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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17,885 | how would I get a custom field to automatically select from a list based on the answer given in a custom field where the answer has to be selected.
Basically the user selects the Scottish local authority field from a select list (Say, Edinburgh City Council). I want a field of MSP Regions - in this case Lothian Region - to auto fill based on the local authority.
Thanks. | 2017/03/26 | [
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/17885",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/users/4487/"
] | Depends on the context:
On a public or profile, develop a custom JS file to do this.
On editing a CiviCRM contact through the interface there's probably no good way to do this, other than adding custom JS in an extension.
If you're using Drupal Webform you can use the Validation Rules to show and hide fields. With some creative optioning you can get the results you need entirely through an interface.
My recommendation is the Drupal Webform. | Have a look at the [CiviCRM Region Lookup module](https://civicrm.org/extensions/civicrm-region-lookup) You may need to tweak the code a bit for your needs. |
39,303 | While launching gliders at [Front Royal, VA (KFRR)](http://www.airnav.com/airport/FRR) over the weekend, a fellow pilot and I got curious about the airport's weather equipment. We know that KFRR has local equipment to measure wind speed and direction. There is a screen in the FBO that shows a graphical readout of the wind situation. However, it was not obvious looking at the equipment itself how this is done.
Here are two pictures I took:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hDH2N.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XpCkn.jpg)
Nothing on either of these two pieces of equipment was actively spinning or being visibly affected by the wind. At the time we has a 10-12 knot headwind almost directly down the runway. This equipment is ~40 feet to the left of the runway threshold.
Question: Is one of the pieces of equipment I've photographed responsible for measuring wind speed? If so, how? | 2017/06/26 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/39303",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/21864/"
] | The device used to measure wind speed is called an anemometer. The one that spins with 3 spoon-like arms is just one type. There are some that have a propeller or fan that spins like a windmill. There are other types that aren't so obvious, such as the ultrasonic anemometer that has no moving parts, but instead uses ultrasonic sound waves to measure wind velocity, it was developed in the 1950s. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer>)
Actually, if you zoom in on your second photograph you can see the ultrasonic anemometer immediately above the lights on the tower, and below the very top of the tower. It looks like three vertical fingers pointing up.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JwGbf.jpg)
Also, since you are a pilot, you are already familiar with another type of anemometer that doesn't have moving parts, a pitot tube is a type of anemometer. So long as the pitot tube weathervanes into the wind, it can be used to measure wind speed as well. | [Ultrasonic anemometers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer#Ultrasonic_anemometers) are replacing the traditional cup anemometers in automated weather stations. The sensor measures the time it takes for an ultrasonic pulse to travel between the probes, which is affected by wind speed. In your second image, the object directly above the lights appears to be an anemometer.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/I87qg.png)
[Source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ultrasonic_Windsensor.png)
Ultrasonic sensors have the advantage of no moving parts and lower maintenance requirements. Also, with additional probes, they can measure the wind in 3D. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | >
> fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others)
>
>
>
Fairies are the key to your technology. If they can animate objects, they can provide clean power through perpetual-motion devices, or even directly animate things like transportation and industrial machinery without the need for a power source. Humanity has been searching for the technology to create unlimited, clean power since we realized we could convert energy into mechanical work, and your fantasy world has it in the form of fairies.
There are some ramifications of this, though. Fairies will either rise or fall in prominence in a society that depends heavily on their abilities. On one hand, they may become well-respected and highly influential members of society. Or they could be forced into slavery as power sources for the wheel of progress.
With this in mind, the reason for elves to want exposure to the human world might be to mitigate the influence of fairies. Technology moves forward and spreads, and it won't be long before fairies have influence over every task that can be automated. That might not be bearable to elves, who are used to having the unquestioned leadership majority. | How about a magic lens to focus sunlight onto a boiler? There is your clean steam power.
Magic tuned crystals to use as communicators.
Manipulation of gravity using magic. This will enable human (or other :-) power to propel flying machines and many of Leonardo daVinci's machines.
Also, magical manipulation of genetics to produce woods to fill the role of plastics in our world.
Part of the story could be the race to invent new magical applications to head off the demand for earth type products. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | Fireballs
---------
Ultimately, at the root of almost every form of power production that our technology relies upon is the ability to produce localised heat. Whether we produce this heat with coal, oil, natural gas, or the fission of unstable elements, it's all the same concept.
We produce electricity by generating heat, using the heat to convert water into steam, and using the steam to drive a turbine.
We smelt metals by mixing ore and flux with something to produce a lot of heat; normally that's coal, but other sources of heat work just as well.
If you have some clean, reliable form of magical fire, you can reproduce most of the technology that you and me use routinely. Even if all you can do is heat a boiler, that can produce electricity, and electricity can be harnessed to do almost anything - including producing even greater heat! | Anything that grants their needs
================================
Be warned that I am about to pick apart some of the concepts of your question and dismiss them.
The big problem is this...
>
> green technology & sustainability
>
>
>
"Green" is not about the environment. Sure that buzzword is used all the time to denote it but "green" is an [ideological color](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour)... like red, blue, purple, brown, black. So let us just forget that bit and focus on the core: sustainability.
Again, "sustainable development" is used as a buzzword all the time by people to promote whatever it is they are selling. But [Sustainable Development has a definition (PDF)](https://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf), established in 1987 in the UN.
Sustainable Development is... (emphasis mine)
>
> Sustainable development is development that **meets the needs** of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
>
>
>
This means that when you are designing this magic technology, you must first need to think about: what are the **needs** of the people? These "elves, fairies, vampires, humans"... what do they **need**?
Usually though, most need boil down to one thing: **energy**. Energy is that which makes things hot, makes chemical reactions happens, that moves and lifts things... energy does **work**. You need something that can do **work**, and this while at the same time seeing to needs such as "clean air", "no big scrap heaps", "not using up all our valuable resources".
This is a meta-answer — I know — but this was much too large for a comment. I am voting to close with the hopes that what I have said above helps you along in designing your world, and lets you come up with more productive questions. Cheers! :) |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | Anything that generates electricity
===================================
The smallest possible change is to imagine any sort of effective non-fossil fuel based electricity production system. You can now support pretty much the entire modern economy (except trucks and planes and ships).
Simply make your magic system have some sort of electrical generation. Either you can co-opt existing eco-friendly energy sources (the elves make magical solar panels, dwarves magical geothermal power stations, etc), or you can just assume new ones. The [arc-reactor](http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Arc_Reactor) from Iron Man's suit is basically just a magical source of electricity. | Alternative forms of technology
Communication: replace cell phones with telepathy or a magic mirror Network.
Transportation: it's already noted they can create portals perhaps they can create portal shortcuts within their own world creating a soda portal Network where walking a few miles between portals can can save thousands of miles of Transportation. This would explain why they can still use horses another slower means of transportation and are tempted to import steam engines another forms of transportation.
Biological base Technologies: as you've already stated your elves have the ability to heal people if they can already heal people it's possible that they can also alter organic creatures on a genetic level. This I would allow them to produce organic Magic based technology that's compatible with the environment.
Why would they want to have contact with Earth: there could be many reasons I have a few suggestions
1. Population: in most stories both elves and fairies reproduce very slowly it's possible, that their population could be steadily decreasing because of ( some unnamed catastrophe of some sort) it's possible that they're trying to promote immigration from the human world to their world in the hopes that fairies can elves can reproduce faster with humans than with themselves.
2. Trade: as you said the elves don't seem to mind some forms and Technologies such as printing press. It seems like magic is difficult to mass-produce. ( hence why there are no flying cars around) so perhaps they want to do some trade of small Trinkets and maybe even medicine ( depending on how many healers you have) that would make life easier for them.
3. Because they can't stop them stop themselves from being discovered. Perhaps too many elves cross over to our world and get seen or recorded on video. Maybe a group of scientists find a way to detect an active portal. Whatever happens the elves realize they can't keep themselves isolated from the humans for long and decide to make the first steps in the hopes that that way they can control the situation. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | Fireballs
---------
Ultimately, at the root of almost every form of power production that our technology relies upon is the ability to produce localised heat. Whether we produce this heat with coal, oil, natural gas, or the fission of unstable elements, it's all the same concept.
We produce electricity by generating heat, using the heat to convert water into steam, and using the steam to drive a turbine.
We smelt metals by mixing ore and flux with something to produce a lot of heat; normally that's coal, but other sources of heat work just as well.
If you have some clean, reliable form of magical fire, you can reproduce most of the technology that you and me use routinely. Even if all you can do is heat a boiler, that can produce electricity, and electricity can be harnessed to do almost anything - including producing even greater heat! | How about a magic lens to focus sunlight onto a boiler? There is your clean steam power.
Magic tuned crystals to use as communicators.
Manipulation of gravity using magic. This will enable human (or other :-) power to propel flying machines and many of Leonardo daVinci's machines.
Also, magical manipulation of genetics to produce woods to fill the role of plastics in our world.
Part of the story could be the race to invent new magical applications to head off the demand for earth type products. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | Fireballs
---------
Ultimately, at the root of almost every form of power production that our technology relies upon is the ability to produce localised heat. Whether we produce this heat with coal, oil, natural gas, or the fission of unstable elements, it's all the same concept.
We produce electricity by generating heat, using the heat to convert water into steam, and using the steam to drive a turbine.
We smelt metals by mixing ore and flux with something to produce a lot of heat; normally that's coal, but other sources of heat work just as well.
If you have some clean, reliable form of magical fire, you can reproduce most of the technology that you and me use routinely. Even if all you can do is heat a boiler, that can produce electricity, and electricity can be harnessed to do almost anything - including producing even greater heat! | Alternative forms of technology
Communication: replace cell phones with telepathy or a magic mirror Network.
Transportation: it's already noted they can create portals perhaps they can create portal shortcuts within their own world creating a soda portal Network where walking a few miles between portals can can save thousands of miles of Transportation. This would explain why they can still use horses another slower means of transportation and are tempted to import steam engines another forms of transportation.
Biological base Technologies: as you've already stated your elves have the ability to heal people if they can already heal people it's possible that they can also alter organic creatures on a genetic level. This I would allow them to produce organic Magic based technology that's compatible with the environment.
Why would they want to have contact with Earth: there could be many reasons I have a few suggestions
1. Population: in most stories both elves and fairies reproduce very slowly it's possible, that their population could be steadily decreasing because of ( some unnamed catastrophe of some sort) it's possible that they're trying to promote immigration from the human world to their world in the hopes that fairies can elves can reproduce faster with humans than with themselves.
2. Trade: as you said the elves don't seem to mind some forms and Technologies such as printing press. It seems like magic is difficult to mass-produce. ( hence why there are no flying cars around) so perhaps they want to do some trade of small Trinkets and maybe even medicine ( depending on how many healers you have) that would make life easier for them.
3. Because they can't stop them stop themselves from being discovered. Perhaps too many elves cross over to our world and get seen or recorded on video. Maybe a group of scientists find a way to detect an active portal. Whatever happens the elves realize they can't keep themselves isolated from the humans for long and decide to make the first steps in the hopes that that way they can control the situation. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | Fireballs
---------
Ultimately, at the root of almost every form of power production that our technology relies upon is the ability to produce localised heat. Whether we produce this heat with coal, oil, natural gas, or the fission of unstable elements, it's all the same concept.
We produce electricity by generating heat, using the heat to convert water into steam, and using the steam to drive a turbine.
We smelt metals by mixing ore and flux with something to produce a lot of heat; normally that's coal, but other sources of heat work just as well.
If you have some clean, reliable form of magical fire, you can reproduce most of the technology that you and me use routinely. Even if all you can do is heat a boiler, that can produce electricity, and electricity can be harnessed to do almost anything - including producing even greater heat! | Anything that generates electricity
===================================
The smallest possible change is to imagine any sort of effective non-fossil fuel based electricity production system. You can now support pretty much the entire modern economy (except trucks and planes and ships).
Simply make your magic system have some sort of electrical generation. Either you can co-opt existing eco-friendly energy sources (the elves make magical solar panels, dwarves magical geothermal power stations, etc), or you can just assume new ones. The [arc-reactor](http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Arc_Reactor) from Iron Man's suit is basically just a magical source of electricity. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | >
> fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others)
>
>
>
Fairies are the key to your technology. If they can animate objects, they can provide clean power through perpetual-motion devices, or even directly animate things like transportation and industrial machinery without the need for a power source. Humanity has been searching for the technology to create unlimited, clean power since we realized we could convert energy into mechanical work, and your fantasy world has it in the form of fairies.
There are some ramifications of this, though. Fairies will either rise or fall in prominence in a society that depends heavily on their abilities. On one hand, they may become well-respected and highly influential members of society. Or they could be forced into slavery as power sources for the wheel of progress.
With this in mind, the reason for elves to want exposure to the human world might be to mitigate the influence of fairies. Technology moves forward and spreads, and it won't be long before fairies have influence over every task that can be automated. That might not be bearable to elves, who are used to having the unquestioned leadership majority. | Anything that grants their needs
================================
Be warned that I am about to pick apart some of the concepts of your question and dismiss them.
The big problem is this...
>
> green technology & sustainability
>
>
>
"Green" is not about the environment. Sure that buzzword is used all the time to denote it but "green" is an [ideological color](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour)... like red, blue, purple, brown, black. So let us just forget that bit and focus on the core: sustainability.
Again, "sustainable development" is used as a buzzword all the time by people to promote whatever it is they are selling. But [Sustainable Development has a definition (PDF)](https://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf), established in 1987 in the UN.
Sustainable Development is... (emphasis mine)
>
> Sustainable development is development that **meets the needs** of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
>
>
>
This means that when you are designing this magic technology, you must first need to think about: what are the **needs** of the people? These "elves, fairies, vampires, humans"... what do they **need**?
Usually though, most need boil down to one thing: **energy**. Energy is that which makes things hot, makes chemical reactions happens, that moves and lifts things... energy does **work**. You need something that can do **work**, and this while at the same time seeing to needs such as "clean air", "no big scrap heaps", "not using up all our valuable resources".
This is a meta-answer — I know — but this was much too large for a comment. I am voting to close with the hopes that what I have said above helps you along in designing your world, and lets you come up with more productive questions. Cheers! :) |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | >
> fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others)
>
>
>
Fairies are the key to your technology. If they can animate objects, they can provide clean power through perpetual-motion devices, or even directly animate things like transportation and industrial machinery without the need for a power source. Humanity has been searching for the technology to create unlimited, clean power since we realized we could convert energy into mechanical work, and your fantasy world has it in the form of fairies.
There are some ramifications of this, though. Fairies will either rise or fall in prominence in a society that depends heavily on their abilities. On one hand, they may become well-respected and highly influential members of society. Or they could be forced into slavery as power sources for the wheel of progress.
With this in mind, the reason for elves to want exposure to the human world might be to mitigate the influence of fairies. Technology moves forward and spreads, and it won't be long before fairies have influence over every task that can be automated. That might not be bearable to elves, who are used to having the unquestioned leadership majority. | Anything that generates electricity
===================================
The smallest possible change is to imagine any sort of effective non-fossil fuel based electricity production system. You can now support pretty much the entire modern economy (except trucks and planes and ships).
Simply make your magic system have some sort of electrical generation. Either you can co-opt existing eco-friendly energy sources (the elves make magical solar panels, dwarves magical geothermal power stations, etc), or you can just assume new ones. The [arc-reactor](http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Arc_Reactor) from Iron Man's suit is basically just a magical source of electricity. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | >
> fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others)
>
>
>
Fairies are the key to your technology. If they can animate objects, they can provide clean power through perpetual-motion devices, or even directly animate things like transportation and industrial machinery without the need for a power source. Humanity has been searching for the technology to create unlimited, clean power since we realized we could convert energy into mechanical work, and your fantasy world has it in the form of fairies.
There are some ramifications of this, though. Fairies will either rise or fall in prominence in a society that depends heavily on their abilities. On one hand, they may become well-respected and highly influential members of society. Or they could be forced into slavery as power sources for the wheel of progress.
With this in mind, the reason for elves to want exposure to the human world might be to mitigate the influence of fairies. Technology moves forward and spreads, and it won't be long before fairies have influence over every task that can be automated. That might not be bearable to elves, who are used to having the unquestioned leadership majority. | Alternative forms of technology
Communication: replace cell phones with telepathy or a magic mirror Network.
Transportation: it's already noted they can create portals perhaps they can create portal shortcuts within their own world creating a soda portal Network where walking a few miles between portals can can save thousands of miles of Transportation. This would explain why they can still use horses another slower means of transportation and are tempted to import steam engines another forms of transportation.
Biological base Technologies: as you've already stated your elves have the ability to heal people if they can already heal people it's possible that they can also alter organic creatures on a genetic level. This I would allow them to produce organic Magic based technology that's compatible with the environment.
Why would they want to have contact with Earth: there could be many reasons I have a few suggestions
1. Population: in most stories both elves and fairies reproduce very slowly it's possible, that their population could be steadily decreasing because of ( some unnamed catastrophe of some sort) it's possible that they're trying to promote immigration from the human world to their world in the hopes that fairies can elves can reproduce faster with humans than with themselves.
2. Trade: as you said the elves don't seem to mind some forms and Technologies such as printing press. It seems like magic is difficult to mass-produce. ( hence why there are no flying cars around) so perhaps they want to do some trade of small Trinkets and maybe even medicine ( depending on how many healers you have) that would make life easier for them.
3. Because they can't stop them stop themselves from being discovered. Perhaps too many elves cross over to our world and get seen or recorded on video. Maybe a group of scientists find a way to detect an active portal. Whatever happens the elves realize they can't keep themselves isolated from the humans for long and decide to make the first steps in the hopes that that way they can control the situation. |
80,682 | The fantasy world I'm writing in is populated by elves, fairies, vampires, humans, etc. It has a handful of portals connecting it to large modern-day cities on Earth as we know it. These portals are controlled by the fantasy world government to keep destructive human technology out, thus keeping the citizens safe. Gov't employees occasionally sneak in smaller things like books and battery-operated items, then sell them on the black market. This society is similar to Amish in that it's primarily artisanal, agrarian and stalled in a pre-Industrial Revolution setting.
Because some races live longer than others (elves live hundreds of years, for example) they've seen the negative effects of progress on Earth's environment and are hesitant to adopt that same type of technology if it pollutes or harms. (Think how filthy Victorian London was.) This means that it's illegal to burn fossil fuels, use plastic, have guns, etc. There also are no cell phones, TVs or computers either. Windmills, printing presses, and waterwheels are ok. There's a very high premium on green technology & sustainability.
This world does have access to magic, although it requires years of dedication to learn and is heavily regulated. The different races are born with different abilities. Elves can heal (some better than others), fairies can animate and replicate objects (some better than others). Humans can't do much, other than send a kid to mage school for advanced training. Magic isn't conducted like reading a cake recipe out loud. That's why everyone's still riding horses instead of in flying cars like in Harry Potter. I've considered trains, but can't have steam engines because the coal to power them pollutes the air.
Since elves live longer and acquire more knowledge, they're the majority running the government...at the highest levels, anyway. They're struggling to keep up with modern technology, yet the more they hear about modern human inventions, the more they want these things for themselves. (Dishwashers, TVs, high-speed rail, cars, guns.) Some of the gov't employees actually live on Earth to keep a better eye on the potential threat of destructive human advances, just in case the fantasy world is ever discovered. Citizens mostly accept this double standard because "it's for their safety." I'm trying to figure out the following:
**What are some magic-based environmentally-friendly alternatives that can mirror our technology on Earth?**
**EDITED to include more description about how magic works for different races:**
Elves can heal and sense disease by laying their hands on someone and using psychic energy. They can speak telepathically to each other & animals, and read thoughts of others (unless that person knows mind-cloaking, which is pretty common). The really skilled ones can erase minds. They age 10X slower than humans, but their strength and senses are 10X better. They can see, smell, and hear things that people simply can't.
Vampires are quite similar with abilities, although the sun burns them badly and they drink blood. They also like to terrify people and then feed on that fear.
I've never considered reversing elves' healing ability to kill or destroy. Not against it, just never explored the option.
Mages can be any race, but most often it's humans or elves. Like any skill, (sports) some are born with more natural talent than others. You have to apprentice for years to fully learn how to master this magic. Instead of reciting spells like Harry Potter, they use elemental magic like "The Force" in Star Wars. A wand or sword is just a crutch since the power is coming from THEM, not the object that represents their skill. They can't move a mountain but they can create a mudslide, bring up magma from the earth, bend the water into shapes, bring on a sudden freeze, cast firebolts...that kind of thing.
Fairies can absolutely animate a dish cloth to wash dishes. They're great at helping with chores around the house in exchange for food & shelter, but they aren't materialistic so they have no ambition to amass wealth. This is frustrating to those who see all the potential of this 'wasted' magic. Fairies will assist people who are kind to them and give them protection (usually elves). Their numbers are assumed to be very low because most races rarely see them...no one knows where they live other than in warm climates. They can alter their size to be human-like, so if anyone tried to enslave them they could just shrink to the size of a gnat and escape, unless they were kept in an iron cage. Iron is their kryptonite, and steady exposure leads to death. Same goes for pesticides. If they're in a toxic environment their ability to do magic goes down. It's based on their energy, so if a fairy tells a cloth to wash a dish and then she walks away, the cloth and dish will eventually slow down and stop. An old fairy will wash slowly, and a young, excitable one will wash at turbo speed. If a fairy were to make a perpetual motion machine by animating a wheel, they'd have to reset it regularly (unless they were sitting next to it constantly).
Fairies can also change physical properties of inanimate objects, like multiplying food, shrinking multiple large objects to fit into a small knapsack.
Nature is revered by most as "The Divine Source of Life" so pollution is discouraged and must be offset since even wood stoves pollute. Oxen and horses draw and carry vehicles, and since they can tell elves if someone's been cruel to them, animal abuse is rare. I don't have dragons or loads of mythical creatures, although I have unicorns but hunting/capturing/killing one is akin to shooting a baby in the face--you would never, ever do it! (Unless you were a Big Bad.)
Widely-dispersed rural farmers and trades/craftspeople make up the bulk of society. Relying too heavily on magic is frowned upon...although younger generations are moving to the cities and they really like it! The largest cities are parallel to some on Earth (Paris, London) which is where the portals are to Earth. The city folk are quite modern and educated in comparison to the rural population. There's a schism between the two groups because city-dwellers are seen as not living very close to nature and thus less respectable. City-dwellers see country folks as willfully ignorant of progress. This fantasy world is on the brink of their own industrial revolution so I'm trying to determine how they get similar results to us by using magic-based technology.
I hope this additional info is helpful in clarifying my question! | 2017/05/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/80682",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38075/"
] | Anything that generates electricity
===================================
The smallest possible change is to imagine any sort of effective non-fossil fuel based electricity production system. You can now support pretty much the entire modern economy (except trucks and planes and ships).
Simply make your magic system have some sort of electrical generation. Either you can co-opt existing eco-friendly energy sources (the elves make magical solar panels, dwarves magical geothermal power stations, etc), or you can just assume new ones. The [arc-reactor](http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Arc_Reactor) from Iron Man's suit is basically just a magical source of electricity. | Anything that grants their needs
================================
Be warned that I am about to pick apart some of the concepts of your question and dismiss them.
The big problem is this...
>
> green technology & sustainability
>
>
>
"Green" is not about the environment. Sure that buzzword is used all the time to denote it but "green" is an [ideological color](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour)... like red, blue, purple, brown, black. So let us just forget that bit and focus on the core: sustainability.
Again, "sustainable development" is used as a buzzword all the time by people to promote whatever it is they are selling. But [Sustainable Development has a definition (PDF)](https://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf), established in 1987 in the UN.
Sustainable Development is... (emphasis mine)
>
> Sustainable development is development that **meets the needs** of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
>
>
>
This means that when you are designing this magic technology, you must first need to think about: what are the **needs** of the people? These "elves, fairies, vampires, humans"... what do they **need**?
Usually though, most need boil down to one thing: **energy**. Energy is that which makes things hot, makes chemical reactions happens, that moves and lifts things... energy does **work**. You need something that can do **work**, and this while at the same time seeing to needs such as "clean air", "no big scrap heaps", "not using up all our valuable resources".
This is a meta-answer — I know — but this was much too large for a comment. I am voting to close with the hopes that what I have said above helps you along in designing your world, and lets you come up with more productive questions. Cheers! :) |
7,022 | ArcGIS Server lets you create cached map services.
These can be consumed by various applications (ArcGIS Desktop, web apps, etc)
I would like to get an idea on which areas of my cache are getting hit the most.
I would like to visualise these results using a heat map overlaid onto the same cached map.
I was thinking of utilising something like the [HeatMapsAPI](http://www.heatmapapi.com/) and one of the APIs provided by ESRI (Javascript API should be sufficient)
I know the cached maps might be slightly changing at v10 of ArcGIS Server, but im trying to think of the best way of determining which tiles get requested the most without putting a significant load on either ArcGIS Server or the web server (IIS).
I was originally thinking looking at the actual cache directory under the arcgiscache folder, and perhaps hooking into the Date Accessed attribute (but have little idea on how to actually implement this).
I would like to hear from anyone who has experience with ArcGIS Server, on if they have any suggestions on how to do this? | 2010/02/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7022",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/325/"
] | Another method is to build something into the client which records the usage. (This is what the HeatMapAPI is basically doing.)
Overly simplified:
Record the extents or user clicks, or tiles into a database. Then create a ArcGISServer service that renders from that database. Add this as a layer to the map.
You could also try using the HeatMapsAPI service also: <http://www.heatmapapi.com/HeatmapGenerate2WS.asmx>. They have examples for server-side clients. From the looks of the service, I suspect it could be utilized from a client-side client also. | You might be able to use your web server log to find out which images were requested. It's not ideal since you would have to "backtrack" from the file name and directory to determine where the user viewed, but you'll have access to the "Level" they viewed (since it's part of the folder structure) in addition to the image file names requested.
Once you've built up a decent amount of information from the log, you could look at the images most frequently accessed (i.e. physically view them) to determine where the requests are being made. |
7,022 | ArcGIS Server lets you create cached map services.
These can be consumed by various applications (ArcGIS Desktop, web apps, etc)
I would like to get an idea on which areas of my cache are getting hit the most.
I would like to visualise these results using a heat map overlaid onto the same cached map.
I was thinking of utilising something like the [HeatMapsAPI](http://www.heatmapapi.com/) and one of the APIs provided by ESRI (Javascript API should be sufficient)
I know the cached maps might be slightly changing at v10 of ArcGIS Server, but im trying to think of the best way of determining which tiles get requested the most without putting a significant load on either ArcGIS Server or the web server (IIS).
I was originally thinking looking at the actual cache directory under the arcgiscache folder, and perhaps hooking into the Date Accessed attribute (but have little idea on how to actually implement this).
I would like to hear from anyone who has experience with ArcGIS Server, on if they have any suggestions on how to do this? | 2010/02/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7022",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/325/"
] | The company I work for (Latitude Geographics) makes a product called Geocortex Optimizer that can do this for you.
It analyzes both your ArcGIS Server logs and your IIS logs to determine what parts of your maps are being requested:
That's the results of some stress testing we did on it, so it's not as representative of the final result. (Normally you only get really "hot" zones over urban centers)
If you want more information, use the "Request a demo" function on [our web site](http://www.geocortex.com/gis-software/geocortex-optimizer/). | You might be able to use your web server log to find out which images were requested. It's not ideal since you would have to "backtrack" from the file name and directory to determine where the user viewed, but you'll have access to the "Level" they viewed (since it's part of the folder structure) in addition to the image file names requested.
Once you've built up a decent amount of information from the log, you could look at the images most frequently accessed (i.e. physically view them) to determine where the requests are being made. |
7,022 | ArcGIS Server lets you create cached map services.
These can be consumed by various applications (ArcGIS Desktop, web apps, etc)
I would like to get an idea on which areas of my cache are getting hit the most.
I would like to visualise these results using a heat map overlaid onto the same cached map.
I was thinking of utilising something like the [HeatMapsAPI](http://www.heatmapapi.com/) and one of the APIs provided by ESRI (Javascript API should be sufficient)
I know the cached maps might be slightly changing at v10 of ArcGIS Server, but im trying to think of the best way of determining which tiles get requested the most without putting a significant load on either ArcGIS Server or the web server (IIS).
I was originally thinking looking at the actual cache directory under the arcgiscache folder, and perhaps hooking into the Date Accessed attribute (but have little idea on how to actually implement this).
I would like to hear from anyone who has experience with ArcGIS Server, on if they have any suggestions on how to do this? | 2010/02/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7022",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/325/"
] | You might be able to use your web server log to find out which images were requested. It's not ideal since you would have to "backtrack" from the file name and directory to determine where the user viewed, but you'll have access to the "Level" they viewed (since it's part of the folder structure) in addition to the image file names requested.
Once you've built up a decent amount of information from the log, you could look at the images most frequently accessed (i.e. physically view them) to determine where the requests are being made. | Although not a direct answer for this Question, [perfHeatMap](http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=16880) is a great tool for understanding which parts of your dynamic map services render the slowest, visualising the output as a heatmap.
>
> This tool samples a defined geographic area of interest at defined
> scales by performing REST exportMap operations against a map service.
> The resulting feature class may be displayed via ArcMap with a
> graduated color scheme on the response time.
>
>
> |
7,022 | ArcGIS Server lets you create cached map services.
These can be consumed by various applications (ArcGIS Desktop, web apps, etc)
I would like to get an idea on which areas of my cache are getting hit the most.
I would like to visualise these results using a heat map overlaid onto the same cached map.
I was thinking of utilising something like the [HeatMapsAPI](http://www.heatmapapi.com/) and one of the APIs provided by ESRI (Javascript API should be sufficient)
I know the cached maps might be slightly changing at v10 of ArcGIS Server, but im trying to think of the best way of determining which tiles get requested the most without putting a significant load on either ArcGIS Server or the web server (IIS).
I was originally thinking looking at the actual cache directory under the arcgiscache folder, and perhaps hooking into the Date Accessed attribute (but have little idea on how to actually implement this).
I would like to hear from anyone who has experience with ArcGIS Server, on if they have any suggestions on how to do this? | 2010/02/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7022",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/325/"
] | The company I work for (Latitude Geographics) makes a product called Geocortex Optimizer that can do this for you.
It analyzes both your ArcGIS Server logs and your IIS logs to determine what parts of your maps are being requested:
That's the results of some stress testing we did on it, so it's not as representative of the final result. (Normally you only get really "hot" zones over urban centers)
If you want more information, use the "Request a demo" function on [our web site](http://www.geocortex.com/gis-software/geocortex-optimizer/). | Another method is to build something into the client which records the usage. (This is what the HeatMapAPI is basically doing.)
Overly simplified:
Record the extents or user clicks, or tiles into a database. Then create a ArcGISServer service that renders from that database. Add this as a layer to the map.
You could also try using the HeatMapsAPI service also: <http://www.heatmapapi.com/HeatmapGenerate2WS.asmx>. They have examples for server-side clients. From the looks of the service, I suspect it could be utilized from a client-side client also. |
7,022 | ArcGIS Server lets you create cached map services.
These can be consumed by various applications (ArcGIS Desktop, web apps, etc)
I would like to get an idea on which areas of my cache are getting hit the most.
I would like to visualise these results using a heat map overlaid onto the same cached map.
I was thinking of utilising something like the [HeatMapsAPI](http://www.heatmapapi.com/) and one of the APIs provided by ESRI (Javascript API should be sufficient)
I know the cached maps might be slightly changing at v10 of ArcGIS Server, but im trying to think of the best way of determining which tiles get requested the most without putting a significant load on either ArcGIS Server or the web server (IIS).
I was originally thinking looking at the actual cache directory under the arcgiscache folder, and perhaps hooking into the Date Accessed attribute (but have little idea on how to actually implement this).
I would like to hear from anyone who has experience with ArcGIS Server, on if they have any suggestions on how to do this? | 2010/02/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7022",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/325/"
] | Another method is to build something into the client which records the usage. (This is what the HeatMapAPI is basically doing.)
Overly simplified:
Record the extents or user clicks, or tiles into a database. Then create a ArcGISServer service that renders from that database. Add this as a layer to the map.
You could also try using the HeatMapsAPI service also: <http://www.heatmapapi.com/HeatmapGenerate2WS.asmx>. They have examples for server-side clients. From the looks of the service, I suspect it could be utilized from a client-side client also. | Although not a direct answer for this Question, [perfHeatMap](http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=16880) is a great tool for understanding which parts of your dynamic map services render the slowest, visualising the output as a heatmap.
>
> This tool samples a defined geographic area of interest at defined
> scales by performing REST exportMap operations against a map service.
> The resulting feature class may be displayed via ArcMap with a
> graduated color scheme on the response time.
>
>
> |
7,022 | ArcGIS Server lets you create cached map services.
These can be consumed by various applications (ArcGIS Desktop, web apps, etc)
I would like to get an idea on which areas of my cache are getting hit the most.
I would like to visualise these results using a heat map overlaid onto the same cached map.
I was thinking of utilising something like the [HeatMapsAPI](http://www.heatmapapi.com/) and one of the APIs provided by ESRI (Javascript API should be sufficient)
I know the cached maps might be slightly changing at v10 of ArcGIS Server, but im trying to think of the best way of determining which tiles get requested the most without putting a significant load on either ArcGIS Server or the web server (IIS).
I was originally thinking looking at the actual cache directory under the arcgiscache folder, and perhaps hooking into the Date Accessed attribute (but have little idea on how to actually implement this).
I would like to hear from anyone who has experience with ArcGIS Server, on if they have any suggestions on how to do this? | 2010/02/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7022",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/325/"
] | The company I work for (Latitude Geographics) makes a product called Geocortex Optimizer that can do this for you.
It analyzes both your ArcGIS Server logs and your IIS logs to determine what parts of your maps are being requested:
That's the results of some stress testing we did on it, so it's not as representative of the final result. (Normally you only get really "hot" zones over urban centers)
If you want more information, use the "Request a demo" function on [our web site](http://www.geocortex.com/gis-software/geocortex-optimizer/). | Although not a direct answer for this Question, [perfHeatMap](http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=16880) is a great tool for understanding which parts of your dynamic map services render the slowest, visualising the output as a heatmap.
>
> This tool samples a defined geographic area of interest at defined
> scales by performing REST exportMap operations against a map service.
> The resulting feature class may be displayed via ArcMap with a
> graduated color scheme on the response time.
>
>
> |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | The purpose of the bed runner is very simple: to protect the sheets. So that when you lie on the bed with your shoes on, the shoes would not dirty the sheets.
It also looks pretty, but I think that's a secondary consideration. It's not solely aesthetic. | All very good and interesting and partially correct answers.
The cloth in question originated in the early days of the medieval time period where they warmed the beds with hot rocks and coal type bed warmers stuffed in between the mattresses diligently monitored by Noble's personal help. The cloth, although I forget specific original name, was at the time actually a form of tapestry of the family crest meant for fashion of course and also was truly meant to hold the heat in the sheets as much as possible, that's the original intent.
But, over time it has taken on the name of "bed runner" and the shape of fashion. Many different and interesting stories have been focused around this item of the high-end hotel industry. Many hotels, especially in the European countries still practice this fashion statement out of respect for its true intention (without the rocks and coals, of course) and some simply like the design aspect and some wrap the cloth because it starts interesting and memorable conversations at the breakfast buffet and also because memorable stories bring you back to visit again, so it's become a fashionable piece of advertising and has taken on many true and correct reasons to add this odd item to the laundry staffs checklist.
I'm no expert of the period but I am a traveler of the world touching down at over 1350 hotel stays in my travels of business and pleasure and have been part of this conversation at many a buffet table. I was told this story at one point and actually found it to be very true, as my curiosity led me on an interesting voyage of truth of the tapestry, whose name I can't remember. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | A bed runner is a small, long piece of decorated cloth used to enhance the appearance of an otherwise plain bed. While some prefer the look solely for aesthetic reasons and would choose it even if it were more expensive than traditional decorative bedding, the primary reason to use one in the hospitality industry is to reduce costs while keeping the room attractive.
Plain white linen not only costs less initially, it's easy and cheaper to launder than decorative linen. Delicate or decorative fabrics often can't be bleached, and are easily damaged by mechanical washing machines - they simply don't last as long. However, white blankets, comforters, and bedspreads are easy to clean and sanitize, don't fade, and still look good even after many washing cycles.
Plain white linen doesn't look as attractive as a fully decorated bed, though.
So a bed runner, which is small and only used for decoration, will enhance the appearance of the room while not requiring frequent laundering (only when obvious spots appear), and , being small, are easy and cheaply manufactured. When they do need to be laundered, several of them can fit into a load, and that load can be run on a gentle cycle - the shear volume of bedclothes that must be laundered would prevent large bedspreads from this care, but the relatively smaller volume allows an occasional load of runners to take more time and perhaps a more expensive detergent process to clean without causing delays in resetting rooms.
Further, some hotel guests prefer clean white linen - which is easier to inspect and note stains or previous usage - to patterned linen for personal hygiene reasons. Bed runners add touches of decoration while still exhibiting cleanliness for picky travelers. | I have no evidence of it, but I always thought it was there to *protect* the bed from dirty items like your luggage or your shoes. Your luggage might be dirty because it touched the floor, so if you want to open it you put it in this piece of cloth and only that will get dirty and not the sheets where you'll sleep later. Same thing to your shoes, suppose you want to lay down for a few minutes and you're already dressed. You can lay your feet on that piece of cloth and not in the sheets. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | I have no evidence of it, but I always thought it was there to *protect* the bed from dirty items like your luggage or your shoes. Your luggage might be dirty because it touched the floor, so if you want to open it you put it in this piece of cloth and only that will get dirty and not the sheets where you'll sleep later. Same thing to your shoes, suppose you want to lay down for a few minutes and you're already dressed. You can lay your feet on that piece of cloth and not in the sheets. | My personal epiphany towards the use of bed runner - is for people to jump onto the bed without removing their shoes. Your legs (with shoes on) should then be placed within the area of the bed runner so as not the dirty your bed sheet. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | A bed runner is a small, long piece of decorated cloth used to enhance the appearance of an otherwise plain bed. While some prefer the look solely for aesthetic reasons and would choose it even if it were more expensive than traditional decorative bedding, the primary reason to use one in the hospitality industry is to reduce costs while keeping the room attractive.
Plain white linen not only costs less initially, it's easy and cheaper to launder than decorative linen. Delicate or decorative fabrics often can't be bleached, and are easily damaged by mechanical washing machines - they simply don't last as long. However, white blankets, comforters, and bedspreads are easy to clean and sanitize, don't fade, and still look good even after many washing cycles.
Plain white linen doesn't look as attractive as a fully decorated bed, though.
So a bed runner, which is small and only used for decoration, will enhance the appearance of the room while not requiring frequent laundering (only when obvious spots appear), and , being small, are easy and cheaply manufactured. When they do need to be laundered, several of them can fit into a load, and that load can be run on a gentle cycle - the shear volume of bedclothes that must be laundered would prevent large bedspreads from this care, but the relatively smaller volume allows an occasional load of runners to take more time and perhaps a more expensive detergent process to clean without causing delays in resetting rooms.
Further, some hotel guests prefer clean white linen - which is easier to inspect and note stains or previous usage - to patterned linen for personal hygiene reasons. Bed runners add touches of decoration while still exhibiting cleanliness for picky travelers. | My personal epiphany towards the use of bed runner - is for people to jump onto the bed without removing their shoes. Your legs (with shoes on) should then be placed within the area of the bed runner so as not the dirty your bed sheet. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | A bed runner is a small, long piece of decorated cloth used to enhance the appearance of an otherwise plain bed. While some prefer the look solely for aesthetic reasons and would choose it even if it were more expensive than traditional decorative bedding, the primary reason to use one in the hospitality industry is to reduce costs while keeping the room attractive.
Plain white linen not only costs less initially, it's easy and cheaper to launder than decorative linen. Delicate or decorative fabrics often can't be bleached, and are easily damaged by mechanical washing machines - they simply don't last as long. However, white blankets, comforters, and bedspreads are easy to clean and sanitize, don't fade, and still look good even after many washing cycles.
Plain white linen doesn't look as attractive as a fully decorated bed, though.
So a bed runner, which is small and only used for decoration, will enhance the appearance of the room while not requiring frequent laundering (only when obvious spots appear), and , being small, are easy and cheaply manufactured. When they do need to be laundered, several of them can fit into a load, and that load can be run on a gentle cycle - the shear volume of bedclothes that must be laundered would prevent large bedspreads from this care, but the relatively smaller volume allows an occasional load of runners to take more time and perhaps a more expensive detergent process to clean without causing delays in resetting rooms.
Further, some hotel guests prefer clean white linen - which is easier to inspect and note stains or previous usage - to patterned linen for personal hygiene reasons. Bed runners add touches of decoration while still exhibiting cleanliness for picky travelers. | All very good and interesting and partially correct answers.
The cloth in question originated in the early days of the medieval time period where they warmed the beds with hot rocks and coal type bed warmers stuffed in between the mattresses diligently monitored by Noble's personal help. The cloth, although I forget specific original name, was at the time actually a form of tapestry of the family crest meant for fashion of course and also was truly meant to hold the heat in the sheets as much as possible, that's the original intent.
But, over time it has taken on the name of "bed runner" and the shape of fashion. Many different and interesting stories have been focused around this item of the high-end hotel industry. Many hotels, especially in the European countries still practice this fashion statement out of respect for its true intention (without the rocks and coals, of course) and some simply like the design aspect and some wrap the cloth because it starts interesting and memorable conversations at the breakfast buffet and also because memorable stories bring you back to visit again, so it's become a fashionable piece of advertising and has taken on many true and correct reasons to add this odd item to the laundry staffs checklist.
I'm no expert of the period but I am a traveler of the world touching down at over 1350 hotel stays in my travels of business and pleasure and have been part of this conversation at many a buffet table. I was told this story at one point and actually found it to be very true, as my curiosity led me on an interesting voyage of truth of the tapestry, whose name I can't remember. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | It's called a “bed runner“.
The main purpose is to make the bed look nicer and more stylish. Where I live, it's become trendy (again?) to put something similar on tables too (a “table runner”).
Earlier, it would be common in some countries to get a similar effect by covering the bed with a large blanket, folded at 2/3rd of the length to reveal another pattern. | The purpose of the bed runner is very simple: to protect the sheets. So that when you lie on the bed with your shoes on, the shoes would not dirty the sheets.
It also looks pretty, but I think that's a secondary consideration. It's not solely aesthetic. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | It's called a “bed runner“.
The main purpose is to make the bed look nicer and more stylish. Where I live, it's become trendy (again?) to put something similar on tables too (a “table runner”).
Earlier, it would be common in some countries to get a similar effect by covering the bed with a large blanket, folded at 2/3rd of the length to reveal another pattern. | I have no evidence of it, but I always thought it was there to *protect* the bed from dirty items like your luggage or your shoes. Your luggage might be dirty because it touched the floor, so if you want to open it you put it in this piece of cloth and only that will get dirty and not the sheets where you'll sleep later. Same thing to your shoes, suppose you want to lay down for a few minutes and you're already dressed. You can lay your feet on that piece of cloth and not in the sheets. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | My personal epiphany towards the use of bed runner - is for people to jump onto the bed without removing their shoes. Your legs (with shoes on) should then be placed within the area of the bed runner so as not the dirty your bed sheet. | All very good and interesting and partially correct answers.
The cloth in question originated in the early days of the medieval time period where they warmed the beds with hot rocks and coal type bed warmers stuffed in between the mattresses diligently monitored by Noble's personal help. The cloth, although I forget specific original name, was at the time actually a form of tapestry of the family crest meant for fashion of course and also was truly meant to hold the heat in the sheets as much as possible, that's the original intent.
But, over time it has taken on the name of "bed runner" and the shape of fashion. Many different and interesting stories have been focused around this item of the high-end hotel industry. Many hotels, especially in the European countries still practice this fashion statement out of respect for its true intention (without the rocks and coals, of course) and some simply like the design aspect and some wrap the cloth because it starts interesting and memorable conversations at the breakfast buffet and also because memorable stories bring you back to visit again, so it's become a fashionable piece of advertising and has taken on many true and correct reasons to add this odd item to the laundry staffs checklist.
I'm no expert of the period but I am a traveler of the world touching down at over 1350 hotel stays in my travels of business and pleasure and have been part of this conversation at many a buffet table. I was told this story at one point and actually found it to be very true, as my curiosity led me on an interesting voyage of truth of the tapestry, whose name I can't remember. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | It's called a “bed runner“.
The main purpose is to make the bed look nicer and more stylish. Where I live, it's become trendy (again?) to put something similar on tables too (a “table runner”).
Earlier, it would be common in some countries to get a similar effect by covering the bed with a large blanket, folded at 2/3rd of the length to reveal another pattern. | My personal epiphany towards the use of bed runner - is for people to jump onto the bed without removing their shoes. Your legs (with shoes on) should then be placed within the area of the bed runner so as not the dirty your bed sheet. |
47,534 | 
What is the purpose of the cloth across the bed? I see it at many hotels and it does not seem to serve any purpose other than make it look nice. Any idea what it can be used for?
Ps. The purplish elephant in foreground is towel. It looks nice! | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/47534",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/29447/"
] | A bed runner is a small, long piece of decorated cloth used to enhance the appearance of an otherwise plain bed. While some prefer the look solely for aesthetic reasons and would choose it even if it were more expensive than traditional decorative bedding, the primary reason to use one in the hospitality industry is to reduce costs while keeping the room attractive.
Plain white linen not only costs less initially, it's easy and cheaper to launder than decorative linen. Delicate or decorative fabrics often can't be bleached, and are easily damaged by mechanical washing machines - they simply don't last as long. However, white blankets, comforters, and bedspreads are easy to clean and sanitize, don't fade, and still look good even after many washing cycles.
Plain white linen doesn't look as attractive as a fully decorated bed, though.
So a bed runner, which is small and only used for decoration, will enhance the appearance of the room while not requiring frequent laundering (only when obvious spots appear), and , being small, are easy and cheaply manufactured. When they do need to be laundered, several of them can fit into a load, and that load can be run on a gentle cycle - the shear volume of bedclothes that must be laundered would prevent large bedspreads from this care, but the relatively smaller volume allows an occasional load of runners to take more time and perhaps a more expensive detergent process to clean without causing delays in resetting rooms.
Further, some hotel guests prefer clean white linen - which is easier to inspect and note stains or previous usage - to patterned linen for personal hygiene reasons. Bed runners add touches of decoration while still exhibiting cleanliness for picky travelers. | It's called a “bed runner“.
The main purpose is to make the bed look nicer and more stylish. Where I live, it's become trendy (again?) to put something similar on tables too (a “table runner”).
Earlier, it would be common in some countries to get a similar effect by covering the bed with a large blanket, folded at 2/3rd of the length to reveal another pattern. |
34,281 | Ephesians 5 starts with:
>
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (v1-2, ESV)
>
>
>
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 clearly connects to these statements in v1-2. Why does Paul first start out with v3-5?
>
> But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (ESV)
>
>
>
Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ? Note Paul included "no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" in the negative categories, while the positive is thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). | 2018/08/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/34281",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/22715/"
] | To understand Paul’s outline in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 one needs to observe Paul’s style that is the clearest in Romans 1:18 – 8:39. Paul used the prophetic style of starting with the Gentiles, then moving to closer neighbors until ending with his recipients. In Romans 1:18 – 8:39 Paul starts with the Gentiles, then goes to the Jews and finally Christians. This style starts with things his recipients easily agree with, then each step moves closer to home.
In Ephesians 5:3 Paul starts with sexual immorality and all impurity. Things Jews and Christians would condemn, but was a part of life for pagan Gentiles. Covetousness is more difficult to avoid (Romans 7:7). Then, in Ephesians 5:4 Paul moves away from sexual acts to talking and joking about them, moving closer to home. Paul specifically addresses Christians in Ephesians 5:15 – 6:9. Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (ESV)” clearly points back to 5:1-2.
However, the subject matter in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 is all related. The sins in the beginning of the passage do interfere with fulfilling Paul’s admonitions in the end. For example covetousness (interpreting the Greek word πλεονεξία meaning greed) interferes with a master treating his servant properly. Sexual sins interfere with marriage relationships. | I love the word "Therefore" in Paul's writings. He connects one verse to the ones not only after but also before creating a continuing message. The Hebrew way of writing is often one disjointed though process separated and considered on its own but not in Paul's letters who can swallow up volumes of pages to get a thing said. Paul really was known for this. Remember the man who fell asleep, causing him to fall down from the roof to his death listening to Paul speak into the night. In his letters Paul has given many positive and many negative examples of Christian living and already begun a theme in the previous chapters. So to select out just these verses as being the primary behaviors would dismiss not only Paul's over all message but teachings from people including Jesus.
In essence even the smallest sin can condemn. That becomes clearer when we consider statements like all men have sinned. People can say, I have lived a good life, I haven't done this or that. The smallest thing, under the Old Testament covenant would have deemed many of us worthy of hellfire if not atoned by sacrifice. Under Jesus we tend to try and say, well, that was a small sin or that was really bad sin. The truth is that the Old Testament appraisal of sin, which is death, is still valid. This is why we need Jesus. Paul is simply encouraging that we live as "Christ Ones". Listing a few positives and negatives to paint a picture of good and evil, that we should be good and not evil, because after all is considered we are children of God and should live accordingly. |
34,281 | Ephesians 5 starts with:
>
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (v1-2, ESV)
>
>
>
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 clearly connects to these statements in v1-2. Why does Paul first start out with v3-5?
>
> But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (ESV)
>
>
>
Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ? Note Paul included "no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" in the negative categories, while the positive is thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). | 2018/08/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/34281",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/22715/"
] | In answering your specific question:
>
> Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are
> the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ?
>
>
>
…it’s just not those specific behaviors that impact others but everything done via the old man.
In Chapter 3, Paul introduces the concept of the love of Christ as it relates to the Ephesians relationship with Jesus.
Ephesians 3 (KJV)
>
> 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to
> be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That
> Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and
> grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is
> the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the
> love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with
> all the fulness of God.
>
>
>
Then in chapter 4, Paul then extends the concept of the love of Christ to others. He tells the Ephesians not to act in accordance with the old man but to be renewed in their minds, to live after the new man. His instructions in verses 25 to 31 demonstrate how to act toward your neighbor. Note all the different types of behavior. In verse 32, he mentions their relationship with Christ and by example shows the Ephesians to forgive one another as they have been forgiven by Christ.
Ephesians 4 (KJV)
>
> 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man,
> which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed
> in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which
> after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. 25 Wherefore
> putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we
> are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the
> sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil. 28
> Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working
> with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to
> him that needeth. 29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your
> mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may
> minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of
> God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all
> bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be
> put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another,
> tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake
> hath forgiven you.
>
>
>
With all that as a background, Paul then states in Chapter 5:1-2:
Ephesians 5:
>
> Be ye therefore (note this) followers of God, as dear children; 2 And
> walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for
> us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.
>
>
>
Here, Paul’s encouragement is to be selfless like Christ as Jesus denied Himeself and His will to do the Father’s will and became an offering for all of us.
In verses 3 and onward, Paul just continues the same theme of controlling your own behavior (all types) because it has a direct effect on other people. Building on verse 2, he encourages the Ephesians to use Christ as an example:
>
> 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
>
>
> | I love the word "Therefore" in Paul's writings. He connects one verse to the ones not only after but also before creating a continuing message. The Hebrew way of writing is often one disjointed though process separated and considered on its own but not in Paul's letters who can swallow up volumes of pages to get a thing said. Paul really was known for this. Remember the man who fell asleep, causing him to fall down from the roof to his death listening to Paul speak into the night. In his letters Paul has given many positive and many negative examples of Christian living and already begun a theme in the previous chapters. So to select out just these verses as being the primary behaviors would dismiss not only Paul's over all message but teachings from people including Jesus.
In essence even the smallest sin can condemn. That becomes clearer when we consider statements like all men have sinned. People can say, I have lived a good life, I haven't done this or that. The smallest thing, under the Old Testament covenant would have deemed many of us worthy of hellfire if not atoned by sacrifice. Under Jesus we tend to try and say, well, that was a small sin or that was really bad sin. The truth is that the Old Testament appraisal of sin, which is death, is still valid. This is why we need Jesus. Paul is simply encouraging that we live as "Christ Ones". Listing a few positives and negatives to paint a picture of good and evil, that we should be good and not evil, because after all is considered we are children of God and should live accordingly. |
34,281 | Ephesians 5 starts with:
>
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (v1-2, ESV)
>
>
>
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 clearly connects to these statements in v1-2. Why does Paul first start out with v3-5?
>
> But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (ESV)
>
>
>
Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ? Note Paul included "no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" in the negative categories, while the positive is thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). | 2018/08/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/34281",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/22715/"
] | Reflecting on this passage, I had the same question. In keeping with the contrast that Paul is making between the Gentiles, the world, the flesh and those sons of disobedience who are following the prince of this world, Paul is pressing the redemptive work of God that graces accomplishes in the soul. The old man will be self-centered and self-serving. The new man will have an other-centered sacrificing love. And this plays out anger, lust and greed
In Ephesians 5, we see the difference in imitating the love of God, the self-sacrificing love of Christ, and how the influence of the Holy Spirit's filling - restores the soul and gives us a new orientation to love. Why does he begin with the sexual lust and avarice? Perhaps he wanted to start with the dark felt realities the Gentile folks. Previously separated from the Lord, they had an insatiable hunger that led to the damaging trauma to the soul, leaving self-centered souls locked in the damaging darkness and hidden shame. This is compared to the forgiven soul that can speak to the issues of the heart and bring those shameful things that destroy us into the light. I think Paul wanted the believers to see the difference between having the old man on the throne and the new man filled with the Spirit on the throne. The contrast is clear. One is a sexually controlled spirit, and the other is a spiritually controlled sexuality, which is visible, liberated from shame and grateful for genuine other-centered love that comes from Jesus. What a difference grace makes! | I love the word "Therefore" in Paul's writings. He connects one verse to the ones not only after but also before creating a continuing message. The Hebrew way of writing is often one disjointed though process separated and considered on its own but not in Paul's letters who can swallow up volumes of pages to get a thing said. Paul really was known for this. Remember the man who fell asleep, causing him to fall down from the roof to his death listening to Paul speak into the night. In his letters Paul has given many positive and many negative examples of Christian living and already begun a theme in the previous chapters. So to select out just these verses as being the primary behaviors would dismiss not only Paul's over all message but teachings from people including Jesus.
In essence even the smallest sin can condemn. That becomes clearer when we consider statements like all men have sinned. People can say, I have lived a good life, I haven't done this or that. The smallest thing, under the Old Testament covenant would have deemed many of us worthy of hellfire if not atoned by sacrifice. Under Jesus we tend to try and say, well, that was a small sin or that was really bad sin. The truth is that the Old Testament appraisal of sin, which is death, is still valid. This is why we need Jesus. Paul is simply encouraging that we live as "Christ Ones". Listing a few positives and negatives to paint a picture of good and evil, that we should be good and not evil, because after all is considered we are children of God and should live accordingly. |
34,281 | Ephesians 5 starts with:
>
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (v1-2, ESV)
>
>
>
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 clearly connects to these statements in v1-2. Why does Paul first start out with v3-5?
>
> But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (ESV)
>
>
>
Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ? Note Paul included "no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" in the negative categories, while the positive is thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). | 2018/08/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/34281",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/22715/"
] | Ephesians 5:1 is not the beginning of a topic. The entire letter flows with instructions aimed at increasing **unity** in the church community at Ephesus.
The subject matter in question also began in the previous chapter. After uniting the 'uncircumcised' and 'the circumcised' as one citizenship in Christ (Ephesians 2: 11-22), Paul then charges the people to work on becoming united as one body in Christ:
>
> Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the **unity** of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4: 2-3)
>
>
>
Paul concentrates on two ways they should do this. From 5:21 to 6:9 Paul explores relationships with uneven power distribution (husband/wife, parent/child, master/slave). Here he calls for humility and forbearance from the powerless, loving care from those in authority, before urging them all to **unite** in the battle for Christ.
But before this, Paul firstly calls on the Ephesians to distance themselves from their old way of living - to put off their old self and put on the new self:
>
> So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.
> That, however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4: 17-24)
>
>
>
Paul then contrasts this old and new self from 4:25 through to 5:20, specifically in words and deeds - how we relate to others. He contrasts falsehood with speaking truthfully, and anger with love, expanding this out to look specifically at the 'old' tendencies to 'sin' in anger, but also to 'sin' in love.
In Ephesians 4:28-32, Paul contrasts the 'old' behaviour and talk in relating to those who provoke our **anger** with more loving options.
>
> "In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.
> Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
>
>
>
In Ephesians 5:1-7, he warns against the 'old' behaviour and talk in relating to those we **love** that is *not* in fact loving. He also suggests that we disassociate with those who behave (5) or speak (6) in this way, because they invite God's wrath (7).
>
> Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
> But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.
>
>
>
Paul then rounds out this section by returning to the image of darkness from 4:18, contrasting the old 'fruitless deeds' with the 'fruit of light', and the foolishness of getting 'drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery' with being 'filled with the Spirit', which leads to making music and singing songs to the Lord.
Conclusion
----------
The beginning of Ephesians 5 is part way through Paul's efforts to contrast the old self of the Gentiles with the new self as 'created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness', one of two main ways he suggests to enhance the unity of the church community in Ephesus. By portraying the community as united against outside forces - namely the old ways of the Gentiles and 'against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms' (Ephesians 6:11) - he attempts to steer the focus away from their various internal conflicts.
After contrasting the Gentiles' behaviour and talk with more loving options in situations of *anger*, Paul then categorised ways that the Gentiles also corrupted their *love* for each other: in their actions with sexual immorality, impurity and greed, and in their words with obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking. He warns that this is not how to 'walk in the way of love'.
As for the question of 'primary reasons', these are not reasons, but categories of 'deceitful desires' in supposedly 'loving' relationships. Greed, for instance, would likely include possessiveness, jealousy, polygamy, rape, etc. | I love the word "Therefore" in Paul's writings. He connects one verse to the ones not only after but also before creating a continuing message. The Hebrew way of writing is often one disjointed though process separated and considered on its own but not in Paul's letters who can swallow up volumes of pages to get a thing said. Paul really was known for this. Remember the man who fell asleep, causing him to fall down from the roof to his death listening to Paul speak into the night. In his letters Paul has given many positive and many negative examples of Christian living and already begun a theme in the previous chapters. So to select out just these verses as being the primary behaviors would dismiss not only Paul's over all message but teachings from people including Jesus.
In essence even the smallest sin can condemn. That becomes clearer when we consider statements like all men have sinned. People can say, I have lived a good life, I haven't done this or that. The smallest thing, under the Old Testament covenant would have deemed many of us worthy of hellfire if not atoned by sacrifice. Under Jesus we tend to try and say, well, that was a small sin or that was really bad sin. The truth is that the Old Testament appraisal of sin, which is death, is still valid. This is why we need Jesus. Paul is simply encouraging that we live as "Christ Ones". Listing a few positives and negatives to paint a picture of good and evil, that we should be good and not evil, because after all is considered we are children of God and should live accordingly. |
34,281 | Ephesians 5 starts with:
>
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (v1-2, ESV)
>
>
>
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 clearly connects to these statements in v1-2. Why does Paul first start out with v3-5?
>
> But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (ESV)
>
>
>
Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ? Note Paul included "no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" in the negative categories, while the positive is thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). | 2018/08/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/34281",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/22715/"
] | To understand Paul’s outline in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 one needs to observe Paul’s style that is the clearest in Romans 1:18 – 8:39. Paul used the prophetic style of starting with the Gentiles, then moving to closer neighbors until ending with his recipients. In Romans 1:18 – 8:39 Paul starts with the Gentiles, then goes to the Jews and finally Christians. This style starts with things his recipients easily agree with, then each step moves closer to home.
In Ephesians 5:3 Paul starts with sexual immorality and all impurity. Things Jews and Christians would condemn, but was a part of life for pagan Gentiles. Covetousness is more difficult to avoid (Romans 7:7). Then, in Ephesians 5:4 Paul moves away from sexual acts to talking and joking about them, moving closer to home. Paul specifically addresses Christians in Ephesians 5:15 – 6:9. Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (ESV)” clearly points back to 5:1-2.
However, the subject matter in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 is all related. The sins in the beginning of the passage do interfere with fulfilling Paul’s admonitions in the end. For example covetousness (interpreting the Greek word πλεονεξία meaning greed) interferes with a master treating his servant properly. Sexual sins interfere with marriage relationships. | In answering your specific question:
>
> Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are
> the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ?
>
>
>
…it’s just not those specific behaviors that impact others but everything done via the old man.
In Chapter 3, Paul introduces the concept of the love of Christ as it relates to the Ephesians relationship with Jesus.
Ephesians 3 (KJV)
>
> 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to
> be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That
> Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and
> grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is
> the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the
> love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with
> all the fulness of God.
>
>
>
Then in chapter 4, Paul then extends the concept of the love of Christ to others. He tells the Ephesians not to act in accordance with the old man but to be renewed in their minds, to live after the new man. His instructions in verses 25 to 31 demonstrate how to act toward your neighbor. Note all the different types of behavior. In verse 32, he mentions their relationship with Christ and by example shows the Ephesians to forgive one another as they have been forgiven by Christ.
Ephesians 4 (KJV)
>
> 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man,
> which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed
> in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which
> after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. 25 Wherefore
> putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we
> are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the
> sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil. 28
> Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working
> with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to
> him that needeth. 29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your
> mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may
> minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of
> God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all
> bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be
> put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another,
> tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake
> hath forgiven you.
>
>
>
With all that as a background, Paul then states in Chapter 5:1-2:
Ephesians 5:
>
> Be ye therefore (note this) followers of God, as dear children; 2 And
> walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for
> us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.
>
>
>
Here, Paul’s encouragement is to be selfless like Christ as Jesus denied Himeself and His will to do the Father’s will and became an offering for all of us.
In verses 3 and onward, Paul just continues the same theme of controlling your own behavior (all types) because it has a direct effect on other people. Building on verse 2, he encourages the Ephesians to use Christ as an example:
>
> 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
>
>
> |
34,281 | Ephesians 5 starts with:
>
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (v1-2, ESV)
>
>
>
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 clearly connects to these statements in v1-2. Why does Paul first start out with v3-5?
>
> But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (ESV)
>
>
>
Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ? Note Paul included "no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" in the negative categories, while the positive is thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). | 2018/08/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/34281",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/22715/"
] | To understand Paul’s outline in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 one needs to observe Paul’s style that is the clearest in Romans 1:18 – 8:39. Paul used the prophetic style of starting with the Gentiles, then moving to closer neighbors until ending with his recipients. In Romans 1:18 – 8:39 Paul starts with the Gentiles, then goes to the Jews and finally Christians. This style starts with things his recipients easily agree with, then each step moves closer to home.
In Ephesians 5:3 Paul starts with sexual immorality and all impurity. Things Jews and Christians would condemn, but was a part of life for pagan Gentiles. Covetousness is more difficult to avoid (Romans 7:7). Then, in Ephesians 5:4 Paul moves away from sexual acts to talking and joking about them, moving closer to home. Paul specifically addresses Christians in Ephesians 5:15 – 6:9. Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (ESV)” clearly points back to 5:1-2.
However, the subject matter in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 is all related. The sins in the beginning of the passage do interfere with fulfilling Paul’s admonitions in the end. For example covetousness (interpreting the Greek word πλεονεξία meaning greed) interferes with a master treating his servant properly. Sexual sins interfere with marriage relationships. | Reflecting on this passage, I had the same question. In keeping with the contrast that Paul is making between the Gentiles, the world, the flesh and those sons of disobedience who are following the prince of this world, Paul is pressing the redemptive work of God that graces accomplishes in the soul. The old man will be self-centered and self-serving. The new man will have an other-centered sacrificing love. And this plays out anger, lust and greed
In Ephesians 5, we see the difference in imitating the love of God, the self-sacrificing love of Christ, and how the influence of the Holy Spirit's filling - restores the soul and gives us a new orientation to love. Why does he begin with the sexual lust and avarice? Perhaps he wanted to start with the dark felt realities the Gentile folks. Previously separated from the Lord, they had an insatiable hunger that led to the damaging trauma to the soul, leaving self-centered souls locked in the damaging darkness and hidden shame. This is compared to the forgiven soul that can speak to the issues of the heart and bring those shameful things that destroy us into the light. I think Paul wanted the believers to see the difference between having the old man on the throne and the new man filled with the Spirit on the throne. The contrast is clear. One is a sexually controlled spirit, and the other is a spiritually controlled sexuality, which is visible, liberated from shame and grateful for genuine other-centered love that comes from Jesus. What a difference grace makes! |
34,281 | Ephesians 5 starts with:
>
> Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (v1-2, ESV)
>
>
>
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 clearly connects to these statements in v1-2. Why does Paul first start out with v3-5?
>
> But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (ESV)
>
>
>
Is Paul saying that sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness are the primary reasons a person does not love like Christ? Note Paul included "no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking" in the negative categories, while the positive is thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). | 2018/08/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/34281",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/22715/"
] | To understand Paul’s outline in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 one needs to observe Paul’s style that is the clearest in Romans 1:18 – 8:39. Paul used the prophetic style of starting with the Gentiles, then moving to closer neighbors until ending with his recipients. In Romans 1:18 – 8:39 Paul starts with the Gentiles, then goes to the Jews and finally Christians. This style starts with things his recipients easily agree with, then each step moves closer to home.
In Ephesians 5:3 Paul starts with sexual immorality and all impurity. Things Jews and Christians would condemn, but was a part of life for pagan Gentiles. Covetousness is more difficult to avoid (Romans 7:7). Then, in Ephesians 5:4 Paul moves away from sexual acts to talking and joking about them, moving closer to home. Paul specifically addresses Christians in Ephesians 5:15 – 6:9. Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (ESV)” clearly points back to 5:1-2.
However, the subject matter in Ephesians 5:1 – 6:9 is all related. The sins in the beginning of the passage do interfere with fulfilling Paul’s admonitions in the end. For example covetousness (interpreting the Greek word πλεονεξία meaning greed) interferes with a master treating his servant properly. Sexual sins interfere with marriage relationships. | Ephesians 5:1 is not the beginning of a topic. The entire letter flows with instructions aimed at increasing **unity** in the church community at Ephesus.
The subject matter in question also began in the previous chapter. After uniting the 'uncircumcised' and 'the circumcised' as one citizenship in Christ (Ephesians 2: 11-22), Paul then charges the people to work on becoming united as one body in Christ:
>
> Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the **unity** of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4: 2-3)
>
>
>
Paul concentrates on two ways they should do this. From 5:21 to 6:9 Paul explores relationships with uneven power distribution (husband/wife, parent/child, master/slave). Here he calls for humility and forbearance from the powerless, loving care from those in authority, before urging them all to **unite** in the battle for Christ.
But before this, Paul firstly calls on the Ephesians to distance themselves from their old way of living - to put off their old self and put on the new self:
>
> So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.
> That, however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4: 17-24)
>
>
>
Paul then contrasts this old and new self from 4:25 through to 5:20, specifically in words and deeds - how we relate to others. He contrasts falsehood with speaking truthfully, and anger with love, expanding this out to look specifically at the 'old' tendencies to 'sin' in anger, but also to 'sin' in love.
In Ephesians 4:28-32, Paul contrasts the 'old' behaviour and talk in relating to those who provoke our **anger** with more loving options.
>
> "In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.
> Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
>
>
>
In Ephesians 5:1-7, he warns against the 'old' behaviour and talk in relating to those we **love** that is *not* in fact loving. He also suggests that we disassociate with those who behave (5) or speak (6) in this way, because they invite God's wrath (7).
>
> Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
> But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.
>
>
>
Paul then rounds out this section by returning to the image of darkness from 4:18, contrasting the old 'fruitless deeds' with the 'fruit of light', and the foolishness of getting 'drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery' with being 'filled with the Spirit', which leads to making music and singing songs to the Lord.
Conclusion
----------
The beginning of Ephesians 5 is part way through Paul's efforts to contrast the old self of the Gentiles with the new self as 'created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness', one of two main ways he suggests to enhance the unity of the church community in Ephesus. By portraying the community as united against outside forces - namely the old ways of the Gentiles and 'against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms' (Ephesians 6:11) - he attempts to steer the focus away from their various internal conflicts.
After contrasting the Gentiles' behaviour and talk with more loving options in situations of *anger*, Paul then categorised ways that the Gentiles also corrupted their *love* for each other: in their actions with sexual immorality, impurity and greed, and in their words with obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking. He warns that this is not how to 'walk in the way of love'.
As for the question of 'primary reasons', these are not reasons, but categories of 'deceitful desires' in supposedly 'loving' relationships. Greed, for instance, would likely include possessiveness, jealousy, polygamy, rape, etc. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | You should consult a lawyer to get good legal advice.
However, that being said, GPL is a very common license for this type of scenario. It doesn't, explicitly, restrict commercial use, but it does require that any distribution include full source and full distribution rights under the GPL. This effectively excludes commercial use.
For commercial purposes, you can easily negotiate distribution under a second license, even one specific to that company.
My company has licensed software written at universities and distributed publicly under GPL in exactly this manner. | If you release under the GPL, no-one can use your code unless their project is also GPL-licensed. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | You should consult a lawyer to get good legal advice.
However, that being said, GPL is a very common license for this type of scenario. It doesn't, explicitly, restrict commercial use, but it does require that any distribution include full source and full distribution rights under the GPL. This effectively excludes commercial use.
For commercial purposes, you can easily negotiate distribution under a second license, even one specific to that company.
My company has licensed software written at universities and distributed publicly under GPL in exactly this manner. | You should probably license your project with 2 different licenses: a free software license and a commercial license.
I remember a nice article about [how to choose a free software license](http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/rants/license.html) depending on your goals.
In any case, consult a lawyer. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | You should consult a lawyer to get good legal advice.
However, that being said, GPL is a very common license for this type of scenario. It doesn't, explicitly, restrict commercial use, but it does require that any distribution include full source and full distribution rights under the GPL. This effectively excludes commercial use.
For commercial purposes, you can easily negotiate distribution under a second license, even one specific to that company.
My company has licensed software written at universities and distributed publicly under GPL in exactly this manner. | I Am Not A Lawyer. If its an app that runs over a network, such as a web app, you should also consider the AGPL since the GPL will not prevent people from running the application over a network and then refusing to release their modifications to people who use the application (over the network). |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | You should consult a lawyer to get good legal advice.
However, that being said, GPL is a very common license for this type of scenario. It doesn't, explicitly, restrict commercial use, but it does require that any distribution include full source and full distribution rights under the GPL. This effectively excludes commercial use.
For commercial purposes, you can easily negotiate distribution under a second license, even one specific to that company.
My company has licensed software written at universities and distributed publicly under GPL in exactly this manner. | Technically, if you forbid commercial use, your software is not "Free Software". There are several "nonfree" licenses that do what you ask, there is a list at the [FSF website](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/), e,g. the [University of Utah Public License](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#UtahPublicLicense). Note the harsh criticism that the Free Software Foundation has for this nonfree license. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | You should probably license your project with 2 different licenses: a free software license and a commercial license.
I remember a nice article about [how to choose a free software license](http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/rants/license.html) depending on your goals.
In any case, consult a lawyer. | If you release under the GPL, no-one can use your code unless their project is also GPL-licensed. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | I Am Not A Lawyer. If its an app that runs over a network, such as a web app, you should also consider the AGPL since the GPL will not prevent people from running the application over a network and then refusing to release their modifications to people who use the application (over the network). | If you release under the GPL, no-one can use your code unless their project is also GPL-licensed. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | I Am Not A Lawyer. If its an app that runs over a network, such as a web app, you should also consider the AGPL since the GPL will not prevent people from running the application over a network and then refusing to release their modifications to people who use the application (over the network). | You should probably license your project with 2 different licenses: a free software license and a commercial license.
I remember a nice article about [how to choose a free software license](http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/rants/license.html) depending on your goals.
In any case, consult a lawyer. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | You should probably license your project with 2 different licenses: a free software license and a commercial license.
I remember a nice article about [how to choose a free software license](http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/rants/license.html) depending on your goals.
In any case, consult a lawyer. | Technically, if you forbid commercial use, your software is not "Free Software". There are several "nonfree" licenses that do what you ask, there is a list at the [FSF website](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/), e,g. the [University of Utah Public License](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#UtahPublicLicense). Note the harsh criticism that the Free Software Foundation has for this nonfree license. |
1,856,868 | I have written a project for my students organization. I would like to share it between many organizations and I want them to use it for free. So I thought that releasing the project on GPL licence (or other silimar). However I don't want that somebody use this project for commercial purpose for free. How should I license this project? Is there any license that is suitable for that? Or should I release two copies of my project on different licences? | 2009/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1856868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/166740/"
] | I Am Not A Lawyer. If its an app that runs over a network, such as a web app, you should also consider the AGPL since the GPL will not prevent people from running the application over a network and then refusing to release their modifications to people who use the application (over the network). | Technically, if you forbid commercial use, your software is not "Free Software". There are several "nonfree" licenses that do what you ask, there is a list at the [FSF website](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/), e,g. the [University of Utah Public License](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#UtahPublicLicense). Note the harsh criticism that the Free Software Foundation has for this nonfree license. |
11,160,600 | I have a number of sites that are completely hosted on Amazon S3 but the page is generated via JavaScript. I would like to make sure these sites are indexed by Google, but since they are hosted on S3 I don't seem to have a mechanism to serve up \_escaped\_fragment\_ versions of the page. Does anyone have an idea on how I could get the Ajax content indexed? I would prefer to not have to replicate my templating server side.
Here is an example of one of my sites:
<http://www.web608.org/> | 2012/06/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11160600",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1052579/"
] | There is no real easy way to do this. I'd suggest you read Google's recommendations on this topic:
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/> | The best practice I have seen is progressive enhancement. Create a working page in plain html and then use JavaScript to make it cool. |
1,807,603 | How do you set up to use the full Allegro library on Windows Vista and Visual Studio 2008?
Do you have to compile it or is it only a matter of setting searchpaths? | 2009/11/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1807603",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/163407/"
] | It is possible to download a [pre-compiled **MSVC** binary](http://sourceforge.net/projects/alleg/files/allegro-bin/). Then it is just a matter of telling Visual Studio where to find Allegro's \*.h headers and \*.lib library files. Also the Allegro DLL's need to be somewhere in the system path.
The [Allegro wiki](http://sourceforge.net/projects/alleg/files/allegro-bin/) has instructions for configuring a Visual Studio Express 2008 project...
* with [Allegro 4](http://wiki.allegro.cc/index.php?title=Visual_C%2B%2B_Express_2008) (stable version)
* with [Allegro 5](http://wiki.allegro.cc/index.php?title=Install_Allegro_4.9.x_Binary_for_MSVC_2008_Express) (development version)
Check out the [related question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2308952/installing-allegro-c/2529790#2529790) for some other useful Allegro development resources. | There appears to be a .Net library, download that and add it as a reference in your development project. That should be it. |
385,034 | There are stories about clothes freezing and drying in cold weather. The typical reason given for that is that the water is undergoing [sublimation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)) (ice -> vapor).
The phase diagram for water is
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OvebA.jpg)
In a typical case, one would hang wet clothes outside, at say -5°C (or whatever realistic temperature). This would cause the clothes to freeze and then, in order to move between phases, the pressure would need to drop.
Note that this is the scenario I have in mind, not a direct water -> vapor transition (the usual kind, but also the one where the stating point on the graph is on liquid phase, and the ending point (external temp + current pressure) - in vapor phase).
Aren't the conditions a bit too esoteric for that to happen, often enough to have made it into some family legends? | 2018/02/08 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/385034",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/38751/"
] | I guess all you need for ice sublimation is low water vapor pressure (low humidity), not low atmospheric pressure. | Phase diagrams are only describing phases of pure bodies. In the case of drying clothes, you have to take evaporation in account which depends on water partial pressure in the air as well as other factors like temperature and air flow.
Depending on the situation, ice evaporation can indeed happen and you could dry clothes during dry but freezing weather.
A bit more info [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#Factors_influencing_the_rate_of_evaporation). |
10,195,931 | I've got a SharePoint project that I've been debugging for some time without problems.
Today I added a feature receiver to the project's only feature. I've not yet changed anything about the empty receiver class that Visual Studio adds by default.
The "Package" command now generates a package which includes my project's DLL file (as you'd expect -- adding a feature receiver shouldn't change anything about this).
However, when I debug, the generated package does *not* include my project's DLL file, and the deployment effort fails with the following error:
>
> Error occurred in deployment step 'Add Solution': Failed to load
> receiver assembly "ABC, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307" for feature "ABC\_XYZ Feature" (ID:
> dca34989-a2f2-413b-b5c4-958e0bbb84ef).:
> System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'ABC,
> Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307' or
> one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified.
> File name: 'ABC, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307' at
> System.Reflection.Assembly.\_nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String
> codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint,
> StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean
> forIntrospection) at
> System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(AssemblyName assemblyRef,
> Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean
> forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(String
> assemblyString, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark,
> Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.Load(String
> assemblyString) at
> Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPFeatureDefinition.get\_ReceiverObject()
>
>
> WRN: Assembly binding logging is turned OFF. To enable assembly bind
> failure logging, set the registry value
> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog] (DWORD) to 1. Note: There
> is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure
> logging. To turn this feature off, remove the registry value
> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog].
>
>
>
Removing the feature receiver allows me to again debug without issue, but the problem returns as soon as I re-add the feature receiver.
I've tried cleaning and rebuilding, and then debugging, but the error won't go away unless/until I remove the feature receiver.
Why does my project's assembly get included in the package when I use the "Package" command, but not when I use the "Start Debugging" command, and what about adding the feature receiver causes this to happen? | 2012/04/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10195931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/116895/"
] | I don't know what caused it to happen, but the problem went away when I manually cleared my obj and bin directories. Here are the steps I followed for getting from the state cited in the question to successful debugging w/ a feature receiver:
1. Remove feature receiver
2. Clean solution
3. Close Visual Studio
4. Delete SharePoint project's obj folder in Windows Explorer
5. Delete SharePoint project's bin folder in Windows Explorer
6. Open Visual Studio and re-add feature receiver
7. Start Debugging | The accepted answer to this question did not work for me.
The following did work:
>
> ...simply changing out the project’s strong key assembly worked in this particular case. If you haven’t had to change this before, it is under the properties of the project -> Signing. Under ‘Choose a strong name key file’, select New. The password is optional.
>
>
>
Thanks to this blog post: [Farm Solution Deployment Problems](http://thesharepointfarm.com/2013/03/farm-solution-deployment-problems-could-not-load-file-or-assembly/) |
10,195,931 | I've got a SharePoint project that I've been debugging for some time without problems.
Today I added a feature receiver to the project's only feature. I've not yet changed anything about the empty receiver class that Visual Studio adds by default.
The "Package" command now generates a package which includes my project's DLL file (as you'd expect -- adding a feature receiver shouldn't change anything about this).
However, when I debug, the generated package does *not* include my project's DLL file, and the deployment effort fails with the following error:
>
> Error occurred in deployment step 'Add Solution': Failed to load
> receiver assembly "ABC, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307" for feature "ABC\_XYZ Feature" (ID:
> dca34989-a2f2-413b-b5c4-958e0bbb84ef).:
> System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'ABC,
> Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307' or
> one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified.
> File name: 'ABC, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307' at
> System.Reflection.Assembly.\_nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String
> codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint,
> StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean
> forIntrospection) at
> System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(AssemblyName assemblyRef,
> Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean
> forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(String
> assemblyString, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark,
> Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.Load(String
> assemblyString) at
> Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPFeatureDefinition.get\_ReceiverObject()
>
>
> WRN: Assembly binding logging is turned OFF. To enable assembly bind
> failure logging, set the registry value
> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog] (DWORD) to 1. Note: There
> is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure
> logging. To turn this feature off, remove the registry value
> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog].
>
>
>
Removing the feature receiver allows me to again debug without issue, but the problem returns as soon as I re-add the feature receiver.
I've tried cleaning and rebuilding, and then debugging, but the error won't go away unless/until I remove the feature receiver.
Why does my project's assembly get included in the package when I use the "Package" command, but not when I use the "Start Debugging" command, and what about adding the feature receiver causes this to happen? | 2012/04/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10195931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/116895/"
] | I don't know what caused it to happen, but the problem went away when I manually cleared my obj and bin directories. Here are the steps I followed for getting from the state cited in the question to successful debugging w/ a feature receiver:
1. Remove feature receiver
2. Clean solution
3. Close Visual Studio
4. Delete SharePoint project's obj folder in Windows Explorer
5. Delete SharePoint project's bin folder in Windows Explorer
6. Open Visual Studio and re-add feature receiver
7. Start Debugging | I tried to go in Visual Studio for right click on solution - properties.
Under application, assembly information and then I raised Assembly and File version by "minimum 1" (from 1.0.0.0 to 1.0.0.1).
Then it was possible to deploy (and mainly activate feature) solution "into WebApplication" |
10,195,931 | I've got a SharePoint project that I've been debugging for some time without problems.
Today I added a feature receiver to the project's only feature. I've not yet changed anything about the empty receiver class that Visual Studio adds by default.
The "Package" command now generates a package which includes my project's DLL file (as you'd expect -- adding a feature receiver shouldn't change anything about this).
However, when I debug, the generated package does *not* include my project's DLL file, and the deployment effort fails with the following error:
>
> Error occurred in deployment step 'Add Solution': Failed to load
> receiver assembly "ABC, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307" for feature "ABC\_XYZ Feature" (ID:
> dca34989-a2f2-413b-b5c4-958e0bbb84ef).:
> System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'ABC,
> Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307' or
> one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified.
> File name: 'ABC, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=2377fad544a7c307' at
> System.Reflection.Assembly.\_nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String
> codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint,
> StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean
> forIntrospection) at
> System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(AssemblyName assemblyRef,
> Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean
> forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(String
> assemblyString, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark,
> Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.Load(String
> assemblyString) at
> Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPFeatureDefinition.get\_ReceiverObject()
>
>
> WRN: Assembly binding logging is turned OFF. To enable assembly bind
> failure logging, set the registry value
> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog] (DWORD) to 1. Note: There
> is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure
> logging. To turn this feature off, remove the registry value
> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog].
>
>
>
Removing the feature receiver allows me to again debug without issue, but the problem returns as soon as I re-add the feature receiver.
I've tried cleaning and rebuilding, and then debugging, but the error won't go away unless/until I remove the feature receiver.
Why does my project's assembly get included in the package when I use the "Package" command, but not when I use the "Start Debugging" command, and what about adding the feature receiver causes this to happen? | 2012/04/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10195931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/116895/"
] | The accepted answer to this question did not work for me.
The following did work:
>
> ...simply changing out the project’s strong key assembly worked in this particular case. If you haven’t had to change this before, it is under the properties of the project -> Signing. Under ‘Choose a strong name key file’, select New. The password is optional.
>
>
>
Thanks to this blog post: [Farm Solution Deployment Problems](http://thesharepointfarm.com/2013/03/farm-solution-deployment-problems-could-not-load-file-or-assembly/) | I tried to go in Visual Studio for right click on solution - properties.
Under application, assembly information and then I raised Assembly and File version by "minimum 1" (from 1.0.0.0 to 1.0.0.1).
Then it was possible to deploy (and mainly activate feature) solution "into WebApplication" |
298,067 | Consider [This question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1628563/move-the-most-recent-commits-to-a-new-branch-with-git/1628584#1628584).
The accepted – and highly voted – community wiki answer works, but is a bit dangerous, as one may easily lose data. The second and third most-voted answers are essentially variations of this answer.
[The #4 answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/22654961/49793) provides a simpler and less dangerous solution. However, many users won't read that far, and therefore go for the more risky solution.
[How to deal with dangerous answers](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/276496/how-to-deal-with-dangerous-answers) suggests to leave it to voting. However, I think the chance that the "safe" answer will bubble to the top are pretty slim in this case. Due to having been written much earlier, the "dangerous" answers have a huge head-start in the number of votes. Also, the "safe" answer doesn't really attract votes, as it lacks explanations, and is a bit confusing (it starts with a somewhat uncommon solution, the better solution is "tacked" on as update).
How can we address this, so that people don't run into the dangerous answer anymore? Would it be OK to add a warning at the top of the community wiki answer, with a link to the safer answer? | 2015/06/28 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/298067",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/49793/"
] | The answer is a Community Wiki, meaning that anyone is allowed and encouraged to edit the answer further.
If the answer *works*, but is missing a warning, then edit the warning in. That's all there is to it.
I would discourage referencing another answer or saying, "This is too dangerous, look over here", or anything of that sort; this answer has worked for a lot of other users (and the OP in their specific case), and I wish to leave the burden of research and discovery to the reader. They may see all of the high numbers and think that this is the *best* solution, but I would hope that they would keep looking at their scenario and the answers that best match for themselves. | >
> the "safe" answer doesn't really attract votes, as it lacks explanations, and is a bit confusing
>
>
>
I think it would be heavy-handed to edit other (non-community wiki) answers, but it's clearly OK for you to improve the "safe" answer. Add explanation, clean up confusion, etc. It doesn't *deserve* to be the top-voted answer if even its advocates think it's confusing. Make it better, and it'll get more votes!
If the "safe" answer is beyond saving, you can always write your own answer with all the issues clearly explained. At the end of the day all you can do is share your knowledge and advice and let the community decide how useful it is. |
298,067 | Consider [This question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1628563/move-the-most-recent-commits-to-a-new-branch-with-git/1628584#1628584).
The accepted – and highly voted – community wiki answer works, but is a bit dangerous, as one may easily lose data. The second and third most-voted answers are essentially variations of this answer.
[The #4 answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/22654961/49793) provides a simpler and less dangerous solution. However, many users won't read that far, and therefore go for the more risky solution.
[How to deal with dangerous answers](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/276496/how-to-deal-with-dangerous-answers) suggests to leave it to voting. However, I think the chance that the "safe" answer will bubble to the top are pretty slim in this case. Due to having been written much earlier, the "dangerous" answers have a huge head-start in the number of votes. Also, the "safe" answer doesn't really attract votes, as it lacks explanations, and is a bit confusing (it starts with a somewhat uncommon solution, the better solution is "tacked" on as update).
How can we address this, so that people don't run into the dangerous answer anymore? Would it be OK to add a warning at the top of the community wiki answer, with a link to the safer answer? | 2015/06/28 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/298067",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/49793/"
] | The answer is a Community Wiki, meaning that anyone is allowed and encouraged to edit the answer further.
If the answer *works*, but is missing a warning, then edit the warning in. That's all there is to it.
I would discourage referencing another answer or saying, "This is too dangerous, look over here", or anything of that sort; this answer has worked for a lot of other users (and the OP in their specific case), and I wish to leave the burden of research and discovery to the reader. They may see all of the high numbers and think that this is the *best* solution, but I would hope that they would keep looking at their scenario and the answers that best match for themselves. | This comes up every so often, one guy thinking he's somehow better than all the other voters (in this case, just shy of *two thousand* of them!) and should have some magic power to nuke someone else's content. That's why you're getting downvotes yourself.
**If you think the answer is that dangerous, comment the author to write a disclaimer on it.**
You may even be right! But you may be wrong, and that's something that you don't seem to have considered, nor the fact that this is the entire purpose of the voting system in the first place. |
298,067 | Consider [This question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1628563/move-the-most-recent-commits-to-a-new-branch-with-git/1628584#1628584).
The accepted – and highly voted – community wiki answer works, but is a bit dangerous, as one may easily lose data. The second and third most-voted answers are essentially variations of this answer.
[The #4 answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/22654961/49793) provides a simpler and less dangerous solution. However, many users won't read that far, and therefore go for the more risky solution.
[How to deal with dangerous answers](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/276496/how-to-deal-with-dangerous-answers) suggests to leave it to voting. However, I think the chance that the "safe" answer will bubble to the top are pretty slim in this case. Due to having been written much earlier, the "dangerous" answers have a huge head-start in the number of votes. Also, the "safe" answer doesn't really attract votes, as it lacks explanations, and is a bit confusing (it starts with a somewhat uncommon solution, the better solution is "tacked" on as update).
How can we address this, so that people don't run into the dangerous answer anymore? Would it be OK to add a warning at the top of the community wiki answer, with a link to the safer answer? | 2015/06/28 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/298067",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/49793/"
] | >
> the "safe" answer doesn't really attract votes, as it lacks explanations, and is a bit confusing
>
>
>
I think it would be heavy-handed to edit other (non-community wiki) answers, but it's clearly OK for you to improve the "safe" answer. Add explanation, clean up confusion, etc. It doesn't *deserve* to be the top-voted answer if even its advocates think it's confusing. Make it better, and it'll get more votes!
If the "safe" answer is beyond saving, you can always write your own answer with all the issues clearly explained. At the end of the day all you can do is share your knowledge and advice and let the community decide how useful it is. | This comes up every so often, one guy thinking he's somehow better than all the other voters (in this case, just shy of *two thousand* of them!) and should have some magic power to nuke someone else's content. That's why you're getting downvotes yourself.
**If you think the answer is that dangerous, comment the author to write a disclaimer on it.**
You may even be right! But you may be wrong, and that's something that you don't seem to have considered, nor the fact that this is the entire purpose of the voting system in the first place. |
8,311,337 | I have android app which works fine. And now I want to add some graphical features using WebGL ,but I have not a lot of experience in 3d, especially in android. I need suggestion that how would be worked my android app (I mean performance) after integrating this new feature?
And also I'd like to know in my app can I use "WebGL code", which works fine for pc browsers? | 2011/11/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8311337",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/849358/"
] | Your question is a little unclear. It sounds to me as if you have a native Android app that you want to add 3D content to. If so, WebGL is maybe not your best bet.
WebGL is a interface to OpenGL that works through a web browser, coded with Javascript. While you can convince some mobile devices to work with it, it's typically not available through most mobile web browsers. That may change in the near future, but it's anyone's guess as to exactly when. Point being, WebGL is not a viable target for phones right now.
If you have a native Android app though (coded with Java), you can access OpenGL ES 2.0. Capability wise it's identical to WebGL, but you can access it through the platforms native language, which will typically lead to better performance. If you have a WebGL app, it should be pretty straightforward to port to Android since the APIs are largely equivalent.
If you want to start using OpenGL in your Android app, the documentation is [here](http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/graphics/opengl.html). | Chrome experiments now have a section for mobile <https://www.chromeexperiments.com/mobile>.
Though you can play wide range of webGL examples in android chrome browser by enabling webgl as shown in pic below :-
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wDMZX.jpg)
This way you would be able to use webgl in chrome browser :-
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Adfc.png)
Unfortunately old WebView does not support webGL but [WebView V36](https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview#does_the_new_webview_have_feature_parity_with_chrome_for_android_) does have webGL support . You can [openGL](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.learnopengles.android&hl=en) for similar purpose. |
351,414 | I am doing a microservice and I was trying to make a decision about how to handle Domain Model.
I am planning to have multiple microservices, as an example: A ClientsMS and a PaymentMS. They both need to have a client class. One way is to have client class in both MS and do a mapping between the two, Or have a Model(domain) Microservice which will have client and other classes, and this will be consumed via DLL.
I am not sure f by using DLL I am introducing an anti pattern. but also using Domain model in every MS I will be loosing the SRP and DRY. | 2017/06/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/351414",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/213652/"
] | Microservices have a very nice connection to DDD: in a sensible architecture, every microservice will handle a *single* bounded context.
Every bounded context has its own problem domain and therefore its own model. Instead of *sharing* parts of the model, keep the model nicely decoupled and *translate* between models. For microservices, the context boundary corresponds to the input/output of the microservice. You gain nothing by creating a model-microservice or sharing a common model-DLL because no common model exists. A client might be a “user account” in a user service context and a “credit card + billing address” in a payment service context. Just because they are somehow connected does not mean that you should represent them via a single entity in all contexts.
But speaking in practical terms, it can make sense to share a DLL that contains the DTOs and their serialization/deserialization. These DTOs do not represent the model of any context, but only the communication between your microservices. A shared library makes sure that serialization is always done correctly by avoiding repeated code, and it lets your services consume a strongly typed interface. The downside is this reduces one major benefit of microservices: technology-agnosticism. A common library also implies that deployments of new versions need to be synchronized. | Put your Data Transfer Models in a shared library. Version it
Each service has to deserialise the incoming messages and serialise the out going ones. So really these shared models are only acting as a contract enforcement between your services and there is no point adding business logic to them.
However, for each microservice that you consume you will have to write a client library (ie a library that you use to connect to the service as apposed to a Client Model)
If this library uses the same shared models that all your services are using, it saves you a whole layer of mapping and conversion on every single component you use it in.
That's a lot of typing.
Also, the versioning will give you compile time warnings if you have the wrong model version for the client version.
Microservices by their nature push you towards an ADM style of programming which doesn't always fit with DDD unless you call the services themselves a Domain object. ie the CashRegisterService processes a payment rather than the Payment is processed |
351,414 | I am doing a microservice and I was trying to make a decision about how to handle Domain Model.
I am planning to have multiple microservices, as an example: A ClientsMS and a PaymentMS. They both need to have a client class. One way is to have client class in both MS and do a mapping between the two, Or have a Model(domain) Microservice which will have client and other classes, and this will be consumed via DLL.
I am not sure f by using DLL I am introducing an anti pattern. but also using Domain model in every MS I will be loosing the SRP and DRY. | 2017/06/22 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/351414",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/213652/"
] | Microservices have a very nice connection to DDD: in a sensible architecture, every microservice will handle a *single* bounded context.
Every bounded context has its own problem domain and therefore its own model. Instead of *sharing* parts of the model, keep the model nicely decoupled and *translate* between models. For microservices, the context boundary corresponds to the input/output of the microservice. You gain nothing by creating a model-microservice or sharing a common model-DLL because no common model exists. A client might be a “user account” in a user service context and a “credit card + billing address” in a payment service context. Just because they are somehow connected does not mean that you should represent them via a single entity in all contexts.
But speaking in practical terms, it can make sense to share a DLL that contains the DTOs and their serialization/deserialization. These DTOs do not represent the model of any context, but only the communication between your microservices. A shared library makes sure that serialization is always done correctly by avoiding repeated code, and it lets your services consume a strongly typed interface. The downside is this reduces one major benefit of microservices: technology-agnosticism. A common library also implies that deployments of new versions need to be synchronized. | Shared libraries generate coupling. That's it. Also does [canonical models](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_model).
From the Microservices architectecture (*dogmatic*) point of view, any factor that may lead to coupling (direct or indirectly) among services is an undesirable factor, because it's contrary to the Microservice absolute independency.
Having two identical POJOs/entities in different Microservices is not a DRY violation.
Usually, Microservices are developed, managed and governed by different teams. Teams formed around business capabilities and skills (not otherwise).
In consequence, teams could not be allocated in the same department. Maybe, not even in the same building or city.
**Maybe, the Microservices don't even share the same technological stack.**
The problem here is a decomposition problem. It might interest you [this reading](https://builttoadapt.io/whats-your-decomposition-strategy-e19b8e72ac8f).
Whether we approach the decomposition from a *Boundary Contexts* or *Value stream* strategy, the definition of the model varies (or difers) according to the services, because every service is a business unit per se. It has his own domain, rules and logic.
So, *Customer*, *Order*, *Address*, etc have different definitions, according to the scope (service) from they are looked at.
For instance, from the security point of view a customer is not a customer at all. It's probably an account (credentials, roles, profiles, etc.)
From the Shipping Dept. point of view, a customer is a full name, an address and, maybe, a phone.
From the Sales Dept. point of view, a customer is a document id, a credit card and a full name.
It's fine having the attribute *name* and *address* in different Microservices' data models. Even if they are not synchronized!!!
In the real world, when we change the current billing address, the previous bills don't change!!! Or they should not! Same happens with prices. Or with names.
If several Microservices need to communicate changes on the state of the data, they don't directly communicate the changes, they propagate events that could (or not) be attended by others Microservices.
In Microservices, the SRP and DRY work in higher levels of abstraction (business and company's strategies) than those we are more familiar with (classes and components).
Back to the main question, my answer is try to avoid shared libs. The main sources of coupling use to be inter-process synchronous communications and shared libraries. So, I encourage you to delve deeper in: Microservices decomposition and Microservices inter-process communication strategies. |
310,670 | When braking on ice skates I often wonder how the "shaved" ice particles spray away with high velocities on **both** sides of the blades. Especially when the ice skate is already slow the flakes still fly at high speed against the direction of motion. What is the mechanism of their paradox acceleration?
To see what I mean, look at
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-cINNfRQo>
e.g. at 0:28 or 0:52.
I | 2017/02/08 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/310670",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/144832/"
] | No. According to accepted theory, a black hole generally can't lose energy or mass. Even with Hawking radiation, the black hole would simply change size accordingly and remain a black hole. Once it got too small it would evaporate into a burst of Hawking radiation.
I know you say you aren't talking about energy or mass escaping the black hole, but the idea of black holes is that they are a one-way process.
I fail to see how the linked article isn't an answer to your question. | Spacetime does not expand at scales comparable to a Schwarzchild radius, or a solar system, or even a galaxy. Not trying to be a smarty-pants, but for the benefit of all, please get the basics under wraps before moving into conjecture. |
55,530 | Which one is better to get started with register level embedded c coding?
Also which one is used professionally? | 2018/08/23 | [
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/55530",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/users/47251/"
] | I actually wouldn’t recommend either for professionally developing for Atmel chips. Although Atmel Studio is a nice enough IDE (the simulator is amazing!), it does make it *very* difficult to unit test your code or to set up a build server. I would personally recommend you set up a Make (or possibly CMake) based setup directly on top of the `avr-gcc` tool chain and then simply use the text editor of your choice.
As for learning about programming against raw registers, I have to recommend Atmel Studio and one of their XPlained evaluation boards. Atmel Studio includes a simulator that actually shows you, bit by bit, the current state of the registers. | Atmel Studio for professional. Arduino is for fun and is normally the first step into embedded c programming using the atmega328 (Arduino) |
99,681 | Marvel has a habit of putting differences in their trailers compared to the movies (E.g. Not showing Thor missing an eye in the Infinity War trailer).
Were there any for *Avengers: Endgame* and if so, what were they? | 2019/04/26 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/99681",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/44698/"
] | I just saw it fresh in the theatre, so I hope my memory won't fail me. I'll try to put the major ones in spoiler tags and mentioned when I'm not sure. All of these are from trailers and they don't happen in the movie.
[Marvel Studios' Avengers: Endgame](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA6hldpSTF8&list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&index=17&t=0s) (Trailer 1)
==================================================================================================================================================
Captain crying at [01:13](https://youtu.be/hA6hldpSTF8?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Nj6Yk.png)
Didn't happen AFAIK
---
Hallway shot at [01:20](https://youtu.be/hA6hldpSTF8?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=80)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/E76oy.png)
Shown multiple times. Multiple people edited out. I won't mention it in following trailers again.
---
Nebula standing on a ship at [01:24](https://youtu.be/hA6hldpSTF8?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=84)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uHXlp.png)
Can't remember this scene, but not sure.
---
Scott doesn't say: "Can you buzz me in?" at [02:20](https://youtu.be/hA6hldpSTF8?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=139)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZZdoS.jpg)
---
[Big Game TV Spot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iFq6IcAxBc&list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&index=16&t=0s)
=====================================================================================================================
Black Widow practicing at shooting range at [00:17](https://youtu.be/-iFq6IcAxBc?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=17)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lztzC.png)
This scene is in multiple trailers. Didn't happen and I won't mention it in the following trailers.
---
Captain America strapping shield at [00:20](https://youtu.be/-iFq6IcAxBc?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=20)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EuCpP.png)
Minor spoiler:
>
> At this point, he had an injury on his arm which was edited out.
>
>
>
---
[Marvel Studios' Avengers: Endgame](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcMBFSGVi1c&list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&index=15&t=0s) (Trailer 2)
==================================================================================================================================================
This is the one with scenes from previous films with highlighted red colour. It also has plenty of lines, which were not said in the film.
Iron Man never said this at [00:03](https://youtu.be/TcMBFSGVi1c?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It seems like a thousand years ago. I fought my way out of that cave.
> Became Iron Man, realized I loved you
>
>
>
---
This was also not said at [00:28](https://youtu.be/TcMBFSGVi1c?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=28)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The world has changed. None of us can go back, what we can do is our best and
> sometimes the best we can do is to start over.
>
>
>
---
Neither was this one at [01:00](https://youtu.be/TcMBFSGVi1c?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=60)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I saw all these people die
>
>
>
---
Hawkeye running at [01:26](https://youtu.be/TcMBFSGVi1c?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=86)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cBzM4.png)
This is also a recurring scene.
**MAJOR SPOILER:**
>
> I think in the movie he ran with Infinity Gauntlet in hand.
>
>
>
---
Whatever it takes at [01:38](https://youtu.be/TcMBFSGVi1c?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=98)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only Captain America and Black Widow say it out loud in the movie.
Also a recurring one.
---
Thor summoning Stormbreaker at [02:20](https://youtu.be/TcMBFSGVi1c?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=140)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KFQrg.png)
He doesn't smile afterwards. You can check the full scene in another [TV Spot](https://youtu.be/9QbltzIUV6w?list=PLK5HARgNfgj95eUGZzMZ90J0Fjom58eRj&t=61)
---
[Marvel Studios’ Avengers: Endgame | Special Look](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCSNFZKbhZE)
===============================================================================================
Rhodey didn't say this at [00:05](https://youtu.be/KCSNFZKbhZE?t=5)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah because he killed all our friends?
>
>
>
---
No Black Widow in the rain at [00:07](https://youtu.be/KCSNFZKbhZE?t=7)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QhVxd.png)
---
Captain on the ground at [00:45](https://youtu.be/KCSNFZKbhZE?t=45)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FuHSB.png)
**MAJOR SPOILER:**
>
> At this point, Captain shield was broken.
>
>
> | There were lots of differences between the trailer and the movie. Some of which are as follows.
Warning: it has spoilers.
1. Avengers marching.
---------------------
In the 2nd trailer, we see that Avengers marching wearing quantum suits. This scene was missing in the movie. They don't really march.
2. Missing Hulk
---------------
Hulk's appearance was kept secret this time. We see only Bruce Banner not Hulk. In Infinity War trailer, we saw Hulk on Wakanda, but not in the movie. This time they didn't show Hulk, but Hulk is in the movie.
3. Cap's shield
---------------
Captain America's shield is shown intact in the trailer, but it is broken during that sequence.
4. Hawkeye running away from an explosion
-----------------------------------------
We see Hawkeye running from explosion holding infinity gauntlet, but this particular scene doesn't appear in the movie.
5. Natasha practicing
---------------------
We see Natasha AKA Black Widow in the trailer target practicing and punching bags. However, these scenes didn't make it into the movie.
6. Missing Pepper Potts
-----------------------
When Tony arrives on earth, Avengers were waiting for him along with Pepper Potts, but the trailer doesn't show her.
[Source 1](https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/avengers-endgame-all-the-trailer-scenes-that-weren/2900-2739/), [Source 2](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/04/avengers-endgame-trailer-movie-differences) |
30,213 | I am currently writing documentation and setting up a website for a open source PHP project under the LGPL - a very flexible content aggregator that for example can turn a XML datasource into a valid, cached RSS feed and much more. It was a paid project that the client has agreed to donate to the community with no strings attached.
* Will it be okay to promote this in a
SO post in the form of a question
(what do you think about..)?
* What other means of promoting an Open
Source project do I have on SO?
* Where do I have to apply for donated
ad space on SO as proposed [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23899/proposal-free-vote-based-advertising-for-open-source-projects)? | 2009/11/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30213",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/138112/"
] | I wouldn't make a question just to promote it - it's likely to get flagged for spam. However, if you see a question where your tool is applicable, you could post it as an answer, but I would be sure to state your relationship with the project (full disclosure and all). | You can promote it as an "*answer*" to a related question, but I don't think it should be asked as a question.
The answer should be useful for solving the question, or it will just get flagged as spam. |
30,213 | I am currently writing documentation and setting up a website for a open source PHP project under the LGPL - a very flexible content aggregator that for example can turn a XML datasource into a valid, cached RSS feed and much more. It was a paid project that the client has agreed to donate to the community with no strings attached.
* Will it be okay to promote this in a
SO post in the form of a question
(what do you think about..)?
* What other means of promoting an Open
Source project do I have on SO?
* Where do I have to apply for donated
ad space on SO as proposed [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23899/proposal-free-vote-based-advertising-for-open-source-projects)? | 2009/11/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30213",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/138112/"
] | >
> * Will it be okay to promote this in a SO post in the form of a question (what do you think about..)?
>
>
>
No, the community has almost always downvoted, closed, and deleted such 'questions.'
>
> * What other means of promoting an Open Source project do I have on SO?
>
>
>
Search for questions for which your project might be an answer. Add more than "Refer to our project" - i.e., give a real answer and fit your project in as a possible solution.
>
> * Where do I have to apply for donated ad space on SO as proposed here?
>
>
>
As long as you fit the criteria listed in that question, send a message to team@stackoverflow.com for consideration. Keep in mind that unless your project is sigificant and very useful to developers it probably won't get any free advertising. | You can promote it as an "*answer*" to a related question, but I don't think it should be asked as a question.
The answer should be useful for solving the question, or it will just get flagged as spam. |
30,213 | I am currently writing documentation and setting up a website for a open source PHP project under the LGPL - a very flexible content aggregator that for example can turn a XML datasource into a valid, cached RSS feed and much more. It was a paid project that the client has agreed to donate to the community with no strings attached.
* Will it be okay to promote this in a
SO post in the form of a question
(what do you think about..)?
* What other means of promoting an Open
Source project do I have on SO?
* Where do I have to apply for donated
ad space on SO as proposed [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23899/proposal-free-vote-based-advertising-for-open-source-projects)? | 2009/11/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30213",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/138112/"
] | I wouldn't make a question just to promote it - it's likely to get flagged for spam. However, if you see a question where your tool is applicable, you could post it as an answer, but I would be sure to state your relationship with the project (full disclosure and all). | If it's a relevant answer to a question, I don't think it's a problem to mention it as long as you try to sound not too subjective. |
30,213 | I am currently writing documentation and setting up a website for a open source PHP project under the LGPL - a very flexible content aggregator that for example can turn a XML datasource into a valid, cached RSS feed and much more. It was a paid project that the client has agreed to donate to the community with no strings attached.
* Will it be okay to promote this in a
SO post in the form of a question
(what do you think about..)?
* What other means of promoting an Open
Source project do I have on SO?
* Where do I have to apply for donated
ad space on SO as proposed [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23899/proposal-free-vote-based-advertising-for-open-source-projects)? | 2009/11/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30213",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/138112/"
] | >
> * Will it be okay to promote this in a SO post in the form of a question (what do you think about..)?
>
>
>
No, the community has almost always downvoted, closed, and deleted such 'questions.'
>
> * What other means of promoting an Open Source project do I have on SO?
>
>
>
Search for questions for which your project might be an answer. Add more than "Refer to our project" - i.e., give a real answer and fit your project in as a possible solution.
>
> * Where do I have to apply for donated ad space on SO as proposed here?
>
>
>
As long as you fit the criteria listed in that question, send a message to team@stackoverflow.com for consideration. Keep in mind that unless your project is sigificant and very useful to developers it probably won't get any free advertising. | If it's a relevant answer to a question, I don't think it's a problem to mention it as long as you try to sound not too subjective. |
37,422,823 | I got a street with an infinite length which is parked with cars. However I cannot see a free parking lot anywhere but I know that there must be exactly one free spot somewhere where I can park my car. The aim is to take the shortest way and I can only go left or right.
Assuming I knew in which direction the free parking lot is, I would directly drive to that direction and thereby I would pass "A" taken parking lots.
Now I need an algorithm that needs to pass no more than 10\*A parking lots to find a free parking lot. And I start in front of my home... "A" is not known.
I would begin by seeing the street as an array and the parked cars are the elements of the array. True signifies an empty spot and false means it is occupied. The search is done till that boolean value is found to be true. That would be my basic idea. But what's more important than that is how is the search done.
I would maybe go one way, then twice as far the other way, loop, so I got something like: 1, -2, 4, -8, 16,... till I found the empty spot.
But I'm not sure if it would be solved in less than 10\*A... | 2016/05/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37422823",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6275216/"
] | Let's apply a kind of algorithm as you indicated and continue for as long as the empty parking lot has not been found:
1. Go left until parking lot 1 at the left of the starting point and go back to starting point;
2. Go right until parking lot 2 at the right of the starting point and go back to starting point;
3. Go left until parking lot 4 at the left of the starting point and go back to starting point;
4. Go right until parking lot 8 at the right of the starting point and go back to starting point;
So at step **n**, you will first go **2n-1** lots away from the starting point, and travel the same distance back, so in that step you travel a total of **2n** lots.
Taking the distance travelled during the previous steps, that makes that after step **n** that total distance is **Σi=1..n (2i)**, which is **2n+1 - 2**.
So if the free parking lot is **A** lots away from the starting point, then that lot will be visited in step **ceil(logA)+1** if we are lucky about the side, or else one step later, i.e. in step **ceil(logA)+2**.
So taking the worst case (the second), the total travelled distance is the one for step **ceil(logA)+1**, plus the remaining steps to get to lot **A** from the starting point during the last step (which gets interrupted). That comes to **2(ceil(logA)+1)+1 - 2**, (which is a value between **4A-2** and **8A-3**) plus **A**. That is less than **9A-2**, and thus meets the requirement. | Your solution works.
The maximum farthest distance you could have driven to the wrong side is 2\*A. Total distance driven on the wrong side is 2A+A+A/2...=4A
The total maximum distance travelled on the right side is A + A + A/2+A/4... = 3A
So at most you would need to travel 7\*A.
Eg. A=9. Wrong side = 16+8+4+2+1=31.
Right side=9+8+4+2+1 = 24
Total = 55 < 7\*9 = 63.
PS: Okay. I slightly misread your problem. But the methodology remains same. I will leave the rest for you to work out. |
26,420 | Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236:
>
> The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.
>
>
>
People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971):
>
> The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.
>
>
>
No where does it specify you can only travel as a passenger, where is the confusion coming from that you can ONLY travel freely by public conveyance or as a passenger? | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/26420",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/15818/"
] | Apparently, people are citing these cases for the proposition that there is a right to drive a car without a license (several facebook accounts making this claim have been shut down and a [document making this argument](https://www.scribd.com/document/185596996/Right-to-Drive-No-License) is signed with the Biblical name of God). This is frivolous poppycock reserved for conspiracy theory crackpots that also never works.
A lawyer who tried to make an argument like this in court would probably be sanctioned by the trial court judge for making a frivolous argument, and might even risk suspension of his license to practice law, unless he made clear that he was arguing for a change in the law that is not supported by any current law.
Like all rights, the right to travel, including the right to travel by motor vehicle, is subject to reasonable restrictions which include the requirement that one have a driver's license that is currently valid.
No court has ever held that having a traffic code regulating the use of motor vehicles on public roads is unconstitutional, nor has any court every held that the government may not obstruct public roads in a reasonable manner for purposes such as maintenance, parades, and the like.
The question in *[People v. Horton](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/14/930.html)* (the correct citation to which is 14 Cal.App.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666 and not the one cited that conflates two separate citations in different reporters to the same case), entered by an intermediate appellate court in California on January 29, 1971, is whether a search of an occupant of a motor vehicle requires probable cause under the 4th Amendment as incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states, and under parallel California constitutional provisions, and it hold that even occupants of motor vehicles have a 4th Amendment expectation of privacy despite the exigent circumstances associated with a motor vehicle. A more complete quotation from the case states:
>
> Applying these principles to the instant case, we are impelled to
> conclude that Officer Winfrey did not have legal cause to stop
> appellant's automobile. Appellant was driving within the legal speed
> limits, not erratically, and there were no visible operational defects
> on the vehicle. Furthermore, although the officer observed two young
> passengers in the vehicle, he saw no furtive or suspicious movements
> and he had no information that the youths were being kidnaped,
> detained or molested in any manner. In fact, the only reason given by
> Winfrey for stopping appellant was that appellant was driving a
> vehicle along the streets of Modesto at 1:15 in the morning with two
> young passengers and that he did not look old enough to be their
> parent or guardian. Clearly, even if we should assume that what the
> officer observed constituted unusual activity, and it is difficult to
> make such an assumption in this modern age, the activity alone did not
> suggest that it was related to criminality.
>
>
> The Attorney General
> argues that Officer Winfrey had reasonable cause to stop appellant's
> vehicle on suspicion that appellant was aiding and abetting his two
> young passengers to loiter in violation of the municipal ordinance of
> the City of Modesto. However, driving along city streets, even at
> 1:15 in the morning, is not “loitering.” (In re Cregler, 56 Cal.2d
> 308, 312 [14 Cal.Rptr. 289, 363 P.2d 305]; In re Hoffman, 67 Cal.2d
> 845, 853 [64 Cal.Rptr. 97, 434 P.2d 353].) For all that Officer
> Winfrey knew, appellant could have been driving his two young
> passengers home from a theater or other authorized place of amusement.
>
>
> We are not insensitive to the numerous problems which face police
> officers on patrol in a mechanized nation. As we stated in Bramlette
> v. Superior Court, 273 Cal.App.2d 799, 804 [78 Cal.Rptr. 532], “[t]he
> use \*934 of the automobile in criminal activity has vastly increased
> the possibility of unlawful conduct, and the likelihood of escape by
> criminals from the scene of their crimes.” Moreover, we are cognizant
> of the fact that the great majority of police officers assume the
> grave responsibility which our society has foisted upon them in a
> courageous and conscientious manner. Nonetheless, the right of the
> citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police
> interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in
> some manner with criminality, is a fundamental constitutional right
> which must be protected by the courts. Consequently, while we do not
> censure Officer Winfrey or question his motives, the fact remains that
> he stopped appellant's vehicle solely because it was occupied by young
> people. Were we to condone the stopping of vehicles for this reason
> alone, no matter how altruistic the officer's motive might be, we
> would lend our approval to the creation of a second class citizenry;
> we would also contribute to an already deteriorating relationship
> between the youth of America and law enforcement officials; in a free
> nation this relationship must be based on mutual confidence and
> respect.
>
>
> Having decided that Officer Winfrey did not have probable
> cause to stop appellant's vehicle in the first instance, it follows
> that the subsequent search was unlawful, even though consented to by
> appellant, and that all evidence adduced therefrom was the product of
> an unlawful search. As our Supreme Court said in People v. Haven, 59
> Cal.2d 713, 718, 719 [31 Cal.Rptr. 47, 381, P.2d 927]: “A search or
> seizure made pursuant to a valid consent before any illegal police
> conduct occurs is obviously not a product of illegal conduct. A search
> and seizure made pursuant to consent secured immediately following an
> illegal entry or arrest, however, is inextricably bound up with the
> illegal conduct and cannot be segregated therefrom.” The case of
> People v. Franklin, 261 Cal.App.2d 703 [68 Cal.Rptr. 231], is squarely
> in point. There, as here, the officer stopped the defendant's vehicle
> without probable cause, and afterward defendant consented to the
> search which ultimately uncovered marijuana. The court in reversing
> the conviction, at page 707 of the opinion, had this to say: “The stop
> having been illegal, the search, though by consent of the vehicle
> owner, does not breathe legality into the resultant find by the
> officers.”
>
>
>
A later California case before the same intermediate appellate court a few years later, also distinguished *People v. Horton*, holding that while driving in a car as a juvenile as 1:15 a.m. was not "loitering" that similar conduct did violate a municipal curfew ordinance for minors which was validly enacted and not unconstitutional. *In re Francis W.*, 117 Cal. Rptr. 277 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1974).
The claim that *People v. Horton* recognizes a constitutional right to drive without a license was analyzed and rejected in the case of *Newman v. Garcia*, 2016 WL 8939133, Case No. 3:16-cv-137-J-PDB (M.D. Fl. September 26, 2016) in which a federal trial court ruled on a motion to dismiss a civil rights claim brought by a man alleging that his constitutional rights were violated because he was arrested for driving with a suspended driver's license in which he sought $28 million of damages. The judge in that case held in pages 3-5 of the Slip Opinion that dismissed this claim that:
>
> 1. Right to Travel
>
>
> Newman primarily argues Officer Garcia violated his constitutional
> right to travel by issuing him a citation for driving with a suspended
> license and stopping him from driving his car. See generally Doc. 2,
> Doc. 12. He contends he has a protected liberty interest in driving on
> public highways, he does not need a license to drive, and a driver's
> license is a contract between the state and a person that is cancelled
> when the state suspends a license. Doc. 12 at 3–4, 7. In Kent v.
> Dulles, the United States Supreme Court explained the right to
> travel—the freedom to move “across frontiers in either direction, and
> inside frontiers as well”—is “part of the ‘liberty’ of which the
> citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law.” Kent v.
> Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958). It has long been recognized as a
> basic constitutional right. Att'y Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476
> U.S. 898, 901 (1986). “A state law implicates the right to travel when
> it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary
> objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize
> the exercise of that right.” Id. at 903 (internal citations and
> quotation marks omitted). A restriction on one method of travel does
> not violate a person's constitutional rights. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d
> 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no constitutional right to the
> “most convenient form of travel.” City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d
> 1184, 1198 (5th Cir. 1982).
>
>
> \*4 **The constitutional right to travel does not include a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089, at \*2
> (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); Miller, 176 F.3d at 1206 (9th Cir.
> 1999).** **The Supreme Court has recognized a state's power to “prescribe
> uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect
> to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles.” Hendrick v.
> Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915). That includes passing legislation
> requiring drivers to have licenses. Id.** Such a regulation is “but an
> exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the
> states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and
> comfort of their citizens.” Id.
>
>
> Newman cites many state-court cases he contends support his argument
> he has a right to drive without a license. See Doc. 12 at 3–4. They do
> not. See People v. Horton, 92 Cal. Rptr. 666, 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)
> (addressing legality of traffic stop and search; observing, “The right
> of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police
> interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in
> some manner with criminality, is a fundamental constitutional right
> which must be protected by the courts” (emphasis added)); Schecter v.
> Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 137–38 (Ariz. 1963) (addressing state law
> suspending license of uninsured motorist involved in an accident who
> does not post sufficient security); Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d
> 869, 871, 872 (R.I. 1958) (addressing state law suspending license for
> failure to deposit security with the registrar; observing, “[T]he
> right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one
> which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid
> exercise of the police power of the state”); Payne v. Massey, 196
> S.W.2d 493, 495–96 (Tex. 1946) (addressing ordinance regulating
> operation of taxicabs); Teche Lines, Inc., v. Danforth, 12 So. 2d 784,
> 785, 787 (Miss. 1943) (addressing state law regulating stopping on
> certain portion of highway; observing right to travel “may be
> reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance of the police
> power of the State”); Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583 (Va. 1930)
> (addressing contention city could not change ordinance to permit
> revocation of license; observing, “regulation of the exercise of the
> right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be
> accomplished in part ... by granting, refusing, and revoking ...
> permits to drive an automobile on its streets”); Swift v. City of
> Topeka, 23 P. 1075 (Kan. 1890) (addressing ordinance restricting use
> of bicycles on sidewalks and a bridge).4
>
>
> Newman does not cite authority to support his contention a driver's
> license is a contract with the state that is cancelled when the
> license is suspended, and he does not explain how the existence of a
> cancelled contract would support his argument that Officer Garcia
> violated his constitutional rights. See generally Doc. 12. **Other
> courts have rejected similar arguments as meritless or frivolous.** See
> Oliver v. Long, No. CV-06-2429-PCT-LOA, 2007 WL 1098527, at \*5 (D.
> Ariz. Apr. 12, 2007) (unpublished) (argument that by cancelling all
> contracts with California Department of Motor Vehicles plaintiff could
> violate traffic laws with impunity “frivolous,” “specious,” and
> “nonsensical”); North Carolina v. Ellison, 471 S.E. 2d 130, 131 (N.C.
> Ct. App. 1996) (argument that by cutting up license and returning it
> to Division of Motor Vehicles plaintiff had rescinded contract with
> state and could drive without complying with statutory requirements
> “without merit”). Absent authority to support the argument that a
> suspended driver's license is a cancelled contract with the state, and
> in light of states' authority to regulate the operation of motor
> vehicles on their roads, the argument is meritless.
>
>
> \*5 Though Newman enjoys a constitutional right to travel, he has no fundamental right to drive. A state may regulate the operation of
> vehicles on its roads, including requiring a license. Officer Garcia
> informed him of the suspension and informed him of the consequences of
> driving with a suspended license but did not restrict his right to
> travel by other means of transportation. The complaint does not
> plausibly allege Officer Garcia violated Newman's right to travel
>
>
>
The other two cases cited, in addition to the flaws noted below, also predate the U.S. Supreme Court's conclusion that a state has the power to “prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles.” *Hendrick v. Maryland*, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915), including passing legislation requiring drivers to have licenses. *Id.*
*Simeone v. Lindsay*, 65 Atl. 778, 779 is an opinion from a Delaware state trial court entered on February 27, 1907 (111 years ago as I write this). It held that at the time, in Delaware, on the public highway in question, both cars and pedestrians had an equal right to use the road and both had a duty of care in the contexts of a lawsuit against the car owner for causing an accident through negligence. It did not reference any fundamental or constitutional right and has no precedential value and has in any case been superseded by statute.
*Hannigan v. Wright*, 63 Atl. 234, 236 is an opinion from a Delaware state trial court entered on December 13, 1905 also involving liability for an automobile accident. It says in the pertinent part:
>
> A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public streets
> of a city as a vehicle of any kind. In using any parts of the streets
> all persons are bound to the exercise of, reasonable care to prevent
> collisions and accidents. Such care must be in proportion to the
> danger or the peculiar risks in each case. It is the duty of a person
> operating an automobile, or any other vehicle, upon the public streets
> of a city, to use ordinary care in its operation, to move it at a
> reasonable rate of speed, and cause it to slow up or stop if need be,
> where danger is imminent, and could, by the exercise of reasonable
> care, be seen or known in time to avoid accident. Greater caution is
> required at street crossings and in the more thronged streets of a
> city than in the less obstructed streets in the open or suburban
> parts.
>
>
>
Like *Simeone*, it predates the adoption of a statutory traffic code in the state of Delaware, has no precedential effect, is no longer good law, and does not purport to establish any fundamental or constitutional right. It merely enunciates the default rules governing the use of public highways by cars and pedestrians in the absence of other laws or regulations. | Rights, even fundamental rights, are never absolute. They are always subject to appropriate regulation, restrictions, and conditions.
It would be up to courts to determine when such restrictions are appropriate, and when they infringe upon the underlying right to an impermissible degree.
In this instance, I believe it is well established that a requirement for a driver's license is an appropriate and constitutional condition to place on the exercise of this right, and I don't see any indication that the courts you cite meant to overturn that. I certainly don't know of any cases in which license requirements have explicitly been found to be unconstitutional. |
26,420 | Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236:
>
> The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.
>
>
>
People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971):
>
> The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.
>
>
>
No where does it specify you can only travel as a passenger, where is the confusion coming from that you can ONLY travel freely by public conveyance or as a passenger? | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/26420",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/15818/"
] | Rights, even fundamental rights, are never absolute. They are always subject to appropriate regulation, restrictions, and conditions.
It would be up to courts to determine when such restrictions are appropriate, and when they infringe upon the underlying right to an impermissible degree.
In this instance, I believe it is well established that a requirement for a driver's license is an appropriate and constitutional condition to place on the exercise of this right, and I don't see any indication that the courts you cite meant to overturn that. I certainly don't know of any cases in which license requirements have explicitly been found to be unconstitutional. | If you must ask for permission to do anything, it is **not** a right, as rights are automatic, and need not require a reason to be exercised.
Therefor, you are suggesting that we again are forced to abide by man made restrictions to travel and can **only** do so freely if we are a passenger in some sort of conveyance, though case law separates an operator of a motor vehicle (commerce), from a person merely removing from one place to another in the normal course of daily life (not for hire). |
26,420 | Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236:
>
> The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.
>
>
>
People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971):
>
> The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.
>
>
>
No where does it specify you can only travel as a passenger, where is the confusion coming from that you can ONLY travel freely by public conveyance or as a passenger? | 2018/02/28 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/26420",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/15818/"
] | Apparently, people are citing these cases for the proposition that there is a right to drive a car without a license (several facebook accounts making this claim have been shut down and a [document making this argument](https://www.scribd.com/document/185596996/Right-to-Drive-No-License) is signed with the Biblical name of God). This is frivolous poppycock reserved for conspiracy theory crackpots that also never works.
A lawyer who tried to make an argument like this in court would probably be sanctioned by the trial court judge for making a frivolous argument, and might even risk suspension of his license to practice law, unless he made clear that he was arguing for a change in the law that is not supported by any current law.
Like all rights, the right to travel, including the right to travel by motor vehicle, is subject to reasonable restrictions which include the requirement that one have a driver's license that is currently valid.
No court has ever held that having a traffic code regulating the use of motor vehicles on public roads is unconstitutional, nor has any court every held that the government may not obstruct public roads in a reasonable manner for purposes such as maintenance, parades, and the like.
The question in *[People v. Horton](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/14/930.html)* (the correct citation to which is 14 Cal.App.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666 and not the one cited that conflates two separate citations in different reporters to the same case), entered by an intermediate appellate court in California on January 29, 1971, is whether a search of an occupant of a motor vehicle requires probable cause under the 4th Amendment as incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states, and under parallel California constitutional provisions, and it hold that even occupants of motor vehicles have a 4th Amendment expectation of privacy despite the exigent circumstances associated with a motor vehicle. A more complete quotation from the case states:
>
> Applying these principles to the instant case, we are impelled to
> conclude that Officer Winfrey did not have legal cause to stop
> appellant's automobile. Appellant was driving within the legal speed
> limits, not erratically, and there were no visible operational defects
> on the vehicle. Furthermore, although the officer observed two young
> passengers in the vehicle, he saw no furtive or suspicious movements
> and he had no information that the youths were being kidnaped,
> detained or molested in any manner. In fact, the only reason given by
> Winfrey for stopping appellant was that appellant was driving a
> vehicle along the streets of Modesto at 1:15 in the morning with two
> young passengers and that he did not look old enough to be their
> parent or guardian. Clearly, even if we should assume that what the
> officer observed constituted unusual activity, and it is difficult to
> make such an assumption in this modern age, the activity alone did not
> suggest that it was related to criminality.
>
>
> The Attorney General
> argues that Officer Winfrey had reasonable cause to stop appellant's
> vehicle on suspicion that appellant was aiding and abetting his two
> young passengers to loiter in violation of the municipal ordinance of
> the City of Modesto. However, driving along city streets, even at
> 1:15 in the morning, is not “loitering.” (In re Cregler, 56 Cal.2d
> 308, 312 [14 Cal.Rptr. 289, 363 P.2d 305]; In re Hoffman, 67 Cal.2d
> 845, 853 [64 Cal.Rptr. 97, 434 P.2d 353].) For all that Officer
> Winfrey knew, appellant could have been driving his two young
> passengers home from a theater or other authorized place of amusement.
>
>
> We are not insensitive to the numerous problems which face police
> officers on patrol in a mechanized nation. As we stated in Bramlette
> v. Superior Court, 273 Cal.App.2d 799, 804 [78 Cal.Rptr. 532], “[t]he
> use \*934 of the automobile in criminal activity has vastly increased
> the possibility of unlawful conduct, and the likelihood of escape by
> criminals from the scene of their crimes.” Moreover, we are cognizant
> of the fact that the great majority of police officers assume the
> grave responsibility which our society has foisted upon them in a
> courageous and conscientious manner. Nonetheless, the right of the
> citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police
> interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in
> some manner with criminality, is a fundamental constitutional right
> which must be protected by the courts. Consequently, while we do not
> censure Officer Winfrey or question his motives, the fact remains that
> he stopped appellant's vehicle solely because it was occupied by young
> people. Were we to condone the stopping of vehicles for this reason
> alone, no matter how altruistic the officer's motive might be, we
> would lend our approval to the creation of a second class citizenry;
> we would also contribute to an already deteriorating relationship
> between the youth of America and law enforcement officials; in a free
> nation this relationship must be based on mutual confidence and
> respect.
>
>
> Having decided that Officer Winfrey did not have probable
> cause to stop appellant's vehicle in the first instance, it follows
> that the subsequent search was unlawful, even though consented to by
> appellant, and that all evidence adduced therefrom was the product of
> an unlawful search. As our Supreme Court said in People v. Haven, 59
> Cal.2d 713, 718, 719 [31 Cal.Rptr. 47, 381, P.2d 927]: “A search or
> seizure made pursuant to a valid consent before any illegal police
> conduct occurs is obviously not a product of illegal conduct. A search
> and seizure made pursuant to consent secured immediately following an
> illegal entry or arrest, however, is inextricably bound up with the
> illegal conduct and cannot be segregated therefrom.” The case of
> People v. Franklin, 261 Cal.App.2d 703 [68 Cal.Rptr. 231], is squarely
> in point. There, as here, the officer stopped the defendant's vehicle
> without probable cause, and afterward defendant consented to the
> search which ultimately uncovered marijuana. The court in reversing
> the conviction, at page 707 of the opinion, had this to say: “The stop
> having been illegal, the search, though by consent of the vehicle
> owner, does not breathe legality into the resultant find by the
> officers.”
>
>
>
A later California case before the same intermediate appellate court a few years later, also distinguished *People v. Horton*, holding that while driving in a car as a juvenile as 1:15 a.m. was not "loitering" that similar conduct did violate a municipal curfew ordinance for minors which was validly enacted and not unconstitutional. *In re Francis W.*, 117 Cal. Rptr. 277 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1974).
The claim that *People v. Horton* recognizes a constitutional right to drive without a license was analyzed and rejected in the case of *Newman v. Garcia*, 2016 WL 8939133, Case No. 3:16-cv-137-J-PDB (M.D. Fl. September 26, 2016) in which a federal trial court ruled on a motion to dismiss a civil rights claim brought by a man alleging that his constitutional rights were violated because he was arrested for driving with a suspended driver's license in which he sought $28 million of damages. The judge in that case held in pages 3-5 of the Slip Opinion that dismissed this claim that:
>
> 1. Right to Travel
>
>
> Newman primarily argues Officer Garcia violated his constitutional
> right to travel by issuing him a citation for driving with a suspended
> license and stopping him from driving his car. See generally Doc. 2,
> Doc. 12. He contends he has a protected liberty interest in driving on
> public highways, he does not need a license to drive, and a driver's
> license is a contract between the state and a person that is cancelled
> when the state suspends a license. Doc. 12 at 3–4, 7. In Kent v.
> Dulles, the United States Supreme Court explained the right to
> travel—the freedom to move “across frontiers in either direction, and
> inside frontiers as well”—is “part of the ‘liberty’ of which the
> citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law.” Kent v.
> Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958). It has long been recognized as a
> basic constitutional right. Att'y Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476
> U.S. 898, 901 (1986). “A state law implicates the right to travel when
> it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary
> objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize
> the exercise of that right.” Id. at 903 (internal citations and
> quotation marks omitted). A restriction on one method of travel does
> not violate a person's constitutional rights. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d
> 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no constitutional right to the
> “most convenient form of travel.” City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d
> 1184, 1198 (5th Cir. 1982).
>
>
> \*4 **The constitutional right to travel does not include a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089, at \*2
> (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); Miller, 176 F.3d at 1206 (9th Cir.
> 1999).** **The Supreme Court has recognized a state's power to “prescribe
> uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect
> to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles.” Hendrick v.
> Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915). That includes passing legislation
> requiring drivers to have licenses. Id.** Such a regulation is “but an
> exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the
> states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and
> comfort of their citizens.” Id.
>
>
> Newman cites many state-court cases he contends support his argument
> he has a right to drive without a license. See Doc. 12 at 3–4. They do
> not. See People v. Horton, 92 Cal. Rptr. 666, 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)
> (addressing legality of traffic stop and search; observing, “The right
> of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police
> interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in
> some manner with criminality, is a fundamental constitutional right
> which must be protected by the courts” (emphasis added)); Schecter v.
> Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 137–38 (Ariz. 1963) (addressing state law
> suspending license of uninsured motorist involved in an accident who
> does not post sufficient security); Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d
> 869, 871, 872 (R.I. 1958) (addressing state law suspending license for
> failure to deposit security with the registrar; observing, “[T]he
> right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one
> which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid
> exercise of the police power of the state”); Payne v. Massey, 196
> S.W.2d 493, 495–96 (Tex. 1946) (addressing ordinance regulating
> operation of taxicabs); Teche Lines, Inc., v. Danforth, 12 So. 2d 784,
> 785, 787 (Miss. 1943) (addressing state law regulating stopping on
> certain portion of highway; observing right to travel “may be
> reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance of the police
> power of the State”); Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583 (Va. 1930)
> (addressing contention city could not change ordinance to permit
> revocation of license; observing, “regulation of the exercise of the
> right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be
> accomplished in part ... by granting, refusing, and revoking ...
> permits to drive an automobile on its streets”); Swift v. City of
> Topeka, 23 P. 1075 (Kan. 1890) (addressing ordinance restricting use
> of bicycles on sidewalks and a bridge).4
>
>
> Newman does not cite authority to support his contention a driver's
> license is a contract with the state that is cancelled when the
> license is suspended, and he does not explain how the existence of a
> cancelled contract would support his argument that Officer Garcia
> violated his constitutional rights. See generally Doc. 12. **Other
> courts have rejected similar arguments as meritless or frivolous.** See
> Oliver v. Long, No. CV-06-2429-PCT-LOA, 2007 WL 1098527, at \*5 (D.
> Ariz. Apr. 12, 2007) (unpublished) (argument that by cancelling all
> contracts with California Department of Motor Vehicles plaintiff could
> violate traffic laws with impunity “frivolous,” “specious,” and
> “nonsensical”); North Carolina v. Ellison, 471 S.E. 2d 130, 131 (N.C.
> Ct. App. 1996) (argument that by cutting up license and returning it
> to Division of Motor Vehicles plaintiff had rescinded contract with
> state and could drive without complying with statutory requirements
> “without merit”). Absent authority to support the argument that a
> suspended driver's license is a cancelled contract with the state, and
> in light of states' authority to regulate the operation of motor
> vehicles on their roads, the argument is meritless.
>
>
> \*5 Though Newman enjoys a constitutional right to travel, he has no fundamental right to drive. A state may regulate the operation of
> vehicles on its roads, including requiring a license. Officer Garcia
> informed him of the suspension and informed him of the consequences of
> driving with a suspended license but did not restrict his right to
> travel by other means of transportation. The complaint does not
> plausibly allege Officer Garcia violated Newman's right to travel
>
>
>
The other two cases cited, in addition to the flaws noted below, also predate the U.S. Supreme Court's conclusion that a state has the power to “prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles.” *Hendrick v. Maryland*, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915), including passing legislation requiring drivers to have licenses. *Id.*
*Simeone v. Lindsay*, 65 Atl. 778, 779 is an opinion from a Delaware state trial court entered on February 27, 1907 (111 years ago as I write this). It held that at the time, in Delaware, on the public highway in question, both cars and pedestrians had an equal right to use the road and both had a duty of care in the contexts of a lawsuit against the car owner for causing an accident through negligence. It did not reference any fundamental or constitutional right and has no precedential value and has in any case been superseded by statute.
*Hannigan v. Wright*, 63 Atl. 234, 236 is an opinion from a Delaware state trial court entered on December 13, 1905 also involving liability for an automobile accident. It says in the pertinent part:
>
> A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public streets
> of a city as a vehicle of any kind. In using any parts of the streets
> all persons are bound to the exercise of, reasonable care to prevent
> collisions and accidents. Such care must be in proportion to the
> danger or the peculiar risks in each case. It is the duty of a person
> operating an automobile, or any other vehicle, upon the public streets
> of a city, to use ordinary care in its operation, to move it at a
> reasonable rate of speed, and cause it to slow up or stop if need be,
> where danger is imminent, and could, by the exercise of reasonable
> care, be seen or known in time to avoid accident. Greater caution is
> required at street crossings and in the more thronged streets of a
> city than in the less obstructed streets in the open or suburban
> parts.
>
>
>
Like *Simeone*, it predates the adoption of a statutory traffic code in the state of Delaware, has no precedential effect, is no longer good law, and does not purport to establish any fundamental or constitutional right. It merely enunciates the default rules governing the use of public highways by cars and pedestrians in the absence of other laws or regulations. | If you must ask for permission to do anything, it is **not** a right, as rights are automatic, and need not require a reason to be exercised.
Therefor, you are suggesting that we again are forced to abide by man made restrictions to travel and can **only** do so freely if we are a passenger in some sort of conveyance, though case law separates an operator of a motor vehicle (commerce), from a person merely removing from one place to another in the normal course of daily life (not for hire). |
49,921 | Following in the footsteps of [MOehm](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/48338/what-is-moehm-trying-to-tell-us), [leoll2](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/15085/what-is-leoll2-trying-to-tell-us) and the formerly known [Lukas Rotter](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/42158/what-is-lukas-rotters-secret?noredirect=1&lq=1) (who has deleted his account D:), we have a new name to add: [JonMarkPerry](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/11497/jonmark-perry)!
In his profile we find an interesting image:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vy6d1.png)
*(For colourblind: From left to right:*
*Yellow Red Orange Blue*
*Purple Dark Blue Red Green*
*Pink Blue Yellow Purple*
*Green Dark Blue Orange Pink)*
Followed by the line
>
> The diagonals are all **45°**, and therefore +/-/0 1.
>
>
>
Observations:
* There are two of each colour
* 8 colours and the 0 1 seems to suggest binary
* For two inputs of each colour could be a logic gate
* Almost seems to be colours of the rainbow
So, you know the drill:
What is JonMarkPerry trying to tell us?
=======================================
(Also note his profile pic has changed to a pic of Hank Williams III which may or may not be related)
Will add bounty in about a week if not solved. | 2017/03/10 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/49921",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/18250/"
] | I have absolutely no idea if this is a coincidence, and it probably is buuut...
I took the distances of each cell to its partner. this was always greater than two. I subtracted two from each of these values, then joined them to make a ternary number:
1011100221112012. this is 16670426. we can convert this into letters by making letters as large as possible unless it is not possible to be a letter (66 is no letter). this becomes pfgdz. putting this into imgur gets this
(for some reason it doesn't like the format)
[http://imgur.com/pfgdz](https://imgur.com/pfgdz)
Probably a coincidence because there was no communication of lower and uppercase letters. but if it isn't this might help.
---
Also I looked through some of the other capitalisations and I do not recommend it. what matters is probably just that the full caps didn't have anything | The hex codes of colors are:
FFF200 ED1C24 FFC20E 00B7EF
6F3198 4D6DF3 ED1C24 A8E61D
FFA3B1 00B7EF FFF200 6F3198
A8E61D 4D6DF3 FFC20E FFA3B1
Yellow : FFF200,
Red : ED1C24,
Orange : FFC20E,
Blue : 00B7EF,
Purple : 6F3198,
Dark-Blue : 4D6DF3,
Green : A8E61D,
Pink : FFA3B1,
(#DCDCDC) the shade of grey in the background.
---
Trying to analyse this... |
8,627 | I want to drive from Tijuana to Cabo San Lucas but I've heard of people being pulled over by corrupt cops and being hassled by people on the peninsula. I speak fluent Spanish and I'm pretty street smart. Should I be worried? | 2012/07/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/8627",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/64/"
] | The *mordida* (nibble) is unfortunately deeply ingrained in Mexico, although mostly a feature of local police and not the federal police or the military, and there are various anti-corruption initiatives at work in the larger cities.
Generally, the interaction involves being pulled over for a traffic offense like speeding or not wearing a seat belt. The driver is warned of some exaggerated penalty for some exaggerated offense, then suggested to get the fine reduced for a consideration of a few hundred pesos. There are very few stories, however, of more serious harassment. **A dirty cop is out for cash, not blood**, so a play for time may encourage him to move on to another target.
There are plain vanilla ticket traps all over, as there are in Canada and the U.S., and legitimate checkpoints set up by the military and federal police, so it's good to be aware of local laws (e.g. tinted windows are illegal in Tijuana unless you have proof of manufacturer installation) and to follow the standard tips for dealing with law enforcement in any country:
* Remain calm and polite; never show outward anger and never become argumentative.
* Never *offer* a bribe. It will genuinely insult honest police, and the dishonest ones know how to work to get one; there's no need to make things easy on them.
On federal highways and in the larger cities (Tijuana, Ensenada, etc.) you will have written traffic tickets; elsewhere, however, the officer will take your license and escort you to the police station. Any solicitation for a bribe will take place before you get to the police station, of course, so if you can play for time, the dirty cop will get impatient and let you go. Knowing Spanish helps mainly in that the dirty cop would fear that you know of recourse to the Sindicata or other authority.
If you do go to the station, you will meet the *juez calificador* (a kind of municipal judge) who will review the charge. If you feel the charge is unfair, you can appeal to the judge. There is a discount on the ticket if you pay early.
If you have been solicited for a bribe, by all means report it to the authorities. The Sindicata (think: Internal Affairs), the local mayor, the governor, and the consul would be a good start.
*Baja Insider* magazine has an interesting 2010 article with some tips on avoiding or minimizing your *mordida* exposure:
<http://www.bajainsider.com/driving-baja/policecorruptionbaja.html>
Above all, remember that the greatest risks of driving in Baja California come not from drug cartels, banditos, or corrupt police, but from the road itself. The roads are often narrow, isolated, in disrepair or under construction, or being crossed by cattle or horses, and likely some combination of the above. It is best to stick to the toll roads (which are better maintained and controlled), to drive during daylight hours only, to keep your fuel topped off, and to drive slowly. | I hitchhiked from northern Baja to La Paz. I had no problems.
Outside of Tijuana and the resorts in Cabo, Baja is mostly desolate and remote, and I would not expect any problems with the police. Instead, expect the desolate beauty of the desert, and hospitality and respect from the locals (assuming you show the same).
In Tijuana itself, I'd guess that anything could happen.
Your ability to speak Spanish fluently will help greatly should you get into trouble. |
8,627 | I want to drive from Tijuana to Cabo San Lucas but I've heard of people being pulled over by corrupt cops and being hassled by people on the peninsula. I speak fluent Spanish and I'm pretty street smart. Should I be worried? | 2012/07/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/8627",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/64/"
] | The *mordida* (nibble) is unfortunately deeply ingrained in Mexico, although mostly a feature of local police and not the federal police or the military, and there are various anti-corruption initiatives at work in the larger cities.
Generally, the interaction involves being pulled over for a traffic offense like speeding or not wearing a seat belt. The driver is warned of some exaggerated penalty for some exaggerated offense, then suggested to get the fine reduced for a consideration of a few hundred pesos. There are very few stories, however, of more serious harassment. **A dirty cop is out for cash, not blood**, so a play for time may encourage him to move on to another target.
There are plain vanilla ticket traps all over, as there are in Canada and the U.S., and legitimate checkpoints set up by the military and federal police, so it's good to be aware of local laws (e.g. tinted windows are illegal in Tijuana unless you have proof of manufacturer installation) and to follow the standard tips for dealing with law enforcement in any country:
* Remain calm and polite; never show outward anger and never become argumentative.
* Never *offer* a bribe. It will genuinely insult honest police, and the dishonest ones know how to work to get one; there's no need to make things easy on them.
On federal highways and in the larger cities (Tijuana, Ensenada, etc.) you will have written traffic tickets; elsewhere, however, the officer will take your license and escort you to the police station. Any solicitation for a bribe will take place before you get to the police station, of course, so if you can play for time, the dirty cop will get impatient and let you go. Knowing Spanish helps mainly in that the dirty cop would fear that you know of recourse to the Sindicata or other authority.
If you do go to the station, you will meet the *juez calificador* (a kind of municipal judge) who will review the charge. If you feel the charge is unfair, you can appeal to the judge. There is a discount on the ticket if you pay early.
If you have been solicited for a bribe, by all means report it to the authorities. The Sindicata (think: Internal Affairs), the local mayor, the governor, and the consul would be a good start.
*Baja Insider* magazine has an interesting 2010 article with some tips on avoiding or minimizing your *mordida* exposure:
<http://www.bajainsider.com/driving-baja/policecorruptionbaja.html>
Above all, remember that the greatest risks of driving in Baja California come not from drug cartels, banditos, or corrupt police, but from the road itself. The roads are often narrow, isolated, in disrepair or under construction, or being crossed by cattle or horses, and likely some combination of the above. It is best to stick to the toll roads (which are better maintained and controlled), to drive during daylight hours only, to keep your fuel topped off, and to drive slowly. | My experiences in Baja and BCS have run directly contrary to the folklore about corruption in Mexico. I drove the peninsula, eschewing warnings against driving at night, with only a few regrets.
It is a much longer drive than it appears on a map. Infrastructure is uneven. You may assume that it's a very relaxed, two day trip if you're accustomed to the interstate highway system in the US. There are no straight shots and average speed may be only 35mph. Over 1100 miles, that's quite a journey.
My realistic fears at night would include fatigue on very narrow, elevated roads leading to a minor wreck, and the presence of cattle reclining on the warm road surfaces at night. A smaller car is better. Popular cars, even if they're completely stock, look like Baja Beetles. The VW Crossfox is practical, as are very small trucks with good suspension. Federales are present at checkpoints, polite, professional, and usually speak some English.
If you drive at night, you will see some of the most beautiful and tranquil landscapes, sunrises and sunsets, that your imagination could conjure. The people in the smaller towns do not anticipate tourists, they are usually kind and humble and excited to meet strangers, I didn't encounter much xenophobia.
It is my opinion that the worst parts of BCS are safer than the best parts of California. Crime is usually a story about poverty, and very annoying, but seldom violent.
There have been a number of measures in the last couple of years to reform law enforcement and the legal system, a national Gendarmerie (paramilitary police force after the model of France) has been established. BCS was already pretty good, some of this is symbolic but it does give Mexico cause to take pride.
Well-known tourist areas tend to be the areas of highest crime. If you are looking for it, you will find it. |
80,216 | Application frameworks such as DotNetNuke, Eclipse, Websphere and so forth are available today which offer customizable frameworks that can be used as dashboard applications. Do you use these or do you and your peers keep writing amazing, modular, maintainable dashboard frameworks which you support yourselves?
Are there any good web based, OS independent frameworks out there that you suggest using to build your own enterprise class infrastructure around? | 2008/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/80216",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10644/"
] | The one I use is Oracle Application Development Framework. It's a complete, fully supported framework, and Oracle use it themselves to build their own enterprise applications. It comes with a lot of JSF components that are very easy to bind to the underlying data objects.
I'd recommend this for all Java applications that need database data.
You find a discussion of it on the Oracle Wiki:
<http://wiki.oracle.com/page/ADF+Methodology+-+Work+in+Progressent> | There's no one right answer. Look at the business need... if you're doing fairly typical things, then starting from an established framework is a good place to start. If you feel you may need some custom components or widgets, look for a framework that's extensible using the knowledge and skills that you have in-house.
Unless your line of business is to build application frameworks or dashboards, one should look very hard before building a whole new framework or dashboard. |
80,216 | Application frameworks such as DotNetNuke, Eclipse, Websphere and so forth are available today which offer customizable frameworks that can be used as dashboard applications. Do you use these or do you and your peers keep writing amazing, modular, maintainable dashboard frameworks which you support yourselves?
Are there any good web based, OS independent frameworks out there that you suggest using to build your own enterprise class infrastructure around? | 2008/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/80216",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10644/"
] | The one I use is Oracle Application Development Framework. It's a complete, fully supported framework, and Oracle use it themselves to build their own enterprise applications. It comes with a lot of JSF components that are very easy to bind to the underlying data objects.
I'd recommend this for all Java applications that need database data.
You find a discussion of it on the Oracle Wiki:
<http://wiki.oracle.com/page/ADF+Methodology+-+Work+in+Progressent> | At work, we try to create from scratch as little as possible. We use Frameworks a lot (maybe not always end to end frameworks). We have used Dot Net Nuke a lot. Another framework we use a lot is CSLA. |
80,216 | Application frameworks such as DotNetNuke, Eclipse, Websphere and so forth are available today which offer customizable frameworks that can be used as dashboard applications. Do you use these or do you and your peers keep writing amazing, modular, maintainable dashboard frameworks which you support yourselves?
Are there any good web based, OS independent frameworks out there that you suggest using to build your own enterprise class infrastructure around? | 2008/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/80216",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10644/"
] | The one I use is Oracle Application Development Framework. It's a complete, fully supported framework, and Oracle use it themselves to build their own enterprise applications. It comes with a lot of JSF components that are very easy to bind to the underlying data objects.
I'd recommend this for all Java applications that need database data.
You find a discussion of it on the Oracle Wiki:
<http://wiki.oracle.com/page/ADF+Methodology+-+Work+in+Progressent> | I personally use DotNetNuke quite extensively for both personal and business related ventures. However DNN does not meet one of your requirements as it is a .NET solution so it is windows dependent.
I have found that using DotNetNuke has greatly reduced our time to delivery, and we can focus on our core needs rather than the implementation of the common pieces. |
80,216 | Application frameworks such as DotNetNuke, Eclipse, Websphere and so forth are available today which offer customizable frameworks that can be used as dashboard applications. Do you use these or do you and your peers keep writing amazing, modular, maintainable dashboard frameworks which you support yourselves?
Are there any good web based, OS independent frameworks out there that you suggest using to build your own enterprise class infrastructure around? | 2008/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/80216",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10644/"
] | The one I use is Oracle Application Development Framework. It's a complete, fully supported framework, and Oracle use it themselves to build their own enterprise applications. It comes with a lot of JSF components that are very easy to bind to the underlying data objects.
I'd recommend this for all Java applications that need database data.
You find a discussion of it on the Oracle Wiki:
<http://wiki.oracle.com/page/ADF+Methodology+-+Work+in+Progressent> | Be careful to consider how scalable the framework is. There are several frameworks out there that like to hammer your database because they think it's nothing but a glorified file system... those frameworks don't scale well at all. |
80,216 | Application frameworks such as DotNetNuke, Eclipse, Websphere and so forth are available today which offer customizable frameworks that can be used as dashboard applications. Do you use these or do you and your peers keep writing amazing, modular, maintainable dashboard frameworks which you support yourselves?
Are there any good web based, OS independent frameworks out there that you suggest using to build your own enterprise class infrastructure around? | 2008/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/80216",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10644/"
] | There's no one right answer. Look at the business need... if you're doing fairly typical things, then starting from an established framework is a good place to start. If you feel you may need some custom components or widgets, look for a framework that's extensible using the knowledge and skills that you have in-house.
Unless your line of business is to build application frameworks or dashboards, one should look very hard before building a whole new framework or dashboard. | At work, we try to create from scratch as little as possible. We use Frameworks a lot (maybe not always end to end frameworks). We have used Dot Net Nuke a lot. Another framework we use a lot is CSLA. |
80,216 | Application frameworks such as DotNetNuke, Eclipse, Websphere and so forth are available today which offer customizable frameworks that can be used as dashboard applications. Do you use these or do you and your peers keep writing amazing, modular, maintainable dashboard frameworks which you support yourselves?
Are there any good web based, OS independent frameworks out there that you suggest using to build your own enterprise class infrastructure around? | 2008/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/80216",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10644/"
] | There's no one right answer. Look at the business need... if you're doing fairly typical things, then starting from an established framework is a good place to start. If you feel you may need some custom components or widgets, look for a framework that's extensible using the knowledge and skills that you have in-house.
Unless your line of business is to build application frameworks or dashboards, one should look very hard before building a whole new framework or dashboard. | I personally use DotNetNuke quite extensively for both personal and business related ventures. However DNN does not meet one of your requirements as it is a .NET solution so it is windows dependent.
I have found that using DotNetNuke has greatly reduced our time to delivery, and we can focus on our core needs rather than the implementation of the common pieces. |
80,216 | Application frameworks such as DotNetNuke, Eclipse, Websphere and so forth are available today which offer customizable frameworks that can be used as dashboard applications. Do you use these or do you and your peers keep writing amazing, modular, maintainable dashboard frameworks which you support yourselves?
Are there any good web based, OS independent frameworks out there that you suggest using to build your own enterprise class infrastructure around? | 2008/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/80216",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10644/"
] | There's no one right answer. Look at the business need... if you're doing fairly typical things, then starting from an established framework is a good place to start. If you feel you may need some custom components or widgets, look for a framework that's extensible using the knowledge and skills that you have in-house.
Unless your line of business is to build application frameworks or dashboards, one should look very hard before building a whole new framework or dashboard. | Be careful to consider how scalable the framework is. There are several frameworks out there that like to hammer your database because they think it's nothing but a glorified file system... those frameworks don't scale well at all. |
9,240,984 | I am missing the .h-files when I just started my HelloWorld in MonoTouch/MonoDevelop. I have the [same question as this guy](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7839333/monotouch-missing-header-files-when-editing-xib), but the answer provided did not help me.
I just installed everything needed for MonoTouch on a MacBook running Lion.
I followed the steps/instructions to install (see [here](http://blong.com/Articles/CSharpMonoTouch5/MonoTouch.htm#Gettingstarted)) and then created a new solution.
But since there are no .h-files, this means that whem I use the interface Builder in Xcode, I only get the "No Assistant Result" when I open the "Assistant Builder".
I have tried to create the HelloWorlsViewController.h file manually, but it doesnt seem to help either.
**EDIT**
Here is a screencast on DailyMotion that shows the problem:
<http://www.dailymotion.com/waggerdagger#videoId=xok9gs> | 2012/02/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9240984",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/178143/"
] | Try Closing down XCode and MonoDevelop completely and then reopen MonoDevelop. That worked for me. | How are you opening the xib file in Xcode?
You need to double-click the xib file ***from within MonoDevelop*** so that MonoDevelop creates a fake project (with header files) for Xcode to use. |
9,240,984 | I am missing the .h-files when I just started my HelloWorld in MonoTouch/MonoDevelop. I have the [same question as this guy](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7839333/monotouch-missing-header-files-when-editing-xib), but the answer provided did not help me.
I just installed everything needed for MonoTouch on a MacBook running Lion.
I followed the steps/instructions to install (see [here](http://blong.com/Articles/CSharpMonoTouch5/MonoTouch.htm#Gettingstarted)) and then created a new solution.
But since there are no .h-files, this means that whem I use the interface Builder in Xcode, I only get the "No Assistant Result" when I open the "Assistant Builder".
I have tried to create the HelloWorlsViewController.h file manually, but it doesnt seem to help either.
**EDIT**
Here is a screencast on DailyMotion that shows the problem:
<http://www.dailymotion.com/waggerdagger#videoId=xok9gs> | 2012/02/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9240984",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/178143/"
] | How are you opening the xib file in Xcode?
You need to double-click the xib file ***from within MonoDevelop*** so that MonoDevelop creates a fake project (with header files) for Xcode to use. | Problem for me was that I had moved Xcode out of Application folder to another folder. Moving it back fixed it for me. |
9,240,984 | I am missing the .h-files when I just started my HelloWorld in MonoTouch/MonoDevelop. I have the [same question as this guy](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7839333/monotouch-missing-header-files-when-editing-xib), but the answer provided did not help me.
I just installed everything needed for MonoTouch on a MacBook running Lion.
I followed the steps/instructions to install (see [here](http://blong.com/Articles/CSharpMonoTouch5/MonoTouch.htm#Gettingstarted)) and then created a new solution.
But since there are no .h-files, this means that whem I use the interface Builder in Xcode, I only get the "No Assistant Result" when I open the "Assistant Builder".
I have tried to create the HelloWorlsViewController.h file manually, but it doesnt seem to help either.
**EDIT**
Here is a screencast on DailyMotion that shows the problem:
<http://www.dailymotion.com/waggerdagger#videoId=xok9gs> | 2012/02/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9240984",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/178143/"
] | Try Closing down XCode and MonoDevelop completely and then reopen MonoDevelop. That worked for me. | Problem for me was that I had moved Xcode out of Application folder to another folder. Moving it back fixed it for me. |
122,069 | I did bad on the midterm exam not because I did not understand the material well enough but I was anxious on the exam day and did not get enough sleep the night before.
I feel terrible about my grade. Is it professional to do extra work (maybe solve some problems) and ask him for a bonus? | 2018/12/24 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/122069",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/99012/"
] | Some professors will allow this, some will not, and some will get angry that you're even thinking they will allow extra credit.
[See this for examples of what replies you might get](https://chroniclevitae.com/news/989-dear-student-are-you-sure-you-want-extra-credit). You'll have to decide whether you want to risk asking the question. | What level class is this and what sort of school? Some colleges will have more of a culture of flexibility about these things. However, my starting point would be that unless there's something mentioned in the syllabus, the answer is very likely going to be no; most people have a general attitude of a) not making special exceptions and b) aren't inclined to give extra credit for what is likely going to be mediocre work. A more useful way of responding is probably to instead go to the professor's office hours and go over the test with them, and make sure you understand the material. This is especially important because in many circumstances, later material builds on earlier material so it is vital to have a good command of the early material before you go on to the later material. |
122,069 | I did bad on the midterm exam not because I did not understand the material well enough but I was anxious on the exam day and did not get enough sleep the night before.
I feel terrible about my grade. Is it professional to do extra work (maybe solve some problems) and ask him for a bonus? | 2018/12/24 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/122069",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/99012/"
] | Some professors will allow this, some will not, and some will get angry that you're even thinking they will allow extra credit.
[See this for examples of what replies you might get](https://chroniclevitae.com/news/989-dear-student-are-you-sure-you-want-extra-credit). You'll have to decide whether you want to risk asking the question. | It is not professional. Most professors are highly aggravated by these kinds of requests. Highly successful people are usually quite surprised to hear that other students ever thought it was possible or necessary to ask to bend the rules in this fashion. |
384,353 | So i want to understand how DBMS implementation works
To give an example :
MySQL implements each tables with its own pages, which are 16KB
so each table is a file, and is a multiple of 16KB, considering how large is it and therefore how many pages it needs
Now i read somewhere that these **pages** don't get fragmented, so my question is, HOW?
how do DBMS developers tell the operating system that "hey i just added a 16KB data (page) to this file, but make this page doesn't get fragmented"
sorry if this is a duplicate, i searched and couldn't find any related question, also lets say the O.S is windows or Linux
my point is lets say O.S stores files based on 4KB chunks, and may fragment some files when they exceed it, and the DBMS uses 16KB pages, my question is how do they implement that DBMS so that 16KB pages which get added to table files dont get fragmented? when i append a 16KB data to a file, is it by default reserved for it and will never get fragmented? (basically how do they reserve a 16KB on the disk and make sure its not gonna get fragmented?)
if you can give an example in any language that how these type of appending is done I'm Ok, I'm not looking for a specific language just wanna know how its done
Also I'm not asking about any specific database either, all the relational databases use these pages.
ALSO **I'm taking about fragmentation inside a disk image or memory image**, not sure if these images are logical or what, so when i take the image of that database folder, or its process in memory, these pages are not fragmented, how? | 2018/12/20 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/384353",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/323994/"
] | You don't. At least in the physical disk access sense.
There may be a way for particular platforms to allocate multiple contiguous chunks (e.g. ask for them all in one go), but it doesn't matter if the are or are not physically adjacent. The OS *presents* all files to you as *logically* contiguous byte sequences. | Hard Drives are pretty complex, especially now days where they can have several layers of caching in solid-state memory. Particularly active blocks in a file may never actually be written to the Hard Disk, and permanently reside in solid-state memory.
If you are optimising for sequential I/O, don't bother. The OS and hardware is already way ahead of you, any action you do take will likely slow this down. The only exception is concatenating numerous small files together, in which case you should consider this to be closer to the random I/O case.
If you are optimising for random I/O, pay attention to the Block-Size of the device. Like memory pages this is the smallest unit of Read/Write the device will perform. Design your data-structures to respect that boundary and co-locate as much relevant data within those blocks as possible, while avoiding fragmenting data across the block boundaries. In this case not using space because it is too small to store anything useful/relevant is not a sin, but a virtue. |
384,353 | So i want to understand how DBMS implementation works
To give an example :
MySQL implements each tables with its own pages, which are 16KB
so each table is a file, and is a multiple of 16KB, considering how large is it and therefore how many pages it needs
Now i read somewhere that these **pages** don't get fragmented, so my question is, HOW?
how do DBMS developers tell the operating system that "hey i just added a 16KB data (page) to this file, but make this page doesn't get fragmented"
sorry if this is a duplicate, i searched and couldn't find any related question, also lets say the O.S is windows or Linux
my point is lets say O.S stores files based on 4KB chunks, and may fragment some files when they exceed it, and the DBMS uses 16KB pages, my question is how do they implement that DBMS so that 16KB pages which get added to table files dont get fragmented? when i append a 16KB data to a file, is it by default reserved for it and will never get fragmented? (basically how do they reserve a 16KB on the disk and make sure its not gonna get fragmented?)
if you can give an example in any language that how these type of appending is done I'm Ok, I'm not looking for a specific language just wanna know how its done
Also I'm not asking about any specific database either, all the relational databases use these pages.
ALSO **I'm taking about fragmentation inside a disk image or memory image**, not sure if these images are logical or what, so when i take the image of that database folder, or its process in memory, these pages are not fragmented, how? | 2018/12/20 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/384353",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/323994/"
] | I can't reliably talk about all filesystems and all platforms. But I have some experience in dealing with file allocation reflecting disk/volume/partition/region structure.
The most obvious way is present in WinNT NTFS disks. (I'm not entirely sure about other win FSes). It can be easily done using userspace defragmentation API.
From my point you can not only place part of file in particular positions but moreover put internal structures of NTFS (eg MFT, directory trees) in predefined order. But the latter is not 100% reliable process. This was done by me on hot running system. Take a look at Jetico BCWipe application.
Another thought: you can get full control of file allocation with your own fs driver or userspace utility but those should
either work on unmounted device or replace system's logic entirely then.
As for other systems. I think It possible to invent some heuristic but not completely reliable algorithms for each file system type to be able to control allocation behaviour. Look at the above notice about NTFS structures.
So to summarize all this: [everything is possible]. But reliability and accompanying risks (eg design complexity) depend on the way you choose to implement such features. | Hard Drives are pretty complex, especially now days where they can have several layers of caching in solid-state memory. Particularly active blocks in a file may never actually be written to the Hard Disk, and permanently reside in solid-state memory.
If you are optimising for sequential I/O, don't bother. The OS and hardware is already way ahead of you, any action you do take will likely slow this down. The only exception is concatenating numerous small files together, in which case you should consider this to be closer to the random I/O case.
If you are optimising for random I/O, pay attention to the Block-Size of the device. Like memory pages this is the smallest unit of Read/Write the device will perform. Design your data-structures to respect that boundary and co-locate as much relevant data within those blocks as possible, while avoiding fragmenting data across the block boundaries. In this case not using space because it is too small to store anything useful/relevant is not a sin, but a virtue. |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | Before interpreting those difficult passages, as a principle of the interpretation should be taken more simple passages that clearly assert the Godhead of Jesus Christ, who claims that even before the universe was created, that is to say, in eternity (because time came together with the created world and could not exist before that) He and the Father enjoyed the same Glory (John 17:5), and thus to Both befit the very same worship (John 5:23), and in fact the universe was created by Both Father and the Son (John 1:3) which makes it absolutely impossible to attach the Son to the created order, for He is co-eternal Son of the Father and co-Creator of the universe with the Father.
Having established this, we can safely proceed to cracking the question of Jesus receiving authority. In a theological sense, taking the eternal perspective, Logos born from the Father indeed receives everything from the Father as from His Principle and Source, and this "happens" in eternity, without any process or growth, and thus, even though the Logos born from the Father receives the divine nature from the Father, the Receiver is equal to the Giver, as this giving is in the very property of the Giver, for the Father eternally begets the Son, eternally and entirely giving to the Latter His (the Father's) divine Nature. Thus with regard of this divine nature the Father and the Son are absolutely identical, but they absolutely differ and not mingle by their Hypostases/Persons, for Father is the only Source. Thus, Logos is "given authority" eternally from the Father together with the entirety of divine nature.
But here in Paul, the authority received clearly addresses the death and the resurrection of Jesus. This authority Jesus received by the very act of the voluntary death on the Cross, for could He save humanity from sin without this? Was there any other way? For instance, Him asking Father to send Him, or even without asking Father to command twelve legions of angels (for He had the same authority over angels as the Father) to come down and destroy those who were going to sadistically kill Him (Matthew 26:53), but then the will of the Father would not be fulfilled, that is to say, humanity would not be saved. Why? Because the notion of salvation implies that humans are not following God because they are terrorised by God's omnipotence and His irresistible might to punish malefactors, but out of free repentance and free loving response of their hearts. Without this freedom there is no salvation, for we are to be sons, co-heirs and co-Kings of Christ in His Kingdom, not slaves. Thus Christ's voluntary submission of Himself to His murderers was necessary for salvation of mankind, including those murderers.
Now, if the salvation and redemption of humanity could be conducted only and exclusively through Christ's sacrifice on Cross, then even Father could be totally impotent to save humanity without this sacrifice of His Son, which sacrifice was the Father's will. But if both the Father and the Son were impotent to save humanity without the Son's, Jesus Christ's sacrifice on Cross, then it means that something eluded Their authority before this act and sin still reigned over humans. And therefore not only the Son received this authority over sin and death after His sacrifice on Cross, but also the Father received this authority, for without it the Father was as impotent as the Son to redeem humanity from the sin and death.
However, although the above said is correct, still there remains an inexactitude, because, in this passage of Paul, the Giver (Father) and the Receiver (Son) are clearly distinguished and this act is related to the salvific Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, in which sense is Jesus a receiver of all authority after the Crucifixion and Resurrection? The answer of the Church Fathers, and I think the only correct one, is that Jesus' human nature received this authority, but since this human nature after its adoption belongs inseparably to His divine eternal Person of the Son/Logos, we can say that He received this authority, as we can say that He died, while of course it is beyond sacrilegious and silly to say that Father's eternal Son and Logos ceased to be. But the eternal Logos, not Father and neither Holy Ghost, suffered historically that, which He had not suffered and could not suffer in eternity, because after the Incarnation, He also humanly suffered upon Himself the consequences of human nature's falledness: envy, cowardice, lies, ingratitude, treason, hatred, misunderstanding, stupidity, cruelty. But He did not identify the fallen with the falledness, and sinners with the sin, but in His human nature showed the perfect conduct of this nature: courage, truthfulness, humility, love, empathy, patience and forgiveness.
Since this human nature uniquely belonged to the divine uncreated Person of Logos, it means that, unlike us, who are created persons, this nature could not but act like that, totally being subjected to the Logos' divine will, but this inavoidability must have been revealed and undergone in a concrete temporal process, in the concrete and real historical life and drama of Jesus Christ. And thus, since Jesus' human nature's perfection was reached through His Crucifixion, He received the divine authority over all creation according to humanity also. Therefore, receiving that, which He had not before.
But, again, how He received it, this authority according to His humanity? Father gave it to His human nature, or Father and Himself together? Of course the second is true, for Father and the Son act always together in Their divine action, and thus, just like Jesus' human body was resurrected by Father and the Logos, so also Jesus' human nature was given divine authority over all creatures similarly by Father and the Son/Logos.
I am not prepared to fully address this mystery now, but one thing is clear that through Himself, by leading His human nature to its perfect action of unconditional self-sacrificial love for humanity, He gave an example to all humans of all ages, as to how to live and act; yet, not an example which humans can emulate without participation in Him, but He became the living and participable example, to the effect that through Him, and only through Him, we can participate in perfection of human nature and lead our natures to this perfection. Thus, Jesus heralded the New Era of humanity: after His Crucifixion and Resurrection no man can aspire at becoming a perfect human being, without Jesus Christ actually entering in his life and working in him, leading him to this perfection, with his free co-action.
Thus, the created human nature in Jesus received this authority over all creation through His dying for the humankind on Cross, which means that in Him and through Him we also can deify our human nature and we also receive the same authority, yet not unavoidably as befits His divine Hypostasis/Person, but by free acceptance of His grace on the part of our created hypostases/persons, because His commandments that account for our perfection we can fulfil but through Him (John 15:5). | What must not be overlooked is Revelation 12:7-11 which reads,
>
> 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against
> the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was
> not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great
> dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or
> Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth,
> and his angels with him.
>
>
> 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
>
>
> “Now have come the salvation and the power
> and the kingdom of our God,
> and the **authority** of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
> who accuses them before our God day and night,
> has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him
> by the blood of the Lamb
> and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much
> as to shrink from death.
>
>
>
From the above scripture it would appear that Christ received authority over heaven and earth after Satan was hurled down to earth due to the war that broke out in heaven. |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | Before interpreting those difficult passages, as a principle of the interpretation should be taken more simple passages that clearly assert the Godhead of Jesus Christ, who claims that even before the universe was created, that is to say, in eternity (because time came together with the created world and could not exist before that) He and the Father enjoyed the same Glory (John 17:5), and thus to Both befit the very same worship (John 5:23), and in fact the universe was created by Both Father and the Son (John 1:3) which makes it absolutely impossible to attach the Son to the created order, for He is co-eternal Son of the Father and co-Creator of the universe with the Father.
Having established this, we can safely proceed to cracking the question of Jesus receiving authority. In a theological sense, taking the eternal perspective, Logos born from the Father indeed receives everything from the Father as from His Principle and Source, and this "happens" in eternity, without any process or growth, and thus, even though the Logos born from the Father receives the divine nature from the Father, the Receiver is equal to the Giver, as this giving is in the very property of the Giver, for the Father eternally begets the Son, eternally and entirely giving to the Latter His (the Father's) divine Nature. Thus with regard of this divine nature the Father and the Son are absolutely identical, but they absolutely differ and not mingle by their Hypostases/Persons, for Father is the only Source. Thus, Logos is "given authority" eternally from the Father together with the entirety of divine nature.
But here in Paul, the authority received clearly addresses the death and the resurrection of Jesus. This authority Jesus received by the very act of the voluntary death on the Cross, for could He save humanity from sin without this? Was there any other way? For instance, Him asking Father to send Him, or even without asking Father to command twelve legions of angels (for He had the same authority over angels as the Father) to come down and destroy those who were going to sadistically kill Him (Matthew 26:53), but then the will of the Father would not be fulfilled, that is to say, humanity would not be saved. Why? Because the notion of salvation implies that humans are not following God because they are terrorised by God's omnipotence and His irresistible might to punish malefactors, but out of free repentance and free loving response of their hearts. Without this freedom there is no salvation, for we are to be sons, co-heirs and co-Kings of Christ in His Kingdom, not slaves. Thus Christ's voluntary submission of Himself to His murderers was necessary for salvation of mankind, including those murderers.
Now, if the salvation and redemption of humanity could be conducted only and exclusively through Christ's sacrifice on Cross, then even Father could be totally impotent to save humanity without this sacrifice of His Son, which sacrifice was the Father's will. But if both the Father and the Son were impotent to save humanity without the Son's, Jesus Christ's sacrifice on Cross, then it means that something eluded Their authority before this act and sin still reigned over humans. And therefore not only the Son received this authority over sin and death after His sacrifice on Cross, but also the Father received this authority, for without it the Father was as impotent as the Son to redeem humanity from the sin and death.
However, although the above said is correct, still there remains an inexactitude, because, in this passage of Paul, the Giver (Father) and the Receiver (Son) are clearly distinguished and this act is related to the salvific Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, in which sense is Jesus a receiver of all authority after the Crucifixion and Resurrection? The answer of the Church Fathers, and I think the only correct one, is that Jesus' human nature received this authority, but since this human nature after its adoption belongs inseparably to His divine eternal Person of the Son/Logos, we can say that He received this authority, as we can say that He died, while of course it is beyond sacrilegious and silly to say that Father's eternal Son and Logos ceased to be. But the eternal Logos, not Father and neither Holy Ghost, suffered historically that, which He had not suffered and could not suffer in eternity, because after the Incarnation, He also humanly suffered upon Himself the consequences of human nature's falledness: envy, cowardice, lies, ingratitude, treason, hatred, misunderstanding, stupidity, cruelty. But He did not identify the fallen with the falledness, and sinners with the sin, but in His human nature showed the perfect conduct of this nature: courage, truthfulness, humility, love, empathy, patience and forgiveness.
Since this human nature uniquely belonged to the divine uncreated Person of Logos, it means that, unlike us, who are created persons, this nature could not but act like that, totally being subjected to the Logos' divine will, but this inavoidability must have been revealed and undergone in a concrete temporal process, in the concrete and real historical life and drama of Jesus Christ. And thus, since Jesus' human nature's perfection was reached through His Crucifixion, He received the divine authority over all creation according to humanity also. Therefore, receiving that, which He had not before.
But, again, how He received it, this authority according to His humanity? Father gave it to His human nature, or Father and Himself together? Of course the second is true, for Father and the Son act always together in Their divine action, and thus, just like Jesus' human body was resurrected by Father and the Logos, so also Jesus' human nature was given divine authority over all creatures similarly by Father and the Son/Logos.
I am not prepared to fully address this mystery now, but one thing is clear that through Himself, by leading His human nature to its perfect action of unconditional self-sacrificial love for humanity, He gave an example to all humans of all ages, as to how to live and act; yet, not an example which humans can emulate without participation in Him, but He became the living and participable example, to the effect that through Him, and only through Him, we can participate in perfection of human nature and lead our natures to this perfection. Thus, Jesus heralded the New Era of humanity: after His Crucifixion and Resurrection no man can aspire at becoming a perfect human being, without Jesus Christ actually entering in his life and working in him, leading him to this perfection, with his free co-action.
Thus, the created human nature in Jesus received this authority over all creation through His dying for the humankind on Cross, which means that in Him and through Him we also can deify our human nature and we also receive the same authority, yet not unavoidably as befits His divine Hypostasis/Person, but by free acceptance of His grace on the part of our created hypostases/persons, because His commandments that account for our perfection we can fulfil but through Him (John 15:5). | TL;DR: he *received* it at his ascension, but won't *claim* it until his return.
The chronology of the authority over Earth is fairly clear:
* In Matthew 4:8–9 Jesus didn't dispute Satan's possession of "*all the kingdoms of the world*", so we know he didn't yet possess it while incarnated as a human.
* In Matthew 28:18, the recently resurrected Jesus now says that "*All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.*".
Obviously he "earned" that authority at it his resurrection and shortly after he received it at his ascension (when he became the "first-fruits offering" on Sunday).
* Nevertheless, years later, 2 Corinthians 4:4 still refers to Satan as "*the god of this age*", so even though Christ had the authority, he hadn't yet claimed it.
* At last, Christ lays claim to his position when he returns to rule the Kingdom of God during the Millennium. Revelation 11:15 says "*The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!*". |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | To answer your question, we must go all the way to the beginning and ask the obvious question, “when was authority delegated?” and consequently “was this authority hijacked and lost?”
### Man the image bearer
The Hebrew text says that Adam was made in the [image of God](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/49831/image-vs-likeness-in-genesis-126/49835#49835), this is referring mostly to the fact that he was now a delegated representative of God on earth
>
> “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”
> Genesis 1:27
>
>
>
Being God’s representative on the earth as God’s image bearer, Adam was entrusted dominion over certain realms
>
> “And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and **fill the earth and subdue it, and have DOMINION over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth**.””
> Genesis 1:28
>
>
>
This dominion was entrusted to Adam and consequently Eve and their descendants. However come Babel, humanity rebels, again.
### Transfer of dominion
According to the most corroborated reading of Deuteronomy 32:8, in concert with the text in Genesis 11, we understand that humans did not want to be governed by God, and in essence wanted to shake off God’s dominion and rule the earth in their own right, assuming the God-given authority onto themselves, (legally but illegitimately) denying God His rightful authority over the earth through a God-man partnership through delegation.
>
> “Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and **let us make a name for ourselves**, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.””
> Genesis 11:4
>
>
>
God seeing this, decided to split humans up, assign them different geographic territories and further assign to each grouping intermediaries that would represent God before men and men before God.
>
> “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, **he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God**.”
> Deuteronomy 32:8
>
>
>
These sons of God would enact justice on the earth. But with great power came great abuse of power and corruption of power. These sons of God ultimately received worship onto themselves from men in place of the true Recipient.
>
> “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.””
> Psalm 82:1-4
>
>
>
By v6 God enacts judgment against the sons of God and they become the gods of the nations. Man no longer had intermediaries to God of heaven but now the intermediaries became their gods. God said He would raise up His own nation, which He did through Abraham, bringing back all the nations back to Himself through Abraham and his SEED, starting in Genesis 12 which follows Babel’s rebellion Genesis 11.
>
> “Arise, O God, judge the earth; **for you shall inherit all the nations**!”
> Psalm 82:8
>
>
>
These gods were then judged throughout history by God
>
> “For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and **on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments**: I am the Lord.”
> Exodus 12:12
>
>
>
### Satan consolidates the authority
These gods consolidated their power in the Accuser/satan. Satan tells Jesus that all authority on earth is his and it was given to him. This was done by the gods of the nations. This was now legitimately theirs and now satan’s. Man transferred their dominion/authority by worship/prostrating before the gods and in doing so transferred the authority they possessed into the hands of the gods and ultimately into the hands of Satan.
>
> “And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, **for it has been delivered to me**, and I give it to whom I will. *If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours*.””
> Luke 4:5-7
>
>
>
### Redemption
To redeem is to buy back what was already yours.
Jesus is God.
[As a side point to the objection that *Jesus is God*, consider Psalm 82 “Arise, **O God**, judge the earth; for you shall **inherit** all the nations”. It is clear that God is inheriting and God is also judging, no one can dispute this is what psalm 82 reads. Who then inherits and who then judges? The Father? Both of these are ascribed to Jesus. “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the **heir (one who inherits) of all things**, through whom also he created the world.”
Hebrews 1:2 and “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,”
John 5:22. We see Jesus both the judge of everyone and the heir that inherits all the nations].
If He were not God then His death would not have been sufficient to pay the cost of redeeming all creation. Someone worth all Creation or greater had to pay the price worth all Creation needing redeeming. He also had to be human because humans were needing the restoration. Therefore by being God (spirit) inside a human body, fully man and fully God, He achieved both.
>
> “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
> Hebrews 10:10
>
>
>
Now granted this plan was fragmented throughout the OT, but pieces together in the NT, clear and easily deciphered. For had the gods of the nations known...
>
> “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, **they would not have crucified the Lord of glory**.”
> 1 Corinthians 2:8
>
>
>
The full restoration is yet to take place but in the meantime the transaction has been made and the authority has been transferred back into the hands of God through Jesus Christ legally. Through His death He stripped the gods of the nations and satan of ALL legal rights.
>
> “by **canceling the** record of debt that stood against us with its **legal demands**. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. **He disarmed the rulers and authorities** and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”
> Colossians 2:14-15
>
>
>
### Absolute Authority Regained
When did Jesus regain this authority? When He said it was finished and then died on the cross
>
> “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “**It is finished**,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”
> John 19:30
>
>
>
Once the payment was made on the cross, God officially took back all authority in heaven, on earth and under the earth. Heaven cheered and hell groaned
Only one more step remained
### Resurrection of the Victor
>
> “that he worked in Christ WHEN **he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places**, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things”
> Ephesians 1:20-22
>
>
>
This seated at the right hand did not require Jesus’ ascension seen by the disciples, Matthew 28:18 notes that Jesus had this authority whilst still on the earth.
This phrasing seated at the [right hand](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/54049/as-a-trinitarian-attempting-to-validate-the-authenticity-of-the-received-text-s/54064#54064) in the heavenly places is merely stating that Jesus was settled in His appointed position of authority in Heaven or as Mark puts it 16:19 right hand of God, position of authority as God. | Jesus was given authority over all (under God) when raised from the dead and ascended to his heavenly Father and God.
>
> These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His (God’s) might
> 20 which He (God) brought about in Christ, when He (God) raised Him from the dead
> and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above
> all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is
> named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
>
>
>
>
> 22 And He (God) put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all
> things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Eph 1:19-23
>
>
>
It must be understood that Jesus is not *regaining* this authority that he supposedly had previously. As the man born to die, Jesus had only limited authority over that which was necessary for his ministry. God had granted him to ‘forgive sin’, this was not *of* Jesus but *through* as Matt 9:8 shows.
>
> But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men
>
>
>
Previously, he did not have authority when he was flesh, except in the Father's name. For eg, he did not have authority over death - as death was 'master over him' Rom 6:9
We see in several passages the exaltation of Jesus once his mission is completed. This glorification, honour, power, new spirit life John 6:57, 5:26, is always *from* the Father to His son. The glory goes to God, yet He honours the son by exalting him to His side, setting him as king of all under Himself.
>
> For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, **to the glory of God the Father**. Phil 2:9
>
>
>
We see from v6 the foundation of how God is working through Jesus to accomplish redemption of His creation. Being in the ‘form’ of God or the ‘image’ of God (Col 1:15, be careful which translation you refer to as some have done terrible damage to this text. Col 1:18 helps to put v15 in correct perspective) Being the ‘image’ or ‘form’ does not make Jesus God, as the rest of scripture abundantly confirms. Jesus IS God’s authority while he maintains the form and image - doing what he sees and hears from the Father. Yet even as John explains how Jesus has authority to judge, this is still according to God’s will and purpose, not his own inherent authority. John 5:30 (Of course, the style of John’s writing is often of what already IS, even if it not quite yet)
Jesus began life, born of Mary - he was not before this and so has no previous inherent authority in a person. This accords with what the scripture tells us abundantly about the man, Jesus... he who was made perfect through suffering. [What does "made perfect" mean in Heb 5:9?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21323/what-does-made-perfect-mean-in-heb-59/53248#53248)
Jesus, born with his own will, which differed from the Father’s John 6:38, Luke 22:42 though always made subject, shows that he could not pre-exist in some way as God. Therefore he had no supreme authority (under God) prior to his birth. We have reference to many ‘sons of God’, but none are without sin except Jesus. Before him, there is no sinless son mentioned, except prophetically pointing to Jesus. (Heb 1:1-2 mentions the time frame regarding Jesus and those before him)
Expectantly, some will read into the John 1:1-3 ‘logos’ as being *Jesus* in the beginning’, but this is a humanly devised idea and has been addressed previously.
We know Jesus gave all credit to his Father for all he did and said while on earth in the flesh, relying on God to save him from death - this is not the death of the cross. Any authority he had at this time is as God’s representative.
>
> In the days of His humanity, He offered up both prayers and pleas with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His devout behaviour. Hen 5:7
>
>
> |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | **"Has been given"**
>
> And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:16 [ESV]
>
> καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς
>
>
>
In this instance the verb [δίδωμι](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1325&t=KJV) is in the aorist indicative:
>
> In the *indicative*, the aorist usually indicates *past* time with reference to the time of speaking (thus "absolute time").`1`
>
>
>
This means Jesus had the authority when He spoke.
Generally speaking, anyone who has authority may also relinquish it, or delegate it, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This is particularly true if they have all authority:
>
> 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2) [ESV]
>
>
>
This could be used to say all authority was given sometime [shortly] after His death on the cross. However, before "emptying" Himself Christ Jesus had "equality with God," a condition which has authority. Thus, what He received **after** His death on the cross was a type of restoration of what He had surrendered.
In terms of **all** authority a situation described in Genesis must also be considered:
>
> And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
>
>
>
As Creator, God had **all** authority, some of which He gave to man. Therefore, when Jesus spoke after His Resurrection the authority given to the first two was now (in some form) with Him.
**Resolution**
Since everything came into being through Him and nothing which exists which was made without Him, it is reasonable to conclude He was the one who gave authority to man, and He later gave away all [other] authority in order to take on the form of a servant. Thus, the authority He has **now** has can be traced back to sometime after His death on the cross and Resurrection. Yet, since **all** authority must go back in time to His having equality with God, **all** of what He **now** is that which He had from the beginning.
This requires further explanation. He has not **exercised** all authority:
>
> 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15)
>
>
>
He has not exercised His authority over death. This demonstrates that having and exercising authority are separate. It may raise the question how how "the Son" may have all authority, a restoration of His equality with God, and yet now seemingly lacks equality with God (despite having all authority).
As God who took on the form of man and became flesh, His existence as Son of Man holds legal significance. That is, the Son of Man not exercised His authority over death. He is the Son of God **and** Son of Man and holds all authority of **both** positions. Until He exercises His authority, God is not "all in all." This condition will be corrected when the last enemy is destroyed and God will [once again] be all in all and there will no longer be **any** separation between man and God.
---
Notes:
1. Daniel B. Wallace, *Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament*, Zondervan, 1996, p. 555 | The most explicit statement that I'm aware of in the scriptures regarding the timing, associates the giving of the authority in the sky above and the earth beneath with his ascension:
>
> [Dan 7:13-14 NLT] (13) As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient One and was led into his presence. (14) He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal--it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.
>
>
>
Paul qualifies the extent of his rule by stating the obvious exception:
>
> [1Co 15:27 NLT] (27) For the Scriptures say, "God has put all things under his authority." **(Of course, when it says "all things are under his authority," that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.)**
>
>
>
(Paul clearly did not believe that Jesus was "eternally co-equal with the Father" nor would he abide "eternally his majesty co-equal with the Father" or any of the other Trinitarian nonsense:
>
> [1Co 8:6 NLT] (6) But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.
>
>
>
>
> [Eph 4:6 NLT] (6) and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all.
>
>
>
>
> [1Ti 2:5 NLT] (5) For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity--the man Christ Jesus.
>
>
>
John says that his ascension was a benefit to him:
>
> [Jhn 14:28 NLT] (28) Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really loved me, you would be happy that I am going to the Father, who is greater than I am.
>
>
>
That is because he would be seated at God's right hand (which is a dependent position):
>
> [Jhn 16:7 KJV] (7) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
>
>
>
"Being seated" doesn't mean that Jesus is stuck in a chair but rather that he has been installed as ruler:
>
> [Jhn 20:22 NLT] (22) Then he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
>
>
>
Acts may take this literally:
>
> [Act 2:33 KJV] (33) Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
>
>
>
John had said that it could not occur until he ascended, suggesting that he had ascended shortly, if not immediately, after his encounter with Mary:
>
> [Jhn 20:17-22 NLT] **(17) "Don't cling to me," Jesus said, "for I haven't yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"** (18) Mary Magdalene found the disciples and told them, "I have seen the Lord!" Then she gave them his message. (19) That Sunday evening the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them! "Peace be with you," he said. (20) As he spoke, he showed them the wounds in his hands and his side. They were filled with joy when they saw the Lord! **(21) Again he said, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you." (22) Then he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.**
>
>
>
Matthew also has it having been a trip up and back again:
>
> [Mat 28:16-20 NLT] (16) Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. (17) When they saw him, they worshiped him--but some of them doubted! (18) Jesus came and told his disciples, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. (19) Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (20) Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
>
>
>
The only gospel that has Jesus telling them to wait for him in Jerusalem, for Pentecost, until he sent the Comforter is Luke-Acts, so as Einstein said, "time is relative":
>
> [Act 1:1-13 NLT] (1) In my first book I told you, Theophilus, about everything Jesus began to do and teach **(2) until the day he was taken up to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions through the Holy Spirit.** (3) During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God. **(4) Once when he was eating with them, he commanded them, "Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you the gift he promised, as I told you before. (5) John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."** (6) So when the apostles were with Jesus, they kept asking him, "Lord, has the time come for you to free Israel and restore our kingdom?" (7) **He replied, "The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times,** and they are not for you to know. **(8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere--in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."** **(9) After saying this, he was taken up into a cloud while they were watching,** and they could no longer see him. (10) As they strained to see him rising into heaven, two white-robed men suddenly stood among them. (11) "Men of Galilee," they said, "why are you standing here staring into heaven? Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday he will return from heaven **in the same way you saw him go!**" **(12) Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, a distance of half a mile. (13) When they arrived, they went to the upstairs room of the house where they were staying.** Here are the names of those who were present: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the Zealot), and Judas (son of James).
>
>
> |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | Ezekiel 46:16-18 demands:
>
> Thus saith the Lord GOD; If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, the inheritance thereof shall be his sons'; it shall be their possession **by inheritance**. But if he give a gift of his inheritance to **one of his servants**, then it shall be his to the year of liberty; after it shall return to the prince: **but his inheritance shall be his sons' for them**. Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance **out of his own possession**: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession. **(My emphasis)**
>
>
>
So whatever gift that is granted to the sons is to be granted **by inheritance**. Jesus came in the flesh to fulfill the law, not to worm around it. Isaiah 53:10-12 insists:
>
> Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. **Therefore will I divide** him a portion with the great, **and he shall divide** the spoil with the strong; **because he hath** poured out his soul unto death: **and he was** numbered with the transgressors; **and he bare** the sin of many, **and made** intercession for the transgressors. **(My emphasis)**
>
>
>
Hebrews 1:1-4 clarifies:
>
> God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us **by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things**, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath **by inheritance** obtained a more excellent name than they. **(My emphasis)**
>
>
>
Now the word, **"inheritance"** applies to Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, who was born **under the Law of Moses** and **His perfection was required of that Law**. He fulfilled that Law and became the author of eternal salvation as Hebrews 5:8-9 clarifies:
>
> **Though he were a Son**, yet **learned he obedience** by the things which he suffered; And being **made perfect**, he **became** the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; **(My emphasis)**
>
>
>
And in accordance with Isaiah 53:10-12, supra, as insisted also by Hebrews 9:14-17:
>
> How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that **by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament**, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. **For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator**. For a testament is of force **after men are dead**: otherwise it is of **no strength at all while the testator liveth**. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. **(My emphasis)**
>
>
>
So this is the **new testament** in Heb 5:8-9, supra, that Jesus is the mediator of. Yes, it required His death, Yes, Jesus received authority over heaven and earth by inheritance that required His death, burial, resurrection, and His **ascending to the Father with His own blood**. Notice that Jesus told Mary not to touch Him prior to His ascending to the Father to be glorified in John 20:17:
>
> Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am **not yet ascended** to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, **I ascend** unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
So there is that "sticky" Father to Son inheritance factor involved here. Yet just eight days later, Jesus appeared to His disciples in His "glorified body" and, according to John 20:27, told Thomas:
>
> Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
>
>
>
It was at this same time--when Thomas and others had doubted--that Jesus also said to them as duly recorded in Mathew 28:17-18:
>
> And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, **All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth**.
>
>
>
There is a big difference between this **powerful** statement and those words of the pre-death, pre-resurrected, and pre-ascended Jesus in John 12:47:
>
> And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
>
>
>
Thank God all this was accomplished and concluded under the Law so as to provide all the adopoted sons--believers-- with their inheritance **as heirs of God, and joint heirs in Christ** as promised in Romans 8:15-17:
>
> For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the **Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father**. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that **we are the children of God**: And **if children**, then **heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ**; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also **glorified together**. (My Emphasis)
>
>
> | To answer your question, we must go all the way to the beginning and ask the obvious question, “when was authority delegated?” and consequently “was this authority hijacked and lost?”
### Man the image bearer
The Hebrew text says that Adam was made in the [image of God](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/49831/image-vs-likeness-in-genesis-126/49835#49835), this is referring mostly to the fact that he was now a delegated representative of God on earth
>
> “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”
> Genesis 1:27
>
>
>
Being God’s representative on the earth as God’s image bearer, Adam was entrusted dominion over certain realms
>
> “And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and **fill the earth and subdue it, and have DOMINION over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth**.””
> Genesis 1:28
>
>
>
This dominion was entrusted to Adam and consequently Eve and their descendants. However come Babel, humanity rebels, again.
### Transfer of dominion
According to the most corroborated reading of Deuteronomy 32:8, in concert with the text in Genesis 11, we understand that humans did not want to be governed by God, and in essence wanted to shake off God’s dominion and rule the earth in their own right, assuming the God-given authority onto themselves, (legally but illegitimately) denying God His rightful authority over the earth through a God-man partnership through delegation.
>
> “Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and **let us make a name for ourselves**, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.””
> Genesis 11:4
>
>
>
God seeing this, decided to split humans up, assign them different geographic territories and further assign to each grouping intermediaries that would represent God before men and men before God.
>
> “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, **he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God**.”
> Deuteronomy 32:8
>
>
>
These sons of God would enact justice on the earth. But with great power came great abuse of power and corruption of power. These sons of God ultimately received worship onto themselves from men in place of the true Recipient.
>
> “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.””
> Psalm 82:1-4
>
>
>
By v6 God enacts judgment against the sons of God and they become the gods of the nations. Man no longer had intermediaries to God of heaven but now the intermediaries became their gods. God said He would raise up His own nation, which He did through Abraham, bringing back all the nations back to Himself through Abraham and his SEED, starting in Genesis 12 which follows Babel’s rebellion Genesis 11.
>
> “Arise, O God, judge the earth; **for you shall inherit all the nations**!”
> Psalm 82:8
>
>
>
These gods were then judged throughout history by God
>
> “For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and **on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments**: I am the Lord.”
> Exodus 12:12
>
>
>
### Satan consolidates the authority
These gods consolidated their power in the Accuser/satan. Satan tells Jesus that all authority on earth is his and it was given to him. This was done by the gods of the nations. This was now legitimately theirs and now satan’s. Man transferred their dominion/authority by worship/prostrating before the gods and in doing so transferred the authority they possessed into the hands of the gods and ultimately into the hands of Satan.
>
> “And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, **for it has been delivered to me**, and I give it to whom I will. *If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours*.””
> Luke 4:5-7
>
>
>
### Redemption
To redeem is to buy back what was already yours.
Jesus is God.
[As a side point to the objection that *Jesus is God*, consider Psalm 82 “Arise, **O God**, judge the earth; for you shall **inherit** all the nations”. It is clear that God is inheriting and God is also judging, no one can dispute this is what psalm 82 reads. Who then inherits and who then judges? The Father? Both of these are ascribed to Jesus. “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the **heir (one who inherits) of all things**, through whom also he created the world.”
Hebrews 1:2 and “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,”
John 5:22. We see Jesus both the judge of everyone and the heir that inherits all the nations].
If He were not God then His death would not have been sufficient to pay the cost of redeeming all creation. Someone worth all Creation or greater had to pay the price worth all Creation needing redeeming. He also had to be human because humans were needing the restoration. Therefore by being God (spirit) inside a human body, fully man and fully God, He achieved both.
>
> “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
> Hebrews 10:10
>
>
>
Now granted this plan was fragmented throughout the OT, but pieces together in the NT, clear and easily deciphered. For had the gods of the nations known...
>
> “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, **they would not have crucified the Lord of glory**.”
> 1 Corinthians 2:8
>
>
>
The full restoration is yet to take place but in the meantime the transaction has been made and the authority has been transferred back into the hands of God through Jesus Christ legally. Through His death He stripped the gods of the nations and satan of ALL legal rights.
>
> “by **canceling the** record of debt that stood against us with its **legal demands**. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. **He disarmed the rulers and authorities** and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”
> Colossians 2:14-15
>
>
>
### Absolute Authority Regained
When did Jesus regain this authority? When He said it was finished and then died on the cross
>
> “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “**It is finished**,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”
> John 19:30
>
>
>
Once the payment was made on the cross, God officially took back all authority in heaven, on earth and under the earth. Heaven cheered and hell groaned
Only one more step remained
### Resurrection of the Victor
>
> “that he worked in Christ WHEN **he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places**, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things”
> Ephesians 1:20-22
>
>
>
This seated at the right hand did not require Jesus’ ascension seen by the disciples, Matthew 28:18 notes that Jesus had this authority whilst still on the earth.
This phrasing seated at the [right hand](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/54049/as-a-trinitarian-attempting-to-validate-the-authenticity-of-the-received-text-s/54064#54064) in the heavenly places is merely stating that Jesus was settled in His appointed position of authority in Heaven or as Mark puts it 16:19 right hand of God, position of authority as God. |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | **"Has been given"**
>
> And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:16 [ESV]
>
> καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς
>
>
>
In this instance the verb [δίδωμι](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1325&t=KJV) is in the aorist indicative:
>
> In the *indicative*, the aorist usually indicates *past* time with reference to the time of speaking (thus "absolute time").`1`
>
>
>
This means Jesus had the authority when He spoke.
Generally speaking, anyone who has authority may also relinquish it, or delegate it, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This is particularly true if they have all authority:
>
> 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2) [ESV]
>
>
>
This could be used to say all authority was given sometime [shortly] after His death on the cross. However, before "emptying" Himself Christ Jesus had "equality with God," a condition which has authority. Thus, what He received **after** His death on the cross was a type of restoration of what He had surrendered.
In terms of **all** authority a situation described in Genesis must also be considered:
>
> And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
>
>
>
As Creator, God had **all** authority, some of which He gave to man. Therefore, when Jesus spoke after His Resurrection the authority given to the first two was now (in some form) with Him.
**Resolution**
Since everything came into being through Him and nothing which exists which was made without Him, it is reasonable to conclude He was the one who gave authority to man, and He later gave away all [other] authority in order to take on the form of a servant. Thus, the authority He has **now** has can be traced back to sometime after His death on the cross and Resurrection. Yet, since **all** authority must go back in time to His having equality with God, **all** of what He **now** is that which He had from the beginning.
This requires further explanation. He has not **exercised** all authority:
>
> 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15)
>
>
>
He has not exercised His authority over death. This demonstrates that having and exercising authority are separate. It may raise the question how how "the Son" may have all authority, a restoration of His equality with God, and yet now seemingly lacks equality with God (despite having all authority).
As God who took on the form of man and became flesh, His existence as Son of Man holds legal significance. That is, the Son of Man not exercised His authority over death. He is the Son of God **and** Son of Man and holds all authority of **both** positions. Until He exercises His authority, God is not "all in all." This condition will be corrected when the last enemy is destroyed and God will [once again] be all in all and there will no longer be **any** separation between man and God.
---
Notes:
1. Daniel B. Wallace, *Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament*, Zondervan, 1996, p. 555 | I suggest that this was a two-stage process as follows.
**1. Jesus' pre-incarnation was an exalted form**
* John 1:1, 2 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
* John 17:5 - And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
* Phil 2:5, 6 - Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped
**2. Jesus' humiliation was great because Jesus was Great**
* Phil 2:5-8 - Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.
* John 1:14 - The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
**3. After the Resurrection - Jesus was exalted to the Right hand of God**
As shown here, the "right hand of God" signifies the highest place of honor and authority
* Matt 28:18 - Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth **has been given** to Me.
* Phil 2:9-11 - Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
* Acts 2:33 - Exalted to the right hand of God
* Acts 7:56 - I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God
* Rom 8:34 - Christ Jesus who died- more than that, who was raised to life- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us
* Col 3:1 - set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
* Heb 10:12 - this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God
* 1 Peter 3:22 - [Jesus] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.
**4. This exaltation to the right hand does not make Jesus' authority complete**
* Ps 110:1, 5, 6 - **1** The LORD said to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” **5** The Lord is at Your right hand; He will crush kings in the day of His wrath. **6** He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead; He will crush the leaders far and wide.
Note that this says that while Jesus ("Lord") was to hold the highest position of authority at the right hand of YHWH, that this would continue until Jesus triumphed over the enemies of sin, ("make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet")
**5. Jesus' Authority and reign complete only when Sin is finally banished**
Note that the time when Jesus finally becomes undisputed supreme leader of all is only when the earthly kingdoms become His, and submit to Him, that Jesus' reign will be undisputed. (This has not happened yet but will occur.)
* Rev 11:15 - “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever.”
**CONCLUSION**
While Jesus was exalted to the highest position at the right hand of the throne in heaven after His resurrection, His reign will only become absolute and undisputed when sin and suffering are finally banished from the earth, following the second advent. |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | What must not be overlooked is Revelation 12:7-11 which reads,
>
> 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against
> the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was
> not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great
> dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or
> Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth,
> and his angels with him.
>
>
> 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
>
>
> “Now have come the salvation and the power
> and the kingdom of our God,
> and the **authority** of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
> who accuses them before our God day and night,
> has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him
> by the blood of the Lamb
> and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much
> as to shrink from death.
>
>
>
From the above scripture it would appear that Christ received authority over heaven and earth after Satan was hurled down to earth due to the war that broke out in heaven. | I suggest that this was a two-stage process as follows.
**1. Jesus' pre-incarnation was an exalted form**
* John 1:1, 2 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
* John 17:5 - And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
* Phil 2:5, 6 - Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped
**2. Jesus' humiliation was great because Jesus was Great**
* Phil 2:5-8 - Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.
* John 1:14 - The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
**3. After the Resurrection - Jesus was exalted to the Right hand of God**
As shown here, the "right hand of God" signifies the highest place of honor and authority
* Matt 28:18 - Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth **has been given** to Me.
* Phil 2:9-11 - Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
* Acts 2:33 - Exalted to the right hand of God
* Acts 7:56 - I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God
* Rom 8:34 - Christ Jesus who died- more than that, who was raised to life- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us
* Col 3:1 - set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
* Heb 10:12 - this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God
* 1 Peter 3:22 - [Jesus] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.
**4. This exaltation to the right hand does not make Jesus' authority complete**
* Ps 110:1, 5, 6 - **1** The LORD said to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” **5** The Lord is at Your right hand; He will crush kings in the day of His wrath. **6** He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead; He will crush the leaders far and wide.
Note that this says that while Jesus ("Lord") was to hold the highest position of authority at the right hand of YHWH, that this would continue until Jesus triumphed over the enemies of sin, ("make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet")
**5. Jesus' Authority and reign complete only when Sin is finally banished**
Note that the time when Jesus finally becomes undisputed supreme leader of all is only when the earthly kingdoms become His, and submit to Him, that Jesus' reign will be undisputed. (This has not happened yet but will occur.)
* Rev 11:15 - “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever.”
**CONCLUSION**
While Jesus was exalted to the highest position at the right hand of the throne in heaven after His resurrection, His reign will only become absolute and undisputed when sin and suffering are finally banished from the earth, following the second advent. |
50,072 | Matthew 28:18 NASB (After Jesus has risen from the dead & meets His disciples again):
>
> All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
>
>
>
There is already a question on SE on what this authority is. My question is *when* this authority came to Christ — the way this phrase is placed makes it seem like Jesus received this authority because of His resurrection/triumph over death, but as God eternal He must have had authority over everything since the beginning. This made me wonder whether there are different aspects of authority and Jesus is referring to a new one He gained after bearing the sins of the world? Perhaps (in light of the following verse) He is referring to now having a “right” over all the earth again because He has redeemed His people back to Himself? Or this was an authority that only the Father has until Jesus “earned” it on the cross? Are there Scripture passages that speak to Jesus receiving a new authority/power after His resurrection? | 2020/08/20 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50072",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33647/"
] | Before interpreting those difficult passages, as a principle of the interpretation should be taken more simple passages that clearly assert the Godhead of Jesus Christ, who claims that even before the universe was created, that is to say, in eternity (because time came together with the created world and could not exist before that) He and the Father enjoyed the same Glory (John 17:5), and thus to Both befit the very same worship (John 5:23), and in fact the universe was created by Both Father and the Son (John 1:3) which makes it absolutely impossible to attach the Son to the created order, for He is co-eternal Son of the Father and co-Creator of the universe with the Father.
Having established this, we can safely proceed to cracking the question of Jesus receiving authority. In a theological sense, taking the eternal perspective, Logos born from the Father indeed receives everything from the Father as from His Principle and Source, and this "happens" in eternity, without any process or growth, and thus, even though the Logos born from the Father receives the divine nature from the Father, the Receiver is equal to the Giver, as this giving is in the very property of the Giver, for the Father eternally begets the Son, eternally and entirely giving to the Latter His (the Father's) divine Nature. Thus with regard of this divine nature the Father and the Son are absolutely identical, but they absolutely differ and not mingle by their Hypostases/Persons, for Father is the only Source. Thus, Logos is "given authority" eternally from the Father together with the entirety of divine nature.
But here in Paul, the authority received clearly addresses the death and the resurrection of Jesus. This authority Jesus received by the very act of the voluntary death on the Cross, for could He save humanity from sin without this? Was there any other way? For instance, Him asking Father to send Him, or even without asking Father to command twelve legions of angels (for He had the same authority over angels as the Father) to come down and destroy those who were going to sadistically kill Him (Matthew 26:53), but then the will of the Father would not be fulfilled, that is to say, humanity would not be saved. Why? Because the notion of salvation implies that humans are not following God because they are terrorised by God's omnipotence and His irresistible might to punish malefactors, but out of free repentance and free loving response of their hearts. Without this freedom there is no salvation, for we are to be sons, co-heirs and co-Kings of Christ in His Kingdom, not slaves. Thus Christ's voluntary submission of Himself to His murderers was necessary for salvation of mankind, including those murderers.
Now, if the salvation and redemption of humanity could be conducted only and exclusively through Christ's sacrifice on Cross, then even Father could be totally impotent to save humanity without this sacrifice of His Son, which sacrifice was the Father's will. But if both the Father and the Son were impotent to save humanity without the Son's, Jesus Christ's sacrifice on Cross, then it means that something eluded Their authority before this act and sin still reigned over humans. And therefore not only the Son received this authority over sin and death after His sacrifice on Cross, but also the Father received this authority, for without it the Father was as impotent as the Son to redeem humanity from the sin and death.
However, although the above said is correct, still there remains an inexactitude, because, in this passage of Paul, the Giver (Father) and the Receiver (Son) are clearly distinguished and this act is related to the salvific Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, in which sense is Jesus a receiver of all authority after the Crucifixion and Resurrection? The answer of the Church Fathers, and I think the only correct one, is that Jesus' human nature received this authority, but since this human nature after its adoption belongs inseparably to His divine eternal Person of the Son/Logos, we can say that He received this authority, as we can say that He died, while of course it is beyond sacrilegious and silly to say that Father's eternal Son and Logos ceased to be. But the eternal Logos, not Father and neither Holy Ghost, suffered historically that, which He had not suffered and could not suffer in eternity, because after the Incarnation, He also humanly suffered upon Himself the consequences of human nature's falledness: envy, cowardice, lies, ingratitude, treason, hatred, misunderstanding, stupidity, cruelty. But He did not identify the fallen with the falledness, and sinners with the sin, but in His human nature showed the perfect conduct of this nature: courage, truthfulness, humility, love, empathy, patience and forgiveness.
Since this human nature uniquely belonged to the divine uncreated Person of Logos, it means that, unlike us, who are created persons, this nature could not but act like that, totally being subjected to the Logos' divine will, but this inavoidability must have been revealed and undergone in a concrete temporal process, in the concrete and real historical life and drama of Jesus Christ. And thus, since Jesus' human nature's perfection was reached through His Crucifixion, He received the divine authority over all creation according to humanity also. Therefore, receiving that, which He had not before.
But, again, how He received it, this authority according to His humanity? Father gave it to His human nature, or Father and Himself together? Of course the second is true, for Father and the Son act always together in Their divine action, and thus, just like Jesus' human body was resurrected by Father and the Logos, so also Jesus' human nature was given divine authority over all creatures similarly by Father and the Son/Logos.
I am not prepared to fully address this mystery now, but one thing is clear that through Himself, by leading His human nature to its perfect action of unconditional self-sacrificial love for humanity, He gave an example to all humans of all ages, as to how to live and act; yet, not an example which humans can emulate without participation in Him, but He became the living and participable example, to the effect that through Him, and only through Him, we can participate in perfection of human nature and lead our natures to this perfection. Thus, Jesus heralded the New Era of humanity: after His Crucifixion and Resurrection no man can aspire at becoming a perfect human being, without Jesus Christ actually entering in his life and working in him, leading him to this perfection, with his free co-action.
Thus, the created human nature in Jesus received this authority over all creation through His dying for the humankind on Cross, which means that in Him and through Him we also can deify our human nature and we also receive the same authority, yet not unavoidably as befits His divine Hypostasis/Person, but by free acceptance of His grace on the part of our created hypostases/persons, because His commandments that account for our perfection we can fulfil but through Him (John 15:5). | Jesus was given authority over all (under God) when raised from the dead and ascended to his heavenly Father and God.
>
> These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His (God’s) might
> 20 which He (God) brought about in Christ, when He (God) raised Him from the dead
> and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above
> all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is
> named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
>
>
>
>
> 22 And He (God) put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all
> things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Eph 1:19-23
>
>
>
It must be understood that Jesus is not *regaining* this authority that he supposedly had previously. As the man born to die, Jesus had only limited authority over that which was necessary for his ministry. God had granted him to ‘forgive sin’, this was not *of* Jesus but *through* as Matt 9:8 shows.
>
> But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men
>
>
>
Previously, he did not have authority when he was flesh, except in the Father's name. For eg, he did not have authority over death - as death was 'master over him' Rom 6:9
We see in several passages the exaltation of Jesus once his mission is completed. This glorification, honour, power, new spirit life John 6:57, 5:26, is always *from* the Father to His son. The glory goes to God, yet He honours the son by exalting him to His side, setting him as king of all under Himself.
>
> For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, **to the glory of God the Father**. Phil 2:9
>
>
>
We see from v6 the foundation of how God is working through Jesus to accomplish redemption of His creation. Being in the ‘form’ of God or the ‘image’ of God (Col 1:15, be careful which translation you refer to as some have done terrible damage to this text. Col 1:18 helps to put v15 in correct perspective) Being the ‘image’ or ‘form’ does not make Jesus God, as the rest of scripture abundantly confirms. Jesus IS God’s authority while he maintains the form and image - doing what he sees and hears from the Father. Yet even as John explains how Jesus has authority to judge, this is still according to God’s will and purpose, not his own inherent authority. John 5:30 (Of course, the style of John’s writing is often of what already IS, even if it not quite yet)
Jesus began life, born of Mary - he was not before this and so has no previous inherent authority in a person. This accords with what the scripture tells us abundantly about the man, Jesus... he who was made perfect through suffering. [What does "made perfect" mean in Heb 5:9?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21323/what-does-made-perfect-mean-in-heb-59/53248#53248)
Jesus, born with his own will, which differed from the Father’s John 6:38, Luke 22:42 though always made subject, shows that he could not pre-exist in some way as God. Therefore he had no supreme authority (under God) prior to his birth. We have reference to many ‘sons of God’, but none are without sin except Jesus. Before him, there is no sinless son mentioned, except prophetically pointing to Jesus. (Heb 1:1-2 mentions the time frame regarding Jesus and those before him)
Expectantly, some will read into the John 1:1-3 ‘logos’ as being *Jesus* in the beginning’, but this is a humanly devised idea and has been addressed previously.
We know Jesus gave all credit to his Father for all he did and said while on earth in the flesh, relying on God to save him from death - this is not the death of the cross. Any authority he had at this time is as God’s representative.
>
> In the days of His humanity, He offered up both prayers and pleas with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His devout behaviour. Hen 5:7
>
>
> |
44,020 | Over and over, I have heard and read claims that the soil growing much of the planet's crops is "depleted" and thus our foods do not have sufficient minerals, vitamins, and other nutrients.
Five examples of such claims:
1. <https://naturalsociety.com/nutrient-depleted-soil-soon-impossible-crop-growth-big-ag/>
>
> We take so much for granted: water, food, clean air, and the earth we walk upon—which, by the way, is changing for the worse under our very feet. Thanks to aggressive farming techniques by factory farms, **our soil is becoming depleted of necessary nutrients**. Very soon (and sooner than we’d like), it may be difficult to grow much of anything.
>
>
>
2. <https://thehealthmoderator.com/u-s-agricultural-soil-depleted-85-percent-minerals-100-years/>
>
> **“The soil lacks the nutrients to keep people healthy and they become susceptible to disease”**, said report authors John B. Marler and Jeanne R. Wallin. The problem, according to a study undertaken by head researcher Don Davis, of the University of Texas Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, is that modern agricultures’s focus has been on size, growth rate and pest resistance, not nutritional content of the plants produced. The plants, unable to keep up with growth, cannot manufacture and fully uptake soil nutrients.
>
>
>
3. <https://thebalanceyouneed.com/our-health-and-soil-depletion/>
>
> Perhaps the best summary is by Dr. William A. Albrecht, Chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri, who said:
>
>
> “A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for **pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception**.” This is how soil depletion affects our food and health.
>
>
>
4. <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-207652/Why-apple-today-good.html>
>
> Fruit and vegetables are being gradually stripped of the natural goodness which makes them beneficial for health, experts have found.
>
>
> **An alarming drop in essential minerals means that the apples and greens of today are nowhere near as good for us as those eaten 50 years ago.**
>
>
>
5. <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/02/foodanddrink>
>
> The research, which is contested by the food and farming industry, found a **marked decline in nutritional value during the period**.
>
>
>
What is the truth? Is food becoming less nutritious because of depletion of soil minerals and nutrients?
I am skeptical because dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not *appear* to be having symptoms of any deficiencies. They claim they have no symptoms and that supplementation is unnecessary. Of course, they could have symptoms of which they are not aware (or are not easily visible), or could develop symptoms later in life. | 2019/05/13 | [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44020",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30258/"
] | Avery gave you a list of "yeses" by moving the goal posts to an issue of organics vs non-organic *modern* agriculture. Here's a peer-review **no** to the actual question of historical decline: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012> It's a study by an employee of Canada's Bureau of Nutritional Sciences
>
> * Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining.
> * Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded.
> * Some high-yield varieties show a dilution effect of lower mineral concentrations.
> * Changes are within natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant.
>
>
> Comparisons of food composition data published decades apart are not reliable. Over time changes in data sources, crop varieties, geographic origin, ripeness, sample size, sampling methods, laboratory analysis and statistical treatment affect reported nutrient levels. Comparisons with matching archived soil samples show soil mineral content has not declined in locations cultivated intensively with various fertilizer treatments. Contemporaneous analyses of modern versus old crop varieties grown side-by-side, and archived samples, show lower mineral concentrations in varieties bred for higher yields where increased carbohydrate is not accompanied by proportional increases in minerals – a “dilution effect”. Apparent declines, e.g., the extreme case of copper from −34% to −81%, represent small absolute changes: per 100 g dry weight vegetables have 0.11–1.71 mg (1555% natural range of variation), fruit 01–2.06 mg (20,600% range), and grains 0.1–1.4 mg (1400% range); copper composition is strongly subject to the dilution effect. The benefits of increased yield to supply food for expanding populations outweigh small nutrient dilution effects addressed by eating the recommended daily servings of vegetables, fruits and whole grains.
>
>
>
It's an open access article by the way, which also reviews/criticizes the Thomas etc. studies (which were the main topic of the Guardian and Daily Mail). The Thomas report is from the year 2000, so there must have been some slow news day in 2006 for it to become newsworthy all of a sudden...
As to pick a modern study that has wide historical range (from that review)
>
> Avoiding the potential pitfalls of depending on historical analytical data, Fan et al., 2008a, Fan et al., 2008b conducted laboratory mineral nutrient analyses of wheat grains and soil samples archived **over the last 160 years** by the Broadbalk Wheat Experiment, established in 1843 at Rothamsted, U.K., and run continuously ever since. They found that the grain concentrations of Zn, Fe, Cu and Mg remained stable between 1845 and mid 1960s but since then significant decreases were seen in Zn (P = 0.004 to <0.001), Cu (P = 0.021 to <0.001) and Mg (P = 0.030 to =0.004), which coincided with the introduction of semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars. **With regard to the hypothesis that soil nutrient levels are a causative factor, they found that the mineral concentrations in the archived soil samples either increased or remained stable.** Reasons for this included inputs of Mg from inorganic fertilizer, Zn and Cu from farm yard manure, and Zn also from atmospheric deposition. The observed decreases in wheat grain mineral content were independent of whether the crop received no fertilizers, inorganic fertilizers or organic manure. Multiple regression analyses showed that the two highly significant factors associated with the downward trend in grain mineral concentration were increasing yield and harvest index (i.e., the weight of the harvested product, such as grain, as a percentage of the total plant weight of the crop, which for wheat was measured as the aboveground biomass due to the difficulty of obtaining the root biomass).
>
>
>
So basically there is a nutrient change, but due to different cultivars being used in the "good old days", not to any soil depletion in the meantime. | The massive decline in plant compounds is attested by many studies, but I take it that your concern is whether this is linked to problems in human nutrition. The current answer is that there is not enough research on this subject.
Reeve, J. R., et al. "[Organic farming, soil health, and food quality: considering possible links](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick_Carr2/publication/301556364_Organic_Farming_Soil_Health_and_Food_Quality_Considering_Possible_Links/links/5761dee908aeeada5bc502bd/Organic-Farming-Soil-Health-and-Food-Quality-Considering-Possible-Links.pdf)." *Advances in Agronomy* **137** (2016), 319-367.
>
> Our goal is to summarize the management factors that influence soil
> health, review the literature on the links between soil and plant health, and
> then discuss possible links with produce quality and human health, with a
> focus on nutrition and plant secondary compounds (PSC).
>
>
>
...
>
> Despite growing evidence that **organic management does result in
> greater concentrations of PSC**, several current reviews suggest that **evidence
> of nutrition-related health benefits from the consumption of organic foods is
> limited** (Johansson et al., 2014; Lairon and Huber, 2014), or currently lacking (Dangour et al., 2010; Smith-Spangler et al., 2012), that **PSC are not
> nutrients, and that it is still a matter of debate whether these compounds have
> any positive effect on health** (Dangour et al., 2010; Smith-Spangler et al.,
> 2012).
>
>
>
...
>
> More attention needs to be given to the effects of growth
> rate and yield on final plant nutrient concentrations when making comparisons between management. Finally, more research is clearly needed on
> appropriate statistical methodologies, especially in emerging fields such as
> metaanalysis.
>
>
> Nevertheless, from the point of view of the consumer purchasing foods in
> the marketplace, it may be that **the large variations in climate, soil type,
> cultivar, input intensity, growth rate, and productivity across farms largely
> swamps out any potential differences in nutrient concentration due to management**.
>
>
>
So, to address the *Guardian* article linked in the question, it is based on a [simple (and non-peer reviewed) comparison](https://seaagri.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/meat_dairy_where_have_the_minerals_gone.pdf) of nutrients in 1940 meats and cheeses compared to 2002. The Advances in Agronomy article observes that are many other possibilities regarding the origin of this decline, and we have no proof that the decline of secondary compounds is the largest cause.
This is not to say that organic and non-organic fruits and veg are nutritionally equivalent. A [review of the Advances in Agronomy article](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085750) notes that it did not include a study indicating that "consumption of organic foods may, however, reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria." Also, this answer does not address the other reasons to prefer organically farmed food, such as desertification. |
44,020 | Over and over, I have heard and read claims that the soil growing much of the planet's crops is "depleted" and thus our foods do not have sufficient minerals, vitamins, and other nutrients.
Five examples of such claims:
1. <https://naturalsociety.com/nutrient-depleted-soil-soon-impossible-crop-growth-big-ag/>
>
> We take so much for granted: water, food, clean air, and the earth we walk upon—which, by the way, is changing for the worse under our very feet. Thanks to aggressive farming techniques by factory farms, **our soil is becoming depleted of necessary nutrients**. Very soon (and sooner than we’d like), it may be difficult to grow much of anything.
>
>
>
2. <https://thehealthmoderator.com/u-s-agricultural-soil-depleted-85-percent-minerals-100-years/>
>
> **“The soil lacks the nutrients to keep people healthy and they become susceptible to disease”**, said report authors John B. Marler and Jeanne R. Wallin. The problem, according to a study undertaken by head researcher Don Davis, of the University of Texas Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, is that modern agricultures’s focus has been on size, growth rate and pest resistance, not nutritional content of the plants produced. The plants, unable to keep up with growth, cannot manufacture and fully uptake soil nutrients.
>
>
>
3. <https://thebalanceyouneed.com/our-health-and-soil-depletion/>
>
> Perhaps the best summary is by Dr. William A. Albrecht, Chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri, who said:
>
>
> “A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for **pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception**.” This is how soil depletion affects our food and health.
>
>
>
4. <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-207652/Why-apple-today-good.html>
>
> Fruit and vegetables are being gradually stripped of the natural goodness which makes them beneficial for health, experts have found.
>
>
> **An alarming drop in essential minerals means that the apples and greens of today are nowhere near as good for us as those eaten 50 years ago.**
>
>
>
5. <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/02/foodanddrink>
>
> The research, which is contested by the food and farming industry, found a **marked decline in nutritional value during the period**.
>
>
>
What is the truth? Is food becoming less nutritious because of depletion of soil minerals and nutrients?
I am skeptical because dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not *appear* to be having symptoms of any deficiencies. They claim they have no symptoms and that supplementation is unnecessary. Of course, they could have symptoms of which they are not aware (or are not easily visible), or could develop symptoms later in life. | 2019/05/13 | [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44020",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30258/"
] | The question about soil depletion *with time* has been covered in other answers.
*Currently,* in some areas, soil mineral depletion is associated with lower amounts of minerals in plants and with **iodine, zinc** and **selenium** deficiency in humans ([Annals of Botany, 2010](https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/105/7/1073/149237), [sow-wu.nl Centre for World Food Studies, 2006](http://sow.vu.nl/pdf/wp06.02.pdf)).
**Except in the areas with known mineral deficiencies in the soil, there is usually no need for healthy people to take dietary supplements ([PubMed, 2012](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309636/)).**
**IODINE**
[Health Consequences of Iodine Deficiency (PubMed, 2007)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074887/)
>
> Iodine deficiency occurs when the **soil is poor in iodine,** causing a
> low concentration in food products and insufficient iodine intake in
> the population. When iodine requirements are not met, the thyroid may
> no longer be able to synthesize sufficient amounts of thyroid
> hormone... resulting in...iodine deficiency disease.
>
>
> Daily consumption of **salt fortified with iodine** is a proven effective
> strategy for prevention of Iodine deficiency disease.
>
>
>
**ZINC**
Areas with widespred zinc deficiency in soil include South Asia, Sub:Saharan Africa and South America ([Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2012, p.19](https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/scarcity_of_micronutrients.pdf)). There is a considerable overlap between soil zinc deficiency and zinc deficiency in humans ([ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Geographical-overlap-of-human-Zn-deficiency-upper-map-soil-Zn-deficiency-lower-map_fig1_261444199)). A major contributor to zinc deficiency is a cereal-based diet, which is high in phytates, which inhibit zinc absorption.
Zinc deficiency can cause growth retardation and diarrhea, among other. Both can be prevented by zinc supplements ([Linus Pauling Institute](https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/zinc)).
**SELENIUM**
[Keshan Disease, Selenium Deficiency, and the Selenoproteome (The New England Journal of Medicine, 2014)](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcibr1402199)
Keshan disease is a disease of the heart muscle (cardiomyopathy) caused by selenium deficiency.
>
> Extensive epidemiologic studies showed that **low selenium levels in the
> soil and in local foodstuffs** correlated with low selenium levels in
> whole-blood and hair samples from residents in areas where Keshan
> disease was endemic, as compared with other areas in China.
>
>
> In response to these studies, the government implemented nutritional
> policies promoting **oral selenium supplementation,** which virtually
> eliminated Keshan disease in areas where it was endemic.
>
>
> | The massive decline in plant compounds is attested by many studies, but I take it that your concern is whether this is linked to problems in human nutrition. The current answer is that there is not enough research on this subject.
Reeve, J. R., et al. "[Organic farming, soil health, and food quality: considering possible links](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick_Carr2/publication/301556364_Organic_Farming_Soil_Health_and_Food_Quality_Considering_Possible_Links/links/5761dee908aeeada5bc502bd/Organic-Farming-Soil-Health-and-Food-Quality-Considering-Possible-Links.pdf)." *Advances in Agronomy* **137** (2016), 319-367.
>
> Our goal is to summarize the management factors that influence soil
> health, review the literature on the links between soil and plant health, and
> then discuss possible links with produce quality and human health, with a
> focus on nutrition and plant secondary compounds (PSC).
>
>
>
...
>
> Despite growing evidence that **organic management does result in
> greater concentrations of PSC**, several current reviews suggest that **evidence
> of nutrition-related health benefits from the consumption of organic foods is
> limited** (Johansson et al., 2014; Lairon and Huber, 2014), or currently lacking (Dangour et al., 2010; Smith-Spangler et al., 2012), that **PSC are not
> nutrients, and that it is still a matter of debate whether these compounds have
> any positive effect on health** (Dangour et al., 2010; Smith-Spangler et al.,
> 2012).
>
>
>
...
>
> More attention needs to be given to the effects of growth
> rate and yield on final plant nutrient concentrations when making comparisons between management. Finally, more research is clearly needed on
> appropriate statistical methodologies, especially in emerging fields such as
> metaanalysis.
>
>
> Nevertheless, from the point of view of the consumer purchasing foods in
> the marketplace, it may be that **the large variations in climate, soil type,
> cultivar, input intensity, growth rate, and productivity across farms largely
> swamps out any potential differences in nutrient concentration due to management**.
>
>
>
So, to address the *Guardian* article linked in the question, it is based on a [simple (and non-peer reviewed) comparison](https://seaagri.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/meat_dairy_where_have_the_minerals_gone.pdf) of nutrients in 1940 meats and cheeses compared to 2002. The Advances in Agronomy article observes that are many other possibilities regarding the origin of this decline, and we have no proof that the decline of secondary compounds is the largest cause.
This is not to say that organic and non-organic fruits and veg are nutritionally equivalent. A [review of the Advances in Agronomy article](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085750) notes that it did not include a study indicating that "consumption of organic foods may, however, reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria." Also, this answer does not address the other reasons to prefer organically farmed food, such as desertification. |
44,020 | Over and over, I have heard and read claims that the soil growing much of the planet's crops is "depleted" and thus our foods do not have sufficient minerals, vitamins, and other nutrients.
Five examples of such claims:
1. <https://naturalsociety.com/nutrient-depleted-soil-soon-impossible-crop-growth-big-ag/>
>
> We take so much for granted: water, food, clean air, and the earth we walk upon—which, by the way, is changing for the worse under our very feet. Thanks to aggressive farming techniques by factory farms, **our soil is becoming depleted of necessary nutrients**. Very soon (and sooner than we’d like), it may be difficult to grow much of anything.
>
>
>
2. <https://thehealthmoderator.com/u-s-agricultural-soil-depleted-85-percent-minerals-100-years/>
>
> **“The soil lacks the nutrients to keep people healthy and they become susceptible to disease”**, said report authors John B. Marler and Jeanne R. Wallin. The problem, according to a study undertaken by head researcher Don Davis, of the University of Texas Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, is that modern agricultures’s focus has been on size, growth rate and pest resistance, not nutritional content of the plants produced. The plants, unable to keep up with growth, cannot manufacture and fully uptake soil nutrients.
>
>
>
3. <https://thebalanceyouneed.com/our-health-and-soil-depletion/>
>
> Perhaps the best summary is by Dr. William A. Albrecht, Chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri, who said:
>
>
> “A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for **pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception**.” This is how soil depletion affects our food and health.
>
>
>
4. <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-207652/Why-apple-today-good.html>
>
> Fruit and vegetables are being gradually stripped of the natural goodness which makes them beneficial for health, experts have found.
>
>
> **An alarming drop in essential minerals means that the apples and greens of today are nowhere near as good for us as those eaten 50 years ago.**
>
>
>
5. <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/02/foodanddrink>
>
> The research, which is contested by the food and farming industry, found a **marked decline in nutritional value during the period**.
>
>
>
What is the truth? Is food becoming less nutritious because of depletion of soil minerals and nutrients?
I am skeptical because dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not *appear* to be having symptoms of any deficiencies. They claim they have no symptoms and that supplementation is unnecessary. Of course, they could have symptoms of which they are not aware (or are not easily visible), or could develop symptoms later in life. | 2019/05/13 | [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44020",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30258/"
] | The massive decline in plant compounds is attested by many studies, but I take it that your concern is whether this is linked to problems in human nutrition. The current answer is that there is not enough research on this subject.
Reeve, J. R., et al. "[Organic farming, soil health, and food quality: considering possible links](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick_Carr2/publication/301556364_Organic_Farming_Soil_Health_and_Food_Quality_Considering_Possible_Links/links/5761dee908aeeada5bc502bd/Organic-Farming-Soil-Health-and-Food-Quality-Considering-Possible-Links.pdf)." *Advances in Agronomy* **137** (2016), 319-367.
>
> Our goal is to summarize the management factors that influence soil
> health, review the literature on the links between soil and plant health, and
> then discuss possible links with produce quality and human health, with a
> focus on nutrition and plant secondary compounds (PSC).
>
>
>
...
>
> Despite growing evidence that **organic management does result in
> greater concentrations of PSC**, several current reviews suggest that **evidence
> of nutrition-related health benefits from the consumption of organic foods is
> limited** (Johansson et al., 2014; Lairon and Huber, 2014), or currently lacking (Dangour et al., 2010; Smith-Spangler et al., 2012), that **PSC are not
> nutrients, and that it is still a matter of debate whether these compounds have
> any positive effect on health** (Dangour et al., 2010; Smith-Spangler et al.,
> 2012).
>
>
>
...
>
> More attention needs to be given to the effects of growth
> rate and yield on final plant nutrient concentrations when making comparisons between management. Finally, more research is clearly needed on
> appropriate statistical methodologies, especially in emerging fields such as
> metaanalysis.
>
>
> Nevertheless, from the point of view of the consumer purchasing foods in
> the marketplace, it may be that **the large variations in climate, soil type,
> cultivar, input intensity, growth rate, and productivity across farms largely
> swamps out any potential differences in nutrient concentration due to management**.
>
>
>
So, to address the *Guardian* article linked in the question, it is based on a [simple (and non-peer reviewed) comparison](https://seaagri.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/meat_dairy_where_have_the_minerals_gone.pdf) of nutrients in 1940 meats and cheeses compared to 2002. The Advances in Agronomy article observes that are many other possibilities regarding the origin of this decline, and we have no proof that the decline of secondary compounds is the largest cause.
This is not to say that organic and non-organic fruits and veg are nutritionally equivalent. A [review of the Advances in Agronomy article](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085750) notes that it did not include a study indicating that "consumption of organic foods may, however, reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria." Also, this answer does not address the other reasons to prefer organically farmed food, such as desertification. | *Note: I'm posting this as an answer, even though it does not address the question asked directly, because it is too long to be a comment and I think it makes an important point.*
There are a few important flaws in this statement:
>
> [..]dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not appear to be having symptoms of any deficiencies[..]
>
>
>
1. The dozens of people that you know don't count for much in these circumstances. Seeing any effects requires significant timelines and very large populations. People are also notoriously poor at self-reporting. This applies to both whether or not they are supplementing or having adverse health effects. It's good to be skeptical, but just as we shouldn't accept results based on anecdotal evidence, neither should assume nothing is wrong because we haven't noticed it.
2. Many countries have legislation requiring that certain foods be fortified with various vitamins and minerals to promote good public health. For example:
* Vitamins A & D in dairy products (Canada, US, variable in Europe, limited in Australia & New Zealand)[1](https://mpkb.org/home/food/vitamind/vitamin_d_supplementation_policy#history_of_vitamin_d_supplementation_in_the_us_and_europe)
* Iodization of table salt (Canada, US, China, India)[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt#In_public_health_initiatives)
* Fortification of flour (Canada, Australia, UK, Chile,Argentina (wheat only); US (wheat, maize, rice); Mexico, Brazil, South Africa (wheat and maize))[3](http://ffinetwork.org/global_progress/index.php)
* This list is not exhaustive in any sense. See @Jan's answer regarding zinc and selenium.
It is to point out that in many countries, many potential nutritional deficiencies are compensated for by eating a 'normal' diet. The diet of individuals is supplemented even if they do not take additional vitamins and minerals (such as a daily multivitamin).
A quick search suggests that countries without legislation regarding supplementation of foods, particularly vitamins A and D and iodine have populations with higher rates of deficiencies. [4](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2013001/article/11727-eng.htm), [5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075634/),[6](https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/vitamin-d-supplementation.aspx)
Again, the point here is that in many countries our diets are already getting supplemented, without any additional action on our part (I live in Canada).
3. Your question also takes for granted that there would be some health benefit to additional supplementation (for example, taking a daily multivitamin). The scientific consensus is that for the general population there are no overall health benefits for taking multivitamin supplements.[7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309636/)
As I mentioned above, I realize that this does not in fact answer your question. I hope however that it helps add to the overall understanding of the complexity of the situation when it comes to nutrition and health, as well as a reminder about common biases and logical errors. |
44,020 | Over and over, I have heard and read claims that the soil growing much of the planet's crops is "depleted" and thus our foods do not have sufficient minerals, vitamins, and other nutrients.
Five examples of such claims:
1. <https://naturalsociety.com/nutrient-depleted-soil-soon-impossible-crop-growth-big-ag/>
>
> We take so much for granted: water, food, clean air, and the earth we walk upon—which, by the way, is changing for the worse under our very feet. Thanks to aggressive farming techniques by factory farms, **our soil is becoming depleted of necessary nutrients**. Very soon (and sooner than we’d like), it may be difficult to grow much of anything.
>
>
>
2. <https://thehealthmoderator.com/u-s-agricultural-soil-depleted-85-percent-minerals-100-years/>
>
> **“The soil lacks the nutrients to keep people healthy and they become susceptible to disease”**, said report authors John B. Marler and Jeanne R. Wallin. The problem, according to a study undertaken by head researcher Don Davis, of the University of Texas Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, is that modern agricultures’s focus has been on size, growth rate and pest resistance, not nutritional content of the plants produced. The plants, unable to keep up with growth, cannot manufacture and fully uptake soil nutrients.
>
>
>
3. <https://thebalanceyouneed.com/our-health-and-soil-depletion/>
>
> Perhaps the best summary is by Dr. William A. Albrecht, Chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri, who said:
>
>
> “A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for **pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception**.” This is how soil depletion affects our food and health.
>
>
>
4. <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-207652/Why-apple-today-good.html>
>
> Fruit and vegetables are being gradually stripped of the natural goodness which makes them beneficial for health, experts have found.
>
>
> **An alarming drop in essential minerals means that the apples and greens of today are nowhere near as good for us as those eaten 50 years ago.**
>
>
>
5. <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/02/foodanddrink>
>
> The research, which is contested by the food and farming industry, found a **marked decline in nutritional value during the period**.
>
>
>
What is the truth? Is food becoming less nutritious because of depletion of soil minerals and nutrients?
I am skeptical because dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not *appear* to be having symptoms of any deficiencies. They claim they have no symptoms and that supplementation is unnecessary. Of course, they could have symptoms of which they are not aware (or are not easily visible), or could develop symptoms later in life. | 2019/05/13 | [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44020",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30258/"
] | Avery gave you a list of "yeses" by moving the goal posts to an issue of organics vs non-organic *modern* agriculture. Here's a peer-review **no** to the actual question of historical decline: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012> It's a study by an employee of Canada's Bureau of Nutritional Sciences
>
> * Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining.
> * Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded.
> * Some high-yield varieties show a dilution effect of lower mineral concentrations.
> * Changes are within natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant.
>
>
> Comparisons of food composition data published decades apart are not reliable. Over time changes in data sources, crop varieties, geographic origin, ripeness, sample size, sampling methods, laboratory analysis and statistical treatment affect reported nutrient levels. Comparisons with matching archived soil samples show soil mineral content has not declined in locations cultivated intensively with various fertilizer treatments. Contemporaneous analyses of modern versus old crop varieties grown side-by-side, and archived samples, show lower mineral concentrations in varieties bred for higher yields where increased carbohydrate is not accompanied by proportional increases in minerals – a “dilution effect”. Apparent declines, e.g., the extreme case of copper from −34% to −81%, represent small absolute changes: per 100 g dry weight vegetables have 0.11–1.71 mg (1555% natural range of variation), fruit 01–2.06 mg (20,600% range), and grains 0.1–1.4 mg (1400% range); copper composition is strongly subject to the dilution effect. The benefits of increased yield to supply food for expanding populations outweigh small nutrient dilution effects addressed by eating the recommended daily servings of vegetables, fruits and whole grains.
>
>
>
It's an open access article by the way, which also reviews/criticizes the Thomas etc. studies (which were the main topic of the Guardian and Daily Mail). The Thomas report is from the year 2000, so there must have been some slow news day in 2006 for it to become newsworthy all of a sudden...
As to pick a modern study that has wide historical range (from that review)
>
> Avoiding the potential pitfalls of depending on historical analytical data, Fan et al., 2008a, Fan et al., 2008b conducted laboratory mineral nutrient analyses of wheat grains and soil samples archived **over the last 160 years** by the Broadbalk Wheat Experiment, established in 1843 at Rothamsted, U.K., and run continuously ever since. They found that the grain concentrations of Zn, Fe, Cu and Mg remained stable between 1845 and mid 1960s but since then significant decreases were seen in Zn (P = 0.004 to <0.001), Cu (P = 0.021 to <0.001) and Mg (P = 0.030 to =0.004), which coincided with the introduction of semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars. **With regard to the hypothesis that soil nutrient levels are a causative factor, they found that the mineral concentrations in the archived soil samples either increased or remained stable.** Reasons for this included inputs of Mg from inorganic fertilizer, Zn and Cu from farm yard manure, and Zn also from atmospheric deposition. The observed decreases in wheat grain mineral content were independent of whether the crop received no fertilizers, inorganic fertilizers or organic manure. Multiple regression analyses showed that the two highly significant factors associated with the downward trend in grain mineral concentration were increasing yield and harvest index (i.e., the weight of the harvested product, such as grain, as a percentage of the total plant weight of the crop, which for wheat was measured as the aboveground biomass due to the difficulty of obtaining the root biomass).
>
>
>
So basically there is a nutrient change, but due to different cultivars being used in the "good old days", not to any soil depletion in the meantime. | The question about soil depletion *with time* has been covered in other answers.
*Currently,* in some areas, soil mineral depletion is associated with lower amounts of minerals in plants and with **iodine, zinc** and **selenium** deficiency in humans ([Annals of Botany, 2010](https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/105/7/1073/149237), [sow-wu.nl Centre for World Food Studies, 2006](http://sow.vu.nl/pdf/wp06.02.pdf)).
**Except in the areas with known mineral deficiencies in the soil, there is usually no need for healthy people to take dietary supplements ([PubMed, 2012](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309636/)).**
**IODINE**
[Health Consequences of Iodine Deficiency (PubMed, 2007)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074887/)
>
> Iodine deficiency occurs when the **soil is poor in iodine,** causing a
> low concentration in food products and insufficient iodine intake in
> the population. When iodine requirements are not met, the thyroid may
> no longer be able to synthesize sufficient amounts of thyroid
> hormone... resulting in...iodine deficiency disease.
>
>
> Daily consumption of **salt fortified with iodine** is a proven effective
> strategy for prevention of Iodine deficiency disease.
>
>
>
**ZINC**
Areas with widespred zinc deficiency in soil include South Asia, Sub:Saharan Africa and South America ([Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2012, p.19](https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/scarcity_of_micronutrients.pdf)). There is a considerable overlap between soil zinc deficiency and zinc deficiency in humans ([ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Geographical-overlap-of-human-Zn-deficiency-upper-map-soil-Zn-deficiency-lower-map_fig1_261444199)). A major contributor to zinc deficiency is a cereal-based diet, which is high in phytates, which inhibit zinc absorption.
Zinc deficiency can cause growth retardation and diarrhea, among other. Both can be prevented by zinc supplements ([Linus Pauling Institute](https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/zinc)).
**SELENIUM**
[Keshan Disease, Selenium Deficiency, and the Selenoproteome (The New England Journal of Medicine, 2014)](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcibr1402199)
Keshan disease is a disease of the heart muscle (cardiomyopathy) caused by selenium deficiency.
>
> Extensive epidemiologic studies showed that **low selenium levels in the
> soil and in local foodstuffs** correlated with low selenium levels in
> whole-blood and hair samples from residents in areas where Keshan
> disease was endemic, as compared with other areas in China.
>
>
> In response to these studies, the government implemented nutritional
> policies promoting **oral selenium supplementation,** which virtually
> eliminated Keshan disease in areas where it was endemic.
>
>
> |
44,020 | Over and over, I have heard and read claims that the soil growing much of the planet's crops is "depleted" and thus our foods do not have sufficient minerals, vitamins, and other nutrients.
Five examples of such claims:
1. <https://naturalsociety.com/nutrient-depleted-soil-soon-impossible-crop-growth-big-ag/>
>
> We take so much for granted: water, food, clean air, and the earth we walk upon—which, by the way, is changing for the worse under our very feet. Thanks to aggressive farming techniques by factory farms, **our soil is becoming depleted of necessary nutrients**. Very soon (and sooner than we’d like), it may be difficult to grow much of anything.
>
>
>
2. <https://thehealthmoderator.com/u-s-agricultural-soil-depleted-85-percent-minerals-100-years/>
>
> **“The soil lacks the nutrients to keep people healthy and they become susceptible to disease”**, said report authors John B. Marler and Jeanne R. Wallin. The problem, according to a study undertaken by head researcher Don Davis, of the University of Texas Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, is that modern agricultures’s focus has been on size, growth rate and pest resistance, not nutritional content of the plants produced. The plants, unable to keep up with growth, cannot manufacture and fully uptake soil nutrients.
>
>
>
3. <https://thebalanceyouneed.com/our-health-and-soil-depletion/>
>
> Perhaps the best summary is by Dr. William A. Albrecht, Chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri, who said:
>
>
> “A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for **pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception**.” This is how soil depletion affects our food and health.
>
>
>
4. <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-207652/Why-apple-today-good.html>
>
> Fruit and vegetables are being gradually stripped of the natural goodness which makes them beneficial for health, experts have found.
>
>
> **An alarming drop in essential minerals means that the apples and greens of today are nowhere near as good for us as those eaten 50 years ago.**
>
>
>
5. <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/02/foodanddrink>
>
> The research, which is contested by the food and farming industry, found a **marked decline in nutritional value during the period**.
>
>
>
What is the truth? Is food becoming less nutritious because of depletion of soil minerals and nutrients?
I am skeptical because dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not *appear* to be having symptoms of any deficiencies. They claim they have no symptoms and that supplementation is unnecessary. Of course, they could have symptoms of which they are not aware (or are not easily visible), or could develop symptoms later in life. | 2019/05/13 | [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44020",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30258/"
] | Avery gave you a list of "yeses" by moving the goal posts to an issue of organics vs non-organic *modern* agriculture. Here's a peer-review **no** to the actual question of historical decline: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012> It's a study by an employee of Canada's Bureau of Nutritional Sciences
>
> * Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining.
> * Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded.
> * Some high-yield varieties show a dilution effect of lower mineral concentrations.
> * Changes are within natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant.
>
>
> Comparisons of food composition data published decades apart are not reliable. Over time changes in data sources, crop varieties, geographic origin, ripeness, sample size, sampling methods, laboratory analysis and statistical treatment affect reported nutrient levels. Comparisons with matching archived soil samples show soil mineral content has not declined in locations cultivated intensively with various fertilizer treatments. Contemporaneous analyses of modern versus old crop varieties grown side-by-side, and archived samples, show lower mineral concentrations in varieties bred for higher yields where increased carbohydrate is not accompanied by proportional increases in minerals – a “dilution effect”. Apparent declines, e.g., the extreme case of copper from −34% to −81%, represent small absolute changes: per 100 g dry weight vegetables have 0.11–1.71 mg (1555% natural range of variation), fruit 01–2.06 mg (20,600% range), and grains 0.1–1.4 mg (1400% range); copper composition is strongly subject to the dilution effect. The benefits of increased yield to supply food for expanding populations outweigh small nutrient dilution effects addressed by eating the recommended daily servings of vegetables, fruits and whole grains.
>
>
>
It's an open access article by the way, which also reviews/criticizes the Thomas etc. studies (which were the main topic of the Guardian and Daily Mail). The Thomas report is from the year 2000, so there must have been some slow news day in 2006 for it to become newsworthy all of a sudden...
As to pick a modern study that has wide historical range (from that review)
>
> Avoiding the potential pitfalls of depending on historical analytical data, Fan et al., 2008a, Fan et al., 2008b conducted laboratory mineral nutrient analyses of wheat grains and soil samples archived **over the last 160 years** by the Broadbalk Wheat Experiment, established in 1843 at Rothamsted, U.K., and run continuously ever since. They found that the grain concentrations of Zn, Fe, Cu and Mg remained stable between 1845 and mid 1960s but since then significant decreases were seen in Zn (P = 0.004 to <0.001), Cu (P = 0.021 to <0.001) and Mg (P = 0.030 to =0.004), which coincided with the introduction of semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars. **With regard to the hypothesis that soil nutrient levels are a causative factor, they found that the mineral concentrations in the archived soil samples either increased or remained stable.** Reasons for this included inputs of Mg from inorganic fertilizer, Zn and Cu from farm yard manure, and Zn also from atmospheric deposition. The observed decreases in wheat grain mineral content were independent of whether the crop received no fertilizers, inorganic fertilizers or organic manure. Multiple regression analyses showed that the two highly significant factors associated with the downward trend in grain mineral concentration were increasing yield and harvest index (i.e., the weight of the harvested product, such as grain, as a percentage of the total plant weight of the crop, which for wheat was measured as the aboveground biomass due to the difficulty of obtaining the root biomass).
>
>
>
So basically there is a nutrient change, but due to different cultivars being used in the "good old days", not to any soil depletion in the meantime. | *Note: I'm posting this as an answer, even though it does not address the question asked directly, because it is too long to be a comment and I think it makes an important point.*
There are a few important flaws in this statement:
>
> [..]dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not appear to be having symptoms of any deficiencies[..]
>
>
>
1. The dozens of people that you know don't count for much in these circumstances. Seeing any effects requires significant timelines and very large populations. People are also notoriously poor at self-reporting. This applies to both whether or not they are supplementing or having adverse health effects. It's good to be skeptical, but just as we shouldn't accept results based on anecdotal evidence, neither should assume nothing is wrong because we haven't noticed it.
2. Many countries have legislation requiring that certain foods be fortified with various vitamins and minerals to promote good public health. For example:
* Vitamins A & D in dairy products (Canada, US, variable in Europe, limited in Australia & New Zealand)[1](https://mpkb.org/home/food/vitamind/vitamin_d_supplementation_policy#history_of_vitamin_d_supplementation_in_the_us_and_europe)
* Iodization of table salt (Canada, US, China, India)[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt#In_public_health_initiatives)
* Fortification of flour (Canada, Australia, UK, Chile,Argentina (wheat only); US (wheat, maize, rice); Mexico, Brazil, South Africa (wheat and maize))[3](http://ffinetwork.org/global_progress/index.php)
* This list is not exhaustive in any sense. See @Jan's answer regarding zinc and selenium.
It is to point out that in many countries, many potential nutritional deficiencies are compensated for by eating a 'normal' diet. The diet of individuals is supplemented even if they do not take additional vitamins and minerals (such as a daily multivitamin).
A quick search suggests that countries without legislation regarding supplementation of foods, particularly vitamins A and D and iodine have populations with higher rates of deficiencies. [4](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2013001/article/11727-eng.htm), [5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075634/),[6](https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/vitamin-d-supplementation.aspx)
Again, the point here is that in many countries our diets are already getting supplemented, without any additional action on our part (I live in Canada).
3. Your question also takes for granted that there would be some health benefit to additional supplementation (for example, taking a daily multivitamin). The scientific consensus is that for the general population there are no overall health benefits for taking multivitamin supplements.[7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309636/)
As I mentioned above, I realize that this does not in fact answer your question. I hope however that it helps add to the overall understanding of the complexity of the situation when it comes to nutrition and health, as well as a reminder about common biases and logical errors. |
44,020 | Over and over, I have heard and read claims that the soil growing much of the planet's crops is "depleted" and thus our foods do not have sufficient minerals, vitamins, and other nutrients.
Five examples of such claims:
1. <https://naturalsociety.com/nutrient-depleted-soil-soon-impossible-crop-growth-big-ag/>
>
> We take so much for granted: water, food, clean air, and the earth we walk upon—which, by the way, is changing for the worse under our very feet. Thanks to aggressive farming techniques by factory farms, **our soil is becoming depleted of necessary nutrients**. Very soon (and sooner than we’d like), it may be difficult to grow much of anything.
>
>
>
2. <https://thehealthmoderator.com/u-s-agricultural-soil-depleted-85-percent-minerals-100-years/>
>
> **“The soil lacks the nutrients to keep people healthy and they become susceptible to disease”**, said report authors John B. Marler and Jeanne R. Wallin. The problem, according to a study undertaken by head researcher Don Davis, of the University of Texas Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, is that modern agricultures’s focus has been on size, growth rate and pest resistance, not nutritional content of the plants produced. The plants, unable to keep up with growth, cannot manufacture and fully uptake soil nutrients.
>
>
>
3. <https://thebalanceyouneed.com/our-health-and-soil-depletion/>
>
> Perhaps the best summary is by Dr. William A. Albrecht, Chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri, who said:
>
>
> “A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for **pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception**.” This is how soil depletion affects our food and health.
>
>
>
4. <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-207652/Why-apple-today-good.html>
>
> Fruit and vegetables are being gradually stripped of the natural goodness which makes them beneficial for health, experts have found.
>
>
> **An alarming drop in essential minerals means that the apples and greens of today are nowhere near as good for us as those eaten 50 years ago.**
>
>
>
5. <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/02/foodanddrink>
>
> The research, which is contested by the food and farming industry, found a **marked decline in nutritional value during the period**.
>
>
>
What is the truth? Is food becoming less nutritious because of depletion of soil minerals and nutrients?
I am skeptical because dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not *appear* to be having symptoms of any deficiencies. They claim they have no symptoms and that supplementation is unnecessary. Of course, they could have symptoms of which they are not aware (or are not easily visible), or could develop symptoms later in life. | 2019/05/13 | [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44020",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30258/"
] | The question about soil depletion *with time* has been covered in other answers.
*Currently,* in some areas, soil mineral depletion is associated with lower amounts of minerals in plants and with **iodine, zinc** and **selenium** deficiency in humans ([Annals of Botany, 2010](https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/105/7/1073/149237), [sow-wu.nl Centre for World Food Studies, 2006](http://sow.vu.nl/pdf/wp06.02.pdf)).
**Except in the areas with known mineral deficiencies in the soil, there is usually no need for healthy people to take dietary supplements ([PubMed, 2012](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309636/)).**
**IODINE**
[Health Consequences of Iodine Deficiency (PubMed, 2007)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074887/)
>
> Iodine deficiency occurs when the **soil is poor in iodine,** causing a
> low concentration in food products and insufficient iodine intake in
> the population. When iodine requirements are not met, the thyroid may
> no longer be able to synthesize sufficient amounts of thyroid
> hormone... resulting in...iodine deficiency disease.
>
>
> Daily consumption of **salt fortified with iodine** is a proven effective
> strategy for prevention of Iodine deficiency disease.
>
>
>
**ZINC**
Areas with widespred zinc deficiency in soil include South Asia, Sub:Saharan Africa and South America ([Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2012, p.19](https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/scarcity_of_micronutrients.pdf)). There is a considerable overlap between soil zinc deficiency and zinc deficiency in humans ([ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Geographical-overlap-of-human-Zn-deficiency-upper-map-soil-Zn-deficiency-lower-map_fig1_261444199)). A major contributor to zinc deficiency is a cereal-based diet, which is high in phytates, which inhibit zinc absorption.
Zinc deficiency can cause growth retardation and diarrhea, among other. Both can be prevented by zinc supplements ([Linus Pauling Institute](https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/zinc)).
**SELENIUM**
[Keshan Disease, Selenium Deficiency, and the Selenoproteome (The New England Journal of Medicine, 2014)](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcibr1402199)
Keshan disease is a disease of the heart muscle (cardiomyopathy) caused by selenium deficiency.
>
> Extensive epidemiologic studies showed that **low selenium levels in the
> soil and in local foodstuffs** correlated with low selenium levels in
> whole-blood and hair samples from residents in areas where Keshan
> disease was endemic, as compared with other areas in China.
>
>
> In response to these studies, the government implemented nutritional
> policies promoting **oral selenium supplementation,** which virtually
> eliminated Keshan disease in areas where it was endemic.
>
>
> | *Note: I'm posting this as an answer, even though it does not address the question asked directly, because it is too long to be a comment and I think it makes an important point.*
There are a few important flaws in this statement:
>
> [..]dozens people I know do not supplement their food with anything, and they do not appear to be having symptoms of any deficiencies[..]
>
>
>
1. The dozens of people that you know don't count for much in these circumstances. Seeing any effects requires significant timelines and very large populations. People are also notoriously poor at self-reporting. This applies to both whether or not they are supplementing or having adverse health effects. It's good to be skeptical, but just as we shouldn't accept results based on anecdotal evidence, neither should assume nothing is wrong because we haven't noticed it.
2. Many countries have legislation requiring that certain foods be fortified with various vitamins and minerals to promote good public health. For example:
* Vitamins A & D in dairy products (Canada, US, variable in Europe, limited in Australia & New Zealand)[1](https://mpkb.org/home/food/vitamind/vitamin_d_supplementation_policy#history_of_vitamin_d_supplementation_in_the_us_and_europe)
* Iodization of table salt (Canada, US, China, India)[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt#In_public_health_initiatives)
* Fortification of flour (Canada, Australia, UK, Chile,Argentina (wheat only); US (wheat, maize, rice); Mexico, Brazil, South Africa (wheat and maize))[3](http://ffinetwork.org/global_progress/index.php)
* This list is not exhaustive in any sense. See @Jan's answer regarding zinc and selenium.
It is to point out that in many countries, many potential nutritional deficiencies are compensated for by eating a 'normal' diet. The diet of individuals is supplemented even if they do not take additional vitamins and minerals (such as a daily multivitamin).
A quick search suggests that countries without legislation regarding supplementation of foods, particularly vitamins A and D and iodine have populations with higher rates of deficiencies. [4](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2013001/article/11727-eng.htm), [5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075634/),[6](https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/vitamin-d-supplementation.aspx)
Again, the point here is that in many countries our diets are already getting supplemented, without any additional action on our part (I live in Canada).
3. Your question also takes for granted that there would be some health benefit to additional supplementation (for example, taking a daily multivitamin). The scientific consensus is that for the general population there are no overall health benefits for taking multivitamin supplements.[7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309636/)
As I mentioned above, I realize that this does not in fact answer your question. I hope however that it helps add to the overall understanding of the complexity of the situation when it comes to nutrition and health, as well as a reminder about common biases and logical errors. |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | I like @michael.hor257k's suggestion, but you could also use *munged* (sounds like monger in fishmonger). From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mung_%28computer_term%29):
>
> Mung or munge is computer jargon for a series of potentially destructive or irrevocable changes to a piece of data or a file. It is sometimes used for vague data transformation steps that are not yet clear to the speaker. Common munging operations include removing punctuation or html tags, data parsing, **filtering**, and transformation. …
> **Munging can also describe the processing or filtering of raw data into another form.**
>
>
>
I often say I've *munged some data*, or *cleaned it up*. There are also several books on how to [*data mung*](https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/252-8578617-7444543?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=data+munging), so it's a well known term (among people who *mung*:) for this sort of thing. | There are domain-specific technical terms (verbs) to denote the actions mentioned by the OP like [**cleansing**, **scrubbing**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cleansing), **[wrangling](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/technology/for-big-data-scientists-hurdle-to-insights-is-janitor-work.html?_r=1)** and **munging** (this one is already mentioned in another answer) but I am not sure if they fit in the example sentence as it is. Perhaps it can be adapted like:
>
> We ***cleansed/scrubbed/wrangled/munged*** the dataset of 1.5m scientific papers into a smaller one of 650k papers.
>
>
>
Also, ***distilled*** connotes reduction (1.5m to 650k) *and* improvement (processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc):
>
> We ***distilled*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[distill](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distill)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : **to take** the most important **parts** of something and put them in a
> different and usually **improved** form
>
>
> He has perfectly distilled the meaning of the holiday into a poem.
>
>
>
A widely accepted and understood term would be ***prepared*** (as in data preparation).
>
> We ***prepared*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[prepare](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prepare)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : to make (someone or something) ready for some activity, purpose,
> use, etc.
>
>
> : to make or create (something) so that it is ready for use
>
>
> The pharmacist prepared the prescription.
>
>
>
Another generic(nontechnical) term would be ***extracted***.
>
> We ***extracted*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[extract](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extract)** *verb*
>
>
> : to get (something, such as information) from something
>
>
> Investigators were able to extractuseful information from the
> company's financial records.
>
>
> They are hoping to extract new insights from the test results
>
>
>
. |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | I like @michael.hor257k's suggestion, but you could also use *munged* (sounds like monger in fishmonger). From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mung_%28computer_term%29):
>
> Mung or munge is computer jargon for a series of potentially destructive or irrevocable changes to a piece of data or a file. It is sometimes used for vague data transformation steps that are not yet clear to the speaker. Common munging operations include removing punctuation or html tags, data parsing, **filtering**, and transformation. …
> **Munging can also describe the processing or filtering of raw data into another form.**
>
>
>
I often say I've *munged some data*, or *cleaned it up*. There are also several books on how to [*data mung*](https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/252-8578617-7444543?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=data+munging), so it's a well known term (among people who *mung*:) for this sort of thing. | >
> We *assembled* a dataset consisting 650k papers.
>
>
> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.