye. Their advice can by cryptic, but contains gold once understood.
* **New-school web developers**: played with computers and video games growing up, but often only really started programming in the late '90s or early '00's. Comfortable with 1 to 1.5 scripting/dynamic languages; think C and languages outside of Ruby/Perl/Python are unnecessary/magical. May have considered HTML as programming initially. Tend to get a Mac and be fanatical/irrational about it. Use frameworks more than build them. Often overly-enthusiastic about NoSQL and/or Ruby On Rails.
* **New-school CS**: lots of training in statistics, Bayesian models and inference; don't say "AI," say "machine learning." More Java than Lisp, but could also be expert Haskell programmers. Seeing major real-world successes by experts in their field (Google, finance/quants) often makes them (over) confident. But big data, and the distributed processing of such, really are changing the world.
The examples above are by no means complete, correct, orthogonal, or objective. :) Just what I've seen personally, and provided to spark some discussion and outline of the broader question. Feel free to disagree! | 2010/09/21 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6005",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/2026/"
] | I represent the lonely contingent of Delphi Devs under 30. Our caucus is small, but our hearts are big. | I'm kind of in the Alt.NET/old-school CS camp. I work with Microsoft tech (C#, etc.), but I'm aware that there's a whole world around me, other languages, algorithms, frameworks, "stuff under the hood", etc. Not perfect, obviously, but it's a work in progress. |
6,005 | To the outside world, programmers, computer scientists, software engineers, and developers may all seem alike, but that's far from the case for the people who create software for a living. Any single programmer's ability and knowledge can range very widely, as well as their tools (OS, language, and yes, preferred editor), and that diversity spawns many sub-cultures in software - like programmers who actively use Stack Overflow and this site, versus many more who don't.
I'm curious to hear from others what software sub-cultures they've encountered, belonged to, admired, disliked, or even created. For starters, I've encountered:
* **Microsoft-driven companies and developers**: their entire stack is from Redmond, WA. E-mail is Outlook is e-mail. The web is IE and IIS. They have large binders of their MS Developer Network subscription full of multiple versions of VB, .net, Visual Studio, etc. Avoids working with a shell/command-line. Don't see what the fuss with open-source and such is all about. MS-centric companies tend to be 9-5 and quite corporate (driven by business managers, not software people). Nowadays (given the wide availability of non-MS tools), this is the antithesis of hacker culture.
* **Old-school CS people**: they often know Lisp and Unix extremely well; sometimes, they may have written a semi-popular Lisp themselves, or a system utility. Few, if any, "software engineering" things are new to them, nor are they impressed by such. Know the references, history, and higher-level implications of programming languages like Lisp, C, Prolog, and Smalltalk. Can be bitter about AI outcomes of the 80's and 90's. Tend to be Emacs users. Can type out multi-line shell commands without blinking an eye. Their advice can by cryptic, but contains gold once understood.
* **New-school web developers**: played with computers and video games growing up, but often only really started programming in the late '90s or early '00's. Comfortable with 1 to 1.5 scripting/dynamic languages; think C and languages outside of Ruby/Perl/Python are unnecessary/magical. May have considered HTML as programming initially. Tend to get a Mac and be fanatical/irrational about it. Use frameworks more than build them. Often overly-enthusiastic about NoSQL and/or Ruby On Rails.
* **New-school CS**: lots of training in statistics, Bayesian models and inference; don't say "AI," say "machine learning." More Java than Lisp, but could also be expert Haskell programmers. Seeing major real-world successes by experts in their field (Google, finance/quants) often makes them (over) confident. But big data, and the distributed processing of such, really are changing the world.
The examples above are by no means complete, correct, orthogonal, or objective. :) Just what I've seen personally, and provided to spark some discussion and outline of the broader question. Feel free to disagree! | 2010/09/21 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6005",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/2026/"
] | I'd consider myself part of the **Real-Time Systems** group. There are some 'Old School' characteristics but with less focus on CS, more on hardware.
The archetype:
* Has expert knowledge of 'C'
+ Has an original copy of K&R
+ Writes in other languages as if they were just an alternate syntax for 'C'
* Can predict the assembler output from their code.
* Can read a circuit diagram
* Doesn't know how to write code without doing 'premature optimization'.
* Is quite comfortable with the command line. | I don't entirely agree with this statement about MS subculture: "Don't see what the fuss with open-source and such is all about - besides, who needs to know another language? Generally, I've found such places to be 9-5 and quite corporate (driven by business managers, not software people). The anti-thesis of the hacker culture.". I've worked at two .Net shops by now and the environment was actually very hacker-like. We've employed many open-source projects in our work. In my option, it all depends on the kind of people that one works with. If they're true developers, they will constantly look for ways to improve, branch out. What technologies they use is irrelevant.
Don't forget about the Agile Methodology subculture that incorporates developers from different backgrounds. |
98,320 | Thunderwave, on a failed save, pushes a target 10 feet when it hits them in addition to doing damage. In the event that a party as a whole were falling, a creative Cleric could Ready his spell to be cast when they're about to hit the ground, by Thunderwaving the other member's of the party, directly, 10 feet in the opposite direction.
Since physics aren't really a thing in D&D, would this theoretically counter the fall damage by negating all forward momentum and setting it back to zero? I understand they'll likely still take at least 10 feet of fall damage, but that's not what I'm mainly curious about. | 2017/04/18 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/98320",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/23110/"
] | This method nets you more damage
================================
Falling damage is dealt *at the end of a fall*.
>
> **PHB 183, Falling**
>
>
> At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.
>
>
>
So in order for Thunderwave to stop you from taking this damage, it has to *end the fall first* and then begin a new one, wherein you fall at a height of 15 ft or less. Furthermore, it must end the fall without dealing damage to you.
If you are falling and then are subjected to Thunderwave such that your fall stops and is reversed (ie, you are tossed upwards), you should take falling damage then. And now you begin a new fall from your new height.
For example: you fell from a height of 100 ft. After falling 90 ft, your Cleric (who is on the ground, right at the spot you are going to land on) casts Thunderwave, sending you back 15 ft upwards. Then, your fall must have ended at the moment you were 10 ft away from the ground when you were hit by Thunderwave.
You take 9d6 + 2d8 damage for this. Then you begin a new fall from a height of 25 ft (the 10 ft you were at, plus the 15 ft from TW), dealing you another 2d6 damage when you land.
All in all, this nets you extra damage equal to 1d6 bludgeoning, for the extra 15 ft fall, and 2d8 thunder, from the Thunderwave.
---
Response to Objections:
=======================
1. **Thunderwave causes forced movement, and forced movement doesn't trigger damage effects. Is there a rule that Thunderwave must trigger the damage?**
* A spell does only what it states it does. Thunderwave does not say it prevents falling damage. Moreover, the saying goes "It's not the fall that hurts you; it’s the sudden stop" which I feel is applicable here. The rules for taking falling damage state that you take damage "at the end of the fall." If Thunderwave causes your fall to end, then you must take damage.
* There is no rule that says forced movement *never* triggers damage.
2. **Is there a rule that the falling counter isn't reset once pushed back up? Take Feather Fall -- you don't take fall damage by just waiting to cast it.**
* There are no rules about "resetting the counter of fall damage"; however, Feather Fall specifically negates fall damage.
3. **So going by (2), then if you cast Fly on yourself while mid fall, do you take damage because your fall ended?**
* *PHB 191, Flying Movement* seems to suggest that if you are held aloft by magic, you are not considered falling. A non-falling creature does not take Fall damage. See [this answer](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/98347/27327) which discusses this specific objection in more depth.
4. **"At the end of the a fall... the creature lands prone..." Thus the fall ends when the creature lands. That is not to say that the creature didn't fall 100', but that the thunderwave doesn't itself precipitate falling damage**
* These are two separate sentences with independent thoughts. More accurately, it's "At the end of the fall, you take damage equal to X" and "If you take damage after falling, you land prone." If Thunderwave causes the fall to end, damage is still taken. But landing becomes inapplicable as you do not land when hit by TW in this way. | This is mostly likely a DM Discretion issue, but what follows is some guidance:
In order for Thunderwave to successfully push you 10' away from the ground, the Cleric would need to have done the following:
1. Depending on initiative order at the time of falling, there may not have been an opportunity to ready the action. For the sake of this discussion - there was sufficient time.
2. Cleric would need to fall first and be 'below' the party. This would allow him to "push" his party 10' up prior to hitting the ground.
3. The party would need to be directly above and in range of the Cleric. [Your mileage may vary on how you interpret in range.](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48998/is-thunderwave-centered-on-the-caster)
4. All party members would still have to make the save against it and take the 3d8 Thunder Damage (either full or half depending on save state.)Further discussion on saving throws can be found [here](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47487/can-you-choose-to-fail-a-saving-throw).
If those conditions are met, then the question arises as to what happens.
The cleric would of course hit the ground with regular falling damage.
The party, after falling X feet, would now be pushed back up, only to fall back down final 10 feet to the ground.
From a pure calculation point, you have the original X distance, then they are pushed back up 10', only to fall again. The original fall is still occurring, but you have moved sent them back up 10' in order to fall.
It is unknown if falling damage is based purely on distance, or on an assumption of speed/momentum. However, given that the falling damage is calculated purely on distance, you have still falling the full distance, plus an additional 10' AND the thunder damage.
However - I think there is a case for saying the push 'resets' the falling meter and it's only 10 feet that they have fallen (if you timed it right after you hit the ground, but before your party does.)
This basically turns a Readied Thunderwave into a bit of a Featherfall. For a level One spell slot, I think this is reasonable as long as the first four conditions I listed are met. |
98,320 | Thunderwave, on a failed save, pushes a target 10 feet when it hits them in addition to doing damage. In the event that a party as a whole were falling, a creative Cleric could Ready his spell to be cast when they're about to hit the ground, by Thunderwaving the other member's of the party, directly, 10 feet in the opposite direction.
Since physics aren't really a thing in D&D, would this theoretically counter the fall damage by negating all forward momentum and setting it back to zero? I understand they'll likely still take at least 10 feet of fall damage, but that's not what I'm mainly curious about. | 2017/04/18 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/98320",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/23110/"
] | This method nets you more damage
================================
Falling damage is dealt *at the end of a fall*.
>
> **PHB 183, Falling**
>
>
> At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.
>
>
>
So in order for Thunderwave to stop you from taking this damage, it has to *end the fall first* and then begin a new one, wherein you fall at a height of 15 ft or less. Furthermore, it must end the fall without dealing damage to you.
If you are falling and then are subjected to Thunderwave such that your fall stops and is reversed (ie, you are tossed upwards), you should take falling damage then. And now you begin a new fall from your new height.
For example: you fell from a height of 100 ft. After falling 90 ft, your Cleric (who is on the ground, right at the spot you are going to land on) casts Thunderwave, sending you back 15 ft upwards. Then, your fall must have ended at the moment you were 10 ft away from the ground when you were hit by Thunderwave.
You take 9d6 + 2d8 damage for this. Then you begin a new fall from a height of 25 ft (the 10 ft you were at, plus the 15 ft from TW), dealing you another 2d6 damage when you land.
All in all, this nets you extra damage equal to 1d6 bludgeoning, for the extra 15 ft fall, and 2d8 thunder, from the Thunderwave.
---
Response to Objections:
=======================
1. **Thunderwave causes forced movement, and forced movement doesn't trigger damage effects. Is there a rule that Thunderwave must trigger the damage?**
* A spell does only what it states it does. Thunderwave does not say it prevents falling damage. Moreover, the saying goes "It's not the fall that hurts you; it’s the sudden stop" which I feel is applicable here. The rules for taking falling damage state that you take damage "at the end of the fall." If Thunderwave causes your fall to end, then you must take damage.
* There is no rule that says forced movement *never* triggers damage.
2. **Is there a rule that the falling counter isn't reset once pushed back up? Take Feather Fall -- you don't take fall damage by just waiting to cast it.**
* There are no rules about "resetting the counter of fall damage"; however, Feather Fall specifically negates fall damage.
3. **So going by (2), then if you cast Fly on yourself while mid fall, do you take damage because your fall ended?**
* *PHB 191, Flying Movement* seems to suggest that if you are held aloft by magic, you are not considered falling. A non-falling creature does not take Fall damage. See [this answer](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/98347/27327) which discusses this specific objection in more depth.
4. **"At the end of the a fall... the creature lands prone..." Thus the fall ends when the creature lands. That is not to say that the creature didn't fall 100', but that the thunderwave doesn't itself precipitate falling damage**
* These are two separate sentences with independent thoughts. More accurately, it's "At the end of the fall, you take damage equal to X" and "If you take damage after falling, you land prone." If Thunderwave causes the fall to end, damage is still taken. But landing becomes inapplicable as you do not land when hit by TW in this way. | The combo is outside the rules, and by strict RAW provides no benefit. However, many DM's might still desire to encourage roleplaying and creative thinking, and PHB p.193 states:
>
> When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
>
>
>
In this case, I might still allow the spell to provide a sonic cushion, reducing the fall damage for the party by 10' (possibly more if the caster rolled high on Arcana). Similarly, if a player asked - I might grant the same minor benefit for say, using a fireball when falling into ice (to melt the ice) or water (to create bubbles or even an updraft). It's generally more fun to say "*Yes, and*" to players (but with minor benefits that don't unbalance the system).
At the very least, it can provide a narrative reason why a high HP PC survived a terminal velocity fall. |
267,918 | We are currently using Office 2002 on Windows XP but will be moving our users to Windows 7 in the next few months. Part of our business is writing research documents so there is heavy use of Word (including an in-house bespoke templating add-in).
The Windows 7 test user group have found that Word 2002 documents which contain tables/graphics can sometimes (but not always) display an annoying 'flicker' (especially if there are any drawing objects such as call-outs layered on top). This can be temporarily fixed by adjusting the zoom level in Word, but scrolling through the document will often cause the flicker to return.
The intention is to upgrade Office once all users have migrated to Windows 7 but realistically this may not be for 9-12 months; whilst that would possibly remove the problem, the time scale is too far in the future for users to accept at present.
Has anyone else come across a similar problem with Word 2002 on Windows 7 and/or found a solution to it? | 2011/04/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/267918",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/59/"
] | According to the Windows 7 Compatibility Center, Office 2002 may not be compatible with Windows 7: <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Details.aspx?type=Software&p=Microsoft%20Office%20XP%202002%20Standard&v=Microsoft&uid=10&l=en&pf=0&pi=0&s=office%202002&os=64-bit>
You may have to upgrade to end the flicker. | From skimming the web it seems there's a fair number of people out there using Office 2002 with minimal problems on Windows 7 (most issues seem related to Outlook). I think it's going to be fairly natural of Microsoft to mark the compatibility status of such an old version of Office with the latest Windows as ambiguous; they have newer versions available.
Someone had [a similar flickering problem with Word 2002](https://www.sevenforums.com/microsoft-office/106239-flickering-display-word-2002-a.html) and posted a solution that worked for them:
>
> In essence the document was created by
> copy/pastes. The problem was that some
> of the data overlapped the right
> margins of the table/document and Word
> did not know how to format it and
> became locked. I solved it by copy
> pasting a bit of the text at the time
> to ensure it fit within the prescribed
> table cells.
>
>
> |
267,918 | We are currently using Office 2002 on Windows XP but will be moving our users to Windows 7 in the next few months. Part of our business is writing research documents so there is heavy use of Word (including an in-house bespoke templating add-in).
The Windows 7 test user group have found that Word 2002 documents which contain tables/graphics can sometimes (but not always) display an annoying 'flicker' (especially if there are any drawing objects such as call-outs layered on top). This can be temporarily fixed by adjusting the zoom level in Word, but scrolling through the document will often cause the flicker to return.
The intention is to upgrade Office once all users have migrated to Windows 7 but realistically this may not be for 9-12 months; whilst that would possibly remove the problem, the time scale is too far in the future for users to accept at present.
Has anyone else come across a similar problem with Word 2002 on Windows 7 and/or found a solution to it? | 2011/04/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/267918",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/59/"
] | I have seen a similar issue. We solved this by running Word in Compatibility mode, as also suggested by Randolph Potter in the comments above. What worked for us was to choose "Windows XP Service Pack 3".
Here is an article from How To Geek on changing Compatibility mode: <http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/10436/using-program-compatibility-mode-in-windows-7/> | According to the Windows 7 Compatibility Center, Office 2002 may not be compatible with Windows 7: <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Details.aspx?type=Software&p=Microsoft%20Office%20XP%202002%20Standard&v=Microsoft&uid=10&l=en&pf=0&pi=0&s=office%202002&os=64-bit>
You may have to upgrade to end the flicker. |
267,918 | We are currently using Office 2002 on Windows XP but will be moving our users to Windows 7 in the next few months. Part of our business is writing research documents so there is heavy use of Word (including an in-house bespoke templating add-in).
The Windows 7 test user group have found that Word 2002 documents which contain tables/graphics can sometimes (but not always) display an annoying 'flicker' (especially if there are any drawing objects such as call-outs layered on top). This can be temporarily fixed by adjusting the zoom level in Word, but scrolling through the document will often cause the flicker to return.
The intention is to upgrade Office once all users have migrated to Windows 7 but realistically this may not be for 9-12 months; whilst that would possibly remove the problem, the time scale is too far in the future for users to accept at present.
Has anyone else come across a similar problem with Word 2002 on Windows 7 and/or found a solution to it? | 2011/04/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/267918",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/59/"
] | I have seen a similar issue. We solved this by running Word in Compatibility mode, as also suggested by Randolph Potter in the comments above. What worked for us was to choose "Windows XP Service Pack 3".
Here is an article from How To Geek on changing Compatibility mode: <http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/10436/using-program-compatibility-mode-in-windows-7/> | From skimming the web it seems there's a fair number of people out there using Office 2002 with minimal problems on Windows 7 (most issues seem related to Outlook). I think it's going to be fairly natural of Microsoft to mark the compatibility status of such an old version of Office with the latest Windows as ambiguous; they have newer versions available.
Someone had [a similar flickering problem with Word 2002](https://www.sevenforums.com/microsoft-office/106239-flickering-display-word-2002-a.html) and posted a solution that worked for them:
>
> In essence the document was created by
> copy/pastes. The problem was that some
> of the data overlapped the right
> margins of the table/document and Word
> did not know how to format it and
> became locked. I solved it by copy
> pasting a bit of the text at the time
> to ensure it fit within the prescribed
> table cells.
>
>
> |
267,918 | We are currently using Office 2002 on Windows XP but will be moving our users to Windows 7 in the next few months. Part of our business is writing research documents so there is heavy use of Word (including an in-house bespoke templating add-in).
The Windows 7 test user group have found that Word 2002 documents which contain tables/graphics can sometimes (but not always) display an annoying 'flicker' (especially if there are any drawing objects such as call-outs layered on top). This can be temporarily fixed by adjusting the zoom level in Word, but scrolling through the document will often cause the flicker to return.
The intention is to upgrade Office once all users have migrated to Windows 7 but realistically this may not be for 9-12 months; whilst that would possibly remove the problem, the time scale is too far in the future for users to accept at present.
Has anyone else come across a similar problem with Word 2002 on Windows 7 and/or found a solution to it? | 2011/04/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/267918",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/59/"
] | Run Microsoft Word in Compatibility Mode and choose an older version of Windows. This fixed the problem for me when running Office 2003 with Windows 8. | From skimming the web it seems there's a fair number of people out there using Office 2002 with minimal problems on Windows 7 (most issues seem related to Outlook). I think it's going to be fairly natural of Microsoft to mark the compatibility status of such an old version of Office with the latest Windows as ambiguous; they have newer versions available.
Someone had [a similar flickering problem with Word 2002](https://www.sevenforums.com/microsoft-office/106239-flickering-display-word-2002-a.html) and posted a solution that worked for them:
>
> In essence the document was created by
> copy/pastes. The problem was that some
> of the data overlapped the right
> margins of the table/document and Word
> did not know how to format it and
> became locked. I solved it by copy
> pasting a bit of the text at the time
> to ensure it fit within the prescribed
> table cells.
>
>
> |
267,918 | We are currently using Office 2002 on Windows XP but will be moving our users to Windows 7 in the next few months. Part of our business is writing research documents so there is heavy use of Word (including an in-house bespoke templating add-in).
The Windows 7 test user group have found that Word 2002 documents which contain tables/graphics can sometimes (but not always) display an annoying 'flicker' (especially if there are any drawing objects such as call-outs layered on top). This can be temporarily fixed by adjusting the zoom level in Word, but scrolling through the document will often cause the flicker to return.
The intention is to upgrade Office once all users have migrated to Windows 7 but realistically this may not be for 9-12 months; whilst that would possibly remove the problem, the time scale is too far in the future for users to accept at present.
Has anyone else come across a similar problem with Word 2002 on Windows 7 and/or found a solution to it? | 2011/04/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/267918",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/59/"
] | I have seen a similar issue. We solved this by running Word in Compatibility mode, as also suggested by Randolph Potter in the comments above. What worked for us was to choose "Windows XP Service Pack 3".
Here is an article from How To Geek on changing Compatibility mode: <http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/10436/using-program-compatibility-mode-in-windows-7/> | Run Microsoft Word in Compatibility Mode and choose an older version of Windows. This fixed the problem for me when running Office 2003 with Windows 8. |
116,283 | I am an editor for a trade publication with 40 years of experience in journalism. The company wants me to take a job on the events side, writing content, helping with organization, moderating panels, archiving video. They haven’t called it a promotion but it would clearly be more intense work and involve traveling to conferences every other month. I’d like to accept the offer but I want to negotiate a salary increase after a six-month review. Can I do that upfront or do I wait the six months and in either case, what kind of percentage would be equitable? | 2018/07/21 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116283",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/90496/"
] | You are playing well above your pay grade. Let your manager manage your colleague. An outcome like "the project got finished but wasn't great, one of the interns worked hard but the other was a nightmare" is common as dirt in this industry.
Do the tasks your manager has assigned to you. When you're out of tasks, go ask for more. When you can't do something because you're waiting on the colleague, let your manager know. When you get something from your colleague and it's unusably bad, ask your manager whether you should fix it up, or bounce it back explaining why you can't use it. Then ask what you should do next given that you can't do what you were planning to do (use the thing from the colleague.)
You seem to think that if you can't fix this other intern (or arrange for a firing) it will reflect poorly on you. Do you really think your manager is so terrible as not to see what you see? You've reported it, shown the code, the manager has already started dealing out tasks and telling the other intern to use source control, and so on. This is all the manager's job, not yours. Relax and do yours, keep your manager informed, and let the manager manage. | * Inform you manager about the Verbatim copies of code from the Internet, and tell that you see a potential legal liability there
* Explicitly state in commit messages which of his commits you fixed
* Your manager listened to you once, so the next time a huge and messy commit comes which breaks something working and could have been caught by the test, you write an email to your coworker with the manager in CC stating that you need he should show you on his machine how he tested the code and how it works.
* When he submitted something which breaks and leaves during the office hours, you go to the manager shortly after he left and ask him to locate your coworker, stating that you would prefer if the coworker helps integrating the code - state that you can do it alone, but it may take more time and state which of your tasks is delayed by this.
* In case this continues, take notes over one week how much work integrating your coworkers mess has caused you, with specific incidents, go to your manager and state that you "can handle it without him" |
116,283 | I am an editor for a trade publication with 40 years of experience in journalism. The company wants me to take a job on the events side, writing content, helping with organization, moderating panels, archiving video. They haven’t called it a promotion but it would clearly be more intense work and involve traveling to conferences every other month. I’d like to accept the offer but I want to negotiate a salary increase after a six-month review. Can I do that upfront or do I wait the six months and in either case, what kind of percentage would be equitable? | 2018/07/21 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116283",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/90496/"
] | Since you are using a versioning system: Fix one bug in his code and check the fix into the versioning system. Then fix another bug and check the fix into the versioning system. And so on. So when you need evidence you point your boss to the versioning system, which contains your name 99 times and his name once.
(In a professional environment with experienced developers you use a source code control system in a different way).
And consider that many companies use an internship as a very, very long interview. If that is the case in your company, then by the sounds of it you are passing the interview, and your colleague is not. | * Inform you manager about the Verbatim copies of code from the Internet, and tell that you see a potential legal liability there
* Explicitly state in commit messages which of his commits you fixed
* Your manager listened to you once, so the next time a huge and messy commit comes which breaks something working and could have been caught by the test, you write an email to your coworker with the manager in CC stating that you need he should show you on his machine how he tested the code and how it works.
* When he submitted something which breaks and leaves during the office hours, you go to the manager shortly after he left and ask him to locate your coworker, stating that you would prefer if the coworker helps integrating the code - state that you can do it alone, but it may take more time and state which of your tasks is delayed by this.
* In case this continues, take notes over one week how much work integrating your coworkers mess has caused you, with specific incidents, go to your manager and state that you "can handle it without him" |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.