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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
34,135 | What does the bold-part mean?, in connection to the first part before hyphen?
>
> Chomsky expresses support for the boycott of products from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories – **a strategy enhanced by an EU policy shift last year that was welcomed by pro-Palestinian activists.**
>
>
> | 2014/09/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/34135",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | No, "not a stretch" is litotes for "very plausible". | Check this Collins definition [stretch](http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/stretch) sense 19.
Maybe you could otherwise say:
>
> The Lawyer in this interpretation would represent capitalist society–not **an extension/expansion** of a symbol by any means.
>
>
>
But more context is needed to get the meaning you are looking for. |
38,549,235 | I have stacked few views separately and horizontally. Now I have selected these stacked views and wish to stack them vertically. But when I press the stack button in stack bar, it is choosing horizontal axis. I can change the axis to vertical now but that changes the order of stack views and make me work harder in rearranging them in outline.
Is it possible to choose the axis before we press the stack button? | 2016/07/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38549235",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/597858/"
] | No you can't. Until xcode 8 beta, the *arrange in stack view* tool always chooses the axis based on the current relative position of the views. | If by "stack button" you mean selected "Embed in Stack View" in the task bar, then no, I don't believe there's a way to select horizontal embedding. You can, however, add a horizontal stack view nib to your storyboard first, and then place your arranged subviews inside it.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FRbAs.png) |
35,401 | We have setup a new magento store with a new products and need to migrate customers and orders from our old store.
Is it enough to migrate customers and sales tables? Or are they connected with products tables?
Whats the best way howto do it then?
Thank You in advance | 2014/09/10 | [
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/questions/35401",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/users/14097/"
] | We have done several migrations. Our experience has been to use the following extension [Aitoc Orders Export and Import](http://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/orders-export-and-import.html):
Here are some of the limitations of the extension, all of your ported orders will not have the cc authorization info. Meaning if a customer contacts you after it is ported and you need to provide a refund, you will have to do it through the gateway or via paypal. You won't be able to do it through the system.
Ported orders serve as a reference, they won't be in any of the reports. So you start fresh with all of your selling reports.
If there are multiple items on an order, it pulls the right total but only pulls the first item on the order.
We did a magento go to a magento community port, not sure what you are doing, but just wanted to share our experience with you and your migration. | Existing store is in magento right? Then you could use order export and import extension for importing orders from exiting shop. Migrating sales and customers tables can erroneous. |
176,359 | I have a 120V coil contactor relay connected to a pump. The pump is connected on the control terminals of the relay. I would like to switch another circuit when the pump circuit is turned on, but this problem has to do with the control circuit. When I energize the circuit, the relay clicks but the pump does not turn on. On the other hand, if I jump the relay (bypass the relay), when I energize the circuit the pump does turn on. I’ve tried two different relays with the same result. Pump is here <https://www.pexuniverse.com/armstrong-astro250ci-circulator-pump>
Relay is here <https://canada.newark.com/carlo-gavazzi/gdp251ss120v/contactor-spst-no-120vac-panel/dp/45Y3714>
 | 2019/10/13 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/176359",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/89147/"
] | It sounds (and looks) like you've put the relay coil in SERIES with the pump, not in PARALLEL with the pump. Correct that and both should work as expected.
So, hot from whatever turns the pump on goes to pump and **one end** of relay coil. The **other end** of the relay coil goes to neutral, as does the other side of the pump. | Your relay needs line and neutral to operate. The motor also needs the same thing but it is controlled by the relay. You never interrupt only the neutral line so the relay interrupts the line side.
Here is a back of business card drawing of what I am saying.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hDb1x.jpg)
The power for the relay and motor could be the same or different depending on the size of each. Note that a large motor could have two or three hot line which each need to be interrupted by the relay however that does not seem to be the case here.
For a small system the two line and the two neutral wires would then be jumpered together. This would be the case if the motor is also 120 V and low horsepower. If the motor is 240 V, you would need a two pole relay. If the motor is several horsepower, I would assume you would want your wire separated like my drawing. |
40,097 | If I pay for a program can I install it on the three computers I use on a daily basis?
How is licensing decided or are there any restrictions on licenses used?
Where are these kinds of questions documented? | 2011/05/04 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/40097",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/49/"
] | Currently there's no DRM-like application security system. Developers have to rely on the good will of the users to appreciate the fact that there's no DRM and show that they're responsible enough to not need any DRM.
If you want to install your previous purchages after reinstalling Ubuntu, just click on the File -> Reinstall Previous Purchases menu item in Software Center. You'll be prompted for your login details when you click it. And from here it all depends on what happens then: I expect you can download and install the app (not tested ;) ) but technically the website you download from could block you and make you pay again. Save the .deb if you want to be sure.
Partly taken from: [Do I need to re-purchase software in the Ubuntu Software Centre if I reinstall?](https://askubuntu.com/questions/7825/do-i-need-to-re-purchase-software-in-the-ubuntu-software-centre-if-i-reinstall) | I would imagine this would depend on the program. I would first check the publisher's website for the program in question to see what licensing restrictions they have.
If you specified the program name, we might be able to help you out more. |
40,097 | If I pay for a program can I install it on the three computers I use on a daily basis?
How is licensing decided or are there any restrictions on licenses used?
Where are these kinds of questions documented? | 2011/05/04 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/40097",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/49/"
] | This really depends on the publisher of the application.
There is a page with information on [how licenses work](http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/licence-key-infrastructure/) for paid applications in the Ubuntu Software Center:
>
> Once you’ve enabled licence keys, Ubuntu Software Centre will fetch a licence key when it completes a purchase, and copy that into the right file for your app to check. It is up to you, the developer, to provide keys that are hard to guess, check if the key is there when your application starts and behave accordingly.
>
>
> You will receive a notification by email when the number of available licence keys goes below a certain configurable threshold, and you will see notices when you visit the website telling you about this also. If we run out of license keys we will necessarily stop selling copies of your app.
>
>
> | I would imagine this would depend on the program. I would first check the publisher's website for the program in question to see what licensing restrictions they have.
If you specified the program name, we might be able to help you out more. |
40,097 | If I pay for a program can I install it on the three computers I use on a daily basis?
How is licensing decided or are there any restrictions on licenses used?
Where are these kinds of questions documented? | 2011/05/04 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/40097",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/49/"
] | All paid applications in the Software Center are user based. The Software Center will allow you to install on all three of your computers. If the application is licensed via a license key, this same license will be used on all three - note that you may be violating the terms of use of the application, however it is not enforced by the Software Center.
The new website has a FAQ page at <http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/commercial-software-faqs/> that answers these questions. | I would imagine this would depend on the program. I would first check the publisher's website for the program in question to see what licensing restrictions they have.
If you specified the program name, we might be able to help you out more. |
88,917 | My scenario is a civilization on a carbon-rich planet. The planet has a hydrocarbon atmosphere, oceans and clouds. Most rocks are carbides. The only flammable substance in such an atmosphere is oxygen. A society undergoing an industrial revolution may find ways to extract oxygen from minerals and use it as natural gas. (Gasoline and air have switched places).
The society has a 19th or 20th century technology. It has a few challenges:
* Oxygen is toxic and corrosive to organisms on that planet.
* Rather than oil, they search for underground water reserves. Water reacts with many carbides (especially calcium carbides) and must be properly stored. However, extracting oxygen by electrolysis is energy-demanding.
Then these are my questions:
* how to extract oxygen efficiently from carbon monoxide? It is common in the planet's atmosphere.
* Assuming renewable energy is yet to come, what other fuels they may find? | 2017/08/14 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/88917",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/41132/"
] | Oxygen isn't the only thing that will support combustion. There's also chlorine, fluorine, and various non-elemental oxidizing agents like sulfates, nitrates, chlorates, and the infamous FOOF and chlorine trifluoride.
Some of those, like sulfates and nitrates, might reasonably be naturally produced, either by biological or geochemical processes, and could be mined as solid fuels, analogous to coal.
Ancient lifeforms might also produce energy-rich molecules that do not require combustion / reduction at all, but release energy by simple decomposition, like nitroglycerin.
And since water reacts exothermically with carbides directly, why would you need or want to extract oxygen from it? That just makes it more difficult to work with. Just use water + carbide rocks as fuel directly.
Extracting oxygen directly from CO seems non-trivial; at least, I couldn't find any information on how to do it in 10 minutes of casual research. It might be easier to first decompose CO into carbon and CO2, and then separate the CO2, possibly by electrolysis. Honestly, though, there doesn't really seem to be much point in that. EDIT: While there are more steps involved, the hydrogenation process described in The Real Bill's answer is probably more suitable, especially for the given tech level. Still, though, I don't really see the point in it. | I actually wrote a novella about a similar planet! In that story, some animals extracted oxygen from the air and stored it as a liquid in pressurized organs. Perhaps the biosphere on your planet does something similar, storing oxygen in some stable form that can be broken down when needed (the way plants store sugars). If you get enough organisms doing that, and they're buried and fossilized, you get deposits of oxygen-based fossil fuel.
I'm not sure what the chemistry would look like, though. |
88,917 | My scenario is a civilization on a carbon-rich planet. The planet has a hydrocarbon atmosphere, oceans and clouds. Most rocks are carbides. The only flammable substance in such an atmosphere is oxygen. A society undergoing an industrial revolution may find ways to extract oxygen from minerals and use it as natural gas. (Gasoline and air have switched places).
The society has a 19th or 20th century technology. It has a few challenges:
* Oxygen is toxic and corrosive to organisms on that planet.
* Rather than oil, they search for underground water reserves. Water reacts with many carbides (especially calcium carbides) and must be properly stored. However, extracting oxygen by electrolysis is energy-demanding.
Then these are my questions:
* how to extract oxygen efficiently from carbon monoxide? It is common in the planet's atmosphere.
* Assuming renewable energy is yet to come, what other fuels they may find? | 2017/08/14 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/88917",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/41132/"
] | Well oxygen is toxic and corrosive here, too. ;) It is also not flammable/combustible on its own. It can support combustion, yes. But pure oxygen in a pure oxygen environment isn't combustible as I recall.
Anyway, the extraction of oxygen from carbon monoxide is something well within the range of 19-20th century tech. The basic reaction process, known as hydrogenation, is to combine it with hydrogen and a metallic catalyst. This is a strongly exothermic reaction that produces ethylene and water. From there you can separate the water via electrolysis or via algae reactors.
An algae reactor leverages the fact that certain algae, when they are deprived of sulfur, [switch to making hydrogen from water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production_(algae)) instead of oxygen. It could be that on your world certain algae naturally do this. That could make for interesting geopolitical situations as well as interesting terrain features where such algae is present. While you don't get oxygen directly from the water, it is low power and produces hydrogen which is very valuable for many of the reactions I'll mention.
Of course, you could still have algae which split water into oxygen for you, too. So perhaps you have a bioreactor for each, with the oxygen and hydrogen coming off of it being used as inputs various chemical reactions. And while we've only recently figured out the sulfur deprivation trick, we've known about the hydrogen switch for over a century so even that should fit the tech level given.
For example, I can envision a steampunk algae bioreactor setup combined with an ethylene generator, with the heat from the ethylene/water generator producing electricity turbines via low-level steam turbines. You'd also thus have ethylene which is a pretty decent fuel - and could serve as a foundation for the beginnings of plastics production as well as a liquid fuel. Perhaps your world is more plastic than metal based? The production of polyethelyne on our world consumes about half of our prodigious production of ethylene.
We first started knowingly mucking around w/ethylene in the 1600s so it fits the tech level you gave. The catch is is is essentially a bit energy intensive to make. Of course, ethylene is a hydrocarbon, and it may also occur in deposits on your world in the way oil does on ours. Rather than decomposed dead things, they might conceivably form underground where CO, water, and algae were trapped. Or maybe you've got an algae that does it not from photosynthesis but from thermal energy. Then you could have "pockets" of ethylene underground (or near thermal vents) - perhaps from tectonic shifts which brought the algae and water down into the ground.
As far as ethylene as fuel, for heating it is about 5 times more useful than carbon monoxide directly (yes, CO can be used as a fuel). If your industries have access to chlorine they can also use it with the CO to provide a stepping stone to various acids.
I've also seen some references to using a copper catalyst to break out the oxygen from carbon monoxide but don't know the particulars. There are also references to using zirconia to electrolysis to produce
As for CO directly as a fuel, [this paper](https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/Merge/Vol-18_3-0001.pdf) from 1949 talks a bit about CO uses as a fuel, comparing to methane. Note that most of the paper is about actually producing the CO, which may not be an issue on your world. ;) Also, you can relatively easily mix a catalyst, CO, and H2 to produce methane as well. For more ideas on that you could also check out this article which talks about [coal gas](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Coal_gas) - which contained CO as a key component. For gross and net heating values per cubic foot or per pound, [CO is about as good as H2](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html). Note that ethylene is still loads better by volume, but less than hydrogen by weight.
That said, I guess "common" may need more clarification. Carbon monoxide is combustible and has a lower flammability level of, IIRC, around 12% and an upper limit of about 75% - so it better be *really* common or not *that* common. ;) So really, provided you have a means to dilute/concentrate the CO found in the air you've got fuel to burn and thus bootstrap other fuels.
Other bits to look up would be the Water-Gas-Shift, Sabatier reaction, and Reverse-Water-Gas-Shift to get more details on ways your planet's industry could develop fuels.
Now as to your carbide rich surface, this can produce fuel for you "naturally" as well. You could have methane and/or hydrogen pockets (from water+beryllium or water+manganese carbides), for example. There are additional possibilities such as acetylene, ethylene and various mixes. That said I'd feel free to stipulate that the planet isn't "carbides all the way down".
Hopefully that provides you with some options and ideas. | I actually wrote a novella about a similar planet! In that story, some animals extracted oxygen from the air and stored it as a liquid in pressurized organs. Perhaps the biosphere on your planet does something similar, storing oxygen in some stable form that can be broken down when needed (the way plants store sugars). If you get enough organisms doing that, and they're buried and fossilized, you get deposits of oxygen-based fossil fuel.
I'm not sure what the chemistry would look like, though. |
193,238 | I recently applied to US universities and contacted professors I mentioned in the application. In one particular case (the most important one), all three professors are not accepting students. Would the application get rejected straight away?
My research area as mentioned in my SOP is “*Deep Learning and its applications in Computer Vision*”.
I guess the area I mentioned in my SOP is neither too broad nor too restrictive. Does it affect the application in any way? | 2023/02/06 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/193238",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/142847/"
] | It depends on the publisher. For example, the IEEE does allow it:
<https://supportcenter.ieee.org/app/answers/detail/a_id/1385/kw/payment/related/1> | Yes (at least in my experience). I’ve done this in two ways.
1. The publisher (*v.g* the American Physical Society) or its representative has a payment website where partial payments can be done. The software keeps track of the amounts of various institutions until the full amount is reached. The invoice includes the names of the various parties and the amounts they paid.
2. One person or grant pays the entire fee and my grant reimburses this person or grant through normal institution-to-institution invoicing or bank transfer.
In all instances I’m familiar with, publishers have recognized that there may be more than one person paying the APC so option 1 is now the most common (at least with larger publisher in physics). |
10,314,724 | I'm working on an Android project and i need to import an XML library called XOM. The only way i found was to right click on the project name -> Properties -> Libraries tab -> click on "Add external Jar". But that only references it from it's original path, what happens when i compile the app and move it to my phone? Will the Jar be in there?
Might be a stupid question, sorry if that's the case. | 2012/04/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10314724",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/290790/"
] | It's fine to do that but what I normally do is create a folder called `lib`and then add Jars from there. I find that makes it easier to see what Jars I have in my application.
The main disadvantage of your original approach is that what if the path to that library externally accidentally changes? then your program will not compile. It's better to have everything in the one place to make things easier. | `.apk` is nothing but a collection or zipped version of a file. it contains all the resources and compiled java files.
So you need not have to worry about the inclusion of your library files. if you have set proper path to your libraries in eclipse then these will be included in your apk file. |
10,314,724 | I'm working on an Android project and i need to import an XML library called XOM. The only way i found was to right click on the project name -> Properties -> Libraries tab -> click on "Add external Jar". But that only references it from it's original path, what happens when i compile the app and move it to my phone? Will the Jar be in there?
Might be a stupid question, sorry if that's the case. | 2012/04/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10314724",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/290790/"
] | It's fine to do that but what I normally do is create a folder called `lib`and then add Jars from there. I find that makes it easier to see what Jars I have in my application.
The main disadvantage of your original approach is that what if the path to that library externally accidentally changes? then your program will not compile. It's better to have everything in the one place to make things easier. | Create a directory called "libs" in your under your root directory. You can do it by,
* Right click on the project which is in the Package Explorer window in
Eclipse.
* New -> Folder -> give "libs" as the Folder name
* Copy your jar file and paste it to in the "libs" folder
* Expand the "libs" folder
* Right click on your copied jar file -> Build Path -> Add to build
path
That's it |
11,391 | UPDATE - Definitely a driver issue. Problem goes away when I uninstall nvidia drivers, comes back when I reinstall them.
I'm having a really strange hardware problem. I have a workstation with two displays, they're both identical V173 ACER monitors. The workstation has two graphics cards, identical GeForce 6200 cards. Both screens are connected through D-sub cables. However one screen is bright white, and the other is kind of a dull yellow.
I have controlled for the following factors:
1) I have tried a third screen on both cards and get the same problem, one will always appear yellow (even the one that was previous bright white).
2) I have reset both displays to factory defaults.
3) I have reset all display options in all control panels (the NVIDIA control panel and the windows display panel) to defaults.
4) I have tried different cables.
5) I have tried making different monitors primary and secondary.
6) I have tried another graphics card.
The only thing I know for sure is that whichever monitor is set to be the primary monitor will be the yellowish monitor. The other one will always be the bright white one.
Thoughts? | 2009/05/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/11391",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2423/"
] | LCD Displays usually have a "Color Adjust" for different settings of "Kelvin". In essence, it adjust the display in a way that causes different amounts of tint to occur. Your monitors are using two different settings, one of which is biased towards red. | Are you running any other monitor-related utilities? I have no idea what nVidia is shipping these days, but try right clicking on the desktop and looking through the nVidia monitor control panel - it might have different stuff than the real monitor control panel. Look especially for any sliders (I see a panel labeled 'Adjust Desktop Color Settings' on my single monitor system). That might be monitor specific, and be the source of your trouble. |
11,391 | UPDATE - Definitely a driver issue. Problem goes away when I uninstall nvidia drivers, comes back when I reinstall them.
I'm having a really strange hardware problem. I have a workstation with two displays, they're both identical V173 ACER monitors. The workstation has two graphics cards, identical GeForce 6200 cards. Both screens are connected through D-sub cables. However one screen is bright white, and the other is kind of a dull yellow.
I have controlled for the following factors:
1) I have tried a third screen on both cards and get the same problem, one will always appear yellow (even the one that was previous bright white).
2) I have reset both displays to factory defaults.
3) I have reset all display options in all control panels (the NVIDIA control panel and the windows display panel) to defaults.
4) I have tried different cables.
5) I have tried making different monitors primary and secondary.
6) I have tried another graphics card.
The only thing I know for sure is that whichever monitor is set to be the primary monitor will be the yellowish monitor. The other one will always be the bright white one.
Thoughts? | 2009/05/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/11391",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2423/"
] | LCD Displays usually have a "Color Adjust" for different settings of "Kelvin". In essence, it adjust the display in a way that causes different amounts of tint to occur. Your monitors are using two different settings, one of which is biased towards red. | Is it possible to try a different computer, or using a different OS (like a linux Live-CD)? This would help rule out some strange settings in the OS. |
11,391 | UPDATE - Definitely a driver issue. Problem goes away when I uninstall nvidia drivers, comes back when I reinstall them.
I'm having a really strange hardware problem. I have a workstation with two displays, they're both identical V173 ACER monitors. The workstation has two graphics cards, identical GeForce 6200 cards. Both screens are connected through D-sub cables. However one screen is bright white, and the other is kind of a dull yellow.
I have controlled for the following factors:
1) I have tried a third screen on both cards and get the same problem, one will always appear yellow (even the one that was previous bright white).
2) I have reset both displays to factory defaults.
3) I have reset all display options in all control panels (the NVIDIA control panel and the windows display panel) to defaults.
4) I have tried different cables.
5) I have tried making different monitors primary and secondary.
6) I have tried another graphics card.
The only thing I know for sure is that whichever monitor is set to be the primary monitor will be the yellowish monitor. The other one will always be the bright white one.
Thoughts? | 2009/05/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/11391",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2423/"
] | Well I had a theory about IRQ sharing, but you have identified it as a driver issue. I think it is likely that nVidia never expected someone to run dual PCI cards. They probably only account for PCI-Express + PCI or AGP + PCI. | LCD Displays usually have a "Color Adjust" for different settings of "Kelvin". In essence, it adjust the display in a way that causes different amounts of tint to occur. Your monitors are using two different settings, one of which is biased towards red. |
11,391 | UPDATE - Definitely a driver issue. Problem goes away when I uninstall nvidia drivers, comes back when I reinstall them.
I'm having a really strange hardware problem. I have a workstation with two displays, they're both identical V173 ACER monitors. The workstation has two graphics cards, identical GeForce 6200 cards. Both screens are connected through D-sub cables. However one screen is bright white, and the other is kind of a dull yellow.
I have controlled for the following factors:
1) I have tried a third screen on both cards and get the same problem, one will always appear yellow (even the one that was previous bright white).
2) I have reset both displays to factory defaults.
3) I have reset all display options in all control panels (the NVIDIA control panel and the windows display panel) to defaults.
4) I have tried different cables.
5) I have tried making different monitors primary and secondary.
6) I have tried another graphics card.
The only thing I know for sure is that whichever monitor is set to be the primary monitor will be the yellowish monitor. The other one will always be the bright white one.
Thoughts? | 2009/05/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/11391",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2423/"
] | LCD Displays usually have a "Color Adjust" for different settings of "Kelvin". In essence, it adjust the display in a way that causes different amounts of tint to occur. Your monitors are using two different settings, one of which is biased towards red. | Install the latest drivers from the nVidia site, or the card manufacturer's site, if they have special drivers. Otherwise, use earlier and earlier versions of the drivers to see if any work.
If the issue still exists, contact support for the graphics card manufacturer. It may be a "minor" manufacturing defect that makes the card incorrectly interpret signals from the driver. |
11,391 | UPDATE - Definitely a driver issue. Problem goes away when I uninstall nvidia drivers, comes back when I reinstall them.
I'm having a really strange hardware problem. I have a workstation with two displays, they're both identical V173 ACER monitors. The workstation has two graphics cards, identical GeForce 6200 cards. Both screens are connected through D-sub cables. However one screen is bright white, and the other is kind of a dull yellow.
I have controlled for the following factors:
1) I have tried a third screen on both cards and get the same problem, one will always appear yellow (even the one that was previous bright white).
2) I have reset both displays to factory defaults.
3) I have reset all display options in all control panels (the NVIDIA control panel and the windows display panel) to defaults.
4) I have tried different cables.
5) I have tried making different monitors primary and secondary.
6) I have tried another graphics card.
The only thing I know for sure is that whichever monitor is set to be the primary monitor will be the yellowish monitor. The other one will always be the bright white one.
Thoughts? | 2009/05/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/11391",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2423/"
] | Well I had a theory about IRQ sharing, but you have identified it as a driver issue. I think it is likely that nVidia never expected someone to run dual PCI cards. They probably only account for PCI-Express + PCI or AGP + PCI. | Are you running any other monitor-related utilities? I have no idea what nVidia is shipping these days, but try right clicking on the desktop and looking through the nVidia monitor control panel - it might have different stuff than the real monitor control panel. Look especially for any sliders (I see a panel labeled 'Adjust Desktop Color Settings' on my single monitor system). That might be monitor specific, and be the source of your trouble. |
11,391 | UPDATE - Definitely a driver issue. Problem goes away when I uninstall nvidia drivers, comes back when I reinstall them.
I'm having a really strange hardware problem. I have a workstation with two displays, they're both identical V173 ACER monitors. The workstation has two graphics cards, identical GeForce 6200 cards. Both screens are connected through D-sub cables. However one screen is bright white, and the other is kind of a dull yellow.
I have controlled for the following factors:
1) I have tried a third screen on both cards and get the same problem, one will always appear yellow (even the one that was previous bright white).
2) I have reset both displays to factory defaults.
3) I have reset all display options in all control panels (the NVIDIA control panel and the windows display panel) to defaults.
4) I have tried different cables.
5) I have tried making different monitors primary and secondary.
6) I have tried another graphics card.
The only thing I know for sure is that whichever monitor is set to be the primary monitor will be the yellowish monitor. The other one will always be the bright white one.
Thoughts? | 2009/05/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/11391",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2423/"
] | Well I had a theory about IRQ sharing, but you have identified it as a driver issue. I think it is likely that nVidia never expected someone to run dual PCI cards. They probably only account for PCI-Express + PCI or AGP + PCI. | Is it possible to try a different computer, or using a different OS (like a linux Live-CD)? This would help rule out some strange settings in the OS. |
11,391 | UPDATE - Definitely a driver issue. Problem goes away when I uninstall nvidia drivers, comes back when I reinstall them.
I'm having a really strange hardware problem. I have a workstation with two displays, they're both identical V173 ACER monitors. The workstation has two graphics cards, identical GeForce 6200 cards. Both screens are connected through D-sub cables. However one screen is bright white, and the other is kind of a dull yellow.
I have controlled for the following factors:
1) I have tried a third screen on both cards and get the same problem, one will always appear yellow (even the one that was previous bright white).
2) I have reset both displays to factory defaults.
3) I have reset all display options in all control panels (the NVIDIA control panel and the windows display panel) to defaults.
4) I have tried different cables.
5) I have tried making different monitors primary and secondary.
6) I have tried another graphics card.
The only thing I know for sure is that whichever monitor is set to be the primary monitor will be the yellowish monitor. The other one will always be the bright white one.
Thoughts? | 2009/05/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/11391",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2423/"
] | Well I had a theory about IRQ sharing, but you have identified it as a driver issue. I think it is likely that nVidia never expected someone to run dual PCI cards. They probably only account for PCI-Express + PCI or AGP + PCI. | Install the latest drivers from the nVidia site, or the card manufacturer's site, if they have special drivers. Otherwise, use earlier and earlier versions of the drivers to see if any work.
If the issue still exists, contact support for the graphics card manufacturer. It may be a "minor" manufacturing defect that makes the card incorrectly interpret signals from the driver. |
22,268 | Bean sprouts are a common ingredient in stir-fry recipes, but they don't seem to last very long in my fridge.
How can I keep bean sprouts fresh for the maximum amount of time? | 2012/03/14 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1513/"
] | Looks like ehow has the [best reference guide](http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html) thus far to storing bean sprouts
After purchasing Bean Sprouts should be stored and washed after purchasing in growing. The article indicates that the best methods for storage are the following:
* Wash them after you purchase them.
>
> Wash bean sprouts after purchasing or growing. Wash them in cold water to remove seed
> coats, roots and other residue that may be present. If you are using
> them within a day, store them in the refrigerator at 40 to 45 degrees.
> Place the sprouts in a plastic bag with a wet paper towel to keep them
> moist.
>
>
>
* Store in icy water and change the water few times a day
>
> You can also store sprouts in a bucket of icy water and change the
> water a few times a day. Depending on how long the sprouts were in
> transit or on the store shelf, they should last longer than when
> stored in a plastic bag.
>
>
>
* Freeze them
>
> Freeze sprouts for the longest storage. Wash sprouts as described in
> Step One. Then heat one layer at a time in steam for three minutes.
> Cool right away in icy water and drain. Put the sprouts into plastic
> containers and seal.
>
>
>
It also mentions in the [article](http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html) to just grow them to provide the best freshness.
Apparently the shelf life of beansprouts should only be stored up to [3 days](http://www.foodreference.com/html/art-sprouts-types-tips.html)
Source: <http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html#ixzz1pAEZ12Jp> | I've been keeping them in a jar in the crisper section of the refrigerator, and they seem to be still fairly crunchy going on two weeks.
I found a jar of them last week that'd I'd forgotten from the previous week and they were in much better shape than the ones bought nine days later but for which I didn't have an available jar.
I don't rinse mine until right before I use them; most of my vegetables seem to keep longer that way (presumably because they'd be nearly impossible to dry thoroughly).
Edited to clarify: I always cover everything thoroughly, so the newer sprouts were wrapped in wax paper, then aluminum foil. |
22,268 | Bean sprouts are a common ingredient in stir-fry recipes, but they don't seem to last very long in my fridge.
How can I keep bean sprouts fresh for the maximum amount of time? | 2012/03/14 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1513/"
] | Looks like ehow has the [best reference guide](http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html) thus far to storing bean sprouts
After purchasing Bean Sprouts should be stored and washed after purchasing in growing. The article indicates that the best methods for storage are the following:
* Wash them after you purchase them.
>
> Wash bean sprouts after purchasing or growing. Wash them in cold water to remove seed
> coats, roots and other residue that may be present. If you are using
> them within a day, store them in the refrigerator at 40 to 45 degrees.
> Place the sprouts in a plastic bag with a wet paper towel to keep them
> moist.
>
>
>
* Store in icy water and change the water few times a day
>
> You can also store sprouts in a bucket of icy water and change the
> water a few times a day. Depending on how long the sprouts were in
> transit or on the store shelf, they should last longer than when
> stored in a plastic bag.
>
>
>
* Freeze them
>
> Freeze sprouts for the longest storage. Wash sprouts as described in
> Step One. Then heat one layer at a time in steam for three minutes.
> Cool right away in icy water and drain. Put the sprouts into plastic
> containers and seal.
>
>
>
It also mentions in the [article](http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html) to just grow them to provide the best freshness.
Apparently the shelf life of beansprouts should only be stored up to [3 days](http://www.foodreference.com/html/art-sprouts-types-tips.html)
Source: <http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html#ixzz1pAEZ12Jp> | My sister got these green veggie storage bags in Walmart. They make everything last longer. Not sure what they are called about 8x16” in size. Great for lettuce. Havent tried with bean sprouts yet but, great for fruit and veggies. |
22,268 | Bean sprouts are a common ingredient in stir-fry recipes, but they don't seem to last very long in my fridge.
How can I keep bean sprouts fresh for the maximum amount of time? | 2012/03/14 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1513/"
] | Looks like ehow has the [best reference guide](http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html) thus far to storing bean sprouts
After purchasing Bean Sprouts should be stored and washed after purchasing in growing. The article indicates that the best methods for storage are the following:
* Wash them after you purchase them.
>
> Wash bean sprouts after purchasing or growing. Wash them in cold water to remove seed
> coats, roots and other residue that may be present. If you are using
> them within a day, store them in the refrigerator at 40 to 45 degrees.
> Place the sprouts in a plastic bag with a wet paper towel to keep them
> moist.
>
>
>
* Store in icy water and change the water few times a day
>
> You can also store sprouts in a bucket of icy water and change the
> water a few times a day. Depending on how long the sprouts were in
> transit or on the store shelf, they should last longer than when
> stored in a plastic bag.
>
>
>
* Freeze them
>
> Freeze sprouts for the longest storage. Wash sprouts as described in
> Step One. Then heat one layer at a time in steam for three minutes.
> Cool right away in icy water and drain. Put the sprouts into plastic
> containers and seal.
>
>
>
It also mentions in the [article](http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html) to just grow them to provide the best freshness.
Apparently the shelf life of beansprouts should only be stored up to [3 days](http://www.foodreference.com/html/art-sprouts-types-tips.html)
Source: <http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html#ixzz1pAEZ12Jp> | The best way I found after trying many other ways, was to just put them in a sealed plastic container immediately after you bring them home from the supermarket, fill it with water and store them in a fridge. They will last for weeks. |
22,268 | Bean sprouts are a common ingredient in stir-fry recipes, but they don't seem to last very long in my fridge.
How can I keep bean sprouts fresh for the maximum amount of time? | 2012/03/14 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1513/"
] | I've been keeping them in a jar in the crisper section of the refrigerator, and they seem to be still fairly crunchy going on two weeks.
I found a jar of them last week that'd I'd forgotten from the previous week and they were in much better shape than the ones bought nine days later but for which I didn't have an available jar.
I don't rinse mine until right before I use them; most of my vegetables seem to keep longer that way (presumably because they'd be nearly impossible to dry thoroughly).
Edited to clarify: I always cover everything thoroughly, so the newer sprouts were wrapped in wax paper, then aluminum foil. | My sister got these green veggie storage bags in Walmart. They make everything last longer. Not sure what they are called about 8x16” in size. Great for lettuce. Havent tried with bean sprouts yet but, great for fruit and veggies. |
22,268 | Bean sprouts are a common ingredient in stir-fry recipes, but they don't seem to last very long in my fridge.
How can I keep bean sprouts fresh for the maximum amount of time? | 2012/03/14 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1513/"
] | I've been keeping them in a jar in the crisper section of the refrigerator, and they seem to be still fairly crunchy going on two weeks.
I found a jar of them last week that'd I'd forgotten from the previous week and they were in much better shape than the ones bought nine days later but for which I didn't have an available jar.
I don't rinse mine until right before I use them; most of my vegetables seem to keep longer that way (presumably because they'd be nearly impossible to dry thoroughly).
Edited to clarify: I always cover everything thoroughly, so the newer sprouts were wrapped in wax paper, then aluminum foil. | The best way I found after trying many other ways, was to just put them in a sealed plastic container immediately after you bring them home from the supermarket, fill it with water and store them in a fridge. They will last for weeks. |
51,119,213 | We are working on a new project that requires a complex design, however the client also wants it to be WCAG 2.0 compliant level AA. So we came up with the idea of adding a toolbar at the top of the each page with a button saying something along the lines "view this page enhanced for accessibility" and then store the preference as a cookie.
The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal? We have ways of making this switch button very obvious, but we haven't seen any site doing something like this, nor have found any documentation in favor or against it. | 2018/06/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51119213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2339776/"
] | Technically, yes - it's a valid approach to WCAG 2.0 - but you won't find many accessibility specialists recommending this.
The WCAG 2.0 supporting documents provide a lot of context for this, in [Understanding Conforming Alternate Versions](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head). However it clearly advises against this approach, at the end of the section called "[Why permit alternate versions?](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance#uc-whypermit-head)":
>
> Note that providing an alternate version is a fallback option for conformance to WCAG and the preferred method of conformance is to make all content directly accessible.
>
>
>
Compare the reasons given there to the situation with your own website, and only go down this route if you're certain you can't achieve conformance in the main version. If you can make the majority of your pages accessible in the main version, it's OK to have alternative versions for a few pages.
Part of your question concerns discrimination:
>
> The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal?
>
>
>
WCAG 2.0 doesn't really address discrimination *per se*, but local statutes likely do. This isn't the place for legal advice.
My own view is that going to lots of effort to provide (and maintain) alternative versions doesn't really amount to discrimination, but it doesn't aspire to inclusion either. Imagine a public library: an old building, with steps leading up to a grand front entrance. Pedestrians can stroll inside, enjoy the beautiful atrium, see posters about current events, talk to a librarian, or just go straight to the books. A wheelchair user has to go to the rear entrance, then ring a bell for a librarian to come and let them in. No fancy atrium to enjoy. The librarian has to let them out again, too. While the library is accessible for wheelchair users, the experience is a bit second-class; it's accessible by "alternative accommodations". Ideally the grand front entrance would be accessible to wheelchair users, but the architecture has a protected status. Websites are easier to improve than buildings, so it's better to avoid alternative versions.
Your mention of a "toolbar" to provide "enhanced accessibility" is worth exploring a bit further. Are your alternative versions really fully-fledged pages, or merely the same page with some tweaks applied? Providing customization options for the user is also a valid approach - see the [Fluid Infusion Preferences Framework](https://fluidproject.org/infusion.html) project for an example of this. The relevant WCAG techniques are:
* [C29: Using a style switcher to provide a conforming alternate version](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/C29)
* [SCR38: Creating a conforming alternate version for a web page designed with progressive enhancement](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/SCR38)
* [SVR4: Allowing users to provide preferences for the display of conforming alternate versions](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/SVR4). | It's generally a bad idea to double every page of your website. You'd better make the primary site accessible.
Don't forget that it will double your maintenance work.
It will also eventually happen, perhaps tomorrow or perhaps in 3 years, and this despite all the care you can have, that an accessible page will be out of date compared to the normal version, because someone just forgot to do something somewhere at some moment in the organization managing the site.
An oversight can have incidious consequences and you will probably take a long time to notice it, and if ever you become aware of it.
Note that if you can update an accessible page automatically when a normal one is modified, you can very probably make the normal site accessible at the first place.
Several studies and sureveys (example: webaim) show that, if a text only or more accessible version of a page is available, most of the users for which it could be useful don't open it at all.
Beside the possible difficulty to find the link or button, the main reason for this is because they basicly know that such pages are likely to be forgotten, out of date, buggy, or not that carefully maintained as the normal ones. |
51,119,213 | We are working on a new project that requires a complex design, however the client also wants it to be WCAG 2.0 compliant level AA. So we came up with the idea of adding a toolbar at the top of the each page with a button saying something along the lines "view this page enhanced for accessibility" and then store the preference as a cookie.
The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal? We have ways of making this switch button very obvious, but we haven't seen any site doing something like this, nor have found any documentation in favor or against it. | 2018/06/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51119213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2339776/"
] | This is covered by the following WCAG technique : [G136: Providing a link at the beginning of a nonconforming Web page that points to a conforming alternate version](http://%20https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G136.html)
This could be very cool, but it's not realistic.
20% of the population have direct benefit for accessibility:
* using zoom,
* getting correct contrast (color blindness, ...),
* having readable fonts (dyslexia),
* using simple language (foreigners, cognitive disabilities, deaf born people),
* using keyboard accessible controls (motor impairment due to age or accident).
Definitely, if you manage to provide an accessible version for 20% of the population, why would you want to hide it ?
Is because I may be dyslexic that I would want to have an ugly black and white page?
If you want to provide a toolbar, then you should give different options : enhance the page for color blind people, enhance for blind people, enhance for low vision, enhance for screen magnifiers, enhance for dyslexic, enhance for motor impairments, ... | It's generally a bad idea to double every page of your website. You'd better make the primary site accessible.
Don't forget that it will double your maintenance work.
It will also eventually happen, perhaps tomorrow or perhaps in 3 years, and this despite all the care you can have, that an accessible page will be out of date compared to the normal version, because someone just forgot to do something somewhere at some moment in the organization managing the site.
An oversight can have incidious consequences and you will probably take a long time to notice it, and if ever you become aware of it.
Note that if you can update an accessible page automatically when a normal one is modified, you can very probably make the normal site accessible at the first place.
Several studies and sureveys (example: webaim) show that, if a text only or more accessible version of a page is available, most of the users for which it could be useful don't open it at all.
Beside the possible difficulty to find the link or button, the main reason for this is because they basicly know that such pages are likely to be forgotten, out of date, buggy, or not that carefully maintained as the normal ones. |
51,119,213 | We are working on a new project that requires a complex design, however the client also wants it to be WCAG 2.0 compliant level AA. So we came up with the idea of adding a toolbar at the top of the each page with a button saying something along the lines "view this page enhanced for accessibility" and then store the preference as a cookie.
The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal? We have ways of making this switch button very obvious, but we haven't seen any site doing something like this, nor have found any documentation in favor or against it. | 2018/06/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51119213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2339776/"
] | Two pages is acceptable but a bad idea, maintainability, SEO etc. are all factors as have been mentioned.
But what hasn't been mentioned is simply having different style sheets for accessibility.
Provided your html mark-up is valid and logically structured then to make the page accessible is a 'simple' case of adding aria attributes - that covers users with screen readers.
You said this was a complex page so the 'constraints' of designing for disabled users may make you simplify and improve components along the way and so benefit the client anyway. Changing your HTML to be accessible not only benefits your disabled users but you will find it makes the site easier to user for able bodied users, so that's a plus.
Once your HTML is valid and adjusted for accessibility to screen readers the other parts of accessibility (for partially sighted, colour blind etc.) are easily achieved with a different style sheet (or several for different scenarios.)
Disabled users need many different things but the key focus should be that the site is usable at 400% zoom on a 1920 \* 1080 screen, colours can be changed, fonts can be changed and animations can be disabled for users with cognitive impairements.
This can all be handled with CSS.
What I did on my own site was to have a standard style sheet without animations, standard colours etc. Then a seperate style sheet for:
1. animations (included by default)
2. colours (over-riding standard colours without the use of !important)
3. No JavaScript - as this can be a real issue for certain things and screen readers (i hide certain elements that would cause confusion without javascript enabled)
This is augmented by a seperate settings page where users can select font size, colours, font family, animations or not, images or not etc. stored in localstorage and then processed into some simple classes on the body on each page load that can be used for fine-grained control over items. | It's generally a bad idea to double every page of your website. You'd better make the primary site accessible.
Don't forget that it will double your maintenance work.
It will also eventually happen, perhaps tomorrow or perhaps in 3 years, and this despite all the care you can have, that an accessible page will be out of date compared to the normal version, because someone just forgot to do something somewhere at some moment in the organization managing the site.
An oversight can have incidious consequences and you will probably take a long time to notice it, and if ever you become aware of it.
Note that if you can update an accessible page automatically when a normal one is modified, you can very probably make the normal site accessible at the first place.
Several studies and sureveys (example: webaim) show that, if a text only or more accessible version of a page is available, most of the users for which it could be useful don't open it at all.
Beside the possible difficulty to find the link or button, the main reason for this is because they basicly know that such pages are likely to be forgotten, out of date, buggy, or not that carefully maintained as the normal ones. |
51,119,213 | We are working on a new project that requires a complex design, however the client also wants it to be WCAG 2.0 compliant level AA. So we came up with the idea of adding a toolbar at the top of the each page with a button saying something along the lines "view this page enhanced for accessibility" and then store the preference as a cookie.
The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal? We have ways of making this switch button very obvious, but we haven't seen any site doing something like this, nor have found any documentation in favor or against it. | 2018/06/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51119213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2339776/"
] | Technically, yes - it's a valid approach to WCAG 2.0 - but you won't find many accessibility specialists recommending this.
The WCAG 2.0 supporting documents provide a lot of context for this, in [Understanding Conforming Alternate Versions](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head). However it clearly advises against this approach, at the end of the section called "[Why permit alternate versions?](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance#uc-whypermit-head)":
>
> Note that providing an alternate version is a fallback option for conformance to WCAG and the preferred method of conformance is to make all content directly accessible.
>
>
>
Compare the reasons given there to the situation with your own website, and only go down this route if you're certain you can't achieve conformance in the main version. If you can make the majority of your pages accessible in the main version, it's OK to have alternative versions for a few pages.
Part of your question concerns discrimination:
>
> The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal?
>
>
>
WCAG 2.0 doesn't really address discrimination *per se*, but local statutes likely do. This isn't the place for legal advice.
My own view is that going to lots of effort to provide (and maintain) alternative versions doesn't really amount to discrimination, but it doesn't aspire to inclusion either. Imagine a public library: an old building, with steps leading up to a grand front entrance. Pedestrians can stroll inside, enjoy the beautiful atrium, see posters about current events, talk to a librarian, or just go straight to the books. A wheelchair user has to go to the rear entrance, then ring a bell for a librarian to come and let them in. No fancy atrium to enjoy. The librarian has to let them out again, too. While the library is accessible for wheelchair users, the experience is a bit second-class; it's accessible by "alternative accommodations". Ideally the grand front entrance would be accessible to wheelchair users, but the architecture has a protected status. Websites are easier to improve than buildings, so it's better to avoid alternative versions.
Your mention of a "toolbar" to provide "enhanced accessibility" is worth exploring a bit further. Are your alternative versions really fully-fledged pages, or merely the same page with some tweaks applied? Providing customization options for the user is also a valid approach - see the [Fluid Infusion Preferences Framework](https://fluidproject.org/infusion.html) project for an example of this. The relevant WCAG techniques are:
* [C29: Using a style switcher to provide a conforming alternate version](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/C29)
* [SCR38: Creating a conforming alternate version for a web page designed with progressive enhancement](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/SCR38)
* [SVR4: Allowing users to provide preferences for the display of conforming alternate versions](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/SVR4). | This is covered by the following WCAG technique : [G136: Providing a link at the beginning of a nonconforming Web page that points to a conforming alternate version](http://%20https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G136.html)
This could be very cool, but it's not realistic.
20% of the population have direct benefit for accessibility:
* using zoom,
* getting correct contrast (color blindness, ...),
* having readable fonts (dyslexia),
* using simple language (foreigners, cognitive disabilities, deaf born people),
* using keyboard accessible controls (motor impairment due to age or accident).
Definitely, if you manage to provide an accessible version for 20% of the population, why would you want to hide it ?
Is because I may be dyslexic that I would want to have an ugly black and white page?
If you want to provide a toolbar, then you should give different options : enhance the page for color blind people, enhance for blind people, enhance for low vision, enhance for screen magnifiers, enhance for dyslexic, enhance for motor impairments, ... |
51,119,213 | We are working on a new project that requires a complex design, however the client also wants it to be WCAG 2.0 compliant level AA. So we came up with the idea of adding a toolbar at the top of the each page with a button saying something along the lines "view this page enhanced for accessibility" and then store the preference as a cookie.
The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal? We have ways of making this switch button very obvious, but we haven't seen any site doing something like this, nor have found any documentation in favor or against it. | 2018/06/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51119213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2339776/"
] | Technically, yes - it's a valid approach to WCAG 2.0 - but you won't find many accessibility specialists recommending this.
The WCAG 2.0 supporting documents provide a lot of context for this, in [Understanding Conforming Alternate Versions](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head). However it clearly advises against this approach, at the end of the section called "[Why permit alternate versions?](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance#uc-whypermit-head)":
>
> Note that providing an alternate version is a fallback option for conformance to WCAG and the preferred method of conformance is to make all content directly accessible.
>
>
>
Compare the reasons given there to the situation with your own website, and only go down this route if you're certain you can't achieve conformance in the main version. If you can make the majority of your pages accessible in the main version, it's OK to have alternative versions for a few pages.
Part of your question concerns discrimination:
>
> The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal?
>
>
>
WCAG 2.0 doesn't really address discrimination *per se*, but local statutes likely do. This isn't the place for legal advice.
My own view is that going to lots of effort to provide (and maintain) alternative versions doesn't really amount to discrimination, but it doesn't aspire to inclusion either. Imagine a public library: an old building, with steps leading up to a grand front entrance. Pedestrians can stroll inside, enjoy the beautiful atrium, see posters about current events, talk to a librarian, or just go straight to the books. A wheelchair user has to go to the rear entrance, then ring a bell for a librarian to come and let them in. No fancy atrium to enjoy. The librarian has to let them out again, too. While the library is accessible for wheelchair users, the experience is a bit second-class; it's accessible by "alternative accommodations". Ideally the grand front entrance would be accessible to wheelchair users, but the architecture has a protected status. Websites are easier to improve than buildings, so it's better to avoid alternative versions.
Your mention of a "toolbar" to provide "enhanced accessibility" is worth exploring a bit further. Are your alternative versions really fully-fledged pages, or merely the same page with some tweaks applied? Providing customization options for the user is also a valid approach - see the [Fluid Infusion Preferences Framework](https://fluidproject.org/infusion.html) project for an example of this. The relevant WCAG techniques are:
* [C29: Using a style switcher to provide a conforming alternate version](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/C29)
* [SCR38: Creating a conforming alternate version for a web page designed with progressive enhancement](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/SCR38)
* [SVR4: Allowing users to provide preferences for the display of conforming alternate versions](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/SVR4). | Two pages is acceptable but a bad idea, maintainability, SEO etc. are all factors as have been mentioned.
But what hasn't been mentioned is simply having different style sheets for accessibility.
Provided your html mark-up is valid and logically structured then to make the page accessible is a 'simple' case of adding aria attributes - that covers users with screen readers.
You said this was a complex page so the 'constraints' of designing for disabled users may make you simplify and improve components along the way and so benefit the client anyway. Changing your HTML to be accessible not only benefits your disabled users but you will find it makes the site easier to user for able bodied users, so that's a plus.
Once your HTML is valid and adjusted for accessibility to screen readers the other parts of accessibility (for partially sighted, colour blind etc.) are easily achieved with a different style sheet (or several for different scenarios.)
Disabled users need many different things but the key focus should be that the site is usable at 400% zoom on a 1920 \* 1080 screen, colours can be changed, fonts can be changed and animations can be disabled for users with cognitive impairements.
This can all be handled with CSS.
What I did on my own site was to have a standard style sheet without animations, standard colours etc. Then a seperate style sheet for:
1. animations (included by default)
2. colours (over-riding standard colours without the use of !important)
3. No JavaScript - as this can be a real issue for certain things and screen readers (i hide certain elements that would cause confusion without javascript enabled)
This is augmented by a seperate settings page where users can select font size, colours, font family, animations or not, images or not etc. stored in localstorage and then processed into some simple classes on the body on each page load that can be used for fine-grained control over items. |
51,119,213 | We are working on a new project that requires a complex design, however the client also wants it to be WCAG 2.0 compliant level AA. So we came up with the idea of adding a toolbar at the top of the each page with a button saying something along the lines "view this page enhanced for accessibility" and then store the preference as a cookie.
The question is if this is considered discrimination or a technique that would be easily missed and defeat the goal? We have ways of making this switch button very obvious, but we haven't seen any site doing something like this, nor have found any documentation in favor or against it. | 2018/06/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51119213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2339776/"
] | Two pages is acceptable but a bad idea, maintainability, SEO etc. are all factors as have been mentioned.
But what hasn't been mentioned is simply having different style sheets for accessibility.
Provided your html mark-up is valid and logically structured then to make the page accessible is a 'simple' case of adding aria attributes - that covers users with screen readers.
You said this was a complex page so the 'constraints' of designing for disabled users may make you simplify and improve components along the way and so benefit the client anyway. Changing your HTML to be accessible not only benefits your disabled users but you will find it makes the site easier to user for able bodied users, so that's a plus.
Once your HTML is valid and adjusted for accessibility to screen readers the other parts of accessibility (for partially sighted, colour blind etc.) are easily achieved with a different style sheet (or several for different scenarios.)
Disabled users need many different things but the key focus should be that the site is usable at 400% zoom on a 1920 \* 1080 screen, colours can be changed, fonts can be changed and animations can be disabled for users with cognitive impairements.
This can all be handled with CSS.
What I did on my own site was to have a standard style sheet without animations, standard colours etc. Then a seperate style sheet for:
1. animations (included by default)
2. colours (over-riding standard colours without the use of !important)
3. No JavaScript - as this can be a real issue for certain things and screen readers (i hide certain elements that would cause confusion without javascript enabled)
This is augmented by a seperate settings page where users can select font size, colours, font family, animations or not, images or not etc. stored in localstorage and then processed into some simple classes on the body on each page load that can be used for fine-grained control over items. | This is covered by the following WCAG technique : [G136: Providing a link at the beginning of a nonconforming Web page that points to a conforming alternate version](http://%20https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G136.html)
This could be very cool, but it's not realistic.
20% of the population have direct benefit for accessibility:
* using zoom,
* getting correct contrast (color blindness, ...),
* having readable fonts (dyslexia),
* using simple language (foreigners, cognitive disabilities, deaf born people),
* using keyboard accessible controls (motor impairment due to age or accident).
Definitely, if you manage to provide an accessible version for 20% of the population, why would you want to hide it ?
Is because I may be dyslexic that I would want to have an ugly black and white page?
If you want to provide a toolbar, then you should give different options : enhance the page for color blind people, enhance for blind people, enhance for low vision, enhance for screen magnifiers, enhance for dyslexic, enhance for motor impairments, ... |
29,699 | When did Duryodhana know that Karna is actually one of Pandava's brothers and a son of Kunti (Kuntiputra) and how did he react? | 2018/10/29 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/29699",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/5625/"
] | Duryodhan never knew that Karna was the son of Kunti, because Kunti revelaed this truth after finishing the war means Duryodhan was already dead when kunti revealed the truth to pandava.Source [<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll2MVIZONgg][1]> | In the copy of The Mahabharata full text I have, I do not see anywhere Duryodhana finding out that Karna was a Pandava (or Kunti's son).
That said, Smt. Kamala Subramaniam, in her translation of The Mahabharata (an abridged version, though substantially larger than other abridged & scaled down versions such as Rajaji's), states the following at the end of the Karna Parva.
Grieving Karna's death more than his own brother Duchasana's (which happened the same day shortly before the battle between Karna and Arjuna took place), Duryodhana goes to his grandfather Bhishma. He recalls how brilliant was the battle fought by Karna. He tells the grandsire anyone who witnessed Karna's battle would have thought he must have been a kshatriya. The Bhishma responds saying that was because he (Karna) indeed was a kshatriya. Taken aback by this statement Duryodhana asks Bhishma if the latter knew about Karna's birth and background. Bhishma says he knew long back, but refuses to tell Duryodhana, cautioning him that the truth could hurt him more. But Duryodhana persists, and then Bhishma tells him that Karna was Kaunteya. Shocked by that revelation Duryodhana asks Bhishma if Karna knew this, and Bhishma says yes. Duryodhana asks if Karna fought on his side despite knowing he was a Pandava, despite fully aware he was fighting his own siblings. Bhishma answers in affirmative.
Then Smt. Kamala Subramaniam recalls similar reference later when Duryodhana and Bhimasena prepare for duel.
After the 18th day afternoon, after the kaurava army was completely annihilated except for a few handful of folks (Duryodhana, Kripa, Aswattama, Kritavarma, the army of Yadhavas that came with Kritavarma, and Srinjayas), Duryodhana goes to a lake and takes rest. The Pandavas arrive shortly and challenge Duryodhana to come out and fight. During those exchanges, Yudhishtra advises Duryodhana to wear armour, and take his favourite weapon. Seeing this gesture of The King Yudishtra, it seems Duryodhana felt that righteousness was in Pandava's blood, and a common quality of Karna and his younger brother Yudishtra.
Now that said (summarized from my memory as I don't have the book right in front of me), Smt. Kamala Subramaniam did not mention the source. She did not mention which recension of The Mahabharata she used for her translation.
I would not be quick to assume she made up this whole thing in her mind, as that is not a respectful thing for an author who took upon the task of writing an abridged version of this great epic. So I will give a benefit of doubt assuming she must have found some recension that does mention these incidents. If it is so, then I don't know which recension it is, as I have not come across one in my search so far.
The issue is there are a few recensions and editions of The Mahabharata, and it is hard to find coherent descriptions of the events. Even the edition I have has repeating incidents across the chapters, same characters reappearing, not to mention print errors etc. So to sum it up -
1) None of the recensions that I consider to be early, or possible off springs of what might have been close to original, carry any reference to Duryodhana finding out about Karna's true identity.
2) Smt. Kamala Subramaniam mentions those incidents, which, if traced to some authentic version, could go to prove that Duryodhana found out about Karna after Karna's death.
Here is Smt. Kamala Subramaniam's book, published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Check the last chapter of Karna Parva, and also the chapter that narrates the battle between Bhimasena and Duryodhana.
<http://www.bhavans.info/bookstore/book-details.php?book_id=345>
[https://www.amazon.com/Mahabharatha-Kamala-Subramaniam/dp/8172764650/](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/8172764650) |
42,371 | Does the UK have a written constitution?
I didn’t think it did, but then I found the following:
* [United Kingdom's Constitution of 1215 with Amendments through 2013](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Kingdom_2013.pdf) [PDF] | 2019/06/22 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42371",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6116/"
] | No. Quoting the first argument against from [*The Arguments For and Against a Written Constitution for the United Kingdom*](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/46308.htm) on parliament.co.uk:
>
> The British system of government and its unwritten constitution works well in its present form and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It is impossible to codify the constitution without changing it, and change is not wanted.
>
>
>
As for the Magna Carta cited in your question. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Modern_legacy) has the following (relevant) to say about it (emphasis mine):
>
> Although rarely invoked in court in the modern era, in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although **clause 29** was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, **and the two other surviving clauses** actually concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London.
>
>
>
Given the limited scope of the Magna Carta today, I don't think it constitutes a constitution, which per [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution), is:
>
> an aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity, and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed.
>
>
>
Indeed, the UK does not have one codified document covering all of that. | The UK does not have a written constitution in the same sense as most other countries do.
The document you've linked to is an attempt to reference to various events that have changed the way that the country is governed and run over the past 800 years. Perhaps it could form the basis of a written constitution if it was ever decided to go down that route, but at the moment, they hold no greater status than any other Act of Parliament. |
42,371 | Does the UK have a written constitution?
I didn’t think it did, but then I found the following:
* [United Kingdom's Constitution of 1215 with Amendments through 2013](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Kingdom_2013.pdf) [PDF] | 2019/06/22 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42371",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6116/"
] | Yes, the UK has a written constitution. All the parts of it are written down somewhere. What it doesn’t have is a *codified* constitution. There’s no one document entitled “Constitution of the United Kingdom”. Instead, there’s a bunch of laws, precedents and traditions dating back at least 800 years, which are often ambiguous or conflicting. But they’re written. Even the traditions with no basis in written law are found written down in places like [Erskine May](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May:_Parliamentary_Practice). | No. Quoting the first argument against from [*The Arguments For and Against a Written Constitution for the United Kingdom*](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/46308.htm) on parliament.co.uk:
>
> The British system of government and its unwritten constitution works well in its present form and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It is impossible to codify the constitution without changing it, and change is not wanted.
>
>
>
As for the Magna Carta cited in your question. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Modern_legacy) has the following (relevant) to say about it (emphasis mine):
>
> Although rarely invoked in court in the modern era, in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although **clause 29** was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, **and the two other surviving clauses** actually concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London.
>
>
>
Given the limited scope of the Magna Carta today, I don't think it constitutes a constitution, which per [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution), is:
>
> an aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity, and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed.
>
>
>
Indeed, the UK does not have one codified document covering all of that. |
42,371 | Does the UK have a written constitution?
I didn’t think it did, but then I found the following:
* [United Kingdom's Constitution of 1215 with Amendments through 2013](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Kingdom_2013.pdf) [PDF] | 2019/06/22 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42371",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6116/"
] | No. Quoting the first argument against from [*The Arguments For and Against a Written Constitution for the United Kingdom*](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/46308.htm) on parliament.co.uk:
>
> The British system of government and its unwritten constitution works well in its present form and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It is impossible to codify the constitution without changing it, and change is not wanted.
>
>
>
As for the Magna Carta cited in your question. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Modern_legacy) has the following (relevant) to say about it (emphasis mine):
>
> Although rarely invoked in court in the modern era, in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although **clause 29** was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, **and the two other surviving clauses** actually concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London.
>
>
>
Given the limited scope of the Magna Carta today, I don't think it constitutes a constitution, which per [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution), is:
>
> an aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity, and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed.
>
>
>
Indeed, the UK does not have one codified document covering all of that. | Nobody has quoted UK Constitutional Law textbooks, thus I'll do it. Bradley, Ewing. [*Constitutional and Administrative Law* (2018 17 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Constitutional-Administrative-Law-Prof-Bradley/dp/1292185864/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 4.
>
> ### What is a constitution?
>
>
>
>
> Applied to the system of law and government by which the affairs of a modern state are
> administered, the word constitution has two main meanings. In its narrower meaning, a constitution
> means a document having a special legal status which sets out the framework and
> principal functions of the organs of government and declares the principles or rules by which
> those organs must operate. In countries in which the constitution has overriding legal force,
> there is often a high-ranking court which applies and interprets the text of the constitution in
> disputed cases. Such a court is the Supreme Court in the United States, or the Federal
> Constitutional
> Court in Germany. In these countries, legislative or executive acts may be
> held by the court to be without legal force where they conflict with the constitution.
>
> In this sense of the word, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
> has no constitution. There is no single document from which is derived the authority of the
> main organs of government, such as the Crown, the Cabinet, Parliament and the courts. No
> written text lays down the relationship of the primary organs of government one with
> another or with the people.2 But the word constitution has a wider meaning. As Bolingbroke
> stated in 1733:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > By constitution we mean, whenever we speak with propriety and exactness, that assemblage of
> > laws, institutions and customs, derived from certain fixed principles of reason, directed to
> > certain
> > fixed objects of public good, that compose the general system, according to which the
> > community hath agreed to be governed.3
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> In 2001, the House of Lords committee on the constitution stated that the constitution means
> ‘the set of laws, rules and practices that create the basic institutions of the state, and its component
> and related parts, and stipulate the powers of those institutions and the relationship
> between the different institutions and between those institutions and the individual’.4 In this
> sense, the United Kingdom has a constitution since it has a complex and comprehensive
> system of government, which has been called ‘one of the most successful political structures
> ever devised’.5 The foundations for this system include Acts of Parliament, judicial decisions,
> political practice and also the procedures established by various organs of government for
> carrying out their own tasks, for example the law and custom of Parliament or the rules
> issued by the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers.6
>
> The wider sense of the word constitution necessarily includes a constitution in the narrower
> sense. In Canada, Germany, India, the United States and many other states, the written
> constitution occupies the primary place among the ‘assemblage of laws, institutions and customs’
> which make up the constitution in the wider sense. But no written document alone can
> ensure the smooth working of a system of government. Around a written constitution will
> evolve a wide variety of customary rules and practices which adjust its working to changing
>
>
>
p 5.
>
> conditions.7 These customary rules and practices may be more easily changed than the constitution
> itself: their continuing evolution will reduce the need for formal amendment of the
> written text. It has been said of the US constitution that ‘[the] governing Constitution is a
> synthesis of legal doctrines, institutional practices, and political norms’.8 A perceptive study
> of the same constitution begins with the declaration that we can understand how it actually
> operates ‘only by seeing it as a government fundamentally structured around . . . two nationally
> organised political parties’9 – yet the existence of those parties is nowhere mentioned in
> the constitution itself.
>
> In reality, a written constitution will often not contain all the rules upon which government
> depends. Thus, the scheme for electing the legislature may be found not in the constitution
> but in statutes enacted by the legislature. Such statutes can when necessary be
> amended by ordinary legislation, whereas amendments to the constitution may require a
> more elaborate process, such as a special majority in the legislature or approval by a referendum.
> Since the way in which the constitutional text operates is likely to depend on political
> practice, the process of constitutional change is not limited to the formal process of textual
> amendment.10 Moreover, the making of comparisons is not straightforward, as we can see in
> an unexpected comment by an expert on the US constitution: ‘Typically offered as a paradigm
> of a nation with a written constitution, the United States actually operates with a constitution
> that is more similar to than different from the paradigmatic unwritten constitution
> of the United Kingdom’.11
>
>
>
[*Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (2019, 4th edition)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198820283/), p 3.
>
> ### CENTRAL ISSUES
>
>
>
>
> 1. The question ‘What is a constitution?’
> can be answered in different ways. In
> many countries, the constitution is a
> text of fundamental importance, setting
> out how the country is to be governed.
>
>
>
>
> 2. The term ‘constitution’ is also used to
> describe the system of government.
> Modern democracies require a system
> that (a) has institutions carrying out
> executive, legislative, and judicial functions;
> (b) regulates relations between
> different state institutions; and (c) defines,
> protects, and encourages a culture
> of respect for fundamental freedoms.
>
>
>
>
> 3. The United Kingdom does not have
> a codified, written constitutional text
> in the first sense; but clearly it has a
> constitutional system. A notable feature
> of the system is its extreme flexibility.
> Radical changes can be made by ordinary legislation without the need
> for a special process of constitutional
> amendment.
>
>
>
>
> 4. An historical explanation for the
> United Kingdom’s exceptional situation
> of having no codified constitutional
> text is the country’s stability since the
> eighteenth century. Democracy was
> established by an evolutionary process
> rather than by revolution. A political
> explanation is the consensus between
> the two main UK-wide political parties
> (the Conservatives and Labour) that
> the ‘unwritten’ constitution serves the
> country’s needs well. Not everybody accepts
> this view.
>
>
>
p 12
>
> ### 3. British exceptionalism
>
>
>
>
> The United Kingdom is one of a tiny number of countries that have not adopted a codified
> *constitutional text* of the sort described earlier in this Chapter. Sometimes it is described as
> having ‘an unwritten constitution’. In Chapter 2, we will see that in fact many of the significant
> constitutional rules are written down (for example, in Acts of Parliament and judgments of
> the UK courts). Some constitutionally important rules are also in the form of ‘constitutional
> conventions’, which are non- legal rules that (probably) cannot be enforced by the courts. But
> even these are mostly written down in official documents, for example *The Cabinet Manual*.
> A better description is therefore to say that the UK constitution is ‘uncodified’. But the United
> Kingdom clearly has a constitutional system (in the sense discussed earlier): it is a mature,
> relatively prosperous democracy with long- established state institutions.
>
>
>
Mark Elliott. [*Public Law* (4 ed 2020)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Public-Law-Mark-Elliott/dp/0198836740/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_1/262-6314878-6339113?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0198836740&pd_rd_r=b3ff9c4e-ec1f-4e70-ae6a-35e6eff10390&pd_rd_w=0PKIJ&pd_rd_wg=yET4e&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=9C2KRPSG4BFAQCJBCNZ9&psc=1&refRID=9C2KRPSG4BFAQCJBCNZ9). p 8.
>
> The UK has a completely different and perhaps unique tradition. Its constitution
> has grown, developed, and evolved over time. It is, famously, a flexible and unwritten
> constitution, which is always changing and developing. There has never been a
> fundamental constitutional moment or a ‘blank sheet of paper’ moment in which the
> people and politicians were compelled to design afresh the basic rules, principles, and
> institutions by which the country and the people would be governed.
>
>
>
p 11
>
> ### 4.1 Fundamentals
>
>
>
>
> **No written or codified constitution.** In the UK, there is no written or codified constitution.
> It is often said that the UK has an unwritten or uncodified constitution because
> there is no single founding or constitutional document called ‘The UK Constitution’.
> Instead, there is an assemblage of various constitutional laws and practices. These are
> to be found scattered amongst pieces of legislation, court decisions, constitutional
> conventions, codes of conduct, and practices. Put together, these sources comprise
> the UK constitution.
>
>
>
p 17.
>
> People often say that the United Kingdom does not have a constitution. They are
> wrong. It may not have a *written* constitution, in the sense of a single document entitled
> ‘The Constitution’. Nonetheless, the UK undoubtedly has a constitution. What,
> though, is a constitution? And what are constitutions for?
>
>
>
p 50
>
> Second, we examine the *sources of the UK constitution*. We have already said
> that the UK does not have a ‘written constitution’ in the sense of a constitutional
> text with superior legal status. Where, then, do we look if we wish to ascertain the
>
>
>
p 51
>
> constitutional arrangements applicable in the UK? As we will see, the UK’s constitution
> is to be found in a range of sources—written and unwritten, legal and political.
>
>
>
p 56
>
> Except for the absence of a written constitution, the position in the UK is essentially
> the same as that which is set out in the preceding paragraphs. The sources of
> the UK’s constitutional arrangements are therefore to be found in a combination
> of ordinary law (including legislation, international treaties, and common law),
> judicial precedent (eg concerning the interpretation of legislation), and political
> precedent.
>
>
> |
42,371 | Does the UK have a written constitution?
I didn’t think it did, but then I found the following:
* [United Kingdom's Constitution of 1215 with Amendments through 2013](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Kingdom_2013.pdf) [PDF] | 2019/06/22 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42371",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6116/"
] | Yes, the UK has a written constitution. All the parts of it are written down somewhere. What it doesn’t have is a *codified* constitution. There’s no one document entitled “Constitution of the United Kingdom”. Instead, there’s a bunch of laws, precedents and traditions dating back at least 800 years, which are often ambiguous or conflicting. But they’re written. Even the traditions with no basis in written law are found written down in places like [Erskine May](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May:_Parliamentary_Practice). | The UK does not have a written constitution in the same sense as most other countries do.
The document you've linked to is an attempt to reference to various events that have changed the way that the country is governed and run over the past 800 years. Perhaps it could form the basis of a written constitution if it was ever decided to go down that route, but at the moment, they hold no greater status than any other Act of Parliament. |
42,371 | Does the UK have a written constitution?
I didn’t think it did, but then I found the following:
* [United Kingdom's Constitution of 1215 with Amendments through 2013](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Kingdom_2013.pdf) [PDF] | 2019/06/22 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42371",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6116/"
] | The UK does not have a written constitution in the same sense as most other countries do.
The document you've linked to is an attempt to reference to various events that have changed the way that the country is governed and run over the past 800 years. Perhaps it could form the basis of a written constitution if it was ever decided to go down that route, but at the moment, they hold no greater status than any other Act of Parliament. | Nobody has quoted UK Constitutional Law textbooks, thus I'll do it. Bradley, Ewing. [*Constitutional and Administrative Law* (2018 17 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Constitutional-Administrative-Law-Prof-Bradley/dp/1292185864/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 4.
>
> ### What is a constitution?
>
>
>
>
> Applied to the system of law and government by which the affairs of a modern state are
> administered, the word constitution has two main meanings. In its narrower meaning, a constitution
> means a document having a special legal status which sets out the framework and
> principal functions of the organs of government and declares the principles or rules by which
> those organs must operate. In countries in which the constitution has overriding legal force,
> there is often a high-ranking court which applies and interprets the text of the constitution in
> disputed cases. Such a court is the Supreme Court in the United States, or the Federal
> Constitutional
> Court in Germany. In these countries, legislative or executive acts may be
> held by the court to be without legal force where they conflict with the constitution.
>
> In this sense of the word, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
> has no constitution. There is no single document from which is derived the authority of the
> main organs of government, such as the Crown, the Cabinet, Parliament and the courts. No
> written text lays down the relationship of the primary organs of government one with
> another or with the people.2 But the word constitution has a wider meaning. As Bolingbroke
> stated in 1733:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > By constitution we mean, whenever we speak with propriety and exactness, that assemblage of
> > laws, institutions and customs, derived from certain fixed principles of reason, directed to
> > certain
> > fixed objects of public good, that compose the general system, according to which the
> > community hath agreed to be governed.3
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> In 2001, the House of Lords committee on the constitution stated that the constitution means
> ‘the set of laws, rules and practices that create the basic institutions of the state, and its component
> and related parts, and stipulate the powers of those institutions and the relationship
> between the different institutions and between those institutions and the individual’.4 In this
> sense, the United Kingdom has a constitution since it has a complex and comprehensive
> system of government, which has been called ‘one of the most successful political structures
> ever devised’.5 The foundations for this system include Acts of Parliament, judicial decisions,
> political practice and also the procedures established by various organs of government for
> carrying out their own tasks, for example the law and custom of Parliament or the rules
> issued by the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers.6
>
> The wider sense of the word constitution necessarily includes a constitution in the narrower
> sense. In Canada, Germany, India, the United States and many other states, the written
> constitution occupies the primary place among the ‘assemblage of laws, institutions and customs’
> which make up the constitution in the wider sense. But no written document alone can
> ensure the smooth working of a system of government. Around a written constitution will
> evolve a wide variety of customary rules and practices which adjust its working to changing
>
>
>
p 5.
>
> conditions.7 These customary rules and practices may be more easily changed than the constitution
> itself: their continuing evolution will reduce the need for formal amendment of the
> written text. It has been said of the US constitution that ‘[the] governing Constitution is a
> synthesis of legal doctrines, institutional practices, and political norms’.8 A perceptive study
> of the same constitution begins with the declaration that we can understand how it actually
> operates ‘only by seeing it as a government fundamentally structured around . . . two nationally
> organised political parties’9 – yet the existence of those parties is nowhere mentioned in
> the constitution itself.
>
> In reality, a written constitution will often not contain all the rules upon which government
> depends. Thus, the scheme for electing the legislature may be found not in the constitution
> but in statutes enacted by the legislature. Such statutes can when necessary be
> amended by ordinary legislation, whereas amendments to the constitution may require a
> more elaborate process, such as a special majority in the legislature or approval by a referendum.
> Since the way in which the constitutional text operates is likely to depend on political
> practice, the process of constitutional change is not limited to the formal process of textual
> amendment.10 Moreover, the making of comparisons is not straightforward, as we can see in
> an unexpected comment by an expert on the US constitution: ‘Typically offered as a paradigm
> of a nation with a written constitution, the United States actually operates with a constitution
> that is more similar to than different from the paradigmatic unwritten constitution
> of the United Kingdom’.11
>
>
>
[*Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (2019, 4th edition)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198820283/), p 3.
>
> ### CENTRAL ISSUES
>
>
>
>
> 1. The question ‘What is a constitution?’
> can be answered in different ways. In
> many countries, the constitution is a
> text of fundamental importance, setting
> out how the country is to be governed.
>
>
>
>
> 2. The term ‘constitution’ is also used to
> describe the system of government.
> Modern democracies require a system
> that (a) has institutions carrying out
> executive, legislative, and judicial functions;
> (b) regulates relations between
> different state institutions; and (c) defines,
> protects, and encourages a culture
> of respect for fundamental freedoms.
>
>
>
>
> 3. The United Kingdom does not have
> a codified, written constitutional text
> in the first sense; but clearly it has a
> constitutional system. A notable feature
> of the system is its extreme flexibility.
> Radical changes can be made by ordinary legislation without the need
> for a special process of constitutional
> amendment.
>
>
>
>
> 4. An historical explanation for the
> United Kingdom’s exceptional situation
> of having no codified constitutional
> text is the country’s stability since the
> eighteenth century. Democracy was
> established by an evolutionary process
> rather than by revolution. A political
> explanation is the consensus between
> the two main UK-wide political parties
> (the Conservatives and Labour) that
> the ‘unwritten’ constitution serves the
> country’s needs well. Not everybody accepts
> this view.
>
>
>
p 12
>
> ### 3. British exceptionalism
>
>
>
>
> The United Kingdom is one of a tiny number of countries that have not adopted a codified
> *constitutional text* of the sort described earlier in this Chapter. Sometimes it is described as
> having ‘an unwritten constitution’. In Chapter 2, we will see that in fact many of the significant
> constitutional rules are written down (for example, in Acts of Parliament and judgments of
> the UK courts). Some constitutionally important rules are also in the form of ‘constitutional
> conventions’, which are non- legal rules that (probably) cannot be enforced by the courts. But
> even these are mostly written down in official documents, for example *The Cabinet Manual*.
> A better description is therefore to say that the UK constitution is ‘uncodified’. But the United
> Kingdom clearly has a constitutional system (in the sense discussed earlier): it is a mature,
> relatively prosperous democracy with long- established state institutions.
>
>
>
Mark Elliott. [*Public Law* (4 ed 2020)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Public-Law-Mark-Elliott/dp/0198836740/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_1/262-6314878-6339113?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0198836740&pd_rd_r=b3ff9c4e-ec1f-4e70-ae6a-35e6eff10390&pd_rd_w=0PKIJ&pd_rd_wg=yET4e&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=9C2KRPSG4BFAQCJBCNZ9&psc=1&refRID=9C2KRPSG4BFAQCJBCNZ9). p 8.
>
> The UK has a completely different and perhaps unique tradition. Its constitution
> has grown, developed, and evolved over time. It is, famously, a flexible and unwritten
> constitution, which is always changing and developing. There has never been a
> fundamental constitutional moment or a ‘blank sheet of paper’ moment in which the
> people and politicians were compelled to design afresh the basic rules, principles, and
> institutions by which the country and the people would be governed.
>
>
>
p 11
>
> ### 4.1 Fundamentals
>
>
>
>
> **No written or codified constitution.** In the UK, there is no written or codified constitution.
> It is often said that the UK has an unwritten or uncodified constitution because
> there is no single founding or constitutional document called ‘The UK Constitution’.
> Instead, there is an assemblage of various constitutional laws and practices. These are
> to be found scattered amongst pieces of legislation, court decisions, constitutional
> conventions, codes of conduct, and practices. Put together, these sources comprise
> the UK constitution.
>
>
>
p 17.
>
> People often say that the United Kingdom does not have a constitution. They are
> wrong. It may not have a *written* constitution, in the sense of a single document entitled
> ‘The Constitution’. Nonetheless, the UK undoubtedly has a constitution. What,
> though, is a constitution? And what are constitutions for?
>
>
>
p 50
>
> Second, we examine the *sources of the UK constitution*. We have already said
> that the UK does not have a ‘written constitution’ in the sense of a constitutional
> text with superior legal status. Where, then, do we look if we wish to ascertain the
>
>
>
p 51
>
> constitutional arrangements applicable in the UK? As we will see, the UK’s constitution
> is to be found in a range of sources—written and unwritten, legal and political.
>
>
>
p 56
>
> Except for the absence of a written constitution, the position in the UK is essentially
> the same as that which is set out in the preceding paragraphs. The sources of
> the UK’s constitutional arrangements are therefore to be found in a combination
> of ordinary law (including legislation, international treaties, and common law),
> judicial precedent (eg concerning the interpretation of legislation), and political
> precedent.
>
>
> |
42,371 | Does the UK have a written constitution?
I didn’t think it did, but then I found the following:
* [United Kingdom's Constitution of 1215 with Amendments through 2013](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Kingdom_2013.pdf) [PDF] | 2019/06/22 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42371",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6116/"
] | Yes, the UK has a written constitution. All the parts of it are written down somewhere. What it doesn’t have is a *codified* constitution. There’s no one document entitled “Constitution of the United Kingdom”. Instead, there’s a bunch of laws, precedents and traditions dating back at least 800 years, which are often ambiguous or conflicting. But they’re written. Even the traditions with no basis in written law are found written down in places like [Erskine May](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May:_Parliamentary_Practice). | Nobody has quoted UK Constitutional Law textbooks, thus I'll do it. Bradley, Ewing. [*Constitutional and Administrative Law* (2018 17 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Constitutional-Administrative-Law-Prof-Bradley/dp/1292185864/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 4.
>
> ### What is a constitution?
>
>
>
>
> Applied to the system of law and government by which the affairs of a modern state are
> administered, the word constitution has two main meanings. In its narrower meaning, a constitution
> means a document having a special legal status which sets out the framework and
> principal functions of the organs of government and declares the principles or rules by which
> those organs must operate. In countries in which the constitution has overriding legal force,
> there is often a high-ranking court which applies and interprets the text of the constitution in
> disputed cases. Such a court is the Supreme Court in the United States, or the Federal
> Constitutional
> Court in Germany. In these countries, legislative or executive acts may be
> held by the court to be without legal force where they conflict with the constitution.
>
> In this sense of the word, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
> has no constitution. There is no single document from which is derived the authority of the
> main organs of government, such as the Crown, the Cabinet, Parliament and the courts. No
> written text lays down the relationship of the primary organs of government one with
> another or with the people.2 But the word constitution has a wider meaning. As Bolingbroke
> stated in 1733:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > By constitution we mean, whenever we speak with propriety and exactness, that assemblage of
> > laws, institutions and customs, derived from certain fixed principles of reason, directed to
> > certain
> > fixed objects of public good, that compose the general system, according to which the
> > community hath agreed to be governed.3
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> In 2001, the House of Lords committee on the constitution stated that the constitution means
> ‘the set of laws, rules and practices that create the basic institutions of the state, and its component
> and related parts, and stipulate the powers of those institutions and the relationship
> between the different institutions and between those institutions and the individual’.4 In this
> sense, the United Kingdom has a constitution since it has a complex and comprehensive
> system of government, which has been called ‘one of the most successful political structures
> ever devised’.5 The foundations for this system include Acts of Parliament, judicial decisions,
> political practice and also the procedures established by various organs of government for
> carrying out their own tasks, for example the law and custom of Parliament or the rules
> issued by the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers.6
>
> The wider sense of the word constitution necessarily includes a constitution in the narrower
> sense. In Canada, Germany, India, the United States and many other states, the written
> constitution occupies the primary place among the ‘assemblage of laws, institutions and customs’
> which make up the constitution in the wider sense. But no written document alone can
> ensure the smooth working of a system of government. Around a written constitution will
> evolve a wide variety of customary rules and practices which adjust its working to changing
>
>
>
p 5.
>
> conditions.7 These customary rules and practices may be more easily changed than the constitution
> itself: their continuing evolution will reduce the need for formal amendment of the
> written text. It has been said of the US constitution that ‘[the] governing Constitution is a
> synthesis of legal doctrines, institutional practices, and political norms’.8 A perceptive study
> of the same constitution begins with the declaration that we can understand how it actually
> operates ‘only by seeing it as a government fundamentally structured around . . . two nationally
> organised political parties’9 – yet the existence of those parties is nowhere mentioned in
> the constitution itself.
>
> In reality, a written constitution will often not contain all the rules upon which government
> depends. Thus, the scheme for electing the legislature may be found not in the constitution
> but in statutes enacted by the legislature. Such statutes can when necessary be
> amended by ordinary legislation, whereas amendments to the constitution may require a
> more elaborate process, such as a special majority in the legislature or approval by a referendum.
> Since the way in which the constitutional text operates is likely to depend on political
> practice, the process of constitutional change is not limited to the formal process of textual
> amendment.10 Moreover, the making of comparisons is not straightforward, as we can see in
> an unexpected comment by an expert on the US constitution: ‘Typically offered as a paradigm
> of a nation with a written constitution, the United States actually operates with a constitution
> that is more similar to than different from the paradigmatic unwritten constitution
> of the United Kingdom’.11
>
>
>
[*Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (2019, 4th edition)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198820283/), p 3.
>
> ### CENTRAL ISSUES
>
>
>
>
> 1. The question ‘What is a constitution?’
> can be answered in different ways. In
> many countries, the constitution is a
> text of fundamental importance, setting
> out how the country is to be governed.
>
>
>
>
> 2. The term ‘constitution’ is also used to
> describe the system of government.
> Modern democracies require a system
> that (a) has institutions carrying out
> executive, legislative, and judicial functions;
> (b) regulates relations between
> different state institutions; and (c) defines,
> protects, and encourages a culture
> of respect for fundamental freedoms.
>
>
>
>
> 3. The United Kingdom does not have
> a codified, written constitutional text
> in the first sense; but clearly it has a
> constitutional system. A notable feature
> of the system is its extreme flexibility.
> Radical changes can be made by ordinary legislation without the need
> for a special process of constitutional
> amendment.
>
>
>
>
> 4. An historical explanation for the
> United Kingdom’s exceptional situation
> of having no codified constitutional
> text is the country’s stability since the
> eighteenth century. Democracy was
> established by an evolutionary process
> rather than by revolution. A political
> explanation is the consensus between
> the two main UK-wide political parties
> (the Conservatives and Labour) that
> the ‘unwritten’ constitution serves the
> country’s needs well. Not everybody accepts
> this view.
>
>
>
p 12
>
> ### 3. British exceptionalism
>
>
>
>
> The United Kingdom is one of a tiny number of countries that have not adopted a codified
> *constitutional text* of the sort described earlier in this Chapter. Sometimes it is described as
> having ‘an unwritten constitution’. In Chapter 2, we will see that in fact many of the significant
> constitutional rules are written down (for example, in Acts of Parliament and judgments of
> the UK courts). Some constitutionally important rules are also in the form of ‘constitutional
> conventions’, which are non- legal rules that (probably) cannot be enforced by the courts. But
> even these are mostly written down in official documents, for example *The Cabinet Manual*.
> A better description is therefore to say that the UK constitution is ‘uncodified’. But the United
> Kingdom clearly has a constitutional system (in the sense discussed earlier): it is a mature,
> relatively prosperous democracy with long- established state institutions.
>
>
>
Mark Elliott. [*Public Law* (4 ed 2020)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Public-Law-Mark-Elliott/dp/0198836740/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_1/262-6314878-6339113?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0198836740&pd_rd_r=b3ff9c4e-ec1f-4e70-ae6a-35e6eff10390&pd_rd_w=0PKIJ&pd_rd_wg=yET4e&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=9C2KRPSG4BFAQCJBCNZ9&psc=1&refRID=9C2KRPSG4BFAQCJBCNZ9). p 8.
>
> The UK has a completely different and perhaps unique tradition. Its constitution
> has grown, developed, and evolved over time. It is, famously, a flexible and unwritten
> constitution, which is always changing and developing. There has never been a
> fundamental constitutional moment or a ‘blank sheet of paper’ moment in which the
> people and politicians were compelled to design afresh the basic rules, principles, and
> institutions by which the country and the people would be governed.
>
>
>
p 11
>
> ### 4.1 Fundamentals
>
>
>
>
> **No written or codified constitution.** In the UK, there is no written or codified constitution.
> It is often said that the UK has an unwritten or uncodified constitution because
> there is no single founding or constitutional document called ‘The UK Constitution’.
> Instead, there is an assemblage of various constitutional laws and practices. These are
> to be found scattered amongst pieces of legislation, court decisions, constitutional
> conventions, codes of conduct, and practices. Put together, these sources comprise
> the UK constitution.
>
>
>
p 17.
>
> People often say that the United Kingdom does not have a constitution. They are
> wrong. It may not have a *written* constitution, in the sense of a single document entitled
> ‘The Constitution’. Nonetheless, the UK undoubtedly has a constitution. What,
> though, is a constitution? And what are constitutions for?
>
>
>
p 50
>
> Second, we examine the *sources of the UK constitution*. We have already said
> that the UK does not have a ‘written constitution’ in the sense of a constitutional
> text with superior legal status. Where, then, do we look if we wish to ascertain the
>
>
>
p 51
>
> constitutional arrangements applicable in the UK? As we will see, the UK’s constitution
> is to be found in a range of sources—written and unwritten, legal and political.
>
>
>
p 56
>
> Except for the absence of a written constitution, the position in the UK is essentially
> the same as that which is set out in the preceding paragraphs. The sources of
> the UK’s constitutional arrangements are therefore to be found in a combination
> of ordinary law (including legislation, international treaties, and common law),
> judicial precedent (eg concerning the interpretation of legislation), and political
> precedent.
>
>
> |
50,825 | Odd question...
Since with Improved Trip,
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
and with Knock-Down
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
Would that mean for every attack in a round (iterative, 2-weapon, natural, attack of opportunity) you have the potential for one melee attack and if successful and doing more than 10 points of damage, would gain a free trip attempt against that target, and if successful, another free attack against that same opponent? (Provided he's not dead yet.)
Just to be clear, the question is not what happens *after* the three attack actions or whether you can trip a tripped opponent, just seemed a bit odd to me that a 2nd lvl fighter or 3rd lvl rogue could be potentially having 2 for one attacks + trip for every conceivable attack they can make. Those divine feats fall off my radar sometimes. | 2014/11/13 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50825",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9671/"
] | First,
**The basic interaction between Knock-Down and Improved Trip.**
* Knock-Down allows a character to make a free trip attempt against a target that has been damaged in melee.
* Improved Trip allows a character to make a free attack against an opponent that has been successfully tripped.
These feats interact nicely, meaning that when a character with Knock-Down and Improved Trip hits a target for 10 damage, they get a free trip attempt, which, if successful, grants another free attack (for a grand total of three "actions", including the trip).
If this seems powerful - yes, it *is* pretty good. But consider that it costs three precious feats, doesn't work well against all opponents (particularly late-game opponents) and isn't a unique power outlier.
Second, let's check out...
**Multiple Attacks**
How this is resolved is mostly a question of whether we allow a character to trip a target that is already prone.
If we *can't* trip a prone target, the results of subsequent attacks depend on the outcome of the previous attack(s). If the target is not prone before the attack, it is resolved as the first. If the target is prone before the attack, Knock-Down does not apply, and all we get is one, normal attack. In effect, we smash at the target until it falls, smash it once for free, and continue the beatdown with old-fashioned attacks until we run out.
If we *can* trip a prone target, we loop through free trip attempts (from KD) and free attacks (from IT) until we fail to trip or damage the target. Do this on every iterative.
Personally, I think allowing prone targets to be tripped is counter-intuitive and tedious. As a DM, I never allow it. | **Yes, you receive a free trip attempt. Even against a prone target.**
The [trip](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trip) special attack and the [prone](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) condition are worded poorly.
By the current rules, nothing in the *prone* or *trip* descriptions prevents from trying to trip an opponent who is already prone.
Therefore, with the [Knock-down](http://dndtools.eu/feats/sword-and-fist-a-guidebook-to-monks-and-fighters--50/knock-down--3189/) feat and the multiple attacks you indeed gain a free-action *trip* attempt after each attack that dealt more than 10 points of damage, including the attacks made agains an already-tripped opponent.
The resolution of a *trip* attack against a *prone* target does not differ with the usual resolution, as the penalties of the *prone* condition do not affect the Str check to resist being tripped.
The *prone* conditions do not stack, that is, a tripped creature who was already *prone* remains *prone*, and the penalties only apply once, being from the same source.
On a successful *trip* attempt (that is, the opposite check result equal or greater that of a defender), a character with an [Improved Trip](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) feat receives an additional melee attack against the same target.
**To sum up**, in your situation your interpretation is correct: for every attack in a round (be it AoO, iterative, natural or whichever), you have not only the attack itself, but also the potential for an additional trip attempt (provided that the attack landed and dealt more than 10 damage) and a follow-up melee attack agains the same opponent (provided that the trip attempt was successful).
**A rain at the party**
Unfortunately, this could lead to a loop, when the bonus melee attack after a successful trip attempt deals more than 10 damage and opens up another round of bonus attacks. While only increasing the damage output proportionally to chances succeeding at multiple rolls, multiplied, this situation grows closer to the infinite loop the closer character is to acing the rolls mentioned automatically, and is a problem.
**A handy umbrella**
To fix it, I propose to apply a common-sense correction to the *trip* rules and disallow making *trip* attacks against the *prone* opponents. |
50,825 | Odd question...
Since with Improved Trip,
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
and with Knock-Down
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
Would that mean for every attack in a round (iterative, 2-weapon, natural, attack of opportunity) you have the potential for one melee attack and if successful and doing more than 10 points of damage, would gain a free trip attempt against that target, and if successful, another free attack against that same opponent? (Provided he's not dead yet.)
Just to be clear, the question is not what happens *after* the three attack actions or whether you can trip a tripped opponent, just seemed a bit odd to me that a 2nd lvl fighter or 3rd lvl rogue could be potentially having 2 for one attacks + trip for every conceivable attack they can make. Those divine feats fall off my radar sometimes. | 2014/11/13 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50825",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9671/"
] | Yes, But with Some Restrictions
===============================
The feat [Improved Trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) (*PH* 96) says that
>
> You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.
>
>
>
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
The feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) (*DD* 51) says that
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack **as a free action** against the same target.
>
>
>
Further, to make an *armed* [trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trip) attempt (as opposed to the unarmed one that with the feat Improved Trip no longer provokes an attack of opportunity anyway), a creature must make the attempt with the lone simple trip-capable weapon--the sickle--or one of the following martial weapons: guisarme, halberd, heavy flail, light flail, or scythe. Alternately, the creature must make the attempt with one the following exotic weapons: dire flail, gnome hooked hammer, kama, spiked chain, or whip. Texts after the *Player's Handbook* expand this list, but that's a short, largely unpleasant list--with one glaring exception--if playing only core.
For example, a human Ftr2 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), [Exotic Weapon Proficiency](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#exoticWeaponProficiency) (spiked chain) (*PH* 94), Improved Trip, and Knock-down could on his turn make a melee attack against a creature, and, if he hits and deals at least 10 points of damage to the creature, he can make a trip attempt as a free action. Success renders the creature [prone](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) *and* the fighter can make a melee attack against the creature with the weapon used. Failure, however, means the creature gets to attempt to trip the fighter.
This Ftr2, when wielding a spiked chain, deals 2d4+3 points of damage. It will be a few levels before the fighter alone can *consistently* makes the free-action trip attempts using the benefit of the feat Knock-down.
For example, similarly, a human Rog3 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), Improved Trip, and Knock-down--unless he wishes to provoke attacks of opportunity--is *probably* using the sickle, as that's the only weapon with which he's proficient *and* that's capable of making trip attempts. Although the rogue has a Strength score of 15 to meet the prerequisites of the feat Knock-down, he can't even increase his sickle's damage by using it two-handed (["Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons)). Unless circumstances increase the Rog3's damage (e.g. the rogue is in a position to deal his sneak attack damage), the Rog3 deals but 1d6+2 points of damage, never enough by itself to gain the benefits of the feat Knock-down.
The Attacks of Opportunity Issue
--------------------------------
A major reason to take the feats Knock-down and Improved Trip is to make attacks of opportunity that can trip advancing foes. While trip attempts can be made normally as attacks of opportunity (and, if successful, permit the subsequent melee attack granted by the feat Improved Trip), the trip attack granted by the feat Knock-down unfortunately takes a free action to perform, which limits using the benefit of the Knock-down feat to the creature's turn.
While the *Player's Handbook* is a little vague on the topic of off-turn free actions,1 the *Rules Compendium* makes things clear: "You can perform one or more free actions during your turn" (7). The feat Knock-down--like the feat [Quick Draw](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickDraw) (*PH* 98) and [Step 3: Hold](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple) of a grapple check (the free action was added to the grapple process in *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5* and absent in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition*)--provides no specific avenue for escaping this general limit.
Standing from Prone
-------------------
Keep in mind that when the feat Knock-down was published *and* republished, standing up from prone in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition* did *not* provoke attacks of opportunity. Tripping a creature made it light on fire a move action while everybody watched it get to its feet, so even if free actions were allowed off-turn the feat Knock-down wouldn't have come into play.
In *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5*, stand up from prone became--I assume, hastily, and, to speculate, maybe even accidentally--a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. This is problematic as an "attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round" (*PH* 137), and *at what point* the attacker interrupts the stand up from prone action is unclear: *before* the action when the creature's still floundering to stand or *after* the action's completion when the creature's dusting himself off after having stood? I gravitate toward the latter idea that a creature stands *then* creatures that are able to take attacks of opportunity against it, assuming that until the creature's *not* prone anymore it's *prone*, and the action is called *stand up from prone*. But ask the DM. It's important information for a tripper.
The Knock-down Feat Story
=========================
The version of the feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) in *Sword and Fist* (2001) has, among others, this errata:
>
> Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack, and successful use of this feat does not grant an extra attack through the Cleave or Great Cleave feats.
>
>
>
Then the feat was republished in *Deities and Demigods* (2002) and the benefits changed to
>
> Whenever the deity deals 10 or more points of damage to its opponent in melee, it makes a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
As the the Wizards of the Coast policy is that the latest version of the feat takes precedence, the feat became all but impossible to use (but *not* to take--the prerequisites remained unchanged) as it required *either* the creature have divine rank *or* be of indeterminate gender *and* named *the deity*. (Sort of like [e e cummings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings) or [k. d. lang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.d._lang) but moreso.2)
The feat hasn't been re*printed* since *Deities and Demigods*, but it was included--without commentary, explanation, errata, or mandatory godhood--in the Divine Abilities and Feats section of the [SRD](https://web.archive.org/web/20220404053314/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), which is the *only* location the feat--as described in the question--is available. Nor is the SRD listed as the feat's source on the Consolidated Lists' [Feats Index](https://web.archive.org/web/20191221174426/http://archive.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats) (last updated 12/18/07), listing but *Sword and Fist* and *Deities and Demigods*, making even knowing the feat exists in its current form a small victory.
There are *Dragon* magazine and official Wizards of the Coast Web articles that are less obscure than that version of that feat.
---
1. So it's clear, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#actionTypes) (*PH* 139), but an attack of opportunity isn't an action, merely a free attack, unlisted as an action of *any* type on Table 8-2: Actions in Combat (*PH* 141). (Conflict between *this sentence* and the ability of creature to take free actions during swift actions and immediate actions is inevitable and remains unresolved.) The *Rules Compendium* clarifies further: "Making an attack of opportunity isn't considered an action" (*RC* 18). But, O, how I wish the *Rules Compendium*'s loquacious author had omitted that word *considered*.
Further, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions) (*PH* 144). Accordingly, one can argue **either** there are *no* limits to the number of free actions you can perform when it's *not* your turn **or** you can't perform free actions when it's not your turn.
Luckily, there's the [*Rules Compendium*](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/37466/8610) to solve this problem once and for all.
2. A favorite character naming convention and totally not my idea: Naming a character *a madness* then afflicting somebody so much he's driven to suicide, creating an allip (*MM* 10). | **Yes, you receive a free trip attempt. Even against a prone target.**
The [trip](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trip) special attack and the [prone](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) condition are worded poorly.
By the current rules, nothing in the *prone* or *trip* descriptions prevents from trying to trip an opponent who is already prone.
Therefore, with the [Knock-down](http://dndtools.eu/feats/sword-and-fist-a-guidebook-to-monks-and-fighters--50/knock-down--3189/) feat and the multiple attacks you indeed gain a free-action *trip* attempt after each attack that dealt more than 10 points of damage, including the attacks made agains an already-tripped opponent.
The resolution of a *trip* attack against a *prone* target does not differ with the usual resolution, as the penalties of the *prone* condition do not affect the Str check to resist being tripped.
The *prone* conditions do not stack, that is, a tripped creature who was already *prone* remains *prone*, and the penalties only apply once, being from the same source.
On a successful *trip* attempt (that is, the opposite check result equal or greater that of a defender), a character with an [Improved Trip](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) feat receives an additional melee attack against the same target.
**To sum up**, in your situation your interpretation is correct: for every attack in a round (be it AoO, iterative, natural or whichever), you have not only the attack itself, but also the potential for an additional trip attempt (provided that the attack landed and dealt more than 10 damage) and a follow-up melee attack agains the same opponent (provided that the trip attempt was successful).
**A rain at the party**
Unfortunately, this could lead to a loop, when the bonus melee attack after a successful trip attempt deals more than 10 damage and opens up another round of bonus attacks. While only increasing the damage output proportionally to chances succeeding at multiple rolls, multiplied, this situation grows closer to the infinite loop the closer character is to acing the rolls mentioned automatically, and is a problem.
**A handy umbrella**
To fix it, I propose to apply a common-sense correction to the *trip* rules and disallow making *trip* attacks against the *prone* opponents. |
50,825 | Odd question...
Since with Improved Trip,
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
and with Knock-Down
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
Would that mean for every attack in a round (iterative, 2-weapon, natural, attack of opportunity) you have the potential for one melee attack and if successful and doing more than 10 points of damage, would gain a free trip attempt against that target, and if successful, another free attack against that same opponent? (Provided he's not dead yet.)
Just to be clear, the question is not what happens *after* the three attack actions or whether you can trip a tripped opponent, just seemed a bit odd to me that a 2nd lvl fighter or 3rd lvl rogue could be potentially having 2 for one attacks + trip for every conceivable attack they can make. Those divine feats fall off my radar sometimes. | 2014/11/13 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50825",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9671/"
] | First,
**The basic interaction between Knock-Down and Improved Trip.**
* Knock-Down allows a character to make a free trip attempt against a target that has been damaged in melee.
* Improved Trip allows a character to make a free attack against an opponent that has been successfully tripped.
These feats interact nicely, meaning that when a character with Knock-Down and Improved Trip hits a target for 10 damage, they get a free trip attempt, which, if successful, grants another free attack (for a grand total of three "actions", including the trip).
If this seems powerful - yes, it *is* pretty good. But consider that it costs three precious feats, doesn't work well against all opponents (particularly late-game opponents) and isn't a unique power outlier.
Second, let's check out...
**Multiple Attacks**
How this is resolved is mostly a question of whether we allow a character to trip a target that is already prone.
If we *can't* trip a prone target, the results of subsequent attacks depend on the outcome of the previous attack(s). If the target is not prone before the attack, it is resolved as the first. If the target is prone before the attack, Knock-Down does not apply, and all we get is one, normal attack. In effect, we smash at the target until it falls, smash it once for free, and continue the beatdown with old-fashioned attacks until we run out.
If we *can* trip a prone target, we loop through free trip attempts (from KD) and free attacks (from IT) until we fail to trip or damage the target. Do this on every iterative.
Personally, I think allowing prone targets to be tripped is counter-intuitive and tedious. As a DM, I never allow it. | Yes, it may yield 3+ actions per attack.
========================================
With your [Knock-Down][1] feat, anytime you deal 10 points of damage to a target in a melee attack, you get to make a free [trip][2] attack against that target. With the [Improved Trip][3] feat, you get to immediately make a [free melee attack][4] against that opponent you just tripped.
Without the Knockdown feat, in order to trip, you make a [touch attack](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#touchAttacks) against the target, then perform your trip roll. Some DM's may rule that you cause no damage with that touch attack (as I do; however, I do allow falling damage since they do hit the ground against their will).
During an attack of opportunity, that is not on your turn, by it's feat description, you should be allowed to perform a free trip attack if you successfully deal 10 points of damage on your attack of opportunity - possibly nullifying your opponents action. As a DM, I would allow this, simply because there are other feats that have that same philosophy, such as [Close-Quarters Fighting](https://web.archive.org/web/20141024210341/http://dndtools.eu:80/feats/complete-warrior--61/close-quarters-fighting--365/) (it can interrupt a grapple made towards you). Once again, you should be allowed to get your free melee attack against that successfully tripped opponent; some DM's may rule that is doing too much or going to far.
Speak with your DM to iron out all the details before you start piling on the feats for a trip build. Hell hath no fury like a DM scorned. Pulling zingers on your DM will ruin the fun for the rest of your party, and will get DMG's thrown at you.
**Iterative Attacks**
With [iterative attacks][7], assuming you have BAB +15, your three melee attacks have the potential to provide you with a free trip attack, and the free melee attack with a successful trip.
These iterative attacks must be done with a [trip weapon](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trippingwithaWeapon), or with unarmed strikes. Since there is nothing in Improved Trip's description stating otherwise; on your free attack after a successful trip, you should be able to make a melee attack as you desire. Your DM may rule it must be made with the weapon used to perform the trip.
**Two-Weapon Fighting**
As with iterative attacks, you have the potential with as many off-hand attacks to get a free trip attack, and the free melee attack with a successful trip. Keep in mind, some DM's may utilize the [off-hand strength "penalty"][9] for your opposed strength check with those off-hand trip attacks.
Ensure your off-hand weapon is either a tripping weapon, or an unarmed strike.
**Natural Weapons**
The only drawback, unless otherwise stated with certain feats, such as [Rapidstrike][10], you can only make one attack per natural weapon in a round. Hence the entry for a [wolf][11], one bite attack = one trip attack. Also note that if you have natural weapons, and a manufactured weapon, you can't make a natural attack with the same body part as the one holding the weapon, unless you are a [monk][12] using unarmed strikes. The natural attack, would be secondary attacks, and use the standard -5 penalty (-2 with [Multiattack][13]/-0 with [Improved Multiattack][14]).
>This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.
Most natural weapons should count unarmed strikes for the purpose of trip attacks. A tentacle could wrap around a leg and pull a person off their feet. A claw can just as easily as a hand hook into someone and pull them off their feet. A bite, as in the case of the wolf, can drag a person off their feet. Speak with your DM ahead of time before trying to argue why your wing buffet should be allowed to trip someone.
Of course, with the knock-down feat, you aren't actually tripping them, you are doing so much damage in the right area, they are literally getting knocked down.
**Attacks of Opportunity**
Since a trip, is an attack, your [attacks of opportunity][15] can be made as trip attacks. For example, if you have a reach weapon or the [Hold the Line][16] feat, and an opponent charges you, you can trip him - possibly ending his charge before he gets a chance to hit you. Remember, attacks of opportunity happens before the action that provided the opportunity.
If you have the ability to make more than one attack of opportunity, such as [Combat Reflexes](https://web.archive.org/web/20141008050029/http://dndtools.eu:80/feats/players-handbook-v35--6/combat-reflexes--403/), then you can possibly trip melee opponents with those attacks of opportunity, and also getting your free melee attack from a successful trip.
**Is it Cheese?**
Yes and no. If it is truly a problem for your encounters, start making the enemies larger and stronger. Also, lots of things can't be tripped or have a hard time being tripped. An angry centaur - gets a bonus for being large, and gets a bonus for having more than two legs. Oozes can't be tripped. Beholders... 'nuff said.
---
**Remember this concerning what was stated above:**
You Cannot Trip a Prone Target
==============================
### All About Trip Attacks (Part Two)
>It's possible to attempt a trip attack as an attack of opportunity. Fortunately, ***you can't be tripped while getting up from prone***, at least not through the attack of opportunity you provoke. That because attacks of opportunity are resolved before the actions that provoke them (there are a few exceptions, see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity for details). When you try to stand up from a prone position, the attack of opportunity comes before you get back on your feet. ***Since you're still prone*** when the attack comes, the attack of opportunity ***can't trip you***.
---
### Trip
>A tripped character is prone. [Standing up][18] is a [move action][19].
### Prone
>The character is on the ground. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
### Attack of Opportunity
>If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
### Discussion
A tripped character is prone. A prone character is on the ground, that needs to stand up. It provokes an attack of opportunity, unless you have feats, skill tricks, spells, or magic items that say otherwise. Since an attack of opportunity happens before the prone character stands up, he can't be tripped (caused prone) because he is still prone.
This was clarified in the [Rules of the Game](https://web.archive.org/web/20200315192408/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) section, that is now archived on WotC website.
### FAQ
>**Being tripped makes you prone. Who can be tripped? Beholders? Gelatinous cubes? What effect does tripping have on these creatures? Can a prone character be tripped again? What about flying and swimming creatures? Many creatures have neither legs nor any relationship to the ground or gravity. How does tripping affect them?**
>
> Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped. Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense.
>
>
>
>
> A creature flying with wings can be “tripped,” in which case the creature stalls (see Tactical Aerial Movement on page 20 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide). You can’t make an
> incorporeal creature fall down. ***You also can’t trip a prone creature.***
>
>
>
>
> Creatures can’t be tripped when they’re swimming (the water holds them up). Likewise, a burrowing creature is driving its body through a fairly solid medium that serves to hold it up.
>
>
>
### Are FAQ's Rules?
>If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ. Any new additions or major corrections in a version are provided in red text for your convenience. Red text changes to black text in the next version. This version of the D&D FAQ uses the 3.5 revision of the core rules and also contains questions covering material from a variety of books (such as Savage Species and Epic Level Handbook). If you haven’t yet adopted the revision, don’t worry—in the rare instance that the answer is different between 3rd edition and the 3.5 revision, we’ll bring it to your attention with a call out that says “Revision Alert.”
Are they factual rules? WotC seem to think so.
### Sources
1. [All About Trip Attacks (Part Two)](https://web.archive.org/web/20161031215143/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a)
2. [SRD](https://www.d20srd.org/)
3. [D&D FAQ 3/14/08 Page 68](https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/3ECollectedErrata.ZIP) |
50,825 | Odd question...
Since with Improved Trip,
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
and with Knock-Down
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
Would that mean for every attack in a round (iterative, 2-weapon, natural, attack of opportunity) you have the potential for one melee attack and if successful and doing more than 10 points of damage, would gain a free trip attempt against that target, and if successful, another free attack against that same opponent? (Provided he's not dead yet.)
Just to be clear, the question is not what happens *after* the three attack actions or whether you can trip a tripped opponent, just seemed a bit odd to me that a 2nd lvl fighter or 3rd lvl rogue could be potentially having 2 for one attacks + trip for every conceivable attack they can make. Those divine feats fall off my radar sometimes. | 2014/11/13 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50825",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9671/"
] | Yes, But with Some Restrictions
===============================
The feat [Improved Trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) (*PH* 96) says that
>
> You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.
>
>
>
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
The feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) (*DD* 51) says that
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack **as a free action** against the same target.
>
>
>
Further, to make an *armed* [trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trip) attempt (as opposed to the unarmed one that with the feat Improved Trip no longer provokes an attack of opportunity anyway), a creature must make the attempt with the lone simple trip-capable weapon--the sickle--or one of the following martial weapons: guisarme, halberd, heavy flail, light flail, or scythe. Alternately, the creature must make the attempt with one the following exotic weapons: dire flail, gnome hooked hammer, kama, spiked chain, or whip. Texts after the *Player's Handbook* expand this list, but that's a short, largely unpleasant list--with one glaring exception--if playing only core.
For example, a human Ftr2 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), [Exotic Weapon Proficiency](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#exoticWeaponProficiency) (spiked chain) (*PH* 94), Improved Trip, and Knock-down could on his turn make a melee attack against a creature, and, if he hits and deals at least 10 points of damage to the creature, he can make a trip attempt as a free action. Success renders the creature [prone](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) *and* the fighter can make a melee attack against the creature with the weapon used. Failure, however, means the creature gets to attempt to trip the fighter.
This Ftr2, when wielding a spiked chain, deals 2d4+3 points of damage. It will be a few levels before the fighter alone can *consistently* makes the free-action trip attempts using the benefit of the feat Knock-down.
For example, similarly, a human Rog3 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), Improved Trip, and Knock-down--unless he wishes to provoke attacks of opportunity--is *probably* using the sickle, as that's the only weapon with which he's proficient *and* that's capable of making trip attempts. Although the rogue has a Strength score of 15 to meet the prerequisites of the feat Knock-down, he can't even increase his sickle's damage by using it two-handed (["Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons)). Unless circumstances increase the Rog3's damage (e.g. the rogue is in a position to deal his sneak attack damage), the Rog3 deals but 1d6+2 points of damage, never enough by itself to gain the benefits of the feat Knock-down.
The Attacks of Opportunity Issue
--------------------------------
A major reason to take the feats Knock-down and Improved Trip is to make attacks of opportunity that can trip advancing foes. While trip attempts can be made normally as attacks of opportunity (and, if successful, permit the subsequent melee attack granted by the feat Improved Trip), the trip attack granted by the feat Knock-down unfortunately takes a free action to perform, which limits using the benefit of the Knock-down feat to the creature's turn.
While the *Player's Handbook* is a little vague on the topic of off-turn free actions,1 the *Rules Compendium* makes things clear: "You can perform one or more free actions during your turn" (7). The feat Knock-down--like the feat [Quick Draw](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickDraw) (*PH* 98) and [Step 3: Hold](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple) of a grapple check (the free action was added to the grapple process in *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5* and absent in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition*)--provides no specific avenue for escaping this general limit.
Standing from Prone
-------------------
Keep in mind that when the feat Knock-down was published *and* republished, standing up from prone in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition* did *not* provoke attacks of opportunity. Tripping a creature made it light on fire a move action while everybody watched it get to its feet, so even if free actions were allowed off-turn the feat Knock-down wouldn't have come into play.
In *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5*, stand up from prone became--I assume, hastily, and, to speculate, maybe even accidentally--a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. This is problematic as an "attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round" (*PH* 137), and *at what point* the attacker interrupts the stand up from prone action is unclear: *before* the action when the creature's still floundering to stand or *after* the action's completion when the creature's dusting himself off after having stood? I gravitate toward the latter idea that a creature stands *then* creatures that are able to take attacks of opportunity against it, assuming that until the creature's *not* prone anymore it's *prone*, and the action is called *stand up from prone*. But ask the DM. It's important information for a tripper.
The Knock-down Feat Story
=========================
The version of the feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) in *Sword and Fist* (2001) has, among others, this errata:
>
> Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack, and successful use of this feat does not grant an extra attack through the Cleave or Great Cleave feats.
>
>
>
Then the feat was republished in *Deities and Demigods* (2002) and the benefits changed to
>
> Whenever the deity deals 10 or more points of damage to its opponent in melee, it makes a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
As the the Wizards of the Coast policy is that the latest version of the feat takes precedence, the feat became all but impossible to use (but *not* to take--the prerequisites remained unchanged) as it required *either* the creature have divine rank *or* be of indeterminate gender *and* named *the deity*. (Sort of like [e e cummings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings) or [k. d. lang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.d._lang) but moreso.2)
The feat hasn't been re*printed* since *Deities and Demigods*, but it was included--without commentary, explanation, errata, or mandatory godhood--in the Divine Abilities and Feats section of the [SRD](https://web.archive.org/web/20220404053314/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), which is the *only* location the feat--as described in the question--is available. Nor is the SRD listed as the feat's source on the Consolidated Lists' [Feats Index](https://web.archive.org/web/20191221174426/http://archive.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats) (last updated 12/18/07), listing but *Sword and Fist* and *Deities and Demigods*, making even knowing the feat exists in its current form a small victory.
There are *Dragon* magazine and official Wizards of the Coast Web articles that are less obscure than that version of that feat.
---
1. So it's clear, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#actionTypes) (*PH* 139), but an attack of opportunity isn't an action, merely a free attack, unlisted as an action of *any* type on Table 8-2: Actions in Combat (*PH* 141). (Conflict between *this sentence* and the ability of creature to take free actions during swift actions and immediate actions is inevitable and remains unresolved.) The *Rules Compendium* clarifies further: "Making an attack of opportunity isn't considered an action" (*RC* 18). But, O, how I wish the *Rules Compendium*'s loquacious author had omitted that word *considered*.
Further, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions) (*PH* 144). Accordingly, one can argue **either** there are *no* limits to the number of free actions you can perform when it's *not* your turn **or** you can't perform free actions when it's not your turn.
Luckily, there's the [*Rules Compendium*](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/37466/8610) to solve this problem once and for all.
2. A favorite character naming convention and totally not my idea: Naming a character *a madness* then afflicting somebody so much he's driven to suicide, creating an allip (*MM* 10). | First,
**The basic interaction between Knock-Down and Improved Trip.**
* Knock-Down allows a character to make a free trip attempt against a target that has been damaged in melee.
* Improved Trip allows a character to make a free attack against an opponent that has been successfully tripped.
These feats interact nicely, meaning that when a character with Knock-Down and Improved Trip hits a target for 10 damage, they get a free trip attempt, which, if successful, grants another free attack (for a grand total of three "actions", including the trip).
If this seems powerful - yes, it *is* pretty good. But consider that it costs three precious feats, doesn't work well against all opponents (particularly late-game opponents) and isn't a unique power outlier.
Second, let's check out...
**Multiple Attacks**
How this is resolved is mostly a question of whether we allow a character to trip a target that is already prone.
If we *can't* trip a prone target, the results of subsequent attacks depend on the outcome of the previous attack(s). If the target is not prone before the attack, it is resolved as the first. If the target is prone before the attack, Knock-Down does not apply, and all we get is one, normal attack. In effect, we smash at the target until it falls, smash it once for free, and continue the beatdown with old-fashioned attacks until we run out.
If we *can* trip a prone target, we loop through free trip attempts (from KD) and free attacks (from IT) until we fail to trip or damage the target. Do this on every iterative.
Personally, I think allowing prone targets to be tripped is counter-intuitive and tedious. As a DM, I never allow it. |
50,825 | Odd question...
Since with Improved Trip,
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
and with Knock-Down
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
Would that mean for every attack in a round (iterative, 2-weapon, natural, attack of opportunity) you have the potential for one melee attack and if successful and doing more than 10 points of damage, would gain a free trip attempt against that target, and if successful, another free attack against that same opponent? (Provided he's not dead yet.)
Just to be clear, the question is not what happens *after* the three attack actions or whether you can trip a tripped opponent, just seemed a bit odd to me that a 2nd lvl fighter or 3rd lvl rogue could be potentially having 2 for one attacks + trip for every conceivable attack they can make. Those divine feats fall off my radar sometimes. | 2014/11/13 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50825",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9671/"
] | First,
**The basic interaction between Knock-Down and Improved Trip.**
* Knock-Down allows a character to make a free trip attempt against a target that has been damaged in melee.
* Improved Trip allows a character to make a free attack against an opponent that has been successfully tripped.
These feats interact nicely, meaning that when a character with Knock-Down and Improved Trip hits a target for 10 damage, they get a free trip attempt, which, if successful, grants another free attack (for a grand total of three "actions", including the trip).
If this seems powerful - yes, it *is* pretty good. But consider that it costs three precious feats, doesn't work well against all opponents (particularly late-game opponents) and isn't a unique power outlier.
Second, let's check out...
**Multiple Attacks**
How this is resolved is mostly a question of whether we allow a character to trip a target that is already prone.
If we *can't* trip a prone target, the results of subsequent attacks depend on the outcome of the previous attack(s). If the target is not prone before the attack, it is resolved as the first. If the target is prone before the attack, Knock-Down does not apply, and all we get is one, normal attack. In effect, we smash at the target until it falls, smash it once for free, and continue the beatdown with old-fashioned attacks until we run out.
If we *can* trip a prone target, we loop through free trip attempts (from KD) and free attacks (from IT) until we fail to trip or damage the target. Do this on every iterative.
Personally, I think allowing prone targets to be tripped is counter-intuitive and tedious. As a DM, I never allow it. | No, it does not.
----------------
I don't get how everyone missed the ruling here. Improved Trip states quite clearly that "If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt." It has been worded specifically to state that you do NOT gain a free attack, but that you do not use up your owns attack while tripping. That means that when Knock Down gives you "a trip attack as a free action against the same target", you do not get an additional attack, because improved trip gives you back an attack that you used for the trip attempt. But you did not use an attack for the trip attempt, it was directly a trip attempt.
To clarify: Trip attempts are an specific special attack that can be used instead of a regular attack. Improved trip allows you to get back a regular attack that was used to execute that specific special attack, which could be used again to execute a different special attack(like disarm or even trip, though you cannot trip a prone character), as if you never had used the regular attack in the first place, and only against the same target. Knocked down does not give you a regular attack, it gives you a Trip attempt. Improved Trip cannot give you back a regular attack "as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt", because it never was a regular attack to begin with. |
50,825 | Odd question...
Since with Improved Trip,
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
and with Knock-Down
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
Would that mean for every attack in a round (iterative, 2-weapon, natural, attack of opportunity) you have the potential for one melee attack and if successful and doing more than 10 points of damage, would gain a free trip attempt against that target, and if successful, another free attack against that same opponent? (Provided he's not dead yet.)
Just to be clear, the question is not what happens *after* the three attack actions or whether you can trip a tripped opponent, just seemed a bit odd to me that a 2nd lvl fighter or 3rd lvl rogue could be potentially having 2 for one attacks + trip for every conceivable attack they can make. Those divine feats fall off my radar sometimes. | 2014/11/13 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50825",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9671/"
] | Yes, But with Some Restrictions
===============================
The feat [Improved Trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) (*PH* 96) says that
>
> You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.
>
>
>
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
The feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) (*DD* 51) says that
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack **as a free action** against the same target.
>
>
>
Further, to make an *armed* [trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trip) attempt (as opposed to the unarmed one that with the feat Improved Trip no longer provokes an attack of opportunity anyway), a creature must make the attempt with the lone simple trip-capable weapon--the sickle--or one of the following martial weapons: guisarme, halberd, heavy flail, light flail, or scythe. Alternately, the creature must make the attempt with one the following exotic weapons: dire flail, gnome hooked hammer, kama, spiked chain, or whip. Texts after the *Player's Handbook* expand this list, but that's a short, largely unpleasant list--with one glaring exception--if playing only core.
For example, a human Ftr2 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), [Exotic Weapon Proficiency](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#exoticWeaponProficiency) (spiked chain) (*PH* 94), Improved Trip, and Knock-down could on his turn make a melee attack against a creature, and, if he hits and deals at least 10 points of damage to the creature, he can make a trip attempt as a free action. Success renders the creature [prone](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) *and* the fighter can make a melee attack against the creature with the weapon used. Failure, however, means the creature gets to attempt to trip the fighter.
This Ftr2, when wielding a spiked chain, deals 2d4+3 points of damage. It will be a few levels before the fighter alone can *consistently* makes the free-action trip attempts using the benefit of the feat Knock-down.
For example, similarly, a human Rog3 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), Improved Trip, and Knock-down--unless he wishes to provoke attacks of opportunity--is *probably* using the sickle, as that's the only weapon with which he's proficient *and* that's capable of making trip attempts. Although the rogue has a Strength score of 15 to meet the prerequisites of the feat Knock-down, he can't even increase his sickle's damage by using it two-handed (["Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons)). Unless circumstances increase the Rog3's damage (e.g. the rogue is in a position to deal his sneak attack damage), the Rog3 deals but 1d6+2 points of damage, never enough by itself to gain the benefits of the feat Knock-down.
The Attacks of Opportunity Issue
--------------------------------
A major reason to take the feats Knock-down and Improved Trip is to make attacks of opportunity that can trip advancing foes. While trip attempts can be made normally as attacks of opportunity (and, if successful, permit the subsequent melee attack granted by the feat Improved Trip), the trip attack granted by the feat Knock-down unfortunately takes a free action to perform, which limits using the benefit of the Knock-down feat to the creature's turn.
While the *Player's Handbook* is a little vague on the topic of off-turn free actions,1 the *Rules Compendium* makes things clear: "You can perform one or more free actions during your turn" (7). The feat Knock-down--like the feat [Quick Draw](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickDraw) (*PH* 98) and [Step 3: Hold](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple) of a grapple check (the free action was added to the grapple process in *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5* and absent in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition*)--provides no specific avenue for escaping this general limit.
Standing from Prone
-------------------
Keep in mind that when the feat Knock-down was published *and* republished, standing up from prone in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition* did *not* provoke attacks of opportunity. Tripping a creature made it light on fire a move action while everybody watched it get to its feet, so even if free actions were allowed off-turn the feat Knock-down wouldn't have come into play.
In *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5*, stand up from prone became--I assume, hastily, and, to speculate, maybe even accidentally--a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. This is problematic as an "attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round" (*PH* 137), and *at what point* the attacker interrupts the stand up from prone action is unclear: *before* the action when the creature's still floundering to stand or *after* the action's completion when the creature's dusting himself off after having stood? I gravitate toward the latter idea that a creature stands *then* creatures that are able to take attacks of opportunity against it, assuming that until the creature's *not* prone anymore it's *prone*, and the action is called *stand up from prone*. But ask the DM. It's important information for a tripper.
The Knock-down Feat Story
=========================
The version of the feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) in *Sword and Fist* (2001) has, among others, this errata:
>
> Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack, and successful use of this feat does not grant an extra attack through the Cleave or Great Cleave feats.
>
>
>
Then the feat was republished in *Deities and Demigods* (2002) and the benefits changed to
>
> Whenever the deity deals 10 or more points of damage to its opponent in melee, it makes a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
As the the Wizards of the Coast policy is that the latest version of the feat takes precedence, the feat became all but impossible to use (but *not* to take--the prerequisites remained unchanged) as it required *either* the creature have divine rank *or* be of indeterminate gender *and* named *the deity*. (Sort of like [e e cummings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings) or [k. d. lang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.d._lang) but moreso.2)
The feat hasn't been re*printed* since *Deities and Demigods*, but it was included--without commentary, explanation, errata, or mandatory godhood--in the Divine Abilities and Feats section of the [SRD](https://web.archive.org/web/20220404053314/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), which is the *only* location the feat--as described in the question--is available. Nor is the SRD listed as the feat's source on the Consolidated Lists' [Feats Index](https://web.archive.org/web/20191221174426/http://archive.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats) (last updated 12/18/07), listing but *Sword and Fist* and *Deities and Demigods*, making even knowing the feat exists in its current form a small victory.
There are *Dragon* magazine and official Wizards of the Coast Web articles that are less obscure than that version of that feat.
---
1. So it's clear, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#actionTypes) (*PH* 139), but an attack of opportunity isn't an action, merely a free attack, unlisted as an action of *any* type on Table 8-2: Actions in Combat (*PH* 141). (Conflict between *this sentence* and the ability of creature to take free actions during swift actions and immediate actions is inevitable and remains unresolved.) The *Rules Compendium* clarifies further: "Making an attack of opportunity isn't considered an action" (*RC* 18). But, O, how I wish the *Rules Compendium*'s loquacious author had omitted that word *considered*.
Further, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions) (*PH* 144). Accordingly, one can argue **either** there are *no* limits to the number of free actions you can perform when it's *not* your turn **or** you can't perform free actions when it's not your turn.
Luckily, there's the [*Rules Compendium*](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/37466/8610) to solve this problem once and for all.
2. A favorite character naming convention and totally not my idea: Naming a character *a madness* then afflicting somebody so much he's driven to suicide, creating an allip (*MM* 10). | Yes, it may yield 3+ actions per attack.
========================================
With your [Knock-Down][1] feat, anytime you deal 10 points of damage to a target in a melee attack, you get to make a free [trip][2] attack against that target. With the [Improved Trip][3] feat, you get to immediately make a [free melee attack][4] against that opponent you just tripped.
Without the Knockdown feat, in order to trip, you make a [touch attack](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#touchAttacks) against the target, then perform your trip roll. Some DM's may rule that you cause no damage with that touch attack (as I do; however, I do allow falling damage since they do hit the ground against their will).
During an attack of opportunity, that is not on your turn, by it's feat description, you should be allowed to perform a free trip attack if you successfully deal 10 points of damage on your attack of opportunity - possibly nullifying your opponents action. As a DM, I would allow this, simply because there are other feats that have that same philosophy, such as [Close-Quarters Fighting](https://web.archive.org/web/20141024210341/http://dndtools.eu:80/feats/complete-warrior--61/close-quarters-fighting--365/) (it can interrupt a grapple made towards you). Once again, you should be allowed to get your free melee attack against that successfully tripped opponent; some DM's may rule that is doing too much or going to far.
Speak with your DM to iron out all the details before you start piling on the feats for a trip build. Hell hath no fury like a DM scorned. Pulling zingers on your DM will ruin the fun for the rest of your party, and will get DMG's thrown at you.
**Iterative Attacks**
With [iterative attacks][7], assuming you have BAB +15, your three melee attacks have the potential to provide you with a free trip attack, and the free melee attack with a successful trip.
These iterative attacks must be done with a [trip weapon](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trippingwithaWeapon), or with unarmed strikes. Since there is nothing in Improved Trip's description stating otherwise; on your free attack after a successful trip, you should be able to make a melee attack as you desire. Your DM may rule it must be made with the weapon used to perform the trip.
**Two-Weapon Fighting**
As with iterative attacks, you have the potential with as many off-hand attacks to get a free trip attack, and the free melee attack with a successful trip. Keep in mind, some DM's may utilize the [off-hand strength "penalty"][9] for your opposed strength check with those off-hand trip attacks.
Ensure your off-hand weapon is either a tripping weapon, or an unarmed strike.
**Natural Weapons**
The only drawback, unless otherwise stated with certain feats, such as [Rapidstrike][10], you can only make one attack per natural weapon in a round. Hence the entry for a [wolf][11], one bite attack = one trip attack. Also note that if you have natural weapons, and a manufactured weapon, you can't make a natural attack with the same body part as the one holding the weapon, unless you are a [monk][12] using unarmed strikes. The natural attack, would be secondary attacks, and use the standard -5 penalty (-2 with [Multiattack][13]/-0 with [Improved Multiattack][14]).
>This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.
Most natural weapons should count unarmed strikes for the purpose of trip attacks. A tentacle could wrap around a leg and pull a person off their feet. A claw can just as easily as a hand hook into someone and pull them off their feet. A bite, as in the case of the wolf, can drag a person off their feet. Speak with your DM ahead of time before trying to argue why your wing buffet should be allowed to trip someone.
Of course, with the knock-down feat, you aren't actually tripping them, you are doing so much damage in the right area, they are literally getting knocked down.
**Attacks of Opportunity**
Since a trip, is an attack, your [attacks of opportunity][15] can be made as trip attacks. For example, if you have a reach weapon or the [Hold the Line][16] feat, and an opponent charges you, you can trip him - possibly ending his charge before he gets a chance to hit you. Remember, attacks of opportunity happens before the action that provided the opportunity.
If you have the ability to make more than one attack of opportunity, such as [Combat Reflexes](https://web.archive.org/web/20141008050029/http://dndtools.eu:80/feats/players-handbook-v35--6/combat-reflexes--403/), then you can possibly trip melee opponents with those attacks of opportunity, and also getting your free melee attack from a successful trip.
**Is it Cheese?**
Yes and no. If it is truly a problem for your encounters, start making the enemies larger and stronger. Also, lots of things can't be tripped or have a hard time being tripped. An angry centaur - gets a bonus for being large, and gets a bonus for having more than two legs. Oozes can't be tripped. Beholders... 'nuff said.
---
**Remember this concerning what was stated above:**
You Cannot Trip a Prone Target
==============================
### All About Trip Attacks (Part Two)
>It's possible to attempt a trip attack as an attack of opportunity. Fortunately, ***you can't be tripped while getting up from prone***, at least not through the attack of opportunity you provoke. That because attacks of opportunity are resolved before the actions that provoke them (there are a few exceptions, see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity for details). When you try to stand up from a prone position, the attack of opportunity comes before you get back on your feet. ***Since you're still prone*** when the attack comes, the attack of opportunity ***can't trip you***.
---
### Trip
>A tripped character is prone. [Standing up][18] is a [move action][19].
### Prone
>The character is on the ground. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
### Attack of Opportunity
>If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
### Discussion
A tripped character is prone. A prone character is on the ground, that needs to stand up. It provokes an attack of opportunity, unless you have feats, skill tricks, spells, or magic items that say otherwise. Since an attack of opportunity happens before the prone character stands up, he can't be tripped (caused prone) because he is still prone.
This was clarified in the [Rules of the Game](https://web.archive.org/web/20200315192408/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) section, that is now archived on WotC website.
### FAQ
>**Being tripped makes you prone. Who can be tripped? Beholders? Gelatinous cubes? What effect does tripping have on these creatures? Can a prone character be tripped again? What about flying and swimming creatures? Many creatures have neither legs nor any relationship to the ground or gravity. How does tripping affect them?**
>
> Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped. Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense.
>
>
>
>
> A creature flying with wings can be “tripped,” in which case the creature stalls (see Tactical Aerial Movement on page 20 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide). You can’t make an
> incorporeal creature fall down. ***You also can’t trip a prone creature.***
>
>
>
>
> Creatures can’t be tripped when they’re swimming (the water holds them up). Likewise, a burrowing creature is driving its body through a fairly solid medium that serves to hold it up.
>
>
>
### Are FAQ's Rules?
>If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ. Any new additions or major corrections in a version are provided in red text for your convenience. Red text changes to black text in the next version. This version of the D&D FAQ uses the 3.5 revision of the core rules and also contains questions covering material from a variety of books (such as Savage Species and Epic Level Handbook). If you haven’t yet adopted the revision, don’t worry—in the rare instance that the answer is different between 3rd edition and the 3.5 revision, we’ll bring it to your attention with a call out that says “Revision Alert.”
Are they factual rules? WotC seem to think so.
### Sources
1. [All About Trip Attacks (Part Two)](https://web.archive.org/web/20161031215143/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a)
2. [SRD](https://www.d20srd.org/)
3. [D&D FAQ 3/14/08 Page 68](https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/3ECollectedErrata.ZIP) |
50,825 | Odd question...
Since with Improved Trip,
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
and with Knock-Down
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
Would that mean for every attack in a round (iterative, 2-weapon, natural, attack of opportunity) you have the potential for one melee attack and if successful and doing more than 10 points of damage, would gain a free trip attempt against that target, and if successful, another free attack against that same opponent? (Provided he's not dead yet.)
Just to be clear, the question is not what happens *after* the three attack actions or whether you can trip a tripped opponent, just seemed a bit odd to me that a 2nd lvl fighter or 3rd lvl rogue could be potentially having 2 for one attacks + trip for every conceivable attack they can make. Those divine feats fall off my radar sometimes. | 2014/11/13 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50825",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9671/"
] | Yes, But with Some Restrictions
===============================
The feat [Improved Trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip) (*PH* 96) says that
>
> You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.
>
>
>
>
> If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt.
>
>
>
The feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) (*DD* 51) says that
>
> Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack **as a free action** against the same target.
>
>
>
Further, to make an *armed* [trip](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#trip) attempt (as opposed to the unarmed one that with the feat Improved Trip no longer provokes an attack of opportunity anyway), a creature must make the attempt with the lone simple trip-capable weapon--the sickle--or one of the following martial weapons: guisarme, halberd, heavy flail, light flail, or scythe. Alternately, the creature must make the attempt with one the following exotic weapons: dire flail, gnome hooked hammer, kama, spiked chain, or whip. Texts after the *Player's Handbook* expand this list, but that's a short, largely unpleasant list--with one glaring exception--if playing only core.
For example, a human Ftr2 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), [Exotic Weapon Proficiency](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#exoticWeaponProficiency) (spiked chain) (*PH* 94), Improved Trip, and Knock-down could on his turn make a melee attack against a creature, and, if he hits and deals at least 10 points of damage to the creature, he can make a trip attempt as a free action. Success renders the creature [prone](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone) *and* the fighter can make a melee attack against the creature with the weapon used. Failure, however, means the creature gets to attempt to trip the fighter.
This Ftr2, when wielding a spiked chain, deals 2d4+3 points of damage. It will be a few levels before the fighter alone can *consistently* makes the free-action trip attempts using the benefit of the feat Knock-down.
For example, similarly, a human Rog3 who picked as his feats [Combat Expertise](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) (*PH* 92), Improved Trip, and Knock-down--unless he wishes to provoke attacks of opportunity--is *probably* using the sickle, as that's the only weapon with which he's proficient *and* that's capable of making trip attempts. Although the rogue has a Strength score of 15 to meet the prerequisites of the feat Knock-down, he can't even increase his sickle's damage by using it two-handed (["Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons)). Unless circumstances increase the Rog3's damage (e.g. the rogue is in a position to deal his sneak attack damage), the Rog3 deals but 1d6+2 points of damage, never enough by itself to gain the benefits of the feat Knock-down.
The Attacks of Opportunity Issue
--------------------------------
A major reason to take the feats Knock-down and Improved Trip is to make attacks of opportunity that can trip advancing foes. While trip attempts can be made normally as attacks of opportunity (and, if successful, permit the subsequent melee attack granted by the feat Improved Trip), the trip attack granted by the feat Knock-down unfortunately takes a free action to perform, which limits using the benefit of the Knock-down feat to the creature's turn.
While the *Player's Handbook* is a little vague on the topic of off-turn free actions,1 the *Rules Compendium* makes things clear: "You can perform one or more free actions during your turn" (7). The feat Knock-down--like the feat [Quick Draw](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickDraw) (*PH* 98) and [Step 3: Hold](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple) of a grapple check (the free action was added to the grapple process in *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5* and absent in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition*)--provides no specific avenue for escaping this general limit.
Standing from Prone
-------------------
Keep in mind that when the feat Knock-down was published *and* republished, standing up from prone in *Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition* did *not* provoke attacks of opportunity. Tripping a creature made it light on fire a move action while everybody watched it get to its feet, so even if free actions were allowed off-turn the feat Knock-down wouldn't have come into play.
In *Dungeons and Dragons 3.5*, stand up from prone became--I assume, hastily, and, to speculate, maybe even accidentally--a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. This is problematic as an "attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round" (*PH* 137), and *at what point* the attacker interrupts the stand up from prone action is unclear: *before* the action when the creature's still floundering to stand or *after* the action's completion when the creature's dusting himself off after having stood? I gravitate toward the latter idea that a creature stands *then* creatures that are able to take attacks of opportunity against it, assuming that until the creature's *not* prone anymore it's *prone*, and the action is called *stand up from prone*. But ask the DM. It's important information for a tripper.
The Knock-down Feat Story
=========================
The version of the feat [Knock-down](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) in *Sword and Fist* (2001) has, among others, this errata:
>
> Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack, and successful use of this feat does not grant an extra attack through the Cleave or Great Cleave feats.
>
>
>
Then the feat was republished in *Deities and Demigods* (2002) and the benefits changed to
>
> Whenever the deity deals 10 or more points of damage to its opponent in melee, it makes a trip attack as a free action against the same target.
>
>
>
As the the Wizards of the Coast policy is that the latest version of the feat takes precedence, the feat became all but impossible to use (but *not* to take--the prerequisites remained unchanged) as it required *either* the creature have divine rank *or* be of indeterminate gender *and* named *the deity*. (Sort of like [e e cummings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings) or [k. d. lang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.d._lang) but moreso.2)
The feat hasn't been re*printed* since *Deities and Demigods*, but it was included--without commentary, explanation, errata, or mandatory godhood--in the Divine Abilities and Feats section of the [SRD](https://web.archive.org/web/20220404053314/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), which is the *only* location the feat--as described in the question--is available. Nor is the SRD listed as the feat's source on the Consolidated Lists' [Feats Index](https://web.archive.org/web/20191221174426/http://archive.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats) (last updated 12/18/07), listing but *Sword and Fist* and *Deities and Demigods*, making even knowing the feat exists in its current form a small victory.
There are *Dragon* magazine and official Wizards of the Coast Web articles that are less obscure than that version of that feat.
---
1. So it's clear, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#actionTypes) (*PH* 139), but an attack of opportunity isn't an action, merely a free attack, unlisted as an action of *any* type on Table 8-2: Actions in Combat (*PH* 141). (Conflict between *this sentence* and the ability of creature to take free actions during swift actions and immediate actions is inevitable and remains unresolved.) The *Rules Compendium* clarifies further: "Making an attack of opportunity isn't considered an action" (*RC* 18). But, O, how I wish the *Rules Compendium*'s loquacious author had omitted that word *considered*.
Further, the *Player's Handbook* says, ["Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn"](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions) (*PH* 144). Accordingly, one can argue **either** there are *no* limits to the number of free actions you can perform when it's *not* your turn **or** you can't perform free actions when it's not your turn.
Luckily, there's the [*Rules Compendium*](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/37466/8610) to solve this problem once and for all.
2. A favorite character naming convention and totally not my idea: Naming a character *a madness* then afflicting somebody so much he's driven to suicide, creating an allip (*MM* 10). | No, it does not.
----------------
I don't get how everyone missed the ruling here. Improved Trip states quite clearly that "If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt." It has been worded specifically to state that you do NOT gain a free attack, but that you do not use up your owns attack while tripping. That means that when Knock Down gives you "a trip attack as a free action against the same target", you do not get an additional attack, because improved trip gives you back an attack that you used for the trip attempt. But you did not use an attack for the trip attempt, it was directly a trip attempt.
To clarify: Trip attempts are an specific special attack that can be used instead of a regular attack. Improved trip allows you to get back a regular attack that was used to execute that specific special attack, which could be used again to execute a different special attack(like disarm or even trip, though you cannot trip a prone character), as if you never had used the regular attack in the first place, and only against the same target. Knocked down does not give you a regular attack, it gives you a Trip attempt. Improved Trip cannot give you back a regular attack "as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt", because it never was a regular attack to begin with. |
89,726 | In such a horrible condition for living as in *The Quiet Place*, I'm not sure why the family didn't leave the house where they had to tip toe all the time and live under a constant fear of not making a sound and simply **build a hut near the waterfall** where there was constant noise covering their sounds.
Or they could replicate the noise of the waterfall by having some loud speakers around the house constantly giving out a white noise. | 2018/06/16 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/89726",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/8859/"
] | It's a fair point, but I have to ask: Did you see any vacant houses there? I didn't, and I certainly wouldn't go about the noisy task of building a structure from scratch. Transporting materials would be a nightmare.
Moreover Evelyn was pregnant, you cannot live in a hut with a pregnant woman, a physically disabled child and a kid who is a shivering wreck.
They can't possibly afford to constantly run speakers because it would consume lot of electricity.We still aren't sure of the source of Electricity(There are a lot of theories like [solar energy](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/8a5qdo/official_discussion_a_quiet_place_spoilers/dx3c5w2/) & [batteries](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/8aiw9h/spoiler_a_quiet_place_plot_hole_discussion_and/dx2puzt/)) | Even if the family could build reasonable living quarters near the waterfall, and could obtain enough food there, there's another problem.
On the farm, normality means being as quiet as possible. Being at the waterfall is a rare exception to that, where they can make as much noise as they like.
If they lived near the waterfall, normality would mean making as much noise as they like, and venturing outside the waterfall zone would require silence.
How much success would they have in impressing upon the children the need for silence if their normal home life allowed any amount of noise? The parents are in it for the long haul; they're trying to raise a family and survive long-term, not just hold out for some vague rescue in the future. So constant silence is something their kids need to learn, and something they wouldn't learn living by the waterfall. |
1,915 | I am interested in running Newman's [modularity clustering](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1482622/) algorithm on a large graph. If you can point me to a library (or R package, etc) that implements it I would be most grateful. | 2010/08/19 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/1915",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1007/"
] | I still feel negatively about what seems to be a gratuitous insult on King's part but I can see where he might be coming from. "Scale-invariance" is a restriction on a statistical procedure. Thus, limiting our choice of procedures to scale-invariant ones (or to linear ones or to unbiased ones or minimax ones, etc.) potentially excludes procedures that might perform better. Whether this is actually the case or not depends. In many situations, data are reported in units that are essentially independent of what is being studied. It shouldn't matter whether you measure distances in angstroms or parsecs, for example. In this context, any procedure that is *not* scale invariant is therefore an *arbitrary* one--and arbitrariness is not a positive attribute in this field. In other situations, though, there is a natural scale. The most obvious of these concern counted data. A procedure that treats counted data as if they were measurements on a continuous scale (e.g., using OLS for a counted response) is potentially inferior to other available procedures and may be (likely is, I suspect) inadmissible in the decision-theoretic sense. This can be a tricky and subtle point because it's not always obvious when we have counted data. One example I'm familiar with concerns many chemical or radioactivity measurements, which ultimately originate as counts on some machine. Said counts get converted by the laboratory into a concentration or activity that forever after is treated as a real number. (However, attempts to exploit this fact in the chemometrics literature have not yielded superior statistical procedures.)
Just to stave off one possible misunderstanding: I wouldn't view a selection of an informative prior for a scale parameter (in a Bayesian analysis) as a scale-dependent procedure. Such a prior obviously favors some ranges of values over others, but does not affect the scale invariance of the procedure itself. | We have a tendency to crunch data according to pre-established algorithms and methods, and forget that "data" is actually information about the real world. I recall as a child in school solving a second-degree equation where the teacher had stated that the answer represented the length of a pencil. Some students actually reported that the answer was "one inch plus or minus two inches".
Before you plug your data into any software, you should first get to *really* know and understand it, which you can only accomplish if you keep the subject matter in mind. That's the only way you can spot any quirky data points (such as a pencil measuring -1 inch) or determine which scales make sense in the real world. |
1,915 | I am interested in running Newman's [modularity clustering](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1482622/) algorithm on a large graph. If you can point me to a library (or R package, etc) that implements it I would be most grateful. | 2010/08/19 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/1915",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1007/"
] | I still feel negatively about what seems to be a gratuitous insult on King's part but I can see where he might be coming from. "Scale-invariance" is a restriction on a statistical procedure. Thus, limiting our choice of procedures to scale-invariant ones (or to linear ones or to unbiased ones or minimax ones, etc.) potentially excludes procedures that might perform better. Whether this is actually the case or not depends. In many situations, data are reported in units that are essentially independent of what is being studied. It shouldn't matter whether you measure distances in angstroms or parsecs, for example. In this context, any procedure that is *not* scale invariant is therefore an *arbitrary* one--and arbitrariness is not a positive attribute in this field. In other situations, though, there is a natural scale. The most obvious of these concern counted data. A procedure that treats counted data as if they were measurements on a continuous scale (e.g., using OLS for a counted response) is potentially inferior to other available procedures and may be (likely is, I suspect) inadmissible in the decision-theoretic sense. This can be a tricky and subtle point because it's not always obvious when we have counted data. One example I'm familiar with concerns many chemical or radioactivity measurements, which ultimately originate as counts on some machine. Said counts get converted by the laboratory into a concentration or activity that forever after is treated as a real number. (However, attempts to exploit this fact in the chemometrics literature have not yielded superior statistical procedures.)
Just to stave off one possible misunderstanding: I wouldn't view a selection of an informative prior for a scale parameter (in a Bayesian analysis) as a scale-dependent procedure. Such a prior obviously favors some ranges of values over others, but does not affect the scale invariance of the procedure itself. | Let me take a stab at this...
If I understand the original sentiment and subsequent response, I think what Gary King is getting at is that noticing a scale invariance effect on your data is a very gross understanding of the phenomena of whats going on. While this 'birds eye view' of whatever phenomena you are observing could be insightful, one might gloss over useful information at the microscopic level.
This example might not be the best, but consider Conway's 'Game of Life'. This is completely determined, as in it is a deterministic system. Consider looking at some statistic of this system, cluster longevity, say, for some appropriate definition of cluster. For arguments sake lets say this follows a power law (I don't know if it does or not, but just for this example, lets say it does). This gives a gross high level description of the system but you've washed all the details of how gliders race across the board, how they collide to give glider guns and other useful information that you might be able to use to determine some specifics about your system.
I'm not sure this is the best example or even if I've gotten the gist of what Gary King was trying to say, but thats my 2 cents. |
1,915 | I am interested in running Newman's [modularity clustering](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1482622/) algorithm on a large graph. If you can point me to a library (or R package, etc) that implements it I would be most grateful. | 2010/08/19 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/1915",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/1007/"
] | We have a tendency to crunch data according to pre-established algorithms and methods, and forget that "data" is actually information about the real world. I recall as a child in school solving a second-degree equation where the teacher had stated that the answer represented the length of a pencil. Some students actually reported that the answer was "one inch plus or minus two inches".
Before you plug your data into any software, you should first get to *really* know and understand it, which you can only accomplish if you keep the subject matter in mind. That's the only way you can spot any quirky data points (such as a pencil measuring -1 inch) or determine which scales make sense in the real world. | Let me take a stab at this...
If I understand the original sentiment and subsequent response, I think what Gary King is getting at is that noticing a scale invariance effect on your data is a very gross understanding of the phenomena of whats going on. While this 'birds eye view' of whatever phenomena you are observing could be insightful, one might gloss over useful information at the microscopic level.
This example might not be the best, but consider Conway's 'Game of Life'. This is completely determined, as in it is a deterministic system. Consider looking at some statistic of this system, cluster longevity, say, for some appropriate definition of cluster. For arguments sake lets say this follows a power law (I don't know if it does or not, but just for this example, lets say it does). This gives a gross high level description of the system but you've washed all the details of how gliders race across the board, how they collide to give glider guns and other useful information that you might be able to use to determine some specifics about your system.
I'm not sure this is the best example or even if I've gotten the gist of what Gary King was trying to say, but thats my 2 cents. |
87,290 | What are a person's legal responsibilities if they believe that someone is currently committing infant abuse, but are not certain that they are doing so.
For example, they might learn this from internet posts or observing my neighbor. The person who believes that this is occurring is not in a profession that specifically has a child abuse reporting requirement.
Do they also commit a crime if they choose not to help the infant out or not to report it? | 2022/12/16 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87290",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/34580/"
] | [england-and-wales](/questions/tagged/england-and-wales "show questions tagged 'england-and-wales'")
No. Although some people have a duty of care over children to prevent harm and suffering, such as a parent or guardian, there is no mandatory reporting requirements in this scenario:
>
> If you witness a crime ... There is no legal obligation to contact the police... [Source: CPS](https://www.cps.gov.uk/reporting-crime#:%7E:text=There%20is%20no%20legal%20obligation,work%20effectively%20with%20your%20help.)
>
>
>
Note that:
>
> There is currently no general legal requirement on those working with children in England to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, says “anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to local authority children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.” While statutory guidance does not impose a legislative requirement to report abuse, it creates an expectation that those working with children will comply with the guidance unless there are exceptional circumstances.
>
>
> *That said*:
>
>
> ...a number of professional regulators and bodies (predominantly those in the health and social care sectors) require their members to report any concerns about a child’s safety or well-being. A professional’s failure to adhere to such standards or codes of conduct may result in misconduct or fitness to practise proceedings against them. [Source: UK Parliament](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06793/#:%7E:text=There%20is%20currently%20no%20general,suspected%20child%20abuse%20or%20neglect.)
>
>
> | [new-south-wales](/questions/tagged/new-south-wales "show questions tagged 'new-south-wales'")
Reporting child abuse is mandatory for everyone
-----------------------------------------------
[s316a](http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s316a.html) of the *Crimes Act* 1900 defines the offence of “Concealing child abuse offence” which has a maximum sentence of 2 years or 5 years imprisonment depending on the nature of the child abuse offence.
The elements are that you know or reasonably ought to know a child abuse offence has been committed, you know, believe or reasonably ought to know that you might be of material assistance, and do not have a reasonable excuse for not bringing that information to the attention of a member of the NSW Police Force.
I have only been able to find one case on this, [R v George (a pseudonym)](https://jade.io/article/787884?at.hl=S316a%20nsw%20crimes%20act) [2021] NSWDC 18. George was present on numerous occasions where the mother of their son committed serious child abuse on more than one occasion which ultimately caused permanent brain injury. George did not merely fail to disclose these offences, he actively concealed them from paramedics, hospital staff, and police. He was sentenced to 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 8 months - both heavily discounted due to an early guilty plea, good prospects of rehabilitation, and cooperation in the Crown case against the mother. |
87,290 | What are a person's legal responsibilities if they believe that someone is currently committing infant abuse, but are not certain that they are doing so.
For example, they might learn this from internet posts or observing my neighbor. The person who believes that this is occurring is not in a profession that specifically has a child abuse reporting requirement.
Do they also commit a crime if they choose not to help the infant out or not to report it? | 2022/12/16 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87290",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/34580/"
] | [england-and-wales](/questions/tagged/england-and-wales "show questions tagged 'england-and-wales'")
No. Although some people have a duty of care over children to prevent harm and suffering, such as a parent or guardian, there is no mandatory reporting requirements in this scenario:
>
> If you witness a crime ... There is no legal obligation to contact the police... [Source: CPS](https://www.cps.gov.uk/reporting-crime#:%7E:text=There%20is%20no%20legal%20obligation,work%20effectively%20with%20your%20help.)
>
>
>
Note that:
>
> There is currently no general legal requirement on those working with children in England to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, says “anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to local authority children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.” While statutory guidance does not impose a legislative requirement to report abuse, it creates an expectation that those working with children will comply with the guidance unless there are exceptional circumstances.
>
>
> *That said*:
>
>
> ...a number of professional regulators and bodies (predominantly those in the health and social care sectors) require their members to report any concerns about a child’s safety or well-being. A professional’s failure to adhere to such standards or codes of conduct may result in misconduct or fitness to practise proceedings against them. [Source: UK Parliament](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06793/#:%7E:text=There%20is%20currently%20no%20general,suspected%20child%20abuse%20or%20neglect.)
>
>
> | In most countries, it is a crime to fail to report child abuse. Depending on the country, failing to report child abuse can be a misdemeanor or a felony, and in some countries, it can even be considered a form of complicity in the crime. Therefore, it is important to report any suspected or known cases of child abuse. |
87,290 | What are a person's legal responsibilities if they believe that someone is currently committing infant abuse, but are not certain that they are doing so.
For example, they might learn this from internet posts or observing my neighbor. The person who believes that this is occurring is not in a profession that specifically has a child abuse reporting requirement.
Do they also commit a crime if they choose not to help the infant out or not to report it? | 2022/12/16 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87290",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/34580/"
] | [new-south-wales](/questions/tagged/new-south-wales "show questions tagged 'new-south-wales'")
Reporting child abuse is mandatory for everyone
-----------------------------------------------
[s316a](http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s316a.html) of the *Crimes Act* 1900 defines the offence of “Concealing child abuse offence” which has a maximum sentence of 2 years or 5 years imprisonment depending on the nature of the child abuse offence.
The elements are that you know or reasonably ought to know a child abuse offence has been committed, you know, believe or reasonably ought to know that you might be of material assistance, and do not have a reasonable excuse for not bringing that information to the attention of a member of the NSW Police Force.
I have only been able to find one case on this, [R v George (a pseudonym)](https://jade.io/article/787884?at.hl=S316a%20nsw%20crimes%20act) [2021] NSWDC 18. George was present on numerous occasions where the mother of their son committed serious child abuse on more than one occasion which ultimately caused permanent brain injury. George did not merely fail to disclose these offences, he actively concealed them from paramedics, hospital staff, and police. He was sentenced to 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 8 months - both heavily discounted due to an early guilty plea, good prospects of rehabilitation, and cooperation in the Crown case against the mother. | In most countries, it is a crime to fail to report child abuse. Depending on the country, failing to report child abuse can be a misdemeanor or a felony, and in some countries, it can even be considered a form of complicity in the crime. Therefore, it is important to report any suspected or known cases of child abuse. |
3,288,875 | I have searched for these and can only find posts on 2008 or earlier?
I have my own list, but I want to know if there are more?
* Vb.NET doesn't support implicit interfaces (this really is annoying:()
* Vb.NET doesn't support another setter protection than the getter on automatic properties
* Vb.NET doesn't support Preprocessor Directives
* Vb.NET doesn't support Arithmetic Overflow unchecking/checking in code
* Vb.NET doesn't support the yield keyword (iterator blocks)
* Vb.NET doesn't support execution of unsafe (i.e. pointer-based) operations.
And then we have the support for the environments like type coloring which is still poor in vs.net 2010 and not full support from resharper and so on but that is not any technical aspect.
Have i missed something?, I have heard that there could be some differences in linq querying is that true? | 2010/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3288875",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/186678/"
] | Probably lots more, but in my day to day work these are the ones that annoy me the most (I can't abide VB.Net):
VB.Net has optional parameters, C# does not.
C# has a mechanism to generate XML documentation from code tags.
C# has the **using** keyword
C# allows you to write unsafe (eg pointer-related) code.
hth. | Making a component that can be called from COM is very easy in VB.Net. In C# it is almost impossible. |
3,288,875 | I have searched for these and can only find posts on 2008 or earlier?
I have my own list, but I want to know if there are more?
* Vb.NET doesn't support implicit interfaces (this really is annoying:()
* Vb.NET doesn't support another setter protection than the getter on automatic properties
* Vb.NET doesn't support Preprocessor Directives
* Vb.NET doesn't support Arithmetic Overflow unchecking/checking in code
* Vb.NET doesn't support the yield keyword (iterator blocks)
* Vb.NET doesn't support execution of unsafe (i.e. pointer-based) operations.
And then we have the support for the environments like type coloring which is still poor in vs.net 2010 and not full support from resharper and so on but that is not any technical aspect.
Have i missed something?, I have heard that there could be some differences in linq querying is that true? | 2010/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3288875",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/186678/"
] | Multiline string literal with @ in C# is missing in VB.NET. Makes long strings really annoying. | Making a component that can be called from COM is very easy in VB.Net. In C# it is almost impossible. |
3,288,875 | I have searched for these and can only find posts on 2008 or earlier?
I have my own list, but I want to know if there are more?
* Vb.NET doesn't support implicit interfaces (this really is annoying:()
* Vb.NET doesn't support another setter protection than the getter on automatic properties
* Vb.NET doesn't support Preprocessor Directives
* Vb.NET doesn't support Arithmetic Overflow unchecking/checking in code
* Vb.NET doesn't support the yield keyword (iterator blocks)
* Vb.NET doesn't support execution of unsafe (i.e. pointer-based) operations.
And then we have the support for the environments like type coloring which is still poor in vs.net 2010 and not full support from resharper and so on but that is not any technical aspect.
Have i missed something?, I have heard that there could be some differences in linq querying is that true? | 2010/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3288875",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/186678/"
] | C# *still* doesn't have exception filters...
* [Try...Catch...Finally Statement (Visual Basic)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fk6t46tz.aspx)
* [Catch, Rethrow and Filters - Why you should care?](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/clrteam/archive/2009/02/05/catch-rethrow-and-filters-why-you-should-care.aspx) | Making a component that can be called from COM is very easy in VB.Net. In C# it is almost impossible. |
3,288,875 | I have searched for these and can only find posts on 2008 or earlier?
I have my own list, but I want to know if there are more?
* Vb.NET doesn't support implicit interfaces (this really is annoying:()
* Vb.NET doesn't support another setter protection than the getter on automatic properties
* Vb.NET doesn't support Preprocessor Directives
* Vb.NET doesn't support Arithmetic Overflow unchecking/checking in code
* Vb.NET doesn't support the yield keyword (iterator blocks)
* Vb.NET doesn't support execution of unsafe (i.e. pointer-based) operations.
And then we have the support for the environments like type coloring which is still poor in vs.net 2010 and not full support from resharper and so on but that is not any technical aspect.
Have i missed something?, I have heard that there could be some differences in linq querying is that true? | 2010/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3288875",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/186678/"
] | Multiline string literal with @ in C# is missing in VB.NET. Makes long strings really annoying. | Probably lots more, but in my day to day work these are the ones that annoy me the most (I can't abide VB.Net):
VB.Net has optional parameters, C# does not.
C# has a mechanism to generate XML documentation from code tags.
C# has the **using** keyword
C# allows you to write unsafe (eg pointer-related) code.
hth. |
3,288,875 | I have searched for these and can only find posts on 2008 or earlier?
I have my own list, but I want to know if there are more?
* Vb.NET doesn't support implicit interfaces (this really is annoying:()
* Vb.NET doesn't support another setter protection than the getter on automatic properties
* Vb.NET doesn't support Preprocessor Directives
* Vb.NET doesn't support Arithmetic Overflow unchecking/checking in code
* Vb.NET doesn't support the yield keyword (iterator blocks)
* Vb.NET doesn't support execution of unsafe (i.e. pointer-based) operations.
And then we have the support for the environments like type coloring which is still poor in vs.net 2010 and not full support from resharper and so on but that is not any technical aspect.
Have i missed something?, I have heard that there could be some differences in linq querying is that true? | 2010/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3288875",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/186678/"
] | C# *still* doesn't have exception filters...
* [Try...Catch...Finally Statement (Visual Basic)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fk6t46tz.aspx)
* [Catch, Rethrow and Filters - Why you should care?](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/clrteam/archive/2009/02/05/catch-rethrow-and-filters-why-you-should-care.aspx) | Probably lots more, but in my day to day work these are the ones that annoy me the most (I can't abide VB.Net):
VB.Net has optional parameters, C# does not.
C# has a mechanism to generate XML documentation from code tags.
C# has the **using** keyword
C# allows you to write unsafe (eg pointer-related) code.
hth. |
3,288,875 | I have searched for these and can only find posts on 2008 or earlier?
I have my own list, but I want to know if there are more?
* Vb.NET doesn't support implicit interfaces (this really is annoying:()
* Vb.NET doesn't support another setter protection than the getter on automatic properties
* Vb.NET doesn't support Preprocessor Directives
* Vb.NET doesn't support Arithmetic Overflow unchecking/checking in code
* Vb.NET doesn't support the yield keyword (iterator blocks)
* Vb.NET doesn't support execution of unsafe (i.e. pointer-based) operations.
And then we have the support for the environments like type coloring which is still poor in vs.net 2010 and not full support from resharper and so on but that is not any technical aspect.
Have i missed something?, I have heard that there could be some differences in linq querying is that true? | 2010/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3288875",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/186678/"
] | C# *still* doesn't have exception filters...
* [Try...Catch...Finally Statement (Visual Basic)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fk6t46tz.aspx)
* [Catch, Rethrow and Filters - Why you should care?](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/clrteam/archive/2009/02/05/catch-rethrow-and-filters-why-you-should-care.aspx) | Multiline string literal with @ in C# is missing in VB.NET. Makes long strings really annoying. |
83,847 | I want to understand on-chain and off-chain operations in the context of randomness. Kindly provide me an example so that its clear to me.
I got one post here:
[What are offchain and onchain Transactions?](https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/53191/what-are-offchain-and-onchain-transactions)
but they did not discuss off-chain and on-chain in the context of randomness.
One example of off-chain is:
>
> We saw some of the pitfalls of bad randomness on Ethereum, but what
> can one do to produce truly random numbers? A standard recommendation
> is to go off-chain and employ external sources. These are typically
> either an outside “oracle” service (e.g., Oraclize), or hashed inputs
> by multiple users with competitive interests.
>
>
>
What is meant by the outside "oracle" service (e.g Oraclize)? What is a hashed input (is it a random id?) ? If you could tell me about an inside oracle that would be useful too.
For on-chain, I got the following:
>
> To summarize, our recommendation for on-chain random number generation
> is to follow a pattern such as: • Accept a bet, with payment, register
> the block number of the bet transaction. • The bettor has to not only
> place the bet but also invoke the contract in a future transaction
> (within the next 256 blocks). The contract will compute the blockhash
> of the earlier-registered block number, and use it to determine the
> success of the bet.
>
>
>
What I understand is that for on-chain we have to use some sort of blockchain variable. Am I right?
Zulfi. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/83847",
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com",
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/users/46063/"
] | If you're looking to test locally (using for instance truffle and ganache) then see my answer here: <https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/84015/3321> | I assume you refer to testing on a public testnet? In which case a lot of tokens on there have a faucet to mint free tokens. (go to the project's website and change MetaMask to the testnet) Once you have the tokens, you can use them in your contract for testing.
If that doesn't exist or you talk about a local blockchain, then yeah you can just create an ERC-20 mock contract that allows you to mint free tokens. For any mainnet deployments you then have to use the real token address instead. |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | It is commonly accepted that the Spanish Empire, which rose to the pinnacle of its strength under Charles V/I and Philip II was in decline by early seventeenth century and, in spite (or perhaps because?) of strenuous efforts to arrest and reverse that decline during the early 17th century, it declined and by 1643 or 1659 (not random dates..) it was a shadow of its former self.
This view was developed and greatly popularized by [John Huxtable Elliott](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Elliott_%28historian%29) in an influential 1961 paper whose first paragraph I cannot resist reproducing:
This has been the standard approach in modern historiography, as far as I can tell; it and in fact it was espoused already in the 17th century by contemporary [pundits and columnists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrista) who were then called *Arbitristas*.
Of course this paradigm found an able challenger in [Henry Kamen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kamen) who argued in an [interesting paper](http://latina.phil2.uni-freiburg.de/raible/Lehre/2006_07/Materialien/1978_Kamen_Decline.pdf) that paradoxically, Spain did not decline because it never actually rose economically. Instead, he asserted:
>
> Spain thus remained a dominated colonial market at whose expense other
> European nations progressed towards industrial growth.
>
>
>
Kamen's paper is great reading but I personally am more convinced by [J. Israel's rebuttal](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/650522?uid=3738240&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102369970981) that re-asserts the traditional picture I have outlined above.
A [recent paper](http://pedrolains.typepad.com/%25c3%2581lvaresprados.pdf) ("The decline of Spain (1500–1850): conjectural estimates") proposes quantitative measurements of Spanish economic performance and arrives at this conclusion:
>
> In a comparative perspective, our findings support the view that when
> Spain colonised America and built a worldwide empire it was not a poor
> country of warriors but a relatively affluent nation and, by the end
> of the sixteenth century, when it had achieved ‘the political hegemony
> of Europe’ (Hamilton 1938, p. 168), Spanish per capita income was
> among the highest in Europe, second only to Italy and the Low
> Countries. Since the 1590s Spain experienced an absolute decline that
> only became relative in the early nineteenth century. Spain’s decline
> has its roots in the seventeenth century while its backwardness
> deepened in the first half of the nineteenth century.
>
>
>
While couched in mild language, their view is compatible with the standard thesis.
As for the dates, 1643 is the year of the [battle of Rocroi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rocroi) which not only wiped out a veteran Spanish army but also Spain's enduring reputation for having the finest military tradition in Europe. 1659 is the year of the [Peace of the Pyrenees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Pyrenees) which showed up Spain's great weakness relative to its chief opponent of the time, France.
Now to the possible causes. First of all, your teacher had two good points. I'll try to expound on them and also on what I think are other possible causes of Spanish decline. One must bear in mind, however, that no one cause can be singled out as the cardinal reason for decline; rather, it was a combination, often mutually reinforcing, of these causes that brought Spain down. The list below is my own and I take full responsibility for its errors and misconceptions:
1. The expulsion or persecution-induced-emigration of [Jews](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_decree), [Marranos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano#Exodus_from_Spain) and [Moriscos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos). These measures sapped the Spanish demographic base - perhaps not so much numerically as qualitatively. What I mean is that the expulsion of these populations deprived the Spanish kingdoms of precisely the kind of people they were so sorely to lack in the 17th century: artisans, traders, professionals, etc. A parallel can be drawn here with the [revocation of the Edict of Nantes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau) by Louis XIV which cost France its Huguenot population and had a similar adverse long-term effect.
Another relevant point - and I am going on a bit of a limb here - is that it took a number of generations for the deleterious effects of the expulsions to be truly felt. This reminds me of Stalins's purges (in the wider sense) in the 1920s-1950s which deprived Russia of its best and brightest - it can be argued that the modern-day problems of Russia can be traced back to that qualitative and quantitative dent Stalin made. But let's return to Spain.
2. The [Mesta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesta). I'll just quote [Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377234/Mesta) here:
>
> So profitable were the activities of the organization that Spain’s
> nascent industry tended to be neglected in favour of stock breeding,
> and the country continued to export raw materials and import
> manufactured goods well into the 19th century. Some historians blame
> the Mesta for Spain’s lack of industrial development in comparison to
> that of the rest of Europe. The Mesta reached the height of its power
> in the 16th century and thereafter declined in importance.
>
>
>
In other words, Spain fell into a sort of [Dutch Disease](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease) (the ironies of history). Of course, this is also true for American silver and gold - this matter was touched on in the post you mentioned. With bullion flowing from the colonies, Spain had little incentive to develop its industry and commerce and to create a solid and healthy taxable base.
3. Poor finances. The Spanish crown defaulted on its debts four times: 1557, 1560, 1575, and 1596. This was due to poor management, constant warfare which cost a lot and brought meagre returns at best, over-reliance on New World bullion etc (see n. 2 above).
This is a huge subject so I'll restrict myself to one eloquent quote by from [Robert Walpole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole): (taken from [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/01/featuresreviews.guardianreview1)):
>
> It is true that all that treasure is brought home in Spanish names,
> but Spain herself is no more than the canal through which all these
> treasures are conveyed over the rest of Europe.
>
>
>
4. [The war with the Dutch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War). Henry Kamen's excellent book *Spain's Road to Empire* shows that the Spanish Empire was in fact a multi-national project in which the King of Spain drew on the resources of many countries, with the contribution of Spain (or Castile, for that matter...) often being surprisingly small. The muscle - the famed and feared Spanish armies - often consisted of a relatively small number of Castilians, together with German, Italians and Flemish soldiers. The sinews - the money and credit came from Italian and German bankers.
Such a world-hugging enterprise was nearly invincible when operating in concord. But with the Dutch Revolt a crucial leg was sawed from under it and the empire lost a great proportion of its best merchants, artisans and soldiers. Even worse, they became its worst enemies and from that point on the continuous futile attempts to reconquer the Dutch consumed most of the Empire's attentions and resources. Since the latter were usually borrowed (see n.2 and n.3) they were wont to fail at the crucial moment. For example, time after time the Spanish victories in the Netherlands were squandered as a result of mutinies which occurred when the King could no longer pay. Of course, the ready expedient of letting them plunder and pillage just served to stiffen the Dutch resistance.
To sum it up: to me it seems that as soon as the Dutch Revolt broke out, the empire became a house divided against itself - and it could not stand.
What is perhaps less well-known is that the 80 Years War included a twelve-year [respite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Years%27_Truce) during which Spain and the Dutch were at peace. Possibly the decision to renew the war in 1621 was the single worst decision Spain took - the King and his advisers did not realize that by this point they could no longer win.
Ironically, the truce served to highlight just how much economically dependent was Spain on the Netherlands. A quote from Israel's article also ties this up with the other points given above:
>
> Castilian wool exports were much diminished during the I620s, largely
> due to the absence of Dutch shipping which had previously carried most
> of the wool, but the Castilian manufacturing towns proved unable to
> profit from the situation.
>
>
>
5. Over-expansion and hubris. This needs almost no elaboration. One point will suffice. [The 30 Years War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) pitted Catholics against Protestants; but it is illuminating to recall that the Protestant cause was supported and seconded by Catholic France, led by Cardinal Richelieu; more strikingly, the Pope himself was giving covert support to France against the Catholic champions, the Spanish & Austrian Habsburgs. This is not really surprising as the Pope was also a temporal prince, hemmed in from all directions by Habsburg dominions in Italy and anxious to diminish their preponderance.
So, if even the Pope was against the Spanish Empire, are we to wonder that it aroused so much hostility, just because it was so big and menacing? | One of the main reasons was that Spanish empire was too large to control. After Napoleonic wars (and earlier against England) the Spain had lots of interior problems and this was more important than colonies. That's why most of them gained independence.
I totally disagree that "nobody liked Spanish". It might have been in 16th or 17th century, but not in 19th. Spain was Great Britain's ally against Napoleon. The [Ostend Manifesto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto) ended in great scandal and was denounced by Powers.
In [Anglo-French treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_cordiale) of 1904 (Spain was of course absent) both parties agreed that the Morocco issue should not alter Spanish possessions in Africa, eg. [article 7](http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/inclosure1.html):
>
> In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not including, Melilla and the heights which command the right bank of the River Sebou.
>
>
> This condition does not, however, apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
>
>
>
and article 8:
>
> The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government.
>
>
> The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Government.
>
>
>
This was after Spanish defeat during the war against the USA (you might want to read my [answer to similar question](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/9237/2395)). I think this last article was put on British demand. |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | A proximate cause of the Spanish empire was the Netherlands War of Independence (which lasted 80 years), and other revolts against Spain. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War>
The Spanish Empire had been "cobbled" together in the late 15th and early 16th centuries by the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, whose daughter Juana married Philip, the son of Maximilian of Austria and Marie of Burgundy (who lost that province to France, but kept the Netherlands including modern Belgium). Charles V, the son of Juana and Philip, inherited Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. But when he subdivided it, the Netherlands went together with Spain to Charles' son Philip, instead of to Charles brother Ferdinand, who got Austria and Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire.
The Netherlands rebelled against Philip and later Spanish rulers, so it became a major liability, instead of a major asset, especially since the war dragged on for 80 years, (with some breaks), during which Spain went bankrupt several times. Philip had annexed Portugal in 1580, but that rebelled in 1640 and broke away. Even Catalonia (part of the old Aragon) rebelled in the middle of the 17th century, although Spain managed to hang on to it. But fighting all these wars, plus a short but costly "Armada" war with England set Spain on a downward spiral through the 17th and 18th centuries. | One of the main reasons was that Spanish empire was too large to control. After Napoleonic wars (and earlier against England) the Spain had lots of interior problems and this was more important than colonies. That's why most of them gained independence.
I totally disagree that "nobody liked Spanish". It might have been in 16th or 17th century, but not in 19th. Spain was Great Britain's ally against Napoleon. The [Ostend Manifesto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto) ended in great scandal and was denounced by Powers.
In [Anglo-French treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_cordiale) of 1904 (Spain was of course absent) both parties agreed that the Morocco issue should not alter Spanish possessions in Africa, eg. [article 7](http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/inclosure1.html):
>
> In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not including, Melilla and the heights which command the right bank of the River Sebou.
>
>
> This condition does not, however, apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
>
>
>
and article 8:
>
> The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government.
>
>
> The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Government.
>
>
>
This was after Spanish defeat during the war against the USA (you might want to read my [answer to similar question](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/9237/2395)). I think this last article was put on British demand. |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | One of the main reasons was that Spanish empire was too large to control. After Napoleonic wars (and earlier against England) the Spain had lots of interior problems and this was more important than colonies. That's why most of them gained independence.
I totally disagree that "nobody liked Spanish". It might have been in 16th or 17th century, but not in 19th. Spain was Great Britain's ally against Napoleon. The [Ostend Manifesto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto) ended in great scandal and was denounced by Powers.
In [Anglo-French treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_cordiale) of 1904 (Spain was of course absent) both parties agreed that the Morocco issue should not alter Spanish possessions in Africa, eg. [article 7](http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/inclosure1.html):
>
> In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not including, Melilla and the heights which command the right bank of the River Sebou.
>
>
> This condition does not, however, apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
>
>
>
and article 8:
>
> The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government.
>
>
> The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Government.
>
>
>
This was after Spanish defeat during the war against the USA (you might want to read my [answer to similar question](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/9237/2395)). I think this last article was put on British demand. | In order to understand what happenned to the Spanish empire is one word "the economy".
At the end of the Reconquista in 1492, while the kingdom of Aragon was still a medieval country, the kingdom of Castille had just made new innovations in medicine and in technology, such as the arquebusier and cannon. After, Granada fall, spain introduce the Inquisition in order to be safe from Islam, furthermore, columbus had just discovered america so the commerce drived the economy enormously.
In the early XV. century, France invaded Italy, The king fernando of Aragon sent an army to avoid the french conquest of Italy, despite that Isabella was against the fight against Christians decided to send his best commander, The great captain. This general introduced the new castilian innovations, organized an army, building, for the first time, the Elite tercios. This army rejected a big medieval french army that was confident in his cavalry easily. So, in the end of XV. century with the most advanced army of the Christian Europe.
XVI. century, Once the Spanish royal family was changed by an Hasburg royal family, a very conservative Kingdom was established and loyal to the Austrian/German family helping in every conflict they have. In this period, was never introduced any innovation, not any economy development, only based on military policy. The hasburg Fhilip II received twice two alerts of risk of bankrupt but never made anything. It was not until the second half XVII. century when Spanish economy say "no, more" and made a big "crack".
The arrived of French bourbon on XVIII century, was a great hope because introduced the textile industry and spanish economy was recovered. Even spain recovered italy easily defeating Austrian Royal family or even the UK was defeated two times . Nevertheless, the french revolution was seen by surprise.
Napoleon with very audacious tricks forced Spain to be an "ally", but it was, in reality, a plan to conquest Spain. While the civilians were fighting house by house, town by town, the spanish army was without a head until the "Duke Wellingtom" arrived. While for the british was a great victory over napoleon spain ended in a big disaster. Factories destroyed, so many civilians killed by French soldiers, spain loses between 2-4% of the population in that war.
In early XIX. century, spain ended the war complete in ruins. People and Army demanded , like in UK, to stablish a parlamentary monarchy and embraced liberalism. The king accepted but forced, nevertheless, he called for help to the new kingdom of France to reestablish the absolutism, I mean, a conservative monarchy. With this problem spain started in a Civil War that provocked the independent movements in America. This war ended and liberalism was stablished in 1876.
Finally, with most of Spanish empire in America lost, between (1876-1929) introduced fastly the industrial revolution in order to recovered the time lost. The new innovations and the recover of the economy was not feel until 20s. So 1898, even with new innovations such as modern rifles, howitzers, submarines,machineguns, destroyers etc...not all the innovations werent introducers until XX.century, so was not prepared to the war with a big power so in 1898, the spanish navy was destroyed easily by US navy. And the army was not really well-equipped they do as much as they could to resist the position.
The example was the first spanish battleship "Pelayo" (1888) that was not in time to used in Spanish-American war, used in 1911, or the Submarines created in 1888 but werent used until 1915 (Isaac Peral, great spanish inventor but misunderstand by politicians). The first spanish tank in 1925 or Air Fighter in 1913.
In 20s, with the introductions of new warships in navy, or air-fighters in Air force or even tanks spain was prepared (1st World war technology), Rif War (1911-1927) represented the transition between Imperial army to the industrial army. Despite of spanish recovery another Civil war ruined spain.
With General Franco in power, spain was a third world country, despite of having industrial factories in some parts of the country. In 50s. with USA decisive arrive and agreement, General Franco drived and change his economy policy to the liberalism and with big industrial investments put Spain in 8th most important economy of the world. Without any shoot USA won ally.
P.D: The Spanish economic problems is due to bad manage of the politicians.
The matter of Catalonia and Basque Country were as a consecuences of the Conservatives politicians favourable to a centralised spain. Thats why these regions are absolutely anti-conservatives and its a battle between liberals and moderate Socialists while pro-independence parties appeared in the Second republic with small support and now are instead stronger due to the "Franco and his conservatives". |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | One of the main reasons was that Spanish empire was too large to control. After Napoleonic wars (and earlier against England) the Spain had lots of interior problems and this was more important than colonies. That's why most of them gained independence.
I totally disagree that "nobody liked Spanish". It might have been in 16th or 17th century, but not in 19th. Spain was Great Britain's ally against Napoleon. The [Ostend Manifesto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto) ended in great scandal and was denounced by Powers.
In [Anglo-French treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_cordiale) of 1904 (Spain was of course absent) both parties agreed that the Morocco issue should not alter Spanish possessions in Africa, eg. [article 7](http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/inclosure1.html):
>
> In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not including, Melilla and the heights which command the right bank of the River Sebou.
>
>
> This condition does not, however, apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
>
>
>
and article 8:
>
> The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government.
>
>
> The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Government.
>
>
>
This was after Spanish defeat during the war against the USA (you might want to read my [answer to similar question](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/9237/2395)). I think this last article was put on British demand. | The story of the collapse or sudden decline of the Spanish empire in the 17th century is often greatly exaggerated. It's true that Spain's European leadership did fade in the second half of the century as France and other lesser powers increasingly asserted themselves but the economic and demographic problems were bad or worse in many other parts of a war torn Europe. Spain was still a great empire the following century and its place in the European political and economic scene was still significant. Christopher's Storrs' study "The Resilience of the Spanish Monarchy: 1665-1700" (2006) demonstrates this clearly. |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | It is commonly accepted that the Spanish Empire, which rose to the pinnacle of its strength under Charles V/I and Philip II was in decline by early seventeenth century and, in spite (or perhaps because?) of strenuous efforts to arrest and reverse that decline during the early 17th century, it declined and by 1643 or 1659 (not random dates..) it was a shadow of its former self.
This view was developed and greatly popularized by [John Huxtable Elliott](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Elliott_%28historian%29) in an influential 1961 paper whose first paragraph I cannot resist reproducing:
This has been the standard approach in modern historiography, as far as I can tell; it and in fact it was espoused already in the 17th century by contemporary [pundits and columnists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrista) who were then called *Arbitristas*.
Of course this paradigm found an able challenger in [Henry Kamen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kamen) who argued in an [interesting paper](http://latina.phil2.uni-freiburg.de/raible/Lehre/2006_07/Materialien/1978_Kamen_Decline.pdf) that paradoxically, Spain did not decline because it never actually rose economically. Instead, he asserted:
>
> Spain thus remained a dominated colonial market at whose expense other
> European nations progressed towards industrial growth.
>
>
>
Kamen's paper is great reading but I personally am more convinced by [J. Israel's rebuttal](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/650522?uid=3738240&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102369970981) that re-asserts the traditional picture I have outlined above.
A [recent paper](http://pedrolains.typepad.com/%25c3%2581lvaresprados.pdf) ("The decline of Spain (1500–1850): conjectural estimates") proposes quantitative measurements of Spanish economic performance and arrives at this conclusion:
>
> In a comparative perspective, our findings support the view that when
> Spain colonised America and built a worldwide empire it was not a poor
> country of warriors but a relatively affluent nation and, by the end
> of the sixteenth century, when it had achieved ‘the political hegemony
> of Europe’ (Hamilton 1938, p. 168), Spanish per capita income was
> among the highest in Europe, second only to Italy and the Low
> Countries. Since the 1590s Spain experienced an absolute decline that
> only became relative in the early nineteenth century. Spain’s decline
> has its roots in the seventeenth century while its backwardness
> deepened in the first half of the nineteenth century.
>
>
>
While couched in mild language, their view is compatible with the standard thesis.
As for the dates, 1643 is the year of the [battle of Rocroi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rocroi) which not only wiped out a veteran Spanish army but also Spain's enduring reputation for having the finest military tradition in Europe. 1659 is the year of the [Peace of the Pyrenees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Pyrenees) which showed up Spain's great weakness relative to its chief opponent of the time, France.
Now to the possible causes. First of all, your teacher had two good points. I'll try to expound on them and also on what I think are other possible causes of Spanish decline. One must bear in mind, however, that no one cause can be singled out as the cardinal reason for decline; rather, it was a combination, often mutually reinforcing, of these causes that brought Spain down. The list below is my own and I take full responsibility for its errors and misconceptions:
1. The expulsion or persecution-induced-emigration of [Jews](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_decree), [Marranos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano#Exodus_from_Spain) and [Moriscos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos). These measures sapped the Spanish demographic base - perhaps not so much numerically as qualitatively. What I mean is that the expulsion of these populations deprived the Spanish kingdoms of precisely the kind of people they were so sorely to lack in the 17th century: artisans, traders, professionals, etc. A parallel can be drawn here with the [revocation of the Edict of Nantes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau) by Louis XIV which cost France its Huguenot population and had a similar adverse long-term effect.
Another relevant point - and I am going on a bit of a limb here - is that it took a number of generations for the deleterious effects of the expulsions to be truly felt. This reminds me of Stalins's purges (in the wider sense) in the 1920s-1950s which deprived Russia of its best and brightest - it can be argued that the modern-day problems of Russia can be traced back to that qualitative and quantitative dent Stalin made. But let's return to Spain.
2. The [Mesta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesta). I'll just quote [Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377234/Mesta) here:
>
> So profitable were the activities of the organization that Spain’s
> nascent industry tended to be neglected in favour of stock breeding,
> and the country continued to export raw materials and import
> manufactured goods well into the 19th century. Some historians blame
> the Mesta for Spain’s lack of industrial development in comparison to
> that of the rest of Europe. The Mesta reached the height of its power
> in the 16th century and thereafter declined in importance.
>
>
>
In other words, Spain fell into a sort of [Dutch Disease](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease) (the ironies of history). Of course, this is also true for American silver and gold - this matter was touched on in the post you mentioned. With bullion flowing from the colonies, Spain had little incentive to develop its industry and commerce and to create a solid and healthy taxable base.
3. Poor finances. The Spanish crown defaulted on its debts four times: 1557, 1560, 1575, and 1596. This was due to poor management, constant warfare which cost a lot and brought meagre returns at best, over-reliance on New World bullion etc (see n. 2 above).
This is a huge subject so I'll restrict myself to one eloquent quote by from [Robert Walpole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole): (taken from [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/01/featuresreviews.guardianreview1)):
>
> It is true that all that treasure is brought home in Spanish names,
> but Spain herself is no more than the canal through which all these
> treasures are conveyed over the rest of Europe.
>
>
>
4. [The war with the Dutch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War). Henry Kamen's excellent book *Spain's Road to Empire* shows that the Spanish Empire was in fact a multi-national project in which the King of Spain drew on the resources of many countries, with the contribution of Spain (or Castile, for that matter...) often being surprisingly small. The muscle - the famed and feared Spanish armies - often consisted of a relatively small number of Castilians, together with German, Italians and Flemish soldiers. The sinews - the money and credit came from Italian and German bankers.
Such a world-hugging enterprise was nearly invincible when operating in concord. But with the Dutch Revolt a crucial leg was sawed from under it and the empire lost a great proportion of its best merchants, artisans and soldiers. Even worse, they became its worst enemies and from that point on the continuous futile attempts to reconquer the Dutch consumed most of the Empire's attentions and resources. Since the latter were usually borrowed (see n.2 and n.3) they were wont to fail at the crucial moment. For example, time after time the Spanish victories in the Netherlands were squandered as a result of mutinies which occurred when the King could no longer pay. Of course, the ready expedient of letting them plunder and pillage just served to stiffen the Dutch resistance.
To sum it up: to me it seems that as soon as the Dutch Revolt broke out, the empire became a house divided against itself - and it could not stand.
What is perhaps less well-known is that the 80 Years War included a twelve-year [respite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Years%27_Truce) during which Spain and the Dutch were at peace. Possibly the decision to renew the war in 1621 was the single worst decision Spain took - the King and his advisers did not realize that by this point they could no longer win.
Ironically, the truce served to highlight just how much economically dependent was Spain on the Netherlands. A quote from Israel's article also ties this up with the other points given above:
>
> Castilian wool exports were much diminished during the I620s, largely
> due to the absence of Dutch shipping which had previously carried most
> of the wool, but the Castilian manufacturing towns proved unable to
> profit from the situation.
>
>
>
5. Over-expansion and hubris. This needs almost no elaboration. One point will suffice. [The 30 Years War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) pitted Catholics against Protestants; but it is illuminating to recall that the Protestant cause was supported and seconded by Catholic France, led by Cardinal Richelieu; more strikingly, the Pope himself was giving covert support to France against the Catholic champions, the Spanish & Austrian Habsburgs. This is not really surprising as the Pope was also a temporal prince, hemmed in from all directions by Habsburg dominions in Italy and anxious to diminish their preponderance.
So, if even the Pope was against the Spanish Empire, are we to wonder that it aroused so much hostility, just because it was so big and menacing? | A proximate cause of the Spanish empire was the Netherlands War of Independence (which lasted 80 years), and other revolts against Spain. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War>
The Spanish Empire had been "cobbled" together in the late 15th and early 16th centuries by the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, whose daughter Juana married Philip, the son of Maximilian of Austria and Marie of Burgundy (who lost that province to France, but kept the Netherlands including modern Belgium). Charles V, the son of Juana and Philip, inherited Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. But when he subdivided it, the Netherlands went together with Spain to Charles' son Philip, instead of to Charles brother Ferdinand, who got Austria and Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire.
The Netherlands rebelled against Philip and later Spanish rulers, so it became a major liability, instead of a major asset, especially since the war dragged on for 80 years, (with some breaks), during which Spain went bankrupt several times. Philip had annexed Portugal in 1580, but that rebelled in 1640 and broke away. Even Catalonia (part of the old Aragon) rebelled in the middle of the 17th century, although Spain managed to hang on to it. But fighting all these wars, plus a short but costly "Armada" war with England set Spain on a downward spiral through the 17th and 18th centuries. |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | It is commonly accepted that the Spanish Empire, which rose to the pinnacle of its strength under Charles V/I and Philip II was in decline by early seventeenth century and, in spite (or perhaps because?) of strenuous efforts to arrest and reverse that decline during the early 17th century, it declined and by 1643 or 1659 (not random dates..) it was a shadow of its former self.
This view was developed and greatly popularized by [John Huxtable Elliott](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Elliott_%28historian%29) in an influential 1961 paper whose first paragraph I cannot resist reproducing:
This has been the standard approach in modern historiography, as far as I can tell; it and in fact it was espoused already in the 17th century by contemporary [pundits and columnists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrista) who were then called *Arbitristas*.
Of course this paradigm found an able challenger in [Henry Kamen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kamen) who argued in an [interesting paper](http://latina.phil2.uni-freiburg.de/raible/Lehre/2006_07/Materialien/1978_Kamen_Decline.pdf) that paradoxically, Spain did not decline because it never actually rose economically. Instead, he asserted:
>
> Spain thus remained a dominated colonial market at whose expense other
> European nations progressed towards industrial growth.
>
>
>
Kamen's paper is great reading but I personally am more convinced by [J. Israel's rebuttal](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/650522?uid=3738240&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102369970981) that re-asserts the traditional picture I have outlined above.
A [recent paper](http://pedrolains.typepad.com/%25c3%2581lvaresprados.pdf) ("The decline of Spain (1500–1850): conjectural estimates") proposes quantitative measurements of Spanish economic performance and arrives at this conclusion:
>
> In a comparative perspective, our findings support the view that when
> Spain colonised America and built a worldwide empire it was not a poor
> country of warriors but a relatively affluent nation and, by the end
> of the sixteenth century, when it had achieved ‘the political hegemony
> of Europe’ (Hamilton 1938, p. 168), Spanish per capita income was
> among the highest in Europe, second only to Italy and the Low
> Countries. Since the 1590s Spain experienced an absolute decline that
> only became relative in the early nineteenth century. Spain’s decline
> has its roots in the seventeenth century while its backwardness
> deepened in the first half of the nineteenth century.
>
>
>
While couched in mild language, their view is compatible with the standard thesis.
As for the dates, 1643 is the year of the [battle of Rocroi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rocroi) which not only wiped out a veteran Spanish army but also Spain's enduring reputation for having the finest military tradition in Europe. 1659 is the year of the [Peace of the Pyrenees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Pyrenees) which showed up Spain's great weakness relative to its chief opponent of the time, France.
Now to the possible causes. First of all, your teacher had two good points. I'll try to expound on them and also on what I think are other possible causes of Spanish decline. One must bear in mind, however, that no one cause can be singled out as the cardinal reason for decline; rather, it was a combination, often mutually reinforcing, of these causes that brought Spain down. The list below is my own and I take full responsibility for its errors and misconceptions:
1. The expulsion or persecution-induced-emigration of [Jews](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_decree), [Marranos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano#Exodus_from_Spain) and [Moriscos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos). These measures sapped the Spanish demographic base - perhaps not so much numerically as qualitatively. What I mean is that the expulsion of these populations deprived the Spanish kingdoms of precisely the kind of people they were so sorely to lack in the 17th century: artisans, traders, professionals, etc. A parallel can be drawn here with the [revocation of the Edict of Nantes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau) by Louis XIV which cost France its Huguenot population and had a similar adverse long-term effect.
Another relevant point - and I am going on a bit of a limb here - is that it took a number of generations for the deleterious effects of the expulsions to be truly felt. This reminds me of Stalins's purges (in the wider sense) in the 1920s-1950s which deprived Russia of its best and brightest - it can be argued that the modern-day problems of Russia can be traced back to that qualitative and quantitative dent Stalin made. But let's return to Spain.
2. The [Mesta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesta). I'll just quote [Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377234/Mesta) here:
>
> So profitable were the activities of the organization that Spain’s
> nascent industry tended to be neglected in favour of stock breeding,
> and the country continued to export raw materials and import
> manufactured goods well into the 19th century. Some historians blame
> the Mesta for Spain’s lack of industrial development in comparison to
> that of the rest of Europe. The Mesta reached the height of its power
> in the 16th century and thereafter declined in importance.
>
>
>
In other words, Spain fell into a sort of [Dutch Disease](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease) (the ironies of history). Of course, this is also true for American silver and gold - this matter was touched on in the post you mentioned. With bullion flowing from the colonies, Spain had little incentive to develop its industry and commerce and to create a solid and healthy taxable base.
3. Poor finances. The Spanish crown defaulted on its debts four times: 1557, 1560, 1575, and 1596. This was due to poor management, constant warfare which cost a lot and brought meagre returns at best, over-reliance on New World bullion etc (see n. 2 above).
This is a huge subject so I'll restrict myself to one eloquent quote by from [Robert Walpole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole): (taken from [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/01/featuresreviews.guardianreview1)):
>
> It is true that all that treasure is brought home in Spanish names,
> but Spain herself is no more than the canal through which all these
> treasures are conveyed over the rest of Europe.
>
>
>
4. [The war with the Dutch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War). Henry Kamen's excellent book *Spain's Road to Empire* shows that the Spanish Empire was in fact a multi-national project in which the King of Spain drew on the resources of many countries, with the contribution of Spain (or Castile, for that matter...) often being surprisingly small. The muscle - the famed and feared Spanish armies - often consisted of a relatively small number of Castilians, together with German, Italians and Flemish soldiers. The sinews - the money and credit came from Italian and German bankers.
Such a world-hugging enterprise was nearly invincible when operating in concord. But with the Dutch Revolt a crucial leg was sawed from under it and the empire lost a great proportion of its best merchants, artisans and soldiers. Even worse, they became its worst enemies and from that point on the continuous futile attempts to reconquer the Dutch consumed most of the Empire's attentions and resources. Since the latter were usually borrowed (see n.2 and n.3) they were wont to fail at the crucial moment. For example, time after time the Spanish victories in the Netherlands were squandered as a result of mutinies which occurred when the King could no longer pay. Of course, the ready expedient of letting them plunder and pillage just served to stiffen the Dutch resistance.
To sum it up: to me it seems that as soon as the Dutch Revolt broke out, the empire became a house divided against itself - and it could not stand.
What is perhaps less well-known is that the 80 Years War included a twelve-year [respite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Years%27_Truce) during which Spain and the Dutch were at peace. Possibly the decision to renew the war in 1621 was the single worst decision Spain took - the King and his advisers did not realize that by this point they could no longer win.
Ironically, the truce served to highlight just how much economically dependent was Spain on the Netherlands. A quote from Israel's article also ties this up with the other points given above:
>
> Castilian wool exports were much diminished during the I620s, largely
> due to the absence of Dutch shipping which had previously carried most
> of the wool, but the Castilian manufacturing towns proved unable to
> profit from the situation.
>
>
>
5. Over-expansion and hubris. This needs almost no elaboration. One point will suffice. [The 30 Years War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) pitted Catholics against Protestants; but it is illuminating to recall that the Protestant cause was supported and seconded by Catholic France, led by Cardinal Richelieu; more strikingly, the Pope himself was giving covert support to France against the Catholic champions, the Spanish & Austrian Habsburgs. This is not really surprising as the Pope was also a temporal prince, hemmed in from all directions by Habsburg dominions in Italy and anxious to diminish their preponderance.
So, if even the Pope was against the Spanish Empire, are we to wonder that it aroused so much hostility, just because it was so big and menacing? | In order to understand what happenned to the Spanish empire is one word "the economy".
At the end of the Reconquista in 1492, while the kingdom of Aragon was still a medieval country, the kingdom of Castille had just made new innovations in medicine and in technology, such as the arquebusier and cannon. After, Granada fall, spain introduce the Inquisition in order to be safe from Islam, furthermore, columbus had just discovered america so the commerce drived the economy enormously.
In the early XV. century, France invaded Italy, The king fernando of Aragon sent an army to avoid the french conquest of Italy, despite that Isabella was against the fight against Christians decided to send his best commander, The great captain. This general introduced the new castilian innovations, organized an army, building, for the first time, the Elite tercios. This army rejected a big medieval french army that was confident in his cavalry easily. So, in the end of XV. century with the most advanced army of the Christian Europe.
XVI. century, Once the Spanish royal family was changed by an Hasburg royal family, a very conservative Kingdom was established and loyal to the Austrian/German family helping in every conflict they have. In this period, was never introduced any innovation, not any economy development, only based on military policy. The hasburg Fhilip II received twice two alerts of risk of bankrupt but never made anything. It was not until the second half XVII. century when Spanish economy say "no, more" and made a big "crack".
The arrived of French bourbon on XVIII century, was a great hope because introduced the textile industry and spanish economy was recovered. Even spain recovered italy easily defeating Austrian Royal family or even the UK was defeated two times . Nevertheless, the french revolution was seen by surprise.
Napoleon with very audacious tricks forced Spain to be an "ally", but it was, in reality, a plan to conquest Spain. While the civilians were fighting house by house, town by town, the spanish army was without a head until the "Duke Wellingtom" arrived. While for the british was a great victory over napoleon spain ended in a big disaster. Factories destroyed, so many civilians killed by French soldiers, spain loses between 2-4% of the population in that war.
In early XIX. century, spain ended the war complete in ruins. People and Army demanded , like in UK, to stablish a parlamentary monarchy and embraced liberalism. The king accepted but forced, nevertheless, he called for help to the new kingdom of France to reestablish the absolutism, I mean, a conservative monarchy. With this problem spain started in a Civil War that provocked the independent movements in America. This war ended and liberalism was stablished in 1876.
Finally, with most of Spanish empire in America lost, between (1876-1929) introduced fastly the industrial revolution in order to recovered the time lost. The new innovations and the recover of the economy was not feel until 20s. So 1898, even with new innovations such as modern rifles, howitzers, submarines,machineguns, destroyers etc...not all the innovations werent introducers until XX.century, so was not prepared to the war with a big power so in 1898, the spanish navy was destroyed easily by US navy. And the army was not really well-equipped they do as much as they could to resist the position.
The example was the first spanish battleship "Pelayo" (1888) that was not in time to used in Spanish-American war, used in 1911, or the Submarines created in 1888 but werent used until 1915 (Isaac Peral, great spanish inventor but misunderstand by politicians). The first spanish tank in 1925 or Air Fighter in 1913.
In 20s, with the introductions of new warships in navy, or air-fighters in Air force or even tanks spain was prepared (1st World war technology), Rif War (1911-1927) represented the transition between Imperial army to the industrial army. Despite of spanish recovery another Civil war ruined spain.
With General Franco in power, spain was a third world country, despite of having industrial factories in some parts of the country. In 50s. with USA decisive arrive and agreement, General Franco drived and change his economy policy to the liberalism and with big industrial investments put Spain in 8th most important economy of the world. Without any shoot USA won ally.
P.D: The Spanish economic problems is due to bad manage of the politicians.
The matter of Catalonia and Basque Country were as a consecuences of the Conservatives politicians favourable to a centralised spain. Thats why these regions are absolutely anti-conservatives and its a battle between liberals and moderate Socialists while pro-independence parties appeared in the Second republic with small support and now are instead stronger due to the "Franco and his conservatives". |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | It is commonly accepted that the Spanish Empire, which rose to the pinnacle of its strength under Charles V/I and Philip II was in decline by early seventeenth century and, in spite (or perhaps because?) of strenuous efforts to arrest and reverse that decline during the early 17th century, it declined and by 1643 or 1659 (not random dates..) it was a shadow of its former self.
This view was developed and greatly popularized by [John Huxtable Elliott](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Elliott_%28historian%29) in an influential 1961 paper whose first paragraph I cannot resist reproducing:
This has been the standard approach in modern historiography, as far as I can tell; it and in fact it was espoused already in the 17th century by contemporary [pundits and columnists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrista) who were then called *Arbitristas*.
Of course this paradigm found an able challenger in [Henry Kamen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kamen) who argued in an [interesting paper](http://latina.phil2.uni-freiburg.de/raible/Lehre/2006_07/Materialien/1978_Kamen_Decline.pdf) that paradoxically, Spain did not decline because it never actually rose economically. Instead, he asserted:
>
> Spain thus remained a dominated colonial market at whose expense other
> European nations progressed towards industrial growth.
>
>
>
Kamen's paper is great reading but I personally am more convinced by [J. Israel's rebuttal](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/650522?uid=3738240&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102369970981) that re-asserts the traditional picture I have outlined above.
A [recent paper](http://pedrolains.typepad.com/%25c3%2581lvaresprados.pdf) ("The decline of Spain (1500–1850): conjectural estimates") proposes quantitative measurements of Spanish economic performance and arrives at this conclusion:
>
> In a comparative perspective, our findings support the view that when
> Spain colonised America and built a worldwide empire it was not a poor
> country of warriors but a relatively affluent nation and, by the end
> of the sixteenth century, when it had achieved ‘the political hegemony
> of Europe’ (Hamilton 1938, p. 168), Spanish per capita income was
> among the highest in Europe, second only to Italy and the Low
> Countries. Since the 1590s Spain experienced an absolute decline that
> only became relative in the early nineteenth century. Spain’s decline
> has its roots in the seventeenth century while its backwardness
> deepened in the first half of the nineteenth century.
>
>
>
While couched in mild language, their view is compatible with the standard thesis.
As for the dates, 1643 is the year of the [battle of Rocroi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rocroi) which not only wiped out a veteran Spanish army but also Spain's enduring reputation for having the finest military tradition in Europe. 1659 is the year of the [Peace of the Pyrenees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Pyrenees) which showed up Spain's great weakness relative to its chief opponent of the time, France.
Now to the possible causes. First of all, your teacher had two good points. I'll try to expound on them and also on what I think are other possible causes of Spanish decline. One must bear in mind, however, that no one cause can be singled out as the cardinal reason for decline; rather, it was a combination, often mutually reinforcing, of these causes that brought Spain down. The list below is my own and I take full responsibility for its errors and misconceptions:
1. The expulsion or persecution-induced-emigration of [Jews](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_decree), [Marranos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano#Exodus_from_Spain) and [Moriscos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos). These measures sapped the Spanish demographic base - perhaps not so much numerically as qualitatively. What I mean is that the expulsion of these populations deprived the Spanish kingdoms of precisely the kind of people they were so sorely to lack in the 17th century: artisans, traders, professionals, etc. A parallel can be drawn here with the [revocation of the Edict of Nantes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau) by Louis XIV which cost France its Huguenot population and had a similar adverse long-term effect.
Another relevant point - and I am going on a bit of a limb here - is that it took a number of generations for the deleterious effects of the expulsions to be truly felt. This reminds me of Stalins's purges (in the wider sense) in the 1920s-1950s which deprived Russia of its best and brightest - it can be argued that the modern-day problems of Russia can be traced back to that qualitative and quantitative dent Stalin made. But let's return to Spain.
2. The [Mesta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesta). I'll just quote [Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377234/Mesta) here:
>
> So profitable were the activities of the organization that Spain’s
> nascent industry tended to be neglected in favour of stock breeding,
> and the country continued to export raw materials and import
> manufactured goods well into the 19th century. Some historians blame
> the Mesta for Spain’s lack of industrial development in comparison to
> that of the rest of Europe. The Mesta reached the height of its power
> in the 16th century and thereafter declined in importance.
>
>
>
In other words, Spain fell into a sort of [Dutch Disease](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease) (the ironies of history). Of course, this is also true for American silver and gold - this matter was touched on in the post you mentioned. With bullion flowing from the colonies, Spain had little incentive to develop its industry and commerce and to create a solid and healthy taxable base.
3. Poor finances. The Spanish crown defaulted on its debts four times: 1557, 1560, 1575, and 1596. This was due to poor management, constant warfare which cost a lot and brought meagre returns at best, over-reliance on New World bullion etc (see n. 2 above).
This is a huge subject so I'll restrict myself to one eloquent quote by from [Robert Walpole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole): (taken from [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/01/featuresreviews.guardianreview1)):
>
> It is true that all that treasure is brought home in Spanish names,
> but Spain herself is no more than the canal through which all these
> treasures are conveyed over the rest of Europe.
>
>
>
4. [The war with the Dutch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War). Henry Kamen's excellent book *Spain's Road to Empire* shows that the Spanish Empire was in fact a multi-national project in which the King of Spain drew on the resources of many countries, with the contribution of Spain (or Castile, for that matter...) often being surprisingly small. The muscle - the famed and feared Spanish armies - often consisted of a relatively small number of Castilians, together with German, Italians and Flemish soldiers. The sinews - the money and credit came from Italian and German bankers.
Such a world-hugging enterprise was nearly invincible when operating in concord. But with the Dutch Revolt a crucial leg was sawed from under it and the empire lost a great proportion of its best merchants, artisans and soldiers. Even worse, they became its worst enemies and from that point on the continuous futile attempts to reconquer the Dutch consumed most of the Empire's attentions and resources. Since the latter were usually borrowed (see n.2 and n.3) they were wont to fail at the crucial moment. For example, time after time the Spanish victories in the Netherlands were squandered as a result of mutinies which occurred when the King could no longer pay. Of course, the ready expedient of letting them plunder and pillage just served to stiffen the Dutch resistance.
To sum it up: to me it seems that as soon as the Dutch Revolt broke out, the empire became a house divided against itself - and it could not stand.
What is perhaps less well-known is that the 80 Years War included a twelve-year [respite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Years%27_Truce) during which Spain and the Dutch were at peace. Possibly the decision to renew the war in 1621 was the single worst decision Spain took - the King and his advisers did not realize that by this point they could no longer win.
Ironically, the truce served to highlight just how much economically dependent was Spain on the Netherlands. A quote from Israel's article also ties this up with the other points given above:
>
> Castilian wool exports were much diminished during the I620s, largely
> due to the absence of Dutch shipping which had previously carried most
> of the wool, but the Castilian manufacturing towns proved unable to
> profit from the situation.
>
>
>
5. Over-expansion and hubris. This needs almost no elaboration. One point will suffice. [The 30 Years War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) pitted Catholics against Protestants; but it is illuminating to recall that the Protestant cause was supported and seconded by Catholic France, led by Cardinal Richelieu; more strikingly, the Pope himself was giving covert support to France against the Catholic champions, the Spanish & Austrian Habsburgs. This is not really surprising as the Pope was also a temporal prince, hemmed in from all directions by Habsburg dominions in Italy and anxious to diminish their preponderance.
So, if even the Pope was against the Spanish Empire, are we to wonder that it aroused so much hostility, just because it was so big and menacing? | The story of the collapse or sudden decline of the Spanish empire in the 17th century is often greatly exaggerated. It's true that Spain's European leadership did fade in the second half of the century as France and other lesser powers increasingly asserted themselves but the economic and demographic problems were bad or worse in many other parts of a war torn Europe. Spain was still a great empire the following century and its place in the European political and economic scene was still significant. Christopher's Storrs' study "The Resilience of the Spanish Monarchy: 1665-1700" (2006) demonstrates this clearly. |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | A proximate cause of the Spanish empire was the Netherlands War of Independence (which lasted 80 years), and other revolts against Spain. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War>
The Spanish Empire had been "cobbled" together in the late 15th and early 16th centuries by the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, whose daughter Juana married Philip, the son of Maximilian of Austria and Marie of Burgundy (who lost that province to France, but kept the Netherlands including modern Belgium). Charles V, the son of Juana and Philip, inherited Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. But when he subdivided it, the Netherlands went together with Spain to Charles' son Philip, instead of to Charles brother Ferdinand, who got Austria and Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire.
The Netherlands rebelled against Philip and later Spanish rulers, so it became a major liability, instead of a major asset, especially since the war dragged on for 80 years, (with some breaks), during which Spain went bankrupt several times. Philip had annexed Portugal in 1580, but that rebelled in 1640 and broke away. Even Catalonia (part of the old Aragon) rebelled in the middle of the 17th century, although Spain managed to hang on to it. But fighting all these wars, plus a short but costly "Armada" war with England set Spain on a downward spiral through the 17th and 18th centuries. | In order to understand what happenned to the Spanish empire is one word "the economy".
At the end of the Reconquista in 1492, while the kingdom of Aragon was still a medieval country, the kingdom of Castille had just made new innovations in medicine and in technology, such as the arquebusier and cannon. After, Granada fall, spain introduce the Inquisition in order to be safe from Islam, furthermore, columbus had just discovered america so the commerce drived the economy enormously.
In the early XV. century, France invaded Italy, The king fernando of Aragon sent an army to avoid the french conquest of Italy, despite that Isabella was against the fight against Christians decided to send his best commander, The great captain. This general introduced the new castilian innovations, organized an army, building, for the first time, the Elite tercios. This army rejected a big medieval french army that was confident in his cavalry easily. So, in the end of XV. century with the most advanced army of the Christian Europe.
XVI. century, Once the Spanish royal family was changed by an Hasburg royal family, a very conservative Kingdom was established and loyal to the Austrian/German family helping in every conflict they have. In this period, was never introduced any innovation, not any economy development, only based on military policy. The hasburg Fhilip II received twice two alerts of risk of bankrupt but never made anything. It was not until the second half XVII. century when Spanish economy say "no, more" and made a big "crack".
The arrived of French bourbon on XVIII century, was a great hope because introduced the textile industry and spanish economy was recovered. Even spain recovered italy easily defeating Austrian Royal family or even the UK was defeated two times . Nevertheless, the french revolution was seen by surprise.
Napoleon with very audacious tricks forced Spain to be an "ally", but it was, in reality, a plan to conquest Spain. While the civilians were fighting house by house, town by town, the spanish army was without a head until the "Duke Wellingtom" arrived. While for the british was a great victory over napoleon spain ended in a big disaster. Factories destroyed, so many civilians killed by French soldiers, spain loses between 2-4% of the population in that war.
In early XIX. century, spain ended the war complete in ruins. People and Army demanded , like in UK, to stablish a parlamentary monarchy and embraced liberalism. The king accepted but forced, nevertheless, he called for help to the new kingdom of France to reestablish the absolutism, I mean, a conservative monarchy. With this problem spain started in a Civil War that provocked the independent movements in America. This war ended and liberalism was stablished in 1876.
Finally, with most of Spanish empire in America lost, between (1876-1929) introduced fastly the industrial revolution in order to recovered the time lost. The new innovations and the recover of the economy was not feel until 20s. So 1898, even with new innovations such as modern rifles, howitzers, submarines,machineguns, destroyers etc...not all the innovations werent introducers until XX.century, so was not prepared to the war with a big power so in 1898, the spanish navy was destroyed easily by US navy. And the army was not really well-equipped they do as much as they could to resist the position.
The example was the first spanish battleship "Pelayo" (1888) that was not in time to used in Spanish-American war, used in 1911, or the Submarines created in 1888 but werent used until 1915 (Isaac Peral, great spanish inventor but misunderstand by politicians). The first spanish tank in 1925 or Air Fighter in 1913.
In 20s, with the introductions of new warships in navy, or air-fighters in Air force or even tanks spain was prepared (1st World war technology), Rif War (1911-1927) represented the transition between Imperial army to the industrial army. Despite of spanish recovery another Civil war ruined spain.
With General Franco in power, spain was a third world country, despite of having industrial factories in some parts of the country. In 50s. with USA decisive arrive and agreement, General Franco drived and change his economy policy to the liberalism and with big industrial investments put Spain in 8th most important economy of the world. Without any shoot USA won ally.
P.D: The Spanish economic problems is due to bad manage of the politicians.
The matter of Catalonia and Basque Country were as a consecuences of the Conservatives politicians favourable to a centralised spain. Thats why these regions are absolutely anti-conservatives and its a battle between liberals and moderate Socialists while pro-independence parties appeared in the Second republic with small support and now are instead stronger due to the "Franco and his conservatives". |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | A proximate cause of the Spanish empire was the Netherlands War of Independence (which lasted 80 years), and other revolts against Spain. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War>
The Spanish Empire had been "cobbled" together in the late 15th and early 16th centuries by the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, whose daughter Juana married Philip, the son of Maximilian of Austria and Marie of Burgundy (who lost that province to France, but kept the Netherlands including modern Belgium). Charles V, the son of Juana and Philip, inherited Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. But when he subdivided it, the Netherlands went together with Spain to Charles' son Philip, instead of to Charles brother Ferdinand, who got Austria and Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire.
The Netherlands rebelled against Philip and later Spanish rulers, so it became a major liability, instead of a major asset, especially since the war dragged on for 80 years, (with some breaks), during which Spain went bankrupt several times. Philip had annexed Portugal in 1580, but that rebelled in 1640 and broke away. Even Catalonia (part of the old Aragon) rebelled in the middle of the 17th century, although Spain managed to hang on to it. But fighting all these wars, plus a short but costly "Armada" war with England set Spain on a downward spiral through the 17th and 18th centuries. | The story of the collapse or sudden decline of the Spanish empire in the 17th century is often greatly exaggerated. It's true that Spain's European leadership did fade in the second half of the century as France and other lesser powers increasingly asserted themselves but the economic and demographic problems were bad or worse in many other parts of a war torn Europe. Spain was still a great empire the following century and its place in the European political and economic scene was still significant. Christopher's Storrs' study "The Resilience of the Spanish Monarchy: 1665-1700" (2006) demonstrates this clearly. |
9,234 | What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? [A post I read](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9060/how-did-the-gold-of-the-new-world-cause-the-spanish-empire-to-collapse) claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks! | 2013/06/25 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9234",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2332/"
] | In order to understand what happenned to the Spanish empire is one word "the economy".
At the end of the Reconquista in 1492, while the kingdom of Aragon was still a medieval country, the kingdom of Castille had just made new innovations in medicine and in technology, such as the arquebusier and cannon. After, Granada fall, spain introduce the Inquisition in order to be safe from Islam, furthermore, columbus had just discovered america so the commerce drived the economy enormously.
In the early XV. century, France invaded Italy, The king fernando of Aragon sent an army to avoid the french conquest of Italy, despite that Isabella was against the fight against Christians decided to send his best commander, The great captain. This general introduced the new castilian innovations, organized an army, building, for the first time, the Elite tercios. This army rejected a big medieval french army that was confident in his cavalry easily. So, in the end of XV. century with the most advanced army of the Christian Europe.
XVI. century, Once the Spanish royal family was changed by an Hasburg royal family, a very conservative Kingdom was established and loyal to the Austrian/German family helping in every conflict they have. In this period, was never introduced any innovation, not any economy development, only based on military policy. The hasburg Fhilip II received twice two alerts of risk of bankrupt but never made anything. It was not until the second half XVII. century when Spanish economy say "no, more" and made a big "crack".
The arrived of French bourbon on XVIII century, was a great hope because introduced the textile industry and spanish economy was recovered. Even spain recovered italy easily defeating Austrian Royal family or even the UK was defeated two times . Nevertheless, the french revolution was seen by surprise.
Napoleon with very audacious tricks forced Spain to be an "ally", but it was, in reality, a plan to conquest Spain. While the civilians were fighting house by house, town by town, the spanish army was without a head until the "Duke Wellingtom" arrived. While for the british was a great victory over napoleon spain ended in a big disaster. Factories destroyed, so many civilians killed by French soldiers, spain loses between 2-4% of the population in that war.
In early XIX. century, spain ended the war complete in ruins. People and Army demanded , like in UK, to stablish a parlamentary monarchy and embraced liberalism. The king accepted but forced, nevertheless, he called for help to the new kingdom of France to reestablish the absolutism, I mean, a conservative monarchy. With this problem spain started in a Civil War that provocked the independent movements in America. This war ended and liberalism was stablished in 1876.
Finally, with most of Spanish empire in America lost, between (1876-1929) introduced fastly the industrial revolution in order to recovered the time lost. The new innovations and the recover of the economy was not feel until 20s. So 1898, even with new innovations such as modern rifles, howitzers, submarines,machineguns, destroyers etc...not all the innovations werent introducers until XX.century, so was not prepared to the war with a big power so in 1898, the spanish navy was destroyed easily by US navy. And the army was not really well-equipped they do as much as they could to resist the position.
The example was the first spanish battleship "Pelayo" (1888) that was not in time to used in Spanish-American war, used in 1911, or the Submarines created in 1888 but werent used until 1915 (Isaac Peral, great spanish inventor but misunderstand by politicians). The first spanish tank in 1925 or Air Fighter in 1913.
In 20s, with the introductions of new warships in navy, or air-fighters in Air force or even tanks spain was prepared (1st World war technology), Rif War (1911-1927) represented the transition between Imperial army to the industrial army. Despite of spanish recovery another Civil war ruined spain.
With General Franco in power, spain was a third world country, despite of having industrial factories in some parts of the country. In 50s. with USA decisive arrive and agreement, General Franco drived and change his economy policy to the liberalism and with big industrial investments put Spain in 8th most important economy of the world. Without any shoot USA won ally.
P.D: The Spanish economic problems is due to bad manage of the politicians.
The matter of Catalonia and Basque Country were as a consecuences of the Conservatives politicians favourable to a centralised spain. Thats why these regions are absolutely anti-conservatives and its a battle between liberals and moderate Socialists while pro-independence parties appeared in the Second republic with small support and now are instead stronger due to the "Franco and his conservatives". | The story of the collapse or sudden decline of the Spanish empire in the 17th century is often greatly exaggerated. It's true that Spain's European leadership did fade in the second half of the century as France and other lesser powers increasingly asserted themselves but the economic and demographic problems were bad or worse in many other parts of a war torn Europe. Spain was still a great empire the following century and its place in the European political and economic scene was still significant. Christopher's Storrs' study "The Resilience of the Spanish Monarchy: 1665-1700" (2006) demonstrates this clearly. |
23,191 | When creating an HTML Email Status report I notice that I'm not getting the records for emails that were sent in Mass Email (e.g. Mass Email Contacts)
Who can I report on Email Status for such mails? | 2013/12/30 | [
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/23191",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/users/490/"
] | You need to configure the appropriate filters to match your mass email and then run the 'HTML Email Status' report. Apply filters to categorize your mass emails hierarchically using multiple criteria - e.g. by date first, and then email template name. Filters should be applied so that they only match your mass email campaign and NOT other emails.
For e.g. If you'd like to know the status of mass emails sent out on Christmas day, you would run the report then filter by that date (25th December 2013) and then by email template name used in the mass mail campaign. The important thing here to note is that the report does not know those filters our specific to mass email.
I had faced the same issue some time back and [this](https://developer.salesforce.com/forums/ForumsMain?id=906F00000008oN3IAI) thread with the above mentioned approached helped me. | thx for that.
short question, I have created a mass emailing and i have in all relevant contacts in the related list for html email status a information.
But when i want to run a report on that, the report is empty, I have only used the field "sent" as filter.
Is there anything missing? |
35,814 | I want to manage "openings" with no injuries. As example ,I want to manage toe touch <https://www.google.gr/search?q=standing+knee+touch&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD5tD-m7vVAhWMDBoKHbPWCbwQ_AUICSgB&biw=360&bih=559&dpr=2#imgrc=crDQ05J71QDkGM>:
οr <https://www.google.gr/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisIex0aA9Z1YcQiPlP2dn_1rcqlgJrxbuUFVtYilgn5bRW6ByCEKYyY6O3mcV8LI5kQFJiEIRsQXXoWGpea_1O90OSbwige2qmyUDqeDDmEjk-fsDCwMk19BTYFY_153KX8h13QgBRHrIv3T52z72WnBUCgvO_152RoMElfiiph7TC6jLJAk3MwGH9d_1acS23TRw761QiN_1GXbyjM4uGFLKZB6cDRSD2Lc5wN658dIk1ABM6ROuW3Zq_1z2zV7rGxyiBBBbvuglHrJIa0pGv7a-IbpE9C8D6KXcea0BNPilJxITVW_1TYe8tyP9dbjkpIZzXYH0AwFa9gOjB8n789DgrwLymbxgUsFg> . I don't want to push my self as hard as I can and provoke an injury. What should I do to manage workouts like those with not get hurTed? Thanks | 2017/08/03 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/35814",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/25907/"
] | I don't think problem is with breath taking.
If you have high deadlift, and a specially if that is classic one, you have much stronger back then legs. Try to keep your tibia straight, do not move knees forward. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ5y5iB2u6w) is more about it. That way you will use your back much more over quads. If you want to stick what you have now - make legs stronger.
Also, as a comment - you keep head in strange position - it can be due to angle, but please take a look on it. | I guess the answer to your questions is a bit of everything.
First, I would decrease the weights in order to remove the belt dependency. This way you know when your form is breaking down.
Second, learn how to breath and how to hold the air inside throughout the movement.
From your videos, your core looks pretty weak. Decrease the weights, get your form right, learn how to breath in between sets, control your breathing, breath out when you are at the push part of the exercise and then continue by increasing the weights. |
35,814 | I want to manage "openings" with no injuries. As example ,I want to manage toe touch <https://www.google.gr/search?q=standing+knee+touch&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD5tD-m7vVAhWMDBoKHbPWCbwQ_AUICSgB&biw=360&bih=559&dpr=2#imgrc=crDQ05J71QDkGM>:
οr <https://www.google.gr/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisIex0aA9Z1YcQiPlP2dn_1rcqlgJrxbuUFVtYilgn5bRW6ByCEKYyY6O3mcV8LI5kQFJiEIRsQXXoWGpea_1O90OSbwige2qmyUDqeDDmEjk-fsDCwMk19BTYFY_153KX8h13QgBRHrIv3T52z72WnBUCgvO_152RoMElfiiph7TC6jLJAk3MwGH9d_1acS23TRw761QiN_1GXbyjM4uGFLKZB6cDRSD2Lc5wN658dIk1ABM6ROuW3Zq_1z2zV7rGxyiBBBbvuglHrJIa0pGv7a-IbpE9C8D6KXcea0BNPilJxITVW_1TYe8tyP9dbjkpIZzXYH0AwFa9gOjB8n789DgrwLymbxgUsFg> . I don't want to push my self as hard as I can and provoke an injury. What should I do to manage workouts like those with not get hurTed? Thanks | 2017/08/03 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/35814",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/25907/"
] | I don't think problem is with breath taking.
If you have high deadlift, and a specially if that is classic one, you have much stronger back then legs. Try to keep your tibia straight, do not move knees forward. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ5y5iB2u6w) is more about it. That way you will use your back much more over quads. If you want to stick what you have now - make legs stronger.
Also, as a comment - you keep head in strange position - it can be due to angle, but please take a look on it. | Regarding holding your breath: Please consider modifying your [Valsalva Maneuver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver) by closing your airway with your glottis instead of your lips/tongue/etc. This modification might allow you to resist leakage better.
Please see also [this related answer about the role of the abdominal muscles in the squat](https://fitness.stackexchange.com/a/37565/20213). |
94,665 | It seems some Protestants hold that belief in Trinitarianism is required for salvation. According to those who hold this, is there a distinction between Christians who assent to this and understand what Trinitarianism actually is, as opposed to Christians who assent to it but don't really understand what Trinitarianism is? For ex., I can say "Jesus is God," but the 'is' there is ambiguous. It could be taken in all sorts of senses, one of which is the 'official' Trinitarian sense. Yet it is not clear how many rank-and-file Protestants understand Trinitarianism to the extent that they could articulate it in detail.
What's required for salvation in terms of depth of belief, according to Protestants who hold Trinitarian belief is required for salvation? | 2023/02/27 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94665",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/51878/"
] | It is generally acknowledged that the precise nature of God is beyond human comprehension. God is infinite, and all humans are limited, fallible beings. He is much more than our limited understanding can comprehend (Job 36:6, Job 37:5, Isaiah 40:28). We can have *some* understanding of God, but a complete understanding is beyond us.
There is, in my experience, no minimum level of understanding that is required. I know of many people in many churches whose position is "I don't really understand it, but I believe it". No church leader I am aware of has ever criticized this position. I have known many people of simple understanding who have come to faith, and many of the intellectual concepts of Christianity are beyond them. Nobody I know has ever sought to exclude them on that basis. Doing so would appear to be completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who taught that faith and not intellectual rigour was the cornerstone of salvation, and who welcomed children into the Kingdom of God.
While the subtleties of the Trinity are rarely gone into, the essence is usually taught clearly in churches:
* Jesus is God
* The Father is God
* The Holy Spirit is God
* These three together are one God
* Jesus is also fully human.
Most Christians would understand all of those points. | >
> 26 And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed
> on the ground. 27 He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed
> sprouts and grows; he knows not how. 28 The earth produces by itself,
> first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But
> when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the
> harvest has come.”
>
>
>
I have clear recollections of the time when I was a new believer. I was asked by my Bible study leader to memorize this passage in Galatians 2:
>
> 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but
> Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by
> faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do
> not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the
> law, then Christ died for no purpose.
>
>
>
This verse is about receiving a new identity in Christ, of dying to the old self. I had no clue at the time what it meant. One month later, I was freed from the fear of death and the fear of living a worthless life of no consequence. I attribute that change in me to those verses. The Holy Spirit made words I did not understand grow inside me, though I did not know how, just like the farmer in Jesus' parable.
I assume that assent to the Doctrine of the Trinity is the same. The Holy Spirit can lead an ignorant but faithful Christian into all truth, though it may take time. Understanding can produce faith, but the walk of faith can also produce understanding. Sometimes the Word must change us before we can understand what it means.
In the end, it is not assent to the doctrine of the Trinity that saves you. What saves you is embracing each member of the Trinity as they visit you. The doctrine is the light by which you can understand each visit. I remember crying at the thought that Jesus died on the cross for me personally. That was when I knew that Jesus was a real person, because I could not cry for an abstraction. Likewise, when I visited a Christian woman on her deathbed out of obedience, the Holy Spirit overpowered me and delivered me from a decade of depression. I knew that it was the Holy Spirit because I had been taught that there was a Holy Spirit and Joy one of its fruits. Finally, when in a dream I was warned of years of suffering about to begin and later struck deaf in one ear, then healed after reading a passage in Exodus about how the Father can cause deafness and sternly directed Moses to go to Egypt, I realized I had met with the Father.
These are not my only encounters with each member of the Trinity, but they are the most potent. The doctrines prepare you to recognize God however He chooses to appear to you. It is up to you to embrace God, whether as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or all three at once in an undifferentiated unity. It is that embrace, obedience, trust, and acceptance of God when He appears as He chooses to make Himself known that counts. That is what saves.
When Joshua met the man with the drawn sword in Joshua 5, why did he accept the man's declaration that he was the commander of the host of the Lord? It is because of a worship song in Deuteronomy 32 that Moses spoke to the people. Moses said that God would draw his sword and fight for his people, but they must take the words of the song to heart. That passage makes a big deal out of the fact that Joshua was present for the singing of that song. Joshua remembered the song and therefore recognized God on the day He came to visit him. That is what the doctrine of the Trinity does for us: it helps us recognize God when he visits us, so that we may not be deceived by counterfeits. |
11,985 | I need to replace my kitchen faucet which just broke. However, we're already planning to have a new counter top installed in about 3 months (I was hoping the old faucet would last).
I want to buy a quality faucet now and move it to the new counter. The existing sink is a typical (here in US) stainless steel "rim on top of counter" mount. The new sink will be an under the counter type. The sink has 3 holes on 4" centers.
What do I need to consider to ensure the new faucet will work in both situations? Is the difference in thickness from the old sink to the new mount on the counter a problem? Can I safely assume the new counter fabricator/installer can make appropriate holes for any faucet that fits the current sink? | 2012/02/04 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/11985",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/1283/"
] | Faucets are standardized, and should be able to be installed in either situation. Anything you buy will almost certainly work with your new counter top. | You can almost certainly install anything into your new countertop, but you may want to think about what you want there - mainly in terms of how many holes will be required. If you're replacing a 3-hole fixture now, but want to have a one-hole setup later, you can get a faucet that comes with an optional escutcheon. That can cover all the holes in your current sink, and then can be installed in your new counters without the escutcheon for a neat one-hole look.
Example: <http://www.homedepot.com/Kitchen-Kitchen-Faucets-Single-Handle/h_d1/N-5yc1vZarvl/R-203014160/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&storeId=10051> |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | Actually it should be RT (room temperature) like all the time.
Check the pins to see if one of them is getting discolored.
The only reson for your converter to get hot is a bad contact creating a arc, that creates heat.
Making sure the plugs sit tight (on both sides) and that none of the contact pins (on both sides) is discolored. Cleaning the pins could not harm.
Ultimately getting a new converter would be a good idea. | I've had my MacBook Air 11" for over three years and just today the magsafe L got hot which is why Im even on this thread. I turned my block plus 180 degrees in the same outlet and it stayed cool, I moved it one outlet over it got hot again, I changed to yet a third outlet and it stayed cool. Im no electricity guru but In guessing its the outlet and not my charging unit. I read a few other threads in other places and some say theirs have always been hot and that its normal, I disagree, its not normal to have anything on your computer too hot to touch. Thanks for the ideas, they worked for me. |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | I also found that spinning it around, 180 degrees, fixed the issue. Not sure why but looking at the female side of the adapter it seems two of the connector pins on one side are closer than on the other side. I also maybe hallucinating. | I found the center pin on my charger was "pushed in"...recessed and not protruding like the other 4 pins. Pulled it out with a needle nose plier & cleaned all contacts. Now working. |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | I also found that spinning it around, 180 degrees, fixed the issue. Not sure why but looking at the female side of the adapter it seems two of the connector pins on one side are closer than on the other side. I also maybe hallucinating. | I've had my MacBook Air 11" for over three years and just today the magsafe L got hot which is why Im even on this thread. I turned my block plus 180 degrees in the same outlet and it stayed cool, I moved it one outlet over it got hot again, I changed to yet a third outlet and it stayed cool. Im no electricity guru but In guessing its the outlet and not my charging unit. I read a few other threads in other places and some say theirs have always been hot and that its normal, I disagree, its not normal to have anything on your computer too hot to touch. Thanks for the ideas, they worked for me. |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | Actually it should be RT (room temperature) like all the time.
Check the pins to see if one of them is getting discolored.
The only reson for your converter to get hot is a bad contact creating a arc, that creates heat.
Making sure the plugs sit tight (on both sides) and that none of the contact pins (on both sides) is discolored. Cleaning the pins could not harm.
Ultimately getting a new converter would be a good idea. | I just had this happen today - with a new MagSafe (1) power adapter (brick) too. The brick itself doesn't get hot, nor does the MagSafe 1 plug end. Only the little adapter that has the 1->2 connection. I'm assuming it's either that the pins aren't seating right, or that there's dust or something in there that's heating up somehow. The only reason I have a MagSafe *1* brick is because I still have a MagSafe 1 MacBook, and want to have *something* that can charge it.
I'd *really* like it if Apple would just sell the cords themselves, without the brick. (like they do for the USB->Lightning/USB-C cables). Because it's ALWAYS the cord that frays/breaks, while the brick is (I presume) fine. If nothing else, this is an *enormous* waste of materials.. I don't know how much of the plastic/coil metal/rare-earth-metals-from-the-transistors-ICs that Apple Recycling can get out of a "returned" adapter brick. But being able to just replace the cord would be wonderful. Until Apple figures out how to make one that doesn't fray.
(*Is* it possible to recycle the *chips themselves* to extract the rare earth metals somehow? Or would it be worth it. Yes, I know (a little) about the "rare earth crisis that wasn't" in 2010 (can't find the PDF now), and I found this written in 2011:
"At the present time, there is little to no recycling of rare earth-containing products, except in Japan, but some research efforts have been started, at least in the U.S. It is likely that more research on this topic will be funded by the ROW ["non-Chinese World"] national governments. One of the major problems is that although the rare earths are essential components of electronic devices, etc., they only constitute a small fraction of weight/volume of the final product (e.g., a computer). As a result, the percentage is about the same as that of the poorer ore bodies (i.e., ~2%) which are mined today. For cell phones and portable music devices it is much worse, the rare earth magnets weigh less than 0.1% of the device."
(<https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/articles/material-matters/pdf/the-rare-earth-crisis.pdf>)
Back to the MagSafe, wasn't the "fraying issue"/strain-relief-problems why they switched to the "L shape" plug in the first place? Why did they switch back to the T-shape?
I've though more than once about just cutting the cable in half and sticking an RCA jack in the middle, and then make a "bullet-proof-RCA-MagSafe" connector for the computer end. (Well, a 3-conductor mini-jack since it has the sense pin in there too) |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | Actually it should be RT (room temperature) like all the time.
Check the pins to see if one of them is getting discolored.
The only reson for your converter to get hot is a bad contact creating a arc, that creates heat.
Making sure the plugs sit tight (on both sides) and that none of the contact pins (on both sides) is discolored. Cleaning the pins could not harm.
Ultimately getting a new converter would be a good idea. | Try disconnecting the adapter from the plug and rotating it 180 degrees. Not sure why it works, but it works. |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | I found the center pin on my charger was "pushed in"...recessed and not protruding like the other 4 pins. Pulled it out with a needle nose plier & cleaned all contacts. Now working. | Try disconnecting the adapter from the plug and rotating it 180 degrees. Not sure why it works, but it works. |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | I found the center pin on my charger was "pushed in"...recessed and not protruding like the other 4 pins. Pulled it out with a needle nose plier & cleaned all contacts. Now working. | I've had my MacBook Air 11" for over three years and just today the magsafe L got hot which is why Im even on this thread. I turned my block plus 180 degrees in the same outlet and it stayed cool, I moved it one outlet over it got hot again, I changed to yet a third outlet and it stayed cool. Im no electricity guru but In guessing its the outlet and not my charging unit. I read a few other threads in other places and some say theirs have always been hot and that its normal, I disagree, its not normal to have anything on your computer too hot to touch. Thanks for the ideas, they worked for me. |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | I also found that spinning it around, 180 degrees, fixed the issue. Not sure why but looking at the female side of the adapter it seems two of the connector pins on one side are closer than on the other side. I also maybe hallucinating. | Try disconnecting the adapter from the plug and rotating it 180 degrees. Not sure why it works, but it works. |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | I found the center pin on my charger was "pushed in"...recessed and not protruding like the other 4 pins. Pulled it out with a needle nose plier & cleaned all contacts. Now working. | I just had this happen today - with a new MagSafe (1) power adapter (brick) too. The brick itself doesn't get hot, nor does the MagSafe 1 plug end. Only the little adapter that has the 1->2 connection. I'm assuming it's either that the pins aren't seating right, or that there's dust or something in there that's heating up somehow. The only reason I have a MagSafe *1* brick is because I still have a MagSafe 1 MacBook, and want to have *something* that can charge it.
I'd *really* like it if Apple would just sell the cords themselves, without the brick. (like they do for the USB->Lightning/USB-C cables). Because it's ALWAYS the cord that frays/breaks, while the brick is (I presume) fine. If nothing else, this is an *enormous* waste of materials.. I don't know how much of the plastic/coil metal/rare-earth-metals-from-the-transistors-ICs that Apple Recycling can get out of a "returned" adapter brick. But being able to just replace the cord would be wonderful. Until Apple figures out how to make one that doesn't fray.
(*Is* it possible to recycle the *chips themselves* to extract the rare earth metals somehow? Or would it be worth it. Yes, I know (a little) about the "rare earth crisis that wasn't" in 2010 (can't find the PDF now), and I found this written in 2011:
"At the present time, there is little to no recycling of rare earth-containing products, except in Japan, but some research efforts have been started, at least in the U.S. It is likely that more research on this topic will be funded by the ROW ["non-Chinese World"] national governments. One of the major problems is that although the rare earths are essential components of electronic devices, etc., they only constitute a small fraction of weight/volume of the final product (e.g., a computer). As a result, the percentage is about the same as that of the poorer ore bodies (i.e., ~2%) which are mined today. For cell phones and portable music devices it is much worse, the rare earth magnets weigh less than 0.1% of the device."
(<https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/articles/material-matters/pdf/the-rare-earth-crisis.pdf>)
Back to the MagSafe, wasn't the "fraying issue"/strain-relief-problems why they switched to the "L shape" plug in the first place? Why did they switch back to the T-shape?
I've though more than once about just cutting the cable in half and sticking an RCA jack in the middle, and then make a "bullet-proof-RCA-MagSafe" connector for the computer end. (Well, a 3-conductor mini-jack since it has the sense pin in there too) |
122,530 | Out of nothing, my [MagSafe to MagSafe2 converter](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD504ZM/A/magsafe-to-magsafe-2-converter) became extremely hot while charging. So hot, I could not even touch it.
What could cause it?
I've been using it so I can leave multiple old 85W MagSafe chargers at various places, so I plug my new late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro without having to bring a charger.
*Edit*:
After inspecting for discoloured parts, I saw the flat side of the aluminium surface is a bit discoloured.
This is what I've done after it got hot:
1. I cleaned everything a couple of times with finger nails and a wooden toothpick (to prevent scratching: electric stuff doesn't like metal fragments).
2. The connector kept getting hot.
3. After turning the connector 180 degrees, it kept cold. If I turned the power plug 180 degrees or 360 degrees, it stays cool too.
Turning 180 degrees was [suggested below](https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/281412/1836) by [mbabineau](https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/234832/mbabineau) and seems to fix the issue every time this happens. | 2014/02/27 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/122530",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1836/"
] | I just had this happen today - with a new MagSafe (1) power adapter (brick) too. The brick itself doesn't get hot, nor does the MagSafe 1 plug end. Only the little adapter that has the 1->2 connection. I'm assuming it's either that the pins aren't seating right, or that there's dust or something in there that's heating up somehow. The only reason I have a MagSafe *1* brick is because I still have a MagSafe 1 MacBook, and want to have *something* that can charge it.
I'd *really* like it if Apple would just sell the cords themselves, without the brick. (like they do for the USB->Lightning/USB-C cables). Because it's ALWAYS the cord that frays/breaks, while the brick is (I presume) fine. If nothing else, this is an *enormous* waste of materials.. I don't know how much of the plastic/coil metal/rare-earth-metals-from-the-transistors-ICs that Apple Recycling can get out of a "returned" adapter brick. But being able to just replace the cord would be wonderful. Until Apple figures out how to make one that doesn't fray.
(*Is* it possible to recycle the *chips themselves* to extract the rare earth metals somehow? Or would it be worth it. Yes, I know (a little) about the "rare earth crisis that wasn't" in 2010 (can't find the PDF now), and I found this written in 2011:
"At the present time, there is little to no recycling of rare earth-containing products, except in Japan, but some research efforts have been started, at least in the U.S. It is likely that more research on this topic will be funded by the ROW ["non-Chinese World"] national governments. One of the major problems is that although the rare earths are essential components of electronic devices, etc., they only constitute a small fraction of weight/volume of the final product (e.g., a computer). As a result, the percentage is about the same as that of the poorer ore bodies (i.e., ~2%) which are mined today. For cell phones and portable music devices it is much worse, the rare earth magnets weigh less than 0.1% of the device."
(<https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/articles/material-matters/pdf/the-rare-earth-crisis.pdf>)
Back to the MagSafe, wasn't the "fraying issue"/strain-relief-problems why they switched to the "L shape" plug in the first place? Why did they switch back to the T-shape?
I've though more than once about just cutting the cable in half and sticking an RCA jack in the middle, and then make a "bullet-proof-RCA-MagSafe" connector for the computer end. (Well, a 3-conductor mini-jack since it has the sense pin in there too) | I've had my MacBook Air 11" for over three years and just today the magsafe L got hot which is why Im even on this thread. I turned my block plus 180 degrees in the same outlet and it stayed cool, I moved it one outlet over it got hot again, I changed to yet a third outlet and it stayed cool. Im no electricity guru but In guessing its the outlet and not my charging unit. I read a few other threads in other places and some say theirs have always been hot and that its normal, I disagree, its not normal to have anything on your computer too hot to touch. Thanks for the ideas, they worked for me. |
45,696 | In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins? Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted? | 2016/06/06 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/45696",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/37352/"
] | Only valid transactions transfer control of balances. Since the transaction was never completed, the balances remain under control of the original owners. | The transaction is not fully signed, so it will not be included in a block, and thus the coins will not be moved from where they are. Only what's in a block can move coins, and anything that causes a transaction to not verify will cause that transaction to not be included. |
45,696 | In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins? Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted? | 2016/06/06 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/45696",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/37352/"
] | Only valid transactions transfer control of balances. Since the transaction was never completed, the balances remain under control of the original owners. | It sounds like those two scenarios are the same thing.
If a transaction output requires two signatures to be spent, but one is never available, then the coins on that output aren't going to go anywhere. This is just like where a transaction output only requires a single signature, but it isn't available.
However, this all depends on what type of multisig. For example, if it's a 2-of-3 and one party refuses to sign, then the other two can spend the coins. If it's a 2-of-2, then the coins are stuck. |
45,696 | In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins? Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted? | 2016/06/06 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/45696",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/37352/"
] | Only valid transactions transfer control of balances. Since the transaction was never completed, the balances remain under control of the original owners. | voided as if it never was attempted
assuming here you're spending from a multisig wallet and hence >1 parties need to sign. As @user36303 and @Murch♦ pointed out, if the TX is not fully signed, its not really a TX yet and the original balance on this multisig wallet is still the unspent balance. |
45,696 | In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins? Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted? | 2016/06/06 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/45696",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/37352/"
] | The transaction is not fully signed, so it will not be included in a block, and thus the coins will not be moved from where they are. Only what's in a block can move coins, and anything that causes a transaction to not verify will cause that transaction to not be included. | It sounds like those two scenarios are the same thing.
If a transaction output requires two signatures to be spent, but one is never available, then the coins on that output aren't going to go anywhere. This is just like where a transaction output only requires a single signature, but it isn't available.
However, this all depends on what type of multisig. For example, if it's a 2-of-3 and one party refuses to sign, then the other two can spend the coins. If it's a 2-of-2, then the coins are stuck. |
45,696 | In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins? Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted? | 2016/06/06 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/45696",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/37352/"
] | The transaction is not fully signed, so it will not be included in a block, and thus the coins will not be moved from where they are. Only what's in a block can move coins, and anything that causes a transaction to not verify will cause that transaction to not be included. | voided as if it never was attempted
assuming here you're spending from a multisig wallet and hence >1 parties need to sign. As @user36303 and @Murch♦ pointed out, if the TX is not fully signed, its not really a TX yet and the original balance on this multisig wallet is still the unspent balance. |
45,696 | In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins? Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted? | 2016/06/06 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/45696",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/37352/"
] | voided as if it never was attempted
assuming here you're spending from a multisig wallet and hence >1 parties need to sign. As @user36303 and @Murch♦ pointed out, if the TX is not fully signed, its not really a TX yet and the original balance on this multisig wallet is still the unspent balance. | It sounds like those two scenarios are the same thing.
If a transaction output requires two signatures to be spent, but one is never available, then the coins on that output aren't going to go anywhere. This is just like where a transaction output only requires a single signature, but it isn't available.
However, this all depends on what type of multisig. For example, if it's a 2-of-3 and one party refuses to sign, then the other two can spend the coins. If it's a 2-of-2, then the coins are stuck. |
54,112,099 | What mechanism does git follow while `diff`ing files? How is git able to tell me the difference between the two files(two commits, etc)?
Does it follow any key-value pair mechanism where line number is the key and value is the hash and if the hash changes, the line is marked as the changed line? | 2019/01/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/54112099",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10060068/"
] | Your original question asked about *binary* files, which in Git, means "files that Git has decided are not text". For such files, unless you provide a special diff driver, Git does not attempt to generate a diff, it only says "these two files are the same" or "these two files are different". (A diff driver is an external program: you can instruct Git to run this program instead, and this program can do whatever *it* wants to do with the pair of files, to generate a useable diff.)
Your updated question, at least as of this time, asks about diffing *text* files. Git has built into it a modified version of [LibXDiff](http://www.xmailserver.org/xdiff-lib.html). [The main algorithm here is due to Eugene Myers](http://www.xmailserver.org/diff2.pdf). See also [Myers diff algorithm vs Hunt–McIlroy algorithm](https://stackoverflow.com/q/42635889/1256452). For a somewhat more user-friendly introduction to diff algorithms, see the last section of chapter 3 of [my stalled book](http://web.torek.net/torek/tmp/book.pdf). You are in fact onto something with the idea of line hashes: these diff algorithms compare *symbols*, and using a line-hash as the symbols in the diff matrix is how they find line-by-line diffs. | Probably it generates a checksum of the file and compare those, if they are different the file will be marked as modified, but it **will not** tell you the difference because simply it doesn't know it. |
71,217,405 | I have Angular project. on the index page I have buttons, which drives me in another page. when I want to go back on index page, I click back button of browser and then comes just a white page, not my index page. did u have same issue ? | 2022/02/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/71217405",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18056371/"
] | The class (**.cs**) is in your project (**.csproj**), and the project is **always** in a solution (**.sln**). The solution **isn't** accessible when its part of your *Unity* project.
If you open the project file directly from the file explorer you can edit the class **program.cs** from there.
You could also open the script from Unity itself and it brings you there too. | 1. check if you multiple installation for VS
2. go to environment varaible and remove if you have duplicate entiries of old one
3. follow below steps:
tool Menu-->Import Export Setting--> Reset All setting --> Next ---> No Just reset my setting --> Next--> general development setting --> finish
it should fix the issue |
15,074 | Thanks to [@Ken Graham](https://outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/892/would-railbiking-be-on-topic), I just heard of an activity called rail biking. It involves riding a certain type of bike along sections of abandoned railroad tracks. It sounds like a lot of fun, and my husband and I would love to try it.
He's very athletic, and even has a few different bicycles which he uses on a regular basis. I'm not athletic, although I like to go walking. We don't want to invest money in equipment, at least until we know what it's like and whether or not I'm strong enough to handle it.
Is there a way to participate in rail biking without owning equipment or having prior experience? We're planning a family vacation to New York, United States, and are hoping to make it part of that trip. | 2017/02/01 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/15074",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/5547/"
] | What is great about railbiking (or [draisines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draisine) as some call them) is that there is such a diversity of styles in use all around the globe and have even been employed in the military occasionally. I generally only use abandoned railway lines as they are safer to use than active ones.
It is as easy as riding any ordinary bike (my style). You simply are not permitted to turn your handle bars, for obvious reasons. If you are unaccustomed to riding a bike, than it may take a little getting used to. I live in British Columbia and there is not a whole lot of people interested in this. But it is such great fun.
I ride something similar to this model:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2qciQ.jpg)
[Railbike](http://rrbike.freeservers.com/)
Here is another style which you should be able to rent in New York (Thanks to Charlie Brumbaugh). This type of railbike might be little more uncomfortable in the beginning , but is still easy and fun to experience:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/La67P.jpg)
You can get more information from them [here](https://www.railexplorers.net/tours), If you desire a different style of railbike, they should be able to point you in the right direction.
Here is an historical look at South Africa's military using railbikes during the ANGLO-BOER WAR OF 1899-1902:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/w7KVF.jpg)
[Military History Journal](http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol041dm.html)
What I find great about the solo style I use is that the parts I employ are that they are light, as well as adjustable and thus I am able to go on different size tracks and tracks of different widths between the tracks. For example some abandoned mines use different gauges and widths. Just do not go into a mine for safety reasons. | This is a supplement to @Ken Graham's excellent in-depth [answer](https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/15075/5547). It's an expansion on a link he referenced in his second picture, which seems to perfectly fit the criteria you're seeking.
The organization is called [Rail Explorers](https://www.railexplorers.net/).
They provide guided tours you can take in a safe environment, with no investment or experience necessary. All equipment is included, and tailored to the number and ages of people using it.
The following information is taken from the various pages of their website.
>
> About Rail Explorers:
>
> Rail Explorers is a company that is passionate about sharing the fun and adventure of riding the rails. We provide a unique way of experiencing the outdoors in a safe, relaxed and enjoyable way.
>
>
>
The bikes, called Explorers, are different than true bicycles, and even true rail bikes, such as the bikes that serious riders like Ken Graham use. They have no handlebars, but they do have pedals and breaks.
>
> What is a Rail Explorer?
>
> A rail explorer is a pedal powered vehicle that rides on railroad tracks. They have 4 steel wheels, hydraulic disc brakes, pedals for each seat, and are comfortable, fun and easy to ride. Although the rail explorers require pedaling, the magic of steel wheels on steel rails makes the experience very different from riding a regular bicycle. There is no need to carefully watch the road ahead, there is no need to steer and riding is hands free - making it easy to take photographs and video as you roll along.
> Choose either the Tandem Rail Explorer (2 seats) or Quad Rail Explorer (4 seats) for your ride. Single rider 'Jumpseats' are also available. (Pictures of the different models can be found [here](https://www.railexplorers.net/explorer-options)).
>
>
> Who can ride the Rail Explorers?
>
> Everyone! Rail explorers are suitable for all ages and abilities - the elderly, families, couples, cyclists, non-cyclists, hikers and couch potatoes.
>
>
>
As it says, it really is a true family experience. Children of all ages are welcome in the Explorers with enough seats so that they can be individually strapped in. Infants are allowed, and are strapped to adults using harnesses which are provided. You can even bring small dogs, if they're on a leash!
Each tour has a guide on their own bike in the front and in the back. They travel only on tracks without any trains, and have coordinated with local authorities to make sure no other vehicles are on the road during their hours of operation. Explorers are instructed to spread out, and are not allowed to pile up on one another, or "tailgate." That way you can feel somewhat on your own.
Tours run in all weather, as long as it's safe, and each bike comes with an umbrella! Trips are one-way, but they include a free shuttle bus back to the parking lot.
The company is committed to what they call "Green eco-tourism" meaning the bikes have no emissions; and because they use established trails, no trees, land or wildlife are disturbed to create the opportunity. This is obviously true of all Rail Biking, and another good reason to give it a try.
As @Charlie Brumbaugh found, Rail Explorers currently has a location in the Adirondacks Region of New York. Within the next few months, they'll also be opening another New York location, in the Catskill Mountains, and one in Rhode Island.
At the very least, this should be fun for your family vacation. Since your husband is already a bike rider, though, this might be just what he needs to encourage him to try altering one of his bikes, or purchasing something specifically designed for this purpose. Then he can get the "true" experience. Lists of local rail trails are easy to find on line, but I'm not sure if Rail Biking is allowed everywhere. There are authorities who can be contacted to learn that information.
Here are some fun pictures from people enjoying the ride. Click on them for bigger views.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/G9XmA.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mmoiK.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSIsk.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UgwoN.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iDOR2.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CPB1Z.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3g8Xd.jpg) |
40,175,387 | Here the ["List" of firebase features](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O17OWyx08Cg&list=PLl-K7zZEsYLmOF_07IayrTntevxtbUxDL&index=1)
* Analytics
* Cloud Messaging
* Remote Config
* Dynamic Links
* Notifications
* Invites
* Test Lab
* Crash Reporting
* AdMob
* Storage
* Realtime Database
* Google AdWords
* Authentication
* App Indexing
However, at least, some of them don't work properly and some do not work at all with react-native.
Let's share here our experience dealing with all these services. I hope, that will clarify, what exactly FB is good for with react-native app.
### I'll be storing summary here:
* Analytics
+ Likely supported with [third-party library](https://github.com/evollu/react-native-firebase-analytics)
* Cloud Messaging
+ Likely supported with [third-party library](https://github.com/evollu/react-native-fcm)
* Remote Config
+ Not supported
* Dynamic Links
+ Not supported
* Notifications
+ Likely supported with [third-party library](https://github.com/evollu/react-native-fcm)
* Invites
+ Not supported
* Test Lab
+ Not supported
* Crash Reporting
+ Likely supported with [third-party library](https://github.com/ianlin/react-native-firebase-crash-report)
* AdMob
+ Likely supported with [third-party library](https://github.com/sbugert/react-native-admob)
* Storage
+ I guess, now it's [fully supported](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13955813/how-can-i-view-and-store-images-in-firebase)?
* Realtime Database
+ Web (JS) SDK does not support: offline data persistence
* Google AdWords
* Authentication
+ Google, Facebook (etc.) auth is not supported at all. Possible solutions include third-party libraries, firebase-native-sdk bridges etc. There are not well documented solution atm.
* App Indexing
+ Likely supported with [third-party library](https://github.com/igalarzab/react-native-app-indexing) | 2016/10/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/40175387",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4845952/"
] | Check out react-native [Firestack](https://github.com/fullstackreact/react-native-firestack). Its currently being worked on but most features are supported for both Android and iOS. I recently used this react-native library for a production application for my company and supports many of the options you listed that you believed were not supported. According to the documentation Firestack provides
>
> Complete FirebaseModule functionality
>
>
>
I have used Firebase authentication, Facebook authentication, Firebase storage, Firebase database, and Firebase notifications all with the Firestack framework.
Another reason I would use this library is it contains the individual modules you listed above but in a centralized repository so you do not have to import many different libraries and deal with their possible incompatibilities and differences in syntax. | <https://github.com/davecoates/rn-firebase-bridge/>
Here is another one. React Native Firebase Bridge which supports Persistent data. You guys wanna check it out. |
16,573 | When I bend the string, my fingers pressing on the bended string always easily go under the upper string. I think part of the issue is that my strings are quite high, but after fixing the height down a little bit, I still can't make it completely right. And I saw in some tutorial videos one almost presses on two strings and bend them all up, though they actually only ought to bend the lower string. Is that right way to do it? | 2014/04/05 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/16573",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/10179/"
] | If you bend the thin E string, I can't see any other way than that the B and sometimes G string will also follow in the same movement. They are not making a sound since they are not touching the frets. So the tutorial videos are showing the correct way of doing it. | Don't think it is really an issue. Sometimes adjacent strings are pushed too, so they bend as well, silently. Sometimes the adjacent string goes over the bent string as its pushed underneath.Does it really matter? If people like Hendrix had spent (wasted) their time thinking 'is this the correct way to do it' we'd still be in the dark ages.Whatever works best for the individual is best.No-one should have the right to state on the internet: 'This is the proper way to do this'when trying to show the world how THEY do it. But the internet seems to be the new Bible. |
369 | If I have an all-grain recipe, and I want to convert it to an extract or partial-mash recipe, the easiest way is to replace the base malt with malt extract. Conversely, converting an extract recipe to all-grain involves using a base malt in place of the extract.
Is there a specific grain-to-extract ratio when doing such conversions? If it depends on the specific type of base malt, is there a table somewhere that shows the amount of potential fermentables that are available for different malts? Something that allows me to determine "X pounds of base malt == Y pounds of malt extract", and vice-versa. | 2010/11/10 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/369",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/52/"
] | Multiply your base malt weight by .75 do get the same (ish) amount in liquid extract.
For example - 10lbs. Pilsner malt = 7.5lbs Pilsner Liquid Malt Extract
For a Dry Malt Extract multiply by .6.
For example - 10lbs malt = 6lbs. Dry Malt Extract
Steep specialty grains as usual. | Matt's formula is what I've seen in several places. However, I'd add to that, that you should check the malt chart here (http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Malts\_Chart) as well. In particular, note the "Mash Req." column, which indicates that a particular grain has to be mashed. If you're doing extract brewing, any ingredient that requires mashing will have to be replaced with extract.
Usually, that's just the base malt, but in some recipes, it can be more. Some of those "malt required" grains can be tricky to find. Make sure that any extract replacement is matched to the grain your replacing. For instance, if the recipe calls for Maris Otter, you want to get English Pale Malt Extract, not American if you want the taste to match. |
224,429 | I've just watched the first episode of HBO's Watchmen, with lots of confusion.
A little of online search brought to my attention that the story happens in a sci-fi universe I am unfamiliar with.
Does this show assume I have prior knowledge of any other movie, comic, series, etc. ? Or is it just meant to be bonus easter eggs for those that are familiar? | 2019/12/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/224429",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/28074/"
] | According to HBO Showrunner Damon Lindelof you can *enjoy the show with no prior knowledge* of the graphic novels and associated materials (and film), but you'll *enjoy it differently*, note not *better*, if you've immersed yourself in the universe before approaching the show.
>
> **DL:** *And I’m very curious how people with no preexisting relationship with the source material process the show versus people who have an intimate relationship with the source material. But at least for the first episode, I imagined two people sitting in a room, one of whom had never seen anything of Watchmen before, including Zack’s movie. Just came in cold. And the person sitting next to them is someone who has read Watchmen a million times and can quote Under the Hood chapter and verse, and will bore you to tears with all their knowledge. My desire was, when the pilot ends, the person who’s never seen Watchmen before turns to the person who is the Watchmen expert and says, “I’m confused, can you explain things to me?” And that person goes, “Nope!” And so they’re like, “Oh, cool, at least we’re in it together.”*
>
>
> *Now, **as the show goes on, I think if you have an intimate knowledge of the source material, you’re going to appreciate the show on a different level than the people who don’t, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to appreciate it more.** I think it will be harder for people who love Watchmen to like the show than it will be for people who don’t love the comic. You can only watch the show through the metric of comparison. It’s called Watchmen, it has characters from the original Watchmen, the creator of the original Watchmen thinks it’s an abomination. These are all barriers to love. I fully embrace that. It won’t be fun — I’m glad I’m not on Twitter — but I knew that when I got in.*
>
>
> [‘Nostalgia Is Toxic’: Damon Lindelof on His ‘Watchmen’ Adaptation](https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/watchmen-damon-lindelof-interview-896780/)
>
>
> | The show is a direct sequel, 30 years later, to the comic book [Watchmen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen), and though it probably could be understood alone with no prior experience with its namesake, most of the references only make sense through that lens and a lot of the worldbuilding is already done and so it's probably intended that most viewers are familiar with it.
The 2009 [movie adaptation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_(film)) of Watchmen will cover most of the knowledge required, at least with respect to character and history and plot... however, one significant element of the endgame, that is,
>
> the 'squid-creature from another dimension' from the comic that formed the basis of Veidt's plan was changed in the movie to make a hoax centered on Doctor Manhattan himself to be the unifying threat that drives mankind towards peace.
>
>
> |
376,855 | I have wired headphones (3,5mm) which I have connected to my computer. The problem is that I have to set 2-3% in the speakers control to get a decent volume (way too loud otherwise). Even that is too loud sometimes.
Get I fix the volume control in some way? It's hard to adjust it since small adjustments makes large differences.
**Edit**: I just tried to plugin the headphones in the front port instead. Now they show up as headphones instead of speakers. But the problem remains. | 2012/01/10 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/376855",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/51994/"
] | Do you have a set of external speakers connected to this machine at all, or available to plug in?
Some sets of speakers have a headphone socket on them also and, if you have a set that has one, it may give you a better signal than direct from your "line out" connections.
I have several sets of speakers for my PC's and most have a headphone socket which gives a great range of volume with my headphones. | Have you try looking at the headphone/speaker property in Playback Device ?
In the enhancement tab, see what option you have, play around with them. I can't tell you exactly as it's depend on your sound card driver. Look for something with loudness, or sound boost.
Or your can try to uninstall the sound driver then reinstall it with the latest one.
Lastly, you can try to reformat Windows. |
64,731 | According to Surah Al Haqq, the only food in Hell is the washing of wounds:
>
> "Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds," ([69:36](https://legacy.quran.com/69/36))
>
>
>
According to Surah Gashiya, it is dari:
>
> "No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari" ([88:6](https://legacy.quran.com/88/6))
>
>
>
And Surah Waqia mentions the fruit of Zaqqum:
>
> "Ye will surely taste of the Tree of Zaqqum." ([56:52](https://legacy.quran.com/56/52))
>
>
>
Insofar as the Qur'an is considered perfect and without error, how are these three ayat reconciled with each other? | 2021/01/16 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/64731",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/28148/"
] | They can be reconciled as follows:
* غسلين and ضريع and زقوم are different names of the same thing, or one of them contains the other.
>
> عن الضحاك ، في قوله:{غسلين} [الحاقة: 36] قال: هو الضريع، شجرة يأكل منها أهل النار
>
>
> Dhahak ibn Muzahim said regarding غسلين that it is ضريع a tree from which the people of Hell eat
>
>
> — [Ibn Abid Dunya](https://shamela.ws/book/13128/88#p1)
>
>
>
>
> عن سعيد بن جبير إلا من ضريع قال: الزقوم
>
>
> Saeed ibn Jubair said regarding ضريع that it is زقوم
>
>
> — [Ibn Abi Hatim](https://shamela.ws/book/8658/3411#p1)
>
>
>
* There are multiple levels of Hell and in them people have different states of punishment; see e.g. [15:44](http://quran.com/15/44), [4:145](http://quran.com/4/145), [40:46](http://quran.com/40/46)
If the three things are distinct then the meaning is that in one state the people will consume only غسلين, while in another they will consume only ضريع, and in another they will consume زقوم
>
> قال الكلبي: الضريع في درجة ليس فيها غيره، والزقوم في درجة أخرى
>
>
> Kalbi said: ضريع is in a level in which there is nothing else and زقوم is in another level
>
>
> — [Qurtubi](https://shamela.ws/book/20855/7220)
>
>
>
* In these verses the word إلا is not used as an exception but in the sense of 'rather', similar to how it is used in [20:2-3](https://quran.com/20/2-3), [88:22-24](https://quran.com/88/22-24), [56:25-26](https://quran.com/56/25-26) etc.
The meaning is that the people of Hell will not have any actual food at all, *rather* they will eat X. This is compatible with eating multiple things which are not from the genus of real food such as what some of the exegetes have claimed to be the meaning of ضريع (a bitter poisonous thorny plant) and غسلين (discharge of wounds) - they are all not food.
References: [Tafsir al-Qurtubi](https://shamela.ws/book/20855/7220), [Tafsir al-Razi](https://shamela.ws/book/23635/5993#p12) | Please refer to the following article:-
<https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/concerning_the_food_for_the_inhabitants_of_hell__by_ansar_al__adl>
<https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/many-contradictions-quran/> |
5,871 | My wife just bought me a used Electra Townie with aluminum frame and wheels. The previous owner claimed it had been serviced in the past year. Checking the bearings, I can tell it was a poor job of lubrication, probably done by the seller using who knows what for lube. What lube(s) are proper for the various bearings, etc on this bike? | 2011/09/05 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/5871",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/2316/"
] | Cup and cone bearings on a bicycle need 'preload' for them to work properly under load. This is because the balls are tiny spheres of metal that deform under your weight. Hence the bearings must be tightened up slightly beyond feeling smooth when unloaded. Due to quality of parts, i.e. not perfect, a pre-loaded bearing feels 'rough' and requires effort to spin it. There are proper ways of applying the correct pre-load, e.g. with the use of a torque meter, however, 'feel' is a good way to do it. To understand that 'feel', go into a bike shop and try to turn the spindles on the new wheels that are for sale. With rare exceptions all of them will feel rough - this is preload. Now see how your own spindles/axles feel when you turn them without load, chances are that they feel pretty much the same.
If you have rough bearings then you might think the grease is missing. Chances are that it is just the preload and not a grease problem at all. If you are going to dive in there anyway, do get a handle on the preload concept. As for your question on grease, a little grease goes a long way and you don't want it contaminated. The white lithium grease in a tube from your local bike shop will do fine. Yes you can buy posh coloured 'marine' grease but preload is what matters most with bearing setup. | I do not want to go into brand recommendations, but any general bike grease should be fine. I have good experience with Motorex Bike Grease 2000 (here goes brand recommendations), but really, this is not rocket science and you cannot do anything really wrong. Just clean it, put enough grease there and you are good to go.
I suspect that the grease used before was too old and had started degrading. |
5,871 | My wife just bought me a used Electra Townie with aluminum frame and wheels. The previous owner claimed it had been serviced in the past year. Checking the bearings, I can tell it was a poor job of lubrication, probably done by the seller using who knows what for lube. What lube(s) are proper for the various bearings, etc on this bike? | 2011/09/05 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/5871",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/2316/"
] | Any standard bike bearing grease will be fine. There are several premium brands such as Phil Wood, but whatever the LBS has on their rack should be as good in 99% of the cases. More important is removing any traces of dirt, which generally means washing the bearing pieces in solvent.
As stated, properly tightened bearings will feel ever so slightly "gritty" when you turn the axle by hand. | I do not want to go into brand recommendations, but any general bike grease should be fine. I have good experience with Motorex Bike Grease 2000 (here goes brand recommendations), but really, this is not rocket science and you cannot do anything really wrong. Just clean it, put enough grease there and you are good to go.
I suspect that the grease used before was too old and had started degrading. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.