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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | The tools I use the most are:
* Tongs,
* Spatula for stuck things,
* A small towel to apply oil,
* thermometer,
* a long handled basting brush
* a brush to clean the grill with
* spray bottle with water (for flare-ups) | I have a wide, flat knife that can be used as a spatula; I find it really useful. Everything else has pretty much been mentioned, but I would suggest a pair of tongs with decent teeth on them. It's very disheartening when that burger or steak slips out of your grip and into the coals or onto the ground. |
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | In addition to what others have said, you should have TWO of each meat-handling tool (tongs, mainly). That way you can use one to handle raw meat, and one to remove cooked meat. | If you're using charcoal, a spray bottle with H2O can be handy for flare-ups. Otherwise, I think others have the bases covered. |
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | Tool-wise: spatula, tongs, grill brush (for cleaning) and a basting brush. If you're using extremely hot fire or high flames there are grill-safe mitts you can buy.
This isn't a tool, but I find buying cedar (or other wood) planks for grilling fish and other meats and veggies on are invaluable. Similarly, applewood or hickory chips for smoking.
As you get more advanced, there are rotisserie attachments for most grills, but they can get pretty pricey.
I agree with justkt that metal skewers are extremely useful, as well as the grill basket for certain fish and veggies. | An additional tool that will make grilling much easier is a veggie basket; basically it looks like a saute pan with holes poked throughout it. Aluminum foil can be your friend, but these little guys are much more flexible. |
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | The basic things that you need are:
* Grill brush to clean the grate
* Large tongs to get food on and off of the grill
With that, oil to oil the grate, fuel, and quite possibly aluminum foil you will be grilling.
A grill basket of sorts can be very useful. Metal skewers for making kebabs are great if you like that sort of thing and don't want to spend a long amount of time soaking wood skewers so they don't burn to a crisp. | I have a wide, flat knife that can be used as a spatula; I find it really useful. Everything else has pretty much been mentioned, but I would suggest a pair of tongs with decent teeth on them. It's very disheartening when that burger or steak slips out of your grip and into the coals or onto the ground. |
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | The tools I use the most are:
* Tongs,
* Spatula for stuck things,
* A small towel to apply oil,
* thermometer,
* a long handled basting brush
* a brush to clean the grill with
* spray bottle with water (for flare-ups) | If you're using charcoal, a spray bottle with H2O can be handy for flare-ups. Otherwise, I think others have the bases covered. |
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | Tool-wise: spatula, tongs, grill brush (for cleaning) and a basting brush. If you're using extremely hot fire or high flames there are grill-safe mitts you can buy.
This isn't a tool, but I find buying cedar (or other wood) planks for grilling fish and other meats and veggies on are invaluable. Similarly, applewood or hickory chips for smoking.
As you get more advanced, there are rotisserie attachments for most grills, but they can get pretty pricey.
I agree with justkt that metal skewers are extremely useful, as well as the grill basket for certain fish and veggies. | I have a wide, flat knife that can be used as a spatula; I find it really useful. Everything else has pretty much been mentioned, but I would suggest a pair of tongs with decent teeth on them. It's very disheartening when that burger or steak slips out of your grip and into the coals or onto the ground. |
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | The tools I use the most are:
* Tongs,
* Spatula for stuck things,
* A small towel to apply oil,
* thermometer,
* a long handled basting brush
* a brush to clean the grill with
* spray bottle with water (for flare-ups) | Tool-wise: spatula, tongs, grill brush (for cleaning) and a basting brush. If you're using extremely hot fire or high flames there are grill-safe mitts you can buy.
This isn't a tool, but I find buying cedar (or other wood) planks for grilling fish and other meats and veggies on are invaluable. Similarly, applewood or hickory chips for smoking.
As you get more advanced, there are rotisserie attachments for most grills, but they can get pretty pricey.
I agree with justkt that metal skewers are extremely useful, as well as the grill basket for certain fish and veggies. |
5,959 | What are some grilling tools that a beginner should have when purchasing a new grill? Additionally, are there tools that are useful for the more advanced outdoor cook? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177/"
] | In addition to what others have said, you should have TWO of each meat-handling tool (tongs, mainly). That way you can use one to handle raw meat, and one to remove cooked meat. | The basic things that you need are:
* Grill brush to clean the grate
* Large tongs to get food on and off of the grill
With that, oil to oil the grate, fuel, and quite possibly aluminum foil you will be grilling.
A grill basket of sorts can be very useful. Metal skewers for making kebabs are great if you like that sort of thing and don't want to spend a long amount of time soaking wood skewers so they don't burn to a crisp. |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | Unfortunately the virtual machine simulates a graphics device and as such you won't have access to the real GPU. This is because of the way the virtualisation handles multiple VMs accessing the same device - it provides a layer in between to share the real device.
It is possible to get true access to the hardware, but only if you have the right combination of software and hardware, see the [SLI Multi-OS site](http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/sli_multi_os.html) for details.
So you're probably out of luck with the virtualisation route - if you really can't run your app in Windows then you're limited to the following:
1. Unrealistic: Install Linux instead
2. Unrealistic: Install Linux alongside (not an option)
3. Boot into a live CD, you could prepare a disk image with CUDA and mount the image each time
4. Setup (or beg/borrow) a separate box with Linux and access it remotely | As of CUDA 3.1 it's virtualization capabilities are not vivid, so the only usable approach is to run CUDA programs directly on the target HW+SW |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | Unfortunately the virtual machine simulates a graphics device and as such you won't have access to the real GPU. This is because of the way the virtualisation handles multiple VMs accessing the same device - it provides a layer in between to share the real device.
It is possible to get true access to the hardware, but only if you have the right combination of software and hardware, see the [SLI Multi-OS site](http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/sli_multi_os.html) for details.
So you're probably out of luck with the virtualisation route - if you really can't run your app in Windows then you're limited to the following:
1. Unrealistic: Install Linux instead
2. Unrealistic: Install Linux alongside (not an option)
3. Boot into a live CD, you could prepare a disk image with CUDA and mount the image each time
4. Setup (or beg/borrow) a separate box with Linux and access it remotely | I just heard a talk at NVIDIA's GPU technology conference by a researcher named Xiaohui Cui (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). Among other things, he described accessing GPUs from Virtual machines using something called gVirtuS. He did not create gVirtuS, but described it as an opensource "virtual cuda" driver. See following link:
<http://osl.uniparthenope.it/projects/gvirtus/>
I have not tried gVirtuS, but sounds like it might do what you want. |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | I faced a similar task once. What I ended up doing was installing Ubuntu on a 8GB thumb drive with persistent mode enabled.
That gave me 4GB to install CUDA and everything else I needed.
Having a bootable USB stick around can be very useful. I recommend reading [this](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LiveUsbPendrivePersistent).
Also, [this link](http://www.infosecramblings.com/backtrack/backtrack-4-usbpersistent-changesnessus/) has some very interesting material if you're looking for other distros. | Unfortunately the virtual machine simulates a graphics device and as such you won't have access to the real GPU. This is because of the way the virtualisation handles multiple VMs accessing the same device - it provides a layer in between to share the real device.
It is possible to get true access to the hardware, but only if you have the right combination of software and hardware, see the [SLI Multi-OS site](http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/sli_multi_os.html) for details.
So you're probably out of luck with the virtualisation route - if you really can't run your app in Windows then you're limited to the following:
1. Unrealistic: Install Linux instead
2. Unrealistic: Install Linux alongside (not an option)
3. Boot into a live CD, you could prepare a disk image with CUDA and mount the image each time
4. Setup (or beg/borrow) a separate box with Linux and access it remotely |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | Unfortunately the virtual machine simulates a graphics device and as such you won't have access to the real GPU. This is because of the way the virtualisation handles multiple VMs accessing the same device - it provides a layer in between to share the real device.
It is possible to get true access to the hardware, but only if you have the right combination of software and hardware, see the [SLI Multi-OS site](http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/sli_multi_os.html) for details.
So you're probably out of luck with the virtualisation route - if you really can't run your app in Windows then you're limited to the following:
1. Unrealistic: Install Linux instead
2. Unrealistic: Install Linux alongside (not an option)
3. Boot into a live CD, you could prepare a disk image with CUDA and mount the image each time
4. Setup (or beg/borrow) a separate box with Linux and access it remotely | Use [rCUDA](http://rcuda.net/) to add a virtual GPU to your VM. |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | I just heard a talk at NVIDIA's GPU technology conference by a researcher named Xiaohui Cui (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). Among other things, he described accessing GPUs from Virtual machines using something called gVirtuS. He did not create gVirtuS, but described it as an opensource "virtual cuda" driver. See following link:
<http://osl.uniparthenope.it/projects/gvirtus/>
I have not tried gVirtuS, but sounds like it might do what you want. | As of CUDA 3.1 it's virtualization capabilities are not vivid, so the only usable approach is to run CUDA programs directly on the target HW+SW |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | I faced a similar task once. What I ended up doing was installing Ubuntu on a 8GB thumb drive with persistent mode enabled.
That gave me 4GB to install CUDA and everything else I needed.
Having a bootable USB stick around can be very useful. I recommend reading [this](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LiveUsbPendrivePersistent).
Also, [this link](http://www.infosecramblings.com/backtrack/backtrack-4-usbpersistent-changesnessus/) has some very interesting material if you're looking for other distros. | As of CUDA 3.1 it's virtualization capabilities are not vivid, so the only usable approach is to run CUDA programs directly on the target HW+SW |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | I faced a similar task once. What I ended up doing was installing Ubuntu on a 8GB thumb drive with persistent mode enabled.
That gave me 4GB to install CUDA and everything else I needed.
Having a bootable USB stick around can be very useful. I recommend reading [this](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LiveUsbPendrivePersistent).
Also, [this link](http://www.infosecramblings.com/backtrack/backtrack-4-usbpersistent-changesnessus/) has some very interesting material if you're looking for other distros. | I just heard a talk at NVIDIA's GPU technology conference by a researcher named Xiaohui Cui (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). Among other things, he described accessing GPUs from Virtual machines using something called gVirtuS. He did not create gVirtuS, but described it as an opensource "virtual cuda" driver. See following link:
<http://osl.uniparthenope.it/projects/gvirtus/>
I have not tried gVirtuS, but sounds like it might do what you want. |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | I just heard a talk at NVIDIA's GPU technology conference by a researcher named Xiaohui Cui (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). Among other things, he described accessing GPUs from Virtual machines using something called gVirtuS. He did not create gVirtuS, but described it as an opensource "virtual cuda" driver. See following link:
<http://osl.uniparthenope.it/projects/gvirtus/>
I have not tried gVirtuS, but sounds like it might do what you want. | Use [rCUDA](http://rcuda.net/) to add a virtual GPU to your VM. |
2,260,931 | i wrote a cuda program and i am testing it on ubuntu as a virtual machine. the reason for this is i have windows 7, i don't want to install ubuntu as a secondary operating system, and i need to use a linux operating system for testing.
my question is: will the virtual machine limit the gpu resources? So will my cuda code be faster if i run it under my primary operating system than running it on a virtual machine? | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2260931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/272506/"
] | I faced a similar task once. What I ended up doing was installing Ubuntu on a 8GB thumb drive with persistent mode enabled.
That gave me 4GB to install CUDA and everything else I needed.
Having a bootable USB stick around can be very useful. I recommend reading [this](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LiveUsbPendrivePersistent).
Also, [this link](http://www.infosecramblings.com/backtrack/backtrack-4-usbpersistent-changesnessus/) has some very interesting material if you're looking for other distros. | Use [rCUDA](http://rcuda.net/) to add a virtual GPU to your VM. |
19,764 | I'm looking for an exhaustive writing tracker, either software or a spreadsheet. ideally, the basic things it would need to track are word count per session, projects worked on, submission status, etc. The more things related to writing to track the better.
If there's a way to create or it includes graphs that would be amazing. Basically, the more it looks like productivity porn, the better.
I'd really like this to be some kind of software or website, so I don't have to have multiple "2014 Writing Year", "2015 Writing Year", etc. files in a folder on my computer. But I haven't been able to google up anything that fits what I'm looking for. I do have one giant spreadsheet that I've been using, but I made the mistake of renaming it so I can't just say "Hey, I'm looking for something a little more involved than So-and-so's Spreadsheet of Doom" or whatever.
The thought behind the ask: I write better when I have something that will visually show me "hey if you don't write something you're going to break your streak, loser", and I write **more** if I'm trying to beat someone, including myself. The shinier something is with the more bells and whistles, the more likely I am to consistently use it. Basically, I'm trying to instill good writing habits in myself by tricking myself into having good writing habits, using methods that have worked in the past for other things.
Can anyone help? | 2015/11/18 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/19764",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15928/"
] | **Excel, absolutely.**
You might not want to consider this, but give it a shot. Here are the things it could do for you:
1. **Word Count.** It has this one in the bag. Simply write for a session and count the words. If you're using MS Word, just highlight the words. It will tell you the word count down on the bottom of the screen. I know there are also websites/programs that can do this for you. Then just put that number into Excel. The next time you write, put the second number next to the first. Then run a formula to calculate the average. You can keep from having to update the formula by *inserting* columns/rows before the formula to add new data. When you do this, Excel automatically changes the formula to include the new column or row.
2. **Projects.** Simply make a new sheet in the same file. This way, you have one big file with all of your past, present, and future projects in it. In addition, you can see the specs of each project individually. Be sure to back this big file up somewhere.
3. **Submission Status.** It's up to you how you want to track this. I use Excel to track my writing progress in a similar fashion. I have an in depth development process, followed by the writing process. For each step, I have a cell containing how much I think the step is worth (for example, a particular step may be worth 1, and another may be worth 5 because it takes longer). As I go through the process, I have another column that I fill in with numbers corresponding to the step value, as I complete them. At the top of the sheet, I have a cell with a formula dividing the sums of the two columns by each other and writing the result as a percent, so telling me how far I am through the project.
4. **Graphs.** They're a little hard to work with in Excel (Word is easier to arrange them), but MS Office 2007 and up has a lot of excellent charts and graphs you can use to track practically anything. Want a line graph depicting how often, how much, and when you write? No problem. Want to later change that line graph to a different format (of a line graph) without losing the data? No problem.
Something else you could consider is MS Access. It's not as easy to work as Excel or Word, and you need to know what you are doing, but it is ultimately far more powerful than either.
Hope that helps! | You can try my old buddy [Scrivener.](http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php) I don't use even a quarter of the bells and whistles I know are there, so hunt around the documentation and see if it's useful. I know it at least has a Goal function so you can set a word count goal to meet, and keeps track in the footer.
Inexpensive program, you own it rather than rent it (I'm looking at *you*, Adobe), and the trial is fully powered for the trial period rather than being crippled. |
19,764 | I'm looking for an exhaustive writing tracker, either software or a spreadsheet. ideally, the basic things it would need to track are word count per session, projects worked on, submission status, etc. The more things related to writing to track the better.
If there's a way to create or it includes graphs that would be amazing. Basically, the more it looks like productivity porn, the better.
I'd really like this to be some kind of software or website, so I don't have to have multiple "2014 Writing Year", "2015 Writing Year", etc. files in a folder on my computer. But I haven't been able to google up anything that fits what I'm looking for. I do have one giant spreadsheet that I've been using, but I made the mistake of renaming it so I can't just say "Hey, I'm looking for something a little more involved than So-and-so's Spreadsheet of Doom" or whatever.
The thought behind the ask: I write better when I have something that will visually show me "hey if you don't write something you're going to break your streak, loser", and I write **more** if I'm trying to beat someone, including myself. The shinier something is with the more bells and whistles, the more likely I am to consistently use it. Basically, I'm trying to instill good writing habits in myself by tricking myself into having good writing habits, using methods that have worked in the past for other things.
Can anyone help? | 2015/11/18 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/19764",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15928/"
] | **Excel, absolutely.**
You might not want to consider this, but give it a shot. Here are the things it could do for you:
1. **Word Count.** It has this one in the bag. Simply write for a session and count the words. If you're using MS Word, just highlight the words. It will tell you the word count down on the bottom of the screen. I know there are also websites/programs that can do this for you. Then just put that number into Excel. The next time you write, put the second number next to the first. Then run a formula to calculate the average. You can keep from having to update the formula by *inserting* columns/rows before the formula to add new data. When you do this, Excel automatically changes the formula to include the new column or row.
2. **Projects.** Simply make a new sheet in the same file. This way, you have one big file with all of your past, present, and future projects in it. In addition, you can see the specs of each project individually. Be sure to back this big file up somewhere.
3. **Submission Status.** It's up to you how you want to track this. I use Excel to track my writing progress in a similar fashion. I have an in depth development process, followed by the writing process. For each step, I have a cell containing how much I think the step is worth (for example, a particular step may be worth 1, and another may be worth 5 because it takes longer). As I go through the process, I have another column that I fill in with numbers corresponding to the step value, as I complete them. At the top of the sheet, I have a cell with a formula dividing the sums of the two columns by each other and writing the result as a percent, so telling me how far I am through the project.
4. **Graphs.** They're a little hard to work with in Excel (Word is easier to arrange them), but MS Office 2007 and up has a lot of excellent charts and graphs you can use to track practically anything. Want a line graph depicting how often, how much, and when you write? No problem. Want to later change that line graph to a different format (of a line graph) without losing the data? No problem.
Something else you could consider is MS Access. It's not as easy to work as Excel or Word, and you need to know what you are doing, but it is ultimately far more powerful than either.
Hope that helps! | I use a variation of Fritz Freiheit's Master Writing Log. It is a LibreOffice spreadsheet (works under excel too) and doesn't have graphs but they're easy to put in.
See <http://fritzfreiheit.com/wiki/Master_writing_log> |
19,764 | I'm looking for an exhaustive writing tracker, either software or a spreadsheet. ideally, the basic things it would need to track are word count per session, projects worked on, submission status, etc. The more things related to writing to track the better.
If there's a way to create or it includes graphs that would be amazing. Basically, the more it looks like productivity porn, the better.
I'd really like this to be some kind of software or website, so I don't have to have multiple "2014 Writing Year", "2015 Writing Year", etc. files in a folder on my computer. But I haven't been able to google up anything that fits what I'm looking for. I do have one giant spreadsheet that I've been using, but I made the mistake of renaming it so I can't just say "Hey, I'm looking for something a little more involved than So-and-so's Spreadsheet of Doom" or whatever.
The thought behind the ask: I write better when I have something that will visually show me "hey if you don't write something you're going to break your streak, loser", and I write **more** if I'm trying to beat someone, including myself. The shinier something is with the more bells and whistles, the more likely I am to consistently use it. Basically, I'm trying to instill good writing habits in myself by tricking myself into having good writing habits, using methods that have worked in the past for other things.
Can anyone help? | 2015/11/18 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/19764",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15928/"
] | While Excel is good at tracking data, and I use Scrivener for all of my writing, you may want to look at [Pacemaker](http://pacemaker.press/). It's a free web service, and a great way to set goals and enter progress.
It will automatically adjust based on your progress, and creates charts that you can vary several different ways (more on weekends? front-load?).
I highly recommend it. | You can try my old buddy [Scrivener.](http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php) I don't use even a quarter of the bells and whistles I know are there, so hunt around the documentation and see if it's useful. I know it at least has a Goal function so you can set a word count goal to meet, and keeps track in the footer.
Inexpensive program, you own it rather than rent it (I'm looking at *you*, Adobe), and the trial is fully powered for the trial period rather than being crippled. |
19,764 | I'm looking for an exhaustive writing tracker, either software or a spreadsheet. ideally, the basic things it would need to track are word count per session, projects worked on, submission status, etc. The more things related to writing to track the better.
If there's a way to create or it includes graphs that would be amazing. Basically, the more it looks like productivity porn, the better.
I'd really like this to be some kind of software or website, so I don't have to have multiple "2014 Writing Year", "2015 Writing Year", etc. files in a folder on my computer. But I haven't been able to google up anything that fits what I'm looking for. I do have one giant spreadsheet that I've been using, but I made the mistake of renaming it so I can't just say "Hey, I'm looking for something a little more involved than So-and-so's Spreadsheet of Doom" or whatever.
The thought behind the ask: I write better when I have something that will visually show me "hey if you don't write something you're going to break your streak, loser", and I write **more** if I'm trying to beat someone, including myself. The shinier something is with the more bells and whistles, the more likely I am to consistently use it. Basically, I'm trying to instill good writing habits in myself by tricking myself into having good writing habits, using methods that have worked in the past for other things.
Can anyone help? | 2015/11/18 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/19764",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15928/"
] | While Excel is good at tracking data, and I use Scrivener for all of my writing, you may want to look at [Pacemaker](http://pacemaker.press/). It's a free web service, and a great way to set goals and enter progress.
It will automatically adjust based on your progress, and creates charts that you can vary several different ways (more on weekends? front-load?).
I highly recommend it. | I use a variation of Fritz Freiheit's Master Writing Log. It is a LibreOffice spreadsheet (works under excel too) and doesn't have graphs but they're easy to put in.
See <http://fritzfreiheit.com/wiki/Master_writing_log> |
35,059 | I would like to upgrade from XP Professional to Windows 7 Professional. Could someone give me a few basic steps of the process? I keep reading about "clean installs", "migration", and saving everything before upgrading. What specificly, must be saved...or should I not have skipped Vista all these years? | 2009/09/03 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/35059",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/7920/"
] | Your friend [How-To-Geek](https://superuser.com/users/4102/the-how-to-geek) has a step-by-step guide entitled [Migrate XP to Windows 7 with Easy Transfer and a USB Drive](http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/3179/migrate-xp-to-windows-7-with-easy-transfer-and-a-usb-drive/) available on [HowToGeek.com](http://www.howtogeek.com/). | You won't be able to do a direct xp to 7 upgrade. for some inane reason, microsoft decided against it. you can only do a clean install which means you'll have to backup all of your settings, documents, media and do a clean install of 7 then import your stuff.
i think this is microsoft's way of giving us the finger back for rejecting vista. |
38,112 | I'm a bit new to Blender, and in trying to learn more, I've stumbled across nodes.
What are nodes, and how do I use them? | 2015/09/06 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/38112",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/17941/"
] | ### Understanding of nodes
Nodes are a visual expression of mathematical operations.
The concept of nodes should help users to solve complex tasks by providing "packs" that transform inputs into outputs. In general, complex operations are splitted up into basic nodes to give the **most possible freedom to the user**. It's a kind of interface, which is flexible to work with and combines the best of both worlds (programming and use).
It's just a [visual programming language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language), so in Blender it's useful for complex purposes like:
### Built-in
* Creating shaders for objects, world and line styles (Freestyle)
* Textures
* Image Compositing
### Add-ons
But the range of operations they are capable to do is it is not limited to the **built-in nodetree types**. There are add-ons that integrate other functions like:
* [Parametric Modeling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_modeling#Parametric_modeling) via [Sverchok](https://github.com/nortikin/sverchok)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6WWmy.png)
where you can use nodes to operate with vertex/edge/faces and also manage data lists (that gives you access ...to **everything!**).
* Node based animation via [Animation Nodes](https://github.com/JacquesLucke/animation_nodes)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kg5U4.jpg)
*Image from <http://www.blendernation.com/2015/03/17/review-animation-nodes-addon/>*
### Node-based compositing
You are referring to [Composite Node tree](https://www.blender.org/manual/composite_nodes/introduction.html) type in your question. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_compositing):
>
> Node-based compositing represents an entire composite as a tree graph, linking media objects and effects in a procedural map, intuitively laying out the progression from source input to final output, and is in fact the way all compositing applications internally handle composites.
>
>
>
Between the *starting inputs* (usually [Render layers](https://www.blender.org/manual/render/post_process/layers.html?highlight=render%20layers)) and the *final output* image you can add nodes to:
* Tweak the brightness,
* Overlay images with alpha,
* Separate rgb channels,
* apply filters,
* **etc.**
Well, the list can be long and there are dozen of nodes, which can combined in infinite number of ways. The main advantage of image compositing in Blender is that it will **automatically run through the node's operations after rendering the 3d image**, so you'll not have to re-tweak the image manually *(as Photoshop's Adjustment levels, they are operation done "after" the base image, in a non destructive way).* | Nodes are a way to build materials and compositing setups in what some would call a more natural way (though this is just opinion, not everyone agrees). Instead of having a list of properties for a material, we can instead use nodes to visualise how properties are used, how information can be re-used and what processes are happening to values we input.
**Modularity**
Connections between a node mean information is being passed from one node to another. Each node has a specific job; for example, in the case of a 'Math' node it would be to perform some mathematical calculation to the data being passed to it. Because nodes are modular, even with a few basic nodes there will be hundreds of different ways to combine them to give different results.
We might have a bump map texture and want to reduce its effect (see image below). We can pass the 'Color' output of an image texture bump map to the 'Math' node and set it to 'multiply' the data it gets. Because it is multiplying by less than one, the output will be reduced. The data is then passed onto the next process via the 'Value' output on the right:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KjpMf.png)
**Data types**
The colour of the node inputs (the 2 grey circles on the left edge of the 'Math' node) is an indicator of the type of data it is and what type of data it expects. Grey inputs or outputs means a 'number' data type, yellow a 'colour', blue/purple a 'vector' and green a 'shader'. As a basic rule you generally stick to passing one colour/data type to the same data type (though as you can see from the image above, there are exceptions to this) and there are some nodes which convert from one type to another like the 'RGB to BW' node below which converts from colour to number:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5kWc9.png)
**Re-using data**
You can also more easily re-use or link pieces of data. Below, I am able to use the same RGB colour and have its output connected to two different nodes, which might be difficult or impossible in a non-nodal interface:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7nPc6.png)
Nodes are a very large topic, but this should give you an intro as to what they are. |
2,924,848 | When I go to these examples using Firefox 3.6.3 and click the code examples it doesn't work:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1whwt1k7.aspx>
I want confirmation that this is a Firefox compatibility problem, suspect my firewall.f | 2010/05/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2924848",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/254428/"
] | Can't switch languages in FF 3.6.3 | Works fine in Chrome. |
2,924,848 | When I go to these examples using Firefox 3.6.3 and click the code examples it doesn't work:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1whwt1k7.aspx>
I want confirmation that this is a Firefox compatibility problem, suspect my firewall.f | 2010/05/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2924848",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/254428/"
] | I can't switch languages in Chrome 5. Haven't been able to for some time. It used to work, or I'd be stuck on the default language instead of F#. | Works fine in Chrome. |
2,924,848 | When I go to these examples using Firefox 3.6.3 and click the code examples it doesn't work:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1whwt1k7.aspx>
I want confirmation that this is a Firefox compatibility problem, suspect my firewall.f | 2010/05/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2924848",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/254428/"
] | I can't switch languages in Chrome 5. Haven't been able to for some time. It used to work, or I'd be stuck on the default language instead of F#. | Can't switch languages in FF 3.6.3 |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | We generally use 'into' to talk about directions and destinations, while we use 'in' to talk about the positions of thing. So you have to use 'split into' in your example because the destinations of the bibliography are the sections.
However we might use:
(1) 'into' when we think of the division (split) itself;
(2) 'in' when we think more at the end of division. | Split in sections does not make any sense - you would have to split something **into** sections. |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | There's not really a "grammatical" justification for the choice, but idiomatically, we [almost always](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20sections,split%20into%20sections&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3) use *"into"* with *"sections"*...
...whereas with *"half"*, for example (there aren't many such examples), it's [the other way around](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20half,split%20into%20half&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3)
In fact, apart from *"half"* I'm not sure there's any other split you can make where *"into"* isn't preferred. If you compare [split in/into two](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20two,split%20into%20two&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3), the preference isn't quite so marked - but that's probably influenced by the unusual usage with *"half"*. As you go to bigger numbers, the preference for *"into"* [is overwhelmingly reasserted](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20three,split%20into%20three&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3).
For a (weak) justification of the idiomatic preference for *split **into*** over *split **in***, I suggest that in numerous "compound verbs" *(lapse into a coma, descend into chaos, developed into full-blown AIDS, etc.)*, the *"into"* component strongly associates with "transformation" of the primary subject.
That association very much involves the "sub-component *"to"*, which can pass muster on its own in things like *turn to stone, bring to focus, etc.*. With those, you can get away with *"into"*, but you couldn't possibly use *"in"*. | Split in sections does not make any sense - you would have to split something **into** sections. |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | >
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to split in/into sections
>
>
>
So, there is this bibliography page that you **split in** most cases. Whatever you split, I hope you always **split into** sections, because I find it to be ---sections--- the best format to do so.
I have a bibliography page which I **splited into** twelve sections. Yes, I presented it **splitted in** a recent report. Don't be afraid to split; go ahead and split comfortably! Just don't ever *split into half* but **into halves** or **in half**.
;) Hope that helped. I would use *split into sections*.
From Oxford dictionary:
>
> **Divide or cause to divide into parts or elements**. ‘The river had split
> into a number of channels’. ‘Splitting water into oxygen and
> hydrogen’.
>
>
> **Example sentences**:
>
>
> ‘It left me absolutely dumbfounded to see the 25-foot high walls, to
> see how towns have been split into two.’
>
>
> ‘He welcomed another measure now set to be adopted by the agency,
> under which the westbound carriageway will be split into two separate
> lanes.’
>
>
> ‘The development will be split into five separate blocks.’
>
>
> ‘Under the new scheme, the town centre will be split into 12 different
> zones which council bosses claim could be cleared in minutes.’
>
>
> ‘It takes energy to split the water molecule and release hydrogen, but
> that energy is later recovered during oxidation to produce water.’
>
>
> ‘The exam is split into 10 separate tests, which last from two minutes
> to 18 minutes.’
>
>
> ‘The water molecule is split into hydrogen ions (positively charged
> atoms) and oxygen.’
>
>
> ‘Classes, which last for 45 minutes, are split into separate sessions
> for babies, one- to two-year-olds, and two- to four-year-olds.’
>
>
> ‘This electricity splits the water molecules in an electrolyte,
> producing hydrogen.’
>
>
> ‘After much debate, it was split into two separate and distinct
> countries.’
>
>
> ‘This resulted in two items being added, no items being dropped, one
> item being split into two separate items, and one item having minor
> wording changes.’
>
>
> ‘The program is split into three separate phases.’
>
>
> ‘Her hair was pulled back into a large ponytail which was split into
> five separate braids.’
>
>
> ‘But when did the Olympics split into separate Summer and Winter
> Games, and where were the first Winter Olympics held?’
>
>
> ‘The playing field is split into three separate areas: surface, air,
> and underground.’
>
>
> ‘The cotton country on this farm is split into two separate
> developments of about 1250 acres each.’
>
>
> ‘The flow of coolant when entering our heatsink base is split into six
> separate channels and two separate directions.’
>
>
> ‘The response was split evenly - 44 percent didn't work; 44 percent
> did work.’
>
>
> ‘The retail business of both his Florida and New Mexico stores was
> split evenly between new and pre-owned vehicles.’
>
>
> ‘Sozopol is split into two main parts: the old town and new town -
> known as Harmanite.’
>
>
> | Split in sections does not make any sense - you would have to split something **into** sections. |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | We generally use 'into' to talk about directions and destinations, while we use 'in' to talk about the positions of thing. So you have to use 'split into' in your example because the destinations of the bibliography are the sections.
However we might use:
(1) 'into' when we think of the division (split) itself;
(2) 'in' when we think more at the end of division. | I think either one is acceptable.
The word *in* has well over 20 definitions, and one of them is *[into something](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/in#in_29).*
So, I have no problem with *divide this page into three sections.* Moreover, I would accept *divide this page in three sections,* although the former seems to sound a bit more natural to me.
As an example of how vexing this could be, I'd probably say:
>
> Cut this candy bar **in** half.
>
>
>
but also:
>
> Cut this candy bar **into** thirds.
>
>
> |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | There's not really a "grammatical" justification for the choice, but idiomatically, we [almost always](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20sections,split%20into%20sections&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3) use *"into"* with *"sections"*...
...whereas with *"half"*, for example (there aren't many such examples), it's [the other way around](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20half,split%20into%20half&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3)
In fact, apart from *"half"* I'm not sure there's any other split you can make where *"into"* isn't preferred. If you compare [split in/into two](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20two,split%20into%20two&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3), the preference isn't quite so marked - but that's probably influenced by the unusual usage with *"half"*. As you go to bigger numbers, the preference for *"into"* [is overwhelmingly reasserted](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20three,split%20into%20three&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3).
For a (weak) justification of the idiomatic preference for *split **into*** over *split **in***, I suggest that in numerous "compound verbs" *(lapse into a coma, descend into chaos, developed into full-blown AIDS, etc.)*, the *"into"* component strongly associates with "transformation" of the primary subject.
That association very much involves the "sub-component *"to"*, which can pass muster on its own in things like *turn to stone, bring to focus, etc.*. With those, you can get away with *"into"*, but you couldn't possibly use *"in"*. | We generally use 'into' to talk about directions and destinations, while we use 'in' to talk about the positions of thing. So you have to use 'split into' in your example because the destinations of the bibliography are the sections.
However we might use:
(1) 'into' when we think of the division (split) itself;
(2) 'in' when we think more at the end of division. |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | >
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to split in/into sections
>
>
>
So, there is this bibliography page that you **split in** most cases. Whatever you split, I hope you always **split into** sections, because I find it to be ---sections--- the best format to do so.
I have a bibliography page which I **splited into** twelve sections. Yes, I presented it **splitted in** a recent report. Don't be afraid to split; go ahead and split comfortably! Just don't ever *split into half* but **into halves** or **in half**.
;) Hope that helped. I would use *split into sections*.
From Oxford dictionary:
>
> **Divide or cause to divide into parts or elements**. ‘The river had split
> into a number of channels’. ‘Splitting water into oxygen and
> hydrogen’.
>
>
> **Example sentences**:
>
>
> ‘It left me absolutely dumbfounded to see the 25-foot high walls, to
> see how towns have been split into two.’
>
>
> ‘He welcomed another measure now set to be adopted by the agency,
> under which the westbound carriageway will be split into two separate
> lanes.’
>
>
> ‘The development will be split into five separate blocks.’
>
>
> ‘Under the new scheme, the town centre will be split into 12 different
> zones which council bosses claim could be cleared in minutes.’
>
>
> ‘It takes energy to split the water molecule and release hydrogen, but
> that energy is later recovered during oxidation to produce water.’
>
>
> ‘The exam is split into 10 separate tests, which last from two minutes
> to 18 minutes.’
>
>
> ‘The water molecule is split into hydrogen ions (positively charged
> atoms) and oxygen.’
>
>
> ‘Classes, which last for 45 minutes, are split into separate sessions
> for babies, one- to two-year-olds, and two- to four-year-olds.’
>
>
> ‘This electricity splits the water molecules in an electrolyte,
> producing hydrogen.’
>
>
> ‘After much debate, it was split into two separate and distinct
> countries.’
>
>
> ‘This resulted in two items being added, no items being dropped, one
> item being split into two separate items, and one item having minor
> wording changes.’
>
>
> ‘The program is split into three separate phases.’
>
>
> ‘Her hair was pulled back into a large ponytail which was split into
> five separate braids.’
>
>
> ‘But when did the Olympics split into separate Summer and Winter
> Games, and where were the first Winter Olympics held?’
>
>
> ‘The playing field is split into three separate areas: surface, air,
> and underground.’
>
>
> ‘The cotton country on this farm is split into two separate
> developments of about 1250 acres each.’
>
>
> ‘The flow of coolant when entering our heatsink base is split into six
> separate channels and two separate directions.’
>
>
> ‘The response was split evenly - 44 percent didn't work; 44 percent
> did work.’
>
>
> ‘The retail business of both his Florida and New Mexico stores was
> split evenly between new and pre-owned vehicles.’
>
>
> ‘Sozopol is split into two main parts: the old town and new town -
> known as Harmanite.’
>
>
> | We generally use 'into' to talk about directions and destinations, while we use 'in' to talk about the positions of thing. So you have to use 'split into' in your example because the destinations of the bibliography are the sections.
However we might use:
(1) 'into' when we think of the division (split) itself;
(2) 'in' when we think more at the end of division. |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | There's not really a "grammatical" justification for the choice, but idiomatically, we [almost always](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20sections,split%20into%20sections&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3) use *"into"* with *"sections"*...
...whereas with *"half"*, for example (there aren't many such examples), it's [the other way around](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20half,split%20into%20half&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3)
In fact, apart from *"half"* I'm not sure there's any other split you can make where *"into"* isn't preferred. If you compare [split in/into two](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20two,split%20into%20two&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3), the preference isn't quite so marked - but that's probably influenced by the unusual usage with *"half"*. As you go to bigger numbers, the preference for *"into"* [is overwhelmingly reasserted](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20three,split%20into%20three&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3).
For a (weak) justification of the idiomatic preference for *split **into*** over *split **in***, I suggest that in numerous "compound verbs" *(lapse into a coma, descend into chaos, developed into full-blown AIDS, etc.)*, the *"into"* component strongly associates with "transformation" of the primary subject.
That association very much involves the "sub-component *"to"*, which can pass muster on its own in things like *turn to stone, bring to focus, etc.*. With those, you can get away with *"into"*, but you couldn't possibly use *"in"*. | I think either one is acceptable.
The word *in* has well over 20 definitions, and one of them is *[into something](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/in#in_29).*
So, I have no problem with *divide this page into three sections.* Moreover, I would accept *divide this page in three sections,* although the former seems to sound a bit more natural to me.
As an example of how vexing this could be, I'd probably say:
>
> Cut this candy bar **in** half.
>
>
>
but also:
>
> Cut this candy bar **into** thirds.
>
>
> |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | >
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to split in/into sections
>
>
>
So, there is this bibliography page that you **split in** most cases. Whatever you split, I hope you always **split into** sections, because I find it to be ---sections--- the best format to do so.
I have a bibliography page which I **splited into** twelve sections. Yes, I presented it **splitted in** a recent report. Don't be afraid to split; go ahead and split comfortably! Just don't ever *split into half* but **into halves** or **in half**.
;) Hope that helped. I would use *split into sections*.
From Oxford dictionary:
>
> **Divide or cause to divide into parts or elements**. ‘The river had split
> into a number of channels’. ‘Splitting water into oxygen and
> hydrogen’.
>
>
> **Example sentences**:
>
>
> ‘It left me absolutely dumbfounded to see the 25-foot high walls, to
> see how towns have been split into two.’
>
>
> ‘He welcomed another measure now set to be adopted by the agency,
> under which the westbound carriageway will be split into two separate
> lanes.’
>
>
> ‘The development will be split into five separate blocks.’
>
>
> ‘Under the new scheme, the town centre will be split into 12 different
> zones which council bosses claim could be cleared in minutes.’
>
>
> ‘It takes energy to split the water molecule and release hydrogen, but
> that energy is later recovered during oxidation to produce water.’
>
>
> ‘The exam is split into 10 separate tests, which last from two minutes
> to 18 minutes.’
>
>
> ‘The water molecule is split into hydrogen ions (positively charged
> atoms) and oxygen.’
>
>
> ‘Classes, which last for 45 minutes, are split into separate sessions
> for babies, one- to two-year-olds, and two- to four-year-olds.’
>
>
> ‘This electricity splits the water molecules in an electrolyte,
> producing hydrogen.’
>
>
> ‘After much debate, it was split into two separate and distinct
> countries.’
>
>
> ‘This resulted in two items being added, no items being dropped, one
> item being split into two separate items, and one item having minor
> wording changes.’
>
>
> ‘The program is split into three separate phases.’
>
>
> ‘Her hair was pulled back into a large ponytail which was split into
> five separate braids.’
>
>
> ‘But when did the Olympics split into separate Summer and Winter
> Games, and where were the first Winter Olympics held?’
>
>
> ‘The playing field is split into three separate areas: surface, air,
> and underground.’
>
>
> ‘The cotton country on this farm is split into two separate
> developments of about 1250 acres each.’
>
>
> ‘The flow of coolant when entering our heatsink base is split into six
> separate channels and two separate directions.’
>
>
> ‘The response was split evenly - 44 percent didn't work; 44 percent
> did work.’
>
>
> ‘The retail business of both his Florida and New Mexico stores was
> split evenly between new and pre-owned vehicles.’
>
>
> ‘Sozopol is split into two main parts: the old town and new town -
> known as Harmanite.’
>
>
> | I think either one is acceptable.
The word *in* has well over 20 definitions, and one of them is *[into something](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/in#in_29).*
So, I have no problem with *divide this page into three sections.* Moreover, I would accept *divide this page in three sections,* although the former seems to sound a bit more natural to me.
As an example of how vexing this could be, I'd probably say:
>
> Cut this candy bar **in** half.
>
>
>
but also:
>
> Cut this candy bar **into** thirds.
>
>
> |
75,153 | In the sentence
>
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to **split in/into** sections
>
>
>
which would you rather use: *split in* or *split into*?
Why? | 2012/07/19 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75153",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12482/"
] | There's not really a "grammatical" justification for the choice, but idiomatically, we [almost always](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20sections,split%20into%20sections&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3) use *"into"* with *"sections"*...
...whereas with *"half"*, for example (there aren't many such examples), it's [the other way around](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20half,split%20into%20half&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3)
In fact, apart from *"half"* I'm not sure there's any other split you can make where *"into"* isn't preferred. If you compare [split in/into two](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20two,split%20into%20two&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3), the preference isn't quite so marked - but that's probably influenced by the unusual usage with *"half"*. As you go to bigger numbers, the preference for *"into"* [is overwhelmingly reasserted](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=split%20in%20three,split%20into%20three&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3).
For a (weak) justification of the idiomatic preference for *split **into*** over *split **in***, I suggest that in numerous "compound verbs" *(lapse into a coma, descend into chaos, developed into full-blown AIDS, etc.)*, the *"into"* component strongly associates with "transformation" of the primary subject.
That association very much involves the "sub-component *"to"*, which can pass muster on its own in things like *turn to stone, bring to focus, etc.*. With those, you can get away with *"into"*, but you couldn't possibly use *"in"*. | >
> I have a bibliography page which I'd like to split in/into sections
>
>
>
So, there is this bibliography page that you **split in** most cases. Whatever you split, I hope you always **split into** sections, because I find it to be ---sections--- the best format to do so.
I have a bibliography page which I **splited into** twelve sections. Yes, I presented it **splitted in** a recent report. Don't be afraid to split; go ahead and split comfortably! Just don't ever *split into half* but **into halves** or **in half**.
;) Hope that helped. I would use *split into sections*.
From Oxford dictionary:
>
> **Divide or cause to divide into parts or elements**. ‘The river had split
> into a number of channels’. ‘Splitting water into oxygen and
> hydrogen’.
>
>
> **Example sentences**:
>
>
> ‘It left me absolutely dumbfounded to see the 25-foot high walls, to
> see how towns have been split into two.’
>
>
> ‘He welcomed another measure now set to be adopted by the agency,
> under which the westbound carriageway will be split into two separate
> lanes.’
>
>
> ‘The development will be split into five separate blocks.’
>
>
> ‘Under the new scheme, the town centre will be split into 12 different
> zones which council bosses claim could be cleared in minutes.’
>
>
> ‘It takes energy to split the water molecule and release hydrogen, but
> that energy is later recovered during oxidation to produce water.’
>
>
> ‘The exam is split into 10 separate tests, which last from two minutes
> to 18 minutes.’
>
>
> ‘The water molecule is split into hydrogen ions (positively charged
> atoms) and oxygen.’
>
>
> ‘Classes, which last for 45 minutes, are split into separate sessions
> for babies, one- to two-year-olds, and two- to four-year-olds.’
>
>
> ‘This electricity splits the water molecules in an electrolyte,
> producing hydrogen.’
>
>
> ‘After much debate, it was split into two separate and distinct
> countries.’
>
>
> ‘This resulted in two items being added, no items being dropped, one
> item being split into two separate items, and one item having minor
> wording changes.’
>
>
> ‘The program is split into three separate phases.’
>
>
> ‘Her hair was pulled back into a large ponytail which was split into
> five separate braids.’
>
>
> ‘But when did the Olympics split into separate Summer and Winter
> Games, and where were the first Winter Olympics held?’
>
>
> ‘The playing field is split into three separate areas: surface, air,
> and underground.’
>
>
> ‘The cotton country on this farm is split into two separate
> developments of about 1250 acres each.’
>
>
> ‘The flow of coolant when entering our heatsink base is split into six
> separate channels and two separate directions.’
>
>
> ‘The response was split evenly - 44 percent didn't work; 44 percent
> did work.’
>
>
> ‘The retail business of both his Florida and New Mexico stores was
> split evenly between new and pre-owned vehicles.’
>
>
> ‘Sozopol is split into two main parts: the old town and new town -
> known as Harmanite.’
>
>
> |
98,905 | I'm not getting a clear answer out of Google and would like to know if I'm going to have to reinstall my Mac operating system when attempting to get Bootcamp going on the system.
Thank you. | 2013/08/14 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/98905",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/31620/"
] | No, you don't. I've got bootcamp on my Mac at home and did not have to reinstall my Mac OS. | Boot Camp creates a separate partition on your hard drive through "non-destructive partitioning", that is, by taking a chunk out of the free space left on your hard drive. You should always make a backup first, just in case, but the expected result is that you will simply end up with two partitions instead of one on your hard drive. One will be for Boot Camp, and the other will be for Mac OS X and all of your existing files/applications/etc.
See [this Apple support document](http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11131). Also when you start Boot Camp Assistant it will present a guide that you can print out to follow along with while setting it up. |
351 | Now that we have our fantastic Community Bulletin, we can advertise our chat better and work in order to make this site more populated. So I was thinking: why not organize chat events? These ones would be on:
* Discussing site problems and strategies (e.g. promotion);
* Welcoming new users and helping them using the site;
* Etc...
But the question is... when? I think it's better if we decide a time and see where the most of us is availble. Alternatively, we can set two identical chat events for the same topic, one for a certain time zone, and another one for another time zone.
Chat events are easily scheduled in the chat, and you can register to the chat event (a click on a **Register** button is enough) so that you get a reminder before it starts.
Choose a Time Zone from this image that corresponds to your country and post it in the answer below:
 ([Source](http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/2c.html))
Am I forgetting something? This meta question will be featured in the main site, be generous in your participation! :) | 2012/05/08 | [
"https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/351",
"https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/111/"
] | 1. **Duration**: 1 hour (I think 1 hour is the least to achieve something.)
2. **Structure**:
* First 15 minutes: welcoming new users or new "entries" in the regulars;
* 35 minutes: we talk about the decided topics;
* Last 10 minutes: recap and last-minute news.
3. **Some rules**: During these chat events, it'd be best if we kept the jokes/chit-chat to a minimum so we don't waste time and we *actually* solve problems. The usual rules abour proper behavior apply. :)
4. **Who**: Anyone can participate, and actually, I wish all of you would join the event. It'd be a huge victory towards our final goal: graduation and the creation of a great site of Linguistics.
5. **When**: Still to be done.
6. **Why**: Because if we don't do this for ourselves, no-one will do it for us.
7. **How**: We can either make the conversation-free OR organize it in a way that people talk only after having requested the right to talk. The first one is more human and funnier I think, while the second is more organized but probably boring... I can do either. :)
8. **What**: These are some topics I think we could talk about (we choose some and do them in order or not):
* **Promotion**: What have we done and what could we do? Is it enough? Strategies?
* **Community Bulletin**: A quick overview of this new feature.
* **Linguistics Community FAQ**: General discussion about its usefulness, etc.
* **Users**: Proposals/criticism/anything from users about problems that might be present in the site (if any).
* **Moderators**: Are you satisfied with their work? Anything you would change? Criticism? What about positive things? :)
Anything I forgot? | User - Time Zone
----------------
>
> ***Note**: this is not a register form. It's here as a reminder for the time zones of those who want to participate.*
>
>
>
* Alenanno: +1
* Otavio: -3
* Danger: 0
* Tdhsmith: -6
* blunders: any timezone works |
83,987 | I have a Canon 700d with 2 kit lenses, both having auto-focus feature. I read a book "Canon EOS Rebel T5i/700D For Dummies", which warns against switching auto-focus on/off while the camera is on. According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
A few days ago, a friend of mine who is professional photographer noticed me doing this, and told me that doesn't matter and I need not turn off my camera while switching auto-focus on/off. I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way? | 2016/10/25 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/83987",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/50553/"
] | >
> According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
>
>
>
That seems pretty ridiculous. Perhaps the authors are serious about their target audience being dummies.
>
> I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way?
>
>
>
**You won't hurt anything.** It's fine to turn AF on or off while the camera is turned on.
For evidence, see page 170 of the [T5i manual (PDF)](https://static.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/79893.pdf), which covers manual focus operation. Note that it instructs you to switch the lens to `MF` but doesn't mention turning off the camera first.
As Rob points out in another answer, you should probably avoid changing the focus mode switch while the lens is actually autofocusing, as it would be if you keep the shutter release half-pressed or set the camera to Continuous AF mode for shooting video. So don't do that. Changing the focussing mode or other settings *during* use seems like a strange and unlikely thing to do, though, and it seems unlikely that you'd find yourself tempted to do it. | The warning you read applies to Live View shooting. If you look at the T5I manual it states on page 156 under the Continuous AF section , "...During Continuous AF, turn off the power before you set the len's focus mode switch to MF". I usually only use Continuous AF on my T4I so if I do switch to manual I don't usually remember to do this, and I have never had an issue. With that stated, following the camera manufacturer's advice is the safe way to go. |
83,987 | I have a Canon 700d with 2 kit lenses, both having auto-focus feature. I read a book "Canon EOS Rebel T5i/700D For Dummies", which warns against switching auto-focus on/off while the camera is on. According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
A few days ago, a friend of mine who is professional photographer noticed me doing this, and told me that doesn't matter and I need not turn off my camera while switching auto-focus on/off. I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way? | 2016/10/25 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/83987",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/50553/"
] | >
> According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
>
>
>
That seems pretty ridiculous. Perhaps the authors are serious about their target audience being dummies.
>
> I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way?
>
>
>
**You won't hurt anything.** It's fine to turn AF on or off while the camera is turned on.
For evidence, see page 170 of the [T5i manual (PDF)](https://static.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/79893.pdf), which covers manual focus operation. Note that it instructs you to switch the lens to `MF` but doesn't mention turning off the camera first.
As Rob points out in another answer, you should probably avoid changing the focus mode switch while the lens is actually autofocusing, as it would be if you keep the shutter release half-pressed or set the camera to Continuous AF mode for shooting video. So don't do that. Changing the focussing mode or other settings *during* use seems like a strange and unlikely thing to do, though, and it seems unlikely that you'd find yourself tempted to do it. | In some situations, it's convenient to autofocus then switch to manual focus so the focus doesn't change (timelapse, prefocussing for a remote-triggered shot etc.). This wouldn't make sense if you had to turn the camera off in between. |
83,987 | I have a Canon 700d with 2 kit lenses, both having auto-focus feature. I read a book "Canon EOS Rebel T5i/700D For Dummies", which warns against switching auto-focus on/off while the camera is on. According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
A few days ago, a friend of mine who is professional photographer noticed me doing this, and told me that doesn't matter and I need not turn off my camera while switching auto-focus on/off. I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way? | 2016/10/25 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/83987",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/50553/"
] | >
> According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
>
>
>
That seems pretty ridiculous. Perhaps the authors are serious about their target audience being dummies.
>
> I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way?
>
>
>
**You won't hurt anything.** It's fine to turn AF on or off while the camera is turned on.
For evidence, see page 170 of the [T5i manual (PDF)](https://static.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/79893.pdf), which covers manual focus operation. Note that it instructs you to switch the lens to `MF` but doesn't mention turning off the camera first.
As Rob points out in another answer, you should probably avoid changing the focus mode switch while the lens is actually autofocusing, as it would be if you keep the shutter release half-pressed or set the camera to Continuous AF mode for shooting video. So don't do that. Changing the focussing mode or other settings *during* use seems like a strange and unlikely thing to do, though, and it seems unlikely that you'd find yourself tempted to do it. | The risky AF switching may be:
* Interferrence between in-body motor and in-lens rings. it is simillar to changing gears in car without clutch pressed. All EF lenses have electronic interface only, so this is not your case.
* Switching off the motor under load. When switching the switch, peak currents may be delivered to the motor or the control unit causing damage. This may be your case but it is risky if
* you are switching the AF during autofocus routine;
* you are switching the AF during live view and contionuous AF.
If the AF motor is not engaged it is 100% safe to switch the AF on/off on EOS lens. Same is valid for IS or any feature - do not switch the power off under load!
I don't think it will immediately kill the lens, but it is unnecessarily rude. In emergency - The Perfect Moment is approaching and AF still cannot focus - or -I shooting video and it focus on wrong point - do it. But take it as a lesson not as a routine. |
83,987 | I have a Canon 700d with 2 kit lenses, both having auto-focus feature. I read a book "Canon EOS Rebel T5i/700D For Dummies", which warns against switching auto-focus on/off while the camera is on. According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
A few days ago, a friend of mine who is professional photographer noticed me doing this, and told me that doesn't matter and I need not turn off my camera while switching auto-focus on/off. I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way? | 2016/10/25 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/83987",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/50553/"
] | The warning you read applies to Live View shooting. If you look at the T5I manual it states on page 156 under the Continuous AF section , "...During Continuous AF, turn off the power before you set the len's focus mode switch to MF". I usually only use Continuous AF on my T4I so if I do switch to manual I don't usually remember to do this, and I have never had an issue. With that stated, following the camera manufacturer's advice is the safe way to go. | In some situations, it's convenient to autofocus then switch to manual focus so the focus doesn't change (timelapse, prefocussing for a remote-triggered shot etc.). This wouldn't make sense if you had to turn the camera off in between. |
83,987 | I have a Canon 700d with 2 kit lenses, both having auto-focus feature. I read a book "Canon EOS Rebel T5i/700D For Dummies", which warns against switching auto-focus on/off while the camera is on. According to it, we should first turn off the camera before turning auto-focus on/off. That's quite cumbersome obviously.
A few days ago, a friend of mine who is professional photographer noticed me doing this, and told me that doesn't matter and I need not turn off my camera while switching auto-focus on/off. I am confused if this might harm my camera or lens in any way? | 2016/10/25 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/83987",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/50553/"
] | The warning you read applies to Live View shooting. If you look at the T5I manual it states on page 156 under the Continuous AF section , "...During Continuous AF, turn off the power before you set the len's focus mode switch to MF". I usually only use Continuous AF on my T4I so if I do switch to manual I don't usually remember to do this, and I have never had an issue. With that stated, following the camera manufacturer's advice is the safe way to go. | The risky AF switching may be:
* Interferrence between in-body motor and in-lens rings. it is simillar to changing gears in car without clutch pressed. All EF lenses have electronic interface only, so this is not your case.
* Switching off the motor under load. When switching the switch, peak currents may be delivered to the motor or the control unit causing damage. This may be your case but it is risky if
* you are switching the AF during autofocus routine;
* you are switching the AF during live view and contionuous AF.
If the AF motor is not engaged it is 100% safe to switch the AF on/off on EOS lens. Same is valid for IS or any feature - do not switch the power off under load!
I don't think it will immediately kill the lens, but it is unnecessarily rude. In emergency - The Perfect Moment is approaching and AF still cannot focus - or -I shooting video and it focus on wrong point - do it. But take it as a lesson not as a routine. |
54,791,998 | How to differentiate git pull request commit and direct checkin commit to a branch using git api or command line ?
Why i need this?
I need to findout how to get all direct checkins which bypassed pull request mechanism... | 2019/02/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/54791998",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5532829/"
] | Pure Git as a version control system is not aware of any pull request functionality. There is no reference to something like this in the [official documentation](https://www.git-scm.com/). The pull request feature is provided by services such as [github.com](https://github.com/) and [bitbucket.org](https://bitbucket.org/) as additional functionality.
But nevertheless, if you merge a branch into another using a pull request on one of these platforms, you might be able to distinct merges via pull requests from direct merges by inspecting the commit messages of the merge. I have just checked one of my github.com repositories. There, the commit messages coming from pull requests look like this: "Merge pull request #8 from foo/bar", where `foo/bar` represents the source branch. You might therefore be able to differentiate by looking for such preformatted commit messages. | From git's point of view, there's no difference between a revision that came from a PR and another that was just committed and pushed. That might be information you *could* get from your provider if you are using bitbucket or github (and I say *could* in the sense that I have **no idea** if they make it available somehow). But on git's DB? There's nothing about that, to the best of my knowledge. |
5,412,233 | Should you or should you not test single-line functions? | 2011/03/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5412233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/673942/"
] | Today it's one line, next week it's twenty lines.
Putting tests in place now warns you if you mistakenly break the behavior down the road.
Use your best judgment as to whether it's something that has any chance of changing in the future. | If they are part of your public interface then you should test them. |
5,412,233 | Should you or should you not test single-line functions? | 2011/03/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5412233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/673942/"
] | If they are part of your public interface then you should test them. | Some one-liners can be quite elegant/long.
I tend to not test "trivial" functions extensively, though there may be some tests (usually by inspection and one/two test cases) done just to make sure I've matched the documentation/specifications correctly (particularly if others may ever look at the doc and/or function).
Obviously, more complicated one-liners may require just as much testing as a "regular length" function (whatever regular length means to you). |
5,412,233 | Should you or should you not test single-line functions? | 2011/03/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5412233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/673942/"
] | Today it's one line, next week it's twenty lines.
Putting tests in place now warns you if you mistakenly break the behavior down the road.
Use your best judgment as to whether it's something that has any chance of changing in the future. | Some one-liners can be quite elegant/long.
I tend to not test "trivial" functions extensively, though there may be some tests (usually by inspection and one/two test cases) done just to make sure I've matched the documentation/specifications correctly (particularly if others may ever look at the doc and/or function).
Obviously, more complicated one-liners may require just as much testing as a "regular length" function (whatever regular length means to you). |
148,125 | I'm a student in the US, about to graduate with a BS in zoology. I've just been invited to join [Phi Beta Kappa](https://www.pbk.org/) and am trying to find some more up-to-date discussions of whether or not it's worth it and I see a lot of conflicting opinions/information.
It costs $99 for me to join, which some have said reflects poorly on the society, while others say PBK is super prestigious and eye-catching. I've seen some saying it has gotten them positions, and others say its meaningless or they even look down on people who include it on their resumes.
I'll most likely go to grad school eventually and have no intentions currently to do any work/study outside of the US (I've seen many folks from outside the US saying they see honor societies and have a negative reaction because of Greek Life). Anyone have thoughts on this? | 2020/04/23 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148125",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123158/"
] | I am looking at this from a European perspective.
Also I focus on the perception and not whether this is accurate, which does not matter that much – whether you like it or not.
You can neither expect readers to research this detail of your CV to fully understand it nor to suppress subconscious bias by the impression they get from items they do not fully understand.
As confirmed by some of the comments by other European members here, the vast majority of information of US Greek-letter societies that trickle over to Europe is about drug abuse, sexual misconduct, dehumanising initiation rituals, and nepotism. Therefore mentioning a membership in such an organisation (without any further explanation) risks leaving a bad impression. At the very least I would try to mitigate the risk by explicitly denoting it as an honour society – which can only have so much effect since that’s not a protected term.
Also, while a little Internet research suffices to debunk the worst associations, it does not leave the best impression:
* It’s surprisingly difficult to find a recent independent characterisation on this society. You mainly find self-representation and Wikipedia (which is currently dominated by self-representation). The best you can find with reasonable effort are [two](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/26/nyregion/phi-beta-kappa-key-being-turned-down-by-many-honorees.html) [articles](https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2005/11/04/Phi-beta-what-Students-saying-no-to-elite-honor-society/stories/200511040225) from 1996 and 2005, respectively, about declining membership and recognition, in which the society leaves a rather entitled impression. Also, this very question and others on this site are already amongst the first things you find. This somewhat suggests that the society has since evaporated into meaninglessness.
* The society’s main activity appears to be selecting and recruiting new members and documenting their achievements, which strikes me as awkwardly circular. There a few awards, scholarships, and fellowships, but these seem secondary.
* The primary selection criterion seems to be grades, scholarly achievements, and learning another language, which should be featured on your CV anyway. It seems like a society that charges mountains to put a golden badge on them stating their height (analogy stolen from [Leonard Cohen](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/14/leonard-cohen-giving-nobel-to-bob-dylan-like-pinning-medal-on-everest)). Thus, listing membership appears to be somewhat redundant.
Mind that this is just an impression (after all the difficulty of finding information from reliable sources is one of the things that form this impression), but at the very least it suggests a considerable marketing failure. | Include it. [Phi Beta Kappa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Beta_Kappa) isn't a part of the [Animal House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_House) culture. It is an honor, bestowed by the faculty and only those respected by the faculty are considered.
If someone confuses it with the [Dekes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Kappa_Epsilon) it is their ignorance. The faculty who will review your applications know what it means, maybe even in Europe though comments here make me wonder. So, if you want to apply in Europe, explain that it is an honor society.
For those offended by this answer, note that PBK is **not** a fraternity. It has no initiation rites. It is purely and simply an invitation only honor society.
---
Disclaimer, neither a Deke, nor a PBK. No disrespect intended for either institution.
---
Caveat: Perhaps, for applications to any European institution you will need to make the nature of PBK blindingly obvious if you include it. The impression here, from comments and other answers, is that too many Europeans may make too many incorrect assumptions about Greek letter societies, assuming that all are only for drunks and such. And you may not get a chance to follow up. Sad. |
148,125 | I'm a student in the US, about to graduate with a BS in zoology. I've just been invited to join [Phi Beta Kappa](https://www.pbk.org/) and am trying to find some more up-to-date discussions of whether or not it's worth it and I see a lot of conflicting opinions/information.
It costs $99 for me to join, which some have said reflects poorly on the society, while others say PBK is super prestigious and eye-catching. I've seen some saying it has gotten them positions, and others say its meaningless or they even look down on people who include it on their resumes.
I'll most likely go to grad school eventually and have no intentions currently to do any work/study outside of the US (I've seen many folks from outside the US saying they see honor societies and have a negative reaction because of Greek Life). Anyone have thoughts on this? | 2020/04/23 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148125",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123158/"
] | I am looking at this from a European perspective.
Also I focus on the perception and not whether this is accurate, which does not matter that much – whether you like it or not.
You can neither expect readers to research this detail of your CV to fully understand it nor to suppress subconscious bias by the impression they get from items they do not fully understand.
As confirmed by some of the comments by other European members here, the vast majority of information of US Greek-letter societies that trickle over to Europe is about drug abuse, sexual misconduct, dehumanising initiation rituals, and nepotism. Therefore mentioning a membership in such an organisation (without any further explanation) risks leaving a bad impression. At the very least I would try to mitigate the risk by explicitly denoting it as an honour society – which can only have so much effect since that’s not a protected term.
Also, while a little Internet research suffices to debunk the worst associations, it does not leave the best impression:
* It’s surprisingly difficult to find a recent independent characterisation on this society. You mainly find self-representation and Wikipedia (which is currently dominated by self-representation). The best you can find with reasonable effort are [two](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/26/nyregion/phi-beta-kappa-key-being-turned-down-by-many-honorees.html) [articles](https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2005/11/04/Phi-beta-what-Students-saying-no-to-elite-honor-society/stories/200511040225) from 1996 and 2005, respectively, about declining membership and recognition, in which the society leaves a rather entitled impression. Also, this very question and others on this site are already amongst the first things you find. This somewhat suggests that the society has since evaporated into meaninglessness.
* The society’s main activity appears to be selecting and recruiting new members and documenting their achievements, which strikes me as awkwardly circular. There a few awards, scholarships, and fellowships, but these seem secondary.
* The primary selection criterion seems to be grades, scholarly achievements, and learning another language, which should be featured on your CV anyway. It seems like a society that charges mountains to put a golden badge on them stating their height (analogy stolen from [Leonard Cohen](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/14/leonard-cohen-giving-nobel-to-bob-dylan-like-pinning-medal-on-everest)). Thus, listing membership appears to be somewhat redundant.
Mind that this is just an impression (after all the difficulty of finding information from reliable sources is one of the things that form this impression), but at the very least it suggests a considerable marketing failure. | Save your money. At best it's meaningless and at worse it associates you with all the negative connotations of Greek society and none of the benefits (such as the social life and a network of close friends and contacts you get to know over the many years at school).
I say it's meaningless because **everything that it purports to represent** - a high GPA, the acclaim of faculty, academic achievement - **can be fully represented without it**. Simply including your transcript or reporting your GPA, including letters of recommendation from faculty, and reporting on publications, research awards, and so on, covers every base.
Therefore, the only remaining piece of information that joining it tells me is that you respond to phishing-like emails to collect a hundred bucks.
And frankly, I've been a faculty member at two American departments, one of which was selective and the other of which was highly selective (in the top ten most selective in the US), and I had no idea you supposedly get access to this through faculty nomination. There's been a lot of answers focusing on Europeans who wouldn't know that it's supposedly a good thing, but I've been in the US academic system basically my whole life, and I also don't know that. |
142,883 | *Westworld* premiered on HBO two weeks ago (as of the writing of this question, we've only seen Season 1, Episodes 1 and 2).
One of the things they haven't shown us yet (I hope will be revealed soon) is how objects in the physical world (host robots, guest humans, even inanimate items like cowboy hats and guns) get "transported" into the park ("Westworld").
I know the guests ride trains and then somehow they're magically "in" the park, but that's obviously not how they *really* get transported (it wouldn't be believable or even remotely realistic).
There was a Michael Crichton book as well as a movie in 1973 surrounding the same story line. Anybody know how you actually travel or get transported in/out of the parks? | 2016/10/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/142883",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/53573/"
] | [It's still unknown](https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/westworld-robots-park-man-in-black-questions).
>
> Where, exactly, is this place? How do paying customers catch the train? It's a nice touch that customers arrive in town along with hosts, but it's also confusing. It's a bit more clear in Michael Crichton's original flick, in which visitors travel in together from a real-world location via hovercraft and arrive at a futuristic-looking greeting area at an adult amusement park called Delos, where they are outfitted and then shipped off to one of three themed subsections: West World, Medieval World, or Roman World. Will the HBO series pull back to reveal the functional world outside the park?
>
>
>
As per CBredlow's comment, some of the mystery has been answered in the second episode. We know how paying customers catch the train.
>
> We do know how paying customers catch the train, as in episode 2 we see people walk down a hall after they get dressed and cross a threshold into the bar car of the train into the town.
>
>
>
Just to clear up a few questions raised in the comments, the park [is not virtual reality](http://www.thisisinsider.com/westworld-park-rules-2016-10/#the-employees-who-run-the-park-are-living-and-working-in-a-huge-underground-facility-9), but rather a physical facility.
>
> Nolan told Entertainment Weekly all about the logistics of the Delos' maintenance facility.
>
>
> "So the idea is that most of the facilities are underground," Nolan told EW. "We sort of pictured a 100-story building skyscraper that goes down instead of up, which for us was also a visual metaphor for the age of the park. When you’re in the older portion of it [far below the surface], the cold storage, it has been clearly repurposed from something that used to be more grand."
>
>
> | Based on the first two episodes, we know:
* Regional travel appears to be via a vast high-speed underground train, possibly an evacuated tube. If the tunnel air is evacuated, this could be a long-distance transportation network of the future, invisible to the surface.
* The above explains what we know about the park headquarters complex, described as a 100-story skyscraper buried underground, also mostly invisible (and deliberately hard to find; the Man in Black appears to be killing people to search for the hidden entrance where Hopkins' character emerges "at the end of the Blood Arroyo where the snake lays its eggs", cut to Hopkins mesmerizing said (artificial) snake).
* It appears to be buried within a mesa, with Grand Canyon Skywalk-style balconies (for executive living quarters). At one point the camera pans out of the escalator complex and up from the top of the mesa.
* The underground (modern) train explains why its so deep. Parts of the complex (cold storage) appear abandoned, and reminiscent of a space horror film. These appear to be former train terminal entrances, perhaps from an earlier era when the park was more affordable, given the Jurassic Park-style entry-hall accommodations in these abandoned levels.
* The steam train leaves the mesa complex in a tunnel high up on the ridge line, is entered by a visitor tunnel, and appears to be an ordinary mechanical replica steam train. The hosts (we see) that are programmed as town residents board the same train, and are programmed to wake up when the steam train leaves the tunnel.
* The steam train travels through a (real) desert landscape until it reaches the main town. The park area appears to be exceedingly vast -- judging from the holomap in the command center, perhaps over a hundred miles of mostly desert range land.
* As with Jurassic Park, at least half the park area beyond a certain river is wilderness or off-limits to "family" guests and reserved for more "dangerous" excursions.
* If the shadowy execs imagine, say, military or other applications for their robots, this could explain the source of the land being abandoned government or military range land.
* It does not explain, however, why those other applications of the technology have not been pursued until now (at least 30 years into the park's history), or even why the park appears to be unique. Given the way the staff and guests talk about it, other parks with different themes do not appear to be contemplated.
* Even the oldest robots appear to be fairly lifelike, and we know of no instruction or ordinance against lifelike robots in the real world. However it could be that the park is so exceedingly expensive to maintain that it is a category-killer, in the fashion of Disney World. |
142,883 | *Westworld* premiered on HBO two weeks ago (as of the writing of this question, we've only seen Season 1, Episodes 1 and 2).
One of the things they haven't shown us yet (I hope will be revealed soon) is how objects in the physical world (host robots, guest humans, even inanimate items like cowboy hats and guns) get "transported" into the park ("Westworld").
I know the guests ride trains and then somehow they're magically "in" the park, but that's obviously not how they *really* get transported (it wouldn't be believable or even remotely realistic).
There was a Michael Crichton book as well as a movie in 1973 surrounding the same story line. Anybody know how you actually travel or get transported in/out of the parks? | 2016/10/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/142883",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/53573/"
] | [It's still unknown](https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/westworld-robots-park-man-in-black-questions).
>
> Where, exactly, is this place? How do paying customers catch the train? It's a nice touch that customers arrive in town along with hosts, but it's also confusing. It's a bit more clear in Michael Crichton's original flick, in which visitors travel in together from a real-world location via hovercraft and arrive at a futuristic-looking greeting area at an adult amusement park called Delos, where they are outfitted and then shipped off to one of three themed subsections: West World, Medieval World, or Roman World. Will the HBO series pull back to reveal the functional world outside the park?
>
>
>
As per CBredlow's comment, some of the mystery has been answered in the second episode. We know how paying customers catch the train.
>
> We do know how paying customers catch the train, as in episode 2 we see people walk down a hall after they get dressed and cross a threshold into the bar car of the train into the town.
>
>
>
Just to clear up a few questions raised in the comments, the park [is not virtual reality](http://www.thisisinsider.com/westworld-park-rules-2016-10/#the-employees-who-run-the-park-are-living-and-working-in-a-huge-underground-facility-9), but rather a physical facility.
>
> Nolan told Entertainment Weekly all about the logistics of the Delos' maintenance facility.
>
>
> "So the idea is that most of the facilities are underground," Nolan told EW. "We sort of pictured a 100-story building skyscraper that goes down instead of up, which for us was also a visual metaphor for the age of the park. When you’re in the older portion of it [far below the surface], the cold storage, it has been clearly repurposed from something that used to be more grand."
>
>
> | Based on the maps available on the [Westworld Website](https://discoverwestworld.com/), guests arrive by high-speed subterranean monorail, disembark at the Mesa Gold facility's "*Arrivals Monorail Terminal*" (situated a few miles from the centre of the park), then catch the olde-fashioned steam train which takes them the last few miles from the facility to the town of Sweetwater.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gIs2u.gif)
I've highlighted the *probable* route of the monorail, but obviously if it's underground it could literally come from any direction, including directly below the conventional train track.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SQ5pL.png) |
142,883 | *Westworld* premiered on HBO two weeks ago (as of the writing of this question, we've only seen Season 1, Episodes 1 and 2).
One of the things they haven't shown us yet (I hope will be revealed soon) is how objects in the physical world (host robots, guest humans, even inanimate items like cowboy hats and guns) get "transported" into the park ("Westworld").
I know the guests ride trains and then somehow they're magically "in" the park, but that's obviously not how they *really* get transported (it wouldn't be believable or even remotely realistic).
There was a Michael Crichton book as well as a movie in 1973 surrounding the same story line. Anybody know how you actually travel or get transported in/out of the parks? | 2016/10/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/142883",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/53573/"
] | Based on the maps available on the [Westworld Website](https://discoverwestworld.com/), guests arrive by high-speed subterranean monorail, disembark at the Mesa Gold facility's "*Arrivals Monorail Terminal*" (situated a few miles from the centre of the park), then catch the olde-fashioned steam train which takes them the last few miles from the facility to the town of Sweetwater.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gIs2u.gif)
I've highlighted the *probable* route of the monorail, but obviously if it's underground it could literally come from any direction, including directly below the conventional train track.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SQ5pL.png) | Based on the first two episodes, we know:
* Regional travel appears to be via a vast high-speed underground train, possibly an evacuated tube. If the tunnel air is evacuated, this could be a long-distance transportation network of the future, invisible to the surface.
* The above explains what we know about the park headquarters complex, described as a 100-story skyscraper buried underground, also mostly invisible (and deliberately hard to find; the Man in Black appears to be killing people to search for the hidden entrance where Hopkins' character emerges "at the end of the Blood Arroyo where the snake lays its eggs", cut to Hopkins mesmerizing said (artificial) snake).
* It appears to be buried within a mesa, with Grand Canyon Skywalk-style balconies (for executive living quarters). At one point the camera pans out of the escalator complex and up from the top of the mesa.
* The underground (modern) train explains why its so deep. Parts of the complex (cold storage) appear abandoned, and reminiscent of a space horror film. These appear to be former train terminal entrances, perhaps from an earlier era when the park was more affordable, given the Jurassic Park-style entry-hall accommodations in these abandoned levels.
* The steam train leaves the mesa complex in a tunnel high up on the ridge line, is entered by a visitor tunnel, and appears to be an ordinary mechanical replica steam train. The hosts (we see) that are programmed as town residents board the same train, and are programmed to wake up when the steam train leaves the tunnel.
* The steam train travels through a (real) desert landscape until it reaches the main town. The park area appears to be exceedingly vast -- judging from the holomap in the command center, perhaps over a hundred miles of mostly desert range land.
* As with Jurassic Park, at least half the park area beyond a certain river is wilderness or off-limits to "family" guests and reserved for more "dangerous" excursions.
* If the shadowy execs imagine, say, military or other applications for their robots, this could explain the source of the land being abandoned government or military range land.
* It does not explain, however, why those other applications of the technology have not been pursued until now (at least 30 years into the park's history), or even why the park appears to be unique. Given the way the staff and guests talk about it, other parks with different themes do not appear to be contemplated.
* Even the oldest robots appear to be fairly lifelike, and we know of no instruction or ordinance against lifelike robots in the real world. However it could be that the park is so exceedingly expensive to maintain that it is a category-killer, in the fashion of Disney World. |
5,273,769 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Could node.js replace Ruby on Rails completely in the future?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3436335/could-node-js-replace-ruby-on-rails-completely-in-the-future)
>
>
>
I'm doing bad in understanding the sense of node.js. I understand what it does regarding IO etc., but is it for example a Ruby on Rails replacement? Can I do the same database operations etc.? What about authentication?
what kind of web or other applications get build on basis of node.js? | 2011/03/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5273769",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/193643/"
] | >
> is it for example a ruby on rails replacement?
>
>
>
IMHO RoR has much longer history/experience/functionality for website development. Node.js itself is a lightweight (low level) framework from which you can take off to build various types of server-side applications (not just web oriented). One of its main advantages is in wide spectrum of [modules](https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/modules) provided by community of open source developers.
>
> Can i do the same database operations etc.?
>
>
>
Yes, just find the right module for your type of database.
>
> What about authentication?
>
>
>
Modules like [connect](http://senchalabs.github.com/connect/) offers built-in authentication functionality. | Node.js is a totally separate technology to Ruby on Rails, built on a different technology stack. In its current state it's not a replacement for Rails, and certainly not a drop-in replacement |
5,273,769 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Could node.js replace Ruby on Rails completely in the future?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3436335/could-node-js-replace-ruby-on-rails-completely-in-the-future)
>
>
>
I'm doing bad in understanding the sense of node.js. I understand what it does regarding IO etc., but is it for example a Ruby on Rails replacement? Can I do the same database operations etc.? What about authentication?
what kind of web or other applications get build on basis of node.js? | 2011/03/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5273769",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/193643/"
] | >
> is it for example a ruby on rails replacement?
>
>
>
IMHO RoR has much longer history/experience/functionality for website development. Node.js itself is a lightweight (low level) framework from which you can take off to build various types of server-side applications (not just web oriented). One of its main advantages is in wide spectrum of [modules](https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/modules) provided by community of open source developers.
>
> Can i do the same database operations etc.?
>
>
>
Yes, just find the right module for your type of database.
>
> What about authentication?
>
>
>
Modules like [connect](http://senchalabs.github.com/connect/) offers built-in authentication functionality. | AIUI Node.js is a bit more low-level than that, in particular it has no support for typical high level web development (MVC model, db integration, etc). Look at it as a javascripty basis to write networking software on (including web frameworks).
There are some web frameworks out there built on Node.js. The only one I know is [geddy](http://geddyjs.org/). |
5,273,769 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Could node.js replace Ruby on Rails completely in the future?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3436335/could-node-js-replace-ruby-on-rails-completely-in-the-future)
>
>
>
I'm doing bad in understanding the sense of node.js. I understand what it does regarding IO etc., but is it for example a Ruby on Rails replacement? Can I do the same database operations etc.? What about authentication?
what kind of web or other applications get build on basis of node.js? | 2011/03/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5273769",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/193643/"
] | >
> is it for example a ruby on rails replacement?
>
>
>
IMHO RoR has much longer history/experience/functionality for website development. Node.js itself is a lightweight (low level) framework from which you can take off to build various types of server-side applications (not just web oriented). One of its main advantages is in wide spectrum of [modules](https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/modules) provided by community of open source developers.
>
> Can i do the same database operations etc.?
>
>
>
Yes, just find the right module for your type of database.
>
> What about authentication?
>
>
>
Modules like [connect](http://senchalabs.github.com/connect/) offers built-in authentication functionality. | Node.JS is to Javascript as EventMachine is to Ruby (and Twisted to Python). It's something completely different from Rails.
To illustrate: the Thin webserver that is often used to serve Rails application was built using EventMachine. So you would need a complete web framework on top of Node.JS to make it a Rails replacement. |
5,273,769 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Could node.js replace Ruby on Rails completely in the future?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3436335/could-node-js-replace-ruby-on-rails-completely-in-the-future)
>
>
>
I'm doing bad in understanding the sense of node.js. I understand what it does regarding IO etc., but is it for example a Ruby on Rails replacement? Can I do the same database operations etc.? What about authentication?
what kind of web or other applications get build on basis of node.js? | 2011/03/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5273769",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/193643/"
] | >
> is it for example a ruby on rails replacement?
>
>
>
IMHO RoR has much longer history/experience/functionality for website development. Node.js itself is a lightweight (low level) framework from which you can take off to build various types of server-side applications (not just web oriented). One of its main advantages is in wide spectrum of [modules](https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/modules) provided by community of open source developers.
>
> Can i do the same database operations etc.?
>
>
>
Yes, just find the right module for your type of database.
>
> What about authentication?
>
>
>
Modules like [connect](http://senchalabs.github.com/connect/) offers built-in authentication functionality. | You are comparing apples and pears.
Ruby on Rails is a MVC Framework to build websites.
Nodejs is a framework to build evented I/O operations.
You can build a port of RoR on top of nodejs if you want. |
266,058 | I have a Macbook Air 13" (mid 2012) on which I installed Windows 10 via Bootcamp a while ago. It all runs smoothly and works fine except for the WiFi.
The internet connection breaks frequently (which means that I am not able to access the internet). I am though still connected to the WLAN network at any time (often it says "no internet, secured"). Disconnecting and reconnecting to the WLAN network is the only way to get it back to working. I noticed the same behaviour in different networks. Other devices do not show interrupts.
When using OS X the connection is fine all the time.
I already reinstalled the broadcom driver and deactivated the option that the system can disable the device for energy management reasons (I don't know the exact name of this option in english, sorry).
What else can I do? Did anyone have the same issue or a similiar one? Thank you in advance for responding. | 2016/12/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/266058",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/216681/"
] | Deinstalling Cisco VPN Client fixed my problem.
There seems to be a problem with updating from Windows 8 to Windows 10 when Cisco VPN Client is installed (<https://superuser.com/questions/947651/no-network-connection-after-upgrading-to-windows-10>).
Although my Windows 10 was a fresh install, deinstalling Cisco VPN Client helped me getting a stable internet connection. | While I do not have specific experience with Win 10 on this model of MacBook, some people have good success with the OEM manufacturers drivers instead of the ones Apple provides.
So you would go into device manager and look for the make and model of WiFi hardware. (For example Broadcom 3502) and then go to the manufacturers website and download the latest Win 10 drivers for that make and model.
The tricky part may come if device manager only shows hardware IDs. In that case you may have some success Googling those particular numbers.
Again I don't know if that will solve your specific problem but I have solved similar problems with other versions of Windows on other Macs using this technique. |
266,058 | I have a Macbook Air 13" (mid 2012) on which I installed Windows 10 via Bootcamp a while ago. It all runs smoothly and works fine except for the WiFi.
The internet connection breaks frequently (which means that I am not able to access the internet). I am though still connected to the WLAN network at any time (often it says "no internet, secured"). Disconnecting and reconnecting to the WLAN network is the only way to get it back to working. I noticed the same behaviour in different networks. Other devices do not show interrupts.
When using OS X the connection is fine all the time.
I already reinstalled the broadcom driver and deactivated the option that the system can disable the device for energy management reasons (I don't know the exact name of this option in english, sorry).
What else can I do? Did anyone have the same issue or a similiar one? Thank you in advance for responding. | 2016/12/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/266058",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/216681/"
] | Deinstalling Cisco VPN Client fixed my problem.
There seems to be a problem with updating from Windows 8 to Windows 10 when Cisco VPN Client is installed (<https://superuser.com/questions/947651/no-network-connection-after-upgrading-to-windows-10>).
Although my Windows 10 was a fresh install, deinstalling Cisco VPN Client helped me getting a stable internet connection. | I had a similar problem on my iMac with Bootcamp (iMac 5k, Windows 10 build 1511, Bootcamp 6). Wlan and audio were not working after Windows Update. I resolved this by disabling Hyper-V:
1. Control Panel > Turn Windows Features On and Off
2. Uncheck the "Hyper-V" checkbox
3. Restart |
10,940,434 | Right now users have to two ways to send data to my application: upload a CSV file via browser, or via our API.
It would dramatically reduce duplication to use the API in both instances. Is there a way they could use the existing upload form, but instead of storing the CSV on the server, it would be processed via Javascript and sent to the API?
The solution would unfortunately have to be IE6 compatible. | 2012/06/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10940434",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/320619/"
] | There is no way to do this with IE6 (and in my opinion there is no reason to even try this).
Possible workarounds:
* Embed the uploadform into a iframe (ugly)
* Use a FlashPlayer 9+/JavaApplet to perform the upload (requires plugin), but this also gives you the possibility to process the data before sending it. | Unfortunately, no, this is not possible with IE6. Reading local files is possible in HTML5, but IE has a long way to go...
Also- it is not required to store the CSV on the server. You can process the CSV dynamically in a servlet and use the API to store the data without storing the CSV on the server. |
156,476 | I am seeing that Google play books consumes 1.4 GB. I use Play Books only to view my PDF books and at most use 50MB of content. But I don't understand how it can consume so much space... Even a graphic game takes only 800MB. So can anyone point me out to why this happens?? | 2016/09/01 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/156476",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/185616/"
] | I can't tell you why it's using this much on **your** phone in particular. I just looked at Google Play Books on my phone, which is using 224 MB, of which only 32 MB is the app itself, and the rest is data (downloaded books).
Some PDFs and e-books can be very big, because they can include large pictures. Some e-books are high-quality scans of every page of a paper book, which can be much larger than 50 MB. | Google Play Books can also store cache and your data (includes your books).
Try clearing the application's cache by going to the application's app info. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | I don't believe there is anything in Gimp to auto align images.
You can do it manually by putting the images in layers, setting the top opacity so you can see the underlying image and scaling/rotating one of them.
Or you can use a tool like [Enfuse](http://enblend.sourceforge.net/) | click file>>>open as layers>>>select both of the images that you want to merge.
click on the larger image, and click on the scale tool. Scale the larger image down to fit on the smaller image.
Set the top layer's opacity down to a lower number so you can see how the two are aligning, kind of like it's done in this gimp video tutorial on beer: <http://gimpedblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-this-gimp-tutorial-im-going-to-show.html>
use the move, rotate, and perspective tools to adjust the two photos into place.
crop the extra canvas area out with the crop tool. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | I don't believe there is anything in Gimp to auto align images.
You can do it manually by putting the images in layers, setting the top opacity so you can see the underlying image and scaling/rotating one of them.
Or you can use a tool like [Enfuse](http://enblend.sourceforge.net/) | You can use Filter|G'MIC|Layers|Align Layers. You must select Input Layers: All before executing. Take into account that this is a time consuming operation. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | I don't believe there is anything in Gimp to auto align images.
You can do it manually by putting the images in layers, setting the top opacity so you can see the underlying image and scaling/rotating one of them.
Or you can use a tool like [Enfuse](http://enblend.sourceforge.net/) | I just did this in Gimp with no additional software. This method will easily and precisely produce the "3 point scale, rotate, translate" that you asked about. If there's other perspective issues though, one of the other methods in the other answers will be required.
1. Both images in their own layer. Select the ruler.
2. Show Layer1/Image1, measure between two points. Click and drag from one point to another, then zooom in and move the endpoints for more precision. This gives you the exact measurement to a tenth of a pixel and the rotation angle. The further apart the points, the better. Let's call it Length1.
3. Show Layer2/Image2. Adjust endpoints to match the same reference points. Let's call it Length2.
4. 100 \* (Length1/Length2) = The scale percentage you need to apply to Image2.
5. Rotate as needed, as indicated by the difference in rotation angles.
6. It's a simple matter to move one image over the other. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | It looks like [panotools](http://panotools.sourceforge.net/) has a [Gimp plugin](http://sourceforge.net/projects/panotools/files/gimp%20plugin/). I haven't used it, but it's there.
Outside of GIMP, but still free, you might want to try going down different roads.
[**Hugin**](http://hugin.sourceforge.net/) - Primarily targetted at panorama stitching, you can use this to [align and scale an image stack](http://wiki.panotools.org/Align_image_stack) for HDR or exposure blending or time-lapse videos or...
[**Registax**](http://www.astronomie.be/registax/) - Aimed at astrophotographers, this free software will take multiple images (a few stand-alone or thousands of video frames), rotate, scale, and align them. Beyond that, it can (optionally) use very sophisticated techniques to combine the component images into a final image.
[HDR Alignment Tool](http://www.flickr.com/photos/58368129@N00/210213524/) - Another possibility. It does alignment, rotation, and scaling. Might be worth a try. A [comparison](http://www.flickr.com/photos/longjiang/531171093/) to Photomatix auto-alignment (in 2007, mind you) seems to favor HDRAT.
[DeShaker](http://www.guthspot.se/video/deshaker.htm) - Another way to approach aligning smaller images (up to 1080p resolution), this free software does video stabilization. If you were to combine the two images into a two-frame movie, this would align them. Probably not what you want, but it's a technique that's been used for aligning still images. | click file>>>open as layers>>>select both of the images that you want to merge.
click on the larger image, and click on the scale tool. Scale the larger image down to fit on the smaller image.
Set the top layer's opacity down to a lower number so you can see how the two are aligning, kind of like it's done in this gimp video tutorial on beer: <http://gimpedblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-this-gimp-tutorial-im-going-to-show.html>
use the move, rotate, and perspective tools to adjust the two photos into place.
crop the extra canvas area out with the crop tool. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | It looks like [panotools](http://panotools.sourceforge.net/) has a [Gimp plugin](http://sourceforge.net/projects/panotools/files/gimp%20plugin/). I haven't used it, but it's there.
Outside of GIMP, but still free, you might want to try going down different roads.
[**Hugin**](http://hugin.sourceforge.net/) - Primarily targetted at panorama stitching, you can use this to [align and scale an image stack](http://wiki.panotools.org/Align_image_stack) for HDR or exposure blending or time-lapse videos or...
[**Registax**](http://www.astronomie.be/registax/) - Aimed at astrophotographers, this free software will take multiple images (a few stand-alone or thousands of video frames), rotate, scale, and align them. Beyond that, it can (optionally) use very sophisticated techniques to combine the component images into a final image.
[HDR Alignment Tool](http://www.flickr.com/photos/58368129@N00/210213524/) - Another possibility. It does alignment, rotation, and scaling. Might be worth a try. A [comparison](http://www.flickr.com/photos/longjiang/531171093/) to Photomatix auto-alignment (in 2007, mind you) seems to favor HDRAT.
[DeShaker](http://www.guthspot.se/video/deshaker.htm) - Another way to approach aligning smaller images (up to 1080p resolution), this free software does video stabilization. If you were to combine the two images into a two-frame movie, this would align them. Probably not what you want, but it's a technique that's been used for aligning still images. | You can use Filter|G'MIC|Layers|Align Layers. You must select Input Layers: All before executing. Take into account that this is a time consuming operation. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | It looks like [panotools](http://panotools.sourceforge.net/) has a [Gimp plugin](http://sourceforge.net/projects/panotools/files/gimp%20plugin/). I haven't used it, but it's there.
Outside of GIMP, but still free, you might want to try going down different roads.
[**Hugin**](http://hugin.sourceforge.net/) - Primarily targetted at panorama stitching, you can use this to [align and scale an image stack](http://wiki.panotools.org/Align_image_stack) for HDR or exposure blending or time-lapse videos or...
[**Registax**](http://www.astronomie.be/registax/) - Aimed at astrophotographers, this free software will take multiple images (a few stand-alone or thousands of video frames), rotate, scale, and align them. Beyond that, it can (optionally) use very sophisticated techniques to combine the component images into a final image.
[HDR Alignment Tool](http://www.flickr.com/photos/58368129@N00/210213524/) - Another possibility. It does alignment, rotation, and scaling. Might be worth a try. A [comparison](http://www.flickr.com/photos/longjiang/531171093/) to Photomatix auto-alignment (in 2007, mind you) seems to favor HDRAT.
[DeShaker](http://www.guthspot.se/video/deshaker.htm) - Another way to approach aligning smaller images (up to 1080p resolution), this free software does video stabilization. If you were to combine the two images into a two-frame movie, this would align them. Probably not what you want, but it's a technique that's been used for aligning still images. | I just did this in Gimp with no additional software. This method will easily and precisely produce the "3 point scale, rotate, translate" that you asked about. If there's other perspective issues though, one of the other methods in the other answers will be required.
1. Both images in their own layer. Select the ruler.
2. Show Layer1/Image1, measure between two points. Click and drag from one point to another, then zooom in and move the endpoints for more precision. This gives you the exact measurement to a tenth of a pixel and the rotation angle. The further apart the points, the better. Let's call it Length1.
3. Show Layer2/Image2. Adjust endpoints to match the same reference points. Let's call it Length2.
4. 100 \* (Length1/Length2) = The scale percentage you need to apply to Image2.
5. Rotate as needed, as indicated by the difference in rotation angles.
6. It's a simple matter to move one image over the other. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | You can use Filter|G'MIC|Layers|Align Layers. You must select Input Layers: All before executing. Take into account that this is a time consuming operation. | click file>>>open as layers>>>select both of the images that you want to merge.
click on the larger image, and click on the scale tool. Scale the larger image down to fit on the smaller image.
Set the top layer's opacity down to a lower number so you can see how the two are aligning, kind of like it's done in this gimp video tutorial on beer: <http://gimpedblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-this-gimp-tutorial-im-going-to-show.html>
use the move, rotate, and perspective tools to adjust the two photos into place.
crop the extra canvas area out with the crop tool. |
19,405 | I have two different pictures of the same object, one of which is taken from roughy the same angle but has a different scale and rotation. I want both images to overlap so that the upper one matches the lower one as exactly as possible. Is there any option in gimp where I can define a number of key points and gimp aligns the images according to these points? For example I say that corner X in picture 1 has to match corner Y in picture 2. It should be sufficient to define 3 such points in each image to get a good result already.
If it is not possible, what would be the best way to reach this goal aside from just scaling and rotating until it looks ok? | 2012/01/20 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19405",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/8176/"
] | I just did this in Gimp with no additional software. This method will easily and precisely produce the "3 point scale, rotate, translate" that you asked about. If there's other perspective issues though, one of the other methods in the other answers will be required.
1. Both images in their own layer. Select the ruler.
2. Show Layer1/Image1, measure between two points. Click and drag from one point to another, then zooom in and move the endpoints for more precision. This gives you the exact measurement to a tenth of a pixel and the rotation angle. The further apart the points, the better. Let's call it Length1.
3. Show Layer2/Image2. Adjust endpoints to match the same reference points. Let's call it Length2.
4. 100 \* (Length1/Length2) = The scale percentage you need to apply to Image2.
5. Rotate as needed, as indicated by the difference in rotation angles.
6. It's a simple matter to move one image over the other. | click file>>>open as layers>>>select both of the images that you want to merge.
click on the larger image, and click on the scale tool. Scale the larger image down to fit on the smaller image.
Set the top layer's opacity down to a lower number so you can see how the two are aligning, kind of like it's done in this gimp video tutorial on beer: <http://gimpedblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-this-gimp-tutorial-im-going-to-show.html>
use the move, rotate, and perspective tools to adjust the two photos into place.
crop the extra canvas area out with the crop tool. |
29,230 | Title says all about the question.
I have three guitars, electric and two other which i don't know if it's classical or acoustic. They both have same shape, guitars don't have cut at higher frets like electric does and also they have wide fretboards. | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/29230",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/15465/"
] | Classical guitars are designed to be played primarily finger-style (fingerpicking). They generally use nylon strings which do not require near the same amount of tension as steel strings. Because of the lower tension, they do not require a truss rod to compensate for the string tension.
Steel string or folk guitars use steel strings and will have an adjustable truss rod with an adjustment screw visible from the soundhole - or under a plate in the headstock.
The neck on many classical guitars will join the body at the 12th fret whereas "steel-string" or "folk" guitars, will usually join the body at the 14th fret.
The bridge on a classical guitar will usually not have bridge pins or holes through the bridge into the body of the guitar, but will allow for the string to pass through the bridge itself (not the top of the guitar) and be tied on to the bridge with a special knot.
Guitars designed for steel strings will usually have holes through the bridge and top of the guitar where the ball at the end of the steel string will pass through and be secured against the top with removable bridge pins. This is because the tension of steel strings could otherwise have a tendency to pull the bridge away from the top of the guitar. Some manufacturers make bridges for steel string guitars where the string passes through a thin diameter hole that is too small to allow the ball end to pass through. But I'm guessing they might use more than just glue to fasten the bridge to the top of the guitar.
Usually the tuning pegs on a classical guitar are not actually pegs, but more like bars that the string winds onto over the top.
Tuning pegs for steel string guitars usually are perpendicular to the headstock and the string winds around them either counter clockwise or clockwise depending on which side of the headstock they are on.
The neck on a classical guitar is much wider than on a steel string guitar to allow for wider string spacing.
These clues should allow you to determine if your acoustic guitar is a classical guitar designed for nylon strings - or a steel string guitar designed for - well - steel strings. | All classical guitars are acoustic. The differences come in when you consider the string material (classical acoustics usually have plastic strings in my experience) and a wider and bigger fretboard. |
415,276 | What is a single word to convey the sense of "inaccurate suspicion," but that tends to infer a bit of unfairness, such as
>
> It is immoral to use brutal force in response to [inaccurate suspicion].
>
>
> | 2017/10/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/415276",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/164243/"
] | Inaccurate suspicion is supposition, but, as commented below, I think **misconception** is closer in meaning to the above question which is dealing not with a prior, unvoiced, suspicion but is about a suspicion that becomes active - so misconception would then be more appropriate, I feel.
***Misconception***
>
> A view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding.‘public misconceptions about antibiotic use’
>
>
>
[Oxford Dictionary](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misconception)
>
> supposition
> ˌsʌpəˈzɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
> noun
>
>
> a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
> "they were working on the supposition that his death was murder"
>
>
>
[Google Dictionary](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=supposition&oq=supposition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3036j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) | Suspicion is suspicion. Whether your suspicion is based on assumptions or not, it is always the feeling or belief that something may be possible or true.
You can't have a bad suspicion nor a good suspicion. What you suspect to be possible is really what is at stake here, whether good or bad. The suspicion itself, however, cannot inherently be bad or good, only the actual event. |
415,276 | What is a single word to convey the sense of "inaccurate suspicion," but that tends to infer a bit of unfairness, such as
>
> It is immoral to use brutal force in response to [inaccurate suspicion].
>
>
> | 2017/10/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/415276",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/164243/"
] | Suspicion is suspicion. Whether your suspicion is based on assumptions or not, it is always the feeling or belief that something may be possible or true.
You can't have a bad suspicion nor a good suspicion. What you suspect to be possible is really what is at stake here, whether good or bad. The suspicion itself, however, cannot inherently be bad or good, only the actual event. | The precisest word in English to this concept is "surmise".
* The OED defines: "To form a notion that the thing in question may be so, on slight grounds or without proof; to infer conjecturally."
* A surmise is (obsoletely) "An allegation, charge, imputation; esp. a false, unfounded, or unproved charge or allegation."
* A surmiser is "One who makes a surmise or conjecture (esp. ill-founded); [...] one who suspects evil of another." |
415,276 | What is a single word to convey the sense of "inaccurate suspicion," but that tends to infer a bit of unfairness, such as
>
> It is immoral to use brutal force in response to [inaccurate suspicion].
>
>
> | 2017/10/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/415276",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/164243/"
] | Suspicion is suspicion. Whether your suspicion is based on assumptions or not, it is always the feeling or belief that something may be possible or true.
You can't have a bad suspicion nor a good suspicion. What you suspect to be possible is really what is at stake here, whether good or bad. The suspicion itself, however, cannot inherently be bad or good, only the actual event. | **bogey** noun (FEAR)
[ C usually singular ] (also bogie); (bogy)
something that causes fear among a lot of people, often without reason:
the bogey of unemployment
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bogey>
"a mere bogey" gets the idea over even better but you wanted a single word. |
415,276 | What is a single word to convey the sense of "inaccurate suspicion," but that tends to infer a bit of unfairness, such as
>
> It is immoral to use brutal force in response to [inaccurate suspicion].
>
>
> | 2017/10/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/415276",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/164243/"
] | Inaccurate suspicion is supposition, but, as commented below, I think **misconception** is closer in meaning to the above question which is dealing not with a prior, unvoiced, suspicion but is about a suspicion that becomes active - so misconception would then be more appropriate, I feel.
***Misconception***
>
> A view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding.‘public misconceptions about antibiotic use’
>
>
>
[Oxford Dictionary](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misconception)
>
> supposition
> ˌsʌpəˈzɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
> noun
>
>
> a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
> "they were working on the supposition that his death was murder"
>
>
>
[Google Dictionary](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=supposition&oq=supposition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3036j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) | The precisest word in English to this concept is "surmise".
* The OED defines: "To form a notion that the thing in question may be so, on slight grounds or without proof; to infer conjecturally."
* A surmise is (obsoletely) "An allegation, charge, imputation; esp. a false, unfounded, or unproved charge or allegation."
* A surmiser is "One who makes a surmise or conjecture (esp. ill-founded); [...] one who suspects evil of another." |
415,276 | What is a single word to convey the sense of "inaccurate suspicion," but that tends to infer a bit of unfairness, such as
>
> It is immoral to use brutal force in response to [inaccurate suspicion].
>
>
> | 2017/10/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/415276",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/164243/"
] | Inaccurate suspicion is supposition, but, as commented below, I think **misconception** is closer in meaning to the above question which is dealing not with a prior, unvoiced, suspicion but is about a suspicion that becomes active - so misconception would then be more appropriate, I feel.
***Misconception***
>
> A view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding.‘public misconceptions about antibiotic use’
>
>
>
[Oxford Dictionary](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misconception)
>
> supposition
> ˌsʌpəˈzɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
> noun
>
>
> a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
> "they were working on the supposition that his death was murder"
>
>
>
[Google Dictionary](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=supposition&oq=supposition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3036j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) | **bogey** noun (FEAR)
[ C usually singular ] (also bogie); (bogy)
something that causes fear among a lot of people, often without reason:
the bogey of unemployment
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bogey>
"a mere bogey" gets the idea over even better but you wanted a single word. |
415,276 | What is a single word to convey the sense of "inaccurate suspicion," but that tends to infer a bit of unfairness, such as
>
> It is immoral to use brutal force in response to [inaccurate suspicion].
>
>
> | 2017/10/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/415276",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/164243/"
] | The precisest word in English to this concept is "surmise".
* The OED defines: "To form a notion that the thing in question may be so, on slight grounds or without proof; to infer conjecturally."
* A surmise is (obsoletely) "An allegation, charge, imputation; esp. a false, unfounded, or unproved charge or allegation."
* A surmiser is "One who makes a surmise or conjecture (esp. ill-founded); [...] one who suspects evil of another." | **bogey** noun (FEAR)
[ C usually singular ] (also bogie); (bogy)
something that causes fear among a lot of people, often without reason:
the bogey of unemployment
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bogey>
"a mere bogey" gets the idea over even better but you wanted a single word. |
272,101 | I start to work with a dataset with more than 3000 samples, and realize that ACF plot does not make sense with respect of confidence intervals, see figure.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SXbla.png)
My purpose is to fit an ARIMA on this, however, I'm not sure if it's a good choice because of this large sample size, as @IrishStat [answer](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/185555/143783) alerts. Does anyone recommend an approach to handle this ACF plot to model the ARIMA?
**EDIT**: In acf, the first lag inside interval confidence is in something about 400. | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/272101",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/143783/"
] | From the ACF plot, it seems there is periodic behind it , try the seasonal difference.
If possible, do the unit root test to make sure the series is stationary before chooses the parameters for arima . | In case of a large sample you don't need to do ACF, you can use spectral analysis with periodograms, FFT etc. ACF and ARIMA is a poor man's spectral analysis when the sample is small. Whether 3,000 is a large sample is a different question |
1,649,793 | I am learning about the fluid dynamics and I cam across the following phrase as I was reading about the Stokes operator on Wikipedia.
"Since the Stokes operator is unbounded, we must give its domain of definition"
What does the unboundeness of an operator have to do with its domain? | 2016/02/10 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1649793",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/144840/"
] | Almost always one studies closed operators. In fact, you rarely can do much of anything with an operator that is not closable. Closed operators that are everywhere defined on a Banach space are continuous by the closed graph theorem. So the best you can hope for is that the operator is densely-defined; that leaves you having to specify the precise domain, which usually involves boundary conditions for differential operators. | An old result of functional analysis tells us that a symmetric, unbounded operator acting on a Hilbert space cannot be defined on the whole space but only in a dense subspace of it. It is a direct consequence of the Hellinger-Toeplitz theorem. (see for example: Riesz-Nagy, "Functional Analysis", 1955 and also Reed-Simon, "Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics", 1975). As a consequence of this result, the investigation of the domains of such operators has always been a delicate topic especially in problems of Mathematical Physics.
On the other hand, if an operator is defined on the whole of the space, then its domain is trivial. |
4,192 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [What does “to cause” mean?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3639/what-does-to-cause-mean)
>
>
>
Take an example, It is reported that [short-circuit caused fire in city bakery](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-08/surat/34993969_1_short-circuit-bakery-proper-fire-safety-mechanism). In this case short-circuit and fire was in a causality, short-circuit is cause and fire is effect. But what is causality? Is cause a necessary or sufficient condition of effect? In this case it seems short-circuit is neither necessary nor sufficient condition of make a fire. But it seems also short-circuit is not entirely irrelevant to the fire.
So **my question** is what is the proper definition of *Causality*? | 2012/11/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/4192",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1958/"
] | Causality as @glebovg states is a very basic understanding of the relation between two objects and the event which takes place based on the interaction. Because you have posted in Philosophy channel i am not sure you do not want the deterministic answer.
Personally i think the more interesting area of causality is found in Psychology
"investigating how people and non-human animals detect or infer causation from sensory information, prior experience and innate knowledge."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Counterfactual_theories>
Aristotle started it all with the 4 causes. The material cause,the formal cause,the efficient cause and the final cause
This leads down a very interesting rabbit hole in the synchronicity of consciousness and the collective interactions of humans. What is priority in cause. For instance, we all make decisions in our lives and a lot of decisions we know will have a major effect negative or positive. Yet some actions seem minor yet they too have major consequential effects. These effects are all interlaced with and determined in priority to connections we have made to other objects ( living or non living - as is our current understanding in our collective attribution to the warming of this planet, yet we all as a collective continue even in the knowledge of our destructive nature ). This can then lead to perception illusions and the drawings of MC Escher ... if you let it. Mergers into a fringe science, which is always more interesting it seems.
<http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/enlightenment/the-illusion-of-causality/>
Tie these ideas on a time spectrum and dare to introduce the uncertainty principle. This like LSD for people who like to learn.
You however did ask the question in a very deterministic manner, and if you are looking for the scientific interpretation you might want to try the Physics channel <http://physics.stackexchange.com> | Causality is essentially the relationship between cause and effect. Specific definitions depend on the context. For example, in physics, and in particular thermodynamics, we define an *arrow of time*. In the philosophy of science, one might talk about causality in special relativity. For example, special relativity does not allow communication faster than the speed of light, since this would violate causality because to some inertial observers, information would travel backward in time. In quantum mechanics, one could say that virtual particles (particle-antiparticle pairs) violate causality because they essentially borrow energy from nothing (the vacuum) but this is allow by the time-energy uncertainty principle. In logic, or mathematics we have *sufficient* and *necessary* conditions (causes), if satisfied, yield some results (effects or consequences). There are many questions a philosopher could ask. Can two events be causally connected? Is there free will? What is determinism? Is our universe determinist as Laplace thought, or does it just seem that way? Can we rely on science to answer these questions? Hume's answer to the last question would be -- no, due to the problem of induction. |
167,113 | In group theory we have encountered the concepts of homomorphisms as maps from one group to another, and the same thing with ring and field theory and we ave called them respectively homomorphisms of groups (of rings, and of fields). Also in linear algebra we have linear maps.
So my question is this:
What is the role of such maps in this algebraic structures? | 2012/07/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/167113",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/34920/"
] | Homomorphisms do a lot of things:
1. They can be used to show two structures are identical (isomorphism)
2. They can be used to show one structure is a substructure of another (monomorphism)
3. They can be used to show one structure is a quotient of another (epimorphism)
4. General homomorphisms are kind of a mixture of the above, carrying a certain amount of data about the relationship between the domain and codomain.
This list is not exhaustive, it's just meant to sample some of what homomorphisms do. | Another function of morphisms is as a way of taking an unfamiliar or apparently complex algebraic object, and placing it in a more familiar context, or one where there are known analytical tools and methods - as in representation theory.
The point of view you take depends rather on whether you are more interested in studying particular objects, or alternatively classes of objects. |
167,113 | In group theory we have encountered the concepts of homomorphisms as maps from one group to another, and the same thing with ring and field theory and we ave called them respectively homomorphisms of groups (of rings, and of fields). Also in linear algebra we have linear maps.
So my question is this:
What is the role of such maps in this algebraic structures? | 2012/07/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/167113",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/34920/"
] | Another function of morphisms is as a way of taking an unfamiliar or apparently complex algebraic object, and placing it in a more familiar context, or one where there are known analytical tools and methods - as in representation theory.
The point of view you take depends rather on whether you are more interested in studying particular objects, or alternatively classes of objects. | Let's suppose for the moment that you really only care about isomorphisms. That is, you really only care about telling whether two groups are isomorphic, or something. Great! But how do you write down isomorphisms? It's hard. Often you will be able to write down a map and you'll want to show it's an isomorphism. *Before* you show it's an isomorphism, what is it?
It's probably a homomorphism!
So even if you only care about isomorphisms, in the course of proving things about isomorphisms you will very likely end up having to talk about homomorphisms which are not necessarily isomorphisms (at least you don't know that they are), so you might as well talk about them from the outset. Moreover,
* you can use homomorphisms to construct isomorphisms,
* even homomorphisms which are not isomorphisms can be used to prove useful statements, e.g. that there do *not* exist certain isomorphisms,
* etc.
But really to understand this you should do a lot of mathematics. It will become clearer to you as you gain experience with working with maps. |
167,113 | In group theory we have encountered the concepts of homomorphisms as maps from one group to another, and the same thing with ring and field theory and we ave called them respectively homomorphisms of groups (of rings, and of fields). Also in linear algebra we have linear maps.
So my question is this:
What is the role of such maps in this algebraic structures? | 2012/07/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/167113",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/34920/"
] | Another function of morphisms is as a way of taking an unfamiliar or apparently complex algebraic object, and placing it in a more familiar context, or one where there are known analytical tools and methods - as in representation theory.
The point of view you take depends rather on whether you are more interested in studying particular objects, or alternatively classes of objects. | I think the use of homomorphisms is to identify one algebraic structure with another. With that identification we can say that two algebraic structures are same structurally i.e they are same when we view them with respect to algebraic operations involved in them although they may seem different with open eye. |
167,113 | In group theory we have encountered the concepts of homomorphisms as maps from one group to another, and the same thing with ring and field theory and we ave called them respectively homomorphisms of groups (of rings, and of fields). Also in linear algebra we have linear maps.
So my question is this:
What is the role of such maps in this algebraic structures? | 2012/07/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/167113",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/34920/"
] | Groups, rings (especially fields) and many other objects in mathematics form so called categories. I.e. the collection of all rings (whatever this is) forms a category. To 'compare' the objects in a category, one needs morphisms between them. (This is not the only need for morphisms, but one of them). To say that one object is 'bigger' or that two objects are isomorphic, one needs the notion of morphism.
Morphisms are generally maps (though not all morphisms need to be maps) that respect the structure of the objects.
Of course, morphisms have other useful applications. Matrices for example (i.e. morphisms of vector spaces [or modules]) are connected to linear equations and so on...
Morphisms play very many very important roles in mathematics :) | I think the use of homomorphisms is to identify one algebraic structure with another. With that identification we can say that two algebraic structures are same structurally i.e they are same when we view them with respect to algebraic operations involved in them although they may seem different with open eye. |
167,113 | In group theory we have encountered the concepts of homomorphisms as maps from one group to another, and the same thing with ring and field theory and we ave called them respectively homomorphisms of groups (of rings, and of fields). Also in linear algebra we have linear maps.
So my question is this:
What is the role of such maps in this algebraic structures? | 2012/07/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/167113",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/34920/"
] | Groups, rings (especially fields) and many other objects in mathematics form so called categories. I.e. the collection of all rings (whatever this is) forms a category. To 'compare' the objects in a category, one needs morphisms between them. (This is not the only need for morphisms, but one of them). To say that one object is 'bigger' or that two objects are isomorphic, one needs the notion of morphism.
Morphisms are generally maps (though not all morphisms need to be maps) that respect the structure of the objects.
Of course, morphisms have other useful applications. Matrices for example (i.e. morphisms of vector spaces [or modules]) are connected to linear equations and so on...
Morphisms play very many very important roles in mathematics :) | Let's suppose for the moment that you really only care about isomorphisms. That is, you really only care about telling whether two groups are isomorphic, or something. Great! But how do you write down isomorphisms? It's hard. Often you will be able to write down a map and you'll want to show it's an isomorphism. *Before* you show it's an isomorphism, what is it?
It's probably a homomorphism!
So even if you only care about isomorphisms, in the course of proving things about isomorphisms you will very likely end up having to talk about homomorphisms which are not necessarily isomorphisms (at least you don't know that they are), so you might as well talk about them from the outset. Moreover,
* you can use homomorphisms to construct isomorphisms,
* even homomorphisms which are not isomorphisms can be used to prove useful statements, e.g. that there do *not* exist certain isomorphisms,
* etc.
But really to understand this you should do a lot of mathematics. It will become clearer to you as you gain experience with working with maps. |
167,113 | In group theory we have encountered the concepts of homomorphisms as maps from one group to another, and the same thing with ring and field theory and we ave called them respectively homomorphisms of groups (of rings, and of fields). Also in linear algebra we have linear maps.
So my question is this:
What is the role of such maps in this algebraic structures? | 2012/07/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/167113",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/34920/"
] | Homomorphisms do a lot of things:
1. They can be used to show two structures are identical (isomorphism)
2. They can be used to show one structure is a substructure of another (monomorphism)
3. They can be used to show one structure is a quotient of another (epimorphism)
4. General homomorphisms are kind of a mixture of the above, carrying a certain amount of data about the relationship between the domain and codomain.
This list is not exhaustive, it's just meant to sample some of what homomorphisms do. | I think the use of homomorphisms is to identify one algebraic structure with another. With that identification we can say that two algebraic structures are same structurally i.e they are same when we view them with respect to algebraic operations involved in them although they may seem different with open eye. |
167,113 | In group theory we have encountered the concepts of homomorphisms as maps from one group to another, and the same thing with ring and field theory and we ave called them respectively homomorphisms of groups (of rings, and of fields). Also in linear algebra we have linear maps.
So my question is this:
What is the role of such maps in this algebraic structures? | 2012/07/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/167113",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/34920/"
] | Let's suppose for the moment that you really only care about isomorphisms. That is, you really only care about telling whether two groups are isomorphic, or something. Great! But how do you write down isomorphisms? It's hard. Often you will be able to write down a map and you'll want to show it's an isomorphism. *Before* you show it's an isomorphism, what is it?
It's probably a homomorphism!
So even if you only care about isomorphisms, in the course of proving things about isomorphisms you will very likely end up having to talk about homomorphisms which are not necessarily isomorphisms (at least you don't know that they are), so you might as well talk about them from the outset. Moreover,
* you can use homomorphisms to construct isomorphisms,
* even homomorphisms which are not isomorphisms can be used to prove useful statements, e.g. that there do *not* exist certain isomorphisms,
* etc.
But really to understand this you should do a lot of mathematics. It will become clearer to you as you gain experience with working with maps. | I think the use of homomorphisms is to identify one algebraic structure with another. With that identification we can say that two algebraic structures are same structurally i.e they are same when we view them with respect to algebraic operations involved in them although they may seem different with open eye. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | You might be overthinking it. This might not be a case of which English is The Correct English.
D&D 4e has a thing called artifacts. I live in Australia, where we spell it "artefacts", but nevertheless, in the context of D&D 4e I will happily and consistently call them artifacts. They consistently call it that, and as far as I'm aware, they have no instances of calling them "artefacts".
It would probably be weird if some of the books called them "artefacts", just like it'd be weird if some of the books said "magick" instead of "magic." I see it as being a convention they have with a defined spelling, so I go with it.
We should probably ask okeefe though. Right? | While there are a lot of good points, I want to bring up ONE thing:
Keep Game Terms as they appear in the books!
============================================
There are a lot of games out there. Some are in AE, some BE, some CanE, some in Aussie slang. And a lot appear first as PDFs these days. People can easily quote from these, and what is more relevant, *search* in them. The Adobe search, however, is dumb: If you use spelling "Glamor" when searching in a book using "Glamour" for this ability, you get no hits. When searching for "maneouvre" when the D&D 5E uses "maneuver", you don't find the paragraphs. When searching for "Magic" in Ars Magica you are lucky as they use the term "Magick", of which magic is a substring... |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | >
> Some common reasons to edit are:
>
>
> * **to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes**
> * to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
> * to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
> * to add related resources or hyperlinks
>
>
> Try to make the post substantively better when you edit, not just change a single character. Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged.
>
>
>
([source](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit); emphasis mine.)
We aren't language experts.
---------------------------
>
> Correct use of English spelling and grammar to the best of your ability. ([source](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/quality-standards-error))
>
>
>
Although one of SE's meta goals is to improve communication skills, RPG.SE citizens are here for RPG expertise, not linguistic expertise. We want citizens to feel free to edit away typos (if they're major, or as part of a more significant edit--as described in the help section), and if we start coming on down people for fixing what they think are typos but turn out to be legitimate dialectic variants, we'll lose editors.
I haven't seen any pattern of behavior to indicate that anything more sinister is going on than good faith attempts to adhere to correct English spelling and grammar, so I don't think a more strict policy needs to be enacted.
There is no "correct use of English spelling and grammar" unless we choose a style manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every publisher has a stylebook, and they don't agree. Even in something like "American English," choices about the Oxford (serial) comma, whether to use "further" and "farther" or just "further," and whether to hyphenate "African American," create wide divides in style and grammar. Taken to its logical conclusion, we can't rule *any* style choice as right or wrong unless we adopt a specific style manual for the whole site.
That seems excessive and needless, but...
It's probably good to standardize usage within a single post.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The edit in question was actually reverting a spelling change from a previous edit: the original post used "artifact," and the body text still did, but the title had been edited by an Australian who used his spelling "artefact." Okeefe reverted the spelling so it would be consistent throughout the post.
This seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. | As we are playing particular systems any terms that might have alternative spelling should first the same as the spelling used by that system. If it isn't referring to a specific term then leave as the author intended.
As for whether everyone should be aware of alternative spellings, well that's a hard one. I daresay most non-American English speakers are very aware of alternative spellings as they struggle through so many sites and programs that don't recognise the 'correct' spelling (such as recognise). If there were to be a policy then it should leave as the author intended except for those specific system terms, if it is edited then it is a simple matter to revert it once the actual situation is discovered. No harm, no foul. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | I follow the Wikipedia policy: for AmE, BrE, and CanE (&c) spelling variants, preserve the variant of the original and standardise to that, if necessary. If it's seems to be a mix of spellings from different countries but specific words are consistent, don't try to figure out why, and leave the spelling alone. Basically, when it doubt, don't touch the spelling.
This was deemed super-important at Wikipedia in order for it not to slowly transform from a worldwide project into an American-seeming project. I agree with this reasoning, and I think it applies to this site.
Speaking personally, as an English-speaker from a non-American-English country, you'd be surprised how *unwelcoming* a site that erases my correct spelling from the page feels. A site that enforces AmE spellings on my own text – even if only accidentally, due to editors not paying attention to the issue of spelling variants – is a site that doesn't want me to contribute. It's not rational, but there it is.
A consequence of following this policy would be that unnecessary corrections are to be reverted to the original spelling. This shows respect for the original author, and counteracts any demographic bias rooted in the ratio of site users. It takes little effort, does minimal damage to the site, and demonstrates a dedication to being non-partisan. This would be my preference for how we handle spelling here. | While there are a lot of good points, I want to bring up ONE thing:
Keep Game Terms as they appear in the books!
============================================
There are a lot of games out there. Some are in AE, some BE, some CanE, some in Aussie slang. And a lot appear first as PDFs these days. People can easily quote from these, and what is more relevant, *search* in them. The Adobe search, however, is dumb: If you use spelling "Glamor" when searching in a book using "Glamour" for this ability, you get no hits. When searching for "maneouvre" when the D&D 5E uses "maneuver", you don't find the paragraphs. When searching for "Magic" in Ars Magica you are lucky as they use the term "Magick", of which magic is a substring... |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | While there are a lot of good points, I want to bring up ONE thing:
Keep Game Terms as they appear in the books!
============================================
There are a lot of games out there. Some are in AE, some BE, some CanE, some in Aussie slang. And a lot appear first as PDFs these days. People can easily quote from these, and what is more relevant, *search* in them. The Adobe search, however, is dumb: If you use spelling "Glamor" when searching in a book using "Glamour" for this ability, you get no hits. When searching for "maneouvre" when the D&D 5E uses "maneuver", you don't find the paragraphs. When searching for "Magic" in Ars Magica you are lucky as they use the term "Magick", of which magic is a substring... | As we are playing particular systems any terms that might have alternative spelling should first the same as the spelling used by that system. If it isn't referring to a specific term then leave as the author intended.
As for whether everyone should be aware of alternative spellings, well that's a hard one. I daresay most non-American English speakers are very aware of alternative spellings as they struggle through so many sites and programs that don't recognise the 'correct' spelling (such as recognise). If there were to be a policy then it should leave as the author intended except for those specific system terms, if it is edited then it is a simple matter to revert it once the actual situation is discovered. No harm, no foul. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | You might be overthinking it. This might not be a case of which English is The Correct English.
D&D 4e has a thing called artifacts. I live in Australia, where we spell it "artefacts", but nevertheless, in the context of D&D 4e I will happily and consistently call them artifacts. They consistently call it that, and as far as I'm aware, they have no instances of calling them "artefacts".
It would probably be weird if some of the books called them "artefacts", just like it'd be weird if some of the books said "magick" instead of "magic." I see it as being a convention they have with a defined spelling, so I go with it.
We should probably ask okeefe though. Right? | Personal feeling: the initial spelling in such cases should be left alone, even if you are already editing the question or answer for other reasons.
And even if we decide that we should standardize on a single spelling, seems to me that this would not be a large enough change on its own to justify making the edit in the first place, if you were not editing it anyway. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | You might be overthinking it. This might not be a case of which English is The Correct English.
D&D 4e has a thing called artifacts. I live in Australia, where we spell it "artefacts", but nevertheless, in the context of D&D 4e I will happily and consistently call them artifacts. They consistently call it that, and as far as I'm aware, they have no instances of calling them "artefacts".
It would probably be weird if some of the books called them "artefacts", just like it'd be weird if some of the books said "magick" instead of "magic." I see it as being a convention they have with a defined spelling, so I go with it.
We should probably ask okeefe though. Right? | As we are playing particular systems any terms that might have alternative spelling should first the same as the spelling used by that system. If it isn't referring to a specific term then leave as the author intended.
As for whether everyone should be aware of alternative spellings, well that's a hard one. I daresay most non-American English speakers are very aware of alternative spellings as they struggle through so many sites and programs that don't recognise the 'correct' spelling (such as recognise). If there were to be a policy then it should leave as the author intended except for those specific system terms, if it is edited then it is a simple matter to revert it once the actual situation is discovered. No harm, no foul. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | While there are a lot of good points, I want to bring up ONE thing:
Keep Game Terms as they appear in the books!
============================================
There are a lot of games out there. Some are in AE, some BE, some CanE, some in Aussie slang. And a lot appear first as PDFs these days. People can easily quote from these, and what is more relevant, *search* in them. The Adobe search, however, is dumb: If you use spelling "Glamor" when searching in a book using "Glamour" for this ability, you get no hits. When searching for "maneouvre" when the D&D 5E uses "maneuver", you don't find the paragraphs. When searching for "Magic" in Ars Magica you are lucky as they use the term "Magick", of which magic is a substring... | Personal feeling: the initial spelling in such cases should be left alone, even if you are already editing the question or answer for other reasons.
And even if we decide that we should standardize on a single spelling, seems to me that this would not be a large enough change on its own to justify making the edit in the first place, if you were not editing it anyway. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | >
> Some common reasons to edit are:
>
>
> * **to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes**
> * to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
> * to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
> * to add related resources or hyperlinks
>
>
> Try to make the post substantively better when you edit, not just change a single character. Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged.
>
>
>
([source](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit); emphasis mine.)
We aren't language experts.
---------------------------
>
> Correct use of English spelling and grammar to the best of your ability. ([source](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/quality-standards-error))
>
>
>
Although one of SE's meta goals is to improve communication skills, RPG.SE citizens are here for RPG expertise, not linguistic expertise. We want citizens to feel free to edit away typos (if they're major, or as part of a more significant edit--as described in the help section), and if we start coming on down people for fixing what they think are typos but turn out to be legitimate dialectic variants, we'll lose editors.
I haven't seen any pattern of behavior to indicate that anything more sinister is going on than good faith attempts to adhere to correct English spelling and grammar, so I don't think a more strict policy needs to be enacted.
There is no "correct use of English spelling and grammar" unless we choose a style manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every publisher has a stylebook, and they don't agree. Even in something like "American English," choices about the Oxford (serial) comma, whether to use "further" and "farther" or just "further," and whether to hyphenate "African American," create wide divides in style and grammar. Taken to its logical conclusion, we can't rule *any* style choice as right or wrong unless we adopt a specific style manual for the whole site.
That seems excessive and needless, but...
It's probably good to standardize usage within a single post.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The edit in question was actually reverting a spelling change from a previous edit: the original post used "artifact," and the body text still did, but the title had been edited by an Australian who used his spelling "artefact." Okeefe reverted the spelling so it would be consistent throughout the post.
This seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. | Personal feeling: the initial spelling in such cases should be left alone, even if you are already editing the question or answer for other reasons.
And even if we decide that we should standardize on a single spelling, seems to me that this would not be a large enough change on its own to justify making the edit in the first place, if you were not editing it anyway. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | I follow the Wikipedia policy: for AmE, BrE, and CanE (&c) spelling variants, preserve the variant of the original and standardise to that, if necessary. If it's seems to be a mix of spellings from different countries but specific words are consistent, don't try to figure out why, and leave the spelling alone. Basically, when it doubt, don't touch the spelling.
This was deemed super-important at Wikipedia in order for it not to slowly transform from a worldwide project into an American-seeming project. I agree with this reasoning, and I think it applies to this site.
Speaking personally, as an English-speaker from a non-American-English country, you'd be surprised how *unwelcoming* a site that erases my correct spelling from the page feels. A site that enforces AmE spellings on my own text – even if only accidentally, due to editors not paying attention to the issue of spelling variants – is a site that doesn't want me to contribute. It's not rational, but there it is.
A consequence of following this policy would be that unnecessary corrections are to be reverted to the original spelling. This shows respect for the original author, and counteracts any demographic bias rooted in the ratio of site users. It takes little effort, does minimal damage to the site, and demonstrates a dedication to being non-partisan. This would be my preference for how we handle spelling here. | Personal feeling: the initial spelling in such cases should be left alone, even if you are already editing the question or answer for other reasons.
And even if we decide that we should standardize on a single spelling, seems to me that this would not be a large enough change on its own to justify making the edit in the first place, if you were not editing it anyway. |
3,224 | In a recent (otherwise quite solid) edit of [“Will changing an artifact sword to another weapon type impact game balance much?”](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/30616/4563), @okeefe changed the British spelling “artefact” to the American spelling “artifact.”
Searching our meta, I see no rule regarding whether a particular spelling is preferred, or whether someone editing a question *anyway* can or should change from one spelling to another. | 2013/12/09 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4563/"
] | >
> Some common reasons to edit are:
>
>
> * **to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes**
> * to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
> * to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
> * to add related resources or hyperlinks
>
>
> Try to make the post substantively better when you edit, not just change a single character. Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged.
>
>
>
([source](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit); emphasis mine.)
We aren't language experts.
---------------------------
>
> Correct use of English spelling and grammar to the best of your ability. ([source](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/quality-standards-error))
>
>
>
Although one of SE's meta goals is to improve communication skills, RPG.SE citizens are here for RPG expertise, not linguistic expertise. We want citizens to feel free to edit away typos (if they're major, or as part of a more significant edit--as described in the help section), and if we start coming on down people for fixing what they think are typos but turn out to be legitimate dialectic variants, we'll lose editors.
I haven't seen any pattern of behavior to indicate that anything more sinister is going on than good faith attempts to adhere to correct English spelling and grammar, so I don't think a more strict policy needs to be enacted.
There is no "correct use of English spelling and grammar" unless we choose a style manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every publisher has a stylebook, and they don't agree. Even in something like "American English," choices about the Oxford (serial) comma, whether to use "further" and "farther" or just "further," and whether to hyphenate "African American," create wide divides in style and grammar. Taken to its logical conclusion, we can't rule *any* style choice as right or wrong unless we adopt a specific style manual for the whole site.
That seems excessive and needless, but...
It's probably good to standardize usage within a single post.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The edit in question was actually reverting a spelling change from a previous edit: the original post used "artifact," and the body text still did, but the title had been edited by an Australian who used his spelling "artefact." Okeefe reverted the spelling so it would be consistent throughout the post.
This seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. | You might be overthinking it. This might not be a case of which English is The Correct English.
D&D 4e has a thing called artifacts. I live in Australia, where we spell it "artefacts", but nevertheless, in the context of D&D 4e I will happily and consistently call them artifacts. They consistently call it that, and as far as I'm aware, they have no instances of calling them "artefacts".
It would probably be weird if some of the books called them "artefacts", just like it'd be weird if some of the books said "magick" instead of "magic." I see it as being a convention they have with a defined spelling, so I go with it.
We should probably ask okeefe though. Right? |
87,476 | In a [sister site](https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/51752/if-fireflys-mal-reynolds-is-a-sergeant-why-does-zoe-call-him-sir) I saw the word ***sir*** written in IPA as **/sər/**
and not **/sɜ:r/** as it was in my OALD. So I looked it up at [Oxford Dictionary on-line](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sir) and sure enough, they had it as **/sər/**. The same at [MW.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sir)
The same pronunciation is given for words like *purr* and *bird* where my OALD shows /ɜ:r/
I thought the [schwa](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schwa) was used to indicate a reduced vowel in an unstressed syllable.
*I am also seeing the same in the word **cut***. Although my 30 year-old copy of OALD shows **/kʌt/**, I am seeing **/kət/** in MW.
Is schwa now being used to indicate a vowel sound in a single syllable word? When did this change? | 2016/04/14 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/87476",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/30256/"
] | I've no idea when the change that you ask about occurred. The definition below from the OED has not been updated since 1982, indicating that back then it did not consider the schwa to be exclusively reserved for unstressed syllables.
*A Dictionary of Psychology* (4th edition, Oxford U Press) says:
>
> The neutral and central mid vowel...that occurs in the words ***the*** and ***fern***, at the beginning of *about*, and at the end of *sofa*, and the symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) that represents it, namely an inverted e. Statistically, it is the most frequently occurring English vowel (over ten per cent of all vowel sounds), yet it has no corresponding single letter in the standard alphabet. See also central vowel, formant, mid vowel. [From Hebrew *shewa* a mark indicating the absence of a vowel sound][*my emphasis* in bold]
>
>
>
The *Oxford English Dictionary* (OED) defines *schwa* as
>
> The central vowel sound /ə/ , typically occurring in weakly stressed syllables, as in the final syllable of ‘sofa’ and the first syllable of ‘along’; = sheva n. 2. Occas., the symbol of an inverted ‘e’ used to represent this sound.
>
>
>
It gives a schwa in the pronunciation of such single syllable words as *sir, purr, bird* and the stressed syllable of *birdbath*.
The aptly named *Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics* says
>
> The mid-central vowel of e.g. the second syllable of matter: in phonetic notation [ə] ([matə]). Also spelled ‘shwa’.
>
>
>
*Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage* (4 ed.):
>
> /ʃwɑː/ (shwah). In the phrase ‘*a* moment *a*go’ in unemphatic BrE speech, the two unstressed vowels in italics are pronounced identically. The technical name for this sound is schwa, and its symbol is /ə/ in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Not only letter *a* can be pronounced /ə/ : the italicized letters in the following show it represented by other written vowels: number, th*e*, *o*bey, c*o*mmit, s*u*ccess, pict*u*re. The fact that letters *a, e, o,* and *u* can all be pronounced as a schwa explains many widespread spelling mistakes, such as \*relevent.
>
>
>
I'll add that's it's too bad the sound of schwa is not also schwa. | First of all, let's figure out the case of the word **sir**. According to [Oxford Learners' Dictionary](http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/sir?q=sir), both /sɜːr/ and /sər/ are correct pronunciations of the word. I have seen both pronunciation in OLD only (However I didn't look in a lot of dictionaries).
Next, keep in mind that, [according to some native speakers](http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/pronunciation-%C9%9D%CB%90-%C9%9C%CB%90-ur-er-ir-ae-be.2612515/), /ɜ:/ and /ə/ sound similar, except that (according to other speakers) /ɜ:/ is elongated. /ɜ:/ occurs before the consonant r only. It makes sense why dictionaries would choose to just use a schwa instead.
For the example of cut, this is a practice that infuriates me a lot, since *Cut* doesn't sound at all like the first syllable in a word like *Qatar*. However, according to my Accent Reduction teacher, /ʌ/ is just a stressed schwa, and that's why you see some dictionaries using a schwa instead. I don't understand why some dictionaries practice this. A wedge might be a stressed schwa, but at least for me they don't sound alike.
My advice: Merriam-Webster and the normal Oxford dictionary are designed for native speakers in mind. I'd recommend, as an ESL speaker, to use [Learner's Dictionary](http://learnersdictionary.com/definition/cut) (By Merriam Webster) and [Oxford Learner's Dictionary](http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/). I assume that normal dictionaries don't pay much attention to transcription as they'd expect people to just hear the word being spoken rather than read the actual transcript. A native speaker can distinguish between all the different phonemes in his language, making it ideal to just listen instead of reading. |
87,476 | In a [sister site](https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/51752/if-fireflys-mal-reynolds-is-a-sergeant-why-does-zoe-call-him-sir) I saw the word ***sir*** written in IPA as **/sər/**
and not **/sɜ:r/** as it was in my OALD. So I looked it up at [Oxford Dictionary on-line](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sir) and sure enough, they had it as **/sər/**. The same at [MW.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sir)
The same pronunciation is given for words like *purr* and *bird* where my OALD shows /ɜ:r/
I thought the [schwa](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schwa) was used to indicate a reduced vowel in an unstressed syllable.
*I am also seeing the same in the word **cut***. Although my 30 year-old copy of OALD shows **/kʌt/**, I am seeing **/kət/** in MW.
Is schwa now being used to indicate a vowel sound in a single syllable word? When did this change? | 2016/04/14 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/87476",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/30256/"
] | I've no idea when the change that you ask about occurred. The definition below from the OED has not been updated since 1982, indicating that back then it did not consider the schwa to be exclusively reserved for unstressed syllables.
*A Dictionary of Psychology* (4th edition, Oxford U Press) says:
>
> The neutral and central mid vowel...that occurs in the words ***the*** and ***fern***, at the beginning of *about*, and at the end of *sofa*, and the symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) that represents it, namely an inverted e. Statistically, it is the most frequently occurring English vowel (over ten per cent of all vowel sounds), yet it has no corresponding single letter in the standard alphabet. See also central vowel, formant, mid vowel. [From Hebrew *shewa* a mark indicating the absence of a vowel sound][*my emphasis* in bold]
>
>
>
The *Oxford English Dictionary* (OED) defines *schwa* as
>
> The central vowel sound /ə/ , typically occurring in weakly stressed syllables, as in the final syllable of ‘sofa’ and the first syllable of ‘along’; = sheva n. 2. Occas., the symbol of an inverted ‘e’ used to represent this sound.
>
>
>
It gives a schwa in the pronunciation of such single syllable words as *sir, purr, bird* and the stressed syllable of *birdbath*.
The aptly named *Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics* says
>
> The mid-central vowel of e.g. the second syllable of matter: in phonetic notation [ə] ([matə]). Also spelled ‘shwa’.
>
>
>
*Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage* (4 ed.):
>
> /ʃwɑː/ (shwah). In the phrase ‘*a* moment *a*go’ in unemphatic BrE speech, the two unstressed vowels in italics are pronounced identically. The technical name for this sound is schwa, and its symbol is /ə/ in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Not only letter *a* can be pronounced /ə/ : the italicized letters in the following show it represented by other written vowels: number, th*e*, *o*bey, c*o*mmit, s*u*ccess, pict*u*re. The fact that letters *a, e, o,* and *u* can all be pronounced as a schwa explains many widespread spelling mistakes, such as \*relevent.
>
>
>
I'll add that's it's too bad the sound of schwa is not also schwa. | Although for someone learning English, prescription is pedagogically appropriate (tell them what they should do) I remind everyone that a dictionary's PURPOSE is to describe NOT to prescribe. (It says how things are, NOT how they should be). Language (pronunciation, usage, grammar, and meaning) all vary by location and change over time (as well as differing by generation of the speaker) as we all know. Dialect matters. Oxford, England is not Springfield Massachusetts. (although I didn't remember that Encyclopedia Britannica owned MW).
From Wikipedia I also note:The Merriam-Webster company once used a unique set of phonetic symbols in their dictionaries—intended to help people from different parts of the United States learn how to pronounce words the same way as others who spoke with the same accent or dialect did. Unicode accommodated IPA symbols, but did not specify room for Merriam-Webster phonetics.[So MW had to revise their on-line material...] |
87,476 | In a [sister site](https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/51752/if-fireflys-mal-reynolds-is-a-sergeant-why-does-zoe-call-him-sir) I saw the word ***sir*** written in IPA as **/sər/**
and not **/sɜ:r/** as it was in my OALD. So I looked it up at [Oxford Dictionary on-line](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sir) and sure enough, they had it as **/sər/**. The same at [MW.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sir)
The same pronunciation is given for words like *purr* and *bird* where my OALD shows /ɜ:r/
I thought the [schwa](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schwa) was used to indicate a reduced vowel in an unstressed syllable.
*I am also seeing the same in the word **cut***. Although my 30 year-old copy of OALD shows **/kʌt/**, I am seeing **/kət/** in MW.
Is schwa now being used to indicate a vowel sound in a single syllable word? When did this change? | 2016/04/14 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/87476",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/30256/"
] | First of all, let's figure out the case of the word **sir**. According to [Oxford Learners' Dictionary](http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/sir?q=sir), both /sɜːr/ and /sər/ are correct pronunciations of the word. I have seen both pronunciation in OLD only (However I didn't look in a lot of dictionaries).
Next, keep in mind that, [according to some native speakers](http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/pronunciation-%C9%9D%CB%90-%C9%9C%CB%90-ur-er-ir-ae-be.2612515/), /ɜ:/ and /ə/ sound similar, except that (according to other speakers) /ɜ:/ is elongated. /ɜ:/ occurs before the consonant r only. It makes sense why dictionaries would choose to just use a schwa instead.
For the example of cut, this is a practice that infuriates me a lot, since *Cut* doesn't sound at all like the first syllable in a word like *Qatar*. However, according to my Accent Reduction teacher, /ʌ/ is just a stressed schwa, and that's why you see some dictionaries using a schwa instead. I don't understand why some dictionaries practice this. A wedge might be a stressed schwa, but at least for me they don't sound alike.
My advice: Merriam-Webster and the normal Oxford dictionary are designed for native speakers in mind. I'd recommend, as an ESL speaker, to use [Learner's Dictionary](http://learnersdictionary.com/definition/cut) (By Merriam Webster) and [Oxford Learner's Dictionary](http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/). I assume that normal dictionaries don't pay much attention to transcription as they'd expect people to just hear the word being spoken rather than read the actual transcript. A native speaker can distinguish between all the different phonemes in his language, making it ideal to just listen instead of reading. | Although for someone learning English, prescription is pedagogically appropriate (tell them what they should do) I remind everyone that a dictionary's PURPOSE is to describe NOT to prescribe. (It says how things are, NOT how they should be). Language (pronunciation, usage, grammar, and meaning) all vary by location and change over time (as well as differing by generation of the speaker) as we all know. Dialect matters. Oxford, England is not Springfield Massachusetts. (although I didn't remember that Encyclopedia Britannica owned MW).
From Wikipedia I also note:The Merriam-Webster company once used a unique set of phonetic symbols in their dictionaries—intended to help people from different parts of the United States learn how to pronounce words the same way as others who spoke with the same accent or dialect did. Unicode accommodated IPA symbols, but did not specify room for Merriam-Webster phonetics.[So MW had to revise their on-line material...] |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | Next to the aerodynamic advantages (both engine and propeller can run at their optimum speed for best efficiency) already mentioned in the other answers, there is an important **safety advantage:** a variable pitch propeller can be **feathered** such that its drag after an engine failure is minimized. This is critical for many multi-engine aircraft in order to remain controllable after an engine failure.
>
> On many variable pitch propellers, the blade pitch can be increased to the point that the chord line of the blade is approximately parallel to the on-coming airflow. This process is referred to as feathering.
>
>
> The inflight feathering of the propeller, on an engine that has failed or has been intentionally shut down, greatly reduces the drag that would occur with the blade pitch in any other position. On a single engine aircraft such as a motor glider, feathering the propeller when the engine is shut down results in a significant increase in gliding distance. On a multi-engine aircraft, feathering the propeller of a failed engine results in both a reduction in drag and a reduction in adverse yaw vastly improving the engine-out handling characteristics and the engine-out flight performance of the aircraft.
>
>
>
([SKYbrary - Feathering](https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Feathering))
See also: [What does feathering mean and how does it work technically?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11166/what-does-feathering-mean-and-how-does-it-work-technically) | Propellers get more effective the faster they spin. The limiting factor is the speed of the blade tip, which must remain subsonic. So a propeller of a given size will offer maximum thrust when its RPM gives a blade tip speed of around Mach 0.8.
Maximum thrust is needed especially for takeoff and for maximum speed. When the plane is stationary on the ground the prop spins wholly sideways, but when at speed it has to follow a much more angled spiral path through the oncoming air. These varying conditions can only be met by varying the blade pitch. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | The comparison with a car's gearbox is unfortunate, and leads to misunderstandings...
At the small airspeeds typical of takeoff, the inflow at the rotor plane is small too, and the prop needs a small amount of pitch in order to produce a large amount of thrust at maximum engine revs, the blades working at the angle of attack for best L/D.
But, on cruising flight, there is an important inflow at the plane of the prop disk, that inflow reduces the angle of attack, and –under those conditions– the propeller can deliver enough thrust at maximum engine revs (i.e., with the blades working at the angle of attack for best L/D) only if the pitch is substantially higher than at takeoff...
That's the rationale of the adjustable prop... | ### Reverse Pitch - Reverse Thrust
If the pitch angle is negative (reverse), then some meaningful amount of thrust is produced in the opposite direction than normal. This can be useful to improve stopping distance when landing, and even taxi in reverse.
[https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse\_Pitch#:~:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft](https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse_Pitch#:%7E:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft).
### Zero Pitch - Idling
At somewhere around a pitch angle of zero, the net thrust becomes zero (forward or reverse). At this point the aerodynamic load on the prop is minimized. This removes unwanted thrust when we want to stand still on the runway, as well as minimizes fuel consumption during idle. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | It's not just the operating RPM that is pertinent. It's also the pitch of the blades.
If your propeller blades' pitch is optimized for takeoff/climb performance, it's going to be aerodynamically inefficient at high true airspeeds, like taking little tiny footsteps on a treadmill that's going really fast. (It works, but it wastes energy.)
The opposite is true as well. If you have a "cruise" prop on your airplane, it's going to perform poorly on takeoff when the airspeed is slow, like taking large strides on a treadmill that's just barely moving.
If you want to optimize your body mechanics, you change your gait based on the speed you need to go, so you're not wasting energy. If you want optimize a propeller, you change it's pitch based on the speed of the air that's entering it, so you're not wasting energy. | 
Propeller efficiency with pitch, taken from Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, H.H.Hurt, 1965
Fixed pitch props need to be designed for a specific flight speed, which would invariably be a compromise between takeoff and cruise performance. By varying the propeller pitch, we can run the propeller blades at different angles of attack, and we slow the blade tips down to keep their relative speed (sum of freestream and tangential speeds) constant. Thus, we can run the propeller at a similar efficiency through all flight speeds.
Running the blades at certain angles of attack is not as simple as it sounds, with different tangential speeds along the radius of the propeller, the freestream and tangential speeds will yield different flow angles (highest at the hub, least at the tip). To achieve the same angle of attack everywhere along the blade, we'll then need to twist the blade, but as we cannot change the twist in flight, we can optimize only for one flight condition, and be content with a compromise.
Propeller blade twist. Prop's feathered in this picture, prop turns counterclockwise from the pilot's perspective (this blade moves down).
Another aspect is related to the performance of the engine. Reciprocating (piston) engines only recently had electronic fuel injection systems, thus most aero engines are reliant on having a throttle that restricts airflow to the engine to adjust power. To run the engine at part-power with a throttle is quite inefficient, as the engine actively spends power to suck air through the throttle (This is why newer auto engines have variable valve timing and cylinder shut-off and whatnot, to adjust engine power without choking it). By running the engine at an RPM lower than where it produces maximum power, we can run the engine at a higher throttle setting (ideally full throttle) with the same power.
Porsche 930 dyno graph.
Increasing blade pitch reduces RPM and moves the power (red graph) to the left of the graph, meaning less power at full throttle.
Porsche 930's engine was used as an aero engine by Mooney, with a 0.442:1 reduction gear. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.