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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
286,876 | I'm running MacOS Sierra on a mid-2014 MacBook Pro. About once/week, Safari’s CPU usage becomes very high, and it becomes very laggy. In the last instance I had just six windows open, none of which were playing videos, but Safari’s CPU usage was at 332%. In addition, even after closing all six windows, Safari’s CPU usage remained at a high level. I could only get it to stop by quitting and restarting Safari.
I got a Capture Data trace while it was happening, and sent it to AppleCare, where a senior advisor forwarded it to their engineering team. The response he got back was that it looks like I wasn't rebooting my computer often enough, which is necessary because the kernel expires (he recommends weekly, and I was rebooting it about every two months). As this was second-hand through the senior advisor, I wasn't able to get a more complete technical explanation. Further, I've not been able to find any official Apple documentation on this.
Can anyone give me a detailed technical explanation that elucidates what's actually going on here? I'm particularly curious if this is something particular to MacOS's microkernel (as opposed to monolithic kernel) design, and whether kernel expiration time is fixed based on wall clock, CPU time, etc. since last reboot, or varies based on certain factors. Thanks!
[I'll add that, from 2004-2009, I used a Power Mac G5, often running 10 applications w/ 10 windows each, as well as C++ programs that took weeks to finish, never rebooted except when needed for software updates, and got kernel panics less than once/year. But all three MacBook Pros I've owned (2008, 2011, 2014) have given kernel panics every month or two. I'm now wondering if this is because I'm not rebooting my MacBook Pros often enough — except this wasn't an issue with the G5.]
In case it's helpful, here's a screenshot showing the Activity Monitor during the event described in the first paragraph. Also displayed is the Intel Power Gadget readout; it seems odd that the CPU frequency is only 1.3 GHz (it's a 2.8 GHz Intel i7-4980HQ processor with a 4.0 GHz Turbo Boost) when a process is running at 332%. This behavior reminds me of (but is of course different from) thermal throttling of the CPU, where the system creates a fictitious high-load kernel task (typically ~>600%) to keep other processes from running, resulting in a low CPU frequency (0.8 GHz) (an example of thermal throttling is shown after). I didn't post these initially because I thought they might be a distraction from my core question about "kernel expiration" and weekly reboots, but have reconsidered given that forum members have disagreed with that explanation.
HIGH SAFARI ACTIVITY:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ghp6i.jpg)
THERMAL THROTTLING OF CPU (FOR COMPARISON):
The thermal throttling on my current MacBook Pro is a separate issue from the kernel crashes, since I got the crashes even in the winter when I first got the computer and when there was no thermal throttling, and also got them with my previous two MacBook Pros as well. I've just posted this for comparison. [In case you're curious: The throttling occurs consistently when the discrete video card is being used (4K monitor attached) and the ambient temp reaches 83F; I've never gotten throttling when the monitor is disconnected. The computer is properly-ventilated; it sits on a raindesign mStand. The Apple engineer says it needs to be brought in for service to check the fans for dust, and for possible reapplication of thermal paste. It's under warranty, but I can't do that until I can arrange for a loaner.]
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MVoKA.jpg)
---
UPDATE, JUNE 23, 2017:
I was unable to reconnect with the original AppleCare senior advisor, so I spoke to a new one who took over my case. He's been with Apple for about a decade, and said the following (I'm paraphrasing):
1) Weekly reboots. It's too strong to say they're required. Rather, they represent good practice. MacOS loads as much as possible into RAM to maximize performance and, if your computer doesn't use ECC memory (which only the MacPros do), errors creep in. Eventually, these can cause a kernel panic. How much time this takes varies greatly depending on your usage pattern. Some can get away with going a long time without panics, others can't. [It's not just how heavy your usage is, but also what you use. So one heavy user may be fine with infrequent reboots, while another, using different software, may need more frequent ones.] It's really about risk management. Rebooting clears the RAM, allowing it to start fresh. The longer you wait between reboots, the more errors accumulate, and the greater the risk of kernel panics. While one week isn't a specific guideline — indeed, there are no specific guidelines; you might use, say, two weeks — it's generally held within Apple that regular reboots are a good practice, for the above reasons. If you want to keep that risk at a very low level, weekly reboots are an excellent practice.
[My one observation: This doesn't explain why I didn't get regular kernel panics with my PowerPC which, while it can take ECC memory, can't make use of the ECC functionality—unless the PowerPC chip itself used memory differently from the Intel chip, even with the same OS.]
As to the server farm example that's been raised, this wouldn't be an issue for servers using ECC memory, such as the old Mac XServe. However the Mac Minis of course do not, so I'm curious how often <https://macminicolo.net> (mentioned by Matt Holland in a comment below) finds the Mac Minis they host in their server farm need to be rebooted.
2) Kernel expiration: He's never heard of this. He will contact the engineer for clarification, and should report back within about a week. I'll let you know what he says. As part of this, he will try to get a clearer answer on the Safari CPU usage (as I mentioned above, the Apple engineers have an actual data trace of this event, so they have good information on it).
**FINAL REPORT ON "KERNEL EXPIRATION" (UPDATED JAN 9, 2018):**
I never got a reply from the new senior advisor about "kernel expiration." I did some research myself and found that, while it seems there is no such thing as "kernel expiration" in OSX, there are (as was also mentioned by Zan Lynx in the discussion, below) "kernel timers" that do expire (see <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174228761500050X> ). So my best *speculation* is that the Apple Care engineer was referring to *kernel timer expiration*, and that this somehow got lost in translation (to use Monomeeth's expression) between the engineer and the original senior advisor, thus morphing into "kernel expiration" when that senior advisor tried to relay it to me. Alas,even if so, I don't know why the AC engineer was concerned about this in relationship to my uptime.
**EPILOG (JULY 1, 2018):**
Over the past seven months I've used my Mac both with and without the weekly reboots. I've found, consistently, that when I do the weekly reboots my Mac behaves well, but when I miss them wonky behavior begins to pop up. ***My conclusion is that, while it may not be generally true that Macs require weekly reboots, my specific configuration does.***
*My Configuration:*
I have mid-2014 MacBook Pro 11,3 (2.8 GHz Intel i7-4980HQ & 1TB SSD w/ 4-lane PCIe link, formatted with APFS). During this entire time (since Jan. 2018) I've been running a clean install\* of High Sierra with only the following non-Apple programs installed: MS Office, Mathematica, Logitech Gaming Mouse, Keyboard Maestro, Carbon Copy Cloner, Canon Printer, TomTom HOME, MacTeX (suite for using LaTeX), Firefox, Opera, Kindle, Copy Less, Size Up, Decelerator, TestGen, Turbo Tax, Flux, Launch Bar, and EtreCheck. [\*I.e., I wiped the drive, installed High Sierra, and then installed the above programs.]
Further, prior to this (in Nov 2017), I brought the computer to Apple for warranty repair to address the thermal throttling and other issues. They found the thermal paste was indeed worn out, and replaced the entire motherboard, along with the battery (it was swollen), case, and trackpad. I've not experience thermal throttling since then.
My Mac spends most of its time at home, connected to a Logitech K811 keyboard and G502 mouse, and a Dell P2715Q 27" 4K monitor. | 2017/06/15 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/286876",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/241458/"
] | **Documentation on this does not exist.**
Having worked as a Certified Apple Engineer (CAE) I can tell you that something has most definitely been lost in translation (for want of a better word) from the original source (i.e. the engineering team) to the AppleCare adviser to you.
While it is arguable (opinions vary greatly) that regularly rebooting a computer (i.e. any computer) is beneficial, **there is certainly no *kernel expiry* going on**. And, as others have already stated, rebooting a Mac is **only required** for a limited number of updates/upgrades (e.g. firmware updates, OS level updates, hardware upgrades, etc).
I regularly have various Macs (including MBPs) running 24/7 for weeks/months at a time without any issues. So, being told that you don't reboot your computer often enough, which is necessary because the kernel expires, is nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination. *Imagine if all those Macs being used as servers needed a weekly reboot - Apple would be the laughing stock of the IT industry!*
My recommendation would be to research (and maybe post a separate question about) the issues you're having with Safari's CPU usage. | I'm not sure who you talked to at Apple, but Macs, like all Unix-based devices, do not require routine reboots, except for certain updates.
As for the kernel, it is the heart of the operating system. There can be only one™. It should have nothing to do with your problem here. If Safari has runaway CPU usage, I'd try deleting its caches first. While in Safari, click on the Safari menu, select Preferences, select the Privacy tab, select "Manage Website Data...", then finally select "Remove All". Note that you'll have to log in again to some websites, but you won't lose anything crucial. |
286,876 | I'm running MacOS Sierra on a mid-2014 MacBook Pro. About once/week, Safari’s CPU usage becomes very high, and it becomes very laggy. In the last instance I had just six windows open, none of which were playing videos, but Safari’s CPU usage was at 332%. In addition, even after closing all six windows, Safari’s CPU usage remained at a high level. I could only get it to stop by quitting and restarting Safari.
I got a Capture Data trace while it was happening, and sent it to AppleCare, where a senior advisor forwarded it to their engineering team. The response he got back was that it looks like I wasn't rebooting my computer often enough, which is necessary because the kernel expires (he recommends weekly, and I was rebooting it about every two months). As this was second-hand through the senior advisor, I wasn't able to get a more complete technical explanation. Further, I've not been able to find any official Apple documentation on this.
Can anyone give me a detailed technical explanation that elucidates what's actually going on here? I'm particularly curious if this is something particular to MacOS's microkernel (as opposed to monolithic kernel) design, and whether kernel expiration time is fixed based on wall clock, CPU time, etc. since last reboot, or varies based on certain factors. Thanks!
[I'll add that, from 2004-2009, I used a Power Mac G5, often running 10 applications w/ 10 windows each, as well as C++ programs that took weeks to finish, never rebooted except when needed for software updates, and got kernel panics less than once/year. But all three MacBook Pros I've owned (2008, 2011, 2014) have given kernel panics every month or two. I'm now wondering if this is because I'm not rebooting my MacBook Pros often enough — except this wasn't an issue with the G5.]
In case it's helpful, here's a screenshot showing the Activity Monitor during the event described in the first paragraph. Also displayed is the Intel Power Gadget readout; it seems odd that the CPU frequency is only 1.3 GHz (it's a 2.8 GHz Intel i7-4980HQ processor with a 4.0 GHz Turbo Boost) when a process is running at 332%. This behavior reminds me of (but is of course different from) thermal throttling of the CPU, where the system creates a fictitious high-load kernel task (typically ~>600%) to keep other processes from running, resulting in a low CPU frequency (0.8 GHz) (an example of thermal throttling is shown after). I didn't post these initially because I thought they might be a distraction from my core question about "kernel expiration" and weekly reboots, but have reconsidered given that forum members have disagreed with that explanation.
HIGH SAFARI ACTIVITY:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ghp6i.jpg)
THERMAL THROTTLING OF CPU (FOR COMPARISON):
The thermal throttling on my current MacBook Pro is a separate issue from the kernel crashes, since I got the crashes even in the winter when I first got the computer and when there was no thermal throttling, and also got them with my previous two MacBook Pros as well. I've just posted this for comparison. [In case you're curious: The throttling occurs consistently when the discrete video card is being used (4K monitor attached) and the ambient temp reaches 83F; I've never gotten throttling when the monitor is disconnected. The computer is properly-ventilated; it sits on a raindesign mStand. The Apple engineer says it needs to be brought in for service to check the fans for dust, and for possible reapplication of thermal paste. It's under warranty, but I can't do that until I can arrange for a loaner.]
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MVoKA.jpg)
---
UPDATE, JUNE 23, 2017:
I was unable to reconnect with the original AppleCare senior advisor, so I spoke to a new one who took over my case. He's been with Apple for about a decade, and said the following (I'm paraphrasing):
1) Weekly reboots. It's too strong to say they're required. Rather, they represent good practice. MacOS loads as much as possible into RAM to maximize performance and, if your computer doesn't use ECC memory (which only the MacPros do), errors creep in. Eventually, these can cause a kernel panic. How much time this takes varies greatly depending on your usage pattern. Some can get away with going a long time without panics, others can't. [It's not just how heavy your usage is, but also what you use. So one heavy user may be fine with infrequent reboots, while another, using different software, may need more frequent ones.] It's really about risk management. Rebooting clears the RAM, allowing it to start fresh. The longer you wait between reboots, the more errors accumulate, and the greater the risk of kernel panics. While one week isn't a specific guideline — indeed, there are no specific guidelines; you might use, say, two weeks — it's generally held within Apple that regular reboots are a good practice, for the above reasons. If you want to keep that risk at a very low level, weekly reboots are an excellent practice.
[My one observation: This doesn't explain why I didn't get regular kernel panics with my PowerPC which, while it can take ECC memory, can't make use of the ECC functionality—unless the PowerPC chip itself used memory differently from the Intel chip, even with the same OS.]
As to the server farm example that's been raised, this wouldn't be an issue for servers using ECC memory, such as the old Mac XServe. However the Mac Minis of course do not, so I'm curious how often <https://macminicolo.net> (mentioned by Matt Holland in a comment below) finds the Mac Minis they host in their server farm need to be rebooted.
2) Kernel expiration: He's never heard of this. He will contact the engineer for clarification, and should report back within about a week. I'll let you know what he says. As part of this, he will try to get a clearer answer on the Safari CPU usage (as I mentioned above, the Apple engineers have an actual data trace of this event, so they have good information on it).
**FINAL REPORT ON "KERNEL EXPIRATION" (UPDATED JAN 9, 2018):**
I never got a reply from the new senior advisor about "kernel expiration." I did some research myself and found that, while it seems there is no such thing as "kernel expiration" in OSX, there are (as was also mentioned by Zan Lynx in the discussion, below) "kernel timers" that do expire (see <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174228761500050X> ). So my best *speculation* is that the Apple Care engineer was referring to *kernel timer expiration*, and that this somehow got lost in translation (to use Monomeeth's expression) between the engineer and the original senior advisor, thus morphing into "kernel expiration" when that senior advisor tried to relay it to me. Alas,even if so, I don't know why the AC engineer was concerned about this in relationship to my uptime.
**EPILOG (JULY 1, 2018):**
Over the past seven months I've used my Mac both with and without the weekly reboots. I've found, consistently, that when I do the weekly reboots my Mac behaves well, but when I miss them wonky behavior begins to pop up. ***My conclusion is that, while it may not be generally true that Macs require weekly reboots, my specific configuration does.***
*My Configuration:*
I have mid-2014 MacBook Pro 11,3 (2.8 GHz Intel i7-4980HQ & 1TB SSD w/ 4-lane PCIe link, formatted with APFS). During this entire time (since Jan. 2018) I've been running a clean install\* of High Sierra with only the following non-Apple programs installed: MS Office, Mathematica, Logitech Gaming Mouse, Keyboard Maestro, Carbon Copy Cloner, Canon Printer, TomTom HOME, MacTeX (suite for using LaTeX), Firefox, Opera, Kindle, Copy Less, Size Up, Decelerator, TestGen, Turbo Tax, Flux, Launch Bar, and EtreCheck. [\*I.e., I wiped the drive, installed High Sierra, and then installed the above programs.]
Further, prior to this (in Nov 2017), I brought the computer to Apple for warranty repair to address the thermal throttling and other issues. They found the thermal paste was indeed worn out, and replaced the entire motherboard, along with the battery (it was swollen), case, and trackpad. I've not experience thermal throttling since then.
My Mac spends most of its time at home, connected to a Logitech K811 keyboard and G502 mouse, and a Dell P2715Q 27" 4K monitor. | 2017/06/15 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/286876",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/241458/"
] | As others have said, this doesn't sound at all like a reasonable response from Apple, and likely something is lost in translation. That said, monthly (or nearly so) kernel panics is definitely something "out of the ordinary". The fact that this has persisted across 3 different machines indicates either you have the worst luck with buying flaky hardware, or something common has been transferred from machine to machine.
I'm assuming you haven't been transplanting RAM chips or HDDs from laptop to laptop, so that leaves either software or some external device. If every new computer you've used TimeMachine or Apple's built in transfer software to migrate your environment, it's possible that some software issue is being propagated each time you upgrade machines. Unfortunately, the only "quick" way to validate this is to boot from a clean installation and use that until you're confident the problem no longer persists. If you have an external drive you can use, this is a possibility for you, but otherwise, you would need to back everything up and completely reinstall without restoring the backup, which may be more effort than you want to take. It's possible it's hidden in user preferences in which case creating a new user account and using that might help, but in my experience it's about 50/50 whether it's a user level issue or a system level issue.
Assuming you don't want to go through those steps, I would try to determine what each kernel panic has in common. If they all seem to happen and coincide with your safari issues, then that narrows it down to a likely issue in safari. You can either try using a different browser for a few months and see if the issue disappears, or try eliminating any plugins/third party addons that you have installed in safari. If the issue persists, runaway CPU usage strikes me as runaway process likely due to some software bug interacting with some ad or other tracking/javascript that is on the sites you're using. Once you've eliminated all of the various plugins as the cause of the issue, you could try installing an ad blocking plugin, preferably one that can block javascript too and crank its restrictiveness to max. This may make some of your browsing less enjoyable (and may even break some sites you use) but these sorts of plugins also allow you to turn off the blocking on a site by site basis, so over time you can relax the restrictions until you find the site that's causing the issues. From there you will have a better starting position for determining exactly what's giving you trouble.
If the kernel panics occur even outside of safari usage, you may be looking at your safari problems being caused by whatever is causing the kernel panics, in which case you want to tackle that before you try to figure out safari.
External devices can also cause kernel panics if they're not behaving correctly. So if you use an external HDD or something else commonly plugged into your USB or other expansion ports, try seeing if not using that device clears things up. Even something like a USB thumb drive can cause issues. It's not a common thing, but then again, neither is monthly kernel panics. Alternatively, if you always use the same port for the device, you could try a different port to see if it's an internal hardware issue, but this is less likely given that the problem has persisted across multiple machines. | I'm not sure who you talked to at Apple, but Macs, like all Unix-based devices, do not require routine reboots, except for certain updates.
As for the kernel, it is the heart of the operating system. There can be only one™. It should have nothing to do with your problem here. If Safari has runaway CPU usage, I'd try deleting its caches first. While in Safari, click on the Safari menu, select Preferences, select the Privacy tab, select "Manage Website Data...", then finally select "Remove All". Note that you'll have to log in again to some websites, but you won't lose anything crucial. |
286,876 | I'm running MacOS Sierra on a mid-2014 MacBook Pro. About once/week, Safari’s CPU usage becomes very high, and it becomes very laggy. In the last instance I had just six windows open, none of which were playing videos, but Safari’s CPU usage was at 332%. In addition, even after closing all six windows, Safari’s CPU usage remained at a high level. I could only get it to stop by quitting and restarting Safari.
I got a Capture Data trace while it was happening, and sent it to AppleCare, where a senior advisor forwarded it to their engineering team. The response he got back was that it looks like I wasn't rebooting my computer often enough, which is necessary because the kernel expires (he recommends weekly, and I was rebooting it about every two months). As this was second-hand through the senior advisor, I wasn't able to get a more complete technical explanation. Further, I've not been able to find any official Apple documentation on this.
Can anyone give me a detailed technical explanation that elucidates what's actually going on here? I'm particularly curious if this is something particular to MacOS's microkernel (as opposed to monolithic kernel) design, and whether kernel expiration time is fixed based on wall clock, CPU time, etc. since last reboot, or varies based on certain factors. Thanks!
[I'll add that, from 2004-2009, I used a Power Mac G5, often running 10 applications w/ 10 windows each, as well as C++ programs that took weeks to finish, never rebooted except when needed for software updates, and got kernel panics less than once/year. But all three MacBook Pros I've owned (2008, 2011, 2014) have given kernel panics every month or two. I'm now wondering if this is because I'm not rebooting my MacBook Pros often enough — except this wasn't an issue with the G5.]
In case it's helpful, here's a screenshot showing the Activity Monitor during the event described in the first paragraph. Also displayed is the Intel Power Gadget readout; it seems odd that the CPU frequency is only 1.3 GHz (it's a 2.8 GHz Intel i7-4980HQ processor with a 4.0 GHz Turbo Boost) when a process is running at 332%. This behavior reminds me of (but is of course different from) thermal throttling of the CPU, where the system creates a fictitious high-load kernel task (typically ~>600%) to keep other processes from running, resulting in a low CPU frequency (0.8 GHz) (an example of thermal throttling is shown after). I didn't post these initially because I thought they might be a distraction from my core question about "kernel expiration" and weekly reboots, but have reconsidered given that forum members have disagreed with that explanation.
HIGH SAFARI ACTIVITY:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ghp6i.jpg)
THERMAL THROTTLING OF CPU (FOR COMPARISON):
The thermal throttling on my current MacBook Pro is a separate issue from the kernel crashes, since I got the crashes even in the winter when I first got the computer and when there was no thermal throttling, and also got them with my previous two MacBook Pros as well. I've just posted this for comparison. [In case you're curious: The throttling occurs consistently when the discrete video card is being used (4K monitor attached) and the ambient temp reaches 83F; I've never gotten throttling when the monitor is disconnected. The computer is properly-ventilated; it sits on a raindesign mStand. The Apple engineer says it needs to be brought in for service to check the fans for dust, and for possible reapplication of thermal paste. It's under warranty, but I can't do that until I can arrange for a loaner.]
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MVoKA.jpg)
---
UPDATE, JUNE 23, 2017:
I was unable to reconnect with the original AppleCare senior advisor, so I spoke to a new one who took over my case. He's been with Apple for about a decade, and said the following (I'm paraphrasing):
1) Weekly reboots. It's too strong to say they're required. Rather, they represent good practice. MacOS loads as much as possible into RAM to maximize performance and, if your computer doesn't use ECC memory (which only the MacPros do), errors creep in. Eventually, these can cause a kernel panic. How much time this takes varies greatly depending on your usage pattern. Some can get away with going a long time without panics, others can't. [It's not just how heavy your usage is, but also what you use. So one heavy user may be fine with infrequent reboots, while another, using different software, may need more frequent ones.] It's really about risk management. Rebooting clears the RAM, allowing it to start fresh. The longer you wait between reboots, the more errors accumulate, and the greater the risk of kernel panics. While one week isn't a specific guideline — indeed, there are no specific guidelines; you might use, say, two weeks — it's generally held within Apple that regular reboots are a good practice, for the above reasons. If you want to keep that risk at a very low level, weekly reboots are an excellent practice.
[My one observation: This doesn't explain why I didn't get regular kernel panics with my PowerPC which, while it can take ECC memory, can't make use of the ECC functionality—unless the PowerPC chip itself used memory differently from the Intel chip, even with the same OS.]
As to the server farm example that's been raised, this wouldn't be an issue for servers using ECC memory, such as the old Mac XServe. However the Mac Minis of course do not, so I'm curious how often <https://macminicolo.net> (mentioned by Matt Holland in a comment below) finds the Mac Minis they host in their server farm need to be rebooted.
2) Kernel expiration: He's never heard of this. He will contact the engineer for clarification, and should report back within about a week. I'll let you know what he says. As part of this, he will try to get a clearer answer on the Safari CPU usage (as I mentioned above, the Apple engineers have an actual data trace of this event, so they have good information on it).
**FINAL REPORT ON "KERNEL EXPIRATION" (UPDATED JAN 9, 2018):**
I never got a reply from the new senior advisor about "kernel expiration." I did some research myself and found that, while it seems there is no such thing as "kernel expiration" in OSX, there are (as was also mentioned by Zan Lynx in the discussion, below) "kernel timers" that do expire (see <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174228761500050X> ). So my best *speculation* is that the Apple Care engineer was referring to *kernel timer expiration*, and that this somehow got lost in translation (to use Monomeeth's expression) between the engineer and the original senior advisor, thus morphing into "kernel expiration" when that senior advisor tried to relay it to me. Alas,even if so, I don't know why the AC engineer was concerned about this in relationship to my uptime.
**EPILOG (JULY 1, 2018):**
Over the past seven months I've used my Mac both with and without the weekly reboots. I've found, consistently, that when I do the weekly reboots my Mac behaves well, but when I miss them wonky behavior begins to pop up. ***My conclusion is that, while it may not be generally true that Macs require weekly reboots, my specific configuration does.***
*My Configuration:*
I have mid-2014 MacBook Pro 11,3 (2.8 GHz Intel i7-4980HQ & 1TB SSD w/ 4-lane PCIe link, formatted with APFS). During this entire time (since Jan. 2018) I've been running a clean install\* of High Sierra with only the following non-Apple programs installed: MS Office, Mathematica, Logitech Gaming Mouse, Keyboard Maestro, Carbon Copy Cloner, Canon Printer, TomTom HOME, MacTeX (suite for using LaTeX), Firefox, Opera, Kindle, Copy Less, Size Up, Decelerator, TestGen, Turbo Tax, Flux, Launch Bar, and EtreCheck. [\*I.e., I wiped the drive, installed High Sierra, and then installed the above programs.]
Further, prior to this (in Nov 2017), I brought the computer to Apple for warranty repair to address the thermal throttling and other issues. They found the thermal paste was indeed worn out, and replaced the entire motherboard, along with the battery (it was swollen), case, and trackpad. I've not experience thermal throttling since then.
My Mac spends most of its time at home, connected to a Logitech K811 keyboard and G502 mouse, and a Dell P2715Q 27" 4K monitor. | 2017/06/15 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/286876",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/241458/"
] | **Documentation on this does not exist.**
Having worked as a Certified Apple Engineer (CAE) I can tell you that something has most definitely been lost in translation (for want of a better word) from the original source (i.e. the engineering team) to the AppleCare adviser to you.
While it is arguable (opinions vary greatly) that regularly rebooting a computer (i.e. any computer) is beneficial, **there is certainly no *kernel expiry* going on**. And, as others have already stated, rebooting a Mac is **only required** for a limited number of updates/upgrades (e.g. firmware updates, OS level updates, hardware upgrades, etc).
I regularly have various Macs (including MBPs) running 24/7 for weeks/months at a time without any issues. So, being told that you don't reboot your computer often enough, which is necessary because the kernel expires, is nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination. *Imagine if all those Macs being used as servers needed a weekly reboot - Apple would be the laughing stock of the IT industry!*
My recommendation would be to research (and maybe post a separate question about) the issues you're having with Safari's CPU usage. | As others have said, this doesn't sound at all like a reasonable response from Apple, and likely something is lost in translation. That said, monthly (or nearly so) kernel panics is definitely something "out of the ordinary". The fact that this has persisted across 3 different machines indicates either you have the worst luck with buying flaky hardware, or something common has been transferred from machine to machine.
I'm assuming you haven't been transplanting RAM chips or HDDs from laptop to laptop, so that leaves either software or some external device. If every new computer you've used TimeMachine or Apple's built in transfer software to migrate your environment, it's possible that some software issue is being propagated each time you upgrade machines. Unfortunately, the only "quick" way to validate this is to boot from a clean installation and use that until you're confident the problem no longer persists. If you have an external drive you can use, this is a possibility for you, but otherwise, you would need to back everything up and completely reinstall without restoring the backup, which may be more effort than you want to take. It's possible it's hidden in user preferences in which case creating a new user account and using that might help, but in my experience it's about 50/50 whether it's a user level issue or a system level issue.
Assuming you don't want to go through those steps, I would try to determine what each kernel panic has in common. If they all seem to happen and coincide with your safari issues, then that narrows it down to a likely issue in safari. You can either try using a different browser for a few months and see if the issue disappears, or try eliminating any plugins/third party addons that you have installed in safari. If the issue persists, runaway CPU usage strikes me as runaway process likely due to some software bug interacting with some ad or other tracking/javascript that is on the sites you're using. Once you've eliminated all of the various plugins as the cause of the issue, you could try installing an ad blocking plugin, preferably one that can block javascript too and crank its restrictiveness to max. This may make some of your browsing less enjoyable (and may even break some sites you use) but these sorts of plugins also allow you to turn off the blocking on a site by site basis, so over time you can relax the restrictions until you find the site that's causing the issues. From there you will have a better starting position for determining exactly what's giving you trouble.
If the kernel panics occur even outside of safari usage, you may be looking at your safari problems being caused by whatever is causing the kernel panics, in which case you want to tackle that before you try to figure out safari.
External devices can also cause kernel panics if they're not behaving correctly. So if you use an external HDD or something else commonly plugged into your USB or other expansion ports, try seeing if not using that device clears things up. Even something like a USB thumb drive can cause issues. It's not a common thing, but then again, neither is monthly kernel panics. Alternatively, if you always use the same port for the device, you could try a different port to see if it's an internal hardware issue, but this is less likely given that the problem has persisted across multiple machines. |
49,164,058 | How do i want to get the package AID and applet AID from the cap file?
Currently i am using a tool PyApduTool to get the info of the cap file but right now im trying to create my own tool but got stuck on this step.
Glad if anyone can assists me on this.
Thanks | 2018/03/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/49164058",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5686325/"
] | Download [Java Card documentation](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/embedded/javacard/downloads/default-1970005.html "Java Card documentation") and look into Java Card Virtual Machine specification. It explains every detail of CAP file format and is (to the best of my knowledge) completely correct and contains just one minor error which is not relevant to you. | I tried following approach and succeed:
* Extract .cap file with any zip extractor (for eg WinZip)
* After extraction you will get a MF file (normally named as MANIFEST.MF)
* This file contains all information you are asking for |
14,493 | I would like to construct a language for a fictional world. From what I gathered in different places, the first element to consider are the phoneme used by the speakers.
However, since I already have a built world, I know the climate and geography conditions of the country where that language should be.
I am not a linguist, but I think that, in general, languages travel with the people, and evolve depending on the situation (e.g. contacts with other languages). However, I was wondering whether the phonemes used by the languages depends on the natural environment where those languages appeared/are used/etc.
Do people in colder countries tend to speak with more guttural languages? Or are there some similarities for languages in similar climate/geography conditions that are not explained by historical or political connections?
As I am more often there, I asked the same question on [Worldbuilding](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/26375/are-human-languages-influenced-by-the-climate), until I realised that there were a dedicated site for language related questions. | 2015/09/28 | [
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/14493",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/users/10566/"
] | Arabic, spoken in one of the hottest countries on the planet, is far more guttural than Finnish (which nobody would consider "guttural"). There could be a correlation between climate and phonetic typology, but it would be coincidental. The phonetic properties of a language today are heavily influenced by the properties of its ancestor millenia ago -- Arabic has a lot of gutturals because proto-Semitic did as well. And proto-Semitic probably inherited gutturals from proto-Afro-Asiatic. This relates to geography because that ancestor language was spoken in a relatively small area in Northeast Africa, where it is generally not cold. In the modern era, one can easily move across the globe in a few days (I'm being realistic about airplane connections and border crossings), but in the pre-technological era, people tended to stay put for generations. To the point that Khoisan speakers in southern Africa have probably been there for tens of thousands of years.
So for humans, climate is irrelevant to language, and what matters is population movement patterns and contact between typologically-different languages. If this world is populated by non-humanoids who e.g. communicate (sometime) by blowing bubbles in water, then a different mode of communication such as belching fire might be necessary if the setting is Pluto. | The question seems a reasonable one, to see if there are any correlations of language features with extra-linguistic situations. And if memory serves, there has been lots of cross-linguistic research to attempt to find these correlations a good rainy day can be spent in armchair exploration of [WALS](http://wals.info/) to this end.
With all this research I'm pretty sure that *no* such correlations have been found...
...except for one. Described in the paper
>
> Charles Hockett et al., **F**
>
>
>
they found that there was one phoneme, F (the unvoiced labio-dental fricative) that was correlated with a cultural use of cultivating grain. Many cultures are hunter-gatherer, many others are pastoral and yet others stay in one place and grow crops. The hypothesis is that those cultures that grow crops have a certain way of cooking and eating grains and that somehow (I can't remember their details) that is conducive to having labiodentals where the other ways of cooking eating do not. Of course this was statistical and not strictly determinative. But there was some correlation (I don't know how strong). |
14,493 | I would like to construct a language for a fictional world. From what I gathered in different places, the first element to consider are the phoneme used by the speakers.
However, since I already have a built world, I know the climate and geography conditions of the country where that language should be.
I am not a linguist, but I think that, in general, languages travel with the people, and evolve depending on the situation (e.g. contacts with other languages). However, I was wondering whether the phonemes used by the languages depends on the natural environment where those languages appeared/are used/etc.
Do people in colder countries tend to speak with more guttural languages? Or are there some similarities for languages in similar climate/geography conditions that are not explained by historical or political connections?
As I am more often there, I asked the same question on [Worldbuilding](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/26375/are-human-languages-influenced-by-the-climate), until I realised that there were a dedicated site for language related questions. | 2015/09/28 | [
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/14493",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/users/10566/"
] | I remember reading about a study that associated warm, humid climates to tonal languages. Give it a read, it might inspire you: [(Everett, Blasi & Roberts, 2015)](http://www.pnas.org/content/112/5/1322.short) | The question seems a reasonable one, to see if there are any correlations of language features with extra-linguistic situations. And if memory serves, there has been lots of cross-linguistic research to attempt to find these correlations a good rainy day can be spent in armchair exploration of [WALS](http://wals.info/) to this end.
With all this research I'm pretty sure that *no* such correlations have been found...
...except for one. Described in the paper
>
> Charles Hockett et al., **F**
>
>
>
they found that there was one phoneme, F (the unvoiced labio-dental fricative) that was correlated with a cultural use of cultivating grain. Many cultures are hunter-gatherer, many others are pastoral and yet others stay in one place and grow crops. The hypothesis is that those cultures that grow crops have a certain way of cooking and eating grains and that somehow (I can't remember their details) that is conducive to having labiodentals where the other ways of cooking eating do not. Of course this was statistical and not strictly determinative. But there was some correlation (I don't know how strong). |
14,493 | I would like to construct a language for a fictional world. From what I gathered in different places, the first element to consider are the phoneme used by the speakers.
However, since I already have a built world, I know the climate and geography conditions of the country where that language should be.
I am not a linguist, but I think that, in general, languages travel with the people, and evolve depending on the situation (e.g. contacts with other languages). However, I was wondering whether the phonemes used by the languages depends on the natural environment where those languages appeared/are used/etc.
Do people in colder countries tend to speak with more guttural languages? Or are there some similarities for languages in similar climate/geography conditions that are not explained by historical or political connections?
As I am more often there, I asked the same question on [Worldbuilding](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/26375/are-human-languages-influenced-by-the-climate), until I realised that there were a dedicated site for language related questions. | 2015/09/28 | [
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/14493",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/users/10566/"
] | Another interesting one from Everett is the [connection between ejectives and high altitudes](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065275). Everett did not control for phylogeny or do proper statistical analysis, but others [have](http://www.replicatedtypo.com/altitude-and-ejectives-hypotheses-up-in-the-air/6324.html) and found that the relationship remains significant. | The question seems a reasonable one, to see if there are any correlations of language features with extra-linguistic situations. And if memory serves, there has been lots of cross-linguistic research to attempt to find these correlations a good rainy day can be spent in armchair exploration of [WALS](http://wals.info/) to this end.
With all this research I'm pretty sure that *no* such correlations have been found...
...except for one. Described in the paper
>
> Charles Hockett et al., **F**
>
>
>
they found that there was one phoneme, F (the unvoiced labio-dental fricative) that was correlated with a cultural use of cultivating grain. Many cultures are hunter-gatherer, many others are pastoral and yet others stay in one place and grow crops. The hypothesis is that those cultures that grow crops have a certain way of cooking and eating grains and that somehow (I can't remember their details) that is conducive to having labiodentals where the other ways of cooking eating do not. Of course this was statistical and not strictly determinative. But there was some correlation (I don't know how strong). |
8,092 | Saying that *[someone] is golden* means that person is in a desirable situation that will likely lead to some sort of success.
I am trying to find out the origin of this phrase. So far, I have found sites that suggest that:
* [It is used mainly in spoken informal American English](http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/golden)
* [It may have originated in the military](http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1544959)
Does anyone have a more definitive and reputable explanation for the origin of this expression? | 2011/01/06 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8092",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/1720/"
] | I don't know, but could it be related to the older *golden boy* and *golden girl*, a successful man and woman, respectively? Quotes from the OED, 2nd edition:
>
> 1937 C. Odets (title) The \*golden
> boy. Ibid. iii. i. 196 He walks down
> the street respected—the golden boy!
>
>
> 1964 ‘J. Welcome’ Hard to Handle viii.
> 91 Poor dear Richard.+ What a change
> from being the golden boy of English
> racing.
>
>
> 1965 P. Moyes Johnny under Ground xx.
> 250 That would have been the end of
> Beau Guest, the young chevalier, the
> golden boy.
>
>
> 1971 Sunday Times (Johannesburg) 28
> Mar. 24/1 Ever since he assumed the
> ‘golden boy’ mantle, Richards has
> studiously avoided local opposition.
>
>
> | Being golden, as in golden boy / girl, means being successful in ones profession, sports, politics, or even in being a wall street jock / jockette etcetera. |
51,686,915 | We are using /v1.0/me/people api to get Relevant People for the user from MS Graph. The current setup has been working from October, 2017 to April, 2018 and now the API calls are returning 403 Forbidden. What i found is that this API now requires People.Read scope to work (<https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/api-reference/beta/api/user_list_people>). My current token has scopes : User.Read User.Read.All User.ReadBasic.All. I have tried to modify the permissions in App Registrations from Azure Portal and have saved with this permission under MS Graph - "Delegated Permissions": **"Read users' relevant people lists"**. But still my token does not seem to have People.Read scope. And the graph api is returning 403.
Attaching a sample of my JWT token as well : eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJub25jZSI6IkFRQUJBQUFBQUFEWHpaM2lmci1HUmJEVDQ1ek5TRUZFTE8wUnB0OU16N19TX3BRVC1VeFBld0kxQndycmd3OGdHc1Y5b054R1h2eFA2WXhITlB5cWE3aTFDNzFsRkVQclltUmdnczRySnhPNzlFRmlqV0lnZmlBQSIsImFsZyI6IlJTMjU2IiwieDV0IjoiN19adWYxdHZrd0x4WWFIUzNxNmxValVZSUd3Iiwia2lkIjoiN19adWYxdHZrd0x4WWFIUzNxNmxValVZSUd3In0.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.Wf6Q51AwRIpliIn-3iyyAP9JFQONvc-5ij60gHjp9WJGzJY2BMDudQNRLTo8VTNhbOr7zSEjZkC1eKikumDpsoD0wblemCfpb56jNPLe8SFCHdqbtnxQGu-KHLp4io40-QPYfVnzvKRG9ZV-xauxorjXSeIx6W6rHNz3WR6Gmz5KwR-fqlutN-8yWYu\_LK1S0bkuQOPGO3tGYp2cZnwbOverv3O0ZBeYAkNC\_N1ssLES4dElzp\_YieU3w7F5RqJbdQmQKwBgH4UJf\_YSlzGnUQNqmIgpdK3jFtTP-IbvFIVDNcIElViFwa0zmQLAPilcbxr6gtFWI72sFlDxDPpI\_Q | 2018/08/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51686915",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1929193/"
] | Every time you change the permissions of your app the [Authorization](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/concepts/auth_v2_user#2-get-authorization)- or [Admin](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/concepts/auth_v2_service#3-get-administrator-consent)-Consent
has to be repeated.
This is for security reasons so no App can silently obtain more rights and spy/harm users.
It seems that the Authorization-Request was not repeated, as you still have all your old permissions.
I dont know how you generate your access-token, but you are most likely using a [refresh token](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/concepts/auth_v2_user#5-use-the-refresh-token-to-get-a-new-access-token), as in this way of generating an access-token the user does not reauthorize your app,
thus the Authorization was never repeated with your newly added permissions.
If this applies to you try to repeat your consent, then fetch a new token (just to be sure this not over the refresh token) and check if the problem still persists. | Sometimes when changing permissions after registring an app, token caching causes your app to use and old token. Easiest way to fix this is to Log out in your application and go back to your loginpage, in the addressbar add '&prompt=consent' at the very end (so login.microsoftonline.com/blabla&prompt=consent) and hit enter. You will now be prompted to give your consent again when logging in.
Also be careful with sharing your token online, you can use jwt.ms to reveal the data behind your token and simply copy paste the relevant stuff here. |
51,686,915 | We are using /v1.0/me/people api to get Relevant People for the user from MS Graph. The current setup has been working from October, 2017 to April, 2018 and now the API calls are returning 403 Forbidden. What i found is that this API now requires People.Read scope to work (<https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/api-reference/beta/api/user_list_people>). My current token has scopes : User.Read User.Read.All User.ReadBasic.All. I have tried to modify the permissions in App Registrations from Azure Portal and have saved with this permission under MS Graph - "Delegated Permissions": **"Read users' relevant people lists"**. But still my token does not seem to have People.Read scope. And the graph api is returning 403.
Attaching a sample of my JWT token as well : eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJub25jZSI6IkFRQUJBQUFBQUFEWHpaM2lmci1HUmJEVDQ1ek5TRUZFTE8wUnB0OU16N19TX3BRVC1VeFBld0kxQndycmd3OGdHc1Y5b054R1h2eFA2WXhITlB5cWE3aTFDNzFsRkVQclltUmdnczRySnhPNzlFRmlqV0lnZmlBQSIsImFsZyI6IlJTMjU2IiwieDV0IjoiN19adWYxdHZrd0x4WWFIUzNxNmxValVZSUd3Iiwia2lkIjoiN19adWYxdHZrd0x4WWFIUzNxNmxValVZSUd3In0.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.Wf6Q51AwRIpliIn-3iyyAP9JFQONvc-5ij60gHjp9WJGzJY2BMDudQNRLTo8VTNhbOr7zSEjZkC1eKikumDpsoD0wblemCfpb56jNPLe8SFCHdqbtnxQGu-KHLp4io40-QPYfVnzvKRG9ZV-xauxorjXSeIx6W6rHNz3WR6Gmz5KwR-fqlutN-8yWYu\_LK1S0bkuQOPGO3tGYp2cZnwbOverv3O0ZBeYAkNC\_N1ssLES4dElzp\_YieU3w7F5RqJbdQmQKwBgH4UJf\_YSlzGnUQNqmIgpdK3jFtTP-IbvFIVDNcIElViFwa0zmQLAPilcbxr6gtFWI72sFlDxDPpI\_Q | 2018/08/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51686915",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1929193/"
] | Every time you change the permissions of your app the [Authorization](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/concepts/auth_v2_user#2-get-authorization)- or [Admin](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/concepts/auth_v2_service#3-get-administrator-consent)-Consent
has to be repeated.
This is for security reasons so no App can silently obtain more rights and spy/harm users.
It seems that the Authorization-Request was not repeated, as you still have all your old permissions.
I dont know how you generate your access-token, but you are most likely using a [refresh token](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/concepts/auth_v2_user#5-use-the-refresh-token-to-get-a-new-access-token), as in this way of generating an access-token the user does not reauthorize your app,
thus the Authorization was never repeated with your newly added permissions.
If this applies to you try to repeat your consent, then fetch a new token (just to be sure this not over the refresh token) and check if the problem still persists. | For a while the /me/people API was accepting User.Read. It was updated at around the time you mentioned so that it matches its documentation which requires either People.Read or People.Read.All depending on the call you are making. |
21,406 | [Refer what is Maya here](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2053/what-is-maya-and-why-is-it-there) It has acquired almost everyone in this world. Consider me as one of the worst cases. I am willing to control "Maya" and attain at-least consciousness. I know attaining moksha may take several seconds/minutes/hours/years etc., at-least I need to control it.
What are all the ways to control Maya and attain consciousness. I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill my prayers, is there any mantra you would recommend? are there any practices? | 2017/10/08 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21406",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/4500/"
] | >
> "satsangatve nissangatvam
>
> nissangatve nirmOhatvam
>
> nirmOhatve nizcala tatvam
>
> nizcala tatve jIvanmuktiH"
>
>
>
> -Sankaracharya in bhaja govindam.
>
>
>
The second line in the above verse is what you are looking for. Sankara says release from attachment progresses one towards overcoming maya and such non-attachment is achieved through continuous company of the pious.
Translation of the whole sloka is given in the linked answer.
<https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/7697/1195> | In a very simple language " START WORSHIPING LORD KRISHNA " . It will take years to achieve. At every stage your soul will guide you . You just follow your soul. You will have to give up lust , anger, jealousy etc. And try to become Satvik. No one in this world will guide you. It is Parmatma situated within you. Start with mantra "Hare Krishna hare Krishna " gradually you will realise it within yourself . |
21,406 | [Refer what is Maya here](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2053/what-is-maya-and-why-is-it-there) It has acquired almost everyone in this world. Consider me as one of the worst cases. I am willing to control "Maya" and attain at-least consciousness. I know attaining moksha may take several seconds/minutes/hours/years etc., at-least I need to control it.
What are all the ways to control Maya and attain consciousness. I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill my prayers, is there any mantra you would recommend? are there any practices? | 2017/10/08 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21406",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/4500/"
] | >
> "satsangatve nissangatvam
>
> nissangatve nirmOhatvam
>
> nirmOhatve nizcala tatvam
>
> nizcala tatve jIvanmuktiH"
>
>
>
> -Sankaracharya in bhaja govindam.
>
>
>
The second line in the above verse is what you are looking for. Sankara says release from attachment progresses one towards overcoming maya and such non-attachment is achieved through continuous company of the pious.
Translation of the whole sloka is given in the linked answer.
<https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/7697/1195> | In order to make this understandable from the perspective of a society-influenced modern person, which I happened to be one of them, first calm your mind and tell yourself that you are not the body, not the mind but the supreme conscience. Don't attach yourself to your body at the same time take care of it as it is a gift blessed to us by the Lord to carry out our duties. Don't worry how you look, how others judge you or what will happen in the future. Completely surrender yourself to God. Understand that God has given you this birth and all the good stuff, God knows what is good and what is not good for you. Whatever happens in your life, trust that God is doing it for your good. Reduce or stop attachment with friends. Talk only what is needed, stop all the gossip/fun, once you get to a supreme form of purity you can speak well with others and Maya won't influence you that time. You will feel blissful all the time. Trust your conscience and do what it tells you to do.
Fix your mind on a physical form (an avatar), and fall in love. In my case, it was sathya Sai baba. There are many YouTube videos that showed his miracles. There will be different ways God will test you if you are faithful. Once you believe, you will start falling in love with the nature of God through his service to the mankind. You will start realizing how amazing God is. You may be able to realize the instances in your life when God saved you. That will make you fall in love with the Lord, you would want nothing but the Lord's sweet name and form. That is how I overcame Maya. |
21,406 | [Refer what is Maya here](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2053/what-is-maya-and-why-is-it-there) It has acquired almost everyone in this world. Consider me as one of the worst cases. I am willing to control "Maya" and attain at-least consciousness. I know attaining moksha may take several seconds/minutes/hours/years etc., at-least I need to control it.
What are all the ways to control Maya and attain consciousness. I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill my prayers, is there any mantra you would recommend? are there any practices? | 2017/10/08 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21406",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/4500/"
] | >
> I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill
> my prayers
>
>
>
I can not understand why is it so. We all (everyone that is) live within the clutches of MAyA but still we can offer prayers and get them fulfilled (at least some or many among us can). Then why can't you?
I think you need to define exactly what you mean by MAyA in this question. Because MAyA is a scriptural term, and so if you do not define it, the answers will be based on the scriptural usages of the term.
Now, coming to MAyA, it is too powerful. Its like an weapon (the PashA) that ParAshakti ( the power of Parabrahman) holds in her hands.
It is so powerful that everyone including Rishis, Gods and even the Trinities get deluded by it. Then who are we to overcome it?
The definition of MahAmAyA is as follows:
>
> Mahati chAsau mAyA cheti mahAmAyA |
> BrahmA vishnu shivAdinAm
> mohajanakatvAt mahAmAyA ||
>
>
> .......
>
>
> The MAyA that is great is called MAhAmAyA. Since it deludes even the
> Trinities- Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, it has been so called.
>
>
>
Another definition of MAyA:
>
> Saiva mAyA prakritiryA sammohati shankaram |
> Harim tathA
> virinchincha tathaivAnyAmshcha nirjjarAn ||
>
>
> ............
>
>
> The Prakriti, which deludes Brahma, Vishnu and Shankara and other Gods,
> is known as MAyA.
>
>
> **YAmala Tantram.**
>
>
>
So, if it is so powerful that even the Trinities are affected by it, how can we ordinary mortals overcome it?
But, there is a way. It seems very easy when we simply hear it but how much difficult it is to practically achieve it is for them to say who tried their hands at it.
>
> Dve pade vandhamokshAya mameti nirmameti cha |
> **Mameti vAdyate
> janturna nirmameti vimuchyate ||**
>
>
> ..............
>
>
> Mama (Mine) and Nir-Mama (Not Mine)- These two words are respectively
> the indicators of Bandhana (bondage due to illusion) and Moksha
> (liberation from bondage). The thought "Mine" binds the Jiva, but the
> thought "Not-Mine" liberates it.
>
>
> **KulArnava Tantram 1.112**
>
>
>
So, when you think " I am the owner", " I am the one who enjoys/suffers", "My wealth", "My son", "My wife", "My friends" etc you are still under the clutches of MAyA. And, when you are able to do exactly the opposite of the above then you are liberated. In other words, when you are devoid of the **I-Ahamakara** you are said to have successfully overcome what you call MAYA. | In a very simple language " START WORSHIPING LORD KRISHNA " . It will take years to achieve. At every stage your soul will guide you . You just follow your soul. You will have to give up lust , anger, jealousy etc. And try to become Satvik. No one in this world will guide you. It is Parmatma situated within you. Start with mantra "Hare Krishna hare Krishna " gradually you will realise it within yourself . |
21,406 | [Refer what is Maya here](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2053/what-is-maya-and-why-is-it-there) It has acquired almost everyone in this world. Consider me as one of the worst cases. I am willing to control "Maya" and attain at-least consciousness. I know attaining moksha may take several seconds/minutes/hours/years etc., at-least I need to control it.
What are all the ways to control Maya and attain consciousness. I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill my prayers, is there any mantra you would recommend? are there any practices? | 2017/10/08 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21406",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/4500/"
] | >
> I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill
> my prayers
>
>
>
I can not understand why is it so. We all (everyone that is) live within the clutches of MAyA but still we can offer prayers and get them fulfilled (at least some or many among us can). Then why can't you?
I think you need to define exactly what you mean by MAyA in this question. Because MAyA is a scriptural term, and so if you do not define it, the answers will be based on the scriptural usages of the term.
Now, coming to MAyA, it is too powerful. Its like an weapon (the PashA) that ParAshakti ( the power of Parabrahman) holds in her hands.
It is so powerful that everyone including Rishis, Gods and even the Trinities get deluded by it. Then who are we to overcome it?
The definition of MahAmAyA is as follows:
>
> Mahati chAsau mAyA cheti mahAmAyA |
> BrahmA vishnu shivAdinAm
> mohajanakatvAt mahAmAyA ||
>
>
> .......
>
>
> The MAyA that is great is called MAhAmAyA. Since it deludes even the
> Trinities- Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, it has been so called.
>
>
>
Another definition of MAyA:
>
> Saiva mAyA prakritiryA sammohati shankaram |
> Harim tathA
> virinchincha tathaivAnyAmshcha nirjjarAn ||
>
>
> ............
>
>
> The Prakriti, which deludes Brahma, Vishnu and Shankara and other Gods,
> is known as MAyA.
>
>
> **YAmala Tantram.**
>
>
>
So, if it is so powerful that even the Trinities are affected by it, how can we ordinary mortals overcome it?
But, there is a way. It seems very easy when we simply hear it but how much difficult it is to practically achieve it is for them to say who tried their hands at it.
>
> Dve pade vandhamokshAya mameti nirmameti cha |
> **Mameti vAdyate
> janturna nirmameti vimuchyate ||**
>
>
> ..............
>
>
> Mama (Mine) and Nir-Mama (Not Mine)- These two words are respectively
> the indicators of Bandhana (bondage due to illusion) and Moksha
> (liberation from bondage). The thought "Mine" binds the Jiva, but the
> thought "Not-Mine" liberates it.
>
>
> **KulArnava Tantram 1.112**
>
>
>
So, when you think " I am the owner", " I am the one who enjoys/suffers", "My wealth", "My son", "My wife", "My friends" etc you are still under the clutches of MAyA. And, when you are able to do exactly the opposite of the above then you are liberated. In other words, when you are devoid of the **I-Ahamakara** you are said to have successfully overcome what you call MAYA. | In order to make this understandable from the perspective of a society-influenced modern person, which I happened to be one of them, first calm your mind and tell yourself that you are not the body, not the mind but the supreme conscience. Don't attach yourself to your body at the same time take care of it as it is a gift blessed to us by the Lord to carry out our duties. Don't worry how you look, how others judge you or what will happen in the future. Completely surrender yourself to God. Understand that God has given you this birth and all the good stuff, God knows what is good and what is not good for you. Whatever happens in your life, trust that God is doing it for your good. Reduce or stop attachment with friends. Talk only what is needed, stop all the gossip/fun, once you get to a supreme form of purity you can speak well with others and Maya won't influence you that time. You will feel blissful all the time. Trust your conscience and do what it tells you to do.
Fix your mind on a physical form (an avatar), and fall in love. In my case, it was sathya Sai baba. There are many YouTube videos that showed his miracles. There will be different ways God will test you if you are faithful. Once you believe, you will start falling in love with the nature of God through his service to the mankind. You will start realizing how amazing God is. You may be able to realize the instances in your life when God saved you. That will make you fall in love with the Lord, you would want nothing but the Lord's sweet name and form. That is how I overcame Maya. |
21,406 | [Refer what is Maya here](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2053/what-is-maya-and-why-is-it-there) It has acquired almost everyone in this world. Consider me as one of the worst cases. I am willing to control "Maya" and attain at-least consciousness. I know attaining moksha may take several seconds/minutes/hours/years etc., at-least I need to control it.
What are all the ways to control Maya and attain consciousness. I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill my prayers, is there any mantra you would recommend? are there any practices? | 2017/10/08 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21406",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/4500/"
] | In a very simple language " START WORSHIPING LORD KRISHNA " . It will take years to achieve. At every stage your soul will guide you . You just follow your soul. You will have to give up lust , anger, jealousy etc. And try to become Satvik. No one in this world will guide you. It is Parmatma situated within you. Start with mantra "Hare Krishna hare Krishna " gradually you will realise it within yourself . | In order to make this understandable from the perspective of a society-influenced modern person, which I happened to be one of them, first calm your mind and tell yourself that you are not the body, not the mind but the supreme conscience. Don't attach yourself to your body at the same time take care of it as it is a gift blessed to us by the Lord to carry out our duties. Don't worry how you look, how others judge you or what will happen in the future. Completely surrender yourself to God. Understand that God has given you this birth and all the good stuff, God knows what is good and what is not good for you. Whatever happens in your life, trust that God is doing it for your good. Reduce or stop attachment with friends. Talk only what is needed, stop all the gossip/fun, once you get to a supreme form of purity you can speak well with others and Maya won't influence you that time. You will feel blissful all the time. Trust your conscience and do what it tells you to do.
Fix your mind on a physical form (an avatar), and fall in love. In my case, it was sathya Sai baba. There are many YouTube videos that showed his miracles. There will be different ways God will test you if you are faithful. Once you believe, you will start falling in love with the nature of God through his service to the mankind. You will start realizing how amazing God is. You may be able to realize the instances in your life when God saved you. That will make you fall in love with the Lord, you would want nothing but the Lord's sweet name and form. That is how I overcame Maya. |
11,896 | [Art. 2.01.](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.2.htm) DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS of the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DUTIES OF OFFICERS states:
>
> It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including
> any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is
> done.
>
>
>
Note that "shall" has specific meaning defined in [Sec. 311.016](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.311.htm) of the Texas Gov't Code as
>
> "Shall" imposes a duty."
>
>
>
My question is:
Are Texas D.A.'s given independence from the law (aka statutes)? Because, who knows what "justice" is? | 2016/07/23 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11896",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/3306/"
] | They are not given independence from statute.
This clause just says that conviction is not the end goal of the prosecutor.
If in light of the evidence, the prosecutor comes to believe a person is not guilty, they are not to proceed with the prosecution.
They must not hide exculpatory or mitigating evidence in order to get a conviction. | As I understand it, the prosecutor's aim should be to serve justice as written in the law, that is, convict the right person. So, one shouldn't ignore evidence that would exonerate your suspect. In court, the prosecutor's aim is to present the truth, interpreting the evidence in an objective way, asking witnesses questions that help revealing what exactly happened, etc., instead of bending the interpretation in the worst possible way for the defendant, or asking questions meant to reinforce the idea of guilty.
So, if a witness brings up a piece of information that may exonerate the defendant, the prosecutor's duty is to examine this further, not to shut it off. |
265,449 | 7/21 can still be represented as 1/3,
3/12 can still be represented as 1/4,
2/26 can still be represented as 1/13, but
9/13 can not be represented in any simpler way.
So, if I ask a student to find among these 4 fractions the one that cannot be represented in a simpler way, what adjective should I use in this question:
>
> Which one of the following options is a \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ fraction?
>
>
>
Should it be:
1. simplest ?
2. simple ?
3. non-simplified ?
4. basic ?
5. most basic ?
6. natural ?
7. final ?
8. fundamental ?
9. ? | 2020/11/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/265449",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/650/"
] | I am not sure there is a word that will *clearly* convey what you want to say. Many of those words would technically work, since the "simplest" could potentially refer to the fraction that is already "fully simplified," and so on. If I were you, however, I would rephrase the question slightly to increase clarity. Ask something like:
>
> Which of the following fractions is already in its simplest form?
>
>
>
Or:
>
> Which of these fractions cannot be further reduced?
>
>
> | It is a “fraction in lowest terms” or a “fraction in least terms.” The numerator and denominator share no prime factors. Shared prime factors can be cancelled. |
265,449 | 7/21 can still be represented as 1/3,
3/12 can still be represented as 1/4,
2/26 can still be represented as 1/13, but
9/13 can not be represented in any simpler way.
So, if I ask a student to find among these 4 fractions the one that cannot be represented in a simpler way, what adjective should I use in this question:
>
> Which one of the following options is a \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ fraction?
>
>
>
Should it be:
1. simplest ?
2. simple ?
3. non-simplified ?
4. basic ?
5. most basic ?
6. natural ?
7. final ?
8. fundamental ?
9. ? | 2020/11/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/265449",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/650/"
] | Mathematicians use the term **reduced**. [Lexico](https://www.lexico.com/definition/reduce) has
>
> **reduce**
>
> VERB
>
>
> **3.2** Convert a fraction to (the form with the lowest terms).
>
>
>
This is supported by the math site [Wolfram](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ReducedFraction.html)
>
> **Reduced Fraction**
>
>
> A fraction *a/b* written in lowest terms, i.e., by dividing numerator and denominator through by their greatest common divisor *(a,b)*. For example, 2/3 is the reduced fraction of 8/12.
>
>
>
So the sentence becomes
>
> Which one of the following options is a **reduced** fraction?
>
>
> | It is a “fraction in lowest terms” or a “fraction in least terms.” The numerator and denominator share no prime factors. Shared prime factors can be cancelled. |
385,524 | From the first section of the causal inference book by Hernan and Robins (link:<https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1268/2018/12/hernanrobins_v1.10.37.pdf>), I read that the individual causal effect is generally not identifiable. However, the authors do mention that the crossover randomized experiment allows the identification of individual causal effects.
My question is, in observational setting or randomized controlled trial (both without the crossover design), if there is no unmeasured confounder, can we identify the individual causal effects? | 2019/01/03 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/385524",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/173209/"
] | Individual effects are identifiable depending on the *causal assumptions* you can sustain and the type of data you can collect. In fact, we make inferences of individual causal effects all the time: if you give a glass of an unknown chemical to a perfectly healthy person, and the person suddenly dies, most people would agree that it is a reasonable inference that the chemical was the cause of death of that person (which could be later confirmed by autopsy). Can you tell what is the assumption that allows you to make this inference?
The bottom line is that identification of causal effects, be it average effects, conditional effects or individual effects depends on causal assumptions (see [here](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/2245/statistics-and-causal-inference/310919#310919) and [here](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/384330/is-causal-inference-only-from-data-possible/384460#384460)). The difference between identifying average effects and individual effects is the *strength of assumptions* that you need to make. While you can make inference of average effects with just mild qualitative assumptions --- such as a DAG, with no need for parametric information about the form of the functions or distribution of error terms --- inference about individual causal effects require more details. [See for instance, this answer.](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/379799/difference-between-rungs-two-and-three-in-the-ladder-of-causation/379807#379807)
Here let me give you two examples: in a linear causal model, all individual treatment effects are identified --- linearity implies constant effects, so the individual treatment effect equals the average treatment effect. Another example, related to the fine point in Hernan's book: if you treat the same individual more than once with a *reversible* treatment, and *if you assume that the individual does not change during time periods*, you can also estimate the treatment effect for that individual. So, as you can see, it all depends on the causal assumptions you can sustain and the type of data you can collect. | The short answer here is yes. If we are in a hypothetical world where we have perfect information over all confounding factors, then we can recover the true causal relationship between two variables.
However, this is almost never true. And this is why many social sciences -- economics being probably the best example -- employ quasi-experimental designs to recover causal relationships.
edit -- sorry, I overlooked that you asked specifically about individual causal effects. What I wrote is true if one is happy with recovering the ATE. |
53,549 | Curious where the signal to detonate the pyro bolts and release the hold-down clamps comes from... The rocket about to lift off? Or ground control? | 2021/06/06 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/53549",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | For Apollo, the signal came from a small computer room built inside the mobile launch platform.
>
> Giant holddown arms, whose name exactly describes their function,
> are positioned on the launcher surface to support and restrain the
> Saturn V. These arms hold the rocket during the first 8.9 seconds of
> ignition of its mighty engines while **the computer beneath**, communicating directly with the computer in the Launch Control Center, verifies
> the performance of each of the 1,500,000 pounds thrust power plants
> of the first stage. When all five engines reach full thrust, and only
> then, **the computers release the holddown arms** which retract and
> allow the rocket to rise.
>
>
> *The Kennedy Space Center Story*, p. 28
>
>
> | For shuttle it was commanded by the vehicle computers.
At T-31 seconds control of most remaining countdown events was handed over to the vehicle, including SRB ignition and blowing the hold-down post nuts.
Source: [Countdown](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nasa-klass.com/Curriculum/Get_Training%25201/Countdown%2520101/RDG_Countdown-T-6H-Basic.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwivyLLZgoLxAhWUW80KHYdKBsMQFjADegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw1X7CuHR2pI3ZOifMI2FsgQ)
See [What holds the Space Shuttle orbiter itself stable on the launch pad?](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/29917/what-holds-the-space-shuttle-orbiter-itself-stable-on-the-launch-pad/29930#29930) for details of the mechanism itself |
40,854 | The attached image shows a conflict between the graticule and the state boundary on a map. I have not found a way to display user-defined lines of latitude, which would solve the 42 degree line conflict.
How can I resolve this conflict in Arcmap 10.1 by having better control of where the graticule parallels are placed?
 | 2012/11/11 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/40854",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/8104/"
] | In the Data Frames Properties dialog, select Grids, then select your graticule and click Properties. The last tab (Intervals) in Properties allows you to modify the interval for your parallels and meridians, as well as their origin. In your example your merdians are every 4°, probably the same for the parallels. The default origin is -90, which with 4° intervals places a parallel at 42°. Change -90 to 43 and your graticule parallel will be drawn at 43°. These options are not available in the wizard you use to create the graticule in the first place.
(If this isn't what you mean by "resolve the conflict", try to be more precise about what you're looking for.) | ArcGIS has different methods for creating grids and graticules. In the Data Frame properties, there is a [Grids and Graticules Wizard](http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#/A_quick_tour_of_data_frame_grids_and_the_Grids_and_Graticules_Wizard/00s90000000t000000/). From the 10.1 help:
>
> They don't appear in data view. If you are interested in creating grid
> or graticule features that draw in data view, you might want to look
> into using grid and graticule layers.
>
>
>
The grid and graticule layers can be found in the [Grids and Graticules toolset](http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#/An_overview_of_the_Grids_and_Graticules_toolset/00700000002v000000/) in the Cartography toolset. This will create a feature classes.
Using either of these tools, you should be able to modify the position of the lines of latitude/longitude to eliminate conflicts with state boundaries. Or, you can change the style of the lines. |
4,488 | A little over a decade ago now, I had purchased a brand-new Raleigh M50 mountain bike. Though whether or not I really *need* a "mountain bike" could be very much up to question, I greatly enjoyed the bicycle regardless. However, various circumstances have brought me to the point that I'm fairly certain it will cost me nearly as much to replace the bike as it would to get it in good operating condition again. So, I've junked it and am considering my options for a new one.
Since I did so much like that particular model, my ideal option would be for a brand-new Raleigh M50. Since no such thing exists this year, I'm looking to you guys to help me find a comparable model.
Some particular features (pardon if my verbiage isn't quite industry-standard) I liked about the bike included:
* Click-shifting, trigger-style gear changers
* Finger-tip braking levers
+ I'd actually had some trouble adjusting to these at first, with one "learning experience" involving an over-the-handlebars tumble at the end of a hill. But I eventually grew to really like them.
* Front suspension
+ I like the shocks in the front, but am quite happy to have none in the rear.
* Quick-release seat and wheels
* Water bottle holster
+ A minor feature to be sure, but still nice to have.
* A really solid-feeling frame
Added after some research:
* Mechanical rim brakes: I have no experience with using or servicing the newer hydraulic or disc brake systems. I feel that I would trust the mechanical rim braking systems further, since they seem to be much simpler and therefore (I expect) more durable and reliable.
+ Feel free to politely dispel me of any misconceptions on this point, (I'm happy to learn about the new technologies) but my stance on this in regards to a final purchase decision will not likely change.
Some additional points brought up by @zenbike:
* Inexpensive, but good quality: A "real" bike, built by a professional, which happens to be cheap.
+ This was absolutely a big selling point for me.
* Off-road capable: Regardless of whether you need or use this option, it feels good.
* Commute friendly: Though @zenbike disagrees, I found this bike very enjoyable during my daily commutes, which typically lasted 1/2 hour or more one-way. I was even pretty comfortable with it on one particular 3.5-hour trip. But, I think I did purchase a softer seat for it which probably helped.
* Fun.
My needs when I first bought the M50 weren't too outlandish, but I liked the feeling of versatility and ruggedness the mountain bike gave me. Though I'd probably never test it to its fullest measure, I felt security in knowing that it could certainly deal with whatever I did put it through.
Most of the time, my daily commute was about 10 miles one-way. Later, the commute was much longer but mostly done via city bus. Still, I did occasionally get the wild idea to run the whole 20+ miles on the bicycle myself. This would all be across your general urban terrain - mostly sidewalks and streets, but occasionally across long stretches of grass (where there was no sidewalk, and riding on the road was just plain insane). Living in Florida also means that steep inclines are few and far between. Of course, having grown up here also means that most mole-hills feel like Mount Everest to me when I have to ride up them.
Today, my needs are much simpler. I'm mostly looking for something to ride alongside my young daughter, but also would like to get back out on my own now and then for a bit of joy riding. I'll probably be sticking a *lot* more to the sidewalks than I used to, but would still enjoy knowing I can take my bike practically anywhere without much trouble or worry of breaking it. I'm much more concerned about durability than I am speed or weight.
So, what do you guys figure? What's the "Raleigh M50" of today, or what else might be a good fit for my needs/wants? | 2011/06/27 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/4488",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/1719/"
] | A Raleigh M-50 was a great entry-level mountain bike. In order to answer your question well, let me clarify for you what buying a bike "like an M-50" means to me:
1. Inexpensive, but good quality:
A "real" bike, built by a professional, which happens to be cheap.
2. Off-road capable:
Regardless of whether you need or use this option, it feels good.
3. Commute friendly:
To be honest, the M-50 wasn't a bike I'd have picked to commute on, and there are better options now as well. But you will compromise the off road capability if you pick something else.
4. Fun.
There are a few bikes to look at. Pretty much every quality brand has a similar model of MTB, with some variation in spec and price.
The first thing to decide is if you really want an off road bike, or just a durable one.
If you want an off road bike, meaning that you want to ride in dirt, gravel, or non-pavement situations on at least a part time basis, look at the [Scott Aspect](http://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/products/bike-bikes-mountain-aspect) series. The price range is good, an in just about every respect, I would consider them a modernized M-50 type bicycle.
Also, the [Specialized Hardrock](http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/hardrock) series.
And the [Trek Sport](http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/sport/) series.
If you really want a commuter, which is as tough and as durable, and as simple to use and maintain as a mountain bike, but with the speed, agility, and distance friendliness of a road bike, then look at:
The [Scott SUB](http://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/products/238387006/Bike-Sub-Speed-10/) series (Particularly the SUB 10)
or
the [Specialized Sirrus](http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/multi-use/sirrus) (Less durable, but a great commuter).
You need to find the bikes in a LBS and ride them, which will tell you more than I ever could here, but I hope that helps, and feel free to ask more questions if I can do anything more. | given a correct fitting, high pressure touring slicks and a seat that feels good, you can do century rides on an M50. I've done two on mine!
I find this post interesting since I'm at the same crossroads. In my case the components I'd like to move up to would be much more expensive on a new bike, than just replace my entire drivetrain (Shimano SLX or SRAM X7), so it appears my M50 will continue to live on having no original parts but the frame itself. If your frame is still in good shape, this could be an option, although if you would need to replace wheels, handlebars, fork etc as well, then that might tip the scales in favor of getting a new bike.
Since the last post was 4 months ago, you may have gotten the new rig by now. If not, I gotta say my weakness would be for some of the Salsa and Surly models. Good steel frames and components that aren't flashy, but will do more than well enough. Look into the Salsa Fargo - drop bar MTB for touring/offroad/or what have you.
Best of luck! |
6,511,587 | Not sure if this is server related or normal behavior, but I thought I'd ask. I run a relatively high-traffic website (200k+ uniques/week) and we serve lots of links through a PHP file containing redirects.
The only problem is, I need to update this file frequently, which I do via SFTP. The file is around 800k in size and takes a second or so to download. However, users have informed me that sometimes the links redirected through the PHP file don't work, and I've realized that this only happens when I'm uploading or downloading the file via SFTP.
So my question is: **Is there any way I can keep the file executable for users while I upload new copies of it via FTP?** This downtime is bothersome for my users. Is this some setting in Linux that I'm not aware of, or is there nothing I can do about this? If it makes a difference, my server is running Centos. | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6511587",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/408712/"
] | Upload it as a different filename, and then rename it to clobber the old one. The upload takes significant time (if anything beyond 'instantaneous' is significant). rename (or mv) is atomic and won't make your users wait. You could take as much time as you need uploading the file, and then in a split second rename it. | Pmivdb actually has it. Upload it at a temp file, then rename it (make sure to keep a copy of the old one). That is really your best (only?) option. |
6,511,587 | Not sure if this is server related or normal behavior, but I thought I'd ask. I run a relatively high-traffic website (200k+ uniques/week) and we serve lots of links through a PHP file containing redirects.
The only problem is, I need to update this file frequently, which I do via SFTP. The file is around 800k in size and takes a second or so to download. However, users have informed me that sometimes the links redirected through the PHP file don't work, and I've realized that this only happens when I'm uploading or downloading the file via SFTP.
So my question is: **Is there any way I can keep the file executable for users while I upload new copies of it via FTP?** This downtime is bothersome for my users. Is this some setting in Linux that I'm not aware of, or is there nothing I can do about this? If it makes a difference, my server is running Centos. | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6511587",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/408712/"
] | Upload it as a different filename, and then rename it to clobber the old one. The upload takes significant time (if anything beyond 'instantaneous' is significant). rename (or mv) is atomic and won't make your users wait. You could take as much time as you need uploading the file, and then in a split second rename it. | The problem is that the file transfer is not atomic. It rewrites the file as its being uploaded. Which causes the file to be incomplete if the file is downloaded in the meantime.
If you upload the file into another location and then move the file into its correct location after the upload is complete you will replace the file atomically. |
6,511,587 | Not sure if this is server related or normal behavior, but I thought I'd ask. I run a relatively high-traffic website (200k+ uniques/week) and we serve lots of links through a PHP file containing redirects.
The only problem is, I need to update this file frequently, which I do via SFTP. The file is around 800k in size and takes a second or so to download. However, users have informed me that sometimes the links redirected through the PHP file don't work, and I've realized that this only happens when I'm uploading or downloading the file via SFTP.
So my question is: **Is there any way I can keep the file executable for users while I upload new copies of it via FTP?** This downtime is bothersome for my users. Is this some setting in Linux that I'm not aware of, or is there nothing I can do about this? If it makes a difference, my server is running Centos. | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6511587",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/408712/"
] | Upload it as a different filename, and then rename it to clobber the old one. The upload takes significant time (if anything beyond 'instantaneous' is significant). rename (or mv) is atomic and won't make your users wait. You could take as much time as you need uploading the file, and then in a split second rename it. | if you put the files in a separate folder and increment the file names is there some php script which would use the latest file??? |
6,511,587 | Not sure if this is server related or normal behavior, but I thought I'd ask. I run a relatively high-traffic website (200k+ uniques/week) and we serve lots of links through a PHP file containing redirects.
The only problem is, I need to update this file frequently, which I do via SFTP. The file is around 800k in size and takes a second or so to download. However, users have informed me that sometimes the links redirected through the PHP file don't work, and I've realized that this only happens when I'm uploading or downloading the file via SFTP.
So my question is: **Is there any way I can keep the file executable for users while I upload new copies of it via FTP?** This downtime is bothersome for my users. Is this some setting in Linux that I'm not aware of, or is there nothing I can do about this? If it makes a difference, my server is running Centos. | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6511587",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/408712/"
] | The problem is that the file transfer is not atomic. It rewrites the file as its being uploaded. Which causes the file to be incomplete if the file is downloaded in the meantime.
If you upload the file into another location and then move the file into its correct location after the upload is complete you will replace the file atomically. | Pmivdb actually has it. Upload it at a temp file, then rename it (make sure to keep a copy of the old one). That is really your best (only?) option. |
6,511,587 | Not sure if this is server related or normal behavior, but I thought I'd ask. I run a relatively high-traffic website (200k+ uniques/week) and we serve lots of links through a PHP file containing redirects.
The only problem is, I need to update this file frequently, which I do via SFTP. The file is around 800k in size and takes a second or so to download. However, users have informed me that sometimes the links redirected through the PHP file don't work, and I've realized that this only happens when I'm uploading or downloading the file via SFTP.
So my question is: **Is there any way I can keep the file executable for users while I upload new copies of it via FTP?** This downtime is bothersome for my users. Is this some setting in Linux that I'm not aware of, or is there nothing I can do about this? If it makes a difference, my server is running Centos. | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6511587",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/408712/"
] | The problem is that the file transfer is not atomic. It rewrites the file as its being uploaded. Which causes the file to be incomplete if the file is downloaded in the meantime.
If you upload the file into another location and then move the file into its correct location after the upload is complete you will replace the file atomically. | if you put the files in a separate folder and increment the file names is there some php script which would use the latest file??? |
16,641 | I mean that, if cylinder have a design in which piston can change its working area alternate. Is there any chance to affect the burning ratio in loss or profit to efficiency? | 2015/04/30 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/16641",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/10318/"
] | There is no way (to my knowledge) to affect the displacement of an engine while it's running (dynamically). You *can*, however, change the two working parameters of an engine dynamically, those being the **volumetric efficiency** and **compression ratio**.
Volumetric efficiency (VE) is explained as how well do the cylinders fill with air/fuel mixture during the intake process, expressed as a percentage. A normally aspirated engine, in commercially available passenger cars, will run in the 70-80% VE range. A NASCAR engine can run in the ~105-108% range. The volumetric efficiency will dictate the ultimate amount of power output, but has little to do with how well the engine can convert the air/fuel mixture into power. There are inherent efficiencies when we talk about improving VE, but this has more to do with the fact you can move air better through the engine (air in/exhaust out) which allows you to free up power through the process, but does not make the combustion process work any better.
VE can be changed mainly through the use of super/turbo-charging. By varying the pressure of the intake charge, you are directly affecting VE. Normal air pressure (1 bar) at sea level is said to be ~14psi (or 101.325 kPa). If, during the combustion cycle of an engine, the air pressure inside the cylinder equaled the air pressure outside of the engine, you'd have what is considered 100% VE. If you increase the intake charge to 14psi (14psi above ambient air pressure), you'd in effect double the amount of air going into the cylinder. Theoretically, you should be doubling the power output of the engine at that point. (**NOTE:** It doesn't quite work out this way, usually because there are engine inefficiencies which create parasitic losses ... for the purpose of this answer, I'll exclude that so as to allow for easier explanation.) By changing the intake charge pressure, you have effectively changed the amount of air/fuel which can be introduced into an engine, and therefor increased the amount of potential power output by doing so. You could look at this as *effectively* changing the size of the cylinder by making the engine *believe* it is bigger than it actually is. Does this affect engine efficiency? To a small extent. You do gain efficiencies by utilizing a turbocharger (which utilizes some of the exhaust heat which would otherwise be lost). You also gain some efficiency by having to move less internal engine mass (smaller/fewer pistons, connecting rods, crankshaft, etc.) than you would by doubling the displacement.
The size of a cylinder has less of an effect on the efficiency of an engine than does the compression ratio. This is what I believe you are actually asking about:
>
> "*If you had a variable compression ratio, would it effect the efficiency of the engine?*"
>
>
>
This has to do with your statement of "*changing the piston work area*". As I previously stated, there is no efficient way to change the physical displacement (actually changing the size) of an engine *while it's running*. There are, however, several ways to change the compression ratio while it's running. The compression ratio ***does*** have an effect on power output. As a rule of thumb, every point of static compression ratio is worth about 3% in power output with everything else staying the same. There is a point of diminished returns though, where the compression ratio becomes too high and detonation (or pre-ignition) is uncontrollable.
The above statement is born out in [this paper written for the Academy of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineers (AMAE)](https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/925439/filename/49.pdf). It states:
>
> Compression ratio is the key parameter in reciprocating engine. The concept of variable compression ratio promises improved engine performance, efficiency and reduced emissions. The higher cylinder pressures and temperatures during the early part of combustion and small residual gas fraction owing to higher compression ratio give faster laminar flame speed. Therefore the ignition delay period is shorter. As a result at low loads the greater the compression ratio, the shorter is the combustion time. Time loss is subsequently reduced. Therefore it seems reasonable that fuel consumption rate is lower with high compression ratio at part load. The main feature of the VCR engine is to operate at different compression ratios, depending on the vehicle performance needs.
>
>
>
To that end, there is an engine designed by [Peugeot, named the MCE-5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_compression_ratio#Peugeot_MCE-5). Wikipedia described it as:
>
> The Peugeot design works by varying the effective length of the con-rods connecting the piston to the crank. When the con-rod is shorter, the compression ratio is lower and vice versa. On the left hand-side of the diagram is the conventional piston of an internal combustion engine. On the right is an hydraulic cylinder with double-acting piston. This acts through a rod-crank system with a gear wheel, whose movement adjusts the effective con-rod length and thus the compression ratio in the left cylinder.
>
>
>
Mechanically, this design seems like a nightmare. Here is a simple stick drawing of what it looks like:
Like I said, complicated. I read an online presentation (use [this Google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=diesel+variable+compression+ratio+engine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=active&q=mae.ncsu.edu+variable+compression+ratio+) ... should be the top entry which is a PPT presentation) which described some of the operational parameters as:
>
> * CR’s adjustable from 7:1 to 20:1.
> * Fast response (<100 ms to move from max CR to min CR) .
> * Electronically controlled sensors allow the engine to quickly tailor itself to the ideal operating conditions.
> * Control jacks function as hydraulic ratchets, moving piston TDC location (changing the compression volume and therefore the CR).
>
>
>
The reason for presenting this is to show that there are viable engines which have been designed which would allow for a variable compression ratio (it's not just a pipe dream). I believe, however, that Peugeot scrapped it due to costs.
One of the great benefits of the MCE-5 engine is probably durability. There are far less stresses imposed upon the piston and rings than in a typical fixed CR engine. As shown in these images pulled from the same presentation, there is no side loading, which greatly decreases stress as well as frees up some power which would be considered parasitic loss:
This is because the piston moves straight up and down in the cylinder bore. It would also mean that the cylinder would never become out of round (oval) due to the side loading, either.
These two charts show the actual differences between the two engine types and the amount of stress which occurs due to the side loading.
I present this really to show that there are other efficiencies with the design of this particular VCR engine. While you may not be *creating* new horsepower due to the mechanical design, you are *freeing up* horsepower in the process, which equates to the improved efficiency. | Higher piston surface area generally means higher volume. At higher cylinder volume you'll achieve more torque, which might be useful at acceleration. If you can later decrease the piston/cylinder diameter, you would be running more efficiently as less power is required for cruise speed. |
16,641 | I mean that, if cylinder have a design in which piston can change its working area alternate. Is there any chance to affect the burning ratio in loss or profit to efficiency? | 2015/04/30 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/16641",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/10318/"
] | There is no way (to my knowledge) to affect the displacement of an engine while it's running (dynamically). You *can*, however, change the two working parameters of an engine dynamically, those being the **volumetric efficiency** and **compression ratio**.
Volumetric efficiency (VE) is explained as how well do the cylinders fill with air/fuel mixture during the intake process, expressed as a percentage. A normally aspirated engine, in commercially available passenger cars, will run in the 70-80% VE range. A NASCAR engine can run in the ~105-108% range. The volumetric efficiency will dictate the ultimate amount of power output, but has little to do with how well the engine can convert the air/fuel mixture into power. There are inherent efficiencies when we talk about improving VE, but this has more to do with the fact you can move air better through the engine (air in/exhaust out) which allows you to free up power through the process, but does not make the combustion process work any better.
VE can be changed mainly through the use of super/turbo-charging. By varying the pressure of the intake charge, you are directly affecting VE. Normal air pressure (1 bar) at sea level is said to be ~14psi (or 101.325 kPa). If, during the combustion cycle of an engine, the air pressure inside the cylinder equaled the air pressure outside of the engine, you'd have what is considered 100% VE. If you increase the intake charge to 14psi (14psi above ambient air pressure), you'd in effect double the amount of air going into the cylinder. Theoretically, you should be doubling the power output of the engine at that point. (**NOTE:** It doesn't quite work out this way, usually because there are engine inefficiencies which create parasitic losses ... for the purpose of this answer, I'll exclude that so as to allow for easier explanation.) By changing the intake charge pressure, you have effectively changed the amount of air/fuel which can be introduced into an engine, and therefor increased the amount of potential power output by doing so. You could look at this as *effectively* changing the size of the cylinder by making the engine *believe* it is bigger than it actually is. Does this affect engine efficiency? To a small extent. You do gain efficiencies by utilizing a turbocharger (which utilizes some of the exhaust heat which would otherwise be lost). You also gain some efficiency by having to move less internal engine mass (smaller/fewer pistons, connecting rods, crankshaft, etc.) than you would by doubling the displacement.
The size of a cylinder has less of an effect on the efficiency of an engine than does the compression ratio. This is what I believe you are actually asking about:
>
> "*If you had a variable compression ratio, would it effect the efficiency of the engine?*"
>
>
>
This has to do with your statement of "*changing the piston work area*". As I previously stated, there is no efficient way to change the physical displacement (actually changing the size) of an engine *while it's running*. There are, however, several ways to change the compression ratio while it's running. The compression ratio ***does*** have an effect on power output. As a rule of thumb, every point of static compression ratio is worth about 3% in power output with everything else staying the same. There is a point of diminished returns though, where the compression ratio becomes too high and detonation (or pre-ignition) is uncontrollable.
The above statement is born out in [this paper written for the Academy of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineers (AMAE)](https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/925439/filename/49.pdf). It states:
>
> Compression ratio is the key parameter in reciprocating engine. The concept of variable compression ratio promises improved engine performance, efficiency and reduced emissions. The higher cylinder pressures and temperatures during the early part of combustion and small residual gas fraction owing to higher compression ratio give faster laminar flame speed. Therefore the ignition delay period is shorter. As a result at low loads the greater the compression ratio, the shorter is the combustion time. Time loss is subsequently reduced. Therefore it seems reasonable that fuel consumption rate is lower with high compression ratio at part load. The main feature of the VCR engine is to operate at different compression ratios, depending on the vehicle performance needs.
>
>
>
To that end, there is an engine designed by [Peugeot, named the MCE-5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_compression_ratio#Peugeot_MCE-5). Wikipedia described it as:
>
> The Peugeot design works by varying the effective length of the con-rods connecting the piston to the crank. When the con-rod is shorter, the compression ratio is lower and vice versa. On the left hand-side of the diagram is the conventional piston of an internal combustion engine. On the right is an hydraulic cylinder with double-acting piston. This acts through a rod-crank system with a gear wheel, whose movement adjusts the effective con-rod length and thus the compression ratio in the left cylinder.
>
>
>
Mechanically, this design seems like a nightmare. Here is a simple stick drawing of what it looks like:
Like I said, complicated. I read an online presentation (use [this Google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=diesel+variable+compression+ratio+engine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=active&q=mae.ncsu.edu+variable+compression+ratio+) ... should be the top entry which is a PPT presentation) which described some of the operational parameters as:
>
> * CR’s adjustable from 7:1 to 20:1.
> * Fast response (<100 ms to move from max CR to min CR) .
> * Electronically controlled sensors allow the engine to quickly tailor itself to the ideal operating conditions.
> * Control jacks function as hydraulic ratchets, moving piston TDC location (changing the compression volume and therefore the CR).
>
>
>
The reason for presenting this is to show that there are viable engines which have been designed which would allow for a variable compression ratio (it's not just a pipe dream). I believe, however, that Peugeot scrapped it due to costs.
One of the great benefits of the MCE-5 engine is probably durability. There are far less stresses imposed upon the piston and rings than in a typical fixed CR engine. As shown in these images pulled from the same presentation, there is no side loading, which greatly decreases stress as well as frees up some power which would be considered parasitic loss:
This is because the piston moves straight up and down in the cylinder bore. It would also mean that the cylinder would never become out of round (oval) due to the side loading, either.
These two charts show the actual differences between the two engine types and the amount of stress which occurs due to the side loading.
I present this really to show that there are other efficiencies with the design of this particular VCR engine. While you may not be *creating* new horsepower due to the mechanical design, you are *freeing up* horsepower in the process, which equates to the improved efficiency. | Yes, in the case of petrol engines the optimal cylinder size is around 500 to 550cc. You can test that theory by looking at the total engine capacity divided by the number of cylinders of any performance car, e.g.
1. Golf GTI - 2 liter 4 cylinder = 500cc
2. BMW M3 - 3 liter 6 cylinder - 500cc
3. Audi S6 Quattro - 4 liter 8 cylinder - 500cc
4. Lamborghini Gallardo - 5 liter 10 cylinder - 500cc
5. Aton martin V12 vanquish - 6 liter 12 cylinder - 500cc
6. Bugatti Veyron - 8 liter 16 cylinder - 500cc
If your cylinder are smaller than 500cc, you won't get as much torque, but they can work faster, so you can rev higher. If your cylinders are bigger than 500cc, you can't rev as high, but you have more torque.
So if you want a very fast car that will be light, a smaller cc per cylinder is good, e.g. the new 1.6 turbo V6 F1 cars (265cc per cylinder). But if you want a car that is strong and heavy, a bigger cc per cylinder is required, e.g. the Dodge Viper 8 liter V10 (800cc per cylinder).
If you're interested in dynamic compression ratio's, go read up on variable valve timing.
When it comes to the efficient burning of fuel, it isn't affected by cylinder size or surface area. The efficient burning of fuel is up to the Air/Fuel ratio, Ignition timing, valve timing and engine load. These things are all controlled by the electronic management system or (in older engines) the carburetor and mechanical valve timing. The optimal air/fuel ratio is always 14.7 (for petrol), doesn't matter if it's a 5cc toy car engine, or a 12000cc truck engine.
Things that can change the optimal value from 14.7 to something else are
1. The quality of the fuel or the octane rating.
2. the heat of the intake air.
3. the compression ratio of the cylinder (anything from 8.0:1 in turbo engines to 12:1 in high-performance non-turbos).
4. the amount of load the engine is under.
What happens is that when the car is working harder, you need to inject more fuel than can be burned to help cool down the air/fuel mixture to prevent it from exploding too soon (called knocking). But that's not related to how big the cylinder is, just how much and how fast it is compressing the air/fuel mixture before igniting it. |
29,197 | * Presumably the end game of dualist philosophers is to definitively prove the existence of ontologically separate mental states which cannot be reduced to brain states. If they succeed in doing so, then we would be able to make testable and falsifiable statements about mental states.
* When materialists (physicalists) speak of matter in the context of the mind-body problem, they don't mean matter per se, as understood in physics. Materialist already accept theories which have multiple categories of basic substances (matter, energy, electricity, force, genes, etc...). In the context of the mind-body problem, what materialists mean by matter is anything that can be explained by empirical sciences.
But then, if dualists do achieve their goal, whatever proofs they provide regarding mental states will allow them to provide empirical theories with predictive explanatory power w/r to these mental states, and then these theories would become part of the empirical sciences, and hence part of the materialist world view.
As an example, if David Chalmers' theory of sensation being a fundamental quantity/variable in nature (as a way of explaining qualia) is true, then that would just mean there was a paradigm shift in physics, and any theory about the mind substance would be part of a physicalist world view. Dualism would also become indistinguishable from functionalism and none reductive materialism.
My questions:
1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?
2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from none reductive materialism? | 2015/10/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29197",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13808/"
] | The line is typically drawn slightly differently, mostly because the word "explain" is not precise enough for a hard-edged debate on the topic. As given in the introduction to [Phyiscalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) on wikipedia:
>
> A "physical property", in this context, may be a metaphysical or logical combination of properties which are physical in the ordinary sense. It is common to express the notion of "metaphysical or logical combination of properties" using the notion of **supervenience**: A property A is said to **supervene** on a property B if any change in A necessarily implies a change in B.
>
>
>
Supervenience of the mental onto material implies that all changes in "mental state" can be fully grounded in some physical principle (I believe it is generally what you intended when you phrased the question in the first place, this is just the precise word). If a dualist was to somehow prove that there was a mental state which did not supervene onto a physical state, they would have proven dualism. At such a point, the mental state would *not* become material, because it would still not behave according to physical laws (in particular, it would exhibit mental behaviors such as freewill).
As for the "proof" of dualism or physicalism, the debate has raged for a very long time, and the general consensus is that nothing resembling proof can be acquired without dying (and it is generally presumed to be very difficult to bring such information back to share with the rest of us). Until we know "all of physics," the unknown is still out there. Those that do believe there is proof typically use the word "proof" in a way that permits their belief to shine through, such as a "scientific proof" or a "religious proof." In particular, the question of what does it mean to perceive something continues to divide the camps in a way that is so difficult that even the idealists, who believe there is only mind and matter is an illusion, can make a play. The challenge of empirically testing theories involving chaotic systems doesn't make the debate any simpler.
Finally, there's the question of randomness in empirical studies. If you really dig into statistics, there is no way to tell if some experimental results are a random distribution or a non-random (mindful) distribution. All you can do is look at the data and say how likely or unlikely that distribution was to arise by random chance. There is (intentionally) no way in statistics to be 100% certain that a variable fits a given distribution or not. | These questions remain interesting, but I can't see that "dualism" is being adequately defined here.
As you yourself imply, the whole idea that dualists could "prove" the existence of the *res cogitans* or some "cognitive field theory" and then subject it to empirical testing is not, by definition, dualism. Your question is all contained within a naturalistic monism from the very beginning.
I am not sure how "dualism" is best defined today, but I suspect there are many "hard" and "soft" versions. We could imagine Leibnizian monads all operating independently. Or Cartesian substances. Or some "dark energy" wholly irreconcilable to any possible description of the universe. Or systems that operate randomly relative to each other. Perhaps the best case today would be matter subject to "entropy" versus matter subject to "life," even as we seem to be filling in the chemical and logical steps between.
But by any "hard" definition I would think dualism entails precisely that which *cannot be reduced*, converted, or proven. Everything "whereof one cannot speak," as Wittgenstein puts it. It is precisely that aspect of "mind" that remains *in surplus*, over and above whatever mind is able to observe and reduce pertaining to itself.
The very quality of irreducibility. The mind conceived of as a relentless "unlimiting" of whatever "limits" it formulates into natural laws or perhaps even logical principles.
So the question becomes: Is this Lockean "I know not what" or Kantian "ding an sich" simply extraneous metaphysical fluff? If we can't see it, chew it, or talk about it, why not just Occamize it? That may be a perfectly good answer from any scientific point of view.
I take Kant to be a paradigmatic modern dualist. And many find no good reason for his retention of the noumenal. It is, indeed, very unsatisfactory. As Fichte, Hegel, and others pointed out, by positing it, Kant appears to have already brought it under concepts and into his apparatus. He is blithely chattering on about the unspeakable.
My own sense is that Kant's critical philosophy requires it for a completion of the reasoning, free, moral subject. That which endows us with moral sense or higher purpose and prevents "reason" from ever being reduced to computing, not matter how powerful. In addition, Kant argues that we can "think" certain things we can never "know," let alone prove. And in this sense perhaps his "noumena" act like a zero in mathematics, as a kind of necessary placeholder between "one" and its "opposite."
So the "proof" of dualism would be a negative, *a priori,* Godel-type demonstration that "computing" of any sort can never reduce and reproduce that which creates and sustains computing. Or, if it does, then we have indeed become a whirling Hegelian *Geist*. The great thing about AI is that it really does bring these old questions back in an interesting, tangible way. The instinctive dualist looks suspiciously at AI and tries to grasp: What is it that we are really doing here? |
29,197 | * Presumably the end game of dualist philosophers is to definitively prove the existence of ontologically separate mental states which cannot be reduced to brain states. If they succeed in doing so, then we would be able to make testable and falsifiable statements about mental states.
* When materialists (physicalists) speak of matter in the context of the mind-body problem, they don't mean matter per se, as understood in physics. Materialist already accept theories which have multiple categories of basic substances (matter, energy, electricity, force, genes, etc...). In the context of the mind-body problem, what materialists mean by matter is anything that can be explained by empirical sciences.
But then, if dualists do achieve their goal, whatever proofs they provide regarding mental states will allow them to provide empirical theories with predictive explanatory power w/r to these mental states, and then these theories would become part of the empirical sciences, and hence part of the materialist world view.
As an example, if David Chalmers' theory of sensation being a fundamental quantity/variable in nature (as a way of explaining qualia) is true, then that would just mean there was a paradigm shift in physics, and any theory about the mind substance would be part of a physicalist world view. Dualism would also become indistinguishable from functionalism and none reductive materialism.
My questions:
1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?
2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from none reductive materialism? | 2015/10/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29197",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13808/"
] | The line is typically drawn slightly differently, mostly because the word "explain" is not precise enough for a hard-edged debate on the topic. As given in the introduction to [Phyiscalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) on wikipedia:
>
> A "physical property", in this context, may be a metaphysical or logical combination of properties which are physical in the ordinary sense. It is common to express the notion of "metaphysical or logical combination of properties" using the notion of **supervenience**: A property A is said to **supervene** on a property B if any change in A necessarily implies a change in B.
>
>
>
Supervenience of the mental onto material implies that all changes in "mental state" can be fully grounded in some physical principle (I believe it is generally what you intended when you phrased the question in the first place, this is just the precise word). If a dualist was to somehow prove that there was a mental state which did not supervene onto a physical state, they would have proven dualism. At such a point, the mental state would *not* become material, because it would still not behave according to physical laws (in particular, it would exhibit mental behaviors such as freewill).
As for the "proof" of dualism or physicalism, the debate has raged for a very long time, and the general consensus is that nothing resembling proof can be acquired without dying (and it is generally presumed to be very difficult to bring such information back to share with the rest of us). Until we know "all of physics," the unknown is still out there. Those that do believe there is proof typically use the word "proof" in a way that permits their belief to shine through, such as a "scientific proof" or a "religious proof." In particular, the question of what does it mean to perceive something continues to divide the camps in a way that is so difficult that even the idealists, who believe there is only mind and matter is an illusion, can make a play. The challenge of empirically testing theories involving chaotic systems doesn't make the debate any simpler.
Finally, there's the question of randomness in empirical studies. If you really dig into statistics, there is no way to tell if some experimental results are a random distribution or a non-random (mindful) distribution. All you can do is look at the data and say how likely or unlikely that distribution was to arise by random chance. There is (intentionally) no way in statistics to be 100% certain that a variable fits a given distribution or not. | Presumably, different dualists have different end games, although I imagine most of them will agree to proving ontologically distinct mental states as goal. But I also imagine most of them will reject reduction of mental states to empirical experience, at least as understood by most materialists. If they thought that possible we would not be talking about philosophical zombies, which are defined to be empirically equivalent to humans, but without the mental states. Indeed, we can hardly expect dualists to go further than token identity non-reductive materialists, who already reject reduction of mental to physical, which for them contains empirical. No law relates mental to physical, says Davidson, there is something special in biochemistry that conjures up qualia, which are inaccessible by empirical means, says Searle.
I also think many materialists would take an issue with not meaning matter as understood in physics, and reject the talk about "substances". They are monists after all, there is one matter of which physics, chemistry, biology, etc. describe different manifestations.
It is probably close to the truth that dualism and non-reductive materialism are essentially equivalent empirically, although the practitioners of both will likely resist the thesis. Regardless, the distinction would survive it. That is because most dualists, like idealists, existensialists, etc., believe in a non-empirical aspect of reality, and our special (possibly private) access to it over and above the senses. Descartes had rational intuition, Kant had practical reason, Hegel had determinations of thought, Husserl and Bergson had phenomenological intuition, Heidegger had phenomenological insight, Chalmers writes "*physical realization is the most common way to think about information embedded in the world, but it is not the only way information can be found. We can also find information realized in our phenomenology*", and is strategically vague on how this phenomenology is to be shared. The idea that there is an aspect to reality, the concrete, over and above anything that can be captured represantationally, the abstract, the essence, and hence over and above anything empirical, or at least anything scientifically empirical, is quite common. So I do not expect to see dualists and materialists holding hands in agreement no matter what happens empirically.
Of course, many phenomenologists, like Husserl, would deny the dualism label, and claim instead that their position dissolves the material/ideal divide. Also, their non-empirical experience doesn't have to be mystical. Here is from Rinofner-Kreidl's Phenomenologist's Reply to Quine:"*Phenomenology advocates are widening the concept of "experience" beyond that of sensual experience, thus permitting non-sensual experience referring to ideal objects indirectly situated in space and time "sekundär lokalisiert", i.e. by means of sensual objects to which they are connected. Therefore, phenomenological apriorism is committed to a special type of experience. It is not, on principle, independent of any experience whatever, as Kant considers a priori knowledge to be.*" |
29,197 | * Presumably the end game of dualist philosophers is to definitively prove the existence of ontologically separate mental states which cannot be reduced to brain states. If they succeed in doing so, then we would be able to make testable and falsifiable statements about mental states.
* When materialists (physicalists) speak of matter in the context of the mind-body problem, they don't mean matter per se, as understood in physics. Materialist already accept theories which have multiple categories of basic substances (matter, energy, electricity, force, genes, etc...). In the context of the mind-body problem, what materialists mean by matter is anything that can be explained by empirical sciences.
But then, if dualists do achieve their goal, whatever proofs they provide regarding mental states will allow them to provide empirical theories with predictive explanatory power w/r to these mental states, and then these theories would become part of the empirical sciences, and hence part of the materialist world view.
As an example, if David Chalmers' theory of sensation being a fundamental quantity/variable in nature (as a way of explaining qualia) is true, then that would just mean there was a paradigm shift in physics, and any theory about the mind substance would be part of a physicalist world view. Dualism would also become indistinguishable from functionalism and none reductive materialism.
My questions:
1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?
2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from none reductive materialism? | 2015/10/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29197",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13808/"
] | The line is typically drawn slightly differently, mostly because the word "explain" is not precise enough for a hard-edged debate on the topic. As given in the introduction to [Phyiscalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) on wikipedia:
>
> A "physical property", in this context, may be a metaphysical or logical combination of properties which are physical in the ordinary sense. It is common to express the notion of "metaphysical or logical combination of properties" using the notion of **supervenience**: A property A is said to **supervene** on a property B if any change in A necessarily implies a change in B.
>
>
>
Supervenience of the mental onto material implies that all changes in "mental state" can be fully grounded in some physical principle (I believe it is generally what you intended when you phrased the question in the first place, this is just the precise word). If a dualist was to somehow prove that there was a mental state which did not supervene onto a physical state, they would have proven dualism. At such a point, the mental state would *not* become material, because it would still not behave according to physical laws (in particular, it would exhibit mental behaviors such as freewill).
As for the "proof" of dualism or physicalism, the debate has raged for a very long time, and the general consensus is that nothing resembling proof can be acquired without dying (and it is generally presumed to be very difficult to bring such information back to share with the rest of us). Until we know "all of physics," the unknown is still out there. Those that do believe there is proof typically use the word "proof" in a way that permits their belief to shine through, such as a "scientific proof" or a "religious proof." In particular, the question of what does it mean to perceive something continues to divide the camps in a way that is so difficult that even the idealists, who believe there is only mind and matter is an illusion, can make a play. The challenge of empirically testing theories involving chaotic systems doesn't make the debate any simpler.
Finally, there's the question of randomness in empirical studies. If you really dig into statistics, there is no way to tell if some experimental results are a random distribution or a non-random (mindful) distribution. All you can do is look at the data and say how likely or unlikely that distribution was to arise by random chance. There is (intentionally) no way in statistics to be 100% certain that a variable fits a given distribution or not. | >
> **My questions:**
>
>
> **1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?**
>
>
> **2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from [non] reductive materialism?**
>
>
>
I believe question #1 is flawed. If the dualists prove the uniqueness of mental states (or any other dualist claim) that then is able to become the domain of empirical science, they may have "lost" their dualist... is "status" the right word?
But in so doing, they would have "forced" the scientific community to accept their truth claims and expand their materialist view of the world to include an area of study that was previously denied to exist. Sort of a "lose the battle, win the war" story without even really losing the battle.
Then, I believe question #2 becomes irrelevant if you accept the above. |
29,197 | * Presumably the end game of dualist philosophers is to definitively prove the existence of ontologically separate mental states which cannot be reduced to brain states. If they succeed in doing so, then we would be able to make testable and falsifiable statements about mental states.
* When materialists (physicalists) speak of matter in the context of the mind-body problem, they don't mean matter per se, as understood in physics. Materialist already accept theories which have multiple categories of basic substances (matter, energy, electricity, force, genes, etc...). In the context of the mind-body problem, what materialists mean by matter is anything that can be explained by empirical sciences.
But then, if dualists do achieve their goal, whatever proofs they provide regarding mental states will allow them to provide empirical theories with predictive explanatory power w/r to these mental states, and then these theories would become part of the empirical sciences, and hence part of the materialist world view.
As an example, if David Chalmers' theory of sensation being a fundamental quantity/variable in nature (as a way of explaining qualia) is true, then that would just mean there was a paradigm shift in physics, and any theory about the mind substance would be part of a physicalist world view. Dualism would also become indistinguishable from functionalism and none reductive materialism.
My questions:
1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?
2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from none reductive materialism? | 2015/10/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29197",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13808/"
] | These questions remain interesting, but I can't see that "dualism" is being adequately defined here.
As you yourself imply, the whole idea that dualists could "prove" the existence of the *res cogitans* or some "cognitive field theory" and then subject it to empirical testing is not, by definition, dualism. Your question is all contained within a naturalistic monism from the very beginning.
I am not sure how "dualism" is best defined today, but I suspect there are many "hard" and "soft" versions. We could imagine Leibnizian monads all operating independently. Or Cartesian substances. Or some "dark energy" wholly irreconcilable to any possible description of the universe. Or systems that operate randomly relative to each other. Perhaps the best case today would be matter subject to "entropy" versus matter subject to "life," even as we seem to be filling in the chemical and logical steps between.
But by any "hard" definition I would think dualism entails precisely that which *cannot be reduced*, converted, or proven. Everything "whereof one cannot speak," as Wittgenstein puts it. It is precisely that aspect of "mind" that remains *in surplus*, over and above whatever mind is able to observe and reduce pertaining to itself.
The very quality of irreducibility. The mind conceived of as a relentless "unlimiting" of whatever "limits" it formulates into natural laws or perhaps even logical principles.
So the question becomes: Is this Lockean "I know not what" or Kantian "ding an sich" simply extraneous metaphysical fluff? If we can't see it, chew it, or talk about it, why not just Occamize it? That may be a perfectly good answer from any scientific point of view.
I take Kant to be a paradigmatic modern dualist. And many find no good reason for his retention of the noumenal. It is, indeed, very unsatisfactory. As Fichte, Hegel, and others pointed out, by positing it, Kant appears to have already brought it under concepts and into his apparatus. He is blithely chattering on about the unspeakable.
My own sense is that Kant's critical philosophy requires it for a completion of the reasoning, free, moral subject. That which endows us with moral sense or higher purpose and prevents "reason" from ever being reduced to computing, not matter how powerful. In addition, Kant argues that we can "think" certain things we can never "know," let alone prove. And in this sense perhaps his "noumena" act like a zero in mathematics, as a kind of necessary placeholder between "one" and its "opposite."
So the "proof" of dualism would be a negative, *a priori,* Godel-type demonstration that "computing" of any sort can never reduce and reproduce that which creates and sustains computing. Or, if it does, then we have indeed become a whirling Hegelian *Geist*. The great thing about AI is that it really does bring these old questions back in an interesting, tangible way. The instinctive dualist looks suspiciously at AI and tries to grasp: What is it that we are really doing here? | >
> **My questions:**
>
>
> **1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?**
>
>
> **2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from [non] reductive materialism?**
>
>
>
I believe question #1 is flawed. If the dualists prove the uniqueness of mental states (or any other dualist claim) that then is able to become the domain of empirical science, they may have "lost" their dualist... is "status" the right word?
But in so doing, they would have "forced" the scientific community to accept their truth claims and expand their materialist view of the world to include an area of study that was previously denied to exist. Sort of a "lose the battle, win the war" story without even really losing the battle.
Then, I believe question #2 becomes irrelevant if you accept the above. |
29,197 | * Presumably the end game of dualist philosophers is to definitively prove the existence of ontologically separate mental states which cannot be reduced to brain states. If they succeed in doing so, then we would be able to make testable and falsifiable statements about mental states.
* When materialists (physicalists) speak of matter in the context of the mind-body problem, they don't mean matter per se, as understood in physics. Materialist already accept theories which have multiple categories of basic substances (matter, energy, electricity, force, genes, etc...). In the context of the mind-body problem, what materialists mean by matter is anything that can be explained by empirical sciences.
But then, if dualists do achieve their goal, whatever proofs they provide regarding mental states will allow them to provide empirical theories with predictive explanatory power w/r to these mental states, and then these theories would become part of the empirical sciences, and hence part of the materialist world view.
As an example, if David Chalmers' theory of sensation being a fundamental quantity/variable in nature (as a way of explaining qualia) is true, then that would just mean there was a paradigm shift in physics, and any theory about the mind substance would be part of a physicalist world view. Dualism would also become indistinguishable from functionalism and none reductive materialism.
My questions:
1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?
2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from none reductive materialism? | 2015/10/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29197",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13808/"
] | Presumably, different dualists have different end games, although I imagine most of them will agree to proving ontologically distinct mental states as goal. But I also imagine most of them will reject reduction of mental states to empirical experience, at least as understood by most materialists. If they thought that possible we would not be talking about philosophical zombies, which are defined to be empirically equivalent to humans, but without the mental states. Indeed, we can hardly expect dualists to go further than token identity non-reductive materialists, who already reject reduction of mental to physical, which for them contains empirical. No law relates mental to physical, says Davidson, there is something special in biochemistry that conjures up qualia, which are inaccessible by empirical means, says Searle.
I also think many materialists would take an issue with not meaning matter as understood in physics, and reject the talk about "substances". They are monists after all, there is one matter of which physics, chemistry, biology, etc. describe different manifestations.
It is probably close to the truth that dualism and non-reductive materialism are essentially equivalent empirically, although the practitioners of both will likely resist the thesis. Regardless, the distinction would survive it. That is because most dualists, like idealists, existensialists, etc., believe in a non-empirical aspect of reality, and our special (possibly private) access to it over and above the senses. Descartes had rational intuition, Kant had practical reason, Hegel had determinations of thought, Husserl and Bergson had phenomenological intuition, Heidegger had phenomenological insight, Chalmers writes "*physical realization is the most common way to think about information embedded in the world, but it is not the only way information can be found. We can also find information realized in our phenomenology*", and is strategically vague on how this phenomenology is to be shared. The idea that there is an aspect to reality, the concrete, over and above anything that can be captured represantationally, the abstract, the essence, and hence over and above anything empirical, or at least anything scientifically empirical, is quite common. So I do not expect to see dualists and materialists holding hands in agreement no matter what happens empirically.
Of course, many phenomenologists, like Husserl, would deny the dualism label, and claim instead that their position dissolves the material/ideal divide. Also, their non-empirical experience doesn't have to be mystical. Here is from Rinofner-Kreidl's Phenomenologist's Reply to Quine:"*Phenomenology advocates are widening the concept of "experience" beyond that of sensual experience, thus permitting non-sensual experience referring to ideal objects indirectly situated in space and time "sekundär lokalisiert", i.e. by means of sensual objects to which they are connected. Therefore, phenomenological apriorism is committed to a special type of experience. It is not, on principle, independent of any experience whatever, as Kant considers a priori knowledge to be.*" | >
> **My questions:**
>
>
> **1. How could dualists definitively prove the ontological uniqueness of mental states without these states becoming part of the domain of empirical sciences?**
>
>
> **2. Can Dualism ever be distinguished from [non] reductive materialism?**
>
>
>
I believe question #1 is flawed. If the dualists prove the uniqueness of mental states (or any other dualist claim) that then is able to become the domain of empirical science, they may have "lost" their dualist... is "status" the right word?
But in so doing, they would have "forced" the scientific community to accept their truth claims and expand their materialist view of the world to include an area of study that was previously denied to exist. Sort of a "lose the battle, win the war" story without even really losing the battle.
Then, I believe question #2 becomes irrelevant if you accept the above. |
126,859 | I do not understand what exactly I should bring in the *presentations* section of my CV? In fact, during my Ph.D., I presented my papers at the conferences/workshops and internal presentations in my graduate-school colloquiums. Do I have to mention them in the *presentations* section or it is mainly about other sorts of presentations?
BTW, I study CS. | 2019/03/21 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126859",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39080/"
] | The list of presentations in your CV is an indication of your direct, face-to-face engagement with your research community. All else being equal, researchers who give more talks are more visible/known/familiar to the community, which means their research has more impact.
Further, a list of *invited* talks gives an indication of your reputation within the research community. Again, all else being equal, researchers who are invited to give more talks are generally held in higher esteem, which means their research has (and will continue to have) more impact.
Giving lots of talks—especially invited talks—suggests strong communication skills, which correlate with well-written papers (which, all else being equal, have more impact), good teaching, successful grant applications, and effective public advocacy.
Finally, especially for younger researchers, a long list of presentations indicates that you know how "the game is played". Departments only want to hire junior faculty who show strong potential for earning tenure, which requires not only high-quality research but highly *visible* research. A list of talks in your CV signals that *you* know that your job is not just to sit in a cave and emit papers, but to *sell* your research and to make yourself a *face* in your research community.
Of course, these are all merely correlations and grace notes, and all else is *never* equal. A stronger publication record almost always trumps a stronger presentation record, so your CV should include your publications first.
[I'm also in computer science.] | In mathematics I have certainly seen CV:s with presentations and I have included them when applying for a position.
I have them divided as plenary talks (if I had given any), invited talks at conferences, contributed conference talks and talks at other universities, and finally talks at my own university (which I often leave off). I might also add non-academic talks, if I had given such.
I have even seen a list of attended conferences included, which seemed even less meaningful.
Plenary talks and invited talks clearly signal that you are seen as having something worthwhile to say, while contributed and institution talks do not require so much, but indicate that you are communicating your results to the wider community.
As a junior researcher, you might want to add these types of merits to the CV. You will want to leave out the less significant things off as your seniority increases. |
6,647,099 | We have a client requirement for Android Tablet application which will be used for Live Streaming to only allow HDCP compatible devices for mirroring. If non HDCP compliant device is connected application should block HDMI output mirroring.
I have gone through android developer website and see that there is a drm api which can be used for content management but was not able to determine if same can be used for checking HDCP compliant.
Any tips on how we can implement this will be helpful. | 2011/07/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6647099",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/838440/"
] | For Android 4.2 and up, you can use DisplayManager.getDisplays(), then for used Display check FLAG\_SECURE.
<https://developer.android.com/reference/android/hardware/display/DisplayManager.html#getDisplays()>
<https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/Display.html#FLAG_SECURE> | Why would you want to stream, let's say raw video, to HDCP compatible device where you will not get any benefit from HDCP?
Do you mean that you want to protect whatever you mirror using HDCP and by this way you want only HDCP compliant devices to decrypt it?
If this is the case, you should then only take care of encrypting your content with HDCP (I dunno if this is possible on android tablets). The rest will be handled itself with handshaking when there is a device connected. |
1,633,664 | Is there a clean and easy way to measure it other than programatically measuring the size of each data type (that each object is composed of) stored in session? | 2009/10/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1633664",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/156796/"
] | There's a SessionSize class [here](http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net/javadocs/javawebparts/session/SessionSize.html) that has a function to return the size of an HttpSession object passed to it, a part of the [Java Web Parts](http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net/) lib. | Session content must be Serializable. So serialize it and see the size of the resulting byte array.
It's not equal to the in-memory size, but can be used as a rough representation of it.
P.S. Note that transient fields, if any, will be excluded. |
1,633,664 | Is there a clean and easy way to measure it other than programatically measuring the size of each data type (that each object is composed of) stored in session? | 2009/10/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1633664",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/156796/"
] | [MessAdmin](http://messadmin.sourceforge.net/) allows you to compute the HttpSession size although it is unclear on how it [calculates the size of transient objects](http://messadmin.sourceforge.net/#%5B%5BHttpSession%20size%5D%5D).
It appears that getting an approximate size of the HttpSession object is an exercise in futility in production, and one is likely to get a more accurate size for a controlled environment.
One thing to note is that size of the serialized session object is bound to inaccurate due to changes in character encoding - Strings in Java are stored in the UTF-16 format whereas the output stream could be in a different encoding. More details on why calculating the size of an object in Java is a problem, can be found in this [JavaWorld article](http://www.javaworld.com/javaqa/2003-12/02-qa-1226-sizeof.html). | There's a SessionSize class [here](http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net/javadocs/javawebparts/session/SessionSize.html) that has a function to return the size of an HttpSession object passed to it, a part of the [Java Web Parts](http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net/) lib. |
1,633,664 | Is there a clean and easy way to measure it other than programatically measuring the size of each data type (that each object is composed of) stored in session? | 2009/10/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1633664",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/156796/"
] | [MessAdmin](http://messadmin.sourceforge.net/) allows you to compute the HttpSession size although it is unclear on how it [calculates the size of transient objects](http://messadmin.sourceforge.net/#%5B%5BHttpSession%20size%5D%5D).
It appears that getting an approximate size of the HttpSession object is an exercise in futility in production, and one is likely to get a more accurate size for a controlled environment.
One thing to note is that size of the serialized session object is bound to inaccurate due to changes in character encoding - Strings in Java are stored in the UTF-16 format whereas the output stream could be in a different encoding. More details on why calculating the size of an object in Java is a problem, can be found in this [JavaWorld article](http://www.javaworld.com/javaqa/2003-12/02-qa-1226-sizeof.html). | Session content must be Serializable. So serialize it and see the size of the resulting byte array.
It's not equal to the in-memory size, but can be used as a rough representation of it.
P.S. Note that transient fields, if any, will be excluded. |
324,167 | >
> Would it be possible for you to have forgotten that you owe 30 pounds?
>
>
>
I think this is good but not sure that "to have forgotten" is correct here. At the time of writing I am not sure if you still have forgotten it or not so "to have forgotten" sounds good . | 2022/10/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/324167",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5577/"
] | The phrasal verb "come in" has many meanings. Look at the list in the definitions by:
* [Macmillan](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/come-in)
* [Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/come-in)
* [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/come%20in)
* [Cambridge](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/come-in)
* [Oxford Learner's](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/come-in)
Oxford Learner's gives as one meaning:
>
> to arrive somewhere; to be received: *The train is coming in now.*
>
>
>
Somewhat related to this is *The tide is coming in*, meaning that the water is covering the shore.
Another meaning is to land or approach for landing in an airplane: *The pilot is coming in at a steep angle.* This and similar uses have been generalized into a meaning of "approach". This or something near it, is the meaning in your example. | I don't think this is an instance of the phrasal verb *come in* at all. I think it's *I'm coming* with an adverbial *in close*.
**Edit**: I don't think I was quite right. I think it is *[coming in] close*, where *coming in* isn't a "phrasal verb" with a special meaning, just a verb with an adverb specifying where; then "close" is a further adverb that says how far. |
5,479 | I'm planning on staying in Paris with my wife for a few days in April. I've found a number of hotels for a reasonable price and with overall good reviews on TripAdvisor. But all of them are located in the area outside the Boulevard Périphérique. I have been told that the crime rate is higher in that part of the city (mostly petty theft, robbery and burglary). So, I'm considering staying at a more central hotel (and paying considerably more, of course).
More specifically, most hotels are on the North and East suburbs. Three of them near the Gallieni station, one near the Garibaldi station, one near the Porte de la Chapelle station and one near Vanves-Malakoff train station.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it safe, for example, to come back walking to the hotel at night? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/5479",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1882/"
] | Maybe you are a bit too paranoid. I go to Paris quite regularly and I usually stay in hotels beyond the boulevard périphérique, for exactly the same reason that you mention. Personally, I never had any problem, nor did I feel particularly unsafe. However, when I go by car, I never park it in the street. I leave it in a closed or guarded car park. The hotel I am usually staying at is quite close to 2 metro stations. The way to the metro stations is safe, even after dusk.
These areas can be a bit gloomy and It is true that some areas beyond the boulevard périphérique can be dangerous. Nevertheless the places where the hotels are located are okay. Note that in Paris "intra muros" there are gloomy and dangerous areas as well ...
Wherever you stay and you go, do not forget that Paris is a large city, with everything this implies. But, when you stick to the usual cautions, you should have a safe stay, intra and extra muros. | Difficult to give a comprehensive answer for this one, but friends who visited over New Year (I live in Paris) stayed in a hotel near Hoche metro, in Pantin. This was against my warnings, as like you I had heard very bad things. In fact they had absolutely no problems, and had all the benefits of living near a good metro line (the 5) at a fraction of the cost.
Really it depends where you're staying - "that part of the city" isn't really a good way to describe the entire outside of any city. :/ |
5,479 | I'm planning on staying in Paris with my wife for a few days in April. I've found a number of hotels for a reasonable price and with overall good reviews on TripAdvisor. But all of them are located in the area outside the Boulevard Périphérique. I have been told that the crime rate is higher in that part of the city (mostly petty theft, robbery and burglary). So, I'm considering staying at a more central hotel (and paying considerably more, of course).
More specifically, most hotels are on the North and East suburbs. Three of them near the Gallieni station, one near the Garibaldi station, one near the Porte de la Chapelle station and one near Vanves-Malakoff train station.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it safe, for example, to come back walking to the hotel at night? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/5479",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1882/"
] | Maybe you are a bit too paranoid. I go to Paris quite regularly and I usually stay in hotels beyond the boulevard périphérique, for exactly the same reason that you mention. Personally, I never had any problem, nor did I feel particularly unsafe. However, when I go by car, I never park it in the street. I leave it in a closed or guarded car park. The hotel I am usually staying at is quite close to 2 metro stations. The way to the metro stations is safe, even after dusk.
These areas can be a bit gloomy and It is true that some areas beyond the boulevard périphérique can be dangerous. Nevertheless the places where the hotels are located are okay. Note that in Paris "intra muros" there are gloomy and dangerous areas as well ...
Wherever you stay and you go, do not forget that Paris is a large city, with everything this implies. But, when you stick to the usual cautions, you should have a safe stay, intra and extra muros. | Inside vs. outside the *boulevard périphérique* isn't a relevant criteria. There are some posh neighbourhoods outside it and some dodgy areas in Paris itself. I would not necessarily recommend any place in the Greater Paris area to visitors but most of the areas immediately beyond the *périphérique* should be perfectly safe to stay or walk at night. |
5,479 | I'm planning on staying in Paris with my wife for a few days in April. I've found a number of hotels for a reasonable price and with overall good reviews on TripAdvisor. But all of them are located in the area outside the Boulevard Périphérique. I have been told that the crime rate is higher in that part of the city (mostly petty theft, robbery and burglary). So, I'm considering staying at a more central hotel (and paying considerably more, of course).
More specifically, most hotels are on the North and East suburbs. Three of them near the Gallieni station, one near the Garibaldi station, one near the Porte de la Chapelle station and one near Vanves-Malakoff train station.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it safe, for example, to come back walking to the hotel at night? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/5479",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1882/"
] | Maybe you are a bit too paranoid. I go to Paris quite regularly and I usually stay in hotels beyond the boulevard périphérique, for exactly the same reason that you mention. Personally, I never had any problem, nor did I feel particularly unsafe. However, when I go by car, I never park it in the street. I leave it in a closed or guarded car park. The hotel I am usually staying at is quite close to 2 metro stations. The way to the metro stations is safe, even after dusk.
These areas can be a bit gloomy and It is true that some areas beyond the boulevard périphérique can be dangerous. Nevertheless the places where the hotels are located are okay. Note that in Paris "intra muros" there are gloomy and dangerous areas as well ...
Wherever you stay and you go, do not forget that Paris is a large city, with everything this implies. But, when you stick to the usual cautions, you should have a safe stay, intra and extra muros. | The higher crime rate means simply that instead of being extremely rare, crime is just very rare. So without knowing the details - yes, it is safe. Same way driving a car is safe even though there are lots of accidents. It's not 100% safe, it's safe enough.
Of course, if you're wandering around in some back alley at a late hour at night looking like a tourist with a stash of money - that's not very safe in many neighborhoods, in the center or periphery of Paris or many other cities.
Also, if these places have many popular hotels with high ratings, then people are going there, not getting mugged and leaving good reviews; so, again, it's safe enough. |
5,479 | I'm planning on staying in Paris with my wife for a few days in April. I've found a number of hotels for a reasonable price and with overall good reviews on TripAdvisor. But all of them are located in the area outside the Boulevard Périphérique. I have been told that the crime rate is higher in that part of the city (mostly petty theft, robbery and burglary). So, I'm considering staying at a more central hotel (and paying considerably more, of course).
More specifically, most hotels are on the North and East suburbs. Three of them near the Gallieni station, one near the Garibaldi station, one near the Porte de la Chapelle station and one near Vanves-Malakoff train station.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it safe, for example, to come back walking to the hotel at night? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/5479",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1882/"
] | Maybe you are a bit too paranoid. I go to Paris quite regularly and I usually stay in hotels beyond the boulevard périphérique, for exactly the same reason that you mention. Personally, I never had any problem, nor did I feel particularly unsafe. However, when I go by car, I never park it in the street. I leave it in a closed or guarded car park. The hotel I am usually staying at is quite close to 2 metro stations. The way to the metro stations is safe, even after dusk.
These areas can be a bit gloomy and It is true that some areas beyond the boulevard périphérique can be dangerous. Nevertheless the places where the hotels are located are okay. Note that in Paris "intra muros" there are gloomy and dangerous areas as well ...
Wherever you stay and you go, do not forget that Paris is a large city, with everything this implies. But, when you stick to the usual cautions, you should have a safe stay, intra and extra muros. | French guy living in Paris here. I would go against most advices here and say that if i were you, i would avoid the whole nort-east part of Paris. There is a reason why the hotel cost is so low. More specifically, I would avoid going in Saint-Denis and near Porte de la Chapelle, and globally the north part of Paris. When I came to Paris for my first job, i went to live near Porte de la Chapelle because the rent was low. And it was horrible. Definitly would not recommend anyone to live here, especially a tourist (it will REALLY negate your view of Paris) As a french guy coming from the south of France, it was definitly a culture choc to live there. This video speaks for itself <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EACUNpAOPUQ>
I don't know much about Garibaldi, but the disctrict has a poor reputation (Place de la Villette).
The western part of Paris is way more nicer and also not very expensive. I would advise looking for a Hotel near a "RER A" station (RER is a train you can take with regular metro tickets) as the RER A come from the west part of Paris all the way to the east part (which of course also stops in the center of Paris)
Typically this includes cities like Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Le Vésinet, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, Maisons-Laffitte... Even if you don't speak french you can still check some city name in this website <https://www.ville-ideale.fr> and check the overall mark. It usually gives a fair view of the city quality of life. |
5,479 | I'm planning on staying in Paris with my wife for a few days in April. I've found a number of hotels for a reasonable price and with overall good reviews on TripAdvisor. But all of them are located in the area outside the Boulevard Périphérique. I have been told that the crime rate is higher in that part of the city (mostly petty theft, robbery and burglary). So, I'm considering staying at a more central hotel (and paying considerably more, of course).
More specifically, most hotels are on the North and East suburbs. Three of them near the Gallieni station, one near the Garibaldi station, one near the Porte de la Chapelle station and one near Vanves-Malakoff train station.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it safe, for example, to come back walking to the hotel at night? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/5479",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1882/"
] | Difficult to give a comprehensive answer for this one, but friends who visited over New Year (I live in Paris) stayed in a hotel near Hoche metro, in Pantin. This was against my warnings, as like you I had heard very bad things. In fact they had absolutely no problems, and had all the benefits of living near a good metro line (the 5) at a fraction of the cost.
Really it depends where you're staying - "that part of the city" isn't really a good way to describe the entire outside of any city. :/ | Inside vs. outside the *boulevard périphérique* isn't a relevant criteria. There are some posh neighbourhoods outside it and some dodgy areas in Paris itself. I would not necessarily recommend any place in the Greater Paris area to visitors but most of the areas immediately beyond the *périphérique* should be perfectly safe to stay or walk at night. |
5,479 | I'm planning on staying in Paris with my wife for a few days in April. I've found a number of hotels for a reasonable price and with overall good reviews on TripAdvisor. But all of them are located in the area outside the Boulevard Périphérique. I have been told that the crime rate is higher in that part of the city (mostly petty theft, robbery and burglary). So, I'm considering staying at a more central hotel (and paying considerably more, of course).
More specifically, most hotels are on the North and East suburbs. Three of them near the Gallieni station, one near the Garibaldi station, one near the Porte de la Chapelle station and one near Vanves-Malakoff train station.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it safe, for example, to come back walking to the hotel at night? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/5479",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1882/"
] | Difficult to give a comprehensive answer for this one, but friends who visited over New Year (I live in Paris) stayed in a hotel near Hoche metro, in Pantin. This was against my warnings, as like you I had heard very bad things. In fact they had absolutely no problems, and had all the benefits of living near a good metro line (the 5) at a fraction of the cost.
Really it depends where you're staying - "that part of the city" isn't really a good way to describe the entire outside of any city. :/ | The higher crime rate means simply that instead of being extremely rare, crime is just very rare. So without knowing the details - yes, it is safe. Same way driving a car is safe even though there are lots of accidents. It's not 100% safe, it's safe enough.
Of course, if you're wandering around in some back alley at a late hour at night looking like a tourist with a stash of money - that's not very safe in many neighborhoods, in the center or periphery of Paris or many other cities.
Also, if these places have many popular hotels with high ratings, then people are going there, not getting mugged and leaving good reviews; so, again, it's safe enough. |
5,479 | I'm planning on staying in Paris with my wife for a few days in April. I've found a number of hotels for a reasonable price and with overall good reviews on TripAdvisor. But all of them are located in the area outside the Boulevard Périphérique. I have been told that the crime rate is higher in that part of the city (mostly petty theft, robbery and burglary). So, I'm considering staying at a more central hotel (and paying considerably more, of course).
More specifically, most hotels are on the North and East suburbs. Three of them near the Gallieni station, one near the Garibaldi station, one near the Porte de la Chapelle station and one near Vanves-Malakoff train station.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it safe, for example, to come back walking to the hotel at night? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/5479",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1882/"
] | Difficult to give a comprehensive answer for this one, but friends who visited over New Year (I live in Paris) stayed in a hotel near Hoche metro, in Pantin. This was against my warnings, as like you I had heard very bad things. In fact they had absolutely no problems, and had all the benefits of living near a good metro line (the 5) at a fraction of the cost.
Really it depends where you're staying - "that part of the city" isn't really a good way to describe the entire outside of any city. :/ | French guy living in Paris here. I would go against most advices here and say that if i were you, i would avoid the whole nort-east part of Paris. There is a reason why the hotel cost is so low. More specifically, I would avoid going in Saint-Denis and near Porte de la Chapelle, and globally the north part of Paris. When I came to Paris for my first job, i went to live near Porte de la Chapelle because the rent was low. And it was horrible. Definitly would not recommend anyone to live here, especially a tourist (it will REALLY negate your view of Paris) As a french guy coming from the south of France, it was definitly a culture choc to live there. This video speaks for itself <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EACUNpAOPUQ>
I don't know much about Garibaldi, but the disctrict has a poor reputation (Place de la Villette).
The western part of Paris is way more nicer and also not very expensive. I would advise looking for a Hotel near a "RER A" station (RER is a train you can take with regular metro tickets) as the RER A come from the west part of Paris all the way to the east part (which of course also stops in the center of Paris)
Typically this includes cities like Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Le Vésinet, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, Maisons-Laffitte... Even if you don't speak french you can still check some city name in this website <https://www.ville-ideale.fr> and check the overall mark. It usually gives a fair view of the city quality of life. |
79,996 | In Disney's [*Mulan*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulan_(1998_film)), Shang sings "I'll Make a Man Out of You" during the training montage, in which are the lyrics:
>
> [You must be] mysterious as the dark side of the moon.
>
>
>
How did he know that there was a [dark (far) side of the moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon) that never faced towards the earth? Or was he merely referring to the part of the moon without sunlight reflecting off it? | 2017/09/05 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/79996",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/56902/"
] | Making it into an answer as @Steve-O suggested.
It is possible that they already know that there is a Dark Side to the moon since they always see the same side. That is why they consider the Dark Side mysterious. They never saw it. China already have, AFAIK, a good knowledge of astronomy.
China, way before the Mulan story events, already had deep knowledge and were able to predict eclipses. In 120AD they were already able to tell that how the moon phases worked, so it was only a matter of noticing that there is another side to what they always see.
>
> The sun is like fire and the moon like water. The fire gives out light
> and the water reflects it. Thus the moon's brightness is produced from
> the radiance of the sun, and the moon's darkness (pho) is due to (the
> light of) the sun being obstructed (pi). The side which faces the sun
> is fully lit, and the side which is away from it is dark. The planets
> (as well as the moon) have the nature of water and reflect light. The
> light pouring forth from the sun (tang jih chih chhung kuang) does not
> always reach the moon owing to the obstruction (pi) of the earth
> itself—this is called 'an-hsü', a lunar eclipse. When (a similar
> effect) happens with a planet (we call it) an occulation (hsing wei);
> when the moon passes across (kuo) (the sun's path) then there is a
> solar eclipse (shih).
>
>
>
**Source:** [Chinese Astronomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_astronomy) | Obviously, it's just a song lyric, but it's not indefensible.
The dark side of the moon is not called "dark" because anyone thought it literally lacked sunlight. "Dark" in this expression *means* mysterious and unknown, as in "darkest Africa" -- somewhere where the light of understanding does not shine.
Chinese astronomers by the 5th Century AD certainly understood that the Moon was a spherical object phase-locked to the Earth, and therefore had a side that would never be visible from here. Whatever they called it could be translated as "the dark side of the Moon".
There is another question about whether a low-ranking army officer would have used that phrase when talking to (or singing to) a group of recruits, but hey, it's a movie.
>
> "There is no dark side of the Moon. It's all dark."
>
> -- Roger Waters
>
>
> |
118,493 | Is "please to remind" a valid construction?
One of my collegues (not native english speaker) always uses this contruction:
* please to remind
* please to confirm
* please to take note
* please to contact me
To me (not native english speaker) it sounds gramatically incorrect, but I wonder whether it is a formal construction I maybe just don't know. | 2013/07/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118493",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/47289/"
] | You cannot ever follow *please* with the *to* of a *to*-infinitive. It just takes the bare infinitive of the imperative mode. | No, they don't sound correct the way they stand. It'd be okay to say: I am pleased to remind you... Or as @Kristina said: remind me please, etc. |
118,493 | Is "please to remind" a valid construction?
One of my collegues (not native english speaker) always uses this contruction:
* please to remind
* please to confirm
* please to take note
* please to contact me
To me (not native english speaker) it sounds gramatically incorrect, but I wonder whether it is a formal construction I maybe just don't know. | 2013/07/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118493",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/47289/"
] | No, they don't sound correct the way they stand. It'd be okay to say: I am pleased to remind you... Or as @Kristina said: remind me please, etc. | No, although it is syntactically correct, it does not make sense as an instruction.
Here, "to remind" is an infinitive and "please" is an adverb (you can replace it with "kindly" with exactly the same meaning). Compare to an equivalent grammatical construction with different words:
>
> Quickly, to dance
>
>
>
or
>
> to dance quickly
>
>
>
That is understandable, and grammatically correct, but you couldn't use it as an instruction. However:
>
> Quickly, dance
>
>
>
without the "to" works fine as an instruction, just like:
>
> Please remind me
>
>
> |
118,493 | Is "please to remind" a valid construction?
One of my collegues (not native english speaker) always uses this contruction:
* please to remind
* please to confirm
* please to take note
* please to contact me
To me (not native english speaker) it sounds gramatically incorrect, but I wonder whether it is a formal construction I maybe just don't know. | 2013/07/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118493",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/47289/"
] | "Please to" [looks like old modern English](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=please%20to&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=), rather than incorrect or a regionalism. Usage has gone steadily downhill since 1700. The short phrasing used to show up in telegrams, where the sender was charged by the word. | No, they don't sound correct the way they stand. It'd be okay to say: I am pleased to remind you... Or as @Kristina said: remind me please, etc. |
118,493 | Is "please to remind" a valid construction?
One of my collegues (not native english speaker) always uses this contruction:
* please to remind
* please to confirm
* please to take note
* please to contact me
To me (not native english speaker) it sounds gramatically incorrect, but I wonder whether it is a formal construction I maybe just don't know. | 2013/07/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118493",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/47289/"
] | You cannot ever follow *please* with the *to* of a *to*-infinitive. It just takes the bare infinitive of the imperative mode. | No, although it is syntactically correct, it does not make sense as an instruction.
Here, "to remind" is an infinitive and "please" is an adverb (you can replace it with "kindly" with exactly the same meaning). Compare to an equivalent grammatical construction with different words:
>
> Quickly, to dance
>
>
>
or
>
> to dance quickly
>
>
>
That is understandable, and grammatically correct, but you couldn't use it as an instruction. However:
>
> Quickly, dance
>
>
>
without the "to" works fine as an instruction, just like:
>
> Please remind me
>
>
> |
118,493 | Is "please to remind" a valid construction?
One of my collegues (not native english speaker) always uses this contruction:
* please to remind
* please to confirm
* please to take note
* please to contact me
To me (not native english speaker) it sounds gramatically incorrect, but I wonder whether it is a formal construction I maybe just don't know. | 2013/07/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118493",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/47289/"
] | "Please to" [looks like old modern English](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=please%20to&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=), rather than incorrect or a regionalism. Usage has gone steadily downhill since 1700. The short phrasing used to show up in telegrams, where the sender was charged by the word. | No, although it is syntactically correct, it does not make sense as an instruction.
Here, "to remind" is an infinitive and "please" is an adverb (you can replace it with "kindly" with exactly the same meaning). Compare to an equivalent grammatical construction with different words:
>
> Quickly, to dance
>
>
>
or
>
> to dance quickly
>
>
>
That is understandable, and grammatically correct, but you couldn't use it as an instruction. However:
>
> Quickly, dance
>
>
>
without the "to" works fine as an instruction, just like:
>
> Please remind me
>
>
> |
4,397 | On the site about [trusting the tails key](https://tails.boum.org/doc/get/trusting_tails_signing_key/index.en.html), there is a lot of information about verifying that you have downloaded the genuine Tails signing key. I was wondering whether this paranoia is justified. To ask specifically:
1. As far as is known, has anyone ever hacked the tails website in general, and particularly has anyone edited the key maliciously to fool people?
2. Are there any recorded cases of someone being the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack while downloading the tails key?
3. Are there any known malicious versions of tails that have some key associated with them?
(for the record, my download of the key is here: <http://pastebin.com/vdXiW9Vz>. If that's not the real one, tell me :) | 2014/10/22 | [
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/4397",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/users/232/"
] | Tails website got defaced by 'accident' a while back, luckily it did not become a larger issue then that, but it does show that you do need to be careful.
More info here:
<http://news.softpedia.com/news/Tails-OS-Website-Defaced-No-Need-to-Worry-448831.shtml>
The problem is also that it can be very hard to detect that you have been a victim of a man in the middle attack unless you actually use the keys and verify your downloads.
I always download from the official website and verify with the keys, better to be safe then sorry.
When exploits and such are discovered they are always posted on tor project's blog, or tails blog, and promptly fixed. I have not seen any information about compromised keys.
The bugtracker for Tails is located here:
<https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?query_id=108>
and can be searched.
As for malicious versions of tails - there is probably some floating around various torrent sites and such (which is unsafe to use regardless since they are unofficial ). | Yes, it is very required. You can be a victim of man-in-the-middle attack without anybody else even noticing, so relying on an empty list of publicly known hacks is not satisfactory. Tails has an ambition to be resistive even from a government's surveillance (to the highest possible extent), and these guys have no problem forging the Tails certificate and carrying out a targeted attack.
It is a good practice to always verify the download, and also check your version of the PGP key with your friends, or taken from various machines, over a period of time... |
4,397 | On the site about [trusting the tails key](https://tails.boum.org/doc/get/trusting_tails_signing_key/index.en.html), there is a lot of information about verifying that you have downloaded the genuine Tails signing key. I was wondering whether this paranoia is justified. To ask specifically:
1. As far as is known, has anyone ever hacked the tails website in general, and particularly has anyone edited the key maliciously to fool people?
2. Are there any recorded cases of someone being the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack while downloading the tails key?
3. Are there any known malicious versions of tails that have some key associated with them?
(for the record, my download of the key is here: <http://pastebin.com/vdXiW9Vz>. If that's not the real one, tell me :) | 2014/10/22 | [
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/4397",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/users/232/"
] | Tails website got defaced by 'accident' a while back, luckily it did not become a larger issue then that, but it does show that you do need to be careful.
More info here:
<http://news.softpedia.com/news/Tails-OS-Website-Defaced-No-Need-to-Worry-448831.shtml>
The problem is also that it can be very hard to detect that you have been a victim of a man in the middle attack unless you actually use the keys and verify your downloads.
I always download from the official website and verify with the keys, better to be safe then sorry.
When exploits and such are discovered they are always posted on tor project's blog, or tails blog, and promptly fixed. I have not seen any information about compromised keys.
The bugtracker for Tails is located here:
<https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?query_id=108>
and can be searched.
As for malicious versions of tails - there is probably some floating around various torrent sites and such (which is unsafe to use regardless since they are unofficial ). | About reported victims: If such an attack really succeeds you will most likely never find out.
There have been various attacks in the past of the same governments that (want to) block Tor. There have been numerous occasions of governments even faking SSL signatures of websites, so you really want to make sure this isn't the case.
If you take time to download Tor or Tails you really should take that few seconds to minutes time to verify the signature. |
4,397 | On the site about [trusting the tails key](https://tails.boum.org/doc/get/trusting_tails_signing_key/index.en.html), there is a lot of information about verifying that you have downloaded the genuine Tails signing key. I was wondering whether this paranoia is justified. To ask specifically:
1. As far as is known, has anyone ever hacked the tails website in general, and particularly has anyone edited the key maliciously to fool people?
2. Are there any recorded cases of someone being the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack while downloading the tails key?
3. Are there any known malicious versions of tails that have some key associated with them?
(for the record, my download of the key is here: <http://pastebin.com/vdXiW9Vz>. If that's not the real one, tell me :) | 2014/10/22 | [
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/4397",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/users/232/"
] | Yes. In fact, researchers recently [discovered a rogue exit node that was modifying binary files](http://threatpost.com/researcher-finds-tor-exit-node-adding-malware-to-binaries/109008)! Know that Tor protects your anonymity, but that without end to end encryption you are vulnerable to MITM attacks. Some might say you are even *more* vulnerable since you're more of a target by using Tor.
It is an unfortunate fact that computer security is and always will be an ongoing process. Tools like Tor successfully make it much easier to 'do the right thing', but so far there are no perfect easy-to-use end to end solutions. Always validate everything you pull down using Tor (or off the internet in general for that matter). | Yes, it is very required. You can be a victim of man-in-the-middle attack without anybody else even noticing, so relying on an empty list of publicly known hacks is not satisfactory. Tails has an ambition to be resistive even from a government's surveillance (to the highest possible extent), and these guys have no problem forging the Tails certificate and carrying out a targeted attack.
It is a good practice to always verify the download, and also check your version of the PGP key with your friends, or taken from various machines, over a period of time... |
4,397 | On the site about [trusting the tails key](https://tails.boum.org/doc/get/trusting_tails_signing_key/index.en.html), there is a lot of information about verifying that you have downloaded the genuine Tails signing key. I was wondering whether this paranoia is justified. To ask specifically:
1. As far as is known, has anyone ever hacked the tails website in general, and particularly has anyone edited the key maliciously to fool people?
2. Are there any recorded cases of someone being the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack while downloading the tails key?
3. Are there any known malicious versions of tails that have some key associated with them?
(for the record, my download of the key is here: <http://pastebin.com/vdXiW9Vz>. If that's not the real one, tell me :) | 2014/10/22 | [
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/4397",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/users/232/"
] | About reported victims: If such an attack really succeeds you will most likely never find out.
There have been various attacks in the past of the same governments that (want to) block Tor. There have been numerous occasions of governments even faking SSL signatures of websites, so you really want to make sure this isn't the case.
If you take time to download Tor or Tails you really should take that few seconds to minutes time to verify the signature. | Yes, it is very required. You can be a victim of man-in-the-middle attack without anybody else even noticing, so relying on an empty list of publicly known hacks is not satisfactory. Tails has an ambition to be resistive even from a government's surveillance (to the highest possible extent), and these guys have no problem forging the Tails certificate and carrying out a targeted attack.
It is a good practice to always verify the download, and also check your version of the PGP key with your friends, or taken from various machines, over a period of time... |
4,397 | On the site about [trusting the tails key](https://tails.boum.org/doc/get/trusting_tails_signing_key/index.en.html), there is a lot of information about verifying that you have downloaded the genuine Tails signing key. I was wondering whether this paranoia is justified. To ask specifically:
1. As far as is known, has anyone ever hacked the tails website in general, and particularly has anyone edited the key maliciously to fool people?
2. Are there any recorded cases of someone being the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack while downloading the tails key?
3. Are there any known malicious versions of tails that have some key associated with them?
(for the record, my download of the key is here: <http://pastebin.com/vdXiW9Vz>. If that's not the real one, tell me :) | 2014/10/22 | [
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/4397",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com",
"https://tor.stackexchange.com/users/232/"
] | Yes. In fact, researchers recently [discovered a rogue exit node that was modifying binary files](http://threatpost.com/researcher-finds-tor-exit-node-adding-malware-to-binaries/109008)! Know that Tor protects your anonymity, but that without end to end encryption you are vulnerable to MITM attacks. Some might say you are even *more* vulnerable since you're more of a target by using Tor.
It is an unfortunate fact that computer security is and always will be an ongoing process. Tools like Tor successfully make it much easier to 'do the right thing', but so far there are no perfect easy-to-use end to end solutions. Always validate everything you pull down using Tor (or off the internet in general for that matter). | About reported victims: If such an attack really succeeds you will most likely never find out.
There have been various attacks in the past of the same governments that (want to) block Tor. There have been numerous occasions of governments even faking SSL signatures of websites, so you really want to make sure this isn't the case.
If you take time to download Tor or Tails you really should take that few seconds to minutes time to verify the signature. |
36,547 | I am refinishing wood floors on the smallest budget possible. I believe the wood is a red fir. It was installed in the late 50s and I think it has a worn layer of urethan. It has been under carpet for appox 20 years.
The goal is a rustic, rougher look - in as much that it reduces labor. I dont want a high gloss / glassy smoothy. If costs were not such an issue, we would spend the effort distressing it. I am leaning towards a hardening penetrating finish, but would like to get out of sanding it to wood (time, PITA, I dont want it perfectly smooth).
Q1. What determines if I can get away with scouring the surface of the existing urethan (some type of poly?) adding more build up layers of a polyurethane?
If I do have to sand down to wood, I will go with penetrating oil. Im not going to spend a weekend beating the floor with chains and wielding an ice pick, but I would like to highlight some of the existing distressing.
Q2. Can I put a dark stain on places of distressing before the initial sanding or do I really need to standings?
Q3. What are the trade offs of a *hardening* penetrating oil finish? | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/36547",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/18296/"
] | A1: Whether you or another appearance critic (spouses are common) can stand the way it looks. You pretty much have to try a spot and see what you think.
A1a: Don't use poly if you don't want a high gloss "look". Use an oil and see what you think. Even "matte" polyurethane is pretty shiny, as things go - but also look for yourself, that's my **opinion.**
A2: Sure, if you don't sand that deep and remove it all.
A3: a hardening oil finish will actually get dry. A non hardening finish, won't. Much easier to get the floor somewhat clean if it's not sticky. There is some problem of marketing confusing the issue - some vendors sell a "hardening oil finish" that others (more truthful) would just call a varnish. At the most basic level you have raw linseed oil and "boiled" linseed oil (not actually boiled, for the most part) - the raw never hardens, the boiling (or other chemical treatment) makes the boiled harden. Or "salad oil" (soy or canola) .vs. walnut oil - walnut naturally hardens, salad oil never does. But salad oil can go rancid...
Most of the stuff sold as "tung oil" or "Danish oil" is better described as a wiping varnish | A1: "you can only screen when the finish is worn, scratched or dull but the wood beneath is not stained or damaged."[This old house](http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article/0,,203303-2,00.html) If you want to change color you need to sand past the existing color. If you do not sand out stains, then they will still be there (maybe that is ok, maybe you have a dark finish..)
A2: Answered by Ecnerwal. But It seems like you can just do your regular sanding pattern such as 60, 80, 100 and do you highlights between the last two.
A3: Only think I have found is that they take a bit more work and are slightly less forgiving on the install. |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | A software-only approach [may not be enough in some cases](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/5662/is-it-enough-to-only-wipe-a-flash-drive-once), depending on your requirements. (e.g. encryption algorithm can be broken at some point in the future)
You can shred the PCB inside of the SSD quite easily, though. That assumes that you do not intend to use the drive again.
The approach that we use is to send disks off for destruction using a [***media disintegrator***](http://www.datasecurityinc.com/degausser/solidstatedestruction.html). Really... :) There's an audit trail and we provide tracking information to customers. Maybe that's overkill for your situation, but it's an option.
Would this be a single SSD or is it a member of a RAID array? I think there are some other options that are dependent on the RAID technology in use, if you need to reuse a device that's a RAID member. | I am sorry but this is the fastest and the most secure way to destroy your data either on SSD for spinning disk.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd_O7-rqcHc> |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | Just burn them - seriously, any old fire will do, even a barbecue. | We have a pretty canonical answer on this on Security Stack Exchange. So much so that it led to one of our top blog posts of all time: <http://security.blogoverflow.com/2012/02/qotw-18-how-can-we-destroy-data-on-a-hard-drive/>
That post includes a range of actions including degaussing, destruction, manual disassembly, disintegration, incineration, pulverizing, shredding, melting, Electrical scrambling and my favourite:
Wanton Destruction
In reality though, the simplest option with an SSD is to have the entire device as an encrypted volume and when you want it wiped just lose the key. At that point it is effectively random data. |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | We have a pretty canonical answer on this on Security Stack Exchange. So much so that it led to one of our top blog posts of all time: <http://security.blogoverflow.com/2012/02/qotw-18-how-can-we-destroy-data-on-a-hard-drive/>
That post includes a range of actions including degaussing, destruction, manual disassembly, disintegration, incineration, pulverizing, shredding, melting, Electrical scrambling and my favourite:
Wanton Destruction
In reality though, the simplest option with an SSD is to have the entire device as an encrypted volume and when you want it wiped just lose the key. At that point it is effectively random data. | A software-only approach [may not be enough in some cases](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/5662/is-it-enough-to-only-wipe-a-flash-drive-once), depending on your requirements. (e.g. encryption algorithm can be broken at some point in the future)
You can shred the PCB inside of the SSD quite easily, though. That assumes that you do not intend to use the drive again.
The approach that we use is to send disks off for destruction using a [***media disintegrator***](http://www.datasecurityinc.com/degausser/solidstatedestruction.html). Really... :) There's an audit trail and we provide tracking information to customers. Maybe that's overkill for your situation, but it's an option.
Would this be a single SSD or is it a member of a RAID array? I think there are some other options that are dependent on the RAID technology in use, if you need to reuse a device that's a RAID member. |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | So, some research has been done on this.
According to SSD researchers Michael Wei, Laura M. Grupp, Frederick E. Spada, and Steven Swanson, who presented the paper, "[Reliably Erasing Data from Flash-Based Drives](http://static.usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf)" (PDF warning), quote:
>
> ...our results lead to three conclusions:
>
>
> First, built-in commands are effective, but manufacturers sometimes
> implement them incorrectly.
>
>
> Second, overwriting the entire visible address space of an SSD twice
> is usually, but not always, sufficient to sanitize the drive.
>
>
> Third, none of the existing hard drive-oriented techniques for
> individual file sanitization are effective on SSDs
>
>
>
The reason that simply erasing a flash drive doesn't work (or encrypting it and throwing away the key) is that the flash controller implements a "Flash Translation Layer" (FTL), which abstracts the physical location of the data on the flash chips from the Logical Block Addressing (LBA) that the computer uses to refer to data locations on disk.
The primary benefit that is derived from FTL is the ability to have more space on the chips than in the LBA - in other words, you can have a flash drive with 128GB of flash chips, but thanks to the FTL, it only reports 120GB. This is done to extend the lifetime of the drive, and to aid in wear leveling. It's common for this kind of under-provisioning to happen (if you look at most of the SSD drives on the market today, you'll see their capacity as being close to, but not at, a power of two - they contain the power-of-two amount of flash chips, but underreport it to increase lifetime).
The side effect of this is that if you have a 120GB drive and overwrite it with 120GB of zeroes, there are still 8GB of flash chips that hold old data, which can be recovered through electrically extracting them independent of the FTL. So it's necessary to erase twice (usually, though as it mentions in the article, even that doesn't always work on particularly odd controllers).
So that leaves physical destruction of the flash chips as being the only way presently to guarantee data inaccessibility. | I am sorry but this is the fastest and the most secure way to destroy your data either on SSD for spinning disk.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd_O7-rqcHc> |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | So, some research has been done on this.
According to SSD researchers Michael Wei, Laura M. Grupp, Frederick E. Spada, and Steven Swanson, who presented the paper, "[Reliably Erasing Data from Flash-Based Drives](http://static.usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf)" (PDF warning), quote:
>
> ...our results lead to three conclusions:
>
>
> First, built-in commands are effective, but manufacturers sometimes
> implement them incorrectly.
>
>
> Second, overwriting the entire visible address space of an SSD twice
> is usually, but not always, sufficient to sanitize the drive.
>
>
> Third, none of the existing hard drive-oriented techniques for
> individual file sanitization are effective on SSDs
>
>
>
The reason that simply erasing a flash drive doesn't work (or encrypting it and throwing away the key) is that the flash controller implements a "Flash Translation Layer" (FTL), which abstracts the physical location of the data on the flash chips from the Logical Block Addressing (LBA) that the computer uses to refer to data locations on disk.
The primary benefit that is derived from FTL is the ability to have more space on the chips than in the LBA - in other words, you can have a flash drive with 128GB of flash chips, but thanks to the FTL, it only reports 120GB. This is done to extend the lifetime of the drive, and to aid in wear leveling. It's common for this kind of under-provisioning to happen (if you look at most of the SSD drives on the market today, you'll see their capacity as being close to, but not at, a power of two - they contain the power-of-two amount of flash chips, but underreport it to increase lifetime).
The side effect of this is that if you have a 120GB drive and overwrite it with 120GB of zeroes, there are still 8GB of flash chips that hold old data, which can be recovered through electrically extracting them independent of the FTL. So it's necessary to erase twice (usually, though as it mentions in the article, even that doesn't always work on particularly odd controllers).
So that leaves physical destruction of the flash chips as being the only way presently to guarantee data inaccessibility. | Just burn them - seriously, any old fire will do, even a barbecue. |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | We have a pretty canonical answer on this on Security Stack Exchange. So much so that it led to one of our top blog posts of all time: <http://security.blogoverflow.com/2012/02/qotw-18-how-can-we-destroy-data-on-a-hard-drive/>
That post includes a range of actions including degaussing, destruction, manual disassembly, disintegration, incineration, pulverizing, shredding, melting, Electrical scrambling and my favourite:
Wanton Destruction
In reality though, the simplest option with an SSD is to have the entire device as an encrypted volume and when you want it wiped just lose the key. At that point it is effectively random data. | I am sorry but this is the fastest and the most secure way to destroy your data either on SSD for spinning disk.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd_O7-rqcHc> |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | So, some research has been done on this.
According to SSD researchers Michael Wei, Laura M. Grupp, Frederick E. Spada, and Steven Swanson, who presented the paper, "[Reliably Erasing Data from Flash-Based Drives](http://static.usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf)" (PDF warning), quote:
>
> ...our results lead to three conclusions:
>
>
> First, built-in commands are effective, but manufacturers sometimes
> implement them incorrectly.
>
>
> Second, overwriting the entire visible address space of an SSD twice
> is usually, but not always, sufficient to sanitize the drive.
>
>
> Third, none of the existing hard drive-oriented techniques for
> individual file sanitization are effective on SSDs
>
>
>
The reason that simply erasing a flash drive doesn't work (or encrypting it and throwing away the key) is that the flash controller implements a "Flash Translation Layer" (FTL), which abstracts the physical location of the data on the flash chips from the Logical Block Addressing (LBA) that the computer uses to refer to data locations on disk.
The primary benefit that is derived from FTL is the ability to have more space on the chips than in the LBA - in other words, you can have a flash drive with 128GB of flash chips, but thanks to the FTL, it only reports 120GB. This is done to extend the lifetime of the drive, and to aid in wear leveling. It's common for this kind of under-provisioning to happen (if you look at most of the SSD drives on the market today, you'll see their capacity as being close to, but not at, a power of two - they contain the power-of-two amount of flash chips, but underreport it to increase lifetime).
The side effect of this is that if you have a 120GB drive and overwrite it with 120GB of zeroes, there are still 8GB of flash chips that hold old data, which can be recovered through electrically extracting them independent of the FTL. So it's necessary to erase twice (usually, though as it mentions in the article, even that doesn't always work on particularly odd controllers).
So that leaves physical destruction of the flash chips as being the only way presently to guarantee data inaccessibility. | We have a pretty canonical answer on this on Security Stack Exchange. So much so that it led to one of our top blog posts of all time: <http://security.blogoverflow.com/2012/02/qotw-18-how-can-we-destroy-data-on-a-hard-drive/>
That post includes a range of actions including degaussing, destruction, manual disassembly, disintegration, incineration, pulverizing, shredding, melting, Electrical scrambling and my favourite:
Wanton Destruction
In reality though, the simplest option with an SSD is to have the entire device as an encrypted volume and when you want it wiped just lose the key. At that point it is effectively random data. |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | So, some research has been done on this.
According to SSD researchers Michael Wei, Laura M. Grupp, Frederick E. Spada, and Steven Swanson, who presented the paper, "[Reliably Erasing Data from Flash-Based Drives](http://static.usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf)" (PDF warning), quote:
>
> ...our results lead to three conclusions:
>
>
> First, built-in commands are effective, but manufacturers sometimes
> implement them incorrectly.
>
>
> Second, overwriting the entire visible address space of an SSD twice
> is usually, but not always, sufficient to sanitize the drive.
>
>
> Third, none of the existing hard drive-oriented techniques for
> individual file sanitization are effective on SSDs
>
>
>
The reason that simply erasing a flash drive doesn't work (or encrypting it and throwing away the key) is that the flash controller implements a "Flash Translation Layer" (FTL), which abstracts the physical location of the data on the flash chips from the Logical Block Addressing (LBA) that the computer uses to refer to data locations on disk.
The primary benefit that is derived from FTL is the ability to have more space on the chips than in the LBA - in other words, you can have a flash drive with 128GB of flash chips, but thanks to the FTL, it only reports 120GB. This is done to extend the lifetime of the drive, and to aid in wear leveling. It's common for this kind of under-provisioning to happen (if you look at most of the SSD drives on the market today, you'll see their capacity as being close to, but not at, a power of two - they contain the power-of-two amount of flash chips, but underreport it to increase lifetime).
The side effect of this is that if you have a 120GB drive and overwrite it with 120GB of zeroes, there are still 8GB of flash chips that hold old data, which can be recovered through electrically extracting them independent of the FTL. So it's necessary to erase twice (usually, though as it mentions in the article, even that doesn't always work on particularly odd controllers).
So that leaves physical destruction of the flash chips as being the only way presently to guarantee data inaccessibility. | A software-only approach [may not be enough in some cases](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/5662/is-it-enough-to-only-wipe-a-flash-drive-once), depending on your requirements. (e.g. encryption algorithm can be broken at some point in the future)
You can shred the PCB inside of the SSD quite easily, though. That assumes that you do not intend to use the drive again.
The approach that we use is to send disks off for destruction using a [***media disintegrator***](http://www.datasecurityinc.com/degausser/solidstatedestruction.html). Really... :) There's an audit trail and we provide tracking information to customers. Maybe that's overkill for your situation, but it's an option.
Would this be a single SSD or is it a member of a RAID array? I think there are some other options that are dependent on the RAID technology in use, if you need to reuse a device that's a RAID member. |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | Just burn them - seriously, any old fire will do, even a barbecue. | A software-only approach [may not be enough in some cases](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/5662/is-it-enough-to-only-wipe-a-flash-drive-once), depending on your requirements. (e.g. encryption algorithm can be broken at some point in the future)
You can shred the PCB inside of the SSD quite easily, though. That assumes that you do not intend to use the drive again.
The approach that we use is to send disks off for destruction using a [***media disintegrator***](http://www.datasecurityinc.com/degausser/solidstatedestruction.html). Really... :) There's an audit trail and we provide tracking information to customers. Maybe that's overkill for your situation, but it's an option.
Would this be a single SSD or is it a member of a RAID array? I think there are some other options that are dependent on the RAID technology in use, if you need to reuse a device that's a RAID member. |
512,693 | What is a *repeatable* way of destroying SSDs? For example, if i opened it which part could i take out and destroy for just the data(How to identify the actual "storage unit")?
Case 1. Normal user that wants to be reasonably sure that their data is not easily recovered?
Case 2. Consider that the data is sensitive and the drive is already encrypted. The requirement is that the data should be forever irrecoverable which means the encryption in itself is not enough to satisfy the requirement.
**Intent**: SSDs are electronic compared to its mechanical counterpart so the answer in the question [How do I destroy a hard disk?](https://serverfault.com/questions/3854/how-do-i-destroy-a-hard-disk) is not applicable because of their inherent differences. I'm all for updating the original question(Making it canonical) based on this question and closing this as a duplicate afterwards. | 2013/06/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/512693",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/21383/"
] | Just burn them - seriously, any old fire will do, even a barbecue. | Sledgehammer. Oddly therapeutic. One good whack and it's toast. |
10,100,437 | I have a page where there will be many tabs and i want to display data in each tab which is extracted from mysql database. I need this in jquery without refreshing the page just clicking on the tabs the data to be displayed concenrned with the person id.
Can anyone please give me idea how to do this one in jquery
Thanks in advance,
Ramsai | 2012/04/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10100437",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1304678/"
] | There's an example on the JQuery demos site that implements almost this exact scenario: <http://jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/#ajax>. The JQuery UI library lets you write the tab sources as normal hrefs, and it converts them to AJAX-enabled tabs. So all you'd have to do is implement each tab as a separate URL/query string, pulling from the MySql source as needed. | it's rely simple. All you need to do is ajax method with following attributes :
client side:
jquery code with ajax method
1.) url to which the php code will iterate your mysql database
2.) data to be sended. will be inside data attribute in json form.
3.) write methods after you receive a response i.e. json too.
server side with php/mysql
1.) get data with $\_GET method . in your case person id
2.) look into db.
3.) encode using echo json\_encode(->data<-);
for more info. please refer:
[This describes the jquery .ajax method. i will assume you r aware of php and mysql](http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.ajax/) |
588,941 | I'm looking for a term used when a gift/gesture/allowance of some sort isn't anywhere near good enough, and was done largely for the sake of appearance. Often used in a political context.
For example, a group is saying that the education system is in desperate need of more funding. The political party budgets several million dollars for school so that they can look good on paper, but anyone who actually does the math can see that once you divide the money up between all the schools, it's barely enough to buy one new library book per school.
It's something in roughly the same vein as "a band-aid solution", but it carries with it the implication that the giver is only doing it for the sake of appearances, and the receiver is offended by such a paltry offering. | 2022/05/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/588941",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/453176/"
] | The expression ***[window dressing](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/it/dizionario/inglese/window-dressing)*** may fit in the context you are describing:
>
> things that are of no real importance and are said or done in order to make an attractive effect:
>
>
> * *How many of the candidate's policies are real intentions, and how many are just window dressing?*
>
>
>
(Cambridge Dictionary) | >
> **throw (someone) a bone** (idiom)
>
>
> *Informal*
>
>
> To offer (someone) something that is not very important or valuable
> especially to stop complaints or protests
>
>
> *The boss would not let his workers out early for the holiday but threw them a bone by buying lunch.* [M-W](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throw%20%28someone%29%20a%20bone#:%7E:text=Definition%20of%20throw%20(someone)%20a,a%20bone%20by%20buying%20lunch.)
>
>
>
>
> **throw a bone to** (phrase)
>
>
> Give someone only a token concession.
>
>
> *Was the true purpose of the minimum wage hike to throw a bone to the unions?*
>
>
> *I bet this was already obsolete in design and technology some years back, and they wanted to throw a bone to the public.* [Lexico](https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/throw_a_bone_to)
>
>
>
---
>
> **Angry** at the betrayal of their supposed friends and allies, SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee] lashed out that “this **token offer** of recognition was too much like
> the **usual bone thrown** to Negroes who showed signs of revolt.”
> [Harvard Sitkoff; *The Struggle for Black Equality*](https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Struggle_for_Black_Equality/_idGCdBFGC4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=angry%20token%20as%20being%20thrown%20a%20bone&pg=PT158&printsec=frontcover) (2008)
>
>
> |
588,941 | I'm looking for a term used when a gift/gesture/allowance of some sort isn't anywhere near good enough, and was done largely for the sake of appearance. Often used in a political context.
For example, a group is saying that the education system is in desperate need of more funding. The political party budgets several million dollars for school so that they can look good on paper, but anyone who actually does the math can see that once you divide the money up between all the schools, it's barely enough to buy one new library book per school.
It's something in roughly the same vein as "a band-aid solution", but it carries with it the implication that the giver is only doing it for the sake of appearances, and the receiver is offended by such a paltry offering. | 2022/05/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/588941",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/453176/"
] | [Token. Tokenism.](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tokenism)
>
> If you refer to an action as tokenism, you disapprove of it because you think it is just done for effect, in order to show a particular intention or to impress a particular type of person.
> [disapproval]
> Is his promotion evidence of the minorities' advance, or mere tokenism?
>
>
>
Used in phrases such as "[a token gesture](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/token+gesture)", "[a token effort](https://ludwig.guru/s/token+effort)" or "[a token black character](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/top-five-token-black-characters/)"
For the specific example in the OP, you could call it "[a token amount](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+amount)" or "[a token contribution](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+contribution)" | The expression ***[window dressing](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/it/dizionario/inglese/window-dressing)*** may fit in the context you are describing:
>
> things that are of no real importance and are said or done in order to make an attractive effect:
>
>
> * *How many of the candidate's policies are real intentions, and how many are just window dressing?*
>
>
>
(Cambridge Dictionary) |
588,941 | I'm looking for a term used when a gift/gesture/allowance of some sort isn't anywhere near good enough, and was done largely for the sake of appearance. Often used in a political context.
For example, a group is saying that the education system is in desperate need of more funding. The political party budgets several million dollars for school so that they can look good on paper, but anyone who actually does the math can see that once you divide the money up between all the schools, it's barely enough to buy one new library book per school.
It's something in roughly the same vein as "a band-aid solution", but it carries with it the implication that the giver is only doing it for the sake of appearances, and the receiver is offended by such a paltry offering. | 2022/05/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/588941",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/453176/"
] | The expression ***[window dressing](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/it/dizionario/inglese/window-dressing)*** may fit in the context you are describing:
>
> things that are of no real importance and are said or done in order to make an attractive effect:
>
>
> * *How many of the candidate's policies are real intentions, and how many are just window dressing?*
>
>
>
(Cambridge Dictionary) | **Smoke and mirrors**
Merriam-Webster:
>
> Something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue
>
>
>
Example: *The recent school budget increase is just smoke and mirrors.* |
588,941 | I'm looking for a term used when a gift/gesture/allowance of some sort isn't anywhere near good enough, and was done largely for the sake of appearance. Often used in a political context.
For example, a group is saying that the education system is in desperate need of more funding. The political party budgets several million dollars for school so that they can look good on paper, but anyone who actually does the math can see that once you divide the money up between all the schools, it's barely enough to buy one new library book per school.
It's something in roughly the same vein as "a band-aid solution", but it carries with it the implication that the giver is only doing it for the sake of appearances, and the receiver is offended by such a paltry offering. | 2022/05/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/588941",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/453176/"
] | The expression ***[window dressing](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/it/dizionario/inglese/window-dressing)*** may fit in the context you are describing:
>
> things that are of no real importance and are said or done in order to make an attractive effect:
>
>
> * *How many of the candidate's policies are real intentions, and how many are just window dressing?*
>
>
>
(Cambridge Dictionary) | **pandering** often has a connotation that what is given is woefully short of that which is necessary. One would, in a lazy attempt to placate others, pander to their constituents by providing or proposing some superficial offering instead of committing the hard work of solving any of substantive underlying challenges. |
588,941 | I'm looking for a term used when a gift/gesture/allowance of some sort isn't anywhere near good enough, and was done largely for the sake of appearance. Often used in a political context.
For example, a group is saying that the education system is in desperate need of more funding. The political party budgets several million dollars for school so that they can look good on paper, but anyone who actually does the math can see that once you divide the money up between all the schools, it's barely enough to buy one new library book per school.
It's something in roughly the same vein as "a band-aid solution", but it carries with it the implication that the giver is only doing it for the sake of appearances, and the receiver is offended by such a paltry offering. | 2022/05/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/588941",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/453176/"
] | [Token. Tokenism.](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tokenism)
>
> If you refer to an action as tokenism, you disapprove of it because you think it is just done for effect, in order to show a particular intention or to impress a particular type of person.
> [disapproval]
> Is his promotion evidence of the minorities' advance, or mere tokenism?
>
>
>
Used in phrases such as "[a token gesture](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/token+gesture)", "[a token effort](https://ludwig.guru/s/token+effort)" or "[a token black character](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/top-five-token-black-characters/)"
For the specific example in the OP, you could call it "[a token amount](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+amount)" or "[a token contribution](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+contribution)" | >
> **throw (someone) a bone** (idiom)
>
>
> *Informal*
>
>
> To offer (someone) something that is not very important or valuable
> especially to stop complaints or protests
>
>
> *The boss would not let his workers out early for the holiday but threw them a bone by buying lunch.* [M-W](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throw%20%28someone%29%20a%20bone#:%7E:text=Definition%20of%20throw%20(someone)%20a,a%20bone%20by%20buying%20lunch.)
>
>
>
>
> **throw a bone to** (phrase)
>
>
> Give someone only a token concession.
>
>
> *Was the true purpose of the minimum wage hike to throw a bone to the unions?*
>
>
> *I bet this was already obsolete in design and technology some years back, and they wanted to throw a bone to the public.* [Lexico](https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/throw_a_bone_to)
>
>
>
---
>
> **Angry** at the betrayal of their supposed friends and allies, SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee] lashed out that “this **token offer** of recognition was too much like
> the **usual bone thrown** to Negroes who showed signs of revolt.”
> [Harvard Sitkoff; *The Struggle for Black Equality*](https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Struggle_for_Black_Equality/_idGCdBFGC4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=angry%20token%20as%20being%20thrown%20a%20bone&pg=PT158&printsec=frontcover) (2008)
>
>
> |
588,941 | I'm looking for a term used when a gift/gesture/allowance of some sort isn't anywhere near good enough, and was done largely for the sake of appearance. Often used in a political context.
For example, a group is saying that the education system is in desperate need of more funding. The political party budgets several million dollars for school so that they can look good on paper, but anyone who actually does the math can see that once you divide the money up between all the schools, it's barely enough to buy one new library book per school.
It's something in roughly the same vein as "a band-aid solution", but it carries with it the implication that the giver is only doing it for the sake of appearances, and the receiver is offended by such a paltry offering. | 2022/05/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/588941",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/453176/"
] | [Token. Tokenism.](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tokenism)
>
> If you refer to an action as tokenism, you disapprove of it because you think it is just done for effect, in order to show a particular intention or to impress a particular type of person.
> [disapproval]
> Is his promotion evidence of the minorities' advance, or mere tokenism?
>
>
>
Used in phrases such as "[a token gesture](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/token+gesture)", "[a token effort](https://ludwig.guru/s/token+effort)" or "[a token black character](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/top-five-token-black-characters/)"
For the specific example in the OP, you could call it "[a token amount](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+amount)" or "[a token contribution](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+contribution)" | **Smoke and mirrors**
Merriam-Webster:
>
> Something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue
>
>
>
Example: *The recent school budget increase is just smoke and mirrors.* |
588,941 | I'm looking for a term used when a gift/gesture/allowance of some sort isn't anywhere near good enough, and was done largely for the sake of appearance. Often used in a political context.
For example, a group is saying that the education system is in desperate need of more funding. The political party budgets several million dollars for school so that they can look good on paper, but anyone who actually does the math can see that once you divide the money up between all the schools, it's barely enough to buy one new library book per school.
It's something in roughly the same vein as "a band-aid solution", but it carries with it the implication that the giver is only doing it for the sake of appearances, and the receiver is offended by such a paltry offering. | 2022/05/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/588941",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/453176/"
] | [Token. Tokenism.](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tokenism)
>
> If you refer to an action as tokenism, you disapprove of it because you think it is just done for effect, in order to show a particular intention or to impress a particular type of person.
> [disapproval]
> Is his promotion evidence of the minorities' advance, or mere tokenism?
>
>
>
Used in phrases such as "[a token gesture](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/token+gesture)", "[a token effort](https://ludwig.guru/s/token+effort)" or "[a token black character](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/top-five-token-black-characters/)"
For the specific example in the OP, you could call it "[a token amount](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+amount)" or "[a token contribution](https://ludwig.guru/s/a+token+contribution)" | **pandering** often has a connotation that what is given is woefully short of that which is necessary. One would, in a lazy attempt to placate others, pander to their constituents by providing or proposing some superficial offering instead of committing the hard work of solving any of substantive underlying challenges. |
2,223,272 | I've been charged with the following tasks for a group project:
a) Design/Draw an Architecture Context Diagram
b) ACD Description
c) UML deployment diagram
The UML deployment diagram is no issue as there are plenty of straight-forward resources online but this is not the case for the ACD.
**I need resources on exactly what an ACD is and how to draw one.**
Is there another name for an ACD such as Architecture Context Diagram such as Architecture Interconnection Diagram or Operations Systems Diagram? I keep coming across similar names but different diagrams in Google searches... | 2010/02/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2223272",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/195652/"
] | I figured you've tried Wikipedia however, I found this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_context_diagram>
I have a feeling that a System Context Diagram is the same thing (or quite similar) to an Architecture context Diagram.
Is the diagram in question a UML based diagram?
---
Since you indicated that it is a UML diagram, I can only suggest that you [check out OMG's site](http://www.omg.org/). You should be able to [get a copy of the UML standards document](http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modeling_spec_catalog.htm#UML) without signing up. I'm sorry I don't have a more direct answer for you. I've only heard about the System Context Diagram. While I had searched for something like a Architecture Context Diagram, the system one is the closest I came. | It sounds like two diagrams I've worked with - Architecture Overview and System Context diagram. This represents the system under development as a circle in the middle of the diagram and then shows external actors either human or system interfaces around the outside.
The idea of the System Context is to quickly develop and communicate who the users of the system under development is and what systems it interfaces with. The actual internals of the system under development aren't shown.
The Architecture Overview then provides more of a view of key things within the system e.g. layering and key elements of the system
I've read more discussion on this topic here: <http://softwarearchitecturezen.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-diagrams-all-architects-need.html> |
2,223,272 | I've been charged with the following tasks for a group project:
a) Design/Draw an Architecture Context Diagram
b) ACD Description
c) UML deployment diagram
The UML deployment diagram is no issue as there are plenty of straight-forward resources online but this is not the case for the ACD.
**I need resources on exactly what an ACD is and how to draw one.**
Is there another name for an ACD such as Architecture Context Diagram such as Architecture Interconnection Diagram or Operations Systems Diagram? I keep coming across similar names but different diagrams in Google searches... | 2010/02/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2223272",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/195652/"
] | I figured you've tried Wikipedia however, I found this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_context_diagram>
I have a feeling that a System Context Diagram is the same thing (or quite similar) to an Architecture context Diagram.
Is the diagram in question a UML based diagram?
---
Since you indicated that it is a UML diagram, I can only suggest that you [check out OMG's site](http://www.omg.org/). You should be able to [get a copy of the UML standards document](http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modeling_spec_catalog.htm#UML) without signing up. I'm sorry I don't have a more direct answer for you. I've only heard about the System Context Diagram. While I had searched for something like a Architecture Context Diagram, the system one is the closest I came. | Architectural Context Diagram is a graphic representation of your system and of the external components that interact with the system. This components are linked to the system via interfaces, ilustred by a rectangle above your system, like in this image: tinyurl.com/jabyt3q
There are 4 elements in ACD:
1. Superiors Systems - systems wich uses the main system for realize your functions
2. Subordinated Systems - system wich are used by main system for it realize your functions
3. Peers - systems (components) in the same level of the main system
4. Actors - external entities wich uses the main system produzing and consuming data
Sorry if i don't explain in a didadic way, but my english is not good and i don't want use the Google Tradutor, so, i hope had be clear in my words. :P
For more information i recommend you read Pressman's book of Software Engeneering. In the 8 or 9 chapter he explain this very well. Pressman is the law! :) |
2,223,272 | I've been charged with the following tasks for a group project:
a) Design/Draw an Architecture Context Diagram
b) ACD Description
c) UML deployment diagram
The UML deployment diagram is no issue as there are plenty of straight-forward resources online but this is not the case for the ACD.
**I need resources on exactly what an ACD is and how to draw one.**
Is there another name for an ACD such as Architecture Context Diagram such as Architecture Interconnection Diagram or Operations Systems Diagram? I keep coming across similar names but different diagrams in Google searches... | 2010/02/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2223272",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/195652/"
] | The teacher eventually showed us a diagram she drew up. I figure this diagram doesn't exist except in her class! | It sounds like two diagrams I've worked with - Architecture Overview and System Context diagram. This represents the system under development as a circle in the middle of the diagram and then shows external actors either human or system interfaces around the outside.
The idea of the System Context is to quickly develop and communicate who the users of the system under development is and what systems it interfaces with. The actual internals of the system under development aren't shown.
The Architecture Overview then provides more of a view of key things within the system e.g. layering and key elements of the system
I've read more discussion on this topic here: <http://softwarearchitecturezen.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-diagrams-all-architects-need.html> |
2,223,272 | I've been charged with the following tasks for a group project:
a) Design/Draw an Architecture Context Diagram
b) ACD Description
c) UML deployment diagram
The UML deployment diagram is no issue as there are plenty of straight-forward resources online but this is not the case for the ACD.
**I need resources on exactly what an ACD is and how to draw one.**
Is there another name for an ACD such as Architecture Context Diagram such as Architecture Interconnection Diagram or Operations Systems Diagram? I keep coming across similar names but different diagrams in Google searches... | 2010/02/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2223272",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/195652/"
] | Architectural Context Diagram is a graphic representation of your system and of the external components that interact with the system. This components are linked to the system via interfaces, ilustred by a rectangle above your system, like in this image: tinyurl.com/jabyt3q
There are 4 elements in ACD:
1. Superiors Systems - systems wich uses the main system for realize your functions
2. Subordinated Systems - system wich are used by main system for it realize your functions
3. Peers - systems (components) in the same level of the main system
4. Actors - external entities wich uses the main system produzing and consuming data
Sorry if i don't explain in a didadic way, but my english is not good and i don't want use the Google Tradutor, so, i hope had be clear in my words. :P
For more information i recommend you read Pressman's book of Software Engeneering. In the 8 or 9 chapter he explain this very well. Pressman is the law! :) | It sounds like two diagrams I've worked with - Architecture Overview and System Context diagram. This represents the system under development as a circle in the middle of the diagram and then shows external actors either human or system interfaces around the outside.
The idea of the System Context is to quickly develop and communicate who the users of the system under development is and what systems it interfaces with. The actual internals of the system under development aren't shown.
The Architecture Overview then provides more of a view of key things within the system e.g. layering and key elements of the system
I've read more discussion on this topic here: <http://softwarearchitecturezen.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-diagrams-all-architects-need.html> |
2,223,272 | I've been charged with the following tasks for a group project:
a) Design/Draw an Architecture Context Diagram
b) ACD Description
c) UML deployment diagram
The UML deployment diagram is no issue as there are plenty of straight-forward resources online but this is not the case for the ACD.
**I need resources on exactly what an ACD is and how to draw one.**
Is there another name for an ACD such as Architecture Context Diagram such as Architecture Interconnection Diagram or Operations Systems Diagram? I keep coming across similar names but different diagrams in Google searches... | 2010/02/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2223272",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/195652/"
] | The teacher eventually showed us a diagram she drew up. I figure this diagram doesn't exist except in her class! | Architectural Context Diagram is a graphic representation of your system and of the external components that interact with the system. This components are linked to the system via interfaces, ilustred by a rectangle above your system, like in this image: tinyurl.com/jabyt3q
There are 4 elements in ACD:
1. Superiors Systems - systems wich uses the main system for realize your functions
2. Subordinated Systems - system wich are used by main system for it realize your functions
3. Peers - systems (components) in the same level of the main system
4. Actors - external entities wich uses the main system produzing and consuming data
Sorry if i don't explain in a didadic way, but my english is not good and i don't want use the Google Tradutor, so, i hope had be clear in my words. :P
For more information i recommend you read Pressman's book of Software Engeneering. In the 8 or 9 chapter he explain this very well. Pressman is the law! :) |
36,115,022 | After I have updated my android sdk, I got this type of error when I try to create android build for my game.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YXTks.png)
At present, My game source code contains two plugins, one is Google Play Games and second is RevMob. Before it generated build correctly but at present it is getting above error.
Please give some explanation in this. Via google I got so much same forum questions in stack overflow but those are for core platforms. So can't able to decide how to apply them for unity.
At present my terminal java version display like this :
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7464.png) | 2016/03/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/36115022",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1308171/"
] | I got solution by choose latest version of JDK selection in Unity.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5o11d.png)
I just changed Unity JDK path to latest installed version. Then it solved my build problem entirely. | Add the variable as shown below.
Change to new version of your java ,for me is: jdk1.8.0\_65
(make sure restart pc)
**good luck.:)**
 |
578,717 | Following is a part from the short story *Joanna Silvestri* by Roberto Bolano
>
> And anyway the photo he has shown me of the man presumed to be English is old and blurry, it shows a young man of twenty-something, and the English I remember was well into his thirties, maybe even over forty, **a definite shadow, if you’ll pardon the paradox, a broken shadow**; I didn’t pay much attention to him, although his features have remained in my memory: blue eyes, prominent cheekbones, full lips, small ears.
>
>
>
What might be the meaning of the part in bold? | 2021/11/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/578717",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/439043/"
] | The first thing I discovered is that this work is translated from Spanish. The original phrase [appears](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Llamadas_telef%C3%B3nicas/pMwSDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=sombra) to be:
>
> ... una sombra definida, valga la paradoja, una sombra derrotada...
>
>
>
With the disclaimer that I'm not fluent in Spanish: *derrotada* appears to be translatable as "defeated" or "beaten." This is indeed a meaning present in the English "broken," but I had imagined that it was saying something about the coherency and consistency of a shadow projected by light.
In addition, although the word *sombra* appears to be a very close direct match to the English "shadow," it also can be a synonym for *fantasma*, as the English "shade" can mean a ghost. This supports the interpretation suggested by rajah9: the intent is to describe the memory of the man as "a shadow"/ghost of his former self, broken/defeated and faded.
The "paradox" is probably what Kate Bunting suggested, that the speaker used *definida* to express certainty (he was "definitely" a shadow), and then comments on the cognitive dissonance as shadows/shades/ghosts (and memories) are indefinite, incoherent, fuzzy, or ill-defined. | This may hint at the expression "A shadow of his former self."
>
> Someone or something that has changed dramatically to become decreased in vivacity in some way, often following negative circumstances or some traumatic event.
> *Ever since Tim was in that accident, he's been a shadow of his former self.*
>
>
>
Source: [The Free Dictionary](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+shadow+of+former+self)
(edit: English is a name, not a nationality; thanks @WeatherVane)
Perhaps the author is expressing that R.P. English lacks vitality, and is a shadow of his former self. The author might be indicating a deep brokenness in the English (which would be paradoxical as shadows are usually unbroken darkness). |
134,615 | I've been searching on SO on how to do i18n support on my little application...
I know that Microsoft offers 'culture' classes, but you have to re-compile your application to include any new string you add. So, all I'm trying to do is to put all my strings in a external file and offers users the choice to translate the app without the need to recompile.
Is there an easy way to handle this ? Use XML, or INI-like ? any Tutorial available ?
P.S: Trying to do this on C#... Don't bother if other languages | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/134615",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20709/"
] | Here is a nice blog post from Scott Hanselman which contains several good resources:
<http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ASPNETInternationalizationGlobalizationAndLocalizationWhew.aspx>
Generally speaking I can say that you will want to keep your resources external to your binaries (using something like a .resource file), which will allow you to add/edit resources without a recompile. I've not done much myself, so I'm a bit rusty on the whole thing.
Hope this is helpful. | if you include a new string in your app, you have to recompile it anyway, do you not?
if you add languages often, resource files and/or satellite DLLs are probably your best bet
failing that, you can write your own provider. Here are some links I found useful, your mileage may vary:
<http://en.csharp-online.net/Localization_Like_the_Pros>
<http://www.devhood.com/tutorials/tutorial_details.aspx?tutorial_id=211>
<http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/DeclarativeGlobalization.aspx>
[MS toolkit for web pages](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479334.aspx)
[CE solution](http://www.codeproject.com/KB/locale/celocalization.aspx) |
2,034,386 | I need to store an array of 40000 statics strings (towns).
How can i do this in Objective-C? | 2010/01/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2034386",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/247177/"
] | Personally I'd use CoreData and have the bits of data I need read in when they are needed. The other option would be to store it all in memory using NSDictionary but that would potentially require the user to have a fair amount of memory.
The CoreData approach will give you a decently fast way of retrieving the town names but if speed is key and memory usage doesn't matter then using something like NSDictionary or NSArray would be the faster solution. | 1. Create an NSArray
2. Store the static strings in the array
3. Profit |
2,034,386 | I need to store an array of 40000 statics strings (towns).
How can i do this in Objective-C? | 2010/01/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2034386",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/247177/"
] | Personally I'd use CoreData and have the bits of data I need read in when they are needed. The other option would be to store it all in memory using NSDictionary but that would potentially require the user to have a fair amount of memory.
The CoreData approach will give you a decently fast way of retrieving the town names but if speed is key and memory usage doesn't matter then using something like NSDictionary or NSArray would be the faster solution. | I gave a point to both James and Chuck as both answers are correct given the lack of context.
The meta-question is *what are you trying to do?*
If you are just trying to show a list of cities and not actually building up a data model, then Chuck's answer is quite appropriate. 3,000 cities in NSString's in an NSArray is really not that much.
However, I'd bet you are doing more than that. I would be surprised if you weren't building up some kind of data model where the cities are connected to the data model, even a small portion of that. In that case, James's answer is correct; CoreData is the way to go as it will be plenty of fast, highly scalable, and offers you with higher level tools for modeling and interacting with your data. |
20,953 | I live in pittsburgh, and we have some hills and streets which are belgian block, brick, poorly paved and pocked with potholes. It can be very jarring, but I still find myself flying down these streets running 700x28c tires at 100psi and I'm not a light guy at 200lbs.
Is this abuse going to damage my loose bearing cup/cone hubs? | 2014/04/01 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/20953",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/2997/"
] | Bearings and races are made of very hard steel. So long as they are properly maintained (lubricated and adjusted to the correct tightness; visit Free Ride in Pittsburgh for help lubing/adjusting your bike if it's feeling worn and you don't want to pay a shop to do it for you), they should hold up with no problem.
More info:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_element_bearing> | Many mountain bikes used cup and cone hubs, and all of Shimano's mountain hubs still use cup and cone, so I would say you're fine. Usually the spokes are the first thing to start breaking. |
5,129,299 | I am in the process of learning CSS while designing a simple commenting system.
I use firefox(4.0beta13pre if anyone cares) as my main browser so I do all testing with it.
after making a small piece look perfectly with It, I found out an image wasn't aligned in chrome, and than opening Internet Explorer it looked like complete garbage.
So is it just a matter of trying harder to achieve compatibility or is it that even a simple system needs different style sheets to other browsers?
Thanks,
Fingerman. | 2011/02/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5129299",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/568167/"
] | >
> is it just a matter of trying harder to achieve compatibility
>
>
>
Partially, that's the case.
For a better starting point, look at [CSS reset files](http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=reset+CSS). These ensure that you are starting from a (more or less) level playing field on all browsers, so achieving compatibility is easier.
You may also need to put in specific browser "hacks" and overrides, but this really depends on what you are trying to do. | Yes. It is generally a matter of trying harder to find a combination of HTML/CSS that works across browsers/versions. It's a major pain, but such is the life of a web developer.
I'd definitely try to tweak before creating separate style sheets for different browsers. |
5,129,299 | I am in the process of learning CSS while designing a simple commenting system.
I use firefox(4.0beta13pre if anyone cares) as my main browser so I do all testing with it.
after making a small piece look perfectly with It, I found out an image wasn't aligned in chrome, and than opening Internet Explorer it looked like complete garbage.
So is it just a matter of trying harder to achieve compatibility or is it that even a simple system needs different style sheets to other browsers?
Thanks,
Fingerman. | 2011/02/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5129299",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/568167/"
] | >
> is it just a matter of trying harder to achieve compatibility
>
>
>
Partially, that's the case.
For a better starting point, look at [CSS reset files](http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=reset+CSS). These ensure that you are starting from a (more or less) level playing field on all browsers, so achieving compatibility is easier.
You may also need to put in specific browser "hacks" and overrides, but this really depends on what you are trying to do. | As you are learning CSS, i suggest you take a look at <https://github.com/joshuaclayton/blueprint-css/tree/master/blueprint/src>. It has ie.css which containes hacks pertaining to IE. It also contains reset.css. Intially, it will help you start. Later, you can make your customized css stylesheets. |
5,129,299 | I am in the process of learning CSS while designing a simple commenting system.
I use firefox(4.0beta13pre if anyone cares) as my main browser so I do all testing with it.
after making a small piece look perfectly with It, I found out an image wasn't aligned in chrome, and than opening Internet Explorer it looked like complete garbage.
So is it just a matter of trying harder to achieve compatibility or is it that even a simple system needs different style sheets to other browsers?
Thanks,
Fingerman. | 2011/02/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5129299",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/568167/"
] | Yes. It is generally a matter of trying harder to find a combination of HTML/CSS that works across browsers/versions. It's a major pain, but such is the life of a web developer.
I'd definitely try to tweak before creating separate style sheets for different browsers. | As you are learning CSS, i suggest you take a look at <https://github.com/joshuaclayton/blueprint-css/tree/master/blueprint/src>. It has ie.css which containes hacks pertaining to IE. It also contains reset.css. Intially, it will help you start. Later, you can make your customized css stylesheets. |
1,413 | I [recently posted a puzzle](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/3943/whats-the-password-again) which seemed to get a lot of activity, people commenting, posting answers and seemed to be popular enough. However, one user had a bit of a rant about how I was "making up a new rule" when an answer was posted to justify certain logic.
I don't have a problem with that - I'm not trying to be petty or anything. I actually agree that some of the edge cases, I didn't specify up-front, and there is **arguably** some missing data which you could use to formulate your answer.
So bearing this in mind, I decided I'd [be a little more rigorous](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/4054/the-security-to-the-party-xi) with giving enough examples to rule out most chance-finds, and specifically mentioning a couple of edge cases.
The first question took about 4 hours to be solved, with 15 different people posting answers across that time.
The second question took about 75 minutes with the second person to guess at it getting it correct (and I thought it was a relatively unusual puzzle).
Clearly, I've got two questions which are very different in difficulty. The first one possibly had a couple too many people guessing at it (demonstrating a wide range of potential answers, even if several of them are wrong for the given clues), while the second one was solved relatively quickly.
---
Are there any good rules of thumb to adhere to when writing puzzles to ensure that
* the difficulty you're setting is appropriate
* (in a password puzzle) the examples given can [realistically](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/4060/2518) give one algorithm
* (in any puzzle) you strike a good balance between giving clues and giving spoilers
I appreciate that there are a lot of different kinds of puzzle (and this may draw too-broad close votes because of that), but I'm trying to get an idea for **how to determine the amount of hints I should give**. Obviously it will differ from puzzle to puzzle, so please feel free to take specific examples off the site to illustrate any answer. | 2014/11/11 | [
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1413",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2518/"
] | For password puzzles, it's much better to err on the side of giving too much information. Puzzles like [this](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/4525/security-to-the-party-part-28-hacked-eddition) or [this](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/4286/the-security-to-the-party-part-20) erred the wrong way. Compare with [my first password puzzle](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/4506/security-to-the-party-27-conspiracy-edition).
I would say that, as a rule, *if you post a password puzzle, and someone finds a simple explanation for the data that you didn't think of, then you should accept their answer anyway*. Hopefully this rule scares people into making more fun puzzles. | Simply put, a puzzle should be specific enough to guide users towards your intended answer. I learned the hard way that a poorly-defined puzzle can have a significantly large space in which all of the provided solutions are valid, with the only difference being the method with which they were found. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | Yes, Snakes can be prone
========================
Conditions
----------
Prone is a condition (PHB, 290). And the only way to avoid that condition is to have some form of immunity or something else mechanically that prevents a creature from getting the condition.
For creatures, the statblock lists Condition immunities (if there are any). Spells, items, etc. will also state if there are any conditions that they prevent/mitigate.
**No snake statblock lists immunity to the prone condition.**
With no immunity to the condition Prone, they are susceptible to that condition and its effects.
[Jeremy Crawford](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/968578520464089089) has confirmed this as well
>
> If a monster is immune to the prone condition, that fact is noted in its stat block. Even legless creatures can be knocked over, destabilized, and the like (I've watched an upended snake flop around in real life—shudder).
>
>
>
Flavor\*
--------
Traditionally, we imagine prone as lying on one's stomach (and the associated 5e mechanic of crawling) - which is synonymous with a snake's normal movement of crawling. However, given that there is no condition immunity to snakes for Prone, then we have to think of it someway else. Maybe the snake is disoriented, or on its back, or in some position that leaves it with the same mechanical disadvantage as a bipedal creature on its stomach.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g5hpw.jpg)
\*Tastes like chicken | The snakes prone position is going to indicate they are laid out and not in a position to coil and strike easily. If a snake is in a forced prone position that means they would not have the ability to easily get into a striking position.
If a snake is knocked prone then they would need to [spend half of their movement to get into a striking position](https://crobi.github.io/dnd5e-quickref/preview/quickref.html) the next round, or suffer the penalties of remaining prone including reduced movement.
As a house rule I would treat any moving snake as prone, and only require the movement penalty as the result of their movement being intercepted or using double move for full distance. A snake in normal unchallenged movement(IE not moving out of challenge range and provoking an successful attack of opportunity). Would not need to spend the movement to coil, and I would treat any snake not so challenged to have finished their round in an upright coiled position. This is because of the way the game mechanics work not because of a reality situation. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | Yes, a snake can be prone
-------------------------
*Monster Manual* presentes immunity to prone as a condition immunity. Creatures that are immune to being prone have this trait: examples include swarms (pages 337-339) and oozes (page 241-243).
I didn't do a comprehensive look-up on snakes and snake-like creatures, but at least the Poisonous Snake on page 334 lacks any condition immunities - meaning it is likewise suspectible to being prone.
As [the Monster Manual errata](http://dnd.wizards.com/sites/default/files/media/MM-Errata_0.pdf) doesn't change the situation, snakes being proned is indeed in line with the current rules. | 5e defines prone, and it aligns with the definition of prone in English. 5e is written in English.
In both 3e and 4e, you are supposed to treat keywords as magic tokens and mostly ignore what they mean in English. In 4e they even gave this advice explicitly in the rules text.
This is not how 5e is written. 5e is, first and foremost, an English text.
Snakes are already prone. Making them "more prone" is nonsense. Applying the prone condition to a creature that is already prone does nothing. Well, if the "snake" had wings, I would probably make it fall, as knocking things prone in 5e also knocks (non-hovering) creatures out of the sky. But its new state (prone) would be the same as the old one (prone).
It is consistent to invent a definition of "Prone" that isn't the English word "prone", but there is no huge balance effect here, nor is there a need to do so. Use common sense, and double check it to ensure it doesn't break the game part of the game.
5e, unlike 4e, doesn't have explicit fluff distinct from rules text. The fact that knocking a creature prone actually makes them prone is part of the rules text, it is not fluff you are supposed to ignore.
Similarly the creature is "snake", not "creature with these game statistics with the word 'snake' taped to it". The 5e rules are some of the rules how to *model* the snake in the 5e combat engine, it doesn't mean you should ignore the fact the we are talking about a snake. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | Yes, Snakes can be prone
========================
Conditions
----------
Prone is a condition (PHB, 290). And the only way to avoid that condition is to have some form of immunity or something else mechanically that prevents a creature from getting the condition.
For creatures, the statblock lists Condition immunities (if there are any). Spells, items, etc. will also state if there are any conditions that they prevent/mitigate.
**No snake statblock lists immunity to the prone condition.**
With no immunity to the condition Prone, they are susceptible to that condition and its effects.
[Jeremy Crawford](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/968578520464089089) has confirmed this as well
>
> If a monster is immune to the prone condition, that fact is noted in its stat block. Even legless creatures can be knocked over, destabilized, and the like (I've watched an upended snake flop around in real life—shudder).
>
>
>
Flavor\*
--------
Traditionally, we imagine prone as lying on one's stomach (and the associated 5e mechanic of crawling) - which is synonymous with a snake's normal movement of crawling. However, given that there is no condition immunity to snakes for Prone, then we have to think of it someway else. Maybe the snake is disoriented, or on its back, or in some position that leaves it with the same mechanical disadvantage as a bipedal creature on its stomach.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g5hpw.jpg)
\*Tastes like chicken | The regular, "un-prone" postures for a snake are coiled, sidewinding or "zig-zagged". In these postures, the snake can move or attack (or possibly even evade) efficiently and fast. The head (and, for a rattlesnake, also the tail) may be elevated.
The prone posture would be a position in which the snake's ability to move is impeded. A tactical (voluntary) prone position might be assumed in a trench or along the foot of a wall, where the snake can not be seen as easily, compared to the regular coiled, sidewiding or "zig-zagged" wavy posture. An involuntary prone position might be caused by someone kicking or throwing a snake into a posture or location from where it cannot easily assume an efficient movement or attack posture. A "straightened" snake will need to re-coil first before it can to move or attack. "Fun moves" against snakes could be:
* holding a snake by the tail and swinging it around so the centrifugal forces keep it straight (do not try this in real life),
* kicking a snake into a gutter (do not try this in real life as well),
* hanging it onto a hook, where it either needs to "untangle" itself first or get back to the floor first (a suspended snake is about as defenseless as human being hanged on a gallows - but don't try this in real life), or
* two guys pulling a snake straight, like in a tug of war (do I need to mention that you shouldn't try this real life?).
The other answers already provide details on how this correlates to the game rules. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | Yes, Snakes can be prone
========================
Conditions
----------
Prone is a condition (PHB, 290). And the only way to avoid that condition is to have some form of immunity or something else mechanically that prevents a creature from getting the condition.
For creatures, the statblock lists Condition immunities (if there are any). Spells, items, etc. will also state if there are any conditions that they prevent/mitigate.
**No snake statblock lists immunity to the prone condition.**
With no immunity to the condition Prone, they are susceptible to that condition and its effects.
[Jeremy Crawford](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/968578520464089089) has confirmed this as well
>
> If a monster is immune to the prone condition, that fact is noted in its stat block. Even legless creatures can be knocked over, destabilized, and the like (I've watched an upended snake flop around in real life—shudder).
>
>
>
Flavor\*
--------
Traditionally, we imagine prone as lying on one's stomach (and the associated 5e mechanic of crawling) - which is synonymous with a snake's normal movement of crawling. However, given that there is no condition immunity to snakes for Prone, then we have to think of it someway else. Maybe the snake is disoriented, or on its back, or in some position that leaves it with the same mechanical disadvantage as a bipedal creature on its stomach.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g5hpw.jpg)
\*Tastes like chicken | As mentioned in other answers, the *Monster Manual* generally states when a creature is immune to a certain condition, such as *prone*.
Therefore, since this is not the case for the snake, it isn't considered to be immune to the *prone* condition.
Also, to address the *first* part of your question - **no, a snake is not considered prone all the time**, otherwise this would be explicitly stated, judging by my experience of 5e's approach to rules.
I get your confusion as to how a "prone" snake would be any different from the normal body position of a snake, so I did a little google research (basically, I just typed in "d&d snake prone") and stumbled upon [this reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/5zj17s/5esilly_question_is_a_snake_on_the_ground/), which targets pretty much the same issue you had. The first answer states the following (emphasis mine):
>
> I would argue the the intention of 'prone' is that the creature is in an **awkward position** in which it is not accustomed to moving or defending itself. A snake lives most of its life flat on the ground, so that is its normal state, and I would not impose the usual prone status.
>
> However, **if the snake were to be flipped over, this would be unusual for the snake**, and it would need to take time to roll itself over. Prone would apply in that case.
>
>
>
So, for the purpose of imagining a "prone" snake, I suggest treating a snake with the *prone* condition as described by [DigitalSoul247](https://www.reddit.com/user/DigitalSoul247) in the quoted paragraph above. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | Yes, Snakes can be prone
========================
Conditions
----------
Prone is a condition (PHB, 290). And the only way to avoid that condition is to have some form of immunity or something else mechanically that prevents a creature from getting the condition.
For creatures, the statblock lists Condition immunities (if there are any). Spells, items, etc. will also state if there are any conditions that they prevent/mitigate.
**No snake statblock lists immunity to the prone condition.**
With no immunity to the condition Prone, they are susceptible to that condition and its effects.
[Jeremy Crawford](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/968578520464089089) has confirmed this as well
>
> If a monster is immune to the prone condition, that fact is noted in its stat block. Even legless creatures can be knocked over, destabilized, and the like (I've watched an upended snake flop around in real life—shudder).
>
>
>
Flavor\*
--------
Traditionally, we imagine prone as lying on one's stomach (and the associated 5e mechanic of crawling) - which is synonymous with a snake's normal movement of crawling. However, given that there is no condition immunity to snakes for Prone, then we have to think of it someway else. Maybe the snake is disoriented, or on its back, or in some position that leaves it with the same mechanical disadvantage as a bipedal creature on its stomach.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g5hpw.jpg)
\*Tastes like chicken | 5e defines prone, and it aligns with the definition of prone in English. 5e is written in English.
In both 3e and 4e, you are supposed to treat keywords as magic tokens and mostly ignore what they mean in English. In 4e they even gave this advice explicitly in the rules text.
This is not how 5e is written. 5e is, first and foremost, an English text.
Snakes are already prone. Making them "more prone" is nonsense. Applying the prone condition to a creature that is already prone does nothing. Well, if the "snake" had wings, I would probably make it fall, as knocking things prone in 5e also knocks (non-hovering) creatures out of the sky. But its new state (prone) would be the same as the old one (prone).
It is consistent to invent a definition of "Prone" that isn't the English word "prone", but there is no huge balance effect here, nor is there a need to do so. Use common sense, and double check it to ensure it doesn't break the game part of the game.
5e, unlike 4e, doesn't have explicit fluff distinct from rules text. The fact that knocking a creature prone actually makes them prone is part of the rules text, it is not fluff you are supposed to ignore.
Similarly the creature is "snake", not "creature with these game statistics with the word 'snake' taped to it". The 5e rules are some of the rules how to *model* the snake in the 5e combat engine, it doesn't mean you should ignore the fact the we are talking about a snake. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | Yes, a snake can be prone
-------------------------
*Monster Manual* presentes immunity to prone as a condition immunity. Creatures that are immune to being prone have this trait: examples include swarms (pages 337-339) and oozes (page 241-243).
I didn't do a comprehensive look-up on snakes and snake-like creatures, but at least the Poisonous Snake on page 334 lacks any condition immunities - meaning it is likewise suspectible to being prone.
As [the Monster Manual errata](http://dnd.wizards.com/sites/default/files/media/MM-Errata_0.pdf) doesn't change the situation, snakes being proned is indeed in line with the current rules. | The regular, "un-prone" postures for a snake are coiled, sidewinding or "zig-zagged". In these postures, the snake can move or attack (or possibly even evade) efficiently and fast. The head (and, for a rattlesnake, also the tail) may be elevated.
The prone posture would be a position in which the snake's ability to move is impeded. A tactical (voluntary) prone position might be assumed in a trench or along the foot of a wall, where the snake can not be seen as easily, compared to the regular coiled, sidewiding or "zig-zagged" wavy posture. An involuntary prone position might be caused by someone kicking or throwing a snake into a posture or location from where it cannot easily assume an efficient movement or attack posture. A "straightened" snake will need to re-coil first before it can to move or attack. "Fun moves" against snakes could be:
* holding a snake by the tail and swinging it around so the centrifugal forces keep it straight (do not try this in real life),
* kicking a snake into a gutter (do not try this in real life as well),
* hanging it onto a hook, where it either needs to "untangle" itself first or get back to the floor first (a suspended snake is about as defenseless as human being hanged on a gallows - but don't try this in real life), or
* two guys pulling a snake straight, like in a tug of war (do I need to mention that you shouldn't try this real life?).
The other answers already provide details on how this correlates to the game rules. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | Yes, a snake can be prone
-------------------------
*Monster Manual* presentes immunity to prone as a condition immunity. Creatures that are immune to being prone have this trait: examples include swarms (pages 337-339) and oozes (page 241-243).
I didn't do a comprehensive look-up on snakes and snake-like creatures, but at least the Poisonous Snake on page 334 lacks any condition immunities - meaning it is likewise suspectible to being prone.
As [the Monster Manual errata](http://dnd.wizards.com/sites/default/files/media/MM-Errata_0.pdf) doesn't change the situation, snakes being proned is indeed in line with the current rules. | The snakes prone position is going to indicate they are laid out and not in a position to coil and strike easily. If a snake is in a forced prone position that means they would not have the ability to easily get into a striking position.
If a snake is knocked prone then they would need to [spend half of their movement to get into a striking position](https://crobi.github.io/dnd5e-quickref/preview/quickref.html) the next round, or suffer the penalties of remaining prone including reduced movement.
As a house rule I would treat any moving snake as prone, and only require the movement penalty as the result of their movement being intercepted or using double move for full distance. A snake in normal unchallenged movement(IE not moving out of challenge range and provoking an successful attack of opportunity). Would not need to spend the movement to coil, and I would treat any snake not so challenged to have finished their round in an upright coiled position. This is because of the way the game mechanics work not because of a reality situation. |
114,499 | It sounds like a silly question, but it caused *way* more discussion the other night in my Adventurer's league game than I'd care to admit...
In 5e, the prone condition is described as:
>
> A prone creature’s only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands
> up and thereby ends the condition.
>
>
>
A snake's only option is to crawl, and isn't capable of standing, as it has no limbs.
**Is a snake (or snake-like creature) considered constantly prone?**
**If not, can such a creature be knocked prone?** | 2018/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114499",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27787/"
] | As mentioned in other answers, the *Monster Manual* generally states when a creature is immune to a certain condition, such as *prone*.
Therefore, since this is not the case for the snake, it isn't considered to be immune to the *prone* condition.
Also, to address the *first* part of your question - **no, a snake is not considered prone all the time**, otherwise this would be explicitly stated, judging by my experience of 5e's approach to rules.
I get your confusion as to how a "prone" snake would be any different from the normal body position of a snake, so I did a little google research (basically, I just typed in "d&d snake prone") and stumbled upon [this reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/5zj17s/5esilly_question_is_a_snake_on_the_ground/), which targets pretty much the same issue you had. The first answer states the following (emphasis mine):
>
> I would argue the the intention of 'prone' is that the creature is in an **awkward position** in which it is not accustomed to moving or defending itself. A snake lives most of its life flat on the ground, so that is its normal state, and I would not impose the usual prone status.
>
> However, **if the snake were to be flipped over, this would be unusual for the snake**, and it would need to take time to roll itself over. Prone would apply in that case.
>
>
>
So, for the purpose of imagining a "prone" snake, I suggest treating a snake with the *prone* condition as described by [DigitalSoul247](https://www.reddit.com/user/DigitalSoul247) in the quoted paragraph above. | The regular, "un-prone" postures for a snake are coiled, sidewinding or "zig-zagged". In these postures, the snake can move or attack (or possibly even evade) efficiently and fast. The head (and, for a rattlesnake, also the tail) may be elevated.
The prone posture would be a position in which the snake's ability to move is impeded. A tactical (voluntary) prone position might be assumed in a trench or along the foot of a wall, where the snake can not be seen as easily, compared to the regular coiled, sidewiding or "zig-zagged" wavy posture. An involuntary prone position might be caused by someone kicking or throwing a snake into a posture or location from where it cannot easily assume an efficient movement or attack posture. A "straightened" snake will need to re-coil first before it can to move or attack. "Fun moves" against snakes could be:
* holding a snake by the tail and swinging it around so the centrifugal forces keep it straight (do not try this in real life),
* kicking a snake into a gutter (do not try this in real life as well),
* hanging it onto a hook, where it either needs to "untangle" itself first or get back to the floor first (a suspended snake is about as defenseless as human being hanged on a gallows - but don't try this in real life), or
* two guys pulling a snake straight, like in a tug of war (do I need to mention that you shouldn't try this real life?).
The other answers already provide details on how this correlates to the game rules. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.