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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
162,657 | Hay, i need to find a software solution to a problem. I want to be able to limit a Windows XP machine's bandwidth on all ports between 10AM - 11PM.
I have access to the machine in question, i need an application which can achieve this. I want to be able to limit to bandwidth to something like 10kb/s between these times.
Any solutions? | 2010/07/21 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/162657",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/23155/"
] | [NetLimiter](http://www.netlimiter.com/) can probably do the job. | I was curious myself if Windows has an "in-house" way of doing this. Apparently, [a part of SCCM, called Data Protection Manager](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc161325.aspx) **partly** offers what you are looking for, if I understand it correctly. That requires you have much more enterprise infrastructure than just a Windows XP box, so I cannot be certain that is even an option.
More in your ballpark, but still requires some infrastructure, is modifying a Group Policy, if you have an Active Directory Domain, is modifying Group Policy settings under **Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Network -> QoS Packet Scheduler -> Limit reservable bandwidth**. As the policy setting description states:
>
> At least Windows XP Professional or
> Windows Server 2003 family
>
>
> Determines the percentage of
> connection bandwidth that the system
> can reserve. This value limits the
> combined bandwidth reservations of all
> programs running on the system.
>
>
> By default, the Packet Scheduler
> limits the system to 20 percent of the
> bandwidth of a connection, but you can
> use this setting to override the
> default.
>
>
> If you enable this setting, you can
> use the "Bandwidth limit" box to
> adjust the amount of bandwidth the
> system can reserve.
>
>
> If you disable this setting or do not
> configure it, the system uses the
> default value of 20 percent of the
> connection.
>
>
> Important: If a bandwidth limit is set
> for a particular network adapter in
> the registry, this setting is ignored
> when configuring that network adapter.
>
>
>
This also requires you get intimately acquanited with WMI filters in said GPO's for your time requirement, but I am not sure they are that reliable (in terms of on the dime processing at a given time, since refresh rates, IMHO, are quite variable in larger, poorly-maintained domains common to big companies like I deal with).
That being said, these are bizarre solutions. I modded up the NetLimiter answer, but is anyone doing anything like this in a big enterprise environment? Would love to hear stories if it works well. |
130,775 | This news about the Tesla stock came yesterday. The stock rose to 8% and then retreated. The following is the story.
My question is, what caused the stock to retreat other than a reason of a seller sold the stocks? Is it by a computer algorithm automatically adjusted before a few seconds before the real buying took place?
News: <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/telsas-stock-pares-gains-after-briefly-passing-first-key-fibonacci-retracement-level-2020-09-10> | 2020/09/11 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/130775",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/92007/"
] | Fibonacci Retracement (and most technical indicators, IMHO) is an *effect*, not a *cause*. It may work on average (meaning it predicts resistance correctly more often than it doesn't), but I highly doubt that there are many traders that say "Tesla passed this retreatment/resistence level so I'd better sell now." More likely there's some underlying cause that *creates* these technical indicators. It may be that some people were happy to see a gain and wanted to lock in gains in case it was temporary (which it was). Or there was reactionary buying at first but more selling as the market absorbed whatever news or rumor caused the buying. There may also be traders that sell when a stock reaches analysts' "price targets" and there are more targets clustered around certain numbers that can look like "resistance" when price movements are viewed on a graph.
In other words, there's not some magical computer algorithm or trading strategy that *creates* these patterns. The patterns themselves are an effect of some underlying market (or behavioral) patterns that are not as observable. | If you draw a matrix of lines on the price chart of a security, there's a a high probability that price movement will move to the vicinity of one of these arbitrary levels. It could be Fibonacci numbers or for that matter, you could just as well draw price ratio horizontal lines based prime numbers above and below current price.
The thing with support and resistance is that it's ambiguous. Based on the naked eye, it's a range of values in the vicinity of the price line and appears to work. But code that into some mathematical rules and back testing the strategy is a very different thing. |
69,925,974 | I am currently using a IBM MQ Advanced for Developers server for testing our client and was able to achieve around 1000 messages per second using the sample consumer written in jms, which seems to be pretty slow. Is this a limit for dev server, and if yes that what throughput can be achieved using a licensed production IBM MQ server. | 2021/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/69925974",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6825571/"
] | There is no artificial limit associated with IBM MQ Advanced for Developers. It is the same as the licensed production version of IBM MQ.
You don't say what type of machine you were using, what persistence your messages were, what size they were, or any other qualifying criteria.
You say client, but I don't know whether you mean "network attached application" or "driving application". Clearly if your program is running "client-attached" (MQ parlance for network attached), then the network performance will also come into this.
On my Windows laptop, I get 4500 non-persistent msgs/sec, or 2000 persistent msgs/sec using a simple C-language locally bound program. Over client connection (just using localhost, not actually going out over a real network connection) I get 2700 non-persistent msgs/sec, or 1500 persistent msgs/sec.
You should read the [MQ Performance Reports](http://ibm-messaging.github.io/mqperf/) for details of the expected rates you can get. | As an ex MQ performance person I would say - it depends.
At one level you can ask - what can one application in isolation process.
For persistent messages this will come down to the rate at which you can write to the log files.
If you have 10 applications in parallel each putting and getting from their own queue, then you will not get 10 times the throughput - you might get 8 or 9 times the throughput.
If they are all processing the same queue, then the throughput may drop a bit more as the queue usage is serialised.
If only one application is writing to the log, the application may see 1 millisecond response time. If you have 10 applications running concurrently, they may see a 3 milliseconds response time - so individual throughput goes down, but with more threads, the overall throughput goes up.
If you have requests coming in over the network, you need to add network time, but you can run more clients and so get improved throughput.
If your application has a delay built in - it may only process a low message rate. You can have lots (1000s) of these and get a high >overall< throughput.
If your application is putting and getting as fast as possible, you may find that you can run 10-100 instances before the throughput plateaus.
Let's say you want to run you box so it is using 75% of the CPU, and the logging is 50% busy.
If you have just MQ on the box, then this can run more messages than if you had DB2 on the box (with DB2 using 50% of the CPU)
If you have an application (DB2) hammering the disk, then the MQ throughput will go down.
If you have lots of applications putting to a server queue - and one server program, you will find the throughput is limited by the rate at which the server can process work. If it is doing DB2 work, it will be slower than no DB2 work. If you find the server queue depth is over 5 then you need more server instances.
As Morag said, see the performance reports, but they are not the clearest reports to understand. |
578 | **Background:**
My community is a web forum and two game servers. There are about 500 members that are active in the community. Last year one of my moderators found an external site that is solely used to criticize my community. Almost all of it is someone blowing off steam, but there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site. We do not know who runs the site and suspect it is more than one user.
This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. Our analytic software shows that roughly 85% of traffic from this site is a single visit directly to areas of the community linked from the external site. 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works (ie. attempting to provoke a reaction, usually by targeting moderators decisions and expressing dissatisfaction as their first interaction with the community, but not crossing any lines); surprisingly no trolls (yet)
The 85% that come and go are of no concern; the remaining 15% that come and either lurk or contribute are what I'm after. These return visitors and contributors. Clearly, they are coming from this site and based on their desire to stick around, it seems they wish to interact with the community either on the site or on the game servers.
These traffic spikes usually occur after "events" - ie. moderators removing posts of irrelevant chatter from a serious discussion; banning a well known player from our game servers for rule violations, unbanning a user that served their ban period but was not liked by the community. In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision. These mirror posts do not appear after all such discussions. There isn't a pattern to which users argue for/against an action and when a post appears (which is part of why we suspect more than one user is involved). However, we have noticed that the mirror posts occur when a certain few moderators make the "final decision" in such discussions.
I support this moderator's decisions, but it seem they have some haters. As it stands, this site does not seem to be contributing negatively toward the community. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring. Traffic spikes and a few new users join after each "incident". Players from the web site are recognized on the game servers, so these new members are spilling over to that aspect of the community too.
**Question:**
Is it an appropriate action to take to let the moderators that seem to be generating these criticism posts, be the ones that are the official spokes person of such action, especially since (from my perspective) it is not harming the community at all?
EDIT:
I believe several people have answered the question I was asking. It seems the thought is to keep doing what I am doing, but also to engage the other site's users and thank them for their good contributions. Resorting to "trolling" by having only the moderators that cause hate isn't the best idea.
Andy! Great pictures! My little kids love Frozen! The note you made about traffic is a good one too. I was more focused on increasing the number of members we have than on how it'd appear the other moderators looked.
AirThomas! Thank you for the input about xkcdsucks. I had to go look that up, but it seems that is very similar to my situation, though I'm not sure if the other site is well known by my users.
AI Henderson! I don't like the idea of a site dedicated to hating my site, but I think you are right about having a separate location. I do like that all their complaints are not on my site. :)
Thanks for the feedback everyone! | 2014/08/22 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/578",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/344/"
] | It's probably the best policy to keep on doing what you are currently doing. That is improving the site and it's moderation without acknowledging the source of these improvements is the trolls. Why - one thing the trolls want is attention and even by acknowledging that something happened because of trolling feeds that attention and could make them troll more.
One thing you could try is to start a discussion on any possible improvements independently of the action by the trolls. Don't refer to the trolling incident directly but just say that you think making the change will make the site better.
Having said that, if you need to make a major change because of some trolling incident - for example, you have to enforce registration to post - then you will need to reference the incident, even if only tangentially, to justify the change. | You're already saying that you're taking actions based on what legitimate criticism you find on the hate site, but without acknowledging the source. Given this, the only question is whether you'll use the specific moderators targeted by the site in order to leverage the hate site into advertisement for your own site - which strikes me as a very appropriate use of hate (and a nice example of "engineer hoist with their own petard"...)
The one downside to this that I can see is that there is a risk of the haters upping their game. In other words, they may not stick with hating on their own site, and start actual harassment of the mods they dislike.
So if you do this, it should be with the informed consent of the moderators in question, and you should be ready to help and support them if something happens. |
578 | **Background:**
My community is a web forum and two game servers. There are about 500 members that are active in the community. Last year one of my moderators found an external site that is solely used to criticize my community. Almost all of it is someone blowing off steam, but there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site. We do not know who runs the site and suspect it is more than one user.
This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. Our analytic software shows that roughly 85% of traffic from this site is a single visit directly to areas of the community linked from the external site. 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works (ie. attempting to provoke a reaction, usually by targeting moderators decisions and expressing dissatisfaction as their first interaction with the community, but not crossing any lines); surprisingly no trolls (yet)
The 85% that come and go are of no concern; the remaining 15% that come and either lurk or contribute are what I'm after. These return visitors and contributors. Clearly, they are coming from this site and based on their desire to stick around, it seems they wish to interact with the community either on the site or on the game servers.
These traffic spikes usually occur after "events" - ie. moderators removing posts of irrelevant chatter from a serious discussion; banning a well known player from our game servers for rule violations, unbanning a user that served their ban period but was not liked by the community. In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision. These mirror posts do not appear after all such discussions. There isn't a pattern to which users argue for/against an action and when a post appears (which is part of why we suspect more than one user is involved). However, we have noticed that the mirror posts occur when a certain few moderators make the "final decision" in such discussions.
I support this moderator's decisions, but it seem they have some haters. As it stands, this site does not seem to be contributing negatively toward the community. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring. Traffic spikes and a few new users join after each "incident". Players from the web site are recognized on the game servers, so these new members are spilling over to that aspect of the community too.
**Question:**
Is it an appropriate action to take to let the moderators that seem to be generating these criticism posts, be the ones that are the official spokes person of such action, especially since (from my perspective) it is not harming the community at all?
EDIT:
I believe several people have answered the question I was asking. It seems the thought is to keep doing what I am doing, but also to engage the other site's users and thank them for their good contributions. Resorting to "trolling" by having only the moderators that cause hate isn't the best idea.
Andy! Great pictures! My little kids love Frozen! The note you made about traffic is a good one too. I was more focused on increasing the number of members we have than on how it'd appear the other moderators looked.
AirThomas! Thank you for the input about xkcdsucks. I had to go look that up, but it seems that is very similar to my situation, though I'm not sure if the other site is well known by my users.
AI Henderson! I don't like the idea of a site dedicated to hating my site, but I think you are right about having a separate location. I do like that all their complaints are not on my site. :)
Thanks for the feedback everyone! | 2014/08/22 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/578",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/344/"
] | It appears that you have encountered a helpful troll. Channel this and use it to your advantage. These types of trolls are rare.
>
> This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. [...] 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works
>
>
>
At the worst, this sounds like you are getting new users that are adjusting to the community's culture. There is nothing wrong with a learning curve and the fact that the new users are sticking around meaning that they *are* learning your culture. Additionally, I think it is safe to assume that you are changing the preconceved notions that people have when they first visit your site. They are coming from an environment hostile to your community and instead of hostility they are encountering an environment that makes they want to stick around.
>
> In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision.
>
>
>
In my opinion, it is good that the discussion begins locally. This allows you to address the concerns in a location where you have the homefield advantage. By extension, it also seems the community generally supports your decisions. This means that the community is willing to discussion "meta" situations (why did something occur?). The few people that are unhappy with decisions (or specific people) then go off to their corner and grumble about it amounst themselves. The same thing happens away from the internet.
>
> there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site.
>
>
>
The nice thing about these grumblings is that you can see them and address them. There is a good chance your "trolls" haven't evolved to the standard internet trolls because you are addressing some of their concerns. You don't need to acknowledge that changes were prompted by the site, but these unhappy users see changes occuring *and* it is change they wanted. They have achieved a small victory. Additionally, *you've* achieved a small victory - you've improved your community. Cookies for everyone!
To answer your direct question about whether or not you should start delegating announcements to the moderators that generate complaints: I believe that you should not place this burden on your moderators. **Don't make certain people "the bad guy" just for the sake of traffic.** You've already said that you receive new, contributing, members with what you are doing. Let your moderation duties continue to be shared. Changing this dynamic has the potential to ruin the delecate balance you seem to have achieved. You don't want your helpful trolls to become something that is much more common on the internet.
 | You're already saying that you're taking actions based on what legitimate criticism you find on the hate site, but without acknowledging the source. Given this, the only question is whether you'll use the specific moderators targeted by the site in order to leverage the hate site into advertisement for your own site - which strikes me as a very appropriate use of hate (and a nice example of "engineer hoist with their own petard"...)
The one downside to this that I can see is that there is a risk of the haters upping their game. In other words, they may not stick with hating on their own site, and start actual harassment of the mods they dislike.
So if you do this, it should be with the informed consent of the moderators in question, and you should be ready to help and support them if something happens. |
578 | **Background:**
My community is a web forum and two game servers. There are about 500 members that are active in the community. Last year one of my moderators found an external site that is solely used to criticize my community. Almost all of it is someone blowing off steam, but there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site. We do not know who runs the site and suspect it is more than one user.
This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. Our analytic software shows that roughly 85% of traffic from this site is a single visit directly to areas of the community linked from the external site. 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works (ie. attempting to provoke a reaction, usually by targeting moderators decisions and expressing dissatisfaction as their first interaction with the community, but not crossing any lines); surprisingly no trolls (yet)
The 85% that come and go are of no concern; the remaining 15% that come and either lurk or contribute are what I'm after. These return visitors and contributors. Clearly, they are coming from this site and based on their desire to stick around, it seems they wish to interact with the community either on the site or on the game servers.
These traffic spikes usually occur after "events" - ie. moderators removing posts of irrelevant chatter from a serious discussion; banning a well known player from our game servers for rule violations, unbanning a user that served their ban period but was not liked by the community. In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision. These mirror posts do not appear after all such discussions. There isn't a pattern to which users argue for/against an action and when a post appears (which is part of why we suspect more than one user is involved). However, we have noticed that the mirror posts occur when a certain few moderators make the "final decision" in such discussions.
I support this moderator's decisions, but it seem they have some haters. As it stands, this site does not seem to be contributing negatively toward the community. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring. Traffic spikes and a few new users join after each "incident". Players from the web site are recognized on the game servers, so these new members are spilling over to that aspect of the community too.
**Question:**
Is it an appropriate action to take to let the moderators that seem to be generating these criticism posts, be the ones that are the official spokes person of such action, especially since (from my perspective) it is not harming the community at all?
EDIT:
I believe several people have answered the question I was asking. It seems the thought is to keep doing what I am doing, but also to engage the other site's users and thank them for their good contributions. Resorting to "trolling" by having only the moderators that cause hate isn't the best idea.
Andy! Great pictures! My little kids love Frozen! The note you made about traffic is a good one too. I was more focused on increasing the number of members we have than on how it'd appear the other moderators looked.
AirThomas! Thank you for the input about xkcdsucks. I had to go look that up, but it seems that is very similar to my situation, though I'm not sure if the other site is well known by my users.
AI Henderson! I don't like the idea of a site dedicated to hating my site, but I think you are right about having a separate location. I do like that all their complaints are not on my site. :)
Thanks for the feedback everyone! | 2014/08/22 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/578",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/344/"
] | I'd challenge you never want to feed trolls, but it doesn't sound like these guys are really trolls. Disagreements always happen in communities, it is a natural and healthy part of them. It becomes a problem when one side starts to be too hard on the other. If the moderators are too strict and don't listen to the valid concerns of others, then the community starts to deteriorate, similarly, if detractors of decisions are too disruptive, it can be a problem for community.
Having a separate "hate site" is probably one of the best things you could have. It gives a separate location for those who are upset with decisions to voice their concerns and vent their frustrations without actually disrupting the main community that doesn't have a problem with the decisions. Clearly this is how it is getting used as that community and yours remain closely linked and it is generating multiple kinds of benefit for your community.
Leverage this for all it is worth. Depending on how harsh the site is, it might even be worth recognizing the site as a source of some changes because of legitimate concerns they brought up. This is really kind of a return of favor. They are providing you a valuable service of soaking up trolls and community frustration as the goal of another community. It probably won't hurt to let them know that while you can't make everyone happy, you do value the fact that they are bothering to document why they are upset in a non-destructive manner (because it does make your job easier trying to run the community.)
You'll never make everyone happy, but having a non-disruptive open line of communication with those who are still involved, but unhappy can be a gold mine of useful information and can act as a valuable check and balance if used properly.
Overall, most of your conversions probably come from people who see the issues and see them getting addressed, this looks good for you and brings people in. Intentionally trying to create issues that the site will talk about is more likely to break the good will you have built up among people who are frustrated. Giving intentional reasons for people to be frustrated isn't a good practice, it is becoming the troll rather than feeding them. | You're already saying that you're taking actions based on what legitimate criticism you find on the hate site, but without acknowledging the source. Given this, the only question is whether you'll use the specific moderators targeted by the site in order to leverage the hate site into advertisement for your own site - which strikes me as a very appropriate use of hate (and a nice example of "engineer hoist with their own petard"...)
The one downside to this that I can see is that there is a risk of the haters upping their game. In other words, they may not stick with hating on their own site, and start actual harassment of the mods they dislike.
So if you do this, it should be with the informed consent of the moderators in question, and you should be ready to help and support them if something happens. |
578 | **Background:**
My community is a web forum and two game servers. There are about 500 members that are active in the community. Last year one of my moderators found an external site that is solely used to criticize my community. Almost all of it is someone blowing off steam, but there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site. We do not know who runs the site and suspect it is more than one user.
This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. Our analytic software shows that roughly 85% of traffic from this site is a single visit directly to areas of the community linked from the external site. 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works (ie. attempting to provoke a reaction, usually by targeting moderators decisions and expressing dissatisfaction as their first interaction with the community, but not crossing any lines); surprisingly no trolls (yet)
The 85% that come and go are of no concern; the remaining 15% that come and either lurk or contribute are what I'm after. These return visitors and contributors. Clearly, they are coming from this site and based on their desire to stick around, it seems they wish to interact with the community either on the site or on the game servers.
These traffic spikes usually occur after "events" - ie. moderators removing posts of irrelevant chatter from a serious discussion; banning a well known player from our game servers for rule violations, unbanning a user that served their ban period but was not liked by the community. In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision. These mirror posts do not appear after all such discussions. There isn't a pattern to which users argue for/against an action and when a post appears (which is part of why we suspect more than one user is involved). However, we have noticed that the mirror posts occur when a certain few moderators make the "final decision" in such discussions.
I support this moderator's decisions, but it seem they have some haters. As it stands, this site does not seem to be contributing negatively toward the community. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring. Traffic spikes and a few new users join after each "incident". Players from the web site are recognized on the game servers, so these new members are spilling over to that aspect of the community too.
**Question:**
Is it an appropriate action to take to let the moderators that seem to be generating these criticism posts, be the ones that are the official spokes person of such action, especially since (from my perspective) it is not harming the community at all?
EDIT:
I believe several people have answered the question I was asking. It seems the thought is to keep doing what I am doing, but also to engage the other site's users and thank them for their good contributions. Resorting to "trolling" by having only the moderators that cause hate isn't the best idea.
Andy! Great pictures! My little kids love Frozen! The note you made about traffic is a good one too. I was more focused on increasing the number of members we have than on how it'd appear the other moderators looked.
AirThomas! Thank you for the input about xkcdsucks. I had to go look that up, but it seems that is very similar to my situation, though I'm not sure if the other site is well known by my users.
AI Henderson! I don't like the idea of a site dedicated to hating my site, but I think you are right about having a separate location. I do like that all their complaints are not on my site. :)
Thanks for the feedback everyone! | 2014/08/22 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/578",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/344/"
] | It appears that you have encountered a helpful troll. Channel this and use it to your advantage. These types of trolls are rare.
>
> This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. [...] 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works
>
>
>
At the worst, this sounds like you are getting new users that are adjusting to the community's culture. There is nothing wrong with a learning curve and the fact that the new users are sticking around meaning that they *are* learning your culture. Additionally, I think it is safe to assume that you are changing the preconceved notions that people have when they first visit your site. They are coming from an environment hostile to your community and instead of hostility they are encountering an environment that makes they want to stick around.
>
> In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision.
>
>
>
In my opinion, it is good that the discussion begins locally. This allows you to address the concerns in a location where you have the homefield advantage. By extension, it also seems the community generally supports your decisions. This means that the community is willing to discussion "meta" situations (why did something occur?). The few people that are unhappy with decisions (or specific people) then go off to their corner and grumble about it amounst themselves. The same thing happens away from the internet.
>
> there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site.
>
>
>
The nice thing about these grumblings is that you can see them and address them. There is a good chance your "trolls" haven't evolved to the standard internet trolls because you are addressing some of their concerns. You don't need to acknowledge that changes were prompted by the site, but these unhappy users see changes occuring *and* it is change they wanted. They have achieved a small victory. Additionally, *you've* achieved a small victory - you've improved your community. Cookies for everyone!
To answer your direct question about whether or not you should start delegating announcements to the moderators that generate complaints: I believe that you should not place this burden on your moderators. **Don't make certain people "the bad guy" just for the sake of traffic.** You've already said that you receive new, contributing, members with what you are doing. Let your moderation duties continue to be shared. Changing this dynamic has the potential to ruin the delecate balance you seem to have achieved. You don't want your helpful trolls to become something that is much more common on the internet.
 | It's probably the best policy to keep on doing what you are currently doing. That is improving the site and it's moderation without acknowledging the source of these improvements is the trolls. Why - one thing the trolls want is attention and even by acknowledging that something happened because of trolling feeds that attention and could make them troll more.
One thing you could try is to start a discussion on any possible improvements independently of the action by the trolls. Don't refer to the trolling incident directly but just say that you think making the change will make the site better.
Having said that, if you need to make a major change because of some trolling incident - for example, you have to enforce registration to post - then you will need to reference the incident, even if only tangentially, to justify the change. |
578 | **Background:**
My community is a web forum and two game servers. There are about 500 members that are active in the community. Last year one of my moderators found an external site that is solely used to criticize my community. Almost all of it is someone blowing off steam, but there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site. We do not know who runs the site and suspect it is more than one user.
This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. Our analytic software shows that roughly 85% of traffic from this site is a single visit directly to areas of the community linked from the external site. 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works (ie. attempting to provoke a reaction, usually by targeting moderators decisions and expressing dissatisfaction as their first interaction with the community, but not crossing any lines); surprisingly no trolls (yet)
The 85% that come and go are of no concern; the remaining 15% that come and either lurk or contribute are what I'm after. These return visitors and contributors. Clearly, they are coming from this site and based on their desire to stick around, it seems they wish to interact with the community either on the site or on the game servers.
These traffic spikes usually occur after "events" - ie. moderators removing posts of irrelevant chatter from a serious discussion; banning a well known player from our game servers for rule violations, unbanning a user that served their ban period but was not liked by the community. In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision. These mirror posts do not appear after all such discussions. There isn't a pattern to which users argue for/against an action and when a post appears (which is part of why we suspect more than one user is involved). However, we have noticed that the mirror posts occur when a certain few moderators make the "final decision" in such discussions.
I support this moderator's decisions, but it seem they have some haters. As it stands, this site does not seem to be contributing negatively toward the community. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring. Traffic spikes and a few new users join after each "incident". Players from the web site are recognized on the game servers, so these new members are spilling over to that aspect of the community too.
**Question:**
Is it an appropriate action to take to let the moderators that seem to be generating these criticism posts, be the ones that are the official spokes person of such action, especially since (from my perspective) it is not harming the community at all?
EDIT:
I believe several people have answered the question I was asking. It seems the thought is to keep doing what I am doing, but also to engage the other site's users and thank them for their good contributions. Resorting to "trolling" by having only the moderators that cause hate isn't the best idea.
Andy! Great pictures! My little kids love Frozen! The note you made about traffic is a good one too. I was more focused on increasing the number of members we have than on how it'd appear the other moderators looked.
AirThomas! Thank you for the input about xkcdsucks. I had to go look that up, but it seems that is very similar to my situation, though I'm not sure if the other site is well known by my users.
AI Henderson! I don't like the idea of a site dedicated to hating my site, but I think you are right about having a separate location. I do like that all their complaints are not on my site. :)
Thanks for the feedback everyone! | 2014/08/22 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/578",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/344/"
] | It appears that you have encountered a helpful troll. Channel this and use it to your advantage. These types of trolls are rare.
>
> This site brings in traffic to both the forums and the game servers. [...] 10% stick around as guests and the remainder join the community and contribute - both constructively and in a manner that requires a slight amount of education on how the community works
>
>
>
At the worst, this sounds like you are getting new users that are adjusting to the community's culture. There is nothing wrong with a learning curve and the fact that the new users are sticking around meaning that they *are* learning your culture. Additionally, I think it is safe to assume that you are changing the preconceved notions that people have when they first visit your site. They are coming from an environment hostile to your community and instead of hostility they are encountering an environment that makes they want to stick around.
>
> In each of these instances, a discussion started on our site and after the decision was announced a mirror post was made on the external site criticizing the decision.
>
>
>
In my opinion, it is good that the discussion begins locally. This allows you to address the concerns in a location where you have the homefield advantage. By extension, it also seems the community generally supports your decisions. This means that the community is willing to discussion "meta" situations (why did something occur?). The few people that are unhappy with decisions (or specific people) then go off to their corner and grumble about it amounst themselves. The same thing happens away from the internet.
>
> there are a few legitimate complaints that we addressed without ever mentioning that it was done because of this site.
>
>
>
The nice thing about these grumblings is that you can see them and address them. There is a good chance your "trolls" haven't evolved to the standard internet trolls because you are addressing some of their concerns. You don't need to acknowledge that changes were prompted by the site, but these unhappy users see changes occuring *and* it is change they wanted. They have achieved a small victory. Additionally, *you've* achieved a small victory - you've improved your community. Cookies for everyone!
To answer your direct question about whether or not you should start delegating announcements to the moderators that generate complaints: I believe that you should not place this burden on your moderators. **Don't make certain people "the bad guy" just for the sake of traffic.** You've already said that you receive new, contributing, members with what you are doing. Let your moderation duties continue to be shared. Changing this dynamic has the potential to ruin the delecate balance you seem to have achieved. You don't want your helpful trolls to become something that is much more common on the internet.
 | I'd challenge you never want to feed trolls, but it doesn't sound like these guys are really trolls. Disagreements always happen in communities, it is a natural and healthy part of them. It becomes a problem when one side starts to be too hard on the other. If the moderators are too strict and don't listen to the valid concerns of others, then the community starts to deteriorate, similarly, if detractors of decisions are too disruptive, it can be a problem for community.
Having a separate "hate site" is probably one of the best things you could have. It gives a separate location for those who are upset with decisions to voice their concerns and vent their frustrations without actually disrupting the main community that doesn't have a problem with the decisions. Clearly this is how it is getting used as that community and yours remain closely linked and it is generating multiple kinds of benefit for your community.
Leverage this for all it is worth. Depending on how harsh the site is, it might even be worth recognizing the site as a source of some changes because of legitimate concerns they brought up. This is really kind of a return of favor. They are providing you a valuable service of soaking up trolls and community frustration as the goal of another community. It probably won't hurt to let them know that while you can't make everyone happy, you do value the fact that they are bothering to document why they are upset in a non-destructive manner (because it does make your job easier trying to run the community.)
You'll never make everyone happy, but having a non-disruptive open line of communication with those who are still involved, but unhappy can be a gold mine of useful information and can act as a valuable check and balance if used properly.
Overall, most of your conversions probably come from people who see the issues and see them getting addressed, this looks good for you and brings people in. Intentionally trying to create issues that the site will talk about is more likely to break the good will you have built up among people who are frustrated. Giving intentional reasons for people to be frustrated isn't a good practice, it is becoming the troll rather than feeding them. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | You didn't give any info as to where this (may have) occurred, but as a general principle I think an NDA on a job offer would be difficult to enforce, because the offer doesn't contain anything proprietary or that would be viewed as a corporate secret.
To me, the larger issue is moral or ethical if the interview was intended to be used as leverage to obtain a better offer from another firm. | >
> "Y wants proof in the form of (seeing) the offer letter"
>
>
>
Run away from Y. Do not even respond to them in any way. Ghost them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* This behavior from Y is so unprofessional, **so far outside the industry norms**, that I would suggest it is likely it is some **rogue** idiot at Y who said that.
* It is so bizarre, so unprofessional, it could well be some sort of scam. So, the party at Y who said this: for some reason just wants to see the format (or whatever) of the X letter, perhaps see who is involved, perhaps learn something about a product or team at X, etc.
You *must not* be seen to be even vaguely involved with anything like this.
Get as much distance from it as possible.
What would I do personally? I would perhaps actually *tell the folks at X* about this bizarre behavior.
I would do it on the phone so there's nothing in writing. (You don't even want to be *associated* with anything so bizarre / irregular / unprofessional.)
>
> "Steve, funny thing happened. As you know I have many offers. Someone at Y actually told me they wanted to *see* your written offer. Obviously I just ghosted them from then on. I wanted to mention this to you because it was just so unprofessional I wanted to assure you that, obviously, I would never do that as no sensible person would ever do that! Weird huh?"
>
>
>
The situation is so bizarre I'm not even sure what's best.
You have to think of your future reputation. So, "when Y asked to see a confidential letter from a competitor **what did you do**?" You're going to have to "have an answer" to that for your whole career. As I say, I'd just ghost Y from then on, you can't be associated with anything like that.
Strange stuff.
Some further points of confusion.
---------------------------------
"NDA"
-----
The term "NDA" has been mentioned a couple of times on this page. There is utterly no connection, whatsoever, in any way, to "NDAs" with anything under discussion here.
'Ethics' and 'Morals'
---------------------
There's no involvement with "morals" here. Check a dictionary.
There's really no "ethical" issue. (For example, it's "unethical" for lawyers to discuss certain issues.)
It's more a matter of "professionalism", "industry standards" or "business-like behavior".
For example, when I was a youth, I once accidentally spoke about a client - not knowing one of the client was in the elevator! It wasn't "unethical", just "stupid".
Letter stamped confidential
---------------------------
It's like a shop putting up a sign "You may not shoplift."
*Of course* you treat it confidentially. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | Salary negotiation can be summarized as follows:
“We’re willing to pay you x.”
“I’d be willing to accept x+2.”
“We’ll only go as high as x+1”
All the reasoning and justifications that go in between only serve to fill gaps in an otherwise very uncomfortable exchange. The idea of needing proof of some extraneous details about other prospects is ridiculous, imho. As some of the other answers have suggested, they probably didn’t believe you when you mentioned your other offer and they think they can call your bluff and get you to accept less.
I would think whether or not you actually produce a piece of paper with a number on it is likely irrelevant. What they want to know is “can we get a better deal?” And you can tell them the answer is no without having to share confidential documents.
>
> I’m afraid I’m not at liberty to share official correspondence from [company x] but I give you my full assurance that the offer is real.
>
>
> | As [Kilisi said](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/170979/59502), there is no legal problem in the absence of an agreement, but a minor chance of some blowback.
However, I don't view it as weak if your friend complies with the request. I think it's completely reasonable for a hiring company to not be able to take your friend's word on face value, as the company barely knows them. If your friend can provide some documentation that allows some certainty about what they are saying, that makes sense to me.
From my perspective, the truth of the situation is the real bargaining power here. There is no need for smoke and mirrors to try to develop some sort of power move by not acquiescing and trying to obfuscate matters. It logically doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, they may believe your friend anyway, in which case they may match, or they may not believe your friend, in which case they won't match. So there is no upside, and only potential downside. What could possibly be the upside here?
My take is, company Y doesn't have to offer to salary match, but they are offering it conditionally. Your friend is not forced to take them up on the offer.
Some people consider the idea of salary matching itself to be unethical. I don't think that's inherently true.
If your friend is fabricating offers that don't exist, which some people do, that is certainly unethical.
If your friend is using offers that they have absolutely no intention of accepting, that is unethical.
If your friend is being truthful, and without a salary improvement the company will likely not be chosen, that it is perfectly acceptable to let the other company know (especially if they've asked). They can elect to match or not match based on that.
So yes, some negotiating tactics are questionable. But if all parties are being truthful, I don't see a grey area here. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | Confidential does not have any legal weight in most places without a formal agreement. You can't just send someone something and mark it confidential.
But handing it over would be a breach of the company (that actually has given an offer) expectations. And there is no guarantee that the other company will better the offer, they have just 'said' they will.
Generally they shouldn't be asking and you shouldn't be giving. Personally I wouldn't, it's a sign of weakness to acquiesce in a negotiation regarding a matter where your honesty is questioned by demanding proof. And if word got out you share documents given in good faith, that's a terrible reputation to have. | Salary negotiation can be summarized as follows:
“We’re willing to pay you x.”
“I’d be willing to accept x+2.”
“We’ll only go as high as x+1”
All the reasoning and justifications that go in between only serve to fill gaps in an otherwise very uncomfortable exchange. The idea of needing proof of some extraneous details about other prospects is ridiculous, imho. As some of the other answers have suggested, they probably didn’t believe you when you mentioned your other offer and they think they can call your bluff and get you to accept less.
I would think whether or not you actually produce a piece of paper with a number on it is likely irrelevant. What they want to know is “can we get a better deal?” And you can tell them the answer is no without having to share confidential documents.
>
> I’m afraid I’m not at liberty to share official correspondence from [company x] but I give you my full assurance that the offer is real.
>
>
> |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | As [Kilisi said](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/170979/59502), there is no legal problem in the absence of an agreement, but a minor chance of some blowback.
However, I don't view it as weak if your friend complies with the request. I think it's completely reasonable for a hiring company to not be able to take your friend's word on face value, as the company barely knows them. If your friend can provide some documentation that allows some certainty about what they are saying, that makes sense to me.
From my perspective, the truth of the situation is the real bargaining power here. There is no need for smoke and mirrors to try to develop some sort of power move by not acquiescing and trying to obfuscate matters. It logically doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, they may believe your friend anyway, in which case they may match, or they may not believe your friend, in which case they won't match. So there is no upside, and only potential downside. What could possibly be the upside here?
My take is, company Y doesn't have to offer to salary match, but they are offering it conditionally. Your friend is not forced to take them up on the offer.
Some people consider the idea of salary matching itself to be unethical. I don't think that's inherently true.
If your friend is fabricating offers that don't exist, which some people do, that is certainly unethical.
If your friend is using offers that they have absolutely no intention of accepting, that is unethical.
If your friend is being truthful, and without a salary improvement the company will likely not be chosen, that it is perfectly acceptable to let the other company know (especially if they've asked). They can elect to match or not match based on that.
So yes, some negotiating tactics are questionable. But if all parties are being truthful, I don't see a grey area here. | >
> "Y wants proof in the form of (seeing) the offer letter"
>
>
>
Run away from Y. Do not even respond to them in any way. Ghost them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* This behavior from Y is so unprofessional, **so far outside the industry norms**, that I would suggest it is likely it is some **rogue** idiot at Y who said that.
* It is so bizarre, so unprofessional, it could well be some sort of scam. So, the party at Y who said this: for some reason just wants to see the format (or whatever) of the X letter, perhaps see who is involved, perhaps learn something about a product or team at X, etc.
You *must not* be seen to be even vaguely involved with anything like this.
Get as much distance from it as possible.
What would I do personally? I would perhaps actually *tell the folks at X* about this bizarre behavior.
I would do it on the phone so there's nothing in writing. (You don't even want to be *associated* with anything so bizarre / irregular / unprofessional.)
>
> "Steve, funny thing happened. As you know I have many offers. Someone at Y actually told me they wanted to *see* your written offer. Obviously I just ghosted them from then on. I wanted to mention this to you because it was just so unprofessional I wanted to assure you that, obviously, I would never do that as no sensible person would ever do that! Weird huh?"
>
>
>
The situation is so bizarre I'm not even sure what's best.
You have to think of your future reputation. So, "when Y asked to see a confidential letter from a competitor **what did you do**?" You're going to have to "have an answer" to that for your whole career. As I say, I'd just ghost Y from then on, you can't be associated with anything like that.
Strange stuff.
Some further points of confusion.
---------------------------------
"NDA"
-----
The term "NDA" has been mentioned a couple of times on this page. There is utterly no connection, whatsoever, in any way, to "NDAs" with anything under discussion here.
'Ethics' and 'Morals'
---------------------
There's no involvement with "morals" here. Check a dictionary.
There's really no "ethical" issue. (For example, it's "unethical" for lawyers to discuss certain issues.)
It's more a matter of "professionalism", "industry standards" or "business-like behavior".
For example, when I was a youth, I once accidentally spoke about a client - not knowing one of the client was in the elevator! It wasn't "unethical", just "stupid".
Letter stamped confidential
---------------------------
It's like a shop putting up a sign "You may not shoplift."
*Of course* you treat it confidentially. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | Salary negotiation can be summarized as follows:
“We’re willing to pay you x.”
“I’d be willing to accept x+2.”
“We’ll only go as high as x+1”
All the reasoning and justifications that go in between only serve to fill gaps in an otherwise very uncomfortable exchange. The idea of needing proof of some extraneous details about other prospects is ridiculous, imho. As some of the other answers have suggested, they probably didn’t believe you when you mentioned your other offer and they think they can call your bluff and get you to accept less.
I would think whether or not you actually produce a piece of paper with a number on it is likely irrelevant. What they want to know is “can we get a better deal?” And you can tell them the answer is no without having to share confidential documents.
>
> I’m afraid I’m not at liberty to share official correspondence from [company x] but I give you my full assurance that the offer is real.
>
>
> | >
> "Y wants proof in the form of (seeing) the offer letter"
>
>
>
Run away from Y. Do not even respond to them in any way. Ghost them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* This behavior from Y is so unprofessional, **so far outside the industry norms**, that I would suggest it is likely it is some **rogue** idiot at Y who said that.
* It is so bizarre, so unprofessional, it could well be some sort of scam. So, the party at Y who said this: for some reason just wants to see the format (or whatever) of the X letter, perhaps see who is involved, perhaps learn something about a product or team at X, etc.
You *must not* be seen to be even vaguely involved with anything like this.
Get as much distance from it as possible.
What would I do personally? I would perhaps actually *tell the folks at X* about this bizarre behavior.
I would do it on the phone so there's nothing in writing. (You don't even want to be *associated* with anything so bizarre / irregular / unprofessional.)
>
> "Steve, funny thing happened. As you know I have many offers. Someone at Y actually told me they wanted to *see* your written offer. Obviously I just ghosted them from then on. I wanted to mention this to you because it was just so unprofessional I wanted to assure you that, obviously, I would never do that as no sensible person would ever do that! Weird huh?"
>
>
>
The situation is so bizarre I'm not even sure what's best.
You have to think of your future reputation. So, "when Y asked to see a confidential letter from a competitor **what did you do**?" You're going to have to "have an answer" to that for your whole career. As I say, I'd just ghost Y from then on, you can't be associated with anything like that.
Strange stuff.
Some further points of confusion.
---------------------------------
"NDA"
-----
The term "NDA" has been mentioned a couple of times on this page. There is utterly no connection, whatsoever, in any way, to "NDAs" with anything under discussion here.
'Ethics' and 'Morals'
---------------------
There's no involvement with "morals" here. Check a dictionary.
There's really no "ethical" issue. (For example, it's "unethical" for lawyers to discuss certain issues.)
It's more a matter of "professionalism", "industry standards" or "business-like behavior".
For example, when I was a youth, I once accidentally spoke about a client - not knowing one of the client was in the elevator! It wasn't "unethical", just "stupid".
Letter stamped confidential
---------------------------
It's like a shop putting up a sign "You may not shoplift."
*Of course* you treat it confidentially. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | Confidential does not have any legal weight in most places without a formal agreement. You can't just send someone something and mark it confidential.
But handing it over would be a breach of the company (that actually has given an offer) expectations. And there is no guarantee that the other company will better the offer, they have just 'said' they will.
Generally they shouldn't be asking and you shouldn't be giving. Personally I wouldn't, it's a sign of weakness to acquiesce in a negotiation regarding a matter where your honesty is questioned by demanding proof. And if word got out you share documents given in good faith, that's a terrible reputation to have. | You didn't give any info as to where this (may have) occurred, but as a general principle I think an NDA on a job offer would be difficult to enforce, because the offer doesn't contain anything proprietary or that would be viewed as a corporate secret.
To me, the larger issue is moral or ethical if the interview was intended to be used as leverage to obtain a better offer from another firm. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | Your friend didn't sign an NDA with company X, so if they show company X's document marked "confidential" to company Y, and company X finds out, can company X *sue* them? Probably not.
Could company X *blacklist* your friend, though? Entirely possible, and justifiable.
And even if company X never finds out, company Y, upon seeing the document marked "confidential", now knows that your friend is willing to breach a company's confidentiality. And if your friend is willing to do it once, well, you get the picture. It's not a good signal to send (to put it mildly).
Note that this answer isn't in any way specific to offer letters or salary negotiation -- the reasoning here holds for *any* document marked "confidential". | >
> "Y wants proof in the form of (seeing) the offer letter"
>
>
>
Run away from Y. Do not even respond to them in any way. Ghost them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* This behavior from Y is so unprofessional, **so far outside the industry norms**, that I would suggest it is likely it is some **rogue** idiot at Y who said that.
* It is so bizarre, so unprofessional, it could well be some sort of scam. So, the party at Y who said this: for some reason just wants to see the format (or whatever) of the X letter, perhaps see who is involved, perhaps learn something about a product or team at X, etc.
You *must not* be seen to be even vaguely involved with anything like this.
Get as much distance from it as possible.
What would I do personally? I would perhaps actually *tell the folks at X* about this bizarre behavior.
I would do it on the phone so there's nothing in writing. (You don't even want to be *associated* with anything so bizarre / irregular / unprofessional.)
>
> "Steve, funny thing happened. As you know I have many offers. Someone at Y actually told me they wanted to *see* your written offer. Obviously I just ghosted them from then on. I wanted to mention this to you because it was just so unprofessional I wanted to assure you that, obviously, I would never do that as no sensible person would ever do that! Weird huh?"
>
>
>
The situation is so bizarre I'm not even sure what's best.
You have to think of your future reputation. So, "when Y asked to see a confidential letter from a competitor **what did you do**?" You're going to have to "have an answer" to that for your whole career. As I say, I'd just ghost Y from then on, you can't be associated with anything like that.
Strange stuff.
Some further points of confusion.
---------------------------------
"NDA"
-----
The term "NDA" has been mentioned a couple of times on this page. There is utterly no connection, whatsoever, in any way, to "NDAs" with anything under discussion here.
'Ethics' and 'Morals'
---------------------
There's no involvement with "morals" here. Check a dictionary.
There's really no "ethical" issue. (For example, it's "unethical" for lawyers to discuss certain issues.)
It's more a matter of "professionalism", "industry standards" or "business-like behavior".
For example, when I was a youth, I once accidentally spoke about a client - not knowing one of the client was in the elevator! It wasn't "unethical", just "stupid".
Letter stamped confidential
---------------------------
It's like a shop putting up a sign "You may not shoplift."
*Of course* you treat it confidentially. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | As [Kilisi said](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/170979/59502), there is no legal problem in the absence of an agreement, but a minor chance of some blowback.
However, I don't view it as weak if your friend complies with the request. I think it's completely reasonable for a hiring company to not be able to take your friend's word on face value, as the company barely knows them. If your friend can provide some documentation that allows some certainty about what they are saying, that makes sense to me.
From my perspective, the truth of the situation is the real bargaining power here. There is no need for smoke and mirrors to try to develop some sort of power move by not acquiescing and trying to obfuscate matters. It logically doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, they may believe your friend anyway, in which case they may match, or they may not believe your friend, in which case they won't match. So there is no upside, and only potential downside. What could possibly be the upside here?
My take is, company Y doesn't have to offer to salary match, but they are offering it conditionally. Your friend is not forced to take them up on the offer.
Some people consider the idea of salary matching itself to be unethical. I don't think that's inherently true.
If your friend is fabricating offers that don't exist, which some people do, that is certainly unethical.
If your friend is using offers that they have absolutely no intention of accepting, that is unethical.
If your friend is being truthful, and without a salary improvement the company will likely not be chosen, that it is perfectly acceptable to let the other company know (especially if they've asked). They can elect to match or not match based on that.
So yes, some negotiating tactics are questionable. But if all parties are being truthful, I don't see a grey area here. | You didn't give any info as to where this (may have) occurred, but as a general principle I think an NDA on a job offer would be difficult to enforce, because the offer doesn't contain anything proprietary or that would be viewed as a corporate secret.
To me, the larger issue is moral or ethical if the interview was intended to be used as leverage to obtain a better offer from another firm. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | Confidential does not have any legal weight in most places without a formal agreement. You can't just send someone something and mark it confidential.
But handing it over would be a breach of the company (that actually has given an offer) expectations. And there is no guarantee that the other company will better the offer, they have just 'said' they will.
Generally they shouldn't be asking and you shouldn't be giving. Personally I wouldn't, it's a sign of weakness to acquiesce in a negotiation regarding a matter where your honesty is questioned by demanding proof. And if word got out you share documents given in good faith, that's a terrible reputation to have. | >
> "Y wants proof in the form of (seeing) the offer letter"
>
>
>
Run away from Y. Do not even respond to them in any way. Ghost them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* This behavior from Y is so unprofessional, **so far outside the industry norms**, that I would suggest it is likely it is some **rogue** idiot at Y who said that.
* It is so bizarre, so unprofessional, it could well be some sort of scam. So, the party at Y who said this: for some reason just wants to see the format (or whatever) of the X letter, perhaps see who is involved, perhaps learn something about a product or team at X, etc.
You *must not* be seen to be even vaguely involved with anything like this.
Get as much distance from it as possible.
What would I do personally? I would perhaps actually *tell the folks at X* about this bizarre behavior.
I would do it on the phone so there's nothing in writing. (You don't even want to be *associated* with anything so bizarre / irregular / unprofessional.)
>
> "Steve, funny thing happened. As you know I have many offers. Someone at Y actually told me they wanted to *see* your written offer. Obviously I just ghosted them from then on. I wanted to mention this to you because it was just so unprofessional I wanted to assure you that, obviously, I would never do that as no sensible person would ever do that! Weird huh?"
>
>
>
The situation is so bizarre I'm not even sure what's best.
You have to think of your future reputation. So, "when Y asked to see a confidential letter from a competitor **what did you do**?" You're going to have to "have an answer" to that for your whole career. As I say, I'd just ghost Y from then on, you can't be associated with anything like that.
Strange stuff.
Some further points of confusion.
---------------------------------
"NDA"
-----
The term "NDA" has been mentioned a couple of times on this page. There is utterly no connection, whatsoever, in any way, to "NDAs" with anything under discussion here.
'Ethics' and 'Morals'
---------------------
There's no involvement with "morals" here. Check a dictionary.
There's really no "ethical" issue. (For example, it's "unethical" for lawyers to discuss certain issues.)
It's more a matter of "professionalism", "industry standards" or "business-like behavior".
For example, when I was a youth, I once accidentally spoke about a client - not knowing one of the client was in the elevator! It wasn't "unethical", just "stupid".
Letter stamped confidential
---------------------------
It's like a shop putting up a sign "You may not shoplift."
*Of course* you treat it confidentially. |
170,977 | A friend of mine (for real, not me) received an offer letter from two tech firms in Silicon Valley. Let's called one X and the other Y.
X's offer letter has a better salary and sign-on bonus. However, my friend prefers to go to Y. Y is willing to match X's salary and sign-on bonus, but wants proof in the form of the offer letter. However, X's offer letter is marked "confidential". My friend did not sign an NDA before going in for an interview.
Under these circumstances,
1. Can my friend share X's offer letter with Y?
2. Does there have to be an NDA signed with X before the offer letter is considered actually confidential? | 2021/03/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/170977",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/14182/"
] | Confidential does not have any legal weight in most places without a formal agreement. You can't just send someone something and mark it confidential.
But handing it over would be a breach of the company (that actually has given an offer) expectations. And there is no guarantee that the other company will better the offer, they have just 'said' they will.
Generally they shouldn't be asking and you shouldn't be giving. Personally I wouldn't, it's a sign of weakness to acquiesce in a negotiation regarding a matter where your honesty is questioned by demanding proof. And if word got out you share documents given in good faith, that's a terrible reputation to have. | As [Kilisi said](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/170979/59502), there is no legal problem in the absence of an agreement, but a minor chance of some blowback.
However, I don't view it as weak if your friend complies with the request. I think it's completely reasonable for a hiring company to not be able to take your friend's word on face value, as the company barely knows them. If your friend can provide some documentation that allows some certainty about what they are saying, that makes sense to me.
From my perspective, the truth of the situation is the real bargaining power here. There is no need for smoke and mirrors to try to develop some sort of power move by not acquiescing and trying to obfuscate matters. It logically doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, they may believe your friend anyway, in which case they may match, or they may not believe your friend, in which case they won't match. So there is no upside, and only potential downside. What could possibly be the upside here?
My take is, company Y doesn't have to offer to salary match, but they are offering it conditionally. Your friend is not forced to take them up on the offer.
Some people consider the idea of salary matching itself to be unethical. I don't think that's inherently true.
If your friend is fabricating offers that don't exist, which some people do, that is certainly unethical.
If your friend is using offers that they have absolutely no intention of accepting, that is unethical.
If your friend is being truthful, and without a salary improvement the company will likely not be chosen, that it is perfectly acceptable to let the other company know (especially if they've asked). They can elect to match or not match based on that.
So yes, some negotiating tactics are questionable. But if all parties are being truthful, I don't see a grey area here. |
30,526 | Why is it that if the edges of an undirected graph G can be grouped into two sets such that every vertex is incident to at most 1 edge from each set, then the graph is 2-colorable.
The reason that I am guessing this happens is because the graph is bipartite. But I was not sure about this... I was trying to show it was bipartite and then show thus that it was two colorable, but I didn't really know how to start showing it was bipartite. Somebody know of a rigorous way to show this? Or what the intuition for the proof is? | 2014/10/03 | [
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/30526",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/12623/"
] | Hint: Consider a cycle in your graph. The edge colors must alternate, so the cycle must have even length. A graph is bipartite iff it has no odd cycles. | Bipartite is the same as two colorable.
To show that your graph is two colorable you just need to show that once you color the vertices there are no edges going between two vertices with the same color. Should be easy to show based on the definition of your graph. |
64,807,681 | I am testing the BG95-M3 with its corresponding evaluation board.
I live in Spain and I am using a Vodafone SIM card. I am able to connect to the GSM network with the default settings just by specifying the APN, user and password. Also I can connect to my server and send/receive data without problems.
My issue is that I am not able to connect to the LTE network. According to the default priority settings, the modem should connect to the LTE network if available but the problem is that it’s not even detecting that network. I get the following list by scanning the current networks:
AT+COPS=?
+COPS: (1,“214 03”,“214 03”,“21403”,8),(1,“214 07”,“214 07”,“21407”,0),(1,“214 01”,“214 01”,“21401”,0),(1,“214 03”,“214 03”,“21403”,0),(0,1,2,3,4),(0,1,2)
As you can check, the only LTE network the modem can see is the one from “Orange” (214-03) but it can only see GSM networks for “Vodafone” (214-01) and “Movistar” (214-07).
(Reference: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile\_Network\_Codes\_in\_ITU\_region\_2xx\_(Europe)#Spain\_–\_ES](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Network_Codes_in_ITU_region_2xx_(Europe)#Spain_%E2%80%93_ES))
I have 2 iPhones with “Movistar” and “Vodafone” SIM cards, both connected through 4G so I am sure these networks are available. Why these ones are not detected by the modem?
Thank you for your help. | 2020/11/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/64807681",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1281500/"
] | According to this website [Orange](https://www.frequencycheck.com/carriers/orange-spain), [Movistar](https://www.frequencycheck.com/carriers/movistar-spain) and [Vodafone](https://www.frequencycheck.com/carriers/vodafone-spain) are using bands B3 and B7 in spain. The BG95-M3 does not support band B7 ([source](https://www.quectel.com/product/bg95.htm)), but some iPhones are supporting band B7.
So maybe your iPhones connect via B7 which can not be used with the BG95-M3, you should be able to check this using the iPhones "Field test mode" dial (asterisk)3001#12345#(asterisk) to enter it. | BG95 is supporting LTE-CAT-M1 networks, not LTE (4G), so maybe you should ask vodafone in Spain about LTE Cat-M
I tested BG600L-M3 for LTE-Cat-M1, it is working only in some areas, and the first regestering to the netowrk take a while (1-2 minutes)
to make sure of right AT commands look to AT+QCFG commands
Have a nice day. |
390,169 | I am looking for software/application that can help me of checking some Linux commands working in a browser irrespective of OS. I mean Live CLI in the browser.
Thank you. | 2013/12/13 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/390169",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/33833/"
] | Ok have found something after some googling , <http://www.compileonline.com/execute_ksh_online.php>
Posting here for helping others:
 | just refer this link below tells you about the basic steps !!
<http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/executing-linuxunix-commands-from-web-page-part-i.html> |
390,169 | I am looking for software/application that can help me of checking some Linux commands working in a browser irrespective of OS. I mean Live CLI in the browser.
Thank you. | 2013/12/13 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/390169",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/33833/"
] | Amongst many other solutions for an online Linux emulator there is [Bellard's Javascript emulator](http://bellard.org/jslinux/):
 | just refer this link below tells you about the basic steps !!
<http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/executing-linuxunix-commands-from-web-page-part-i.html> |
390,169 | I am looking for software/application that can help me of checking some Linux commands working in a browser irrespective of OS. I mean Live CLI in the browser.
Thank you. | 2013/12/13 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/390169",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/33833/"
] | Amongst many other solutions for an online Linux emulator there is [Bellard's Javascript emulator](http://bellard.org/jslinux/):
 | Ok have found something after some googling , <http://www.compileonline.com/execute_ksh_online.php>
Posting here for helping others:
 |
1,076,032 | Can someone explain the concept of sessions in ASP.NET? How do I use them, and how do cookies fit in? | 2009/07/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1076032",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Session is a per-user object for persisting state between HTTP requests. It is good for storing information that you will need on the server to properly serve requests back to the user (e.g. user name, email, etc.).
ASP.NET places a cookie on the client's machine that contains a GUID (in the case of cookieless sessions, this GUID is placed on the URL). This GUID is the user's *session ID*. This identifier is retrieved on each HTTP request from the client by the ASP.NET runtime. Subsequently this identifier is used to rehydrate the user's session data from the session's data-store (either in memory or in the database). | * [ASP.NET State Management Overview](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75x4ha6s.aspx)
"Use ASP.NET session state to store and retrieve values for a user."
+ [Session State Overview](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178581.aspx)
- [Background](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178581.aspx#Background)
- [Code Examples](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178581.aspx#CodeExamples)
- [Class References](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178581.aspx#ClassReference) |
1,076,032 | Can someone explain the concept of sessions in ASP.NET? How do I use them, and how do cookies fit in? | 2009/07/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1076032",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Session is a per-user object for persisting state between HTTP requests. It is good for storing information that you will need on the server to properly serve requests back to the user (e.g. user name, email, etc.).
ASP.NET places a cookie on the client's machine that contains a GUID (in the case of cookieless sessions, this GUID is placed on the URL). This GUID is the user's *session ID*. This identifier is retrieved on each HTTP request from the client by the ASP.NET runtime. Subsequently this identifier is used to rehydrate the user's session data from the session's data-store (either in memory or in the database). | Sounds like you're pretty new to ASP.NET. Rather than posting vague questions here, I would suggest you head over to [http://www.ASP.net](http://asp.net) and check out their tutorials. They've got a lot of walkthroughs and articles that will give you a good overview of how ASP.NET state works. |
1,076,032 | Can someone explain the concept of sessions in ASP.NET? How do I use them, and how do cookies fit in? | 2009/07/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1076032",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Session is a per-user object for persisting state between HTTP requests. It is good for storing information that you will need on the server to properly serve requests back to the user (e.g. user name, email, etc.).
ASP.NET places a cookie on the client's machine that contains a GUID (in the case of cookieless sessions, this GUID is placed on the URL). This GUID is the user's *session ID*. This identifier is retrieved on each HTTP request from the client by the ASP.NET runtime. Subsequently this identifier is used to rehydrate the user's session data from the session's data-store (either in memory or in the database). | A question like this makes me want to point you over to a post I did a while back ([Should I Use a Framework While Learning Web Development](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1052080/should-i-use-a-framework-while-learning-web-development/1052127#1052127)) which will give you a heads up to other areas you might want to study up on. The topic of sessions is one of those bullet points.
I think that the idea of a session is well covered in the above posts so I won't further detail that! |
2,111 | [This chart](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS) at the St. Louis Fed has a lot of people worried about future inflation, because it represents idle money that, when lent out, could eventually flood the world with 10 - 12 trillion new dollars. But my father says that it has already been lent out in the form of short-term US Treasury notes.
So if it is cash that has not entered the monetary system, we could see some massive inflation when it is allowed to be lent out in our 10% fractional reserve system.
If it is in treasuries, then it's already out, and the chart doesn't pose such a threat.
Does anyone know if excess reserves are or can be held in US Treasuries? | 2010/06/20 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/2111",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/723/"
] | Two kinds of lending going on.
The first occurs when the Federal Reserve purchases government securities. This creates reserves at the Federal Reserve in another bank.
The second kind of lending comes when this bank lends out the money. This is the multiplier effect.
The reason for the excess reserves now is that banks are gun-shy and afraid to lend. Their money is safer at the Fed than with commercial and personal borrowers. When this changes (either by a recovery, or by the Fed penalizing banks for excess reserves, which it can do but hasn't) then we'll see inflation, and a consequential rise in prices. | Many terms a'blending here.
"Reserves" in yankee are merely deposits at the Fed by lending institutions, from bankers to brokers.
"Treasuries" are loans borrowed by the US gov't itself, not its monetary authority, the Federal Reserve. The Fed borrows with the cash (zero coupon perpetuities) or "reserves" (deposits) (zero coupon perpetuities).
Yes, when the Fed owns Treasuries, it's like a subsidiary corporation borrowing to buy the parent corporation's bonds, lol.
If a bank wants to hold Treasuries, it holds Treasuries. If it has to keep some assets in reserve, it holds cash or deposits at the Fed. If it needs to satisfy reserve requirements because of an unpredicted insufficiency, it "borrows" "money" "overnight" from other reserve holders. It's a sale, but it's marked as a loan. |
39,882,793 | I am studying about coding and I got a question to control airplane mode in iphone programmatically
For android phone, we can use usb connection and adb to send unix command to control airplane mode.
Is there any possibility to control airplane mode by unix command and lighting cable connection?
I was checking
[ios: turn on/off airplane mode from code for iPhone / iPad](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7075797/ios-turn-on-off-airplane-mode-from-code-for-iphone-ipad)
[How to check Airplane mode in background in iPhone?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5814947/how-to-check-airplane-mode-in-background-in-iphone)
but i am not clearly sure if it is possible... | 2016/10/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39882793",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/807779/"
] | No, you just can't do that.
An app has to adopt to the current network state, not control it. | You would need to access the private API and this would mean, you can't upload the app to the `App Store` because it is not allowed to use the private API in productive mode. |
23,787 | It seems to be a well-established fact that sharkskin was used as sandpaper. This includes the use of the skin of rays and dog sharks.
My question is:
* A. how far back does this practice go?
* B. were any other fish types outside of the shark family ever used for this? | 2015/08/03 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/23787",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/8756/"
] | A) The earliest documentation I've found regarding the use of sharkskin as sandpaper goes back to [the British Empire in the mid 18th century](https://anthonyhaycabinetmaker.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/yes-virginia-there-really-is-sandpaper-in-1775/). Sharkskin was [apparently only used to finish very fine work](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/interiors/jeffhowell/3325592/On-the-level-the-smooth-guide.html):
>
> Cabinet makers would use the more accurate honed edges of planes to
> get a smooth surface, and the finest work was finished by burnishing
> with a cow's rib-bone or a piece of agate. Only the most delicate work
> was further smoothed by the only abrasive sheet material available -
> the skin of a shark or dogfish.
>
>
>
Nonetheless, I would guess that sharkskin has been used as an abrasive since ancient times, but definitive documentation may be hard to find. I assume that sharkskin doesn't tend to stick around to be discovered by archaeologists, nor is its use notable enough to receive much attention in historical records.
Abrasives are certainly ancient though: sandstone as an abrasive [goes back at least to the Egyptians](http://abrasiveresource.blogspot.com/2006/08/history-of-abrasives.html), and [sandpaper goes back at least to 13th century China and 17th century Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandpaper#History). For example, here's some [speculation that Viking woodworkers used sharkskin](http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/wood.shtml). And here's some speculation that sharkskin sandpaper was a [common trade item in bronze age Indian Ocean trade routes](http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2005/09/recreating_an_ancient_trade_ro/). Maybe someone else can find a definitive mention of the practice before the 18th century.
B) The skin of the [coelacanth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth) (not a shark) has also been used by Comoro Islanders like sandpaper--but given that the skin is primarily used to [roughen the interior of bicycle tires before gluing on a patch](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ex2Nr3lLzM0C&pg=PA60&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false), one can infer that the practice isn't exactly ancient. | One thing I should clear up up-front: While sometimes classified together, Sharks (and the related Rays) **are not** really fish. They in fact are less related to fish than we humans are. For instance, they don't have bones like we and fish do. There are numerous other physical differences too, but more importantly for your question, their skin is also very different. It is a material similar to their teeth in fact (having skin teeth doesn't seem so weird, once you realize that sharks shed their teeth). This is why the rough skin of a [Chondrichth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrichthyes) might be useful as an abrasive, where the scales of fish typically are not.
I found a lot of references to [Polynesians](http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/sharks/hawaiian-mythology/ancient-uses/) using it as sandpaper. However, they were not a literate people prior to the colonial era, so I can't find anything prior to colonial times documenting this. It seems possible it was an old practice though. Their seafaring culture dates back roughly 2 millennium, and they certainly had plentiful access to sharks.
Another interesting case is the [Chumash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumash_people) of California. A huge amount of their diet was [sharks and rays](http://www.independent.com/news/2008/aug/14/sharks-and-chumash/), and they report a cultural practice of using the skins to smooth their seacraft and other woodwork. They certainly would have had plenty of it lying around, as archeologists found it to be their #2 source of protean (sardines were #1). This dietary practice appears to have gone back at least 1000 years. |
23,787 | It seems to be a well-established fact that sharkskin was used as sandpaper. This includes the use of the skin of rays and dog sharks.
My question is:
* A. how far back does this practice go?
* B. were any other fish types outside of the shark family ever used for this? | 2015/08/03 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/23787",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/8756/"
] | A) The earliest documentation I've found regarding the use of sharkskin as sandpaper goes back to [the British Empire in the mid 18th century](https://anthonyhaycabinetmaker.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/yes-virginia-there-really-is-sandpaper-in-1775/). Sharkskin was [apparently only used to finish very fine work](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/interiors/jeffhowell/3325592/On-the-level-the-smooth-guide.html):
>
> Cabinet makers would use the more accurate honed edges of planes to
> get a smooth surface, and the finest work was finished by burnishing
> with a cow's rib-bone or a piece of agate. Only the most delicate work
> was further smoothed by the only abrasive sheet material available -
> the skin of a shark or dogfish.
>
>
>
Nonetheless, I would guess that sharkskin has been used as an abrasive since ancient times, but definitive documentation may be hard to find. I assume that sharkskin doesn't tend to stick around to be discovered by archaeologists, nor is its use notable enough to receive much attention in historical records.
Abrasives are certainly ancient though: sandstone as an abrasive [goes back at least to the Egyptians](http://abrasiveresource.blogspot.com/2006/08/history-of-abrasives.html), and [sandpaper goes back at least to 13th century China and 17th century Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandpaper#History). For example, here's some [speculation that Viking woodworkers used sharkskin](http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/wood.shtml). And here's some speculation that sharkskin sandpaper was a [common trade item in bronze age Indian Ocean trade routes](http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2005/09/recreating_an_ancient_trade_ro/). Maybe someone else can find a definitive mention of the practice before the 18th century.
B) The skin of the [coelacanth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth) (not a shark) has also been used by Comoro Islanders like sandpaper--but given that the skin is primarily used to [roughen the interior of bicycle tires before gluing on a patch](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ex2Nr3lLzM0C&pg=PA60&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false), one can infer that the practice isn't exactly ancient. | The practice goes back at least to the early centuries of the common era, since the [Mishna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah) ([Kelim 16:1](http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/kelim-16-1-htm/)) mentions "rubbing with fish skin" as the typical way of finishing wooden utensils. Doesn't say anything about whether it was sharkskin or some other type, though. |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | You really do need to define what you mean by faith. People mean vastly different things when they talk about this topic all the time, and any refusal to pin down what they specifically mean is usually just an attempt at leaving wiggle room to avoid confronting hard truths or even move goal posts.
Here is my best take on your question from a couple of different definitions of faith. If your impression of what faith means is fuzzy rather than precise, you should still be able to extract a correspondingly fuzzy gist from the collective impression of each of these following responses. Naturally there will be some overlap in the meanings and responses. You also may agree with some definitions and disagree with others, or find only some apply to you personally. That is okay, but shows again why you should provide your own definition.
---
**1. Faith as *complete* trust or confidence in someone or something**
Why would this be a problem? Why would this be seen as a sign of weakness? Why might someone claiming this virtue be seen as 'inferior'?
Complete trust is not to be taken lightly. To whom can we give our complete trust? To whom or what would it be perhaps unwise (some would say stupid) to give our complete trust?
A Christian might put their complete trust in any number of things. The Bible? Their spiritual mentors? Their personal spiritual feelings/relationships? We can make fuzzy generalizations, but ultimately every individual Christian can decide for themselves which things or people to put in their 'complete trust bucket', and which things do not deserve that level of trust.
In this aspect of faith, **someone may relate faith in X to weakness or inferiority if they disagree about giving complete trust to X.**
---
**2. Faith as *unquestioning* trust or confidence in someone**
This is where a lot of people have sentiments that drive them to contrast faith with science.
This is also closely related (if not synonymous) with *complete* trust. Just emphasizing *unquestioning* here.
Science of course is [known for being wrong](https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm). It makes no 'absolute conclusions' and holds no 'sacred truths'. Or barely any, if you want to nitpick the philosophical underpinnings. The physical theories themselves are not sacred. Every conclusion is a so-called 'tentative' conclusion, rather than absolute. Each conclusion has a level of precision presented up front - the margin of error. There are no sacred truths, only our best current models that indeed we hope to disprove someday.
In science, you are allowed to question every conclusion others have made up to this point. Nobody is forcing anyone to believe the speed of light is constant - you can go out and do the measurement yourself. You really can.
In this way, the scientific body of knowledge is imperfect, but pretty much trustless. At least when done thoroughly (especially regarding independent experiment reproduction).
Note that word - trustless.
This is in complete contrast with anything that asks for (or even demands) 'complete trust' or 'unquestioning belief'. It's like saying "take my word for it" for very bold claims.
What science tells us is that true propositions don't don't care whether you put your complete trust in them or not. True propositions don't need, and especially don't demand your unquestioning belief. Truth can stand on its own two feet. Take Proposal X. If it is true, what does it have to fear from questioning? Go ahead and question it, if you are seeking truth, you will arrive at the conclusion it is true. If X is false, then it DOES have to fear from questioning. If false proposals tend to be culled very easily by questioning, then the false proposals that survive will be the ones that implicate virtues of unquestioning belief.
In other words, unquestioning belief is only a virtue to the gullible, and only promoted by liars and scam artists with something to hide, or something to hide from.
**If Alice sees Bob as gullible, that will scar Alice's impression of Bob's intelligence, and she will very likely lose a bit of respect for him.**
---
**3. Faith as *loyalty* in a relationship**
Nothing wrong with this strictly speaking, except when taken to the extremes as in the above cases.
Faithfulness in a marriage is highly encourageable. Of course.
One might analogize to a relationship with God, so faithfulness is important there too. Sure.
But what happens if one of the spouses in a marriage turns extremely abusive, violent even? This is where the extremes of 'unquestioning loyalty' and uses of faith as [a form of absolutism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU) break down - are no longer admirable.
If a spouse becomes extremely abusive, maybe we should have some level of tolerance to work through problems, but there are definitely limits. Is it a relationship, or enslavement? The relationship has to cut off at some point. Loyalty isn't owed forever. In a similar vein, we can analogize to God again. If God or religion becomes abusive to your or your life, you don't owe them undying loyalty. You don't owe anyone undying loyalty. You're not a slave. You're a human being free change association with whoever or whatever you want, and put limits on your loyalty.
Along the lines of gullibility, unquestioning loyalty isn't admirable. It's sad.
However loyalty isn't bad in itself. This aspect of faith isn't bad strictly speaking. It is only bad when taken too far.
**So someone might feel bad for you if they think your loyalty is being abused.**
---
**4. Faith as spiritual apprehension, spiritual perception**
Perhaps some Christians feel personally touched by the God. This witness of the Holy Spirit is evidence of God to them.
Whether or not this constitutes 'valid evidence' for Christianity (or any religion with similar experiences) depends on your epistemology. This is one of those fronts where people argue past one another forever and ever because they never take the time to agree upon (or even find out) their premises. If two people don't narrow down where they agree and disagree with epistemology first, they will never be able to resolve a disagreement over 'evidence' of this nature, or indeed what constitutes 'valid evidence' in the first place.
Sadly, most debates or discussions where disagreement raises over validity of spiritual apprehension never settle the agreed epistemic foundations in advance. Most people just have their way own way of thinking, and that's just how it is. Then if Alice reveals reason X for belief Y, but X doesn't make any sense on top of the epistemic foundations Bob has, then Bob will think reason X is rather silly. Bob thinks Alice believes Y for very a nonsensical reason.
Example:
* Alice: "I only believe government sanctioned knowledge. What do you think of UFOs in area 51?"
* Bob: "I believe everything my favorite podcast host says. UFOs in area 51 are aliens"
* Alice: "Wow, that's a stupid belief for a stupid reason"
* Bob: "Keep drinking your koolaid"
Another example:
* 5 year old: "Santa brought presents last night!"
* Uncle: "Oh? What makes you think it was Santa?"
* 5 year old: "uhh... It was what I was told. I was just raised this way. I believed it by default."
* Uncle: "Maybe we should consider whether things are true or not *before* accepting them. Have you considered what might make good criteria for accepting a proposition as true?"
* 5 year old: "whoa dude, slow down, I'm only 5"
* Parent: "ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT YOUR STUPID EPISTEMOLOGY AGAIN? GET OUT OF HERE JUST LET THE KID ENJOY SANTA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD"
**Fundamentally, some people don't put stock in spiritual apprehension.** It can be really powerful because it is so personal, but unfortunately that can't really be made objective. It's a personal anecdote, not material evidence. **Some people see spiritual perception and spiritual apprehension as nonsense, and not worthy of drawing conclusions from. They see this aspect of faith as magical thinking taken seriously, which may be seen as weak or inferior.**
---
**5. Faith as walking under the guidance of God**
I looked up the famous 2 Corinthians verse about "Walking in faith and not by sight." Out of context you can apply any of the definitions. I tried to understand it in context though, and the above definition is the impression I get (sorry if it is incorrect despite my effort). It's also something I've heard my Christian friends relate before, so anyway.
Ultimately, if somebody doesn't believe in God, they have to look at the world with their own eyes, and have to take accountability for guiding their own life. In fact, to someone who doesn't believe in god, *everyone* needs to look at the world with their own eyes, and *everyone* needs to take accountability for guiding their own life.
[Plato's cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave) is an interesting allegory, but by no means a useful argument. When two opposed perspectives clash, who is in the cave and who is enlightened? The allegory isn't an argument, it's just an analogy.
So maybe indeed it is the atheists or non-Christians who are enslaved to watch shadows.
BUT, that's obviously not how *they* see it.
Nobody confident in their beliefs sees themselves in the current moment as the slaves watching the shadows.
**To someone who doesn't believe in god, saying "Walk by faith and not by sight" is exactly equivalent to saying "Walk with your eyes closed so that you're blind to what's around you" and consequentially the "Blind will lead the blind".**
Sounds like a mess, right? You don't have to agree. It could a completely incorrect perspective to see faith as the guidance of God in that way. But regardless of the correctness, that is a perspective some people might have. **And then having that perspective, that could contribute to why they look down upon faith in this regard.**
---
**Summary**
Faith doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. This goes not only for the definitions, but the implications of the definitions, and then the value of those implications.
To many people, the unknown is a great opportunity and an unexplored land. However, an opportunity is not an opportunity if you decide outright you will never take it. An unexplored land is worthless if it is never on your agenda to explore it. While not everyone agrees on what faith is, to a lot of people, faith implicates closing your eyes, shutting your ears, clinging to the known, and letting others decide your life. To these people, faith is the opposite of an opportunity and spirit of exploration.
People with this perception of faith will naturally see faith as a sign of weakness (or inferiority if they have an arrogant streak) when another person espouses faith with pride. | I think there is a continuum of trustworthiness for knowledge. I've heard the term "faith," as used by Christians, fall in many places along this continuum. At one extreme you have faith meaning a rigid belief that is supported mostly on the basis of authority. "The Bible says ... ." On the other extreme you have faith defined not as adherence to any particular belief but as a habit of trusting or relying on God. (I'm sorry that this definition is unintentionally vague.)
The rigid-belief extreme is more commonly assumed by others, and is problematic in my opinion. One problem is that this form of faith causes a person to be apparently immune to reason or change. You can't have an interesting conversation with such a person. Another problem is that this faith is brittle and subject to manipulation by others. You can't alter this person's beliefs directly, but you *can* often alter their perception of a trusted authority, and affect beliefs indirectly. Radicalization is a version of this process. So a person with rigid, authority-based beliefs *can* be seen as a "land of opportunity" for others interested in manipulation.
So maybe the answer to your question is that people assume that faith equates to this rigid definition and this makes them prejudiced, expecting that the "faithful" are lost causes.
Two asides seem relevant here. (1) A good scientist is expected to know a lot about the history of their field and the current state of research. What is "known," why is it known, what are some of the more plausible possibilities, etc. In other words, a scientist operates at the fringes of knowledge, so they have to be very familiar with the shape of that fringe. But even so, we all have a natural tendency to over-estimate our certainties. So even a scientist has faith in some of their domain knowledge, and often that faith is stronger than can be justified.
(2) Is it possible for a self-described religious person to have faith, but also remain aware and respectful of what they know, why they know it, and what they don't know? Can they distinguish between knowledge based on experience, on reason, and on authority? All of these sources can be flawed in different ways. Can a person change their beliefs gradually, taking new experiences into account but still respecting their past experiences? |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | As religions themselves mature, we may be reaching a point where one can reasonably manage their own faith, seeking between genuine options without being coerced. But we are not there yet.
Historically we can see in every era that 'faiths' have been constructed by power structures and tuned for the advantages of certain groups, generally not for that of their whole base of believers.
Turning over part of your basic thinking to a group is a weakness because it concedes control over certain things to someone who does not answer to you in any way. It means that if you decided something was wrong, you would be subject to a certain level of bullying about it, and would be likely to concede to that bullying in order to have harmony.
At the same time, scientific paradigms and cohesive cultures do the same thing. As an American in a technical business environment, I am subject to a certain kind of bullying when I question the effects of gender roles. It is exactly the opposite kind of bullying than what my mother and grandmother faced, and that my (erstwhile) religion pressed on me in my youth. But the culture is seeking a norm, and in the process it wants cohesion.
And we see folks coming from a strong faith in certain aspects of science pull them out to use as a bully club at whim, often to shut down religious opponents, but sometimes just to assuage their own insecurity. (I find Richard Dawkins open bitterness and endless insistence to be a form of subtle bullying. And Christopher Hitchens seems to have no reservation about using his intelligence as a weapon in ways that are sometimes not entirely forthright.)
So this is not a weakness that is specific to religion, as religion is not the only form of faith. And since we are social animals, what is personal weakness contributes to group strength. Knowing that members of a given labelled group will sacrifice for one another and compromise can create something that in the composite is very helpful - social cohesion. That group strength, in turn, can feed personal strength. So the overall effect of many forms of faith is to trade one kind of weakness for a different kind strength.
The reason it is not seen as unexplored is that we have spent millennia exploring it. The unfettered mind has traditionally always been expressed in religious imagery. It is very difficult to escape. Even when people become atheists most reserve a sort of mystical reverence for the human mind that has a definite religious content. There is no shortage of exploration here, and there is no reason why mystical thoughts that are not structured by a tradition are any less capable of continuing that exploration. | Short answer: despising faith generally is a sign of emotional immaturity, and a blindness to the nature of ones own belief.
A truth as old (at least) as Socrates is that wisdom is knowing you know virtually nothing.
Faith (not specific to Christian, or even religious faith) is recognizing a lack of knowledge, and deciding to proceed anyway.
There is acknowledged risk in this. Sometimes we persist in the faith of something despite evidence to the contrary. The risk is elevated in this case.
I show up to work every day with the faith that my work will be useful, that I will be payed, and that my workplace will still be there when I arrive. But I know that there is a possibility that these things are not true.
There are plenty of example of what happen when employees no longer believe their workplace will be there or pay them. Its not pretty. (Its what we call a vicious cycle).
On the other hand, if it never occurs to one that my job might end, or my employer might go out of business, I am foolish and dangerous in a completely different way, operating cavalierly oblivious to the risks.
Disparaging others faith can fall into one of two categories. Either one is sure that the others faith is in something one knows to be false, or one doesn't have any idea how much the world around them is full of uncertainties. Individual cases are individual, but there is a lot of potential for grandiosity and self blindness in either of those judgments |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | I will be writing this answer from the frank, blunt perspective of someone who is inclusive and accepting of all peoples and belief systems, but who tries to analyze my own personal pattern-matching.
I would not say that faith is a sign of weakness, nor do I think it is seen as one. Rather, it implies the existence of a 'hole' in someones rationalism that is impossible to mend. By 'hole' I mean to say that many religions will provide certain information and claim it as being irrefutable without evidence. Accepting this means that there are certain cognitive areas that cannot be explored. This 'irrefutable information' tends to branch out significantly, covering areas that often seem unrelated to non-religious people.
You could think of it from a different perspective- if someone tells you that they are a new-age "Alternative Medicine" proponent, there are certain connotations that go along with that. You could quite easily make assumptions about that person, generated via your brains subconscious pattern-matching.
These assumptions re-arrange the context of everything that person says or does from then on. Perspective is everything, and every piece of information you know about a person changes your perspective of them.
In this way, when you tell someone that you are religious, this comes with the full connotations of such a statement, and their brain will mentally re-analyze everything you've said and done, or will say and do, to the best of its ability in order to better prepare them for your behavior.
A vocal, politically active subset of religious people are unwilling to bend when it comes to their belief, and it causes them to deny or willingly avoid evidence if it points them in an uncomfortable direction that questions their beliefs. (Evolution? No, Creationism. Climate Change? God would not allow such a thing, would he? Etc...)
The typical rationalist perspective, then, isn't that faith provides "opportunities". Rather, faith is a cage which limits the questions you can ask. Instead, it gives unverifiable answers. Such a thing is the enemy of rationalism. It is, as I said earlier, a "hole" in someones rational mind that the person will refuse to fill with facts because it is held open by faith instead.
**I feel the need to reiterate that I say this only to provide a potentially useful analysis of the world view of a rationalist. I have nothing against people of faith, and I firmly believe that religion can be an incredibly powerful tool for bringing people peace and happiness, though I do not choose it for myself.** | I think there is a continuum of trustworthiness for knowledge. I've heard the term "faith," as used by Christians, fall in many places along this continuum. At one extreme you have faith meaning a rigid belief that is supported mostly on the basis of authority. "The Bible says ... ." On the other extreme you have faith defined not as adherence to any particular belief but as a habit of trusting or relying on God. (I'm sorry that this definition is unintentionally vague.)
The rigid-belief extreme is more commonly assumed by others, and is problematic in my opinion. One problem is that this form of faith causes a person to be apparently immune to reason or change. You can't have an interesting conversation with such a person. Another problem is that this faith is brittle and subject to manipulation by others. You can't alter this person's beliefs directly, but you *can* often alter their perception of a trusted authority, and affect beliefs indirectly. Radicalization is a version of this process. So a person with rigid, authority-based beliefs *can* be seen as a "land of opportunity" for others interested in manipulation.
So maybe the answer to your question is that people assume that faith equates to this rigid definition and this makes them prejudiced, expecting that the "faithful" are lost causes.
Two asides seem relevant here. (1) A good scientist is expected to know a lot about the history of their field and the current state of research. What is "known," why is it known, what are some of the more plausible possibilities, etc. In other words, a scientist operates at the fringes of knowledge, so they have to be very familiar with the shape of that fringe. But even so, we all have a natural tendency to over-estimate our certainties. So even a scientist has faith in some of their domain knowledge, and often that faith is stronger than can be justified.
(2) Is it possible for a self-described religious person to have faith, but also remain aware and respectful of what they know, why they know it, and what they don't know? Can they distinguish between knowledge based on experience, on reason, and on authority? All of these sources can be flawed in different ways. Can a person change their beliefs gradually, taking new experiences into account but still respecting their past experiences? |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | Short answer: despising faith generally is a sign of emotional immaturity, and a blindness to the nature of ones own belief.
A truth as old (at least) as Socrates is that wisdom is knowing you know virtually nothing.
Faith (not specific to Christian, or even religious faith) is recognizing a lack of knowledge, and deciding to proceed anyway.
There is acknowledged risk in this. Sometimes we persist in the faith of something despite evidence to the contrary. The risk is elevated in this case.
I show up to work every day with the faith that my work will be useful, that I will be payed, and that my workplace will still be there when I arrive. But I know that there is a possibility that these things are not true.
There are plenty of example of what happen when employees no longer believe their workplace will be there or pay them. Its not pretty. (Its what we call a vicious cycle).
On the other hand, if it never occurs to one that my job might end, or my employer might go out of business, I am foolish and dangerous in a completely different way, operating cavalierly oblivious to the risks.
Disparaging others faith can fall into one of two categories. Either one is sure that the others faith is in something one knows to be false, or one doesn't have any idea how much the world around them is full of uncertainties. Individual cases are individual, but there is a lot of potential for grandiosity and self blindness in either of those judgments | Don't hate me for being honest, i'm trying to answer the actual question. I'll confess, I would probably discount you after that revelation. Despise is too strong, but I would lose respect for you.
Why? I was thinking about it, and I found a few concepts that might explain why.
**Association**
Faith and open-mindedness *with* science is one thing, example Einstein. Science without faith is another, example Sagan. But when you have no science and just faith, it's easy to make invalid arguments. People of faith in the US have said some offensive things over the years about women, minorities, LGBT people, immigrants, people of different faiths, even science itself. I'm afraid some less-than-wise persons of faith have poisoned the well and you're guilty by association.
Since we can wall-off people we don't agree with via our media and internet, we don't observe as many unexpected contradictions from dislike people. Back when the Cosby show came out, it diminished prejudice about black Americans by showing a Doctor and Lawyer power couple who were black. But now, you can spend all day on youtube watching racist content that only re-enforces what you already believe. Contrast became something to avoid, not spotlight.
**intensification** This filtering intensifies "othering", leading to what communications researcher Sut Jhally coins "the spiral of silence". As people avoid conversations and people who are unlike them, to avoid the now-stressful defending of your views, it makes it even harder to set feelings aside next time, on both sides. I like to think of it as the atrophy of empathy. From the first innocent subject change, it builds gradually to a point where people just prefer to categorically avoid certain topics or people. The less you try to get along, the harder it is to get along, and it's easier than ever these days to find people you agree with to console your loss of diversity.
**Motivation**
Even if i disagree with someone, i don't look down on them without "reason". Humans like to jump to safety as a justification for their beliefs. This extends to mass wiretaps, guns, healthcare, vaping, bathrooms, water testing, you name it; "safety is #1".
When I hear something like "we don't need a carbon tax because God will take care of the righteous", it upsets me because I think to myself "OK this isn't just a different belief, live and let live; this is a threat to survival". It's saying to me: "nothing else matters except something you don't even believe in"; can anything possibly be more invalidating? Who enjoys talking to someone who invalidates?
**Conclusion** In short, I don't think it's that they "despise" you, you're just different. People wedge apart for far less fundamental differences: back in high school I hated a certain teacher because he was a big Mac proponent, and I liked Windows. Everything he said about anything I discounted because of his computing preference. "Sounds like something a mac head would say", "how can he know anything about the Civil War if he's too stupid to right-click", and "everyone knows that, even a mac user like him". It wasn't as though I intended to be completely irrational/selfish/foolish in my youth, it was just the default I found myself in, and an impulse/tendency I still struggle to reconcile objectively. |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | Of course faith opens up an additional domain of consciousness with many creative and fantastic ideas like gods, incarnation, sacrifices, superhuman power etc. That's similar to creative ideas in art or literature.
In addition, faith provides answers to several existential questions which otherwise had to be left without an answer. Eventually, Christian faith allows to entrust oneself to someone with infinite power and shelter.
Faith believes that the religious domain is the real domain and that faith is much more important for our life than the physical world of daily experience.
Sigmund Freud gave an answer, why faith could be seen as a sign of weakness, in his essay from 1927: The Future of an Illusion.
<https://archive.org/stream/sigmund-freud-the-future-of-an-illusion/sigmund-freud-the-future-of-an-illusion_djvu.txt>
Freud considers the whole domain of religious statements an illusion. In his opinion, in religion humans take shelter to a god as a substitute for their own powerful human father in their childhood. And this can been seen a kind of weakness. Because to grow up and to become of age needs the detachment from the kind of bindings which were suitable during the childhood. | Short answer: despising faith generally is a sign of emotional immaturity, and a blindness to the nature of ones own belief.
A truth as old (at least) as Socrates is that wisdom is knowing you know virtually nothing.
Faith (not specific to Christian, or even religious faith) is recognizing a lack of knowledge, and deciding to proceed anyway.
There is acknowledged risk in this. Sometimes we persist in the faith of something despite evidence to the contrary. The risk is elevated in this case.
I show up to work every day with the faith that my work will be useful, that I will be payed, and that my workplace will still be there when I arrive. But I know that there is a possibility that these things are not true.
There are plenty of example of what happen when employees no longer believe their workplace will be there or pay them. Its not pretty. (Its what we call a vicious cycle).
On the other hand, if it never occurs to one that my job might end, or my employer might go out of business, I am foolish and dangerous in a completely different way, operating cavalierly oblivious to the risks.
Disparaging others faith can fall into one of two categories. Either one is sure that the others faith is in something one knows to be false, or one doesn't have any idea how much the world around them is full of uncertainties. Individual cases are individual, but there is a lot of potential for grandiosity and self blindness in either of those judgments |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | History may help us understand better...
One reason is that the most powerful empire in recent memory, the British Empire, was explicitly Christian. When anti-imperial forces (think Ghandi) became more popular in the mid-20th Century, they reasonably associated being Christian with unjust authority.
Also, since the 1850s or so, Western Europe and parts of the US have been intellectually led by folks like Freud and Darwin who sought to contradict the claims of the Bible, such as purposeful creation and historical miracles.
Lastly, since the 1960s youth movements (May '68 in Paris, Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, and elsewhere) there has been much more public acceptance of highly-desirable media and items which Christian teaching prohibits for Christians, such as pornography. | (A little bit late in the game, but here's an additional perspective)
It's not really about being Christian perse, that makes people assume that you are weak, but about being Christian in a Christian majority culture or location.
Most religious people (I don't have the exact stats, but I'd wager it's above 99%) follow the religion of their family or ethnic group. And so people who follow the religion that they were born into are seen as taking the easy way out, by adopting the set of answers that was immediately available to them, instead of searching further afield for more difficult answers to the deep questions of life.
A Christian born in a Judeo-Christian culture will seem (rightly or wrongly so) like they are weak. On the other hand, a person who has converted to Christianity from Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran will be seen as a very strong person indeed.
[See this related question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/41637/does-culture-bias-weaken-the-argument-that-modern-science-and-a-religious-world). |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | I should know better than to jump into this fray. But I can't help myself since this is something I've wondered about myself. Here are the reasons I've collected over the years. Often times I don't remember where I first learned of these reasons, I'm going to leave this un-cited.
1. **How do you distinguish faith from gullibility?** Perhaps faith is sometimes seen as a kind of gullibility. Few people would criticize you if you have faith "the sun will come up tomorrow" or "I have faith that I'm skillful and smart enough to support my family for the foreseeable future." It's the faith in uncommon things that raises eyebrows. To use the over-used Sagan quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's the willingness to believe extraordinary claims on inconclusive evidence that might strike some as gullible.
2. **How do you know what to have faith in and what not to have faith in?** Why do people have faith in one religion but not another? Often it's based on what they want to believe, or what they think ought to be true. (See <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ulterior-motives/201107/you-end-believing-what-you-want-believe>.) Or they will believe things based on the culture they were brought up in, while discounting equally plausible claims from cultures they weren't brought up in. Some say you know what to have faith in based on *feeling*. But that ignores the many who have feelings that are just as strong, but towards a different belief. Or it ignores the selection biases, conflicts of interest, and other influences that can subconsciously shape our feelings. Or it ignores the numerous times that feeling alone has proven to be unreliable. So to some, it may seem like faith is weakness if it appears that someone will selectively turn off their critical thinking skills for beliefs they have a vested interest in maintaining.
3. **They are inflexible.** There a numerous examples of this. Consider the bumper sticker "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Or this quote from Kurt Wise:
>
> "I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the
> Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in
> college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against
> creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a
> creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
> Here I must stand."
>
>
>
The title of this post mentions "unexplored land/opportunity." Are you receiving criticism for *exploring*? Or for coming to conclusions when there is, admittedly, so much unknown? Faith may sometimes cause a person to appear close-minded: unable or unwilling to change beliefs based on new evidence or experiences. That may be a 3rd reason why faith might be seen as a weakness.
4. **Stereotyping.** I'm sure every person of faith doesn't match all 3 of these reasons. They are more of a caricature, and that might be a fourth reason: Those people who consider you weak because of your faith may be stereotyping you. | As you said, there are deep unanswered mysteries and people people need some kind of an answer at the risk of losing their mind. While eventually everyone needs answers to maintain sanity. Some people have slightly greater tolerance for these unanswered questions than others. Some people seek the answer in science and others in religion. High mystery tolerance level isn't a question of ignoring the deep mystery altogether but instead the ability to have the question ferment for years at a time while keeping an open mind to all possible answers (while just barely keeping mental illness at bay). Mystery intolerant people need answers right now at the risk of losing their mind.
This struggle for answers creates the following general groups
* A) **Tolerant** of unanswered mysteries and drawn to **science** for answers (I view myself as belonging here)
* B) **Tolerant** of unanswered mysteries and drawn to **religion** for answers (You appear to be one)
* C) **Intolerant** of unanswered mysteries and drawn to **science** for answers (People who preach science in specific areas but don't practice it in all areas of life)
* D) **Intolerant** of unanswered mysteries and drawn to **religion** for answers (People who find religion and close their mind to all other reality)
Of course these groups are just archetypes. The real world is more complex and individuals usually fall on a continuum between these extremes. Individuals may even belong to a mixture of these groups.
Interestingly, if you really do have traits of group B), the two of us will get along just fine. Even though I don't view group C) highly, I get along with them ok - only because I could imagine how they feel. I will probably clash with D) though.
In your case the people you're clashing with are from group C). They can't stand having a deep mystery hanging out there. They must have an answer immediately even though there may not be one yet. Immediate indisputable answers to life mysteries mixed with science create unnatural concoction of science as a religion. Your religion clashes with heirs. That's why there is a conflict.
Unfortunately groups C) and D) are the norm. It's unusual to find groups A) and B), so I'm not surprised that you meet so many people who clash with how you view the world. |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | There are already some excellent answers which cover most of what I want to say, but I can't resist jumping in as well...
I'm going to refer to "me" as an (hopefully) relevant example of someone with the reaction you describe.
When you say you consider faith an unexplored opportunity, that's certainly not enough to discard your views unseen, but it will make me suspicious that one of the following criticisms apply to you.
Problem of how to choose a belief
---------------------------------
You seem to imply if we do lack a scientific explanation in a certain area, we should be allowed to just choose an explanation.
But choose how?
Choose an explanation by logical, rational arguments? That's more or less what metaphysics tries to do. But to get anywhere by logical arguments you need axioms as starting points, i.e. assumptions you define as obviously true. The problem with that, as witnessed by the endless philosophical disputes about metaphysics, is that metaphysical axioms that seem obvious to one person will be hotly contested by another person.
Choose an explanation because it seems emotionally appealing? That is a risky strategy because, human nature being what it is, emotions are easily confused by wishful thinking and personal bias.
If we lack a well-established scientific explanation, there is nothing wrong with choosing a working hypothesis, i.e. just make an assumption, especially if a dangerous situation requires quick action.
But in such a case one should remain aware that the assumption is just temporary and stay on the alert for clues that make other explanations more probable.
And if there is no realistic way an assumption could be checked, the sceptical consensus is to assume until further notice that the assumption is not true, since that is the easiest and most straightforward choice. Because, if one has not enough evidence, one can always invent more complicated and even more complicated explanations; so the only rational criteria to select one explanation is to check which one is the simplest. (See Ockham's razor, Russell's teapot).
Problem of choosing ethical values
----------------------------------
You talk about choosing a faith. But faith can affect two different contexts, where the process of "choosing" has very different implications: Empirical science and ethical values.
I guess it is easy to see that people who think highly of science do not like it if faith tries to contradict science, as in the famous cases of Galileo and Darwin.
With ethical values it is rather different: Though obviously everyone here is influenced by society and education, one is free to choose one's ethical values. And other people are free to criticise the choice and argue for other values they consider superior. That way, the ethical norms of a society can be adjusted by public debate.
If the faith you choose leads to a choice of ethical values, there is nothing wrong with that. But the problem begins if one uses religious claims as a public justification of ethical values. Often the claim is that there is only one true religion, and therefore one true set of ethical commandments. These are given by god, carved in stone, built into the fabric of the universe. Intentionally or not, that implies that the discussion is over and criticism of those values is unwelcome or even forbidden. So if a religion has enough influence on a society, it often means that ethical values may no longer be criticised, even if they seem very wrong to the non-religious minority (e.g. women being inferior or homosexuality being sinful).
Problem of religious taboos
---------------------------
You seem to suggest that one chooses one's faith in a free intellectual process. But if I look at the historical record, it seems to me that religions, including christianity, owe much of their success to restricting that free process. With that I not only mean open censorship or legal punishments of unbelievers. Christians believe they have the god-given task to convert non-believers, and that the fact if one believes in god or not is an important factor in god's decision if one ends up in hell or heaven. That has the effect of creating a taboo: Not believing in god seems not only wrong, but sinful, scary, outrageous.
One could argue that all effective social norms create some sort of taboo. But I think religious taboos are dangerous because they are protected by supernatural threats and promises. If I think a non-religious social taboo is wrong, others may come to the same conclusion if they are willing to question their personal upbringing and prejudices and are not afraid to face social ostracism. But if the taboo is a religious one they would need to do not only that, but conquer their fear of supernatural punishment. As a consequence, religion tends to make social change much harder, and much harder to discuss.
Problem of the supernatural
---------------------------
Religious faith usually is connected with belief in the supernatural, like god answering prayers and performing miracles, or prophecies coming true.
But belief in the supernatural I regard as a rather dangerous thing. I think that sooner or later it leads to stuff like claims of faith healing. That means, some people will claim the power to perform spectacular supernatural acts that dramatically influence people's lives. They can promise good things (healing illness, supply positive energy, bring luck) or threaten bad things (curse someone, bring bad luck). In any case, they will get lots of influence over the people who believe in their supernatural powers, and often use that influence to drain money and demand obedience from their followers.
That is the reason why I am also very suspicious of new age esoterics and movements that advertise "spirituality". I think the term "spirituality" is often intentionally used to weasel out of the question if one makes supernatural claims, so that one can have it both ways, distract skeptics but subtly promise stuff like faith healing to followers.
Maybe your kind of faith is one where you definitely do not expect any supernatural happenings, at least not in our time. If you would add that disclaimer when introducing yourself as a person who regards faith as an opportunity, I would instantly be a lot less suspicious of your views. | I should know better than to jump into this fray. But I can't help myself since this is something I've wondered about myself. Here are the reasons I've collected over the years. Often times I don't remember where I first learned of these reasons, I'm going to leave this un-cited.
1. **How do you distinguish faith from gullibility?** Perhaps faith is sometimes seen as a kind of gullibility. Few people would criticize you if you have faith "the sun will come up tomorrow" or "I have faith that I'm skillful and smart enough to support my family for the foreseeable future." It's the faith in uncommon things that raises eyebrows. To use the over-used Sagan quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's the willingness to believe extraordinary claims on inconclusive evidence that might strike some as gullible.
2. **How do you know what to have faith in and what not to have faith in?** Why do people have faith in one religion but not another? Often it's based on what they want to believe, or what they think ought to be true. (See <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ulterior-motives/201107/you-end-believing-what-you-want-believe>.) Or they will believe things based on the culture they were brought up in, while discounting equally plausible claims from cultures they weren't brought up in. Some say you know what to have faith in based on *feeling*. But that ignores the many who have feelings that are just as strong, but towards a different belief. Or it ignores the selection biases, conflicts of interest, and other influences that can subconsciously shape our feelings. Or it ignores the numerous times that feeling alone has proven to be unreliable. So to some, it may seem like faith is weakness if it appears that someone will selectively turn off their critical thinking skills for beliefs they have a vested interest in maintaining.
3. **They are inflexible.** There a numerous examples of this. Consider the bumper sticker "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Or this quote from Kurt Wise:
>
> "I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the
> Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in
> college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against
> creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a
> creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
> Here I must stand."
>
>
>
The title of this post mentions "unexplored land/opportunity." Are you receiving criticism for *exploring*? Or for coming to conclusions when there is, admittedly, so much unknown? Faith may sometimes cause a person to appear close-minded: unable or unwilling to change beliefs based on new evidence or experiences. That may be a 3rd reason why faith might be seen as a weakness.
4. **Stereotyping.** I'm sure every person of faith doesn't match all 3 of these reasons. They are more of a caricature, and that might be a fourth reason: Those people who consider you weak because of your faith may be stereotyping you. |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | I think there is a continuum of trustworthiness for knowledge. I've heard the term "faith," as used by Christians, fall in many places along this continuum. At one extreme you have faith meaning a rigid belief that is supported mostly on the basis of authority. "The Bible says ... ." On the other extreme you have faith defined not as adherence to any particular belief but as a habit of trusting or relying on God. (I'm sorry that this definition is unintentionally vague.)
The rigid-belief extreme is more commonly assumed by others, and is problematic in my opinion. One problem is that this form of faith causes a person to be apparently immune to reason or change. You can't have an interesting conversation with such a person. Another problem is that this faith is brittle and subject to manipulation by others. You can't alter this person's beliefs directly, but you *can* often alter their perception of a trusted authority, and affect beliefs indirectly. Radicalization is a version of this process. So a person with rigid, authority-based beliefs *can* be seen as a "land of opportunity" for others interested in manipulation.
So maybe the answer to your question is that people assume that faith equates to this rigid definition and this makes them prejudiced, expecting that the "faithful" are lost causes.
Two asides seem relevant here. (1) A good scientist is expected to know a lot about the history of their field and the current state of research. What is "known," why is it known, what are some of the more plausible possibilities, etc. In other words, a scientist operates at the fringes of knowledge, so they have to be very familiar with the shape of that fringe. But even so, we all have a natural tendency to over-estimate our certainties. So even a scientist has faith in some of their domain knowledge, and often that faith is stronger than can be justified.
(2) Is it possible for a self-described religious person to have faith, but also remain aware and respectful of what they know, why they know it, and what they don't know? Can they distinguish between knowledge based on experience, on reason, and on authority? All of these sources can be flawed in different ways. Can a person change their beliefs gradually, taking new experiences into account but still respecting their past experiences? | My previous answer has been tagged for deletion by someone. No surprises there (although it is based on formal study of religion and world political history in Sri Lanka as well as Canada - Quebec, and experiences/readings/discussions in the Middle East, USA, UK, Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, India, etc).
**The point of this 'answer':**
A 'Readers Digest' I read in 1980 or 1981 had an article on 'faith', this very question, I believe. I won't repeat the article because I don't remember it, but I do remember the the 'graphic' (cartoon) of the article - picture the following:
Two young ladies are having a solemn discussion when suddenly a third friend appears and starts giving (uninvited) a VERY GRAPHIC (X-rated) description of how here 'blind date' went after they went to her apartment after dinner.
One of the first two girls tells the third person: '*Jane, just before you came we were discussing the merits and demerits of religion and faith, what do you think about it?*'
The third person, Jane, who was giving an X-rated account of her date says: '*That is a very personal question, I prefer not to discuss it!*', and walks away red in face with a scowl.
Any psychologist, psychiatrist even when you study 'marketing' will tell you: *People don't want to know the truth, people want to know what they want to hear*'.
A marketing guru wrote in his book/article (again, I am too old to remember) '*Of all the successful sales I made in my life the people who bought from me had to be told that they want/needed it - i.e. they did not know what they want*'.
This should, at least, help keep my comment alive for the 'open minded'... |
50,288 | Hope this is the right place to put this question!
I am a person of faith (more specific, a Christian) and most of the time people consider me somehow **inferior** for my belief. I am not antisocial, not sick, nor crazy, but rather rational (even if apparently this is in contradiction with "faith"). I feel that many times when discussing with some people. After reaching religion in our discussion, when I tell them that "I am a faithful person" the answer I get is something like: "Oh, faithful... I see..." (from non-believing persons).
In another situation, I was having a conversation with a person who seemed impressed by my thinking and education, and we were going along this way for some time. However, after mentioning about my faith, that attitude disappeared and a despise-superiority one came out. Why is this happening in our time, since in the past there were many great faithful personalities (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, or even Mother Teresa)?
Somehow, people see me as some inferior kind of human, maybe even crazy - no matter of my other capabilities or social position. For many, believing what Christians believe is a sign of weakness.
Now, my question is:
Why is faith seen in such a way in our times: as a sign of weakness instead of an unexplored land (considering the fact that we DO NOT KNOW an enormous quantity of things, fields, etc.)?
Why do most people choose to despise, instead of accepting the possibility that we know too little about faith and its experiences?
Basically, why do folks close the door without checking what's inside?
EDIT:
1. I do not need a "faith" definition, that's not the idea.
2. Giving me examples or quotes from dead people that did not live in our time (in order to understand it), doesn't really help much.
3. I know I am not inferior, I just feel people treat me like I would be, and what I need to understand is why.
4. If you have any experience from your community, about believers (of any kind) who are seen as I am, then you could write an answer. Not opinions, because someone's opinion could be that my question is wrong, and such thing doesn't exist, but I know what I am getting through and what is the reality.
5. I would need an answer, not a debate... Please! | 2018/03/30 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50288",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/31446/"
] | I will say a number of things on this, all of them just my own opinion really, and unfortunately that's all anyone can really offer on this kind of question:
* I don't think your interpretation of others' disdain can be necessarily interpreted as always meaning 'weakness' on your part. This is just your subjective projection onto other peoples' reaction to your admission of 'faith.' While in some cases some people might see you as weak, on the whole they won't see it as precisely that.
* In my own case, people declaring their 'faith,' simply turns me off. In a conversation, debate, or any relationship I am suddenly aware that there is a limit to the counterparty's ability to be rational. There is scope for a meaningful, logical, rational debate only up to a point. Beyond that threshold we are in la-la-land, magical thinking, and personal offense for no good reason.
* In my opinion your question is presented as innocuous, benign and genuine, but I believe it is either a deliberately disingenuous attempt at politely (and blindly, blanket) portraying all those who hold 'faith' in disregard as people who condemn it as 'weakness,' or it is an unintentional attempt at doing the same, with a self-conviction that is probably rooted in the same kind of prejudices that give rise to 'faith' itself.
I hope that helps you.
I will also add that the site, S.E., is aimed at allowing questions to be answered. Your question is one that invites the kind of answer structured "your premise is flawed" or "I disagree with the premise". Essentially, it reads like a false dichotomy. I think it would not only help you, but others, if you rephrased the question to ***"Is faith seen as a sign of weakness? Irrespective, can it be and should it be seen as a land of opportunity? If so, how, and how can I invite that kind of thinking from others?"*** | If somebody thinks we live in a new age of reason, you need to check out the facts:
84% of the world’s population identifies with **Faith** in a religious group.
>
> According to 2015 figures, Christians form the biggest religious group by some margin, with 2.3 billion adherents or 31.2% of the total world population of 7.3 billion. Next come Muslims (1.8 billion, or 24.1%), Hindus (1.1 billion, or 15.1%) and Buddhists (500 million, or 6.9%).
>
>
> But the third biggest category is missing from the above list. In 2015, 1.2 billion people in the world, or 16%, said they have no religious affiliation at all. This does not mean all those people have committed atheists; some – perhaps most – have a strong sense of spirituality or belief in God, gods or guiding forces, but they don’t identify with or practice an organized religion.
>
>
>
**Which religions are growing, and where?**
The answer is the religion is on the wane in western Europe and North America, and it’s growing everywhere else.
Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world – more than twice as fast as the overall global population. Between 2015 and 2060, the world’s inhabitants are expected to increase by 32%, but the Muslim population is forecast to grow by 70
>
> China has seen a huge religious revival in recent years and some predict it will have the world’s largest Christian population by 2030. The number of Chinese Protestants has grown by an average of 10 % annually since 1979, to between 93 million and 115 million, according to one estimate. There are reckoned to be another 10-12 million Catholics.
> In contrast, Christianity is in decline in Western Europe. In Ireland, traditionally a staunchly Catholic country, the proportion of people identifying with Catholicism fell from 84.2% to 78.3% between the two censuses of 2011 and 2016, and down to 54% among people aged between 16 and 29. Those with no religious affiliation increased to 9.8% – a jump of 71.8% in five years.
>
>
>
The only Christian theocracy is Vatican City, the tiny but powerful centre of Roman Catholicism, where the Pope is the supreme power and heads the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Vatican government.
Thirteen countries (including nine in Europe) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.
**Does religion have an impact on the world?**
>
> Of course – there are huge consequences to religious belief and practice. Firstly, countless wars and conflicts have had an overt or covert religious dimension throughout history right up to the present day. In the past few years, we’ve seen Islamic extremists waging war in the Middle East, a power struggle between Sunni and Shia across the region, the persecution of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria, violent clashes between Christians and Muslims in the Central African Republic, to name a few. Women are subjugated, LGBT people are persecuted, and “blasphemists” are tortured and murdered in the name of religion.
>
>
>
**What happens next?**
>
> More prejudice and persecution. Followers of most major religions report increasing hostility and, in many cases, violence. Christians have been largely driven out of the Middle East, with some calling it a new genocide. Meanwhile antisemitism and Islamophobia are rising in Europe.
>
>
>
One of the biggest upheavals on the religious landscape in the next few years is likely to be the death (or, possibly, retirement) of Pope Francis, who is 81 and has a number of health issues. His efforts to reform the Vatican and the church have led to a significant backlash by conservative forces, who are organising against his papacy and preparing for the moment when the post becomes vacant.
I have just posted the **general scenario** of the 'Faith' driven religious growth on our plane and the ask the question that *why you feel 'as inferior ' to a group when you disclose your faith-*
**reason 1**.- you may not have been properly trained in the matters of faith and the **link with the Almighty who created the world- or the communication link has** not been established as yet- the faith must mature to attract the fellow humans by the glow of your persona.
**reason-2**-you perhaps have genuine doubts in the "Faith" part or still waiting to experience it by trying hard.
The fact of the matter is that many people do not understand the **"Power of faith"** in human life and can just go on shrugging their shoulders and imagine that **"Faith"** does not exist.
In our community the Hindus- the "faithfuls are such that they sacrifice theselves in thousands at their annual extravaganza without dropping an eyelid ".
Ref.- <https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next> |
25,696 | People on this site frequently ask about how much water they should drink while doing strenuous outdoor activities such as hiking and running. How broad is the safety range for water consumption in order to avoid both dehydration and [hyponatremia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia)? | 2020/12/01 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/25696",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The range of safety is extremely wide. It's not dangerous to get thirsty, nor do you increase your risk of heat stroke by drinking less water. Drinking very large amounts of water causes a danger of hyponatremia, but only if you distrust your body's sensations and force yourself to drink vast amounts of water because someone told you that was a good idea.
A lot of the science on this topic was done by a South African researcher and runner named Tim Noakes. In the 1970's, he pushed to convince long-distance runners to stop ignoring signs of thirst and to drink during races when they felt thirsty (which had been against the rules in marathons). As an overreaction set in, he then tried to convince people not to overdo it, which can lead to hyponatremia.
The evidence from marathon races is that drinking less water does not increase post-race body temperatures, so it probably doesn't increase your risk of heat stroke (Noakes et al., "The danger of an inadequate water intake during prolonged exercise," European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 57 (1988) 210). It is not true, as often claimed in folk wisdom, that "thirst is too late," so that by the time you feel thirsty you're already "dehydrated." Actually, you will feel extremely thirsty long before you become dehydrated according to any medical definition. It's true that heat stroke is insidious and potentially fatal, but drinking more water doesn't prevent it.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is a great deal of evidence that drinking too much water can lead to hyponatremia, which is potentially fatal. However, the amount of water you have to drink to kill yourself this way is an incredible amount. In one of the best documented cases, a military recruit was told by his drill instructors to drink a huge amount of water because of very hot temperatures (Garigan, T. P., & Ristedt, D. E. (1999). Death from Hyponatremia as a Result of Acute Water Intoxication in an Army Basic Trainee. Military Medicine, 164(3), 234–238. doi:10.1093/milmed/164.3.234 ). But this unfortunate person drank something like 20 liters of water over the course of one morning. Although people do not have a built-in mental ability to recognize hyponatremia, as they do with dehydration, he had severe symptoms indicating a medical problem: "He appeared pale, complained of severe thirst[!], and drank three more quarts. Then
he vomited for the first time. [Later,] the soldier complained of dizziness, "throbbing" headache, and nausea."
In summary, the medical evidence seems to be that it's virtually impossible to kill yourself by drinking too little or too much water during a day of physical activity. However, low-level hyponatremia, which is not life-threatening, is quite common among endurance athletes (Almond et al., Hyponatremia among Runners in the Boston Marathon, 2005, NEJM, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa043901 ). Among marathon runners, the condition was found to be especially common among less experienced runners who drank more than 3 liters of water and tried to load themselves up with fluids. | Practical checks:
Watch your pee, both frequency and colour.
If your pee is clear, and you are peeing often, you are at no risk of dehydration. May be drinking a bit too much.
If your pee is clear to pale yellow, and you peeing at reasonable interval, this is optimum.
If you pee is dark yellow, strong smell, then you should be drinking more.
Background: High elevation requires more breaths to get enough oxygen. Your mouth, sinuses and upper respiratory tract have to bring cold dry air up to 90+% relative humidity at body temperature. This takes a fair amount of water. (About 1/4 of your total metabolic expenditure in cold weather is used to evaporate water from your lungs.)
On winter dog sled treks we found that people routinely weren't drinking enough because we just didn't make it available. We would make up the deficit in the evening around the fire with many cups of tea and hot chocolate.
Water in camp was made from melting snow in the same buckets we used for cooking. This resulted in water that at best tasted like bucket, and at worst tasted burnt.
The solution was to bring 1 gallon thermoses. We would fill these with boiling snowmelt water and juice crystals (ok, flavoured sugar) breaking camp in the morning. Each sled carried one of these (1 sled per 2-3 people) At breaks you would fill your cup with tightly packed snow and add enough of the hot faux juice to melt it all. By the end of the day the juice was cool enough to drink directly. |
574,040 | It's been a while since I have soldered, so I bought a cheap unbranded soldering iron to use while I re-familiarised myself with the skill. After a few weeks of use, I turned it on just now and it popped with a blue spark. Now it appears to be dead. Did I do something wrong, or is that simply what happens sometimes when you buy a cheap soldering iron? I'm curious to find out what could have happened.
Ironically, just before the magic smoke escaped from the cheap one, I actually bought a new soldering station (Hakko FX-888D) earlier today, as I had a feeling it was time to get better equipment. Spooky. I guess the cheap one got upset and self-destructed.
Out of curiosity, I dismantled the dead soldering iron and took a photo of the board inside.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHrz8.jpg)
With my limited knowledge of electronics, my intuition tells me that an arc occurred between the AC wires. If so, is this bad luck, bad soldering, or user error?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aKqa0.jpg)
The insulation appears burned, but also the core of the wires seems to be a bit frayed. Was this as a result of the arc, or low quality manufacturing?
*Bonus question:* I wasn't touching the button at the time the iron popped, but if I was, would I have received an electric shock? Would it have been life threatening or painful?
*Edit:* I am in the UK (230VAC). | 2021/07/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/574040",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/288848/"
] | Just looking at how these wires are soldered to the PCB indicates a low quality product. I would not blame you but the product instead. | This soldering iron is garbage. The PCB has been soldered by machine and is likely ok. The power cable looks like it hasn't even be soldered on in a factory but by home workers with bad equipment and bad skills. It starts by the cables not being properly deinsulated (you can see a number of torn copper strands) and then not being properly twisted and presoldered (you can see lots of blank copper) and then not being properly shortened: there are far too long open strands off the solder pads. The solder joints look more baked on rather than thoroughly heated, particularly the right one. Also it appears like there has too much been cut from both outer insulation and wire insulation to have any pull protection measure work reliably.
I would expect the ground wire to easily sprout a copper wire over where it may touch the live wire.
But it doesn't even look like that is what happened: one can see in the upper picture that tracks leading to the switch have burnt off, so the short wasn't even in the awful cable soldering (where the damage would have been contained nearby while blowing the fuse) but was somewhere higher.
In addition, the PCB design does not appear to accommodate any significant amount of cross section for the ground tracks, so the amount of security provided by them is limited: you might get a flash and a bang and the thing continues "working" after having rid itself of the ground track. And might even work for the next user after having killed you. |
574,040 | It's been a while since I have soldered, so I bought a cheap unbranded soldering iron to use while I re-familiarised myself with the skill. After a few weeks of use, I turned it on just now and it popped with a blue spark. Now it appears to be dead. Did I do something wrong, or is that simply what happens sometimes when you buy a cheap soldering iron? I'm curious to find out what could have happened.
Ironically, just before the magic smoke escaped from the cheap one, I actually bought a new soldering station (Hakko FX-888D) earlier today, as I had a feeling it was time to get better equipment. Spooky. I guess the cheap one got upset and self-destructed.
Out of curiosity, I dismantled the dead soldering iron and took a photo of the board inside.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHrz8.jpg)
With my limited knowledge of electronics, my intuition tells me that an arc occurred between the AC wires. If so, is this bad luck, bad soldering, or user error?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aKqa0.jpg)
The insulation appears burned, but also the core of the wires seems to be a bit frayed. Was this as a result of the arc, or low quality manufacturing?
*Bonus question:* I wasn't touching the button at the time the iron popped, but if I was, would I have received an electric shock? Would it have been life threatening or painful?
*Edit:* I am in the UK (230VAC). | 2021/07/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/574040",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/288848/"
] | Just looking at how these wires are soldered to the PCB indicates a low quality product. I would not blame you but the product instead. | It looks like the mains cord was not fully soldered to the board.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You can see a stray whisker of the ground still. There were probably also loose strands on the current-carying conductors. They probably flexed enough to touch when you were handling the cord, and when you plugged it in, they bridged a rush of current through and vaporized. POP!
I'm kind of surprised that it broke the iron. It shouldn't have. But whatever. I've been using $10 irons all my life and they work okay for me without any circuit board inside them. But that hakko is super great too, so enjoy it. |
574,040 | It's been a while since I have soldered, so I bought a cheap unbranded soldering iron to use while I re-familiarised myself with the skill. After a few weeks of use, I turned it on just now and it popped with a blue spark. Now it appears to be dead. Did I do something wrong, or is that simply what happens sometimes when you buy a cheap soldering iron? I'm curious to find out what could have happened.
Ironically, just before the magic smoke escaped from the cheap one, I actually bought a new soldering station (Hakko FX-888D) earlier today, as I had a feeling it was time to get better equipment. Spooky. I guess the cheap one got upset and self-destructed.
Out of curiosity, I dismantled the dead soldering iron and took a photo of the board inside.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHrz8.jpg)
With my limited knowledge of electronics, my intuition tells me that an arc occurred between the AC wires. If so, is this bad luck, bad soldering, or user error?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aKqa0.jpg)
The insulation appears burned, but also the core of the wires seems to be a bit frayed. Was this as a result of the arc, or low quality manufacturing?
*Bonus question:* I wasn't touching the button at the time the iron popped, but if I was, would I have received an electric shock? Would it have been life threatening or painful?
*Edit:* I am in the UK (230VAC). | 2021/07/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/574040",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/288848/"
] | Just looking at how these wires are soldered to the PCB indicates a low quality product. I would not blame you but the product instead. | That thing was not UL Listed
----------------------------
and should never have been plugged into AC power. It violated the safety codes of lots of countries.
Never plug anything into AC power that isn't UL Listed.\*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rO7LL.jpg)
Buy from reputable vendors in the future. Note that on Amazon, many third party (eBay crud tier) items ship from Amazon warehouses with Prime. Make sure the seller *and* shipper are both Amazon, and you have a chance of getting a better quality product. Amazon seems to follow the "bricks and mortar retail" quality laws on *their own* stuff.
The safer option is to buy from actual bricks and mortar vendors (even if you mail order from them), such as Home Depot, Galco, Grainger, Radio Shack (though watch out these days) etc. Sorry, there's slim pickings these days for electronics bricks and mortar. Mouser and Digi-Key and McMaster-Carr have been reliable IME.
\* Or if you want to get into the gory details...
-------------------------------------------------
Listings from other [NRTL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationally_Recognized_Testing_Laboratory)s are generally acceptable. That is because the other NRTLs duplicate UL's high level of independent third-party scrutiny. Off the top of my head, British BSI, German TUV, a dozen others. UL and the other NRTLs are extremely aggressive about defending their mark, and as a result, UL, CSA, BSI and TUV marks are almost never seen faked.
Who the heck is USA OSHA to decide who is an NRTL? I don't know, but *somebody has to do it*, and they do a good job, and many agencies in many countries simply defer to that list rather than try to administer their own list.
**The CE mark is universally faked**, mockingly, on a "catch me if you can" basis by pretty much every manufacturer who keeps their assets outside the reach of EU authorities. The only way to count on that mark is to buy at a competent, trustworthy bricks-and-mortar shop physically inside the EU whose assets are inside the EU. Walk into Wickes and you're fine. With mail-order, all bets are off. It only works if you have a responsbile in-EU seller, such as Wickes.co.uk or Mouser. But many warehouses, such as Amazon's, do drop-shipping for many third-party sellers. **Amazon is not responsible for regulatory compliance for third-party items, even those sold on its site**. So effectively, ordering a third party item on Amazon (or other website where Amazon or a like-minded shipper is the drop-shipper) is the same as direct ordering overseas - there are no consequences for faking the CE mark, so it most likely is faked on a product whose distinctive feature is that it is a bargain.
Pretty much the same for the CCC mark. The manufacturer may be in the jurisdiction of the mark issuer, but the government turns a blind eye if the item is only for export.
I have researched these companies. As an example, I found one who claimed to be a 100-year-old famous German electronics firm which had merged with a four-year-old American LLC. Their USA address was an apartment block in Sunnyvale. Their German address was a *drop box* in downtown Dortmund. Their China address was a massive industrial park. Nothing within the reach of EU authorities. They had bought the corporate shell of the defunct electronics company.
I realize many readers want to believe those oh-so-cheap items on Amazon are legal and safe. I'm sorry to burst your bubble.
Note that even when CE is working as intended, by an EU company with EU assets selling inside EU watched by EU regulators, the CE mark is ***still* a self-certification**, which is weak tea compared to a third party NRTL certification and followup examination. EU used to agree; that is why BSI and TUV were formed in the first place. |
574,040 | It's been a while since I have soldered, so I bought a cheap unbranded soldering iron to use while I re-familiarised myself with the skill. After a few weeks of use, I turned it on just now and it popped with a blue spark. Now it appears to be dead. Did I do something wrong, or is that simply what happens sometimes when you buy a cheap soldering iron? I'm curious to find out what could have happened.
Ironically, just before the magic smoke escaped from the cheap one, I actually bought a new soldering station (Hakko FX-888D) earlier today, as I had a feeling it was time to get better equipment. Spooky. I guess the cheap one got upset and self-destructed.
Out of curiosity, I dismantled the dead soldering iron and took a photo of the board inside.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHrz8.jpg)
With my limited knowledge of electronics, my intuition tells me that an arc occurred between the AC wires. If so, is this bad luck, bad soldering, or user error?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aKqa0.jpg)
The insulation appears burned, but also the core of the wires seems to be a bit frayed. Was this as a result of the arc, or low quality manufacturing?
*Bonus question:* I wasn't touching the button at the time the iron popped, but if I was, would I have received an electric shock? Would it have been life threatening or painful?
*Edit:* I am in the UK (230VAC). | 2021/07/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/574040",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/288848/"
] | This soldering iron is garbage. The PCB has been soldered by machine and is likely ok. The power cable looks like it hasn't even be soldered on in a factory but by home workers with bad equipment and bad skills. It starts by the cables not being properly deinsulated (you can see a number of torn copper strands) and then not being properly twisted and presoldered (you can see lots of blank copper) and then not being properly shortened: there are far too long open strands off the solder pads. The solder joints look more baked on rather than thoroughly heated, particularly the right one. Also it appears like there has too much been cut from both outer insulation and wire insulation to have any pull protection measure work reliably.
I would expect the ground wire to easily sprout a copper wire over where it may touch the live wire.
But it doesn't even look like that is what happened: one can see in the upper picture that tracks leading to the switch have burnt off, so the short wasn't even in the awful cable soldering (where the damage would have been contained nearby while blowing the fuse) but was somewhere higher.
In addition, the PCB design does not appear to accommodate any significant amount of cross section for the ground tracks, so the amount of security provided by them is limited: you might get a flash and a bang and the thing continues "working" after having rid itself of the ground track. And might even work for the next user after having killed you. | It looks like the mains cord was not fully soldered to the board.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You can see a stray whisker of the ground still. There were probably also loose strands on the current-carying conductors. They probably flexed enough to touch when you were handling the cord, and when you plugged it in, they bridged a rush of current through and vaporized. POP!
I'm kind of surprised that it broke the iron. It shouldn't have. But whatever. I've been using $10 irons all my life and they work okay for me without any circuit board inside them. But that hakko is super great too, so enjoy it. |
574,040 | It's been a while since I have soldered, so I bought a cheap unbranded soldering iron to use while I re-familiarised myself with the skill. After a few weeks of use, I turned it on just now and it popped with a blue spark. Now it appears to be dead. Did I do something wrong, or is that simply what happens sometimes when you buy a cheap soldering iron? I'm curious to find out what could have happened.
Ironically, just before the magic smoke escaped from the cheap one, I actually bought a new soldering station (Hakko FX-888D) earlier today, as I had a feeling it was time to get better equipment. Spooky. I guess the cheap one got upset and self-destructed.
Out of curiosity, I dismantled the dead soldering iron and took a photo of the board inside.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHrz8.jpg)
With my limited knowledge of electronics, my intuition tells me that an arc occurred between the AC wires. If so, is this bad luck, bad soldering, or user error?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aKqa0.jpg)
The insulation appears burned, but also the core of the wires seems to be a bit frayed. Was this as a result of the arc, or low quality manufacturing?
*Bonus question:* I wasn't touching the button at the time the iron popped, but if I was, would I have received an electric shock? Would it have been life threatening or painful?
*Edit:* I am in the UK (230VAC). | 2021/07/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/574040",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/288848/"
] | This soldering iron is garbage. The PCB has been soldered by machine and is likely ok. The power cable looks like it hasn't even be soldered on in a factory but by home workers with bad equipment and bad skills. It starts by the cables not being properly deinsulated (you can see a number of torn copper strands) and then not being properly twisted and presoldered (you can see lots of blank copper) and then not being properly shortened: there are far too long open strands off the solder pads. The solder joints look more baked on rather than thoroughly heated, particularly the right one. Also it appears like there has too much been cut from both outer insulation and wire insulation to have any pull protection measure work reliably.
I would expect the ground wire to easily sprout a copper wire over where it may touch the live wire.
But it doesn't even look like that is what happened: one can see in the upper picture that tracks leading to the switch have burnt off, so the short wasn't even in the awful cable soldering (where the damage would have been contained nearby while blowing the fuse) but was somewhere higher.
In addition, the PCB design does not appear to accommodate any significant amount of cross section for the ground tracks, so the amount of security provided by them is limited: you might get a flash and a bang and the thing continues "working" after having rid itself of the ground track. And might even work for the next user after having killed you. | That thing was not UL Listed
----------------------------
and should never have been plugged into AC power. It violated the safety codes of lots of countries.
Never plug anything into AC power that isn't UL Listed.\*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rO7LL.jpg)
Buy from reputable vendors in the future. Note that on Amazon, many third party (eBay crud tier) items ship from Amazon warehouses with Prime. Make sure the seller *and* shipper are both Amazon, and you have a chance of getting a better quality product. Amazon seems to follow the "bricks and mortar retail" quality laws on *their own* stuff.
The safer option is to buy from actual bricks and mortar vendors (even if you mail order from them), such as Home Depot, Galco, Grainger, Radio Shack (though watch out these days) etc. Sorry, there's slim pickings these days for electronics bricks and mortar. Mouser and Digi-Key and McMaster-Carr have been reliable IME.
\* Or if you want to get into the gory details...
-------------------------------------------------
Listings from other [NRTL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationally_Recognized_Testing_Laboratory)s are generally acceptable. That is because the other NRTLs duplicate UL's high level of independent third-party scrutiny. Off the top of my head, British BSI, German TUV, a dozen others. UL and the other NRTLs are extremely aggressive about defending their mark, and as a result, UL, CSA, BSI and TUV marks are almost never seen faked.
Who the heck is USA OSHA to decide who is an NRTL? I don't know, but *somebody has to do it*, and they do a good job, and many agencies in many countries simply defer to that list rather than try to administer their own list.
**The CE mark is universally faked**, mockingly, on a "catch me if you can" basis by pretty much every manufacturer who keeps their assets outside the reach of EU authorities. The only way to count on that mark is to buy at a competent, trustworthy bricks-and-mortar shop physically inside the EU whose assets are inside the EU. Walk into Wickes and you're fine. With mail-order, all bets are off. It only works if you have a responsbile in-EU seller, such as Wickes.co.uk or Mouser. But many warehouses, such as Amazon's, do drop-shipping for many third-party sellers. **Amazon is not responsible for regulatory compliance for third-party items, even those sold on its site**. So effectively, ordering a third party item on Amazon (or other website where Amazon or a like-minded shipper is the drop-shipper) is the same as direct ordering overseas - there are no consequences for faking the CE mark, so it most likely is faked on a product whose distinctive feature is that it is a bargain.
Pretty much the same for the CCC mark. The manufacturer may be in the jurisdiction of the mark issuer, but the government turns a blind eye if the item is only for export.
I have researched these companies. As an example, I found one who claimed to be a 100-year-old famous German electronics firm which had merged with a four-year-old American LLC. Their USA address was an apartment block in Sunnyvale. Their German address was a *drop box* in downtown Dortmund. Their China address was a massive industrial park. Nothing within the reach of EU authorities. They had bought the corporate shell of the defunct electronics company.
I realize many readers want to believe those oh-so-cheap items on Amazon are legal and safe. I'm sorry to burst your bubble.
Note that even when CE is working as intended, by an EU company with EU assets selling inside EU watched by EU regulators, the CE mark is ***still* a self-certification**, which is weak tea compared to a third party NRTL certification and followup examination. EU used to agree; that is why BSI and TUV were formed in the first place. |
574,040 | It's been a while since I have soldered, so I bought a cheap unbranded soldering iron to use while I re-familiarised myself with the skill. After a few weeks of use, I turned it on just now and it popped with a blue spark. Now it appears to be dead. Did I do something wrong, or is that simply what happens sometimes when you buy a cheap soldering iron? I'm curious to find out what could have happened.
Ironically, just before the magic smoke escaped from the cheap one, I actually bought a new soldering station (Hakko FX-888D) earlier today, as I had a feeling it was time to get better equipment. Spooky. I guess the cheap one got upset and self-destructed.
Out of curiosity, I dismantled the dead soldering iron and took a photo of the board inside.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHrz8.jpg)
With my limited knowledge of electronics, my intuition tells me that an arc occurred between the AC wires. If so, is this bad luck, bad soldering, or user error?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aKqa0.jpg)
The insulation appears burned, but also the core of the wires seems to be a bit frayed. Was this as a result of the arc, or low quality manufacturing?
*Bonus question:* I wasn't touching the button at the time the iron popped, but if I was, would I have received an electric shock? Would it have been life threatening or painful?
*Edit:* I am in the UK (230VAC). | 2021/07/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/574040",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/288848/"
] | That thing was not UL Listed
----------------------------
and should never have been plugged into AC power. It violated the safety codes of lots of countries.
Never plug anything into AC power that isn't UL Listed.\*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rO7LL.jpg)
Buy from reputable vendors in the future. Note that on Amazon, many third party (eBay crud tier) items ship from Amazon warehouses with Prime. Make sure the seller *and* shipper are both Amazon, and you have a chance of getting a better quality product. Amazon seems to follow the "bricks and mortar retail" quality laws on *their own* stuff.
The safer option is to buy from actual bricks and mortar vendors (even if you mail order from them), such as Home Depot, Galco, Grainger, Radio Shack (though watch out these days) etc. Sorry, there's slim pickings these days for electronics bricks and mortar. Mouser and Digi-Key and McMaster-Carr have been reliable IME.
\* Or if you want to get into the gory details...
-------------------------------------------------
Listings from other [NRTL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationally_Recognized_Testing_Laboratory)s are generally acceptable. That is because the other NRTLs duplicate UL's high level of independent third-party scrutiny. Off the top of my head, British BSI, German TUV, a dozen others. UL and the other NRTLs are extremely aggressive about defending their mark, and as a result, UL, CSA, BSI and TUV marks are almost never seen faked.
Who the heck is USA OSHA to decide who is an NRTL? I don't know, but *somebody has to do it*, and they do a good job, and many agencies in many countries simply defer to that list rather than try to administer their own list.
**The CE mark is universally faked**, mockingly, on a "catch me if you can" basis by pretty much every manufacturer who keeps their assets outside the reach of EU authorities. The only way to count on that mark is to buy at a competent, trustworthy bricks-and-mortar shop physically inside the EU whose assets are inside the EU. Walk into Wickes and you're fine. With mail-order, all bets are off. It only works if you have a responsbile in-EU seller, such as Wickes.co.uk or Mouser. But many warehouses, such as Amazon's, do drop-shipping for many third-party sellers. **Amazon is not responsible for regulatory compliance for third-party items, even those sold on its site**. So effectively, ordering a third party item on Amazon (or other website where Amazon or a like-minded shipper is the drop-shipper) is the same as direct ordering overseas - there are no consequences for faking the CE mark, so it most likely is faked on a product whose distinctive feature is that it is a bargain.
Pretty much the same for the CCC mark. The manufacturer may be in the jurisdiction of the mark issuer, but the government turns a blind eye if the item is only for export.
I have researched these companies. As an example, I found one who claimed to be a 100-year-old famous German electronics firm which had merged with a four-year-old American LLC. Their USA address was an apartment block in Sunnyvale. Their German address was a *drop box* in downtown Dortmund. Their China address was a massive industrial park. Nothing within the reach of EU authorities. They had bought the corporate shell of the defunct electronics company.
I realize many readers want to believe those oh-so-cheap items on Amazon are legal and safe. I'm sorry to burst your bubble.
Note that even when CE is working as intended, by an EU company with EU assets selling inside EU watched by EU regulators, the CE mark is ***still* a self-certification**, which is weak tea compared to a third party NRTL certification and followup examination. EU used to agree; that is why BSI and TUV were formed in the first place. | It looks like the mains cord was not fully soldered to the board.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You can see a stray whisker of the ground still. There were probably also loose strands on the current-carying conductors. They probably flexed enough to touch when you were handling the cord, and when you plugged it in, they bridged a rush of current through and vaporized. POP!
I'm kind of surprised that it broke the iron. It shouldn't have. But whatever. I've been using $10 irons all my life and they work okay for me without any circuit board inside them. But that hakko is super great too, so enjoy it. |
741,907 | I have a question about VMware and NIC Teaming. Here is my easy test scenario. I have two VMs. VM1 and VM2. I want to copy 1 big file from VM1 to VM2 because I want to see that I can gain more copy speed than 1Gbit/s. But i can’t get more speed than about 113MB/s… (which is nearly the 1Gbit/s) But I don’t understand why I can’t get more with my configuration.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xudNI.jpg)
For the explanation of my environment I drew a little picture… I thought this would be easier to understand my starting situation:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1oUKk.jpg)
So as you can see I have configured a NIC Teaming with 4x 1Gbit/s so i think that in theory I could gain up to 4Gbit/s speed between two VMs on two different but similar configured ESXi servers. That I will nerver reach the 4Gbit/s in practis is clear for me, but I should be able to reach at least a Value of more than 200MB/s…
The utilization of my vSwitch1 (With the Virtual Machine Port Group named “NIC”) isn’t really not high. So where is the Problem?
Thank you for your Thoughts and your help! Maybe i just made a configuration misstake or have a missunderstanding about the NIC Teaming...
EDIT:
If it matters: VM1 is a Windows 8.1 VM / VM2 is a Windows Server 2012R2 | 2015/12/09 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/741907",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/243929/"
] | A NIC team does NOT provide any more bandwidth. A single network connection (like the one between your 2 VM's) will never use more than one of the possible NIC's in the team. The point of a NIC team is to balance **many** connections across the available NIC's.
With your chosen load balancing method (Route based on the originating virtual switch port ID) each VM will **always** use the same **single** physical NIC. From <http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/virtual_networking_concepts.pdf>
>
> **Route based on the originating virtual switch port ID** — Choose an
> uplink based on the virtual port where the traffic entered the virtual
> switch. This is the default configuration and the one most commonly
> deployed. When you use this setting, traffic from a given virtual
> Ethernet adapter is consistently sent to the same physical adapter
> unless there is a failover to another adapter in the NIC team.
>
>
>
In this case even breaking up your file transfer into multiple, smaller ones will not speed anything up, as you are still limited to the same, single NIC. | While NIC Teaming can provide additional bandwidth, it's greatest benefit is fault tolerance to your setup. There is still an aggregate bandwidth increase, but as far as I know with most equipment, you will not be able to get greater than 1gbps for a ***single*** transfer even if you have 4 teamed 1gbps connections. While you couldn't get more than 1gbps for a ***single*** file, you would be able to get up to 1gbps for ***four*** file transfers simultaneously (in a sinle direction).
To get more than 1gbps in your transfers you'd need to break up your files or getting a higher bandwidth media (such as 10gbps). |
94,349 | According to Catholicism, an act of heresy is a mortal sin.
>
> "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ...
>
>
>
[Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM)
In particular, dogmatic statements end with warnings that not accepting the dogma results in falling away from the Catholic faith. For example,
>
> Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
>
>
>
[Munificentissimus Deus #45](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html)
Why is this the case? Why do matters of doctrine result in loss of salvation? | 2023/01/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94349",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/29846/"
] | [Heresy is a species of unbelief](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS011.html#SSQ11A1THEP1), [which is a sin](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS010.html#SSQ10A1THEP1) against the theological virtue of faith, [which resides in the intellect](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS004.html#SSQ4A2THEP1).
St. Thomas Aquinas, discussing whether unbelief is the greatest sin, says ([*Summa Theologica* II-II q. 10 a. 3](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS010.html#SSQ10A3THEP1) co.):
>
> Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above ([I-II q. 71 a. 6](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS071.html#FSQ71A6THEP1); [I-II q. 73 a. 3](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS073.html#FSQ73A3THEP1)). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.
>
>
>
Commenting on [Hebrews 11:6](https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=65&ch=11&l=6-#x),
>
> But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him.
>
>
>
[St. Thomas writes](https://aquinas.cc/la/en/%7EHeb.C11.L2.n575.2):
>
> no one can please God without coming to him: *draw near to God and he will draw near to you* ([Jas 4:8](https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=66&ch=4&l=8-#x)); *draw near to him and be enlightened* ([Ps 34:6](https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=21&ch=33&l=6-#x)). But no one draws near to God except by faith, because faith is a light of the intellect. Therefore, no one can please God except by faith. But anyone drawing near by faith must believe the Lord.
>
>
> | The reason is in the definition of heresy. As you stated
>
> "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same"
>
>
>
If some truth must be believed with divine and catholic faith, then one who refuses to affirm that truth cannot be said to have divine and catholic faith. If that one does not have divine and catholic faith, then he is spiritually dead, since he is ultimately refusing to believe what God has revealed. Only mortal sin causes spiritual death.
This has to be an obstinate denial, because mortal sin is something you can only do "on purpose," so to speak. If you have not been corrected by anyone in your heresy (if you don't know it's heresy), you have a genuine invincible ignorance, so you don't mortally sin. Once someone gives you an explanation and presents the correct doctrine and shows what the Church teaches, if you go on denying the truth after this, you are sinning. |
94,349 | According to Catholicism, an act of heresy is a mortal sin.
>
> "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ...
>
>
>
[Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM)
In particular, dogmatic statements end with warnings that not accepting the dogma results in falling away from the Catholic faith. For example,
>
> Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
>
>
>
[Munificentissimus Deus #45](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html)
Why is this the case? Why do matters of doctrine result in loss of salvation? | 2023/01/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94349",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/29846/"
] | [Heresy is a species of unbelief](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS011.html#SSQ11A1THEP1), [which is a sin](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS010.html#SSQ10A1THEP1) against the theological virtue of faith, [which resides in the intellect](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS004.html#SSQ4A2THEP1).
St. Thomas Aquinas, discussing whether unbelief is the greatest sin, says ([*Summa Theologica* II-II q. 10 a. 3](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS010.html#SSQ10A3THEP1) co.):
>
> Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above ([I-II q. 71 a. 6](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS071.html#FSQ71A6THEP1); [I-II q. 73 a. 3](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS073.html#FSQ73A3THEP1)). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.
>
>
>
Commenting on [Hebrews 11:6](https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=65&ch=11&l=6-#x),
>
> But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him.
>
>
>
[St. Thomas writes](https://aquinas.cc/la/en/%7EHeb.C11.L2.n575.2):
>
> no one can please God without coming to him: *draw near to God and he will draw near to you* ([Jas 4:8](https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=66&ch=4&l=8-#x)); *draw near to him and be enlightened* ([Ps 34:6](https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=21&ch=33&l=6-#x)). But no one draws near to God except by faith, because faith is a light of the intellect. Therefore, no one can please God except by faith. But anyone drawing near by faith must believe the Lord.
>
>
> | **In Catholicism, why is heresy a mortal sin?**
According to the Catholic Church the sin of heresy is a mortal sin because it is destructive to the virtue of Christian faith and it’s revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.
It can at times seem complicated.
>
> [**Gravity of the sin of heresy**](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_IV)
>
>
> Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief (*infidelitas*) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity." And he adds: "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.
>
>
>
Catholic Culture explains it in it’s article on [(Heresy, Schism and Apostasy)](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3444) in a way that may more easily be understood.
>
> The ***Catechism of the Catholic Church*** defines these three sins against the faith in this way:
>
>
>
> >
> > 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council, today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
>
>
> The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian faith.
>
>
> Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. **As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.**
>
>
> |
94,349 | According to Catholicism, an act of heresy is a mortal sin.
>
> "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ...
>
>
>
[Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM)
In particular, dogmatic statements end with warnings that not accepting the dogma results in falling away from the Catholic faith. For example,
>
> Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
>
>
>
[Munificentissimus Deus #45](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html)
Why is this the case? Why do matters of doctrine result in loss of salvation? | 2023/01/31 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94349",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/29846/"
] | **In Catholicism, why is heresy a mortal sin?**
According to the Catholic Church the sin of heresy is a mortal sin because it is destructive to the virtue of Christian faith and it’s revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.
It can at times seem complicated.
>
> [**Gravity of the sin of heresy**](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_IV)
>
>
> Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief (*infidelitas*) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity." And he adds: "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.
>
>
>
Catholic Culture explains it in it’s article on [(Heresy, Schism and Apostasy)](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3444) in a way that may more easily be understood.
>
> The ***Catechism of the Catholic Church*** defines these three sins against the faith in this way:
>
>
>
> >
> > 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council, today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
>
>
> The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian faith.
>
>
> Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. **As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.**
>
>
> | The reason is in the definition of heresy. As you stated
>
> "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same"
>
>
>
If some truth must be believed with divine and catholic faith, then one who refuses to affirm that truth cannot be said to have divine and catholic faith. If that one does not have divine and catholic faith, then he is spiritually dead, since he is ultimately refusing to believe what God has revealed. Only mortal sin causes spiritual death.
This has to be an obstinate denial, because mortal sin is something you can only do "on purpose," so to speak. If you have not been corrected by anyone in your heresy (if you don't know it's heresy), you have a genuine invincible ignorance, so you don't mortally sin. Once someone gives you an explanation and presents the correct doctrine and shows what the Church teaches, if you go on denying the truth after this, you are sinning. |
69,030 | According to the [this answer](https://www.answers.com/boating/What_do_red_buoy%27s_and_green_buoy%27s_mean_when_boating), in the US buoys on the right are red when returning to a harbour, with green on the left. This is in contrast to most of the rest of the world.
What caused this split in the conventions? | 2022/05/18 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/69030",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/37663/"
] | There used to be very many more buoyage systems in use around the world which resulted in confusion and danger. An agreement to unify the system was agreed at Geneva in 1936 by the League of Nations, but the collapse of the League and World War II scuppered that. In 1965 IALA (the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities) created a Technical Committee to work out a solution.
In 1976 IALA region A rules were accepted which combined the lateral marks (red can to port, green cone to starboard when proceeding upriver) and the cardinal marks (N, S, E and W) and this was accepted throughout most of Africa, Australia and Eurasia except where there was a predominantly US influence (Japan, Korea etc).
The US (principally) wished to preserve its existing investment in buoyage. Changing would be expensive and a major undertaking covering all the coasts and rivers. Retraining of both commercial and amateur sailors would be required resulting in costs and uncertainties during the changeover. Therefore IALA system B rules were incorporated into the international rules in 1980. Shapes are common to both systems, as are the cardinal marks, isolated danger, safe water, special and most recently new danger. However in IALA region B the colours for the lateral marks are reversed: green can to port, red cone to starboard when proceeding upriver.
A good summary is available at: [IALA: Maritime Buoyage System (Wayback machine)](https://web.archive.org/web/20061008142707/http://www.iala-aism.org/web/pages/publications/docpdf/mbsenpdf/MBS1to3.pdf) and also in most books on navigation published outside of the US after 1980. From my reading, some US books only concentrate on US waters and fail to mention IALA A, and also some include US internal conventions without always being completely clear about their extent. | [@Martin's existing answer](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/69030/why-does-the-us-use-the-opposite-convention-to-the-rest-of-the-world-for-colour/69031#69031) is good, but I'd like to emphasize a point behind his point: Basically, the reason that standards consolidation has not gone further is because it is more trouble to change it than to live with it.
As has been noted, the world started out with few or no standards, each harbor doing its own thing. As trade increased, there was value seen in having a standard and, sporadically, areas coalesced to a shared standard -- but not necessarily to the *same* standard each time! (This is a good example of a symmetry-breaking phase transition.) In particular, countries tended to settle on a single standard for all their own harbors.
As the size of a region covered by a standard increased, the *cost* of changing to another standard increased while the *value* of changing decreased. (The larger a region, the more of its trade comes from elsewhere within the region and gains nothing from adopting a different standard.)
So, in general, smaller standardized regions tended to merge to larger (or more powerful) regions, often adhering to the standards of their larger trading partners, while larger standardized regions tended to stay as they were.
The rules for air travel came to a different result because of different conditions. Why *didn't* this balkanization happen with air travel? Why does nearly the whole world follow one very standardized set of flying rules? Three reasons: First, air came in much later and setting an international standard had become commonplace. Second, after WWII, just as international air travel was really taking off, the US briefly dominated aviation and most countries found it easier to adopt the US system right from the start.
Third (and most important), the tempo of decision-making in the air is roughly 100 times faster than on a ship. A ship's master (i.e. the person in charge of the vessel at that time) can afford the time to look up the rules for an approaching harbor and even to double-check the rulebook when they see a buoy. A pilot approaching an airport and landing is busy and has no time at all to remember arbitrary local rules -- it's hard enough dealing with local traffic patterns which *must* be different in each locality. (This is why ATC uses feet for elevation -- meters might be tidier, but experience tells us that changing over would, for a time, add enough confusion and extra workload that would without a doubt result in multiple collisions and crashes.)
For ships, the cost of multiple standards is low. For planes it is not.
The bottom line is economics: The world has now reached a point at sea where the cost of retaining several standards is lower than the value gained from switching to a single standard. |
32,934 | I have read/played a couple of "Choose your own adventure"-style book and am interested in the process of creating one.
**Where can I find (preferrably free) online resources, such as *How-To-Write* or styleguide articles and blogs, about writing a "Choose your own adventure"-style books?**
The main reason for asking specifically about a this type of book is that I am having problems with the idea of creating a [branched storyline](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32467/are-there-tools-that-can-aid-an-author-in-writing-a-branching-storyline) and would like to see what common ways are for creating such a story. I have asked about this on a similar question about [online resources for a visual novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32808/where-can-i-find-online-resources-about-writing-a-visual-novel), but there are a few things that are quite different when thinking about "Choose your own adventure" books.
For example I have never seen such a book that was not written in the First Person. I think that may be due to the fact that you want your *reader* feel like a *player* that has to decide for themselves and thereby you are making the story feel more *alive* for them - it's *their adventure after all*. But I would love to see whether there are any sort of studies or counterexamples for this and what the recommendations are.
There is also the question about how to format the transition whenever the reader has to decide what *he wants to do*. Do you put it in a little box on the side where? Do you make each block as a visible block? Are there recommendations such as "You should preferrably use complete pages/half a page for each block"?
Furthermore I have sometimes seen that the different paths don't seem to be in any particular order. It looked like the authors first wrote the book with a handful of different endings and then decided to obfuscate everything by letting blocks switch place - which makes it more interesting because you never know when you are getting close to *The End*. Again, I am looking for resources that talk about preferred techniques and possibly tools that may assist with this.
Discussions about the length may be interesting, too, as most of these books I have seen are relatively short for a book. But then again, it's quite the work to not only write the story as it plays out in your head, but to give the reader some agency, formatting the book the correct way, coming up with multiple endings, ... The resources would preferrably talk about the average length of such books compared to novels.
I have seen this question: [I want to write a Choose Your Own Adventure styled e-book, what's a good approach?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/i-want-to-write-a-choose-your-own-adventure-styled-e-book-whats-a-good-approac), but it focuses on writing a *technical guide* that is displayed as a *digital document* that allows readers to use for example *hyperlinks* to get from point A to point C to point B, whereas I am looking for different genres such as *mystery, fantasy, ...* in a *printed form* where the reader *turns pages as instructed (or not, depending on your reader)* and specifically about online resources, such as discussion forums, guides and tools, that would help with the process of creating such a book. | 2018/02/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/32934",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23159/"
] | The original books always used the second person 'you'. (I still have one on my book shelf.) Other variations may use the first person.
There are many variations on the theme. For example, some require you to keep track of health, supplies, etc. whereas with others all you do is turn the pages. Some require dice. Others don't. I even played one where you had to keep notes to solve the mystery at the end.
There are several variations on this theme that are phone or computer apps. The guidelines for writing them (which are provided in some cases) can be very illuminating. For example, [this blog](https://www.choiceofgames.com/2011/07/by-the-numbers-how-to-write-a-long-interactive-novel-that-doesnt-suck/) talks about choices and how the average story in a 110 page book is just seven pages long.
There isn't one way to write a choice story and there isn't one format. If you are going to publish on paper, you will write something that is quite different to something that is published on a web page. | It's worth noting that "[Choose Your Own Adventure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Your_Own_Adventure)" is a specific brand of children's novelty "gamebooks," and that nearly all books written in this format are released under that brand. It's not --at least to my knowledge --a viable sub-genre outside the brand. So if you want to write a book just like this, your best bet is probably to contact them directly.
I've personally only ever seen one book in this format outside the brand, which was Neil Patrick Harris' autobiography (which, in my opinion, was not a successful experiment).
The upshot is that if you are wanting to do a different kind of book in this general format --for instance, a serious novel for adults --it's likely you'll be charting your own territory. It's worth noting, however, that there is one medium that thrives on branched storylines --writing for video-games. So if this is something you are wanting to pursue, looking into video game writing might be a good resource. |
32,934 | I have read/played a couple of "Choose your own adventure"-style book and am interested in the process of creating one.
**Where can I find (preferrably free) online resources, such as *How-To-Write* or styleguide articles and blogs, about writing a "Choose your own adventure"-style books?**
The main reason for asking specifically about a this type of book is that I am having problems with the idea of creating a [branched storyline](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32467/are-there-tools-that-can-aid-an-author-in-writing-a-branching-storyline) and would like to see what common ways are for creating such a story. I have asked about this on a similar question about [online resources for a visual novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32808/where-can-i-find-online-resources-about-writing-a-visual-novel), but there are a few things that are quite different when thinking about "Choose your own adventure" books.
For example I have never seen such a book that was not written in the First Person. I think that may be due to the fact that you want your *reader* feel like a *player* that has to decide for themselves and thereby you are making the story feel more *alive* for them - it's *their adventure after all*. But I would love to see whether there are any sort of studies or counterexamples for this and what the recommendations are.
There is also the question about how to format the transition whenever the reader has to decide what *he wants to do*. Do you put it in a little box on the side where? Do you make each block as a visible block? Are there recommendations such as "You should preferrably use complete pages/half a page for each block"?
Furthermore I have sometimes seen that the different paths don't seem to be in any particular order. It looked like the authors first wrote the book with a handful of different endings and then decided to obfuscate everything by letting blocks switch place - which makes it more interesting because you never know when you are getting close to *The End*. Again, I am looking for resources that talk about preferred techniques and possibly tools that may assist with this.
Discussions about the length may be interesting, too, as most of these books I have seen are relatively short for a book. But then again, it's quite the work to not only write the story as it plays out in your head, but to give the reader some agency, formatting the book the correct way, coming up with multiple endings, ... The resources would preferrably talk about the average length of such books compared to novels.
I have seen this question: [I want to write a Choose Your Own Adventure styled e-book, what's a good approach?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/i-want-to-write-a-choose-your-own-adventure-styled-e-book-whats-a-good-approac), but it focuses on writing a *technical guide* that is displayed as a *digital document* that allows readers to use for example *hyperlinks* to get from point A to point C to point B, whereas I am looking for different genres such as *mystery, fantasy, ...* in a *printed form* where the reader *turns pages as instructed (or not, depending on your reader)* and specifically about online resources, such as discussion forums, guides and tools, that would help with the process of creating such a book. | 2018/02/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/32934",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23159/"
] | The blogger **These Heterogenous Tasks** has been writing his analysis on specific **CYOA** books, and general observations about their history, trends, and common structure.
<https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/category/cyoa/>
One article in particular is often cited by other writers:
[**Standard Patterns in Choice Based Games**](https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/standard-patterns-in-choice-based-games/).
I'll try to summarize.
He starts with a basic branching narrative based on the CYOA book "Cave of Time". With one exception, all endings occur on the 5th page, and only 3 are "bad" (marked in red). Read-throughs are very short and each choice branches to a different outcome with no rejoining, so the intent is to re-read the book many times.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rsC7M.png)
---
The next generalized structure is called a *Gauntlet*, and has only one "true" path through the story. All other choices lead to sudden death except 2 which send the reader back to try again. The single narrative is longer, but every wrong choice leads to death so there is much backtracking. The reader will likely have seen every option before reaching the good ending, and there is no reason to reread.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vZ5At.png)
---
Then he shows *Branch and Bottleneck* structure which is likely to use state-tracking to carry choices "across" the bottleneck sections of the story. He explains this structure is designed for character growth, and the "passage of time" where narrative milestones are inevitable. The ending may be decided on choices made much earlier in the story when the consequences were unforeseeable.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5KHYu.png)
---
The next structure represents a *Quest* where the reader travels to geographic locations and performs adventure tasks before moving to another part of the quest narrative in another location.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oYhoZ.png)
---
Expanding on the geolocation idea, the next structure is called an *Open Map* as the reader is free to move to any node by traveling. This is the non-linear structure of the old *text adventure* computer games, but has parallels in RPG.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JnjwB.png)
---
Elsewhere on the blog in various articles he uses the same graphics to analyze more complex works, including RPG "gamebooks" that used a character sheet for state tracking: <https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/cyoa-structures-cyo-rpg/>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/x26Ks.gif) | It's worth noting that "[Choose Your Own Adventure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Your_Own_Adventure)" is a specific brand of children's novelty "gamebooks," and that nearly all books written in this format are released under that brand. It's not --at least to my knowledge --a viable sub-genre outside the brand. So if you want to write a book just like this, your best bet is probably to contact them directly.
I've personally only ever seen one book in this format outside the brand, which was Neil Patrick Harris' autobiography (which, in my opinion, was not a successful experiment).
The upshot is that if you are wanting to do a different kind of book in this general format --for instance, a serious novel for adults --it's likely you'll be charting your own territory. It's worth noting, however, that there is one medium that thrives on branched storylines --writing for video-games. So if this is something you are wanting to pursue, looking into video game writing might be a good resource. |
32,934 | I have read/played a couple of "Choose your own adventure"-style book and am interested in the process of creating one.
**Where can I find (preferrably free) online resources, such as *How-To-Write* or styleguide articles and blogs, about writing a "Choose your own adventure"-style books?**
The main reason for asking specifically about a this type of book is that I am having problems with the idea of creating a [branched storyline](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32467/are-there-tools-that-can-aid-an-author-in-writing-a-branching-storyline) and would like to see what common ways are for creating such a story. I have asked about this on a similar question about [online resources for a visual novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32808/where-can-i-find-online-resources-about-writing-a-visual-novel), but there are a few things that are quite different when thinking about "Choose your own adventure" books.
For example I have never seen such a book that was not written in the First Person. I think that may be due to the fact that you want your *reader* feel like a *player* that has to decide for themselves and thereby you are making the story feel more *alive* for them - it's *their adventure after all*. But I would love to see whether there are any sort of studies or counterexamples for this and what the recommendations are.
There is also the question about how to format the transition whenever the reader has to decide what *he wants to do*. Do you put it in a little box on the side where? Do you make each block as a visible block? Are there recommendations such as "You should preferrably use complete pages/half a page for each block"?
Furthermore I have sometimes seen that the different paths don't seem to be in any particular order. It looked like the authors first wrote the book with a handful of different endings and then decided to obfuscate everything by letting blocks switch place - which makes it more interesting because you never know when you are getting close to *The End*. Again, I am looking for resources that talk about preferred techniques and possibly tools that may assist with this.
Discussions about the length may be interesting, too, as most of these books I have seen are relatively short for a book. But then again, it's quite the work to not only write the story as it plays out in your head, but to give the reader some agency, formatting the book the correct way, coming up with multiple endings, ... The resources would preferrably talk about the average length of such books compared to novels.
I have seen this question: [I want to write a Choose Your Own Adventure styled e-book, what's a good approach?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/i-want-to-write-a-choose-your-own-adventure-styled-e-book-whats-a-good-approac), but it focuses on writing a *technical guide* that is displayed as a *digital document* that allows readers to use for example *hyperlinks* to get from point A to point C to point B, whereas I am looking for different genres such as *mystery, fantasy, ...* in a *printed form* where the reader *turns pages as instructed (or not, depending on your reader)* and specifically about online resources, such as discussion forums, guides and tools, that would help with the process of creating such a book. | 2018/02/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/32934",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23159/"
] | The original books always used the second person 'you'. (I still have one on my book shelf.) Other variations may use the first person.
There are many variations on the theme. For example, some require you to keep track of health, supplies, etc. whereas with others all you do is turn the pages. Some require dice. Others don't. I even played one where you had to keep notes to solve the mystery at the end.
There are several variations on this theme that are phone or computer apps. The guidelines for writing them (which are provided in some cases) can be very illuminating. For example, [this blog](https://www.choiceofgames.com/2011/07/by-the-numbers-how-to-write-a-long-interactive-novel-that-doesnt-suck/) talks about choices and how the average story in a 110 page book is just seven pages long.
There isn't one way to write a choice story and there isn't one format. If you are going to publish on paper, you will write something that is quite different to something that is published on a web page. | FYI, there is a gaming company called [Choice of Games](https://www.choiceofgames.com/). They have quite a number of these CYOA games available on the web and for tablets, etc. The really useful part is that they have a tool that is free for authors to use to create their own stories. This may or may not be useful for your purposes, but I'm betting they have information on how to structure the story, etc. And if you decide to create a story using their tool, they host the game and you may get a few bucks. I don't have any more info than that, just trying to remember what I read on their site a while back. |
32,934 | I have read/played a couple of "Choose your own adventure"-style book and am interested in the process of creating one.
**Where can I find (preferrably free) online resources, such as *How-To-Write* or styleguide articles and blogs, about writing a "Choose your own adventure"-style books?**
The main reason for asking specifically about a this type of book is that I am having problems with the idea of creating a [branched storyline](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32467/are-there-tools-that-can-aid-an-author-in-writing-a-branching-storyline) and would like to see what common ways are for creating such a story. I have asked about this on a similar question about [online resources for a visual novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32808/where-can-i-find-online-resources-about-writing-a-visual-novel), but there are a few things that are quite different when thinking about "Choose your own adventure" books.
For example I have never seen such a book that was not written in the First Person. I think that may be due to the fact that you want your *reader* feel like a *player* that has to decide for themselves and thereby you are making the story feel more *alive* for them - it's *their adventure after all*. But I would love to see whether there are any sort of studies or counterexamples for this and what the recommendations are.
There is also the question about how to format the transition whenever the reader has to decide what *he wants to do*. Do you put it in a little box on the side where? Do you make each block as a visible block? Are there recommendations such as "You should preferrably use complete pages/half a page for each block"?
Furthermore I have sometimes seen that the different paths don't seem to be in any particular order. It looked like the authors first wrote the book with a handful of different endings and then decided to obfuscate everything by letting blocks switch place - which makes it more interesting because you never know when you are getting close to *The End*. Again, I am looking for resources that talk about preferred techniques and possibly tools that may assist with this.
Discussions about the length may be interesting, too, as most of these books I have seen are relatively short for a book. But then again, it's quite the work to not only write the story as it plays out in your head, but to give the reader some agency, formatting the book the correct way, coming up with multiple endings, ... The resources would preferrably talk about the average length of such books compared to novels.
I have seen this question: [I want to write a Choose Your Own Adventure styled e-book, what's a good approach?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/i-want-to-write-a-choose-your-own-adventure-styled-e-book-whats-a-good-approac), but it focuses on writing a *technical guide* that is displayed as a *digital document* that allows readers to use for example *hyperlinks* to get from point A to point C to point B, whereas I am looking for different genres such as *mystery, fantasy, ...* in a *printed form* where the reader *turns pages as instructed (or not, depending on your reader)* and specifically about online resources, such as discussion forums, guides and tools, that would help with the process of creating such a book. | 2018/02/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/32934",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23159/"
] | The blogger **These Heterogenous Tasks** has been writing his analysis on specific **CYOA** books, and general observations about their history, trends, and common structure.
<https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/category/cyoa/>
One article in particular is often cited by other writers:
[**Standard Patterns in Choice Based Games**](https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/standard-patterns-in-choice-based-games/).
I'll try to summarize.
He starts with a basic branching narrative based on the CYOA book "Cave of Time". With one exception, all endings occur on the 5th page, and only 3 are "bad" (marked in red). Read-throughs are very short and each choice branches to a different outcome with no rejoining, so the intent is to re-read the book many times.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rsC7M.png)
---
The next generalized structure is called a *Gauntlet*, and has only one "true" path through the story. All other choices lead to sudden death except 2 which send the reader back to try again. The single narrative is longer, but every wrong choice leads to death so there is much backtracking. The reader will likely have seen every option before reaching the good ending, and there is no reason to reread.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vZ5At.png)
---
Then he shows *Branch and Bottleneck* structure which is likely to use state-tracking to carry choices "across" the bottleneck sections of the story. He explains this structure is designed for character growth, and the "passage of time" where narrative milestones are inevitable. The ending may be decided on choices made much earlier in the story when the consequences were unforeseeable.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5KHYu.png)
---
The next structure represents a *Quest* where the reader travels to geographic locations and performs adventure tasks before moving to another part of the quest narrative in another location.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oYhoZ.png)
---
Expanding on the geolocation idea, the next structure is called an *Open Map* as the reader is free to move to any node by traveling. This is the non-linear structure of the old *text adventure* computer games, but has parallels in RPG.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JnjwB.png)
---
Elsewhere on the blog in various articles he uses the same graphics to analyze more complex works, including RPG "gamebooks" that used a character sheet for state tracking: <https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/cyoa-structures-cyo-rpg/>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/x26Ks.gif) | FYI, there is a gaming company called [Choice of Games](https://www.choiceofgames.com/). They have quite a number of these CYOA games available on the web and for tablets, etc. The really useful part is that they have a tool that is free for authors to use to create their own stories. This may or may not be useful for your purposes, but I'm betting they have information on how to structure the story, etc. And if you decide to create a story using their tool, they host the game and you may get a few bucks. I don't have any more info than that, just trying to remember what I read on their site a while back. |
31,841 | I'm trying to mount Luxos IQ2 onto the fork crown. There isn't quite enough space between the back of the light and front brake cable and I was wondering if I could add a spacer between IQ2 metal bracket and the fork crown. Or would it weaken the stability of the mount?
 | 2015/07/09 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/31841",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/20389/"
] | There is not that much load on the light - just add spacers or bend the mount as @super proposed, you'll be fine. | The only problem that you might run into with a spacer is that you'd loose the fit on the curve of the fork, so the light might be little more likely to flop to the side. I would think that a rubber or leather washer would handle that.
You don't need anything as fancy as a purpose built part. Your local hardware store will most likely have box upon box of little bits of odd hardware and among them you can find spacers in various lengths, along with longer bolts if you need them. You might want to get a couple of metal washers as well to provide a solid clamping surface. Or buy the fancy mount…
If I can offer advice where I wasn't asked, you might want to consider mounting the light higher or farther forward. I really don't like the shadow of the front tire that mine casts when it is mounted at the fork crown. |
81,877 | My Schengen Visa expires on 10th January 2017. It is an 80 days visa for family visit purpose. Now my return journey from Dusseldorf to Mumbai is via Zurich. I am departing Dusseldorf on 10th January 2017 at 20:30 Hrs (CET). Reaching Zurich on 21:30 Hrs (CET). My flight for Mumbai from Zurich is the next day (11th January 2017) morning 9:45 Hrs (CET).
My question is: Doesn't it look like I am overstaying my visa period? But is it really a problem as I am returning back to the country I am a passport holder of (India)? | 2016/11/02 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/81877",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/53282/"
] | As correctly pointed out by @pnuts, yes it is a problem.
I see two ways out:
1. Contact the consulate (or the place that issued your visa) and ask for a correction of the dates on your visa. If you handed in the itinerary with your application they could/should have noticed that.
2. ZRH has an airside transit hotel. Try to have your luggage checked through from DUS to Mumbai and enter the extra-Schengen zone of ZRH airport before midnight (before 10:30 p.m. when security closes to be precise!) and stay in the transit hotel. (Given your flight times there's not much leeway for delays here!)
I have written more about doing this the other way round in [Arriving in Zurich the night before Schengen visa validity begins](https://travel.stackexchange.com/q/72111/32134) and there you find contact details for the hotel. Absolutely check with them (they are responsive) whether you can enter the area the night before with a boarding pass for the next day, as that might foil this option.
Or simply change your flight dates as pointed out by @AliAwan and others. On the long run the cost is much lower than having an overstay in your history for future applications. | >
> Doesn't it look like I am overstaying my visa period?
>
>
>
Yes.
>
> But is it really a problem as I am returning back to the country I am a passport holder of (India)?
>
>
>
Yes. |
81,877 | My Schengen Visa expires on 10th January 2017. It is an 80 days visa for family visit purpose. Now my return journey from Dusseldorf to Mumbai is via Zurich. I am departing Dusseldorf on 10th January 2017 at 20:30 Hrs (CET). Reaching Zurich on 21:30 Hrs (CET). My flight for Mumbai from Zurich is the next day (11th January 2017) morning 9:45 Hrs (CET).
My question is: Doesn't it look like I am overstaying my visa period? But is it really a problem as I am returning back to the country I am a passport holder of (India)? | 2016/11/02 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/81877",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/53282/"
] | As correctly pointed out by @pnuts, yes it is a problem.
I see two ways out:
1. Contact the consulate (or the place that issued your visa) and ask for a correction of the dates on your visa. If you handed in the itinerary with your application they could/should have noticed that.
2. ZRH has an airside transit hotel. Try to have your luggage checked through from DUS to Mumbai and enter the extra-Schengen zone of ZRH airport before midnight (before 10:30 p.m. when security closes to be precise!) and stay in the transit hotel. (Given your flight times there's not much leeway for delays here!)
I have written more about doing this the other way round in [Arriving in Zurich the night before Schengen visa validity begins](https://travel.stackexchange.com/q/72111/32134) and there you find contact details for the hotel. Absolutely check with them (they are responsive) whether you can enter the area the night before with a boarding pass for the next day, as that might foil this option.
Or simply change your flight dates as pointed out by @AliAwan and others. On the long run the cost is much lower than having an overstay in your history for future applications. | >
> Yes, you are overstaying your Schengen visa for 1 day.
>
>
>
Although you are finishing your Schengen stay in Dusseldorf , but you exit from Zurich next day (11 January 2017) which is actually your last stop in Schengen Zone.
There could be serious consequences for your next Schengen visa , also you are staying 80 days there and traveling back on 11 January 2017 . There is plenty of time now to change your flight date before the visa expiration date.
Because you must have mentioned in your itinerary to Schengen consulate/embassy that you last date of departure is 10 January 2017, it is always feasible to exit before expiration date.
**Options** :
1 Either change your travel date before 10 January 2017
2 Or contact embassy/consulate to extend visa for another day. |
38,812 | I'm a software developer working with hardware devices that are deployed on the field. Every now and then, I would need to update the hardware's firmware (upgrades, patches, etc)
I'm thinking of now, implementing a secure channel to upgrade this firmware, and for some checking to be performed by the hardware before accepting this firmware.
I have a basic understanding on key exchange protocols, encryption ciphers, etc, and that's about it. I do not necesarily know how to apply them in the real world, so I was hoping I could get some help here.
The firmware upgrade would be performed through a custom software that runs on the PC written by me, over TCP/IP.
My main goals are
1. prevent the firmware from being leaked to public as it contains our IP.
2. prevent the hardware from running other firmwares other than firmware released by me.
What I do know, on a high level point of view is
1. To encrypt (with a pre defined shared secret key) the firmware on the PC software, and send it over ot the firmware.
2. Once the firmware receives this encrypted data, it will decrypt it with the pre defined shared secret key, and performs the upgrade
My questions are:
1. Is defining a shared secret key secure in this aspect?
2. Is there a "bread n butter" solution to achieve my requirements? | 2013/07/09 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38812",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | With respect to your goals you need:
1. Data confidentiality->Encryption. The question is public one or secret one. I guess you need a secret one in which only the owner of the key can encrypt and decrypt. You don't want anyone to encrypt firmware.
2. That implies an integrity mechanism. If you use a secret key scheme then you want either an authenticated block cipher or a secure combination of MAC (message authentication code) and encryption. Encrypt-then-Mac approach tends to be the more secure for various reasons.
For your questions:
1. Secret key sharing is secure as long as the involved parties are trusted and as @Ricky mentioned if you can't define different key per device.
2. You deploy the secret key at your hardware devices and the server and then you use that with AES for encryption. For authentication unless you use an appropriate cipher that combines both you **MUST** use different keys for the MAC authentication. | You're going to need more than application and protocol security. You'll also need robust hardware security.
It's easy to monitor the data flowing to and from the memory chips, or to read the content of a flash chip. Instructions stored in a CPU's flash memory can be retrieved through the JTAG port. Other side channel attacks include differential power analysis, timing analysis, RF emissions, and even ion-beam microscopic examination of the chips. Defending against all of these (and more) has to be considered and weighed against the value of the IP you're trying to protect.
The Payment Card Industry has created a good [set of standards](https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/documents.php?association=PTS) on defending PIN pads against reverse engineering. You might want to look to them.
It's becoming more and more common to see people reverse engineering hardware to recover the secrets they contain. For an example of someone willing to dig deep, check out [this series of articles on reverse engineering](http://cybergibbons.com/category/alarms-2/friedland-response-reverse-engineering/) the RF protocol for a wireless burglar alarm. |
38,812 | I'm a software developer working with hardware devices that are deployed on the field. Every now and then, I would need to update the hardware's firmware (upgrades, patches, etc)
I'm thinking of now, implementing a secure channel to upgrade this firmware, and for some checking to be performed by the hardware before accepting this firmware.
I have a basic understanding on key exchange protocols, encryption ciphers, etc, and that's about it. I do not necesarily know how to apply them in the real world, so I was hoping I could get some help here.
The firmware upgrade would be performed through a custom software that runs on the PC written by me, over TCP/IP.
My main goals are
1. prevent the firmware from being leaked to public as it contains our IP.
2. prevent the hardware from running other firmwares other than firmware released by me.
What I do know, on a high level point of view is
1. To encrypt (with a pre defined shared secret key) the firmware on the PC software, and send it over ot the firmware.
2. Once the firmware receives this encrypted data, it will decrypt it with the pre defined shared secret key, and performs the upgrade
My questions are:
1. Is defining a shared secret key secure in this aspect?
2. Is there a "bread n butter" solution to achieve my requirements? | 2013/07/09 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38812",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | With respect to your goals you need:
1. Data confidentiality->Encryption. The question is public one or secret one. I guess you need a secret one in which only the owner of the key can encrypt and decrypt. You don't want anyone to encrypt firmware.
2. That implies an integrity mechanism. If you use a secret key scheme then you want either an authenticated block cipher or a secure combination of MAC (message authentication code) and encryption. Encrypt-then-Mac approach tends to be the more secure for various reasons.
For your questions:
1. Secret key sharing is secure as long as the involved parties are trusted and as @Ricky mentioned if you can't define different key per device.
2. You deploy the secret key at your hardware devices and the server and then you use that with AES for encryption. For authentication unless you use an appropriate cipher that combines both you **MUST** use different keys for the MAC authentication. | Why reinvent the wheel? Use rsync+ssh, scp, or sftp. |
38,812 | I'm a software developer working with hardware devices that are deployed on the field. Every now and then, I would need to update the hardware's firmware (upgrades, patches, etc)
I'm thinking of now, implementing a secure channel to upgrade this firmware, and for some checking to be performed by the hardware before accepting this firmware.
I have a basic understanding on key exchange protocols, encryption ciphers, etc, and that's about it. I do not necesarily know how to apply them in the real world, so I was hoping I could get some help here.
The firmware upgrade would be performed through a custom software that runs on the PC written by me, over TCP/IP.
My main goals are
1. prevent the firmware from being leaked to public as it contains our IP.
2. prevent the hardware from running other firmwares other than firmware released by me.
What I do know, on a high level point of view is
1. To encrypt (with a pre defined shared secret key) the firmware on the PC software, and send it over ot the firmware.
2. Once the firmware receives this encrypted data, it will decrypt it with the pre defined shared secret key, and performs the upgrade
My questions are:
1. Is defining a shared secret key secure in this aspect?
2. Is there a "bread n butter" solution to achieve my requirements? | 2013/07/09 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38812",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | With respect to your goals you need:
1. Data confidentiality->Encryption. The question is public one or secret one. I guess you need a secret one in which only the owner of the key can encrypt and decrypt. You don't want anyone to encrypt firmware.
2. That implies an integrity mechanism. If you use a secret key scheme then you want either an authenticated block cipher or a secure combination of MAC (message authentication code) and encryption. Encrypt-then-Mac approach tends to be the more secure for various reasons.
For your questions:
1. Secret key sharing is secure as long as the involved parties are trusted and as @Ricky mentioned if you can't define different key per device.
2. You deploy the secret key at your hardware devices and the server and then you use that with AES for encryption. For authentication unless you use an appropriate cipher that combines both you **MUST** use different keys for the MAC authentication. | Your question details no computational restrictions so I am assuming I have a modern CPU to solve the problem.
I personally think of shared secret as the lowest form of authentication. What you are describing seems to boil down to "How can this machine trust that the binary package it's being asked to run is in it's circle of trust?".
I assume you have an organization with access to an SSL cert which would form as a trust center. The CA for the SSL confirms the key and all keys signed by that key would be trusted. They are very inexpensive and quick to set up if you lack one.
From there on you have a plethora of protocols to choose from. My instinct would be not to wander into fresh territory, but rely on proven methods. TLS provides for cheap transport and verification of origin. ECDHE provides good forward secrecy. SSH gives you the first privilege channel to generate the client keys and extract the public part for signing if the machines are too remote for a site visit.
The governing principle you should be thinking of is "How do I solve this with systems administration instead of programming?". |
38,812 | I'm a software developer working with hardware devices that are deployed on the field. Every now and then, I would need to update the hardware's firmware (upgrades, patches, etc)
I'm thinking of now, implementing a secure channel to upgrade this firmware, and for some checking to be performed by the hardware before accepting this firmware.
I have a basic understanding on key exchange protocols, encryption ciphers, etc, and that's about it. I do not necesarily know how to apply them in the real world, so I was hoping I could get some help here.
The firmware upgrade would be performed through a custom software that runs on the PC written by me, over TCP/IP.
My main goals are
1. prevent the firmware from being leaked to public as it contains our IP.
2. prevent the hardware from running other firmwares other than firmware released by me.
What I do know, on a high level point of view is
1. To encrypt (with a pre defined shared secret key) the firmware on the PC software, and send it over ot the firmware.
2. Once the firmware receives this encrypted data, it will decrypt it with the pre defined shared secret key, and performs the upgrade
My questions are:
1. Is defining a shared secret key secure in this aspect?
2. Is there a "bread n butter" solution to achieve my requirements? | 2013/07/09 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38812",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You're going to need more than application and protocol security. You'll also need robust hardware security.
It's easy to monitor the data flowing to and from the memory chips, or to read the content of a flash chip. Instructions stored in a CPU's flash memory can be retrieved through the JTAG port. Other side channel attacks include differential power analysis, timing analysis, RF emissions, and even ion-beam microscopic examination of the chips. Defending against all of these (and more) has to be considered and weighed against the value of the IP you're trying to protect.
The Payment Card Industry has created a good [set of standards](https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/documents.php?association=PTS) on defending PIN pads against reverse engineering. You might want to look to them.
It's becoming more and more common to see people reverse engineering hardware to recover the secrets they contain. For an example of someone willing to dig deep, check out [this series of articles on reverse engineering](http://cybergibbons.com/category/alarms-2/friedland-response-reverse-engineering/) the RF protocol for a wireless burglar alarm. | Why reinvent the wheel? Use rsync+ssh, scp, or sftp. |
38,812 | I'm a software developer working with hardware devices that are deployed on the field. Every now and then, I would need to update the hardware's firmware (upgrades, patches, etc)
I'm thinking of now, implementing a secure channel to upgrade this firmware, and for some checking to be performed by the hardware before accepting this firmware.
I have a basic understanding on key exchange protocols, encryption ciphers, etc, and that's about it. I do not necesarily know how to apply them in the real world, so I was hoping I could get some help here.
The firmware upgrade would be performed through a custom software that runs on the PC written by me, over TCP/IP.
My main goals are
1. prevent the firmware from being leaked to public as it contains our IP.
2. prevent the hardware from running other firmwares other than firmware released by me.
What I do know, on a high level point of view is
1. To encrypt (with a pre defined shared secret key) the firmware on the PC software, and send it over ot the firmware.
2. Once the firmware receives this encrypted data, it will decrypt it with the pre defined shared secret key, and performs the upgrade
My questions are:
1. Is defining a shared secret key secure in this aspect?
2. Is there a "bread n butter" solution to achieve my requirements? | 2013/07/09 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38812",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You're going to need more than application and protocol security. You'll also need robust hardware security.
It's easy to monitor the data flowing to and from the memory chips, or to read the content of a flash chip. Instructions stored in a CPU's flash memory can be retrieved through the JTAG port. Other side channel attacks include differential power analysis, timing analysis, RF emissions, and even ion-beam microscopic examination of the chips. Defending against all of these (and more) has to be considered and weighed against the value of the IP you're trying to protect.
The Payment Card Industry has created a good [set of standards](https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/documents.php?association=PTS) on defending PIN pads against reverse engineering. You might want to look to them.
It's becoming more and more common to see people reverse engineering hardware to recover the secrets they contain. For an example of someone willing to dig deep, check out [this series of articles on reverse engineering](http://cybergibbons.com/category/alarms-2/friedland-response-reverse-engineering/) the RF protocol for a wireless burglar alarm. | Your question details no computational restrictions so I am assuming I have a modern CPU to solve the problem.
I personally think of shared secret as the lowest form of authentication. What you are describing seems to boil down to "How can this machine trust that the binary package it's being asked to run is in it's circle of trust?".
I assume you have an organization with access to an SSL cert which would form as a trust center. The CA for the SSL confirms the key and all keys signed by that key would be trusted. They are very inexpensive and quick to set up if you lack one.
From there on you have a plethora of protocols to choose from. My instinct would be not to wander into fresh territory, but rely on proven methods. TLS provides for cheap transport and verification of origin. ECDHE provides good forward secrecy. SSH gives you the first privilege channel to generate the client keys and extract the public part for signing if the machines are too remote for a site visit.
The governing principle you should be thinking of is "How do I solve this with systems administration instead of programming?". |
73,525,188 | Hi everyone hope you guys well!
So here is the deal; I have an android unity project which has not extra plugin or SDK.
When I am going to try to build project, this error appears. I'm stuck with this :(
Tried With this versions;
Unity Version:2021.3.5f1 ,2020.3.25f1
Gradle version: Built-in, 7.4.2, 6.2, 7.0.2
JDK-NDK-SDK: Built-in
>
> Configure project :launcher WARNING: The option 'android.enableR8' is
> deprecated and should not be used anymore. It will be removed in a
> future version of the Android Gradle plugin, and will no longer allow
> you to disable R8.
>
>
>
I Was tried almost everything on this forum or others nothings changed, Now I'm searching for strange files in project folder.
Am I missing something ? | 2022/08/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/73525188",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/16909470/"
] | **Suggestions:**
Download gradle version 6+ and go to preferences and give the path to that directory where you have downloaded the new gradle then go to Player publishing settings and uncheck any custom gradle or manifest (if they are checked) then check and delete files androidManifest and baseGradleTemplate from Plugins/Android then again check those boxes (again only if you were using any custom gradle template or manifest file before) then it will regenerate your manifest and baseGradleTemplate in Plugins/Android folder so then delete resolved libraries and then resolve the packages (if you are using extenrnal dependency manager) and then build the applcation.
Hopefully it will work, happy coding :) | I use Unity 2021.3, project includes Firebase, Admob, Ironsource. I did follow this steps and it's worked
* Delete folder: <PROJECT\_FOLDER>\Library\Bee\Android
* Android Resolver > Force Resolve
* Build again
Hope this helps! |
3,092,242 | I understand in Junit 4, @Before can be used to setup test fixtures for the test class's multiple test methods.
However, in my system, there are common test objects i would like to have available for all tests.
What is the most appropriate name for these objects and what is a good best practice way to store them? | 2010/06/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3092242",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/99033/"
] | The best practice is to create them in the fixture so as to keep the tests **isolated**, unless their state is not changed by the tests (such as a logger). Otherwise one may have side-effects between the tests: one test failing because of another one, or the opposite. | The preferred names for your common test objects will depend on what these objects really are (I can't help unless you provide more detail). If you want to share an object between all the tests then it must be static in your test class (JUnit will recreate the test class before every test). |
3,092,242 | I understand in Junit 4, @Before can be used to setup test fixtures for the test class's multiple test methods.
However, in my system, there are common test objects i would like to have available for all tests.
What is the most appropriate name for these objects and what is a good best practice way to store them? | 2010/06/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3092242",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/99033/"
] | There is definitely a use case for having some shared data between test cases. JUnit provides the @BeforeClass annotation for this. Should help you I hope...
<http://junit.sourceforge.net/javadoc/org/junit/BeforeClass.html> | The preferred names for your common test objects will depend on what these objects really are (I can't help unless you provide more detail). If you want to share an object between all the tests then it must be static in your test class (JUnit will recreate the test class before every test). |
3,092,242 | I understand in Junit 4, @Before can be used to setup test fixtures for the test class's multiple test methods.
However, in my system, there are common test objects i would like to have available for all tests.
What is the most appropriate name for these objects and what is a good best practice way to store them? | 2010/06/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3092242",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/99033/"
] | The best practice is to create them in the fixture so as to keep the tests **isolated**, unless their state is not changed by the tests (such as a logger). Otherwise one may have side-effects between the tests: one test failing because of another one, or the opposite. | There is definitely a use case for having some shared data between test cases. JUnit provides the @BeforeClass annotation for this. Should help you I hope...
<http://junit.sourceforge.net/javadoc/org/junit/BeforeClass.html> |
3,092,242 | I understand in Junit 4, @Before can be used to setup test fixtures for the test class's multiple test methods.
However, in my system, there are common test objects i would like to have available for all tests.
What is the most appropriate name for these objects and what is a good best practice way to store them? | 2010/06/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3092242",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/99033/"
] | The best practice is to create them in the fixture so as to keep the tests **isolated**, unless their state is not changed by the tests (such as a logger). Otherwise one may have side-effects between the tests: one test failing because of another one, or the opposite. | Why not have an abstract BaseTest superclass that holds the common objects and initializes them, either in the constructor or a @BeforeClass method? |
3,092,242 | I understand in Junit 4, @Before can be used to setup test fixtures for the test class's multiple test methods.
However, in my system, there are common test objects i would like to have available for all tests.
What is the most appropriate name for these objects and what is a good best practice way to store them? | 2010/06/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3092242",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/99033/"
] | There is definitely a use case for having some shared data between test cases. JUnit provides the @BeforeClass annotation for this. Should help you I hope...
<http://junit.sourceforge.net/javadoc/org/junit/BeforeClass.html> | Why not have an abstract BaseTest superclass that holds the common objects and initializes them, either in the constructor or a @BeforeClass method? |
24,419 | I am setting up my personal website, and I have designed a simple "Coming Soon / Under Construction" page which basically has nothing but a small notice for the users.
What kind of SEO can I make on this page such that it won't harm the full website's ranking later on? | 2012/01/10 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24419",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/12566/"
] | Instead of a single "coming soon" or "under construction" line, expand it a little and explain *what* is coming soon and why a visitor should bookmark it or visit it again.
There's also no reason why you can't already include a short about paragraph, some contact information and possible even a little subscribe function where people could enter their e-mail address to be notified when the site is done. Other than that, don't put in any unnecessary redirects or content that wouldn't be relevant to what would eventually be available on the site. | Make sure the content/keywords on the coming soon page is similar to the content that your final website will contain. Newer websites tend to get crawled less frequently so it may take a while to get your new website crawled and Google's index updated. So the snippet Google displays in their index may not be updated for a while after you launch your new site. You want to make sure it still jives with what your new sites has to offer. |
24,419 | I am setting up my personal website, and I have designed a simple "Coming Soon / Under Construction" page which basically has nothing but a small notice for the users.
What kind of SEO can I make on this page such that it won't harm the full website's ranking later on? | 2012/01/10 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24419",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/12566/"
] | Instead of a single "coming soon" or "under construction" line, expand it a little and explain *what* is coming soon and why a visitor should bookmark it or visit it again.
There's also no reason why you can't already include a short about paragraph, some contact information and possible even a little subscribe function where people could enter their e-mail address to be notified when the site is done. Other than that, don't put in any unnecessary redirects or content that wouldn't be relevant to what would eventually be available on the site. | A good place to start would be to create a simple homepage with an email registration form for 'Early Bird Access'. Add a blog article (highlighting the future launch of your project) and some legal pages (e.g. Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Statement).
If you've got Google Webmaster Tools setup and ready to go, create your sitemap.xml and submit your pages for indexing - they can show up in search results within minutes, not weeks.
It's important to be able to find your website, product or software without having to use the full domain as the Google search terms (e.g. www.example.com), so get indexed in Google as early as possible, even if that means you only target the name of your software and not the domain (e.g. example) - as some people will simply type 'example' rather than 'example.com', and you'll want your website to appear at the top of the list. |
24,419 | I am setting up my personal website, and I have designed a simple "Coming Soon / Under Construction" page which basically has nothing but a small notice for the users.
What kind of SEO can I make on this page such that it won't harm the full website's ranking later on? | 2012/01/10 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24419",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/12566/"
] | I don't bother with "coming soon" for a domain.
It won't help SEO
-----------------
Search engines don't typically index coming soon pages, and even if they did, the coming soon page would only rank for the name of the website. No real progress on SEO can be made until there is actual content that contains keywords.
It could hurt SEO if you put on keywords
----------------------------------------
Putting keywords onto your coming soon page will just frustrate any visitors that you do get. Visitors like to see something they can use. If they got to your site and found "coming soon", they would hit the back button to Google and look for something else. Nothing kills your rankings and reputation with Google faster than being unable to satisfy visitors that Google sends your way.
Nobody cares
------------
The web is full of good intentions. Users have been trained to take any notices that something will be coming with a huge grain of salt. Users only care about what works for them *right now*. There is no way you can convince many people to bookmark something and come back later. There are only going to be at most a handful of visitors anyway.
Every website is "under construction"
-------------------------------------
Nothing on the web is ever "finished." All websites that want to remain relevant are adding new content and building out new features. Once your website has something on it that somebody can use, there is no place for "under construction" notices. They end up turning users away and distracting users from what you do have on your website that could work for them.
Do something better
-------------------
Just launch your first page. I'd recommend creating a simple "About Us" page.
>
> This website is owned by X. X has the following credentials.
>
>
>
Follow it up with a contact form, a cookie cutter privacy policy, cookie cutter terms of service, and then your first page of actual content.
Just a single coming soon page won't hurt
-----------------------------------------
Just be aware that it probably isn't worth your time to create. It is really just for you. | Make sure the content/keywords on the coming soon page is similar to the content that your final website will contain. Newer websites tend to get crawled less frequently so it may take a while to get your new website crawled and Google's index updated. So the snippet Google displays in their index may not be updated for a while after you launch your new site. You want to make sure it still jives with what your new sites has to offer. |
24,419 | I am setting up my personal website, and I have designed a simple "Coming Soon / Under Construction" page which basically has nothing but a small notice for the users.
What kind of SEO can I make on this page such that it won't harm the full website's ranking later on? | 2012/01/10 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24419",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/12566/"
] | Make sure the content/keywords on the coming soon page is similar to the content that your final website will contain. Newer websites tend to get crawled less frequently so it may take a while to get your new website crawled and Google's index updated. So the snippet Google displays in their index may not be updated for a while after you launch your new site. You want to make sure it still jives with what your new sites has to offer. | A good place to start would be to create a simple homepage with an email registration form for 'Early Bird Access'. Add a blog article (highlighting the future launch of your project) and some legal pages (e.g. Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Statement).
If you've got Google Webmaster Tools setup and ready to go, create your sitemap.xml and submit your pages for indexing - they can show up in search results within minutes, not weeks.
It's important to be able to find your website, product or software without having to use the full domain as the Google search terms (e.g. www.example.com), so get indexed in Google as early as possible, even if that means you only target the name of your software and not the domain (e.g. example) - as some people will simply type 'example' rather than 'example.com', and you'll want your website to appear at the top of the list. |
24,419 | I am setting up my personal website, and I have designed a simple "Coming Soon / Under Construction" page which basically has nothing but a small notice for the users.
What kind of SEO can I make on this page such that it won't harm the full website's ranking later on? | 2012/01/10 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24419",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/12566/"
] | I don't bother with "coming soon" for a domain.
It won't help SEO
-----------------
Search engines don't typically index coming soon pages, and even if they did, the coming soon page would only rank for the name of the website. No real progress on SEO can be made until there is actual content that contains keywords.
It could hurt SEO if you put on keywords
----------------------------------------
Putting keywords onto your coming soon page will just frustrate any visitors that you do get. Visitors like to see something they can use. If they got to your site and found "coming soon", they would hit the back button to Google and look for something else. Nothing kills your rankings and reputation with Google faster than being unable to satisfy visitors that Google sends your way.
Nobody cares
------------
The web is full of good intentions. Users have been trained to take any notices that something will be coming with a huge grain of salt. Users only care about what works for them *right now*. There is no way you can convince many people to bookmark something and come back later. There are only going to be at most a handful of visitors anyway.
Every website is "under construction"
-------------------------------------
Nothing on the web is ever "finished." All websites that want to remain relevant are adding new content and building out new features. Once your website has something on it that somebody can use, there is no place for "under construction" notices. They end up turning users away and distracting users from what you do have on your website that could work for them.
Do something better
-------------------
Just launch your first page. I'd recommend creating a simple "About Us" page.
>
> This website is owned by X. X has the following credentials.
>
>
>
Follow it up with a contact form, a cookie cutter privacy policy, cookie cutter terms of service, and then your first page of actual content.
Just a single coming soon page won't hurt
-----------------------------------------
Just be aware that it probably isn't worth your time to create. It is really just for you. | A good place to start would be to create a simple homepage with an email registration form for 'Early Bird Access'. Add a blog article (highlighting the future launch of your project) and some legal pages (e.g. Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Statement).
If you've got Google Webmaster Tools setup and ready to go, create your sitemap.xml and submit your pages for indexing - they can show up in search results within minutes, not weeks.
It's important to be able to find your website, product or software without having to use the full domain as the Google search terms (e.g. www.example.com), so get indexed in Google as early as possible, even if that means you only target the name of your software and not the domain (e.g. example) - as some people will simply type 'example' rather than 'example.com', and you'll want your website to appear at the top of the list. |
3,692,518 | Is it possible to have a HTML Select containing elements, not just text values but say an object (specifically i'd like to add a JQuery slider with the text) but if someone could advice me generally how to do this, i could investigate. | 2010/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3692518",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/429664/"
] | No, definitely not. The default `select` element is rendered by the browser and can not be extended beyond its standard behaviour.
You would need to look into entirely JavaScript-powered SELECT alternatives.
[Here's](http://www.queness.com/post/204/25-jquery-plugins-that-enhance-and-beautify-html-form-elements#9) a small list of jQuery based SELECT alternatives; there are many, many more. | If you want to do this, don't use an HTML select element. Use a div or whatever, and implement the whole thing in javascript. Then you can add whatever functionality you like. |
29,615,196 | I am calling a web service and the data from the web service is in csv format.
If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
So, how can I save the data in csv with multipletab/sheets in c#.
I know csv with multiple tabs is not practical, but is there any damn way or any library to save data in csv with multiple tabs/sheet? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/29615196",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4780425/"
] | CSV, as a file format, assumes one "table" of data; in Excel terms that's one sheet of a workbook. While it's just plain text, and you can interpret it any way you want, the "standard" CSV format does not support what your supervisor is thinking.
You can fudge what you want a couple of ways:
* Use a different file for each sheet, with related but distinct names, like "Book1\_Sheet1", "Book1\_Sheet2" etc. You can then find groups of related files by the text before the first underscore. This is the easiest to implement, but requires users to schlep around multiple files per logical "workbook", and if one gets lost in the shuffle you've lost that data.
* Do the above, and also "zip" the files into a single archive you can move around. You keep the pure CSV advantage of the above option, plus the convenience of having one file to move instead of several, but the downside of having to zip/unzip the archive to get to the actual files. To ease the pain, if you're in .NET 4.5 you have access to a built-in ZipFile implementation, and if you are not you can use the open-source DotNetZip or SharpZipLib, any of which will allow you to programmatically create and consume standard Windows ZIP files. You can also use the nearly universal .tar.gz (aka .tgz) combination, but your users will need either your program or a third-party compression tool like 7Zip or WinRAR to create the archive from a set of exported CSVs.
* Implement a quasi-CSV format where a blank line (containing only a newline) acts as a "tab separator", and your parser would expect a new line of column headers followed by data rows in the new configuration. This variant of standard CSV may not readable by other consumers of CSVs as it doesn't adhere to the expected file format, and as such I would recommend you don't use the ".csv" extension as it will confuse and frustrate users expecting to be able to open it in other applications like spreadsheets. | >
> If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
>
>
>
Your answer is in your question, don't use text/csv (which most certainly can **not** do multiple sheets, it can't even do one sheet; there's no such thing as a sheet in text/csv though there is in how some applications like Excel or Calc choose to import it into a format that does have sheets) but save it as xls, xlsx, ods or another format that does have sheets.
Both XLSX and ODS are much more complicated than text/csv, but are each probably the most straightforward of their respective sets of formats. |
29,615,196 | I am calling a web service and the data from the web service is in csv format.
If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
So, how can I save the data in csv with multipletab/sheets in c#.
I know csv with multiple tabs is not practical, but is there any damn way or any library to save data in csv with multiple tabs/sheet? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/29615196",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4780425/"
] | >
> If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
>
>
>
Your answer is in your question, don't use text/csv (which most certainly can **not** do multiple sheets, it can't even do one sheet; there's no such thing as a sheet in text/csv though there is in how some applications like Excel or Calc choose to import it into a format that does have sheets) but save it as xls, xlsx, ods or another format that does have sheets.
Both XLSX and ODS are much more complicated than text/csv, but are each probably the most straightforward of their respective sets of formats. | I've been using this library for a while now,
<https://github.com/SheetJS/js-xlsx>
in my projects to import data and structure from formats like: xls(x), csv and xml but you can for sure save in that formats as well (all from client)!
Hope that can help you,, take a look on online demo,
<http://oss.sheetjs.com/js-xlsx/>
peek in source code or file an issue on GH? but I think you will have to do most coding on youre own |
29,615,196 | I am calling a web service and the data from the web service is in csv format.
If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
So, how can I save the data in csv with multipletab/sheets in c#.
I know csv with multiple tabs is not practical, but is there any damn way or any library to save data in csv with multiple tabs/sheet? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/29615196",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4780425/"
] | >
> If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
>
>
>
Your answer is in your question, don't use text/csv (which most certainly can **not** do multiple sheets, it can't even do one sheet; there's no such thing as a sheet in text/csv though there is in how some applications like Excel or Calc choose to import it into a format that does have sheets) but save it as xls, xlsx, ods or another format that does have sheets.
Both XLSX and ODS are much more complicated than text/csv, but are each probably the most straightforward of their respective sets of formats. | I think you want to reduce the size of your excel file. If yes then you can do it by saving it as xlsb i.e., Excel Binary Workbook format. Further, you can reduce your file size by deleting all the blank cells. |
29,615,196 | I am calling a web service and the data from the web service is in csv format.
If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
So, how can I save the data in csv with multipletab/sheets in c#.
I know csv with multiple tabs is not practical, but is there any damn way or any library to save data in csv with multiple tabs/sheet? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/29615196",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4780425/"
] | CSV, as a file format, assumes one "table" of data; in Excel terms that's one sheet of a workbook. While it's just plain text, and you can interpret it any way you want, the "standard" CSV format does not support what your supervisor is thinking.
You can fudge what you want a couple of ways:
* Use a different file for each sheet, with related but distinct names, like "Book1\_Sheet1", "Book1\_Sheet2" etc. You can then find groups of related files by the text before the first underscore. This is the easiest to implement, but requires users to schlep around multiple files per logical "workbook", and if one gets lost in the shuffle you've lost that data.
* Do the above, and also "zip" the files into a single archive you can move around. You keep the pure CSV advantage of the above option, plus the convenience of having one file to move instead of several, but the downside of having to zip/unzip the archive to get to the actual files. To ease the pain, if you're in .NET 4.5 you have access to a built-in ZipFile implementation, and if you are not you can use the open-source DotNetZip or SharpZipLib, any of which will allow you to programmatically create and consume standard Windows ZIP files. You can also use the nearly universal .tar.gz (aka .tgz) combination, but your users will need either your program or a third-party compression tool like 7Zip or WinRAR to create the archive from a set of exported CSVs.
* Implement a quasi-CSV format where a blank line (containing only a newline) acts as a "tab separator", and your parser would expect a new line of column headers followed by data rows in the new configuration. This variant of standard CSV may not readable by other consumers of CSVs as it doesn't adhere to the expected file format, and as such I would recommend you don't use the ".csv" extension as it will confuse and frustrate users expecting to be able to open it in other applications like spreadsheets. | I've been using this library for a while now,
<https://github.com/SheetJS/js-xlsx>
in my projects to import data and structure from formats like: xls(x), csv and xml but you can for sure save in that formats as well (all from client)!
Hope that can help you,, take a look on online demo,
<http://oss.sheetjs.com/js-xlsx/>
peek in source code or file an issue on GH? but I think you will have to do most coding on youre own |
29,615,196 | I am calling a web service and the data from the web service is in csv format.
If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
So, how can I save the data in csv with multipletab/sheets in c#.
I know csv with multiple tabs is not practical, but is there any damn way or any library to save data in csv with multiple tabs/sheet? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/29615196",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4780425/"
] | CSV, as a file format, assumes one "table" of data; in Excel terms that's one sheet of a workbook. While it's just plain text, and you can interpret it any way you want, the "standard" CSV format does not support what your supervisor is thinking.
You can fudge what you want a couple of ways:
* Use a different file for each sheet, with related but distinct names, like "Book1\_Sheet1", "Book1\_Sheet2" etc. You can then find groups of related files by the text before the first underscore. This is the easiest to implement, but requires users to schlep around multiple files per logical "workbook", and if one gets lost in the shuffle you've lost that data.
* Do the above, and also "zip" the files into a single archive you can move around. You keep the pure CSV advantage of the above option, plus the convenience of having one file to move instead of several, but the downside of having to zip/unzip the archive to get to the actual files. To ease the pain, if you're in .NET 4.5 you have access to a built-in ZipFile implementation, and if you are not you can use the open-source DotNetZip or SharpZipLib, any of which will allow you to programmatically create and consume standard Windows ZIP files. You can also use the nearly universal .tar.gz (aka .tgz) combination, but your users will need either your program or a third-party compression tool like 7Zip or WinRAR to create the archive from a set of exported CSVs.
* Implement a quasi-CSV format where a blank line (containing only a newline) acts as a "tab separator", and your parser would expect a new line of column headers followed by data rows in the new configuration. This variant of standard CSV may not readable by other consumers of CSVs as it doesn't adhere to the expected file format, and as such I would recommend you don't use the ".csv" extension as it will confuse and frustrate users expecting to be able to open it in other applications like spreadsheets. | I think you want to reduce the size of your excel file. If yes then you can do it by saving it as xlsb i.e., Excel Binary Workbook format. Further, you can reduce your file size by deleting all the blank cells. |
29,615,196 | I am calling a web service and the data from the web service is in csv format.
If I try to save data in xls/xlsx, then I get multiple sheets in a workbook.
So, how can I save the data in csv with multipletab/sheets in c#.
I know csv with multiple tabs is not practical, but is there any damn way or any library to save data in csv with multiple tabs/sheet? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/29615196",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4780425/"
] | I've been using this library for a while now,
<https://github.com/SheetJS/js-xlsx>
in my projects to import data and structure from formats like: xls(x), csv and xml but you can for sure save in that formats as well (all from client)!
Hope that can help you,, take a look on online demo,
<http://oss.sheetjs.com/js-xlsx/>
peek in source code or file an issue on GH? but I think you will have to do most coding on youre own | I think you want to reduce the size of your excel file. If yes then you can do it by saving it as xlsb i.e., Excel Binary Workbook format. Further, you can reduce your file size by deleting all the blank cells. |
711,018 | We have a dll that is a plug-in for a asp.net shopping cart software that customers can purchase. However, we want to lock that dll to a particular domain for security reasons and we don't want them to be able to read that dll or use that dll in another domain they may have. How can we do this? | 2009/04/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/711018",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/45429/"
] | Brainstorming:
* Hard-code a domain-check into the dll's main function and compile a new dll for each customer (ok, not scalable)
* Distribute a license file with the dll that stores the valid domain for the dll, encrypted. Have your DLL check for the file, decrypt the contents, and fail if the file is missing or the current domain doesn't match the encrypted domain.
* Have the DLL "phone-home" to one of your servers over encrypted line asking your server whether the current domain the dll is running in is acceptable. Your server responds 'yes' or 'no' and the DLL either runs or doesn't. | The DLL could look at the incoming request's host header. |
33,829 | We want to use SPSS to compare two groups (2 independent samples t-test). The first group contains real data, the other group is fictional. This fictional group should contain as many "subjects" as the real (1st) group. But the mean is set to 0 and the standard deviation to 1 (standard normal distribution).
There are several [tools](http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ttest/) out there to compare two groups by adding the number of subjects, mean and std for every group independently. But how can we do this in SPSS? I only know how to test one variable (group1) against a test value (T=0).
---
*EDIT:*
Here a more detailed description of why I wanted to use this two-sample t-test, although this kind of approach seemed strange to me in the beginning. The thing is that we investigated 20 patients and compared their data with a large database of healthy control subjects. That means we did a z-transformation using the reference database (standard procedure in this field (quantitative sensory testing,QST)).
There are other research groups which suggest to then use the 2-sample t-test I mentioned below, because it would be inappropriate to compare data of 20 patients with data of 1200 controls. So they invented a fictional group with M = 0 and SD = 1 and tested the real data against this fictional data (on a website like [this](http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ttest/) --> but Two-Sample T-Test). This approach would be more conservative than using the one-sample t-test with test value=0.
To be honest, I have no idea if this is the right approach. My first idea was to do a one-sample t-test and test the patient group (i.e. their z-values) against the value 0 to see, whether the z-values differ significantly from 0 instead of using a fictional dataset. | 2012/08/07 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/33829",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/13123/"
] | Spectral coherence, if used correctly would do it. Coherence is computed at each frequency-and hence is a vector. Hence, a sum of a weighted coherence would be a good measure. You would typically want to weight the coherences at frequencies that have a high energy in the power spectral density. That way, you would be measuring the similarities at the frequencies that dominate the time series instead of weighting the coherence with a large weight, when the content of that frequency in the time series is negligible.
So, in simple words- the basic idea is to find the frequencies at which the amplitude(energy) in the signals are high(interpret as the frequencies that dominantly constitute each signal) and then to compare the similarities at these frequencies with a higher weight and compare the signals at the rest of the frequencies with a lower weight.
The area which deals with questions of this kind is called cross-spectral analysis.
<http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/552_Notes_6c.pdf> is an excellent introduction to cross-spectral analysis.
Optimal Lag:
Also look at my answer over here: [How to correlate two time series, with possible time differences](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/23993/how-to-correlate-two-time-series-with-possible-time-differences/23995#23995)
This deals finding the optimal lag, using the spectral coherence. R has functions to compute the power spectral densities, auto and cross correlations, Fourier transforms and coherence. You have to right code to find the optimal lag to obtain the max. weighted coherence. That said, a code for weighting the coherence vector using the spectral density must also be written. Following which you can sum up the weighted elements and average it to get the similarity observed at the optimal lag. | Have you tried another approach for climate signal detection/modelling, like a wavelet analysis? The big problem that can arise with the DFT in climate analysis is actually what you mention: the oscillations are not perfectly periodic and they usually have different time spans so they can actually have many different oscillation ranges, which is pretty confusing from a Fourier Transform perspective.
A wavelet analysis is more suitable to climate signals because they allow you to check different time spans of oscillation; just as different frequencies are played at different times by a musical instrument, you can check different frequencies in different time spans with the wavelet transform.
If you are interested, this [paper by Lau & Weng (1995)](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281995%29076%3C2391%3aCSDUWT%3E2.0.CO;2) should erase most of your doubts about this method. The most interesting part is that the wavelet transform of a model versus that of the data are almost directly comparable, because you can directly compare the time span that your model predicts, leaving out all of the spurious oscillation ranges that it doesn't.
**PS:** I have to add that I wanted to post this as a comment, because it is not actually what the OP's is asking for, but my comment would have been too large and decided to post it as an answer that might come in handy as an alternative approach to that of DFT's. |
33,829 | We want to use SPSS to compare two groups (2 independent samples t-test). The first group contains real data, the other group is fictional. This fictional group should contain as many "subjects" as the real (1st) group. But the mean is set to 0 and the standard deviation to 1 (standard normal distribution).
There are several [tools](http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ttest/) out there to compare two groups by adding the number of subjects, mean and std for every group independently. But how can we do this in SPSS? I only know how to test one variable (group1) against a test value (T=0).
---
*EDIT:*
Here a more detailed description of why I wanted to use this two-sample t-test, although this kind of approach seemed strange to me in the beginning. The thing is that we investigated 20 patients and compared their data with a large database of healthy control subjects. That means we did a z-transformation using the reference database (standard procedure in this field (quantitative sensory testing,QST)).
There are other research groups which suggest to then use the 2-sample t-test I mentioned below, because it would be inappropriate to compare data of 20 patients with data of 1200 controls. So they invented a fictional group with M = 0 and SD = 1 and tested the real data against this fictional data (on a website like [this](http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ttest/) --> but Two-Sample T-Test). This approach would be more conservative than using the one-sample t-test with test value=0.
To be honest, I have no idea if this is the right approach. My first idea was to do a one-sample t-test and test the patient group (i.e. their z-values) against the value 0 to see, whether the z-values differ significantly from 0 instead of using a fictional dataset. | 2012/08/07 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/33829",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/13123/"
] | Have you tried another approach for climate signal detection/modelling, like a wavelet analysis? The big problem that can arise with the DFT in climate analysis is actually what you mention: the oscillations are not perfectly periodic and they usually have different time spans so they can actually have many different oscillation ranges, which is pretty confusing from a Fourier Transform perspective.
A wavelet analysis is more suitable to climate signals because they allow you to check different time spans of oscillation; just as different frequencies are played at different times by a musical instrument, you can check different frequencies in different time spans with the wavelet transform.
If you are interested, this [paper by Lau & Weng (1995)](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281995%29076%3C2391%3aCSDUWT%3E2.0.CO;2) should erase most of your doubts about this method. The most interesting part is that the wavelet transform of a model versus that of the data are almost directly comparable, because you can directly compare the time span that your model predicts, leaving out all of the spurious oscillation ranges that it doesn't.
**PS:** I have to add that I wanted to post this as a comment, because it is not actually what the OP's is asking for, but my comment would have been too large and decided to post it as an answer that might come in handy as an alternative approach to that of DFT's. | I voted for and second the use of wavelet and spectrogram based analysis as an alternative to dft. If you can decompose your series into localized time-frequency bins, it reduces the fourier problems of aperiodicity and non-stationarity, as well as provides a nice profile of discretized data to compare.
Once the data is mapped to a three dimensional set of spectral energy vs. time and frequency, euclidean distance can be used to compare profiles. A perfect match would approach the lower bound distance of zero.\* You can look into time series data mining and speech recognition areas for similar approaches.
\*note that the wavelet binning process will filter the information content somewhat- If there can be no loss in the compared data, it might be more suitable to compare using euclidean distance in the time domain |
33,829 | We want to use SPSS to compare two groups (2 independent samples t-test). The first group contains real data, the other group is fictional. This fictional group should contain as many "subjects" as the real (1st) group. But the mean is set to 0 and the standard deviation to 1 (standard normal distribution).
There are several [tools](http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ttest/) out there to compare two groups by adding the number of subjects, mean and std for every group independently. But how can we do this in SPSS? I only know how to test one variable (group1) against a test value (T=0).
---
*EDIT:*
Here a more detailed description of why I wanted to use this two-sample t-test, although this kind of approach seemed strange to me in the beginning. The thing is that we investigated 20 patients and compared their data with a large database of healthy control subjects. That means we did a z-transformation using the reference database (standard procedure in this field (quantitative sensory testing,QST)).
There are other research groups which suggest to then use the 2-sample t-test I mentioned below, because it would be inappropriate to compare data of 20 patients with data of 1200 controls. So they invented a fictional group with M = 0 and SD = 1 and tested the real data against this fictional data (on a website like [this](http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ttest/) --> but Two-Sample T-Test). This approach would be more conservative than using the one-sample t-test with test value=0.
To be honest, I have no idea if this is the right approach. My first idea was to do a one-sample t-test and test the patient group (i.e. their z-values) against the value 0 to see, whether the z-values differ significantly from 0 instead of using a fictional dataset. | 2012/08/07 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/33829",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/13123/"
] | Spectral coherence, if used correctly would do it. Coherence is computed at each frequency-and hence is a vector. Hence, a sum of a weighted coherence would be a good measure. You would typically want to weight the coherences at frequencies that have a high energy in the power spectral density. That way, you would be measuring the similarities at the frequencies that dominate the time series instead of weighting the coherence with a large weight, when the content of that frequency in the time series is negligible.
So, in simple words- the basic idea is to find the frequencies at which the amplitude(energy) in the signals are high(interpret as the frequencies that dominantly constitute each signal) and then to compare the similarities at these frequencies with a higher weight and compare the signals at the rest of the frequencies with a lower weight.
The area which deals with questions of this kind is called cross-spectral analysis.
<http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/552_Notes_6c.pdf> is an excellent introduction to cross-spectral analysis.
Optimal Lag:
Also look at my answer over here: [How to correlate two time series, with possible time differences](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/23993/how-to-correlate-two-time-series-with-possible-time-differences/23995#23995)
This deals finding the optimal lag, using the spectral coherence. R has functions to compute the power spectral densities, auto and cross correlations, Fourier transforms and coherence. You have to right code to find the optimal lag to obtain the max. weighted coherence. That said, a code for weighting the coherence vector using the spectral density must also be written. Following which you can sum up the weighted elements and average it to get the similarity observed at the optimal lag. | I voted for and second the use of wavelet and spectrogram based analysis as an alternative to dft. If you can decompose your series into localized time-frequency bins, it reduces the fourier problems of aperiodicity and non-stationarity, as well as provides a nice profile of discretized data to compare.
Once the data is mapped to a three dimensional set of spectral energy vs. time and frequency, euclidean distance can be used to compare profiles. A perfect match would approach the lower bound distance of zero.\* You can look into time series data mining and speech recognition areas for similar approaches.
\*note that the wavelet binning process will filter the information content somewhat- If there can be no loss in the compared data, it might be more suitable to compare using euclidean distance in the time domain |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | Shooting manual mode doesn't make you a better photographer, understanding what all the settings effectively do will. Your camera has three basic settings:
* **Aperture**: Use this to control depth of field (DoF). This is usually the most important setting to most photographers, as it influences both subject matter and composition. You're not going to be taking pictures of things if they're too big to fit into focus.
* **Shutter speed**: Use this to control in-frame movement and blur. While very important, there's really not much of a difference in a typical print between a normal, semi-still image shot at 1/250 and 1/8000. As a general rule, if you're trying to keep motion frozen you want this above 1/125.
* **ISO**: This determines the "image quality" of an image. Keep this as low as possible.
The most common strategy is to first set the aperture, make sure that you have enough DoF to cover your entire subject (or whatever you're trying to achieve). Have your ISO set to the lowest possible value (without going into 'extended ISO' modes) and check your shutter speed. Is it at least 1/60 or 1/125? No? Bump the ISO up a stop.
Your 500D has a exposure level reading that you can see the bottom of [its viewfinder](http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/500d/t1i_viewfinder.jpg). Use that to determine where your exposure needs to be. For example, if you're dialed in at f/5.6 and 1/500 @ 100 ISO, but the meter reads -2, you know you're going to underexpose with those settings. You can change your shutter speed to 1/125 or increase your ISO to 400 to get to the 'correct' exposure. If it reads +1, increase your shutter speed or lower your ISO to compensate.
All that said... experiment. Play around with it. You're shooting digital, who cares if some of your shots are blurry?
You can also try using the Sunny 16 rule, it might help you 'get' exposure. The Sunny 16 rule says: on a bright, sunny day, you can set your aperture to f/16 and your shutter to the same speed as your ISO value (so 1/100 for ISO 100, 1/400 for ISO 400). On a sunny, but slightly less so day, try f/11 or f/5.6 on cloudy day.
Manual mode's number 1 use is for consistency. When you take a series of photos in non-changing light conditions, you want your known color values to stay as close to each other as possible. With constant metering, especially in-camera metering, you can't hope for that kind of consistency. Point your camera at a white wall, look at the readings, then put a piece of black paper on that wall and see how wildly the meter reading changes.
There are also situations where in-camera metering doesn't do you any good, mainly in the studio. I don't know of any camera that meters for strobe/flash light effectively. 4 | In general you want to use as low an ISO setting as you can to avoid noise. If the lowest ISO means shooting at a low shutter speed, say 1/15th then you may bump up the ISO a bit so that you can shoot at a faster shutter speed.
If the light isn't changing, setting everything manually means that you get consistent exposures. Think of a sports or events photographer. If you leave in Aperture priority, then as your background changes (more sky in the photo for example) the camera may adjust the exposure and you end up with under or overexposed images.
Nothing wrong with using Aperture or Shutter priority if it suits you. Full manual yields more consistent results when you have time (and remember you're in manual!) and especially when you'll do a lot of shots in the same light. |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | First, stay away from the "icons" on your 500D. These are the automated settings, and offer no freedom to choose your aperture and shutter speed.
Once you do that, here are four simple rules I follow:
Rule #1: stay above 1/60.
-------------------------
If you are using a tripod, you can go below this speed, but when hand holding the camera, always stay above this speed. If you do not, you will tend to get blurring from camera movement. Yes IS can help....but just remember the rule, its easy.
Rule #2: Keep your shutter speed 'above' your lens focal length.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This also helps ensure reduction of blur from camera shake. If you are shooting at 200mm, be sure your shutter speed is above 1/200th a second. If you are shooting 75mm, stay above 1/75th. If you are shooting 35mm, stay above...careful...1/60th.
Rule #3. Remember to choose bigger aperture numbers when you are shooting things farther away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When shooting landscapes or other scenes, or when you want your background in focus, choose a "bigger number" for aperture. This actually selects a smaller aperture, but the result is that you get more distant objects in focus, even if you are focusing on a subject fairly close by. Basically, the camera is 'squinting its eyes" , just like you do, trying to bring distant objects in focus. This suggests that you can use aperture to manage the 'look' of your image, which indeed is what you do: pick an appropriate shutter speed (rules 1 and 2) and then adjust aperture until you get the look you want, within rules 1 and 2.
Rule #4: if you can not take your shot within any of the above 3 rules, adjust your ISO up, until you get a rule to apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you shoot at ISO 100 or 200 (and you should basically all the time), move up to ISO 400, then 800, etc until you can follow the rules.
Finally,
Rule #0: Check your ISO DAILY!
------------------------------
Always check your ISO before you use your camera, as you will be very upset when you shoot a critical event at ISO 3200 and have awful grainy shots when you didn't need ISO 3200. | Exposure
========
There are several technical factors that will affect your images directly which you have control over. Depending on each situation that you want to shoot, you may want to have the others adjusted automatically by your camera, or adjust all of them manually yourself. Shooting moving subjects generally means shooting in Shutter priority mode and shooting portraits usually means shooting in aperture priority mode or manual mode. Doing serious flash photography, you will almost always use manual mode to be able to expose freely.
Focal Length
------------
This is a property of your lens. Focal lengths are normally given as 35mm equivalent focal lengths, that is to say, the length given on the lens indicates the focal length when used with 35mm film, or a full frame sensor. Focal length along with aperture, affects depth of field, longer focal lengths generally having a larger effect on the amount of blurring than just a wide aperture.
Aperture
--------
This determines just how wide your lens will be opened once the shutter is triggered. It directly restricts the total amount of light that is going to hit your film or sensor, and as a result, controls all lights in your image, whether they are there for the entire duration of the exposure, or only appear for part of your exposure, like a flash, or a car entering your image at night in the middle of your exposure.
### Depth of Field
The depth of field of an image is the distance in front of and behind the subject you focus on which is in focus. Wide apertures give you a shallow depth of field, allowing you to blur your backgrounds to draw attention to your subject while closing down your aperture allows you to get a wider shot while keeping several subjects at different distance in focus.
### Flash control
The light of a flash is instantaneous, as such, if you are using flash with constant power (Manual flash settings), you can adjust the effect that the flash is having on your exposure precisely by changing your aperture.
Shutter speed
-------------
Exposure length is the length of time that the shutter will remain open once triggered. This controls just how long your sensor will be exposed to light. Exposure length controls whether you can shoot a photo hand-held without camera-shake affecting sharpness as well as how subjects appear in the image.
### Short exposures
Short exposures allow for shooting still images of subjects in motion, things that the naked eye cannot perceive as anything but a blur. For really high-speed photography, additional light sources are a necessity.
### Long exposures
Long exposures can be used to get a bright enough exposure under low light conditions, or, combined with a [circular polarizer filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Polarizing_filter_%28Photography%29) / [ND filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neutral_density_filter) used to capture motion in a still image. Moving lights will appear as streaks in an otherwise unmoving frame.
### Long exposures with flash
Flash used at the beginning of a long exposure will cause the subject to appear to be frozen at the beginning of their motion while the rest of their motion appears trail off of this first image. The backlights of a moving car would actually become a streak of light over the car in a photo shot this way.
Flash used at the end of exposure is generally called [rear curtain flash](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Flash_synchronization#Rear-curtain_sync) and allows for motion trails to lead to the sharp, well exposed image in a long exposure. The backlights of a moving car shot with rear curtain flash would become a streak of light behind the car.
### Camera Shake
Combined with the focal length, shutter speed also determines if an exposure can be made hand-held, a rule of the thumb on this is to match focal length to shutter speed - so if you're using a 50mm lens, shooting at 1/50 or faster, or 1/200 with a 200mm lens is supposed to give you about 100% blur free images if you have relatively steady hands. However, image stabilization on a lens affects this, and it is possible to shoot at high-speed burst modes and get completely sharp photos with an unstabilized lens at speeds approaching even 1/4 of the speed the above rule would suggest as the rule only really applies to probabilities - the human nervous system has completely normal, random muscle shakes several times a second, so if there's a 25% chance that a given shutter speed is long enough to include a shake, there is still a possibility that this won't happen and the image will come out sharp at that speed if you simply shoot 4 times - this is why it's a good idea to use high-speed burst mode at low light conditions.
ISO
---
The ISO value is a property of the film or the sensor in your camera. Basically, it is the speed at which the film or sensor absorbs light. The faster this speed, that is to say, the larger the ISO, the grainier an image will become, especially in the darker parts. However, the slower (smaller) ISO numbers will not only result in a much cleaner image, but will also require more light to properly expose. Unless you wish to achieve a certain grainy look, try to shoot at the lowest ISO level that your other considerations for your image will allow you. |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | Taking all photos in full manual mode seems a bit extreme to me.
To get proper exposure in manual mode just use the small light meter in the viewfinder or on the back screen and adjust the settings until the little arrow is in the middle - or - half press the shutter button on Auto, P, Av or Tv mode (this will show you the settings both in the viewfinder and on the screen) and copy the settings.
Than, after you used the light meter to get the baseline adjust the setting to your taste (I assume you want to adjust them because if the light meter gave you the results you are looking for just use P/Av/Tv and save the time it takes to "dial in" the settings)
If you take ISO off auto mode you get most of the control also in Av and Tv mode (learn to use exposure compensation), here are my rules for choosing modes (I'm an amateur learning photography, I expect people with years of experience will have completely different rules - especially the first one):
1. For once in a lifetime photos take at least one photo on Auto - that way you at least have a picture, losing a once in a lifetime chance to incorrect camera settings hurts.
2. If you care more about movement (you either want to freeze motion or create motion blur) use Tv mode (example: children playing, sports)
3. If you care more about depth of field use Av (example: portraits, landscape)
4. If you want consistent settings between photos (or controlled changes) use M (example: panorama, HDR, multiple pictures that will be printed together on the same page)
5. If you do anything that confuses the camera, obviously use M (example: lightnings, fireworks, external manual flashes that don't use the camera's flash metering system)
In Av and Tv modes always look at the automatically chosen values (Shutter speed in Av mode and Aperture in Tv mode) before taking the picture - just the make sure the camera didn't choose something ridicules like 30 seconds (Av mode, too dark for the value you set - happens to me all the time) or f/36 (Tv mode, way too much light for your settings) | Exposure
========
There are several technical factors that will affect your images directly which you have control over. Depending on each situation that you want to shoot, you may want to have the others adjusted automatically by your camera, or adjust all of them manually yourself. Shooting moving subjects generally means shooting in Shutter priority mode and shooting portraits usually means shooting in aperture priority mode or manual mode. Doing serious flash photography, you will almost always use manual mode to be able to expose freely.
Focal Length
------------
This is a property of your lens. Focal lengths are normally given as 35mm equivalent focal lengths, that is to say, the length given on the lens indicates the focal length when used with 35mm film, or a full frame sensor. Focal length along with aperture, affects depth of field, longer focal lengths generally having a larger effect on the amount of blurring than just a wide aperture.
Aperture
--------
This determines just how wide your lens will be opened once the shutter is triggered. It directly restricts the total amount of light that is going to hit your film or sensor, and as a result, controls all lights in your image, whether they are there for the entire duration of the exposure, or only appear for part of your exposure, like a flash, or a car entering your image at night in the middle of your exposure.
### Depth of Field
The depth of field of an image is the distance in front of and behind the subject you focus on which is in focus. Wide apertures give you a shallow depth of field, allowing you to blur your backgrounds to draw attention to your subject while closing down your aperture allows you to get a wider shot while keeping several subjects at different distance in focus.
### Flash control
The light of a flash is instantaneous, as such, if you are using flash with constant power (Manual flash settings), you can adjust the effect that the flash is having on your exposure precisely by changing your aperture.
Shutter speed
-------------
Exposure length is the length of time that the shutter will remain open once triggered. This controls just how long your sensor will be exposed to light. Exposure length controls whether you can shoot a photo hand-held without camera-shake affecting sharpness as well as how subjects appear in the image.
### Short exposures
Short exposures allow for shooting still images of subjects in motion, things that the naked eye cannot perceive as anything but a blur. For really high-speed photography, additional light sources are a necessity.
### Long exposures
Long exposures can be used to get a bright enough exposure under low light conditions, or, combined with a [circular polarizer filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Polarizing_filter_%28Photography%29) / [ND filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neutral_density_filter) used to capture motion in a still image. Moving lights will appear as streaks in an otherwise unmoving frame.
### Long exposures with flash
Flash used at the beginning of a long exposure will cause the subject to appear to be frozen at the beginning of their motion while the rest of their motion appears trail off of this first image. The backlights of a moving car would actually become a streak of light over the car in a photo shot this way.
Flash used at the end of exposure is generally called [rear curtain flash](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Flash_synchronization#Rear-curtain_sync) and allows for motion trails to lead to the sharp, well exposed image in a long exposure. The backlights of a moving car shot with rear curtain flash would become a streak of light behind the car.
### Camera Shake
Combined with the focal length, shutter speed also determines if an exposure can be made hand-held, a rule of the thumb on this is to match focal length to shutter speed - so if you're using a 50mm lens, shooting at 1/50 or faster, or 1/200 with a 200mm lens is supposed to give you about 100% blur free images if you have relatively steady hands. However, image stabilization on a lens affects this, and it is possible to shoot at high-speed burst modes and get completely sharp photos with an unstabilized lens at speeds approaching even 1/4 of the speed the above rule would suggest as the rule only really applies to probabilities - the human nervous system has completely normal, random muscle shakes several times a second, so if there's a 25% chance that a given shutter speed is long enough to include a shake, there is still a possibility that this won't happen and the image will come out sharp at that speed if you simply shoot 4 times - this is why it's a good idea to use high-speed burst mode at low light conditions.
ISO
---
The ISO value is a property of the film or the sensor in your camera. Basically, it is the speed at which the film or sensor absorbs light. The faster this speed, that is to say, the larger the ISO, the grainier an image will become, especially in the darker parts. However, the slower (smaller) ISO numbers will not only result in a much cleaner image, but will also require more light to properly expose. Unless you wish to achieve a certain grainy look, try to shoot at the lowest ISO level that your other considerations for your image will allow you. |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | Shooting manual mode doesn't make you a better photographer, understanding what all the settings effectively do will. Your camera has three basic settings:
* **Aperture**: Use this to control depth of field (DoF). This is usually the most important setting to most photographers, as it influences both subject matter and composition. You're not going to be taking pictures of things if they're too big to fit into focus.
* **Shutter speed**: Use this to control in-frame movement and blur. While very important, there's really not much of a difference in a typical print between a normal, semi-still image shot at 1/250 and 1/8000. As a general rule, if you're trying to keep motion frozen you want this above 1/125.
* **ISO**: This determines the "image quality" of an image. Keep this as low as possible.
The most common strategy is to first set the aperture, make sure that you have enough DoF to cover your entire subject (or whatever you're trying to achieve). Have your ISO set to the lowest possible value (without going into 'extended ISO' modes) and check your shutter speed. Is it at least 1/60 or 1/125? No? Bump the ISO up a stop.
Your 500D has a exposure level reading that you can see the bottom of [its viewfinder](http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/500d/t1i_viewfinder.jpg). Use that to determine where your exposure needs to be. For example, if you're dialed in at f/5.6 and 1/500 @ 100 ISO, but the meter reads -2, you know you're going to underexpose with those settings. You can change your shutter speed to 1/125 or increase your ISO to 400 to get to the 'correct' exposure. If it reads +1, increase your shutter speed or lower your ISO to compensate.
All that said... experiment. Play around with it. You're shooting digital, who cares if some of your shots are blurry?
You can also try using the Sunny 16 rule, it might help you 'get' exposure. The Sunny 16 rule says: on a bright, sunny day, you can set your aperture to f/16 and your shutter to the same speed as your ISO value (so 1/100 for ISO 100, 1/400 for ISO 400). On a sunny, but slightly less so day, try f/11 or f/5.6 on cloudy day.
Manual mode's number 1 use is for consistency. When you take a series of photos in non-changing light conditions, you want your known color values to stay as close to each other as possible. With constant metering, especially in-camera metering, you can't hope for that kind of consistency. Point your camera at a white wall, look at the readings, then put a piece of black paper on that wall and see how wildly the meter reading changes.
There are also situations where in-camera metering doesn't do you any good, mainly in the studio. I don't know of any camera that meters for strobe/flash light effectively. 4 | I'll provide some answers for some specific situations where I find manual mode useful, with or without auto-ISO:
* **Astrophotography.** For moon, I use f/8 (the sharpest aperture of the lens @ 250mm), ISO 100, 1/200 s. This provides exposure equivalent to the Looney f/11 rule, but with a sharper aperture. For milky way photography, I have planned to use something like f/2.8 (the largest aperture of the lens), ISO 3200, 20 s, but haven't had a chance to shoot outside of streetlight areas when the moon is not up. For astrophotography, there is really no other option than manual mode.
* **Nighttime outdoors photography or Christmas light photography.** I choose f/2.8 or f/1.8 depending on the lens (the largest aperture of the lens), ISO 6400, 1/40 s or 1/80 s (depending on focal length to avoid camera shake). The images will be dark, but then again in these conditions the dark look is what you're looking for. Auto-ISO goes on my camera only up to ISO 3200 (although there may be a setting somewhere to allow using ISO 6400), and for the shutter speed I find it preferable to set it manually to avoid shaken shots.
* **Wildlife photography.** The automatic settings of the camera choose too slow shutter speed for flying birds. Thus, I shoot it manual mode, f/5.6 (the largest aperture of the lens @ 250mm), 1/1000 s and let the exposure be handled by using auto-ISO that can when photographing shadowy areas be as high as ISO 1000 and according to the sunny f/16 rule shouldn't be below ISO 120. So, these settings use an acceptable ISO for any conditions during the daytime. Far over ISO 1000, my camera would produce noisy shots.
* **Photography with a flash.** The flash is your source of exposure for the lit subject, but for the background, flash can't expose it. Thus, the manual mode ensures you can adjust the amount of exposure for the subject and for the background separately. You can either use manual flash settings if you have the time, or if you want to be quick, use TTL metering for the flash to set its power automatically. This covers the foreground. The background exposure will be set by experimenting with various exposure times. You should use manual ISO, since you have the possibility to set the ISO low for a low noise. In practice, ISO 100 is what you want to use (it's the base ISO on most cameras). Set the aperture for correct depth of field, and choose the exposure time depending on experiments that reveal how much background exposure you have. ND filter may be necessary if the background is very bright, such as in sunlight.
I haven't shot fireworks yet (I only bought my first DLSR this year), but I'll probably use the manual mode for fireworks too. I don't do sports photography, but for that situation manual mode could be useful as well.
I would categorize astrophotography, nighttime outdoors photography, Christmas light photography and fireworks photography into low-light photography. I would also categorize wildlife photography and sports photography into action photography.
So, as summary:
* For action photography, you probably want to use manual mode with auto-ISO
* For low-light photography, you probably want to use manual mode without auto-ISO
* For flash photography, you probably want to use manual mode without auto-ISO, and depending on whether you have the time, either manual or TTL mode for the flash
For the rest of the situations, I typically use aperture priority, with auto-ISO. The aperture is what controls the depth of field, and I want to have that critical parameter under my control. Sometimes, when looking for a motion blur effect, I use shutter priority and let the camera choose the aperture and use auto-ISO.
By the way, if you want to become a good photographer, exposure is not the only parameter what you're concerned about. You should master your camera's focusing and burst settings. For action photography, you probably want to use servo autofocus with burst mode, for astrophotography and fireworks photography you probably want to use manual focus, for other situations you probably want to use one-shot autofocus without burst mode.
So, to answer the question: you shouldn't use the manual mode to be professional. You shouldn't use the automatic mode either. You should use something in between. There is plenty of middle ground between these (Do you use auto-ISO or not? Do you use shutter or aperture priority? If using flash, do you use TTL?) |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | In general you want to use as low an ISO setting as you can to avoid noise. If the lowest ISO means shooting at a low shutter speed, say 1/15th then you may bump up the ISO a bit so that you can shoot at a faster shutter speed.
If the light isn't changing, setting everything manually means that you get consistent exposures. Think of a sports or events photographer. If you leave in Aperture priority, then as your background changes (more sky in the photo for example) the camera may adjust the exposure and you end up with under or overexposed images.
Nothing wrong with using Aperture or Shutter priority if it suits you. Full manual yields more consistent results when you have time (and remember you're in manual!) and especially when you'll do a lot of shots in the same light. | I'll provide some answers for some specific situations where I find manual mode useful, with or without auto-ISO:
* **Astrophotography.** For moon, I use f/8 (the sharpest aperture of the lens @ 250mm), ISO 100, 1/200 s. This provides exposure equivalent to the Looney f/11 rule, but with a sharper aperture. For milky way photography, I have planned to use something like f/2.8 (the largest aperture of the lens), ISO 3200, 20 s, but haven't had a chance to shoot outside of streetlight areas when the moon is not up. For astrophotography, there is really no other option than manual mode.
* **Nighttime outdoors photography or Christmas light photography.** I choose f/2.8 or f/1.8 depending on the lens (the largest aperture of the lens), ISO 6400, 1/40 s or 1/80 s (depending on focal length to avoid camera shake). The images will be dark, but then again in these conditions the dark look is what you're looking for. Auto-ISO goes on my camera only up to ISO 3200 (although there may be a setting somewhere to allow using ISO 6400), and for the shutter speed I find it preferable to set it manually to avoid shaken shots.
* **Wildlife photography.** The automatic settings of the camera choose too slow shutter speed for flying birds. Thus, I shoot it manual mode, f/5.6 (the largest aperture of the lens @ 250mm), 1/1000 s and let the exposure be handled by using auto-ISO that can when photographing shadowy areas be as high as ISO 1000 and according to the sunny f/16 rule shouldn't be below ISO 120. So, these settings use an acceptable ISO for any conditions during the daytime. Far over ISO 1000, my camera would produce noisy shots.
* **Photography with a flash.** The flash is your source of exposure for the lit subject, but for the background, flash can't expose it. Thus, the manual mode ensures you can adjust the amount of exposure for the subject and for the background separately. You can either use manual flash settings if you have the time, or if you want to be quick, use TTL metering for the flash to set its power automatically. This covers the foreground. The background exposure will be set by experimenting with various exposure times. You should use manual ISO, since you have the possibility to set the ISO low for a low noise. In practice, ISO 100 is what you want to use (it's the base ISO on most cameras). Set the aperture for correct depth of field, and choose the exposure time depending on experiments that reveal how much background exposure you have. ND filter may be necessary if the background is very bright, such as in sunlight.
I haven't shot fireworks yet (I only bought my first DLSR this year), but I'll probably use the manual mode for fireworks too. I don't do sports photography, but for that situation manual mode could be useful as well.
I would categorize astrophotography, nighttime outdoors photography, Christmas light photography and fireworks photography into low-light photography. I would also categorize wildlife photography and sports photography into action photography.
So, as summary:
* For action photography, you probably want to use manual mode with auto-ISO
* For low-light photography, you probably want to use manual mode without auto-ISO
* For flash photography, you probably want to use manual mode without auto-ISO, and depending on whether you have the time, either manual or TTL mode for the flash
For the rest of the situations, I typically use aperture priority, with auto-ISO. The aperture is what controls the depth of field, and I want to have that critical parameter under my control. Sometimes, when looking for a motion blur effect, I use shutter priority and let the camera choose the aperture and use auto-ISO.
By the way, if you want to become a good photographer, exposure is not the only parameter what you're concerned about. You should master your camera's focusing and burst settings. For action photography, you probably want to use servo autofocus with burst mode, for astrophotography and fireworks photography you probably want to use manual focus, for other situations you probably want to use one-shot autofocus without burst mode.
So, to answer the question: you shouldn't use the manual mode to be professional. You shouldn't use the automatic mode either. You should use something in between. There is plenty of middle ground between these (Do you use auto-ISO or not? Do you use shutter or aperture priority? If using flash, do you use TTL?) |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | First, stay away from the "icons" on your 500D. These are the automated settings, and offer no freedom to choose your aperture and shutter speed.
Once you do that, here are four simple rules I follow:
Rule #1: stay above 1/60.
-------------------------
If you are using a tripod, you can go below this speed, but when hand holding the camera, always stay above this speed. If you do not, you will tend to get blurring from camera movement. Yes IS can help....but just remember the rule, its easy.
Rule #2: Keep your shutter speed 'above' your lens focal length.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This also helps ensure reduction of blur from camera shake. If you are shooting at 200mm, be sure your shutter speed is above 1/200th a second. If you are shooting 75mm, stay above 1/75th. If you are shooting 35mm, stay above...careful...1/60th.
Rule #3. Remember to choose bigger aperture numbers when you are shooting things farther away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When shooting landscapes or other scenes, or when you want your background in focus, choose a "bigger number" for aperture. This actually selects a smaller aperture, but the result is that you get more distant objects in focus, even if you are focusing on a subject fairly close by. Basically, the camera is 'squinting its eyes" , just like you do, trying to bring distant objects in focus. This suggests that you can use aperture to manage the 'look' of your image, which indeed is what you do: pick an appropriate shutter speed (rules 1 and 2) and then adjust aperture until you get the look you want, within rules 1 and 2.
Rule #4: if you can not take your shot within any of the above 3 rules, adjust your ISO up, until you get a rule to apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you shoot at ISO 100 or 200 (and you should basically all the time), move up to ISO 400, then 800, etc until you can follow the rules.
Finally,
Rule #0: Check your ISO DAILY!
------------------------------
Always check your ISO before you use your camera, as you will be very upset when you shoot a critical event at ISO 3200 and have awful grainy shots when you didn't need ISO 3200. | I'll provide some answers for some specific situations where I find manual mode useful, with or without auto-ISO:
* **Astrophotography.** For moon, I use f/8 (the sharpest aperture of the lens @ 250mm), ISO 100, 1/200 s. This provides exposure equivalent to the Looney f/11 rule, but with a sharper aperture. For milky way photography, I have planned to use something like f/2.8 (the largest aperture of the lens), ISO 3200, 20 s, but haven't had a chance to shoot outside of streetlight areas when the moon is not up. For astrophotography, there is really no other option than manual mode.
* **Nighttime outdoors photography or Christmas light photography.** I choose f/2.8 or f/1.8 depending on the lens (the largest aperture of the lens), ISO 6400, 1/40 s or 1/80 s (depending on focal length to avoid camera shake). The images will be dark, but then again in these conditions the dark look is what you're looking for. Auto-ISO goes on my camera only up to ISO 3200 (although there may be a setting somewhere to allow using ISO 6400), and for the shutter speed I find it preferable to set it manually to avoid shaken shots.
* **Wildlife photography.** The automatic settings of the camera choose too slow shutter speed for flying birds. Thus, I shoot it manual mode, f/5.6 (the largest aperture of the lens @ 250mm), 1/1000 s and let the exposure be handled by using auto-ISO that can when photographing shadowy areas be as high as ISO 1000 and according to the sunny f/16 rule shouldn't be below ISO 120. So, these settings use an acceptable ISO for any conditions during the daytime. Far over ISO 1000, my camera would produce noisy shots.
* **Photography with a flash.** The flash is your source of exposure for the lit subject, but for the background, flash can't expose it. Thus, the manual mode ensures you can adjust the amount of exposure for the subject and for the background separately. You can either use manual flash settings if you have the time, or if you want to be quick, use TTL metering for the flash to set its power automatically. This covers the foreground. The background exposure will be set by experimenting with various exposure times. You should use manual ISO, since you have the possibility to set the ISO low for a low noise. In practice, ISO 100 is what you want to use (it's the base ISO on most cameras). Set the aperture for correct depth of field, and choose the exposure time depending on experiments that reveal how much background exposure you have. ND filter may be necessary if the background is very bright, such as in sunlight.
I haven't shot fireworks yet (I only bought my first DLSR this year), but I'll probably use the manual mode for fireworks too. I don't do sports photography, but for that situation manual mode could be useful as well.
I would categorize astrophotography, nighttime outdoors photography, Christmas light photography and fireworks photography into low-light photography. I would also categorize wildlife photography and sports photography into action photography.
So, as summary:
* For action photography, you probably want to use manual mode with auto-ISO
* For low-light photography, you probably want to use manual mode without auto-ISO
* For flash photography, you probably want to use manual mode without auto-ISO, and depending on whether you have the time, either manual or TTL mode for the flash
For the rest of the situations, I typically use aperture priority, with auto-ISO. The aperture is what controls the depth of field, and I want to have that critical parameter under my control. Sometimes, when looking for a motion blur effect, I use shutter priority and let the camera choose the aperture and use auto-ISO.
By the way, if you want to become a good photographer, exposure is not the only parameter what you're concerned about. You should master your camera's focusing and burst settings. For action photography, you probably want to use servo autofocus with burst mode, for astrophotography and fireworks photography you probably want to use manual focus, for other situations you probably want to use one-shot autofocus without burst mode.
So, to answer the question: you shouldn't use the manual mode to be professional. You shouldn't use the automatic mode either. You should use something in between. There is plenty of middle ground between these (Do you use auto-ISO or not? Do you use shutter or aperture priority? If using flash, do you use TTL?) |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | In general you want to use as low an ISO setting as you can to avoid noise. If the lowest ISO means shooting at a low shutter speed, say 1/15th then you may bump up the ISO a bit so that you can shoot at a faster shutter speed.
If the light isn't changing, setting everything manually means that you get consistent exposures. Think of a sports or events photographer. If you leave in Aperture priority, then as your background changes (more sky in the photo for example) the camera may adjust the exposure and you end up with under or overexposed images.
Nothing wrong with using Aperture or Shutter priority if it suits you. Full manual yields more consistent results when you have time (and remember you're in manual!) and especially when you'll do a lot of shots in the same light. | Exposure
========
There are several technical factors that will affect your images directly which you have control over. Depending on each situation that you want to shoot, you may want to have the others adjusted automatically by your camera, or adjust all of them manually yourself. Shooting moving subjects generally means shooting in Shutter priority mode and shooting portraits usually means shooting in aperture priority mode or manual mode. Doing serious flash photography, you will almost always use manual mode to be able to expose freely.
Focal Length
------------
This is a property of your lens. Focal lengths are normally given as 35mm equivalent focal lengths, that is to say, the length given on the lens indicates the focal length when used with 35mm film, or a full frame sensor. Focal length along with aperture, affects depth of field, longer focal lengths generally having a larger effect on the amount of blurring than just a wide aperture.
Aperture
--------
This determines just how wide your lens will be opened once the shutter is triggered. It directly restricts the total amount of light that is going to hit your film or sensor, and as a result, controls all lights in your image, whether they are there for the entire duration of the exposure, or only appear for part of your exposure, like a flash, or a car entering your image at night in the middle of your exposure.
### Depth of Field
The depth of field of an image is the distance in front of and behind the subject you focus on which is in focus. Wide apertures give you a shallow depth of field, allowing you to blur your backgrounds to draw attention to your subject while closing down your aperture allows you to get a wider shot while keeping several subjects at different distance in focus.
### Flash control
The light of a flash is instantaneous, as such, if you are using flash with constant power (Manual flash settings), you can adjust the effect that the flash is having on your exposure precisely by changing your aperture.
Shutter speed
-------------
Exposure length is the length of time that the shutter will remain open once triggered. This controls just how long your sensor will be exposed to light. Exposure length controls whether you can shoot a photo hand-held without camera-shake affecting sharpness as well as how subjects appear in the image.
### Short exposures
Short exposures allow for shooting still images of subjects in motion, things that the naked eye cannot perceive as anything but a blur. For really high-speed photography, additional light sources are a necessity.
### Long exposures
Long exposures can be used to get a bright enough exposure under low light conditions, or, combined with a [circular polarizer filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Polarizing_filter_%28Photography%29) / [ND filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neutral_density_filter) used to capture motion in a still image. Moving lights will appear as streaks in an otherwise unmoving frame.
### Long exposures with flash
Flash used at the beginning of a long exposure will cause the subject to appear to be frozen at the beginning of their motion while the rest of their motion appears trail off of this first image. The backlights of a moving car would actually become a streak of light over the car in a photo shot this way.
Flash used at the end of exposure is generally called [rear curtain flash](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Flash_synchronization#Rear-curtain_sync) and allows for motion trails to lead to the sharp, well exposed image in a long exposure. The backlights of a moving car shot with rear curtain flash would become a streak of light behind the car.
### Camera Shake
Combined with the focal length, shutter speed also determines if an exposure can be made hand-held, a rule of the thumb on this is to match focal length to shutter speed - so if you're using a 50mm lens, shooting at 1/50 or faster, or 1/200 with a 200mm lens is supposed to give you about 100% blur free images if you have relatively steady hands. However, image stabilization on a lens affects this, and it is possible to shoot at high-speed burst modes and get completely sharp photos with an unstabilized lens at speeds approaching even 1/4 of the speed the above rule would suggest as the rule only really applies to probabilities - the human nervous system has completely normal, random muscle shakes several times a second, so if there's a 25% chance that a given shutter speed is long enough to include a shake, there is still a possibility that this won't happen and the image will come out sharp at that speed if you simply shoot 4 times - this is why it's a good idea to use high-speed burst mode at low light conditions.
ISO
---
The ISO value is a property of the film or the sensor in your camera. Basically, it is the speed at which the film or sensor absorbs light. The faster this speed, that is to say, the larger the ISO, the grainier an image will become, especially in the darker parts. However, the slower (smaller) ISO numbers will not only result in a much cleaner image, but will also require more light to properly expose. Unless you wish to achieve a certain grainy look, try to shoot at the lowest ISO level that your other considerations for your image will allow you. |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | Shooting manual mode doesn't make you a better photographer, understanding what all the settings effectively do will. Your camera has three basic settings:
* **Aperture**: Use this to control depth of field (DoF). This is usually the most important setting to most photographers, as it influences both subject matter and composition. You're not going to be taking pictures of things if they're too big to fit into focus.
* **Shutter speed**: Use this to control in-frame movement and blur. While very important, there's really not much of a difference in a typical print between a normal, semi-still image shot at 1/250 and 1/8000. As a general rule, if you're trying to keep motion frozen you want this above 1/125.
* **ISO**: This determines the "image quality" of an image. Keep this as low as possible.
The most common strategy is to first set the aperture, make sure that you have enough DoF to cover your entire subject (or whatever you're trying to achieve). Have your ISO set to the lowest possible value (without going into 'extended ISO' modes) and check your shutter speed. Is it at least 1/60 or 1/125? No? Bump the ISO up a stop.
Your 500D has a exposure level reading that you can see the bottom of [its viewfinder](http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/500d/t1i_viewfinder.jpg). Use that to determine where your exposure needs to be. For example, if you're dialed in at f/5.6 and 1/500 @ 100 ISO, but the meter reads -2, you know you're going to underexpose with those settings. You can change your shutter speed to 1/125 or increase your ISO to 400 to get to the 'correct' exposure. If it reads +1, increase your shutter speed or lower your ISO to compensate.
All that said... experiment. Play around with it. You're shooting digital, who cares if some of your shots are blurry?
You can also try using the Sunny 16 rule, it might help you 'get' exposure. The Sunny 16 rule says: on a bright, sunny day, you can set your aperture to f/16 and your shutter to the same speed as your ISO value (so 1/100 for ISO 100, 1/400 for ISO 400). On a sunny, but slightly less so day, try f/11 or f/5.6 on cloudy day.
Manual mode's number 1 use is for consistency. When you take a series of photos in non-changing light conditions, you want your known color values to stay as close to each other as possible. With constant metering, especially in-camera metering, you can't hope for that kind of consistency. Point your camera at a white wall, look at the readings, then put a piece of black paper on that wall and see how wildly the meter reading changes.
There are also situations where in-camera metering doesn't do you any good, mainly in the studio. I don't know of any camera that meters for strobe/flash light effectively. 4 | Exposure
========
There are several technical factors that will affect your images directly which you have control over. Depending on each situation that you want to shoot, you may want to have the others adjusted automatically by your camera, or adjust all of them manually yourself. Shooting moving subjects generally means shooting in Shutter priority mode and shooting portraits usually means shooting in aperture priority mode or manual mode. Doing serious flash photography, you will almost always use manual mode to be able to expose freely.
Focal Length
------------
This is a property of your lens. Focal lengths are normally given as 35mm equivalent focal lengths, that is to say, the length given on the lens indicates the focal length when used with 35mm film, or a full frame sensor. Focal length along with aperture, affects depth of field, longer focal lengths generally having a larger effect on the amount of blurring than just a wide aperture.
Aperture
--------
This determines just how wide your lens will be opened once the shutter is triggered. It directly restricts the total amount of light that is going to hit your film or sensor, and as a result, controls all lights in your image, whether they are there for the entire duration of the exposure, or only appear for part of your exposure, like a flash, or a car entering your image at night in the middle of your exposure.
### Depth of Field
The depth of field of an image is the distance in front of and behind the subject you focus on which is in focus. Wide apertures give you a shallow depth of field, allowing you to blur your backgrounds to draw attention to your subject while closing down your aperture allows you to get a wider shot while keeping several subjects at different distance in focus.
### Flash control
The light of a flash is instantaneous, as such, if you are using flash with constant power (Manual flash settings), you can adjust the effect that the flash is having on your exposure precisely by changing your aperture.
Shutter speed
-------------
Exposure length is the length of time that the shutter will remain open once triggered. This controls just how long your sensor will be exposed to light. Exposure length controls whether you can shoot a photo hand-held without camera-shake affecting sharpness as well as how subjects appear in the image.
### Short exposures
Short exposures allow for shooting still images of subjects in motion, things that the naked eye cannot perceive as anything but a blur. For really high-speed photography, additional light sources are a necessity.
### Long exposures
Long exposures can be used to get a bright enough exposure under low light conditions, or, combined with a [circular polarizer filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Polarizing_filter_%28Photography%29) / [ND filter](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neutral_density_filter) used to capture motion in a still image. Moving lights will appear as streaks in an otherwise unmoving frame.
### Long exposures with flash
Flash used at the beginning of a long exposure will cause the subject to appear to be frozen at the beginning of their motion while the rest of their motion appears trail off of this first image. The backlights of a moving car would actually become a streak of light over the car in a photo shot this way.
Flash used at the end of exposure is generally called [rear curtain flash](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Flash_synchronization#Rear-curtain_sync) and allows for motion trails to lead to the sharp, well exposed image in a long exposure. The backlights of a moving car shot with rear curtain flash would become a streak of light behind the car.
### Camera Shake
Combined with the focal length, shutter speed also determines if an exposure can be made hand-held, a rule of the thumb on this is to match focal length to shutter speed - so if you're using a 50mm lens, shooting at 1/50 or faster, or 1/200 with a 200mm lens is supposed to give you about 100% blur free images if you have relatively steady hands. However, image stabilization on a lens affects this, and it is possible to shoot at high-speed burst modes and get completely sharp photos with an unstabilized lens at speeds approaching even 1/4 of the speed the above rule would suggest as the rule only really applies to probabilities - the human nervous system has completely normal, random muscle shakes several times a second, so if there's a 25% chance that a given shutter speed is long enough to include a shake, there is still a possibility that this won't happen and the image will come out sharp at that speed if you simply shoot 4 times - this is why it's a good idea to use high-speed burst mode at low light conditions.
ISO
---
The ISO value is a property of the film or the sensor in your camera. Basically, it is the speed at which the film or sensor absorbs light. The faster this speed, that is to say, the larger the ISO, the grainier an image will become, especially in the darker parts. However, the slower (smaller) ISO numbers will not only result in a much cleaner image, but will also require more light to properly expose. Unless you wish to achieve a certain grainy look, try to shoot at the lowest ISO level that your other considerations for your image will allow you. |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | First, stay away from the "icons" on your 500D. These are the automated settings, and offer no freedom to choose your aperture and shutter speed.
Once you do that, here are four simple rules I follow:
Rule #1: stay above 1/60.
-------------------------
If you are using a tripod, you can go below this speed, but when hand holding the camera, always stay above this speed. If you do not, you will tend to get blurring from camera movement. Yes IS can help....but just remember the rule, its easy.
Rule #2: Keep your shutter speed 'above' your lens focal length.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This also helps ensure reduction of blur from camera shake. If you are shooting at 200mm, be sure your shutter speed is above 1/200th a second. If you are shooting 75mm, stay above 1/75th. If you are shooting 35mm, stay above...careful...1/60th.
Rule #3. Remember to choose bigger aperture numbers when you are shooting things farther away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When shooting landscapes or other scenes, or when you want your background in focus, choose a "bigger number" for aperture. This actually selects a smaller aperture, but the result is that you get more distant objects in focus, even if you are focusing on a subject fairly close by. Basically, the camera is 'squinting its eyes" , just like you do, trying to bring distant objects in focus. This suggests that you can use aperture to manage the 'look' of your image, which indeed is what you do: pick an appropriate shutter speed (rules 1 and 2) and then adjust aperture until you get the look you want, within rules 1 and 2.
Rule #4: if you can not take your shot within any of the above 3 rules, adjust your ISO up, until you get a rule to apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you shoot at ISO 100 or 200 (and you should basically all the time), move up to ISO 400, then 800, etc until you can follow the rules.
Finally,
Rule #0: Check your ISO DAILY!
------------------------------
Always check your ISO before you use your camera, as you will be very upset when you shoot a critical event at ISO 3200 and have awful grainy shots when you didn't need ISO 3200. | In general you want to use as low an ISO setting as you can to avoid noise. If the lowest ISO means shooting at a low shutter speed, say 1/15th then you may bump up the ISO a bit so that you can shoot at a faster shutter speed.
If the light isn't changing, setting everything manually means that you get consistent exposures. Think of a sports or events photographer. If you leave in Aperture priority, then as your background changes (more sky in the photo for example) the camera may adjust the exposure and you end up with under or overexposed images.
Nothing wrong with using Aperture or Shutter priority if it suits you. Full manual yields more consistent results when you have time (and remember you're in manual!) and especially when you'll do a lot of shots in the same light. |
11,548 | I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.
Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking *all* my photos in Full Manual mode.
Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.
Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation. | 2011/05/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11548",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4990/"
] | Shooting manual mode doesn't make you a better photographer, understanding what all the settings effectively do will. Your camera has three basic settings:
* **Aperture**: Use this to control depth of field (DoF). This is usually the most important setting to most photographers, as it influences both subject matter and composition. You're not going to be taking pictures of things if they're too big to fit into focus.
* **Shutter speed**: Use this to control in-frame movement and blur. While very important, there's really not much of a difference in a typical print between a normal, semi-still image shot at 1/250 and 1/8000. As a general rule, if you're trying to keep motion frozen you want this above 1/125.
* **ISO**: This determines the "image quality" of an image. Keep this as low as possible.
The most common strategy is to first set the aperture, make sure that you have enough DoF to cover your entire subject (or whatever you're trying to achieve). Have your ISO set to the lowest possible value (without going into 'extended ISO' modes) and check your shutter speed. Is it at least 1/60 or 1/125? No? Bump the ISO up a stop.
Your 500D has a exposure level reading that you can see the bottom of [its viewfinder](http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/500d/t1i_viewfinder.jpg). Use that to determine where your exposure needs to be. For example, if you're dialed in at f/5.6 and 1/500 @ 100 ISO, but the meter reads -2, you know you're going to underexpose with those settings. You can change your shutter speed to 1/125 or increase your ISO to 400 to get to the 'correct' exposure. If it reads +1, increase your shutter speed or lower your ISO to compensate.
All that said... experiment. Play around with it. You're shooting digital, who cares if some of your shots are blurry?
You can also try using the Sunny 16 rule, it might help you 'get' exposure. The Sunny 16 rule says: on a bright, sunny day, you can set your aperture to f/16 and your shutter to the same speed as your ISO value (so 1/100 for ISO 100, 1/400 for ISO 400). On a sunny, but slightly less so day, try f/11 or f/5.6 on cloudy day.
Manual mode's number 1 use is for consistency. When you take a series of photos in non-changing light conditions, you want your known color values to stay as close to each other as possible. With constant metering, especially in-camera metering, you can't hope for that kind of consistency. Point your camera at a white wall, look at the readings, then put a piece of black paper on that wall and see how wildly the meter reading changes.
There are also situations where in-camera metering doesn't do you any good, mainly in the studio. I don't know of any camera that meters for strobe/flash light effectively. 4 | First, stay away from the "icons" on your 500D. These are the automated settings, and offer no freedom to choose your aperture and shutter speed.
Once you do that, here are four simple rules I follow:
Rule #1: stay above 1/60.
-------------------------
If you are using a tripod, you can go below this speed, but when hand holding the camera, always stay above this speed. If you do not, you will tend to get blurring from camera movement. Yes IS can help....but just remember the rule, its easy.
Rule #2: Keep your shutter speed 'above' your lens focal length.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This also helps ensure reduction of blur from camera shake. If you are shooting at 200mm, be sure your shutter speed is above 1/200th a second. If you are shooting 75mm, stay above 1/75th. If you are shooting 35mm, stay above...careful...1/60th.
Rule #3. Remember to choose bigger aperture numbers when you are shooting things farther away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When shooting landscapes or other scenes, or when you want your background in focus, choose a "bigger number" for aperture. This actually selects a smaller aperture, but the result is that you get more distant objects in focus, even if you are focusing on a subject fairly close by. Basically, the camera is 'squinting its eyes" , just like you do, trying to bring distant objects in focus. This suggests that you can use aperture to manage the 'look' of your image, which indeed is what you do: pick an appropriate shutter speed (rules 1 and 2) and then adjust aperture until you get the look you want, within rules 1 and 2.
Rule #4: if you can not take your shot within any of the above 3 rules, adjust your ISO up, until you get a rule to apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you shoot at ISO 100 or 200 (and you should basically all the time), move up to ISO 400, then 800, etc until you can follow the rules.
Finally,
Rule #0: Check your ISO DAILY!
------------------------------
Always check your ISO before you use your camera, as you will be very upset when you shoot a critical event at ISO 3200 and have awful grainy shots when you didn't need ISO 3200. |
24,951 | My [4yr old son](https://nationalbikechallenge.org/rider/39497) has a [16in Bikestar](http://amzn.com/B003YT1B8E) and at times he maxes out the gearing on it trying to keep up with his old man. How feasible is it to add either a 2 or 3 speed hub to such a bike? I'm concerned about how much space the hub is going to take up and since I doubt the wheel is a 36h, can one be used with less spokes? I know kids grow out of bikes quickly but he is going to have this bike for a few years for now, and this wheel could be passed down to his sister (right now I'm planning on getting the same brand).
While cruising the flats it seems like his cadence is getting close to the high side while doing 7~8 mph. Any bit of downhill causes him to max out and spin crazy. When he wants to pick up the pace a little will also cause him to spin crazy. We have a few hills along our favorite routes that he struggles on so I can't just swap out the existing gearing. The front chain ring fills the chain guard so that is out of the question as well.
*BACKGROUND INFO*:
Ok, so I was mostly joking about the keeping up part, I let him lead and set the pace. When he falls behind, I slow down and let him pass, but stubborn kid likes to follow the trailer ...uh princess chariot... too. He also rides this bike daily to daycare and back (2 miles one way).
This bike was picked with commuting in mind. We got him this bike for his 4th birthday and about a few weeks after ditching the training wheels. He just barely fit it then and rides great with it now so we still have some time with it before he gets a new one.
Alternatives won't work as well since who wants to downgrade? He loves having his own bike. A trailer bike would probably not mesh well, he is already trying to attach his sisters trailer to his bike (and I'm tempted to let him). Long distance isn't an issue with him either, his first ride without training wheels on a 12 inch bike was 15 miles and his first ride with this bike was 21 miles. The common "long way" home from daycare is 10 miles itself. | 2014/10/01 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/24951",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/6782/"
] | It's pretty easy if you have a spoke cutter and are willing to run a funny spoke pattern. I suggest buying (ideally second hand) a three speed hub and lacing it into the 16" rim yourself. With a wheel that small and a child on it there's not enough load to make strength an issue, so you can reasonably either lace a 20 spoke rim to a 36 spoke hub using whatever holes are closest, or ignore two spoke holes in the rim and use every second hole in the hub (18/36). It's probably not going to be pretty, but it will work.
However I think you're going about this backwards. Why are you riding faster than he can? Much as you wouldn't suggest stilts so he can keep up when you walk, gears don't address the problem that you can ride faster than him. He doesn't have the power or endurance you do, so without a power assist he's going to be slower.
If you need to cover long distances, perhaps a trailer bike would be a better solution? That way he can "help", and you can go whatever speed you like. That's generally safer for your kids, since you're in control and the only real risk is them jumping off the bike while you're moving. | I don't think that its a good idea given that in a few months, you're going to want a 20 inch bicycle for the child. IGH's wouldn't work since the hub width is likely smaller than standard, and mounting a derailleur would be a problem as well. Also, if you were to find a compatible hub or whatever (given the 20 spoke constraint that andy256 mentioned in the comments), you'd be spending quite a bit for building it. You'd also have to run your shifter cables and what not.
What you could do is get something with a 20 inch bike with a low top tube (like a Specialized Hotrock 20) and see if you can get the seat post low enough ([possibly by cutting it](http://www.bikeforums.net/recreational-family/441184-16-inch-bicycle-gears.html)).
Or, just slow down and let the kid catch up. But I don't think the combination exists out of the box. |
24,951 | My [4yr old son](https://nationalbikechallenge.org/rider/39497) has a [16in Bikestar](http://amzn.com/B003YT1B8E) and at times he maxes out the gearing on it trying to keep up with his old man. How feasible is it to add either a 2 or 3 speed hub to such a bike? I'm concerned about how much space the hub is going to take up and since I doubt the wheel is a 36h, can one be used with less spokes? I know kids grow out of bikes quickly but he is going to have this bike for a few years for now, and this wheel could be passed down to his sister (right now I'm planning on getting the same brand).
While cruising the flats it seems like his cadence is getting close to the high side while doing 7~8 mph. Any bit of downhill causes him to max out and spin crazy. When he wants to pick up the pace a little will also cause him to spin crazy. We have a few hills along our favorite routes that he struggles on so I can't just swap out the existing gearing. The front chain ring fills the chain guard so that is out of the question as well.
*BACKGROUND INFO*:
Ok, so I was mostly joking about the keeping up part, I let him lead and set the pace. When he falls behind, I slow down and let him pass, but stubborn kid likes to follow the trailer ...uh princess chariot... too. He also rides this bike daily to daycare and back (2 miles one way).
This bike was picked with commuting in mind. We got him this bike for his 4th birthday and about a few weeks after ditching the training wheels. He just barely fit it then and rides great with it now so we still have some time with it before he gets a new one.
Alternatives won't work as well since who wants to downgrade? He loves having his own bike. A trailer bike would probably not mesh well, he is already trying to attach his sisters trailer to his bike (and I'm tempted to let him). Long distance isn't an issue with him either, his first ride without training wheels on a 12 inch bike was 15 miles and his first ride with this bike was 21 miles. The common "long way" home from daycare is 10 miles itself. | 2014/10/01 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/24951",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/6782/"
] | I don't think that its a good idea given that in a few months, you're going to want a 20 inch bicycle for the child. IGH's wouldn't work since the hub width is likely smaller than standard, and mounting a derailleur would be a problem as well. Also, if you were to find a compatible hub or whatever (given the 20 spoke constraint that andy256 mentioned in the comments), you'd be spending quite a bit for building it. You'd also have to run your shifter cables and what not.
What you could do is get something with a 20 inch bike with a low top tube (like a Specialized Hotrock 20) and see if you can get the seat post low enough ([possibly by cutting it](http://www.bikeforums.net/recreational-family/441184-16-inch-bicycle-gears.html)).
Or, just slow down and let the kid catch up. But I don't think the combination exists out of the box. | Old thread but why don’t you think the other way and do a “dingle” , put in a double chainring and shift on that rather than the sprocket.... too simple folks. |
24,951 | My [4yr old son](https://nationalbikechallenge.org/rider/39497) has a [16in Bikestar](http://amzn.com/B003YT1B8E) and at times he maxes out the gearing on it trying to keep up with his old man. How feasible is it to add either a 2 or 3 speed hub to such a bike? I'm concerned about how much space the hub is going to take up and since I doubt the wheel is a 36h, can one be used with less spokes? I know kids grow out of bikes quickly but he is going to have this bike for a few years for now, and this wheel could be passed down to his sister (right now I'm planning on getting the same brand).
While cruising the flats it seems like his cadence is getting close to the high side while doing 7~8 mph. Any bit of downhill causes him to max out and spin crazy. When he wants to pick up the pace a little will also cause him to spin crazy. We have a few hills along our favorite routes that he struggles on so I can't just swap out the existing gearing. The front chain ring fills the chain guard so that is out of the question as well.
*BACKGROUND INFO*:
Ok, so I was mostly joking about the keeping up part, I let him lead and set the pace. When he falls behind, I slow down and let him pass, but stubborn kid likes to follow the trailer ...uh princess chariot... too. He also rides this bike daily to daycare and back (2 miles one way).
This bike was picked with commuting in mind. We got him this bike for his 4th birthday and about a few weeks after ditching the training wheels. He just barely fit it then and rides great with it now so we still have some time with it before he gets a new one.
Alternatives won't work as well since who wants to downgrade? He loves having his own bike. A trailer bike would probably not mesh well, he is already trying to attach his sisters trailer to his bike (and I'm tempted to let him). Long distance isn't an issue with him either, his first ride without training wheels on a 12 inch bike was 15 miles and his first ride with this bike was 21 miles. The common "long way" home from daycare is 10 miles itself. | 2014/10/01 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/24951",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/6782/"
] | It's pretty easy if you have a spoke cutter and are willing to run a funny spoke pattern. I suggest buying (ideally second hand) a three speed hub and lacing it into the 16" rim yourself. With a wheel that small and a child on it there's not enough load to make strength an issue, so you can reasonably either lace a 20 spoke rim to a 36 spoke hub using whatever holes are closest, or ignore two spoke holes in the rim and use every second hole in the hub (18/36). It's probably not going to be pretty, but it will work.
However I think you're going about this backwards. Why are you riding faster than he can? Much as you wouldn't suggest stilts so he can keep up when you walk, gears don't address the problem that you can ride faster than him. He doesn't have the power or endurance you do, so without a power assist he's going to be slower.
If you need to cover long distances, perhaps a trailer bike would be a better solution? That way he can "help", and you can go whatever speed you like. That's generally safer for your kids, since you're in control and the only real risk is them jumping off the bike while you're moving. | A [Brompton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_Bicycle) uses a 16" wheel size, which means you could get a used Brompton wheel with Sturmey Archer 3-speed hub and swap it out. The only problem is that such wheels are rather expensive even used. |
24,951 | My [4yr old son](https://nationalbikechallenge.org/rider/39497) has a [16in Bikestar](http://amzn.com/B003YT1B8E) and at times he maxes out the gearing on it trying to keep up with his old man. How feasible is it to add either a 2 or 3 speed hub to such a bike? I'm concerned about how much space the hub is going to take up and since I doubt the wheel is a 36h, can one be used with less spokes? I know kids grow out of bikes quickly but he is going to have this bike for a few years for now, and this wheel could be passed down to his sister (right now I'm planning on getting the same brand).
While cruising the flats it seems like his cadence is getting close to the high side while doing 7~8 mph. Any bit of downhill causes him to max out and spin crazy. When he wants to pick up the pace a little will also cause him to spin crazy. We have a few hills along our favorite routes that he struggles on so I can't just swap out the existing gearing. The front chain ring fills the chain guard so that is out of the question as well.
*BACKGROUND INFO*:
Ok, so I was mostly joking about the keeping up part, I let him lead and set the pace. When he falls behind, I slow down and let him pass, but stubborn kid likes to follow the trailer ...uh princess chariot... too. He also rides this bike daily to daycare and back (2 miles one way).
This bike was picked with commuting in mind. We got him this bike for his 4th birthday and about a few weeks after ditching the training wheels. He just barely fit it then and rides great with it now so we still have some time with it before he gets a new one.
Alternatives won't work as well since who wants to downgrade? He loves having his own bike. A trailer bike would probably not mesh well, he is already trying to attach his sisters trailer to his bike (and I'm tempted to let him). Long distance isn't an issue with him either, his first ride without training wheels on a 12 inch bike was 15 miles and his first ride with this bike was 21 miles. The common "long way" home from daycare is 10 miles itself. | 2014/10/01 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/24951",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/6782/"
] | It's pretty easy if you have a spoke cutter and are willing to run a funny spoke pattern. I suggest buying (ideally second hand) a three speed hub and lacing it into the 16" rim yourself. With a wheel that small and a child on it there's not enough load to make strength an issue, so you can reasonably either lace a 20 spoke rim to a 36 spoke hub using whatever holes are closest, or ignore two spoke holes in the rim and use every second hole in the hub (18/36). It's probably not going to be pretty, but it will work.
However I think you're going about this backwards. Why are you riding faster than he can? Much as you wouldn't suggest stilts so he can keep up when you walk, gears don't address the problem that you can ride faster than him. He doesn't have the power or endurance you do, so without a power assist he's going to be slower.
If you need to cover long distances, perhaps a trailer bike would be a better solution? That way he can "help", and you can go whatever speed you like. That's generally safer for your kids, since you're in control and the only real risk is them jumping off the bike while you're moving. | You could buy a rear wheel from Woom with the Scram automatic 2 speed rear hub. It shifts gears when the hub reaches a certain speed.
I am in the same boat as you trying to modify a 16" bike for my 4 year old |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.