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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9,552,105 | I am currently working on a Java graphics API and want to enable easy customization. Part of what I have in mind is being able to replace standard code with custom code. To achieve this, I'm wondering if I can have the methods of my code reference code in external, swappable files (that may or may not be written in a different language, such as RhinoScript). For example, if someone using the API feels the code of a particular method is inefficient, they could replace the file that method references with their own file with code which they feel is more efficient.
I understand interfaces and abstract classes may be an option to achieve this, but I feel the approach I described, if achievable, would have the advantage of reusable code, easier implementations of the API using different scripting languages, and a generally easier way to modify code.
The bottom line of what I'm asking is this: is it possible to have a method execute code contained in a stand alone file (contains only the code the method would execute), which may or may not be written in a language separate from Java, and if so, how would I go about doing this or what subjects should I research for this?
In closing, I apologize if this is not an acceptable question to ask on this forum or I have not stated my question clearly enough. | 2012/03/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9552105",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1054857/"
] | I think this is not the way to go, if you want to offer customization to your library, interfaces and abstract classes are your best bet. Implementing wrappers for other languages will be very inefficient and probably relatively slow, not even starting with the complexity it add to your code. How are you going to pass arguments? Receive return values? Manage exceptions in case of run-time or syntax errors?
Of course it all possible, but as a developer, I would never use an API that works like you described. | What you are asking to do sounds exactly like what the Reflection A.P.I. can offer:
**Extensibility Features**
An application may make use of external, user-defined classes by creating instances of extensibility objects using their fully-qualified names.
Read up more on it here:
<http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/reflect/> |
2,905 | There comes a time when time-outs don't cut it anymore.
Normally, when my kids exercise poor judgement, I let them experience natural consequences. However, sometimes their actions go against what we are teaching them and the consequences are rewarding.
When pre-teens break the rules or disobey, what consequences are appropriate? | 2011/09/13 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/2905",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/61/"
] | It depends on the privileges they have. Sometimes, giving them extra chores is appropriate (say, if they've broken something and you want them to make restitution.) Many times, though, you'll want to take something away from them. Anything short of food, clothing, and the roof over their heads is fair game-- depending on the severity of their rule breaking.
Items:
* Cell phone
* computer
* TV
* games
Privleges:
* Playing with friends
* Being driven places
* Getting allowance
My dad always used to ask us the trick question: "What punishment do *you* think you deserve?" You can try that one if you run out of ideas ;) | Besides taking away privileges, it is really important to kids this age to express themselves as individuals. You may not always like what they choose to wear but sometimes it's tolerable. Make sure you have given them enough so that there is plenty to take away.
How they want their hair done.
A special pair of shoes.
Food they like to share with their friends.
If they like to sleep in on the weekends. Make them go to bed early and get up early in the morning. Then have them do something physical; pull weeds, lifting heave objects, etc... |
2,905 | There comes a time when time-outs don't cut it anymore.
Normally, when my kids exercise poor judgement, I let them experience natural consequences. However, sometimes their actions go against what we are teaching them and the consequences are rewarding.
When pre-teens break the rules or disobey, what consequences are appropriate? | 2011/09/13 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/2905",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/61/"
] | It depends on the privileges they have. Sometimes, giving them extra chores is appropriate (say, if they've broken something and you want them to make restitution.) Many times, though, you'll want to take something away from them. Anything short of food, clothing, and the roof over their heads is fair game-- depending on the severity of their rule breaking.
Items:
* Cell phone
* computer
* TV
* games
Privleges:
* Playing with friends
* Being driven places
* Getting allowance
My dad always used to ask us the trick question: "What punishment do *you* think you deserve?" You can try that one if you run out of ideas ;) | Developmentally, preteens and teens are at the age they are supposed to question everything. This makes for some delightful challenges. The piece that helps with their questioning is that they also like to feel like they have some ownership or control over their life. It is absolutely appropriate at that age to sit down with your children and review the family rules and discuss them - find out what your children think of the rules - are there any they think should be added, amended or deleted. Ask them to justify any changes they are proposing and afford them the same. The more you involve children in these age groups with decisions, and explain the though behind them, the better decision makers they will be when you are not standing next to them. Additionally, ask them to help establish consequences. Depending on your child's personality, writing these out and posting them may have a great power for avoiding consequences.
It is additionally important to have behaviors that will earn rewards and discuss those along with what the rewards will be. Most tweens are still very interested in pleasing adults and if they know that sweeping the kitchen floor will earn them a reward (thereby letting them know it has pleased you) they are more likely to complete the task.
I do recall the "worst" punishment from my parents at that age was having a discussion about my bad decision, what was so bad about it, how I was going to rectify it and what I was going to do in the future - they were agonizing talks at the time, but they taught me how to think about results of decisions I make, eventually I was able to foresee the discussion and therefore avoid the behavior. |
2,905 | There comes a time when time-outs don't cut it anymore.
Normally, when my kids exercise poor judgement, I let them experience natural consequences. However, sometimes their actions go against what we are teaching them and the consequences are rewarding.
When pre-teens break the rules or disobey, what consequences are appropriate? | 2011/09/13 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/2905",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/61/"
] | It depends on the privileges they have. Sometimes, giving them extra chores is appropriate (say, if they've broken something and you want them to make restitution.) Many times, though, you'll want to take something away from them. Anything short of food, clothing, and the roof over their heads is fair game-- depending on the severity of their rule breaking.
Items:
* Cell phone
* computer
* TV
* games
Privleges:
* Playing with friends
* Being driven places
* Getting allowance
My dad always used to ask us the trick question: "What punishment do *you* think you deserve?" You can try that one if you run out of ideas ;) | Preteens are at a particular stage in life that makes them **very different** from their younger selves **and very different** from adults. That means they are often motivated differently so your question is exceptional in its likely quality in terms of others needing similar advice.
The first thing to know is that at this point in their development, teens are actually having a growth spurt in their brains equivalent to the one they had when they were between two and five years old. They are **not** growing **new cells**, but the are growing **new synapses** (or connections) between the cells they have as well as a myelin sheath over the cells in their frontal lobes. Sometimes, things they **could** do only a month ago are actually difficult for them now because they honestly get muddled and forgetful at times. This doesn't excuse things like not getting work in, but it makes it a lot easier as parent to be a little more patient about it. If the trouble is organizational or related to things like picking up or turning off lights etc. Talk to them about their brain development and use things like planners, calendars and to-do lists with them. Einstein didn't learn his own phone number - this genius' explanation, "I have enough to remember already." He could look his phone number up if it was written down and he knew which book to use. Work on teaching them to use methods that require less memory.
Teens and pre-teens also have a lot chemically going on (changing and raging hormones) that in an adult would be enough to cause us to be diagnosed as clinically insane and prescribed drugs to help moderate it all. They are learning how to balance all of this when that myelin sheath is still growing and their brains aren't really built how to moderate emotion yet. This results in back-talk, fit throwing and a host of other **super wonderful** parent favorites. Take a deep breath, remind yourself that, "this too shall pass." and then try to use empathy. Even though they are not yet adults, they really want to be treated like adults. They need you to listen, empathize and understand not to yell and lecture. It is often more effective to acknowledge their feelings, listen, paraphrase calmly and **then** calmly state your concern. Follow your statement of concern with a question - what does your child think the answer is? You may be surprised to find they know what is happening is wrong and may even suggest a punishment more harsh than you would have thought to give yourself. **Or** they may express a need for help and how they can get that help from you.
Instead of using punishments **or** rewards, continue to focus on finding the natural consequences. For example, when a child doesn't turn in their work, their grade suffers. When a grade suffers, so do future prospects for further education and careers. If your child wants to live a vagabond kind of life, let them live it. People who aren't gainfully employed don't have money to stay "in fashion," go to the movies, hang with friends, by cool stuff like the latest i-pad, i-pod and i-phone. Don't warn, threaten and cajole, just take the privilege away and describe the connection in **one paragraph** or less coupled with empathy. "I'm so sorry that you haven't been taking care of first things first. It is such a bummer you can't go to the theater tonight, but people who don't get their work done, don't have money for such frivolous things." Don't argue, don't worry if they pout, just repeat yourself and walk away - they'll get the point.
Teens also need something that is **"theirs"**. A way to stand above the crowd in a positive way. Does your kid have an outlet that is related to a special interest or talent? At parties and such, adults are identified by their careers and their special interests. Teens want this too so if they have it **don't take it away** and if they don't, **help them find it!**
It also may be that they need employment. Do you feel good about yourself and at your best when you aren't productive? If they can't get formal employment right now, why not pay them for a "special job" that will use their best in your home? I'm not talking about paying for chores here, give them something that wouldn't be the average kid's work for the family anyway. \*\*Or \*\*find a volunteer situation that gives them real-world experience in an interest area.
See [this article](http://www.thehomescholar.com/lack-of-motivation.php) for more, similar ideas. |
2,905 | There comes a time when time-outs don't cut it anymore.
Normally, when my kids exercise poor judgement, I let them experience natural consequences. However, sometimes their actions go against what we are teaching them and the consequences are rewarding.
When pre-teens break the rules or disobey, what consequences are appropriate? | 2011/09/13 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/2905",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/61/"
] | Developmentally, preteens and teens are at the age they are supposed to question everything. This makes for some delightful challenges. The piece that helps with their questioning is that they also like to feel like they have some ownership or control over their life. It is absolutely appropriate at that age to sit down with your children and review the family rules and discuss them - find out what your children think of the rules - are there any they think should be added, amended or deleted. Ask them to justify any changes they are proposing and afford them the same. The more you involve children in these age groups with decisions, and explain the though behind them, the better decision makers they will be when you are not standing next to them. Additionally, ask them to help establish consequences. Depending on your child's personality, writing these out and posting them may have a great power for avoiding consequences.
It is additionally important to have behaviors that will earn rewards and discuss those along with what the rewards will be. Most tweens are still very interested in pleasing adults and if they know that sweeping the kitchen floor will earn them a reward (thereby letting them know it has pleased you) they are more likely to complete the task.
I do recall the "worst" punishment from my parents at that age was having a discussion about my bad decision, what was so bad about it, how I was going to rectify it and what I was going to do in the future - they were agonizing talks at the time, but they taught me how to think about results of decisions I make, eventually I was able to foresee the discussion and therefore avoid the behavior. | Besides taking away privileges, it is really important to kids this age to express themselves as individuals. You may not always like what they choose to wear but sometimes it's tolerable. Make sure you have given them enough so that there is plenty to take away.
How they want their hair done.
A special pair of shoes.
Food they like to share with their friends.
If they like to sleep in on the weekends. Make them go to bed early and get up early in the morning. Then have them do something physical; pull weeds, lifting heave objects, etc... |
2,905 | There comes a time when time-outs don't cut it anymore.
Normally, when my kids exercise poor judgement, I let them experience natural consequences. However, sometimes their actions go against what we are teaching them and the consequences are rewarding.
When pre-teens break the rules or disobey, what consequences are appropriate? | 2011/09/13 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/2905",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/61/"
] | Developmentally, preteens and teens are at the age they are supposed to question everything. This makes for some delightful challenges. The piece that helps with their questioning is that they also like to feel like they have some ownership or control over their life. It is absolutely appropriate at that age to sit down with your children and review the family rules and discuss them - find out what your children think of the rules - are there any they think should be added, amended or deleted. Ask them to justify any changes they are proposing and afford them the same. The more you involve children in these age groups with decisions, and explain the though behind them, the better decision makers they will be when you are not standing next to them. Additionally, ask them to help establish consequences. Depending on your child's personality, writing these out and posting them may have a great power for avoiding consequences.
It is additionally important to have behaviors that will earn rewards and discuss those along with what the rewards will be. Most tweens are still very interested in pleasing adults and if they know that sweeping the kitchen floor will earn them a reward (thereby letting them know it has pleased you) they are more likely to complete the task.
I do recall the "worst" punishment from my parents at that age was having a discussion about my bad decision, what was so bad about it, how I was going to rectify it and what I was going to do in the future - they were agonizing talks at the time, but they taught me how to think about results of decisions I make, eventually I was able to foresee the discussion and therefore avoid the behavior. | Preteens are at a particular stage in life that makes them **very different** from their younger selves **and very different** from adults. That means they are often motivated differently so your question is exceptional in its likely quality in terms of others needing similar advice.
The first thing to know is that at this point in their development, teens are actually having a growth spurt in their brains equivalent to the one they had when they were between two and five years old. They are **not** growing **new cells**, but the are growing **new synapses** (or connections) between the cells they have as well as a myelin sheath over the cells in their frontal lobes. Sometimes, things they **could** do only a month ago are actually difficult for them now because they honestly get muddled and forgetful at times. This doesn't excuse things like not getting work in, but it makes it a lot easier as parent to be a little more patient about it. If the trouble is organizational or related to things like picking up or turning off lights etc. Talk to them about their brain development and use things like planners, calendars and to-do lists with them. Einstein didn't learn his own phone number - this genius' explanation, "I have enough to remember already." He could look his phone number up if it was written down and he knew which book to use. Work on teaching them to use methods that require less memory.
Teens and pre-teens also have a lot chemically going on (changing and raging hormones) that in an adult would be enough to cause us to be diagnosed as clinically insane and prescribed drugs to help moderate it all. They are learning how to balance all of this when that myelin sheath is still growing and their brains aren't really built how to moderate emotion yet. This results in back-talk, fit throwing and a host of other **super wonderful** parent favorites. Take a deep breath, remind yourself that, "this too shall pass." and then try to use empathy. Even though they are not yet adults, they really want to be treated like adults. They need you to listen, empathize and understand not to yell and lecture. It is often more effective to acknowledge their feelings, listen, paraphrase calmly and **then** calmly state your concern. Follow your statement of concern with a question - what does your child think the answer is? You may be surprised to find they know what is happening is wrong and may even suggest a punishment more harsh than you would have thought to give yourself. **Or** they may express a need for help and how they can get that help from you.
Instead of using punishments **or** rewards, continue to focus on finding the natural consequences. For example, when a child doesn't turn in their work, their grade suffers. When a grade suffers, so do future prospects for further education and careers. If your child wants to live a vagabond kind of life, let them live it. People who aren't gainfully employed don't have money to stay "in fashion," go to the movies, hang with friends, by cool stuff like the latest i-pad, i-pod and i-phone. Don't warn, threaten and cajole, just take the privilege away and describe the connection in **one paragraph** or less coupled with empathy. "I'm so sorry that you haven't been taking care of first things first. It is such a bummer you can't go to the theater tonight, but people who don't get their work done, don't have money for such frivolous things." Don't argue, don't worry if they pout, just repeat yourself and walk away - they'll get the point.
Teens also need something that is **"theirs"**. A way to stand above the crowd in a positive way. Does your kid have an outlet that is related to a special interest or talent? At parties and such, adults are identified by their careers and their special interests. Teens want this too so if they have it **don't take it away** and if they don't, **help them find it!**
It also may be that they need employment. Do you feel good about yourself and at your best when you aren't productive? If they can't get formal employment right now, why not pay them for a "special job" that will use their best in your home? I'm not talking about paying for chores here, give them something that wouldn't be the average kid's work for the family anyway. \*\*Or \*\*find a volunteer situation that gives them real-world experience in an interest area.
See [this article](http://www.thehomescholar.com/lack-of-motivation.php) for more, similar ideas. |
49,741 | I am going to start a little side project very soon, but this time i want to do not just the little UML domain model and case diagrams i often do before programming, i thought about making a full functional specification. Is there anybody that has experience writing functional specifications that could recommend me what i need to add to it? How would be the best way to start preparing it?
Here i will write down the topics that i think are more relevant:
* Purpose
* Functional Overview
* Context Diagram
* Critical Project Success Factors
* Scope (In & Out)
* Assumptions
* Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
* Use Case Diagram
* Process Flow Diagram
* Activity Diagram
* Security Requirements
* Performance Requirements
* Special Requirements
* Business Rules
* Domain Model (Data model)
* Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
* Time Schedule (Task Management)
* Goals
* System Requirements
* Expected Expenses
What do you think about those topics? Shall i add something else? or maybe remove something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rode every single answer, and i would like to thank all of you for the useful information.
I am doing this side project for a company, and they spect from me a constant flow of communication and i will need to explain why i do every single thing, because i will have to administer the resources they will give to me.
This will be my first func spec and as i said i want it to be useful, not just big and useless.
I think this is something that has to be done, but i want to do it in the way that will be more useful for me and my team. Its bad that i we dont have a manager, so thats why i also need to take care about some administrative tasks...
Regarding to the agile programming, i think this is 100% compatible with the agile aproach. I am an Agile programmer my self and i honestly fell more confident when someone already did the thinking for me. I still Junnior, but i worked before as a Tapestry web developer in other projects, were the organization was a total chaos.
I dont agree i am doing a waterfall aproach, i think i am just trying to define some boundaries that will make the project being easier when the development starts. | 2011/02/19 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/49741",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17839/"
] | There's three things to keep in mind
1) You have to start somewhere
Have you identified what the problem this project is trying to solve is? You also could start by saying "Here are the things this project would not be complete if it couldn't do." I have also seen some projects (some successful, others not so much) design the main screen and fill in the blanks from there.
2) You have to end somewhere
You can spec things to hell, but if you never actually do anything all you've done is wasted a bunch of time and paper and ignored your wife and kids for seven weeks. (Been there done that, anyone?) So make sure to set some limits about how far your spec is going to go. Is it a technical spec as well as a functional spec?
3) You have to get from start to finish
Don't start by getting one major requirement and then filling in the every detail about it before getting the second major requirement at least in the outline. Build your spec horizontally first, then vertically. Otherwise, when you realize some minor detail of requirement one makes all of requirement two impossible, you're going to have some major issues. | Preparing all these documents may take months! Looks like a waterfall kind of approach to me.
I cannot suggest adding anything more to your list unless you take out a few from it. I guess the artefacts to be produced will depend on culture within your organisation, and skill set of the developers. |
49,741 | I am going to start a little side project very soon, but this time i want to do not just the little UML domain model and case diagrams i often do before programming, i thought about making a full functional specification. Is there anybody that has experience writing functional specifications that could recommend me what i need to add to it? How would be the best way to start preparing it?
Here i will write down the topics that i think are more relevant:
* Purpose
* Functional Overview
* Context Diagram
* Critical Project Success Factors
* Scope (In & Out)
* Assumptions
* Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
* Use Case Diagram
* Process Flow Diagram
* Activity Diagram
* Security Requirements
* Performance Requirements
* Special Requirements
* Business Rules
* Domain Model (Data model)
* Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
* Time Schedule (Task Management)
* Goals
* System Requirements
* Expected Expenses
What do you think about those topics? Shall i add something else? or maybe remove something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rode every single answer, and i would like to thank all of you for the useful information.
I am doing this side project for a company, and they spect from me a constant flow of communication and i will need to explain why i do every single thing, because i will have to administer the resources they will give to me.
This will be my first func spec and as i said i want it to be useful, not just big and useless.
I think this is something that has to be done, but i want to do it in the way that will be more useful for me and my team. Its bad that i we dont have a manager, so thats why i also need to take care about some administrative tasks...
Regarding to the agile programming, i think this is 100% compatible with the agile aproach. I am an Agile programmer my self and i honestly fell more confident when someone already did the thinking for me. I still Junnior, but i worked before as a Tapestry web developer in other projects, were the organization was a total chaos.
I dont agree i am doing a waterfall aproach, i think i am just trying to define some boundaries that will make the project being easier when the development starts. | 2011/02/19 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/49741",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17839/"
] | Preparing all these documents may take months! Looks like a waterfall kind of approach to me.
I cannot suggest adding anything more to your list unless you take out a few from it. I guess the artefacts to be produced will depend on culture within your organisation, and skill set of the developers. | There is no better functional specification that a working but fugly prototype, precisely because of the problems with a waterfall approach. |
49,741 | I am going to start a little side project very soon, but this time i want to do not just the little UML domain model and case diagrams i often do before programming, i thought about making a full functional specification. Is there anybody that has experience writing functional specifications that could recommend me what i need to add to it? How would be the best way to start preparing it?
Here i will write down the topics that i think are more relevant:
* Purpose
* Functional Overview
* Context Diagram
* Critical Project Success Factors
* Scope (In & Out)
* Assumptions
* Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
* Use Case Diagram
* Process Flow Diagram
* Activity Diagram
* Security Requirements
* Performance Requirements
* Special Requirements
* Business Rules
* Domain Model (Data model)
* Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
* Time Schedule (Task Management)
* Goals
* System Requirements
* Expected Expenses
What do you think about those topics? Shall i add something else? or maybe remove something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rode every single answer, and i would like to thank all of you for the useful information.
I am doing this side project for a company, and they spect from me a constant flow of communication and i will need to explain why i do every single thing, because i will have to administer the resources they will give to me.
This will be my first func spec and as i said i want it to be useful, not just big and useless.
I think this is something that has to be done, but i want to do it in the way that will be more useful for me and my team. Its bad that i we dont have a manager, so thats why i also need to take care about some administrative tasks...
Regarding to the agile programming, i think this is 100% compatible with the agile aproach. I am an Agile programmer my self and i honestly fell more confident when someone already did the thinking for me. I still Junnior, but i worked before as a Tapestry web developer in other projects, were the organization was a total chaos.
I dont agree i am doing a waterfall aproach, i think i am just trying to define some boundaries that will make the project being easier when the development starts. | 2011/02/19 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/49741",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17839/"
] | There's three things to keep in mind
1) You have to start somewhere
Have you identified what the problem this project is trying to solve is? You also could start by saying "Here are the things this project would not be complete if it couldn't do." I have also seen some projects (some successful, others not so much) design the main screen and fill in the blanks from there.
2) You have to end somewhere
You can spec things to hell, but if you never actually do anything all you've done is wasted a bunch of time and paper and ignored your wife and kids for seven weeks. (Been there done that, anyone?) So make sure to set some limits about how far your spec is going to go. Is it a technical spec as well as a functional spec?
3) You have to get from start to finish
Don't start by getting one major requirement and then filling in the every detail about it before getting the second major requirement at least in the outline. Build your spec horizontally first, then vertically. Otherwise, when you realize some minor detail of requirement one makes all of requirement two impossible, you're going to have some major issues. | I would split your list into three parts: the stuff users care about, the stuff programmers care about and the stuff managers care about. Let a programmer do their part and a manager do their part. The programmer will probably need to provide estimates for parts of the project to the manager and the manager to provide the budget constraints to the programmer (i.e. It cannot take more than X weeks). If everybody (customer, manager, programmer) agrees, then it is a green light and start the project. For the programmer, many people poo-poo specifications, sometimes rightly so. I would only spec the parts where two or more parties are communicating (e.g. client-server). For the rest, just practice some form of TDD based on user stories. A line to the customer is also beneficial to get stories. Remember that the customer may or may not know what they want, so the user stories should be captured and saved for re-interpretation by the programmer.
**User Stories**
* Purpose Goals Functional Overview
* Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
* Use Case Diagram
* Process Flow Diagram
* Activity Diagram
* Context Diagram
* Business Rules
* Special Requirements
* Performance Requirements
**Manager**
* Critical Project Success Factors
* Expected Expenses
* Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
* Time Schedule (Task Management)
**Programmer**
* Security Requirements
* Domain Model (Data model)
* System Requirements
Also, there is probably not a perfect recipe for all types of software problems. For a Facebook app, you probably want to demo early and often. For a missile guidance system, probably not as much ;-) |
49,741 | I am going to start a little side project very soon, but this time i want to do not just the little UML domain model and case diagrams i often do before programming, i thought about making a full functional specification. Is there anybody that has experience writing functional specifications that could recommend me what i need to add to it? How would be the best way to start preparing it?
Here i will write down the topics that i think are more relevant:
* Purpose
* Functional Overview
* Context Diagram
* Critical Project Success Factors
* Scope (In & Out)
* Assumptions
* Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
* Use Case Diagram
* Process Flow Diagram
* Activity Diagram
* Security Requirements
* Performance Requirements
* Special Requirements
* Business Rules
* Domain Model (Data model)
* Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
* Time Schedule (Task Management)
* Goals
* System Requirements
* Expected Expenses
What do you think about those topics? Shall i add something else? or maybe remove something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rode every single answer, and i would like to thank all of you for the useful information.
I am doing this side project for a company, and they spect from me a constant flow of communication and i will need to explain why i do every single thing, because i will have to administer the resources they will give to me.
This will be my first func spec and as i said i want it to be useful, not just big and useless.
I think this is something that has to be done, but i want to do it in the way that will be more useful for me and my team. Its bad that i we dont have a manager, so thats why i also need to take care about some administrative tasks...
Regarding to the agile programming, i think this is 100% compatible with the agile aproach. I am an Agile programmer my self and i honestly fell more confident when someone already did the thinking for me. I still Junnior, but i worked before as a Tapestry web developer in other projects, were the organization was a total chaos.
I dont agree i am doing a waterfall aproach, i think i am just trying to define some boundaries that will make the project being easier when the development starts. | 2011/02/19 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/49741",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17839/"
] | There's three things to keep in mind
1) You have to start somewhere
Have you identified what the problem this project is trying to solve is? You also could start by saying "Here are the things this project would not be complete if it couldn't do." I have also seen some projects (some successful, others not so much) design the main screen and fill in the blanks from there.
2) You have to end somewhere
You can spec things to hell, but if you never actually do anything all you've done is wasted a bunch of time and paper and ignored your wife and kids for seven weeks. (Been there done that, anyone?) So make sure to set some limits about how far your spec is going to go. Is it a technical spec as well as a functional spec?
3) You have to get from start to finish
Don't start by getting one major requirement and then filling in the every detail about it before getting the second major requirement at least in the outline. Build your spec horizontally first, then vertically. Otherwise, when you realize some minor detail of requirement one makes all of requirement two impossible, you're going to have some major issues. | There is no better functional specification that a working but fugly prototype, precisely because of the problems with a waterfall approach. |
49,741 | I am going to start a little side project very soon, but this time i want to do not just the little UML domain model and case diagrams i often do before programming, i thought about making a full functional specification. Is there anybody that has experience writing functional specifications that could recommend me what i need to add to it? How would be the best way to start preparing it?
Here i will write down the topics that i think are more relevant:
* Purpose
* Functional Overview
* Context Diagram
* Critical Project Success Factors
* Scope (In & Out)
* Assumptions
* Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
* Use Case Diagram
* Process Flow Diagram
* Activity Diagram
* Security Requirements
* Performance Requirements
* Special Requirements
* Business Rules
* Domain Model (Data model)
* Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
* Time Schedule (Task Management)
* Goals
* System Requirements
* Expected Expenses
What do you think about those topics? Shall i add something else? or maybe remove something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rode every single answer, and i would like to thank all of you for the useful information.
I am doing this side project for a company, and they spect from me a constant flow of communication and i will need to explain why i do every single thing, because i will have to administer the resources they will give to me.
This will be my first func spec and as i said i want it to be useful, not just big and useless.
I think this is something that has to be done, but i want to do it in the way that will be more useful for me and my team. Its bad that i we dont have a manager, so thats why i also need to take care about some administrative tasks...
Regarding to the agile programming, i think this is 100% compatible with the agile aproach. I am an Agile programmer my self and i honestly fell more confident when someone already did the thinking for me. I still Junnior, but i worked before as a Tapestry web developer in other projects, were the organization was a total chaos.
I dont agree i am doing a waterfall aproach, i think i am just trying to define some boundaries that will make the project being easier when the development starts. | 2011/02/19 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/49741",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17839/"
] | I would split your list into three parts: the stuff users care about, the stuff programmers care about and the stuff managers care about. Let a programmer do their part and a manager do their part. The programmer will probably need to provide estimates for parts of the project to the manager and the manager to provide the budget constraints to the programmer (i.e. It cannot take more than X weeks). If everybody (customer, manager, programmer) agrees, then it is a green light and start the project. For the programmer, many people poo-poo specifications, sometimes rightly so. I would only spec the parts where two or more parties are communicating (e.g. client-server). For the rest, just practice some form of TDD based on user stories. A line to the customer is also beneficial to get stories. Remember that the customer may or may not know what they want, so the user stories should be captured and saved for re-interpretation by the programmer.
**User Stories**
* Purpose Goals Functional Overview
* Actors (Data Sources, System Actors)
* Use Case Diagram
* Process Flow Diagram
* Activity Diagram
* Context Diagram
* Business Rules
* Special Requirements
* Performance Requirements
**Manager**
* Critical Project Success Factors
* Expected Expenses
* Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…)
* Time Schedule (Task Management)
**Programmer**
* Security Requirements
* Domain Model (Data model)
* System Requirements
Also, there is probably not a perfect recipe for all types of software problems. For a Facebook app, you probably want to demo early and often. For a missile guidance system, probably not as much ;-) | There is no better functional specification that a working but fugly prototype, precisely because of the problems with a waterfall approach. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | It's a somewhat complex question. Let's start with your first sentence:
>
> If you are heavier you will be stronger whether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
No, I don't agree. What is true is that in martial arts and boxing lighter fighters have a disadvantage, probably even against heavier fighters who have the same absolute muscle mass. (The reason is that it is harder to make heavy people lose balance, and their greater mass gives a stronger punch, even with the same muscle.) Other sports which depend on momentum profit from body mass as well, for example shot put or discus. The reason is that a heavier body can accumulate more kinetic energy during the build-up phase to the toss when it is transferred to the object.
**But this competitiveness in a fight or ability to build momentum should not be confused with the sustained force people can generate.**
It seems irrefutable that a person with more fat but the same muscle in their body can lift *less* than a person with less fat: They have to lift their fat as well which contributes nothing to the lift; it's dead weight. You can observe that when fat people climb stairs. You can also observe that when people with more body fat try to do pull-ups.
What may contribute to the general impression that many fat people are also stronger is the added demand on their muscles. Simply getting up and around trains their muscles more than those of a lighter person, so more fat usually comes with more absolute muscle mass. Therefore a 300 pound man will often easily lift another 60 pounds — after all, that's just 20 percent of his weight. He has the muscles to cope with that (but may develop tendon and joint problems in the legs). A puny 120 pound guy of the same height may struggle to lift half his body mass because his muscles have not been trained to do that by normally moving his body. But this effect — that more fat leads automatically to more absolute muscle mass — is only strong for active people. Because fat makes exercise strenuous fat people often avoid even common physical activities like walking and stair climbing, making them too weak for their weight.
So the answer to your last question is yes: A version of yourself with the same muscle mass but more fat will start out weaker (because of the dead weight) but in the long run will profit more from the same exercises because he moves additional weight with each exercise. | >
> If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
>
>
>
There is no science which supports this claim.
>
> So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
>
>
>
There is no science which supports this claim either.
>
> Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
>
>
> Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass?
>
>
>
Yes? No? The answer doesn't really exist because real fitness studies are multivariate. You suggest there is a strong correlation between body fat and muscle mass but reality is much more complicated.
>
> I'm guessing this means bulking is just an excuse to lazily gain muscle without paying too much attention to the surplus of calories you are eating.
>
>
>
MJB's answer did not suggest this. Food consumption affects the way muscles grow (and even atrophy) and bulking is a viable fitness strategy. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | >
> If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
On what do you base this? Apart from very few lifts where a bit more body weight helps you, I can't see a scenario that shows having extra fat helps you lift weights.
>
> Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
>
>
>
No, absolutely not. If you literally only gained fat, and no muscle what so ever, you won't be stronger. (unless your central nervous system somehow adapted in such a way that you have more control over the lift) What often happens thought, is that you have gained some fat and some muscle, making you a bit stronger.
**The reason why you often see very strong dudes have a bit more fat** is because if you want to be strong, you have to eat a lot. Eventually you get to the point where it gets harder and harder to gain muscle without gaining fat. They don't intentionally gain fat, it just happens when you get to the point of eating x-amount of calories a day.
Also, don't confuse muscle size with strength. You don't always have to lift heavy to get bigger muscles. Training to get stronger is different from training to get bigger. | >
> If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
>
>
>
There is no science which supports this claim.
>
> So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
>
>
>
There is no science which supports this claim either.
>
> Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
>
>
> Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass?
>
>
>
Yes? No? The answer doesn't really exist because real fitness studies are multivariate. You suggest there is a strong correlation between body fat and muscle mass but reality is much more complicated.
>
> I'm guessing this means bulking is just an excuse to lazily gain muscle without paying too much attention to the surplus of calories you are eating.
>
>
>
MJB's answer did not suggest this. Food consumption affects the way muscles grow (and even atrophy) and bulking is a viable fitness strategy. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | Most sports require lean performance as fat adds nothing but sport baggage. Good 40 yard times and slam dunks require it. IF you push your fat percentage below 5% other organs including the immune system will be compromised. Many Olympic performances have not gone as expected for this reason. Sumo wrestlers, cannon ball targets and cold water swimmers are special needs events and are associated with specific health related compromises. For the average human, gravity is a daily reality that fat as baggage creates passive exercise, still low body weight is associated with longer life expectancy and generally greater health. Dietary fat generally concentrates man made contaminates, cholesterol, and has lower satisfaction of hunger per gram eaten.
Elite athletes often increase the duration of peak performance by managing fat intake. | Muscles make you stronger, not fat, fat will make you slow and lazy because Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Since muscle is denser, if you compare two equal sizes of fat and muscle, the muscle would weigh more. The density of fat is .9g/ml whereas the density of muscle is 1.1g/ml. these numbers can vary depending on numerous factors such as race, sex, or body type.
High body fat percentages are associated with raised risk for obesity-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and even certain cancers. The average everyday American woman should look to be somewhere between eighteen and thirty percent body fat, whereas men should look to be between ten and twenty-five percent.
Apart from fat and muscles other things also matter.
1. **smoking:** if someone smokes then he gets tired first in stamina based exercises.
2. **proper eating:** the one who eats properly and takes a balanced diet can generate more energy and have more stamina.
3. **Injury:** one cannot perform well if he is injured.
4. **diseases**: if one is suffering from any major or minor diseases then his body will not function properly and he will consider weaker.
5. **Bone density**: just consider someone is having stronger bone, obviously he will be more solid and stronger form inside. stronger bones means stronger base. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | >
> If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
On what do you base this? Apart from very few lifts where a bit more body weight helps you, I can't see a scenario that shows having extra fat helps you lift weights.
>
> Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
>
>
>
No, absolutely not. If you literally only gained fat, and no muscle what so ever, you won't be stronger. (unless your central nervous system somehow adapted in such a way that you have more control over the lift) What often happens thought, is that you have gained some fat and some muscle, making you a bit stronger.
**The reason why you often see very strong dudes have a bit more fat** is because if you want to be strong, you have to eat a lot. Eventually you get to the point where it gets harder and harder to gain muscle without gaining fat. They don't intentionally gain fat, it just happens when you get to the point of eating x-amount of calories a day.
Also, don't confuse muscle size with strength. You don't always have to lift heavy to get bigger muscles. Training to get stronger is different from training to get bigger. | Muscles make you stronger, not fat, fat will make you slow and lazy because Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Since muscle is denser, if you compare two equal sizes of fat and muscle, the muscle would weigh more. The density of fat is .9g/ml whereas the density of muscle is 1.1g/ml. these numbers can vary depending on numerous factors such as race, sex, or body type.
High body fat percentages are associated with raised risk for obesity-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and even certain cancers. The average everyday American woman should look to be somewhere between eighteen and thirty percent body fat, whereas men should look to be between ten and twenty-five percent.
Apart from fat and muscles other things also matter.
1. **smoking:** if someone smokes then he gets tired first in stamina based exercises.
2. **proper eating:** the one who eats properly and takes a balanced diet can generate more energy and have more stamina.
3. **Injury:** one cannot perform well if he is injured.
4. **diseases**: if one is suffering from any major or minor diseases then his body will not function properly and he will consider weaker.
5. **Bone density**: just consider someone is having stronger bone, obviously he will be more solid and stronger form inside. stronger bones means stronger base. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | >
> If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
>
>
>
There is no science which supports this claim.
>
> So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
>
>
>
There is no science which supports this claim either.
>
> Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
>
>
> Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass?
>
>
>
Yes? No? The answer doesn't really exist because real fitness studies are multivariate. You suggest there is a strong correlation between body fat and muscle mass but reality is much more complicated.
>
> I'm guessing this means bulking is just an excuse to lazily gain muscle without paying too much attention to the surplus of calories you are eating.
>
>
>
MJB's answer did not suggest this. Food consumption affects the way muscles grow (and even atrophy) and bulking is a viable fitness strategy. | Muscles make you stronger, not fat, fat will make you slow and lazy because Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Since muscle is denser, if you compare two equal sizes of fat and muscle, the muscle would weigh more. The density of fat is .9g/ml whereas the density of muscle is 1.1g/ml. these numbers can vary depending on numerous factors such as race, sex, or body type.
High body fat percentages are associated with raised risk for obesity-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and even certain cancers. The average everyday American woman should look to be somewhere between eighteen and thirty percent body fat, whereas men should look to be between ten and twenty-five percent.
Apart from fat and muscles other things also matter.
1. **smoking:** if someone smokes then he gets tired first in stamina based exercises.
2. **proper eating:** the one who eats properly and takes a balanced diet can generate more energy and have more stamina.
3. **Injury:** one cannot perform well if he is injured.
4. **diseases**: if one is suffering from any major or minor diseases then his body will not function properly and he will consider weaker.
5. **Bone density**: just consider someone is having stronger bone, obviously he will be more solid and stronger form inside. stronger bones means stronger base. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | >
> If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
On what do you base this? Apart from very few lifts where a bit more body weight helps you, I can't see a scenario that shows having extra fat helps you lift weights.
>
> Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
>
>
>
No, absolutely not. If you literally only gained fat, and no muscle what so ever, you won't be stronger. (unless your central nervous system somehow adapted in such a way that you have more control over the lift) What often happens thought, is that you have gained some fat and some muscle, making you a bit stronger.
**The reason why you often see very strong dudes have a bit more fat** is because if you want to be strong, you have to eat a lot. Eventually you get to the point where it gets harder and harder to gain muscle without gaining fat. They don't intentionally gain fat, it just happens when you get to the point of eating x-amount of calories a day.
Also, don't confuse muscle size with strength. You don't always have to lift heavy to get bigger muscles. Training to get stronger is different from training to get bigger. | Most sports require lean performance as fat adds nothing but sport baggage. Good 40 yard times and slam dunks require it. IF you push your fat percentage below 5% other organs including the immune system will be compromised. Many Olympic performances have not gone as expected for this reason. Sumo wrestlers, cannon ball targets and cold water swimmers are special needs events and are associated with specific health related compromises. For the average human, gravity is a daily reality that fat as baggage creates passive exercise, still low body weight is associated with longer life expectancy and generally greater health. Dietary fat generally concentrates man made contaminates, cholesterol, and has lower satisfaction of hunger per gram eaten.
Elite athletes often increase the duration of peak performance by managing fat intake. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | >
> If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
On what do you base this? Apart from very few lifts where a bit more body weight helps you, I can't see a scenario that shows having extra fat helps you lift weights.
>
> Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
>
>
>
No, absolutely not. If you literally only gained fat, and no muscle what so ever, you won't be stronger. (unless your central nervous system somehow adapted in such a way that you have more control over the lift) What often happens thought, is that you have gained some fat and some muscle, making you a bit stronger.
**The reason why you often see very strong dudes have a bit more fat** is because if you want to be strong, you have to eat a lot. Eventually you get to the point where it gets harder and harder to gain muscle without gaining fat. They don't intentionally gain fat, it just happens when you get to the point of eating x-amount of calories a day.
Also, don't confuse muscle size with strength. You don't always have to lift heavy to get bigger muscles. Training to get stronger is different from training to get bigger. | It's a somewhat complex question. Let's start with your first sentence:
>
> If you are heavier you will be stronger whether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
No, I don't agree. What is true is that in martial arts and boxing lighter fighters have a disadvantage, probably even against heavier fighters who have the same absolute muscle mass. (The reason is that it is harder to make heavy people lose balance, and their greater mass gives a stronger punch, even with the same muscle.) Other sports which depend on momentum profit from body mass as well, for example shot put or discus. The reason is that a heavier body can accumulate more kinetic energy during the build-up phase to the toss when it is transferred to the object.
**But this competitiveness in a fight or ability to build momentum should not be confused with the sustained force people can generate.**
It seems irrefutable that a person with more fat but the same muscle in their body can lift *less* than a person with less fat: They have to lift their fat as well which contributes nothing to the lift; it's dead weight. You can observe that when fat people climb stairs. You can also observe that when people with more body fat try to do pull-ups.
What may contribute to the general impression that many fat people are also stronger is the added demand on their muscles. Simply getting up and around trains their muscles more than those of a lighter person, so more fat usually comes with more absolute muscle mass. Therefore a 300 pound man will often easily lift another 60 pounds — after all, that's just 20 percent of his weight. He has the muscles to cope with that (but may develop tendon and joint problems in the legs). A puny 120 pound guy of the same height may struggle to lift half his body mass because his muscles have not been trained to do that by normally moving his body. But this effect — that more fat leads automatically to more absolute muscle mass — is only strong for active people. Because fat makes exercise strenuous fat people often avoid even common physical activities like walking and stair climbing, making them too weak for their weight.
So the answer to your last question is yes: A version of yourself with the same muscle mass but more fat will start out weaker (because of the dead weight) but in the long run will profit more from the same exercises because he moves additional weight with each exercise. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | It's a somewhat complex question. Let's start with your first sentence:
>
> If you are heavier you will be stronger whether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
No, I don't agree. What is true is that in martial arts and boxing lighter fighters have a disadvantage, probably even against heavier fighters who have the same absolute muscle mass. (The reason is that it is harder to make heavy people lose balance, and their greater mass gives a stronger punch, even with the same muscle.) Other sports which depend on momentum profit from body mass as well, for example shot put or discus. The reason is that a heavier body can accumulate more kinetic energy during the build-up phase to the toss when it is transferred to the object.
**But this competitiveness in a fight or ability to build momentum should not be confused with the sustained force people can generate.**
It seems irrefutable that a person with more fat but the same muscle in their body can lift *less* than a person with less fat: They have to lift their fat as well which contributes nothing to the lift; it's dead weight. You can observe that when fat people climb stairs. You can also observe that when people with more body fat try to do pull-ups.
What may contribute to the general impression that many fat people are also stronger is the added demand on their muscles. Simply getting up and around trains their muscles more than those of a lighter person, so more fat usually comes with more absolute muscle mass. Therefore a 300 pound man will often easily lift another 60 pounds — after all, that's just 20 percent of his weight. He has the muscles to cope with that (but may develop tendon and joint problems in the legs). A puny 120 pound guy of the same height may struggle to lift half his body mass because his muscles have not been trained to do that by normally moving his body. But this effect — that more fat leads automatically to more absolute muscle mass — is only strong for active people. Because fat makes exercise strenuous fat people often avoid even common physical activities like walking and stair climbing, making them too weak for their weight.
So the answer to your last question is yes: A version of yourself with the same muscle mass but more fat will start out weaker (because of the dead weight) but in the long run will profit more from the same exercises because he moves additional weight with each exercise. | Most sports require lean performance as fat adds nothing but sport baggage. Good 40 yard times and slam dunks require it. IF you push your fat percentage below 5% other organs including the immune system will be compromised. Many Olympic performances have not gone as expected for this reason. Sumo wrestlers, cannon ball targets and cold water swimmers are special needs events and are associated with specific health related compromises. For the average human, gravity is a daily reality that fat as baggage creates passive exercise, still low body weight is associated with longer life expectancy and generally greater health. Dietary fat generally concentrates man made contaminates, cholesterol, and has lower satisfaction of hunger per gram eaten.
Elite athletes often increase the duration of peak performance by managing fat intake. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | It's a somewhat complex question. Let's start with your first sentence:
>
> If you are heavier you will be stronger whether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
No, I don't agree. What is true is that in martial arts and boxing lighter fighters have a disadvantage, probably even against heavier fighters who have the same absolute muscle mass. (The reason is that it is harder to make heavy people lose balance, and their greater mass gives a stronger punch, even with the same muscle.) Other sports which depend on momentum profit from body mass as well, for example shot put or discus. The reason is that a heavier body can accumulate more kinetic energy during the build-up phase to the toss when it is transferred to the object.
**But this competitiveness in a fight or ability to build momentum should not be confused with the sustained force people can generate.**
It seems irrefutable that a person with more fat but the same muscle in their body can lift *less* than a person with less fat: They have to lift their fat as well which contributes nothing to the lift; it's dead weight. You can observe that when fat people climb stairs. You can also observe that when people with more body fat try to do pull-ups.
What may contribute to the general impression that many fat people are also stronger is the added demand on their muscles. Simply getting up and around trains their muscles more than those of a lighter person, so more fat usually comes with more absolute muscle mass. Therefore a 300 pound man will often easily lift another 60 pounds — after all, that's just 20 percent of his weight. He has the muscles to cope with that (but may develop tendon and joint problems in the legs). A puny 120 pound guy of the same height may struggle to lift half his body mass because his muscles have not been trained to do that by normally moving his body. But this effect — that more fat leads automatically to more absolute muscle mass — is only strong for active people. Because fat makes exercise strenuous fat people often avoid even common physical activities like walking and stair climbing, making them too weak for their weight.
So the answer to your last question is yes: A version of yourself with the same muscle mass but more fat will start out weaker (because of the dead weight) but in the long run will profit more from the same exercises because he moves additional weight with each exercise. | Muscles make you stronger, not fat, fat will make you slow and lazy because Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Since muscle is denser, if you compare two equal sizes of fat and muscle, the muscle would weigh more. The density of fat is .9g/ml whereas the density of muscle is 1.1g/ml. these numbers can vary depending on numerous factors such as race, sex, or body type.
High body fat percentages are associated with raised risk for obesity-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and even certain cancers. The average everyday American woman should look to be somewhere between eighteen and thirty percent body fat, whereas men should look to be between ten and twenty-five percent.
Apart from fat and muscles other things also matter.
1. **smoking:** if someone smokes then he gets tired first in stamina based exercises.
2. **proper eating:** the one who eats properly and takes a balanced diet can generate more energy and have more stamina.
3. **Injury:** one cannot perform well if he is injured.
4. **diseases**: if one is suffering from any major or minor diseases then his body will not function properly and he will consider weaker.
5. **Bone density**: just consider someone is having stronger bone, obviously he will be more solid and stronger form inside. stronger bones means stronger base. |
41,645 | If you are heavier you will be stronger wether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that. (I'm not talking about overly fat because at that point it would probably not hold true due to health reasons)
So if you have excessive fat, will you gain more muscle because you can lift heavier then the version of yourself who has the same amount of muscle but a lot less fat? Or am I missing something here?
Scenario:
Say there is a version of me of 70kg with 10% body fat and a version of me of 80kg which has the same amount of muscle mass but higher fat percentage.
Both training the same exercises but lifting the most I can lift in a secure way, will the fat version gain more muscle mass? | 2020/02/24 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/41645",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/13435/"
] | It's a somewhat complex question. Let's start with your first sentence:
>
> If you are heavier you will be stronger whether this is by fat or by muscle I think we can all agree on that.
>
>
>
No, I don't agree. What is true is that in martial arts and boxing lighter fighters have a disadvantage, probably even against heavier fighters who have the same absolute muscle mass. (The reason is that it is harder to make heavy people lose balance, and their greater mass gives a stronger punch, even with the same muscle.) Other sports which depend on momentum profit from body mass as well, for example shot put or discus. The reason is that a heavier body can accumulate more kinetic energy during the build-up phase to the toss when it is transferred to the object.
**But this competitiveness in a fight or ability to build momentum should not be confused with the sustained force people can generate.**
It seems irrefutable that a person with more fat but the same muscle in their body can lift *less* than a person with less fat: They have to lift their fat as well which contributes nothing to the lift; it's dead weight. You can observe that when fat people climb stairs. You can also observe that when people with more body fat try to do pull-ups.
What may contribute to the general impression that many fat people are also stronger is the added demand on their muscles. Simply getting up and around trains their muscles more than those of a lighter person, so more fat usually comes with more absolute muscle mass. Therefore a 300 pound man will often easily lift another 60 pounds — after all, that's just 20 percent of his weight. He has the muscles to cope with that (but may develop tendon and joint problems in the legs). A puny 120 pound guy of the same height may struggle to lift half his body mass because his muscles have not been trained to do that by normally moving his body. But this effect — that more fat leads automatically to more absolute muscle mass — is only strong for active people. Because fat makes exercise strenuous fat people often avoid even common physical activities like walking and stair climbing, making them too weak for their weight.
So the answer to your last question is yes: A version of yourself with the same muscle mass but more fat will start out weaker (because of the dead weight) but in the long run will profit more from the same exercises because he moves additional weight with each exercise. | Yes and no, there are some misconceptions, and there is no clear undisputable answer to any such question (as there are three dozen factors playing in, and diagonally opposing goals).
No single thing is always good (or always bad) and no single thing works well for everybody and in every situation. Or, for every goal, for that matter.
First, while people with a lot of muscle are sometimes (often, even) stronger than others, muscle mass does not (at least not much) correlate with strength. That's a misconception. Muscle consists of fibers of different types that are organized and "addressable" in contingents. Some are stronger, some are faster, there's a difference on how fast they get tired, etc etc.
Also, there is raw physical strength, and *actual* strength. Strength is predominantly a matter of your cerebellum being able to activate as many muscle fiber contingents as possible simultaneously, in a *controlled, balanced manner*.
In theory, for maximum strength, your muscle should contract as if you had a spasm from accidentially having gripped an electric wire. In reality, movement is a highly complex thing that requires a lot of care, interaction between muscle groups, and balance. You do not want a tendon to tear out a piece of bone (muscles *are* actually strong enough to tear your bones to pieces!), you do not want fissures in tendons or ligaments, you do not want to dislocate a joint, you do not want to fall over, etc etc. This is a much more complicated task than one would believe, and a lot more has to go on for seemingly trivial tasks such as just lifting something off the ground.
Plus, for a contraction that lasts longer than a second or two, *different* fiber contingents have to be switched in and out seamlessly since those in use become more and more tired (and eventually, exhausted, and damaged). On well-defined people you can actually watch this when holding a weight isometrically (visible through the skin). Pretty funny sight, actually.
It's the cerebellum's job to coordinate and maintain a controlled, steady contraction, and balance the muscle's fatigue so that in case something unanticipated and bad happens (we do not have muscle for fun and sport, but because it's necessary for survival!) there's a reserve. In other words, if a tiger comes from hiding in the bush after you have been doing a dozen squats, there must be at least *some* responsive fibers remaining, or you're dead. In bodybuilding, what people typically do for maximum effect is, they push it so far that this is no longer the case (which is a highly critical, undesirable situation, so your body must react to it in order to guarantee your survival on the next similar occasion).
So, long story short, someone with less muscle can *very well* be stronger than someone with more mass. But sure enough, more mass *in general* makes the job of finding a well-rested, functional bunch of fibers somewhat easier.
Next, fat does not contribute to moving things, but it is not dead weight either. That, too, is a misconception.
Fat is a source of energy, and contrary to urban myth (and fitness myth) fat oxidation does not just happen at "fat burning intensity with ~120bpm on the stepper". It happens all day (and night), and it is our main source of energy, we literally live from it. It's just that as you crank up power consumption, fat oxidation eventually hits a ceiling where it is no longer able to supply *all the required* energy alone any longer (it still happens, and at maximum intensity).
We have many tiers of stores that provide the required energy ranging from one to ten seconds (ATP / phospocreatine) over few minutes to dozens of minutes (glucose, glycogene) to several days (fat). Generally, the shorter lived, the higher the peak power. Note however, that none of that is black or white. You *do burn fat* when doing a set, and in between sets, which contributes to restoring the ultra-short-duration depots.
It's comparable to the relationship of combusion engine, battery, and supercapacitator in a modern sports car (say, a Lamborghini Séan). The supercapacitator gives that thing the *accelerates like a rocket* feeling, but for actually driving the car it's pretty useless. Other power sources are needed, too.
In addition to the depots in our body, we have the ability to restock energy from the outside (food) as we go. While doing exercise when hungry (I've actually heard this recommendation, which is total nonsense) is bad, doing exercise after eating tons of calories is not trouble-free either. Some people (bodybuilders) seem to do that, but this doesn't mean it's good (or unproblematic).
For one reason, the digestive system needs blood to function, and you may want that blood in other places. Also, it gives you the typical ugly pumper belly (not alone, but it's one of the causes) which is not just unpleasing but also a thing that significantly reduces the likelihood of living a long life. Lastly, you'll have high insuline which is disputable for being beneficial (depends on the point of view). If building up mass is all you want, then sure, insulin is your friend. If you reach into the chemistry toolbox and take some other borderline-legal substances which internalize GLUT4 receptors, then sure enough insulin is a good way to counter that effect.
But if you are worried about health in general (insulin resistance, obesity, also regularly activating proto-oncogenes may seem like not such an awesome thing), your point of view may differ. If you would like to have fat oxidation going, then again insulin is, uh, not precisely the thing you want because it's not happening.
So if training crammed full isn't good, then why not train hungry? Well, because when you use a muscle, it has to get energy from somewhere to restock itself. It has no more than three choices, and if there is no "sugar" around, it has to be "fat", but fat doesn't provide energy fast enough to cover it all under heavy exercise. So there remains only one thing it can get energy from, and that's *the single one thing* that you do not want to sacrifice. So, training hungry is really a bad idea.
Now, why might more fat be advantageous? More body fat predominantly means that your adipozytes are more inflated, but it also means that you have a few more of them (not proportionally, for the most part it's the always-existing ones being more inflated). With each of them necessarily carrying a few mitochondria, having a few more necessarily means that a little more power is available. Also, an adipocyte that is stuffed with fat is generally more "willing" to oxidize that since the pathway has over-abundance on the input end. Generally, one could say that your reserves are higher, and so your body is generally more "willing" to use that resource. Remember, we don't have fat for fun and sports either, we have fat to stay alive. The closer your depots approach zero, nature tends to get reluctant to use it up because your body does need some minimum reserves. Otherwise, you might die in your sleep, or assuming the hunter and gatherer doesn't find something edible the next morning shortly after waking, there will be no tomorrow.
Thus, arguably, with more fat you will be able to exercise a bit longer (continuously at moderate intensity, or with breaks at higher intensity), and therefore should also generally be able to build up more muscle (if you train for building up muscle).
That's not just a theory, it's what I can confirm as being "reality" in an before-after comparison done last year. Same strength and same or almost-same reps on the first set after working off 25kg over a few months (preserving muscle as much as possible). However, steep decline on following sets, much longer breaks and reduction in reps needed, which came dissatisfying. A few good meals, regained 3kg within 2 weeks, steady weight since, and performance "instantly" back to normal. Since you can hardly gain 3kg of muscle in 2 weeks, it has to be fat. Funnily, I can't see where it went (but won't complain). Bottom line: nature knows best how much fat it needs.
Also, fat is necessary for many things, such as for example building steroid hormones. Admittedly, not much is needed, since you don't need *kilograms* to build a few dozen nanograms of hormone. But of course it doesn't make any sense to worry about e.g. testosterone on the one hand side (and stimulating or actively supplementing it, maybe!), and then, on the other hand side, chastise over the base substance that it's being built from naturally.
It's the same principle as everywhere all over: if you do not give the biochemical pathway abundance on one end, then sure enough something *still* comes out at the other end, but maybe not as much as you would hope. Nature is very tenacious and will do a tough job at keeping you alive and functional *somehow*, but by depriving it from the necessary building blocks, you make its job harder than necessary.
Conclusion?
For everything except professional bodybuilding or Strong Man stuff (which de facto requires you to do unreasonable, crazy, unhealthy, disputable, and sometimes un-ethical or illegal things), eat normally, try to have a kinda normal build (with kinda normal fat), and you are good to go. Somewhat on the slim side, that's fine (it's what looks best in my opinion, too). Being obese is bad, being almost-starved is bad.
Got a few kilograms too many? I'll tell you a secret: Keep your training schedule, but eat 500 calories per day less (which is surprisingly easy to do if you have an Android phone, use Samsung Health), that'll be half a kilogram per week gone. If you are serious, you can of course scale that up, but then it's no longer a fun experience.
No super secret diet (which doesn't work) needed. No fatburner chemistry (which doesn't work) needed. No crackpot-idea alternative paleo-lowcarb-highcarb-lowfat-whatever stuff needed. All that's needed is discipline and a few weeks of time.
Sure, you can hardly do the Strong Man pulling trucks and lifting 60kg boulders challenge when you have 60kg of body weight. That simply doesn't work, if for no other reason because regardless of strength and endurance there's no way you'll hold your balance. You practically *have to be* fat, kind of.
And sure enough, if you plan to be on stage as professional bodybuilder, you will necessarily have to reach into the chemistry toolbox, and you will necessarily have to watch more carefully what you eat and be hungry more than once. Because, oh hell, you *have to* look like you're starving.
But to 99% of all people, this doesn't apply. Good, even excellent strength (and physical appearance) is perfectly chieveable otherwise, and a little (not too much) fat is perfectly acceptable and rather an advantage both in appearance and for performance.
Don't follow every half-scientific (or non-scientific) trend, and don't reach into the chemistry toolbox too deep, and you'll likely stay healthy. In fact, you can be perfectly happy and have good muscle without any magical additives at all. Most things are overrated (or outright snake oil) anyway, and of those things that actually do work, most are questionable in terms of health.
Yes, you can have eggs for breakfast and not fear the cholesterol. Please, do eat butter, not margarine. Stop the pseudo-health stuff.
Do you like chia and quinoa? Well alright, go ahead and eat them, there is no harm. But it's not going to summon a divine miracle. There is outside of ideology or pseudo-science no need to eat anything that your grandparents didn't already eat, too.
No, you *don't* need to, or want to, swallow 200 grams of protein shake per day (although a little casein to cover the hungry time over night doesn't hurt, and sure enough a little whey either before or after training doesn't hurt either). No, you don't need to eat a kilogram of chicken per day either.
No, you shouldn't go training hungry. No, you shouldn't cram it in like a madman before exercise either. Apply reason. No crazy things. |
664,074 | I have HP ELiteBook , this problem has become a routine headache for me (after every 20, 25 minutes\_ - While using, suddenly everything hangs and black out goes around and then a message pop at the task bar below that display driver stopped ...and successfully recovered but the hangs and black screen continues and then the Blue Death Screen comes" and then i have no other option but to restart
Is this a driver problem ? Hardware problem ? what should I do Please be specific , no stories and theories | 2013/10/23 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/664074",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/256777/"
] | I had the same issue with mine, so I contacted apple support. when you are in System Preferences>Displays - hold the option key while clicking on scaled, all the resolutions will appear again. I hope this helps! | I had the same problem on my 3840x1024 Matrox TripleHead2Go display. After upgrading to Mavericks, it detected the display as 1280x1024 with no option in Display Preference to select my previous resolution.
I solved the problem by installing "[SwitchResX](https://www.macupdate.com/app/iphone/8355/switchresx)" which allows me to manually define customised resolution for each display. |
63,688 | I'm considering a passive solar radiant heating installation in the Chicago area and was wondering if it would be feasible to store enough water/energy to support heating for most of the night. The house already has a gas central furnace, and can serve as backup, but the winter bills have been as high as $300-400 (for about 300 to 400 therms) during last year's expensive gas rates.
Roughly how much water might be needed to keep ~2000 sqft heated when it's 0 outside overnight in a below average insulated house? Orders of magnitude would be good enough of an estimate. I'm really just looking to understand if this is feasible. If this would require a basement swimming pool, obviously it's not.
Also, since the PEX would be installed on the unfinished basement ceiling, I'm a bit concerned about the basement heating up too much. I assume there are ways to shield the basement from the radiant heat via some form of heat reflectors under the PEX? | 2015/04/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/63688",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/9750/"
] | You could use a plug cutter to remove the screw and surrounding wood.
 | Grip Pliers (Vice Grip) to clamp the tip of the screw and unscrew. Thats what I would do. unless the head will get stuck as its going out the other end.
You will need to clamp the head parallel to the board so that you can get maximum torque.
 |
63,688 | I'm considering a passive solar radiant heating installation in the Chicago area and was wondering if it would be feasible to store enough water/energy to support heating for most of the night. The house already has a gas central furnace, and can serve as backup, but the winter bills have been as high as $300-400 (for about 300 to 400 therms) during last year's expensive gas rates.
Roughly how much water might be needed to keep ~2000 sqft heated when it's 0 outside overnight in a below average insulated house? Orders of magnitude would be good enough of an estimate. I'm really just looking to understand if this is feasible. If this would require a basement swimming pool, obviously it's not.
Also, since the PEX would be installed on the unfinished basement ceiling, I'm a bit concerned about the basement heating up too much. I assume there are ways to shield the basement from the radiant heat via some form of heat reflectors under the PEX? | 2015/04/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/63688",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/9750/"
] | If I were doing this, I'd use a hole saw with a portable drill press.
If the hole saw leaves a rough hole, you can follow up with a larger forstner bit.
Then fill the holes with plugs. You can make them with a plug cutter, but they're cheap to buy online. | Grip Pliers (Vice Grip) to clamp the tip of the screw and unscrew. Thats what I would do. unless the head will get stuck as its going out the other end.
You will need to clamp the head parallel to the board so that you can get maximum torque.
 |
63,688 | I'm considering a passive solar radiant heating installation in the Chicago area and was wondering if it would be feasible to store enough water/energy to support heating for most of the night. The house already has a gas central furnace, and can serve as backup, but the winter bills have been as high as $300-400 (for about 300 to 400 therms) during last year's expensive gas rates.
Roughly how much water might be needed to keep ~2000 sqft heated when it's 0 outside overnight in a below average insulated house? Orders of magnitude would be good enough of an estimate. I'm really just looking to understand if this is feasible. If this would require a basement swimming pool, obviously it's not.
Also, since the PEX would be installed on the unfinished basement ceiling, I'm a bit concerned about the basement heating up too much. I assume there are ways to shield the basement from the radiant heat via some form of heat reflectors under the PEX? | 2015/04/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/63688",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/9750/"
] | Replying to this tread with my experience based upon the hole-saw recommendation above. First of all, this sucks. What would be a 3-second step to remove the spindle turns into a 3 minute step per spindle, after a run to the hardware store for a 5/8" holesaw bit you likely don't just have laying around. Remove the pilot bit from the hole saw because you can't use it with the screw in the way. Put the hole saw in a strong plug-in drill. Cordless drill won't get the job done. Use the hole saw to bore around the penetrating screw. Getting started is the hard part as the hole-saw teeth will want to dance around too much if you try to "center" the hole saw over the screw shaft, and then you will just tear up your wood. Instead, use the screw as a sort of "guide" so that the screw shaft is touching the inner wall of the hole-saw and serving as an anchor point on the outer radius of your hole-saw bit. The bit will still dance a bit but it's enough control to get the teeth to bite and then you are home-free. Drill down until the hole-saw teeth hit the screw-head and you will tell a difference in saw speed / smoke. Stop. Use a small chisel or flat-blade screwdriver and hammer to knock out some of the wood plug you just made. Loosen things up. Then grab the screw shaft with some pliers and yank out the wood plug you just made. In my case since I am putting in wrought-iron spindles using an anchoring system that requires a 3/4" hole, by using a smaller 5/8" hole-saw to perform the dental tooth-extraction technique on the phillips-head screw, you now can properly vertically align your hole to the top post and make the 3/4" hole. Or if you are going the epoxy glue route then 5/8" may be good enough. Seems to me that the home builder took a short-cut years ago and I'm paying the price for it today. Not a good way to have constructed the stairs, unless the objective was speed and low-cost. Oh, ok, makes sense now... Ugh.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4oXsl.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/anhMP.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/naBnr.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FeR9b.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YrdbS.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2guTj.jpg) | Grip Pliers (Vice Grip) to clamp the tip of the screw and unscrew. Thats what I would do. unless the head will get stuck as its going out the other end.
You will need to clamp the head parallel to the board so that you can get maximum torque.
 |
360,758 | Is there a way to make the Apple Watch display a 24-hour single-hand watch face? Preferably with midnight on the bottom, and noon at the top?
Something like this:
 | 2019/05/23 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/360758",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/17907/"
] | When it comes to Apple Watch faces, one is limited to [customizations](https://support.apple.com/guide/watch/customize-the-watch-face-apdb0c5fb937/watchos) as per what Apple allows.
App Store Review Guidelines restrict app developers from creating custom watch faces.
* <https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#minimum-functionality>
>
> **4.2.4** Apple Watch apps that appear to be a watch face are confusing, because people will expect them to work with device features such as swipes, notifications, and third party complications. Creative ways of expressing time as an app interface is great (say, a tide clock for surfers), but if your app comes too close to resembling a watch face, we will reject it.
>
>
> | Apple has a Solar Dial face that is practically the same as a single arm 24 hr. face.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/o5QFG.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4tK70.png)
[Link to faces (watchOS 9)](https://support.apple.com/guide/watch/faces-and-features-apde9218b440/watchos) |
275,208 | Going off this question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26537486/radio-button-clears-text-boxes)...
Is it ok to give a jQuery answer if the OP has tagged jQuery, but does not use it in their code? It screams "mis-tag" to me, versus "gimme dat jQuery".
More or less, should jQuery answers be valid on a mis-tagged question?
(I use the term valid loosely here, as technically all answers that aren't spam or off topic are valid) | 2014/10/23 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/275208",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/774078/"
] | To me it depends on the question. If the question is
>
> "How do I do X in JavaScript"
>
>
>
where X is something that's not really doable in regular javascript, but has a reasonably simple solution in jQuery, then it seems like it's a fine thing to answer with a jQuery answer regardless of whether it's tagged that way or not. The asker may or may not use jQuery, it may or may not help the asker, but it's a reasonable answer. jQuery may have a bit of a bad rep here, but to me it's like answering an [r](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/r "show questions tagged 'r'") question suggesting to use `dplyr`; it's a valid solution that could help the asker or later searchers. I'd upvote a non-jQuery solution over a jQuery solution to a question that didn't specify jQuery if it were reasonably simple to implement, but I have no problem upvoting the jQuery answer if it's much simpler.
If the question is not that, though, but is more about how JavaScript works, then a jQuery answer should only be valid if the question seems like it really does use jQuery. If it is entirely pure JavaScript and doesn't have any jQuery dependencies, then it should be answered as JavaScript and the [jquery](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/jquery "show questions tagged 'jquery'") should be removed. | If you feel that the answer isn't helpful, you're more than welcome to downvote it. If others feel that it is a helpful answer, despite using a tool not mentioned in the question, they may upvote it. Everyone is free to provide the feedback they feel is most appropriate.
Your first comment certainly isn't inappropriate. Indicating that the answer is problematic because the question doesn't mentoin the tool used is certainly feedback you can choose to provide.
The answerer's reply of "can't you read" is starting to push the bounds of being constructive. I could certainly see it meriting deletion by a mod.
When you reply with "Are you stupid" we've now clearly devolved completely past the point of constructive discussion and into childish name calling, and nothing productive is likely to be accomplished at this point forward. Had you removed that inappropriate name calling from the comment it could potentially have had value; if you had been able to clearly and *constructively* explain why you feel the answer is problematic, then either the author could use that feedback to improve their answer, or other readers can use that information to judge its quality. But when you open with personal insults, the odds of anyone actually reading/discussing anything after it constructively tend towards zero. |
275,208 | Going off this question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26537486/radio-button-clears-text-boxes)...
Is it ok to give a jQuery answer if the OP has tagged jQuery, but does not use it in their code? It screams "mis-tag" to me, versus "gimme dat jQuery".
More or less, should jQuery answers be valid on a mis-tagged question?
(I use the term valid loosely here, as technically all answers that aren't spam or off topic are valid) | 2014/10/23 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/275208",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/774078/"
] | I tend to agree with this author's rationale [expressed in his comment in a discussion on this subject:](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30896297/onclick-function-in-javascript/30896696#30896696)
>
> The only person here that should have issues with my answer is the poster then. Not you. I told him/her how to do it in vanilla and offered a much simpler way using jQuery. The poster can decide if he wants to use it or not.
>
>
>
JavaScript questions never *require* jQuery; C++ questions never *require* Boost, and I suppose it may even be possible to answer Perl questions without referencing something on CPAN. That said, there are many, many questions where the use of a tool or library makes the solution considerably easier or less error-prone; if we could not have answers that demonstrated this, the site would be much poorer. | To me it depends on the question. If the question is
>
> "How do I do X in JavaScript"
>
>
>
where X is something that's not really doable in regular javascript, but has a reasonably simple solution in jQuery, then it seems like it's a fine thing to answer with a jQuery answer regardless of whether it's tagged that way or not. The asker may or may not use jQuery, it may or may not help the asker, but it's a reasonable answer. jQuery may have a bit of a bad rep here, but to me it's like answering an [r](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/r "show questions tagged 'r'") question suggesting to use `dplyr`; it's a valid solution that could help the asker or later searchers. I'd upvote a non-jQuery solution over a jQuery solution to a question that didn't specify jQuery if it were reasonably simple to implement, but I have no problem upvoting the jQuery answer if it's much simpler.
If the question is not that, though, but is more about how JavaScript works, then a jQuery answer should only be valid if the question seems like it really does use jQuery. If it is entirely pure JavaScript and doesn't have any jQuery dependencies, then it should be answered as JavaScript and the [jquery](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/jquery "show questions tagged 'jquery'") should be removed. |
275,208 | Going off this question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26537486/radio-button-clears-text-boxes)...
Is it ok to give a jQuery answer if the OP has tagged jQuery, but does not use it in their code? It screams "mis-tag" to me, versus "gimme dat jQuery".
More or less, should jQuery answers be valid on a mis-tagged question?
(I use the term valid loosely here, as technically all answers that aren't spam or off topic are valid) | 2014/10/23 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/275208",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/774078/"
] | Sometimes it can be hard to make grand statements about how much jQuery to use. None? Martijn's classic link depicting "needs more jQuery"?
I think each instance is kind of different and here is my take on this one.
Based on looking at this user's past history of posts they are attempting to integrate jQuery but do not really understand it very much, if at all. As a result, they tagged this question with jQuery hoping that perhaps someone would offer a solution including it so they can see how it would be used as opposed to how it would be done without using a library (plain javascript).
I think answering with jQuery is applicable in this situation, although it is definitely not acceptable to answer with jQuery when the tag is not present. I also thing that removing the tag could change the original poster's intent. | If you feel that the answer isn't helpful, you're more than welcome to downvote it. If others feel that it is a helpful answer, despite using a tool not mentioned in the question, they may upvote it. Everyone is free to provide the feedback they feel is most appropriate.
Your first comment certainly isn't inappropriate. Indicating that the answer is problematic because the question doesn't mentoin the tool used is certainly feedback you can choose to provide.
The answerer's reply of "can't you read" is starting to push the bounds of being constructive. I could certainly see it meriting deletion by a mod.
When you reply with "Are you stupid" we've now clearly devolved completely past the point of constructive discussion and into childish name calling, and nothing productive is likely to be accomplished at this point forward. Had you removed that inappropriate name calling from the comment it could potentially have had value; if you had been able to clearly and *constructively* explain why you feel the answer is problematic, then either the author could use that feedback to improve their answer, or other readers can use that information to judge its quality. But when you open with personal insults, the odds of anyone actually reading/discussing anything after it constructively tend towards zero. |
275,208 | Going off this question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26537486/radio-button-clears-text-boxes)...
Is it ok to give a jQuery answer if the OP has tagged jQuery, but does not use it in their code? It screams "mis-tag" to me, versus "gimme dat jQuery".
More or less, should jQuery answers be valid on a mis-tagged question?
(I use the term valid loosely here, as technically all answers that aren't spam or off topic are valid) | 2014/10/23 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/275208",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/774078/"
] | I tend to agree with this author's rationale [expressed in his comment in a discussion on this subject:](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30896297/onclick-function-in-javascript/30896696#30896696)
>
> The only person here that should have issues with my answer is the poster then. Not you. I told him/her how to do it in vanilla and offered a much simpler way using jQuery. The poster can decide if he wants to use it or not.
>
>
>
JavaScript questions never *require* jQuery; C++ questions never *require* Boost, and I suppose it may even be possible to answer Perl questions without referencing something on CPAN. That said, there are many, many questions where the use of a tool or library makes the solution considerably easier or less error-prone; if we could not have answers that demonstrated this, the site would be much poorer. | Sometimes it can be hard to make grand statements about how much jQuery to use. None? Martijn's classic link depicting "needs more jQuery"?
I think each instance is kind of different and here is my take on this one.
Based on looking at this user's past history of posts they are attempting to integrate jQuery but do not really understand it very much, if at all. As a result, they tagged this question with jQuery hoping that perhaps someone would offer a solution including it so they can see how it would be used as opposed to how it would be done without using a library (plain javascript).
I think answering with jQuery is applicable in this situation, although it is definitely not acceptable to answer with jQuery when the tag is not present. I also thing that removing the tag could change the original poster's intent. |
275,208 | Going off this question [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26537486/radio-button-clears-text-boxes)...
Is it ok to give a jQuery answer if the OP has tagged jQuery, but does not use it in their code? It screams "mis-tag" to me, versus "gimme dat jQuery".
More or less, should jQuery answers be valid on a mis-tagged question?
(I use the term valid loosely here, as technically all answers that aren't spam or off topic are valid) | 2014/10/23 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/275208",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/774078/"
] | I tend to agree with this author's rationale [expressed in his comment in a discussion on this subject:](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30896297/onclick-function-in-javascript/30896696#30896696)
>
> The only person here that should have issues with my answer is the poster then. Not you. I told him/her how to do it in vanilla and offered a much simpler way using jQuery. The poster can decide if he wants to use it or not.
>
>
>
JavaScript questions never *require* jQuery; C++ questions never *require* Boost, and I suppose it may even be possible to answer Perl questions without referencing something on CPAN. That said, there are many, many questions where the use of a tool or library makes the solution considerably easier or less error-prone; if we could not have answers that demonstrated this, the site would be much poorer. | If you feel that the answer isn't helpful, you're more than welcome to downvote it. If others feel that it is a helpful answer, despite using a tool not mentioned in the question, they may upvote it. Everyone is free to provide the feedback they feel is most appropriate.
Your first comment certainly isn't inappropriate. Indicating that the answer is problematic because the question doesn't mentoin the tool used is certainly feedback you can choose to provide.
The answerer's reply of "can't you read" is starting to push the bounds of being constructive. I could certainly see it meriting deletion by a mod.
When you reply with "Are you stupid" we've now clearly devolved completely past the point of constructive discussion and into childish name calling, and nothing productive is likely to be accomplished at this point forward. Had you removed that inappropriate name calling from the comment it could potentially have had value; if you had been able to clearly and *constructively* explain why you feel the answer is problematic, then either the author could use that feedback to improve their answer, or other readers can use that information to judge its quality. But when you open with personal insults, the odds of anyone actually reading/discussing anything after it constructively tend towards zero. |
50,438 | I have a Macbook Pro with an OWC DataDoubler drive caddy replacing the Superdrive (installed at an Apple premium reseller, when I bought it, so I can still have my warranty).
The main drive slot has an SSD, and the Superdrive slot has the original 750GB hard drive. It all works great, and I have Lion installed on the SSD - blazing fast :) I also have the Superdrive on an external USB enclosure, also works fine.
Problem is, I would like to install Windows on the secondary hard disk. I tried using Bootcamp, but it wouldn't originally let me create the USB install disk (I've overcome that with the tip described [here](http://www.codez4mac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=212&t=61921)) but even if I use the USB Superdrive, I always get the "Boot device not found, press any key" message.
So, my question is: what am I doing wrong? Is it possible to install Windows on a secondary hard drive? How can I avoid the "Boot device not found..." message?
Thanks for any help! | 2012/05/04 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/50438",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/22431/"
] | Look here:
* [How can I install boot camp off a Windows 7 USB flash drive?](https://apple.stackexchange.com/q/8044/14994)
and here:
* [Install Bootcamp Windows7 off external USB optical drive on Lion system](https://apple.stackexchange.com/q/22890/14994)
Maybe rEFIt will work for you too, but be aware of this:
* [Installed reFIT on Lion and now I can't login](https://apple.stackexchange.com/q/34465/14994) | I had this same problem. I used Daemon tools Lite for mac (free) to mount the .iso file and bootcamp let me create the partition, Then I used Winclone 3.5 (not free) to restore an old image I made.
If you don't have an image, you'll have to find a friend with the same model macbook pro you have and see if they will do a fresh windows 7 install that you can then use winclone to copy. |
6,313 | Here is what I have:
1. Site licences for Mindstorms Software 1.0 (NXT) and EV3.
2. An upgrade to Version 2.0 for the NXT
3. 9 NXT kits
4. 4 EV3 kits
5. 2 Renewable Energy Kits and Temperature sensors
My problem is that on the NXT units, the only version of the software which supports the Renewable energy/temperature sensors is 2.1, which does not appear to be an upgrade to 2.0, but is instead a education site licence version like the ones I have for NXT 1.0 and EV3. Without these I cannot access the blocks to use the Renewable Energy kits and temperature sensors unless I use the EV3 kits.
My questions:
1. Am I right, or is there a way to upgrade 2.0 to 2.1 or 1.0 education to 2.1?
2. is there a way I just haven't been able to figure out to use these sensors with the 2.0 software?
3. Is it worth updating all my existing material for the NXT bricks to program them from the EV3 software as well and dealing with the small issues or not?
I have tried contacting distributors, and looking online has only helped me find the appropriate sensor blocks for the EV3 software. | 2015/05/11 | [
"https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/6313",
"https://bricks.stackexchange.com",
"https://bricks.stackexchange.com/users/5774/"
] | 1. You probably don't need it, but the LEGO Education NXT 2.1 Software is still for sale through [LEGO Education](http://education.lego.com) (at least in the USA). They do not advertise and upgrade price, but it does not hurt to ask.
2. The Energy Meter blocks are available for download on the LEGO Education website. I went to <http://education.lego.com/en-us/downloads> and checked the box "Blocks" under "Download Type" and it shows up in the list. It does not say if it is for NXT or EV3 though. Also, I found [this](http://www.thenxtstep.com/2010/02/lego-temperature-sensor-splicing-it.html) for the NXT Temperature sensor.
3. I would not recommend using the EV3 software for programming the NXTs. There are a number of limitations, such as lack of support for 3rd party sensors and lack of support for Bluetooth. Also, I understand the programs take up much more memory this way. | I managed to install my license of Mindstorms Edu NXT v2.0 (Windows 7 x64) and the software has Data Logging and the Temperature Sensor Block.
If you have an upgrade from v1.0 to v2.0 at least the Temperature Sensor Block will be available. |
3,455 | On the sidesticks of Airbus aircraft, there is a Priority Takeover button. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick) has this to say:
>
> In typical Airbus side-stick implementations, the sticks are independent. The plane's computer either aggregates multiple inputs or a pilot can press a "priority button" to lock out inputs from the other side-stick.
>
>
>
On US flight 1549, [the CVR transcript](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf) shows that Sully hit the Priority T/O button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft:
>
> *15:27:23.2* - **Sully:** My aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:24.0* - **Skiles:** Your aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:26.5* - **FWC:** Priority left.
>
>
>
I'm curious as to why there's a need for this button at all?
Here's a short video on YouTube, demonstrating this: | 2014/04/18 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3455",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/97/"
] | It's been several years since I worked at United's flight training center, but if my memory serves me, it is there in case the system is receiving input that the pilot wants to exclude. As was explained to me, an example of this would be the other pilot becoming incapacitated, with their body leaning against the sidestick. In this case, one would want to use the Priority Takeover button to eliminate the other pilot's input.
In Captain Sullenberger's case, it is likely that he wanted to ensure that First Officer Skiles wasn't providing any control inputs that would work against his control inputs.
Now, it is also my understanding that such functionality is not useful in a "hostile takeover" event, since the other pilot can also attempt a priority takeover (or use physical force, due to the close proximity of the two pilots). | As far as I recall the priority button suppresses the other stick **and autopilot**. Since it is right under the thumb on the side-stick, that makes it quicker way to disconnect autopilot than navigating the other hand to the flight management panel.
The overall idea is that when the pilot needs to make manual input quickly they simply push that button and it will ensure that input will be obeyed, so they don't need to think what state the system was in.
Note, that the priority take-over button will disconnect autopilot immediately when pressed, but it only disables the other side-stick while held down, or permanently when held down for more than 40 seconds. The last case is primarily for situations when the other pilot is incapacitated holding their side-stick deflected or when the other side-stick fails. |
3,455 | On the sidesticks of Airbus aircraft, there is a Priority Takeover button. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick) has this to say:
>
> In typical Airbus side-stick implementations, the sticks are independent. The plane's computer either aggregates multiple inputs or a pilot can press a "priority button" to lock out inputs from the other side-stick.
>
>
>
On US flight 1549, [the CVR transcript](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf) shows that Sully hit the Priority T/O button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft:
>
> *15:27:23.2* - **Sully:** My aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:24.0* - **Skiles:** Your aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:26.5* - **FWC:** Priority left.
>
>
>
I'm curious as to why there's a need for this button at all?
Here's a short video on YouTube, demonstrating this: | 2014/04/18 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3455",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/97/"
] | It's been several years since I worked at United's flight training center, but if my memory serves me, it is there in case the system is receiving input that the pilot wants to exclude. As was explained to me, an example of this would be the other pilot becoming incapacitated, with their body leaning against the sidestick. In this case, one would want to use the Priority Takeover button to eliminate the other pilot's input.
In Captain Sullenberger's case, it is likely that he wanted to ensure that First Officer Skiles wasn't providing any control inputs that would work against his control inputs.
Now, it is also my understanding that such functionality is not useful in a "hostile takeover" event, since the other pilot can also attempt a priority takeover (or use physical force, due to the close proximity of the two pilots). | I'm not sure it exactly answers your question, but there is an excellent example of why this feature ought to always be used in an emergency situation.
[Air France Flight 447](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report) was an Airbus A330, I'm not entirely certain if it had this feature (I assume so?) Anyway, it went into a stall somewhere near cruise altitude and the co-pilot, for some unknown reason, kept pulling back on the right stick. Eventually the plane was at a 40 degree incline and losing altitude quickly. The pilot on the left stick noticed the the stall and tried to push the plane forward to correct, but found the controls to be unresponsive, he was apparently unaware that the right stick was pulled fully back. The plane stayed in that stall all the way until it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.
In an emergency, it's really really important to have a single input or a "single source of truth", not matter what industry you're in (I hear it all the time in software development anyway.) I'd argue that this is the main reason they have that override switch. |
3,455 | On the sidesticks of Airbus aircraft, there is a Priority Takeover button. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick) has this to say:
>
> In typical Airbus side-stick implementations, the sticks are independent. The plane's computer either aggregates multiple inputs or a pilot can press a "priority button" to lock out inputs from the other side-stick.
>
>
>
On US flight 1549, [the CVR transcript](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf) shows that Sully hit the Priority T/O button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft:
>
> *15:27:23.2* - **Sully:** My aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:24.0* - **Skiles:** Your aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:26.5* - **FWC:** Priority left.
>
>
>
I'm curious as to why there's a need for this button at all?
Here's a short video on YouTube, demonstrating this: | 2014/04/18 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3455",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/97/"
] | It's been several years since I worked at United's flight training center, but if my memory serves me, it is there in case the system is receiving input that the pilot wants to exclude. As was explained to me, an example of this would be the other pilot becoming incapacitated, with their body leaning against the sidestick. In this case, one would want to use the Priority Takeover button to eliminate the other pilot's input.
In Captain Sullenberger's case, it is likely that he wanted to ensure that First Officer Skiles wasn't providing any control inputs that would work against his control inputs.
Now, it is also my understanding that such functionality is not useful in a "hostile takeover" event, since the other pilot can also attempt a priority takeover (or use physical force, due to the close proximity of the two pilots). | A prime reason for this is the fact that the Airbus sidesticks are not connected mechanically, unlike the center control columns of other aircraft. In the event of conflicting inputs from both pilots, such a condition would not be readily apparent. With mechanically connected columns, conflicting input is not possible, without both pilots being aware that the other was trying to do something different.
As Jay Carr mentioned, this was one of the reasons that led to the AF447 crash - conflicting stick inputs, and apparently neither pilot was aware of that situation, as they would have been with mechanically connected columns. That was an avoidable accident, on several levels.
It's surprising that Airbus came up with dual disconnected sidesticks and didn't consider the possibility of conflicting inputs, certainly didn't do a very good job of alerting the pilots that such a condition existed. In retrospect, the computer should be screaming bloody murder at the pilots if it detects both sidesticks in use simultaneously - a situation that should never happen. |
3,455 | On the sidesticks of Airbus aircraft, there is a Priority Takeover button. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick) has this to say:
>
> In typical Airbus side-stick implementations, the sticks are independent. The plane's computer either aggregates multiple inputs or a pilot can press a "priority button" to lock out inputs from the other side-stick.
>
>
>
On US flight 1549, [the CVR transcript](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf) shows that Sully hit the Priority T/O button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft:
>
> *15:27:23.2* - **Sully:** My aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:24.0* - **Skiles:** Your aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:26.5* - **FWC:** Priority left.
>
>
>
I'm curious as to why there's a need for this button at all?
Here's a short video on YouTube, demonstrating this: | 2014/04/18 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3455",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/97/"
] | The priority button is not normally used when taking over controls from the other pilot. Even in Airbus the control hand over is done verbally. The pilot who wants the control says, *'I have controls'* and the pilot who gives the control says, *'You have controls.'* Or if the flying pilot wants to give the controls to the pilot monitoring, he/ she says, *'You have controls'* and the pilot monitoring confirms it by saying, *'I have controls.'*
As mentioned in other answers, the priority button when pressed gives side stick control to the pilot who presses it the last. If you keep holding the button and pass 40 seconds, the other side stick deactivates. It can only be activated by pressing the priority button of the other stick. The main problem with the side stick control of Airbus aircraft is not that it is mechanically not linked. The problem is how the aircraft behaves when two inputs are given at the same time. In Airbus fly by wire, the side stick inputs are algebraically added. This means, if two pilots give an opposite and an equal demand, the aircraft may not even react to the controls. Or worse, if the two pilots were to give an identical input (in the same direction) the aircraft may overreact to the controls. Below is a picture which shows this behavior. As you can see, the left pilot gives a 20% left side stick demand, while the right pilot gives a 30% left demand. The aircraft adds up the inputs and the net input becomes a 50% left roll demand.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fgH7U.png)
What are the risks associated with dual inputs? The main risk is that the aircraft might behave inappropriately to what the pilots want. For example, in the flare to the landing, if two pilots put in inputs to the side stick, the aircraft may under flare (opposite inputs) and the result can be a hard landing. Or if the inputs are given in the same direction (nose up), the resulting over flare may cause a tail strike. This is where the priority button becomes extremely crucial. If you for instance see the other pilot not flaring during the landing, you say *I have controls,* press the priority button and do the flare yourself. This ensures the other pilot can no longer control the aircraft. This is particularly important in training flights with a new pilot who for example fails to flare at the right time. Many a times new pilots tend to be nervous (natural human behavior) and even when the instructor says he has controls (after seeing what is happening), because of nervousness the trainee can unknowingly manipulate the controls. This can develop into a very dangerous situation where neither of the pilots know who has the controls. The priority button really helps in these type of dynamic situations. To ensure that the pilots are aware that there is a dual input, if the inputs meet a certain threshold, a 'dual input' aural alert comes on.
In case of Capt. Sully, we cannot be entirely sure why he pressed the priority button after saying he has controls. It might be because they were in a dire situation (dual engine flame out) and he did not want his first officer to unknowingly add any inputs to his inputs. Usually, in normal flights as said above changing over controls do not require the use of priority button. | As far as I recall the priority button suppresses the other stick **and autopilot**. Since it is right under the thumb on the side-stick, that makes it quicker way to disconnect autopilot than navigating the other hand to the flight management panel.
The overall idea is that when the pilot needs to make manual input quickly they simply push that button and it will ensure that input will be obeyed, so they don't need to think what state the system was in.
Note, that the priority take-over button will disconnect autopilot immediately when pressed, but it only disables the other side-stick while held down, or permanently when held down for more than 40 seconds. The last case is primarily for situations when the other pilot is incapacitated holding their side-stick deflected or when the other side-stick fails. |
3,455 | On the sidesticks of Airbus aircraft, there is a Priority Takeover button. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick) has this to say:
>
> In typical Airbus side-stick implementations, the sticks are independent. The plane's computer either aggregates multiple inputs or a pilot can press a "priority button" to lock out inputs from the other side-stick.
>
>
>
On US flight 1549, [the CVR transcript](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf) shows that Sully hit the Priority T/O button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft:
>
> *15:27:23.2* - **Sully:** My aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:24.0* - **Skiles:** Your aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:26.5* - **FWC:** Priority left.
>
>
>
I'm curious as to why there's a need for this button at all?
Here's a short video on YouTube, demonstrating this: | 2014/04/18 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3455",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/97/"
] | The priority button is not normally used when taking over controls from the other pilot. Even in Airbus the control hand over is done verbally. The pilot who wants the control says, *'I have controls'* and the pilot who gives the control says, *'You have controls.'* Or if the flying pilot wants to give the controls to the pilot monitoring, he/ she says, *'You have controls'* and the pilot monitoring confirms it by saying, *'I have controls.'*
As mentioned in other answers, the priority button when pressed gives side stick control to the pilot who presses it the last. If you keep holding the button and pass 40 seconds, the other side stick deactivates. It can only be activated by pressing the priority button of the other stick. The main problem with the side stick control of Airbus aircraft is not that it is mechanically not linked. The problem is how the aircraft behaves when two inputs are given at the same time. In Airbus fly by wire, the side stick inputs are algebraically added. This means, if two pilots give an opposite and an equal demand, the aircraft may not even react to the controls. Or worse, if the two pilots were to give an identical input (in the same direction) the aircraft may overreact to the controls. Below is a picture which shows this behavior. As you can see, the left pilot gives a 20% left side stick demand, while the right pilot gives a 30% left demand. The aircraft adds up the inputs and the net input becomes a 50% left roll demand.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fgH7U.png)
What are the risks associated with dual inputs? The main risk is that the aircraft might behave inappropriately to what the pilots want. For example, in the flare to the landing, if two pilots put in inputs to the side stick, the aircraft may under flare (opposite inputs) and the result can be a hard landing. Or if the inputs are given in the same direction (nose up), the resulting over flare may cause a tail strike. This is where the priority button becomes extremely crucial. If you for instance see the other pilot not flaring during the landing, you say *I have controls,* press the priority button and do the flare yourself. This ensures the other pilot can no longer control the aircraft. This is particularly important in training flights with a new pilot who for example fails to flare at the right time. Many a times new pilots tend to be nervous (natural human behavior) and even when the instructor says he has controls (after seeing what is happening), because of nervousness the trainee can unknowingly manipulate the controls. This can develop into a very dangerous situation where neither of the pilots know who has the controls. The priority button really helps in these type of dynamic situations. To ensure that the pilots are aware that there is a dual input, if the inputs meet a certain threshold, a 'dual input' aural alert comes on.
In case of Capt. Sully, we cannot be entirely sure why he pressed the priority button after saying he has controls. It might be because they were in a dire situation (dual engine flame out) and he did not want his first officer to unknowingly add any inputs to his inputs. Usually, in normal flights as said above changing over controls do not require the use of priority button. | I'm not sure it exactly answers your question, but there is an excellent example of why this feature ought to always be used in an emergency situation.
[Air France Flight 447](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report) was an Airbus A330, I'm not entirely certain if it had this feature (I assume so?) Anyway, it went into a stall somewhere near cruise altitude and the co-pilot, for some unknown reason, kept pulling back on the right stick. Eventually the plane was at a 40 degree incline and losing altitude quickly. The pilot on the left stick noticed the the stall and tried to push the plane forward to correct, but found the controls to be unresponsive, he was apparently unaware that the right stick was pulled fully back. The plane stayed in that stall all the way until it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.
In an emergency, it's really really important to have a single input or a "single source of truth", not matter what industry you're in (I hear it all the time in software development anyway.) I'd argue that this is the main reason they have that override switch. |
3,455 | On the sidesticks of Airbus aircraft, there is a Priority Takeover button. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick) has this to say:
>
> In typical Airbus side-stick implementations, the sticks are independent. The plane's computer either aggregates multiple inputs or a pilot can press a "priority button" to lock out inputs from the other side-stick.
>
>
>
On US flight 1549, [the CVR transcript](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf) shows that Sully hit the Priority T/O button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft:
>
> *15:27:23.2* - **Sully:** My aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:24.0* - **Skiles:** Your aircraft.
>
>
> *15:27:26.5* - **FWC:** Priority left.
>
>
>
I'm curious as to why there's a need for this button at all?
Here's a short video on YouTube, demonstrating this: | 2014/04/18 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3455",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/97/"
] | The priority button is not normally used when taking over controls from the other pilot. Even in Airbus the control hand over is done verbally. The pilot who wants the control says, *'I have controls'* and the pilot who gives the control says, *'You have controls.'* Or if the flying pilot wants to give the controls to the pilot monitoring, he/ she says, *'You have controls'* and the pilot monitoring confirms it by saying, *'I have controls.'*
As mentioned in other answers, the priority button when pressed gives side stick control to the pilot who presses it the last. If you keep holding the button and pass 40 seconds, the other side stick deactivates. It can only be activated by pressing the priority button of the other stick. The main problem with the side stick control of Airbus aircraft is not that it is mechanically not linked. The problem is how the aircraft behaves when two inputs are given at the same time. In Airbus fly by wire, the side stick inputs are algebraically added. This means, if two pilots give an opposite and an equal demand, the aircraft may not even react to the controls. Or worse, if the two pilots were to give an identical input (in the same direction) the aircraft may overreact to the controls. Below is a picture which shows this behavior. As you can see, the left pilot gives a 20% left side stick demand, while the right pilot gives a 30% left demand. The aircraft adds up the inputs and the net input becomes a 50% left roll demand.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fgH7U.png)
What are the risks associated with dual inputs? The main risk is that the aircraft might behave inappropriately to what the pilots want. For example, in the flare to the landing, if two pilots put in inputs to the side stick, the aircraft may under flare (opposite inputs) and the result can be a hard landing. Or if the inputs are given in the same direction (nose up), the resulting over flare may cause a tail strike. This is where the priority button becomes extremely crucial. If you for instance see the other pilot not flaring during the landing, you say *I have controls,* press the priority button and do the flare yourself. This ensures the other pilot can no longer control the aircraft. This is particularly important in training flights with a new pilot who for example fails to flare at the right time. Many a times new pilots tend to be nervous (natural human behavior) and even when the instructor says he has controls (after seeing what is happening), because of nervousness the trainee can unknowingly manipulate the controls. This can develop into a very dangerous situation where neither of the pilots know who has the controls. The priority button really helps in these type of dynamic situations. To ensure that the pilots are aware that there is a dual input, if the inputs meet a certain threshold, a 'dual input' aural alert comes on.
In case of Capt. Sully, we cannot be entirely sure why he pressed the priority button after saying he has controls. It might be because they were in a dire situation (dual engine flame out) and he did not want his first officer to unknowingly add any inputs to his inputs. Usually, in normal flights as said above changing over controls do not require the use of priority button. | A prime reason for this is the fact that the Airbus sidesticks are not connected mechanically, unlike the center control columns of other aircraft. In the event of conflicting inputs from both pilots, such a condition would not be readily apparent. With mechanically connected columns, conflicting input is not possible, without both pilots being aware that the other was trying to do something different.
As Jay Carr mentioned, this was one of the reasons that led to the AF447 crash - conflicting stick inputs, and apparently neither pilot was aware of that situation, as they would have been with mechanically connected columns. That was an avoidable accident, on several levels.
It's surprising that Airbus came up with dual disconnected sidesticks and didn't consider the possibility of conflicting inputs, certainly didn't do a very good job of alerting the pilots that such a condition existed. In retrospect, the computer should be screaming bloody murder at the pilots if it detects both sidesticks in use simultaneously - a situation that should never happen. |
30,898 | I'm not exactly sure what type of palm tree this is but I was wondering if I could use it for Hugelkultur (burying it in the ground as a form of compost for my plants). I realise some trees (eg. Eucalyptus) are not good for this technique.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2Uhof.jpg) | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/30898",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/1658/"
] | Cool question. I did some digging around but could not come up with a definitive answer so here goes with some peripheral reasoning:
1. chopped coir fibres are often used in horticulture as a peat substitute - you know, coconut, palm ...
2. most sources I read where people were trying [hugelkultur with palm](https://permies.com/t/28770/Palm-fronds-hugelkultur) it was of the nature of an experiment; but of course the author forgets to update the article a few years later to show whether it worked or not
3. on many sites, when they [list those woods you should not use](https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/many-benefits-hugelkultur) there is a specific scientific reason why not: locust does not rot, walnut poisons the soil and so on; but, take a look at the selection of images you get with a Google search for images related to "plants at the base of a palm tree" and I invite you to draw your own conclusions whether palm frightens off other plants at the base.
I'd go for it.
PS see [What woods shouldn't be used for hugelkultur?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/412/what-woods-shouldnt-be-used-for-hugelkultur) - @daniel-bingham might have some good input on this. | If it is organic and dead it is decomposing. My problems with this Hugelkultur are; 1) As long as the decomposing is happening which will be years, the decomposers require lots of nitrogen and the other micro and macro organisms go dormant until there is DECOMPOSED organic matter to 'eat', 2) When this matter finally decomposed that 'hill' or raised bed will sink to become a swale, 3) Plant roots for water and taking up chemicals are only 4 to 6" deep, the important part of that profile should be heavily laden with decomposed organic matter to improve the tilth, 4) Water sucked up in this man made bog will not have drainage (perched water table) and I foresee anaerobic decomposition with all it's subsequent chemistry again, plant roots for the most part are only 4 to 6" deep.
Raised beds are the only way to garden, double dug but with a flat top and at least 3' wide. The sides are great for SOME vegetables but in my experience the plants on the sides do not do as well as those on the top, no matter the soil type. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aeBap.jpg)
First time these beds were double dug I threw decomposed not composing but decomposed organic matter into the mix as I made these beds as well as lime OR sulfur depending on the pH I wanted to push (after soil tests) in the right direction. These beds are now 4 years old, never to be double dug again. I simply use decomposed organic mulch as a top dressing replacing it 3 or 4 times each season. The organisms are reproducing and are drawn to this soil because there is food available they can eat now. Not happening as organic matter is decomposing. These organisms are my little slaves; I feed them they go back into the soil profile and poop this stuff out mixing it into the soil profile down to a foot in depth, doing all that work FOR me. As I dig the trenches out once per years I throw more soil on top of the beds. Best drainage in the world... |
30,898 | I'm not exactly sure what type of palm tree this is but I was wondering if I could use it for Hugelkultur (burying it in the ground as a form of compost for my plants). I realise some trees (eg. Eucalyptus) are not good for this technique.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2Uhof.jpg) | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/30898",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/1658/"
] | Palm is a grass. It rots fast. So does not last long. It has a long fiber. It holds water, So is good for wicking water into the soil. It forms a good black mulch & loosens soil. But needs replaced often as low in minerals. So good for growing things for about 6 months. Best used as a soil fiber restorer. We use it here as a mulch. Or let the trees just rot out on the ground when we replant them. It seems to work best in sandy soil. Good for potted plants as a moisture holder. As a mulch works well around out Mango, lemon, lime, mango trees. & coconut & banana trees. There we just cut them up & lay on ground around the trees. Let them rot into the soil. | Cool question. I did some digging around but could not come up with a definitive answer so here goes with some peripheral reasoning:
1. chopped coir fibres are often used in horticulture as a peat substitute - you know, coconut, palm ...
2. most sources I read where people were trying [hugelkultur with palm](https://permies.com/t/28770/Palm-fronds-hugelkultur) it was of the nature of an experiment; but of course the author forgets to update the article a few years later to show whether it worked or not
3. on many sites, when they [list those woods you should not use](https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/many-benefits-hugelkultur) there is a specific scientific reason why not: locust does not rot, walnut poisons the soil and so on; but, take a look at the selection of images you get with a Google search for images related to "plants at the base of a palm tree" and I invite you to draw your own conclusions whether palm frightens off other plants at the base.
I'd go for it.
PS see [What woods shouldn't be used for hugelkultur?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/412/what-woods-shouldnt-be-used-for-hugelkultur) - @daniel-bingham might have some good input on this. |
30,898 | I'm not exactly sure what type of palm tree this is but I was wondering if I could use it for Hugelkultur (burying it in the ground as a form of compost for my plants). I realise some trees (eg. Eucalyptus) are not good for this technique.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2Uhof.jpg) | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/30898",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/1658/"
] | Palm is a grass. It rots fast. So does not last long. It has a long fiber. It holds water, So is good for wicking water into the soil. It forms a good black mulch & loosens soil. But needs replaced often as low in minerals. So good for growing things for about 6 months. Best used as a soil fiber restorer. We use it here as a mulch. Or let the trees just rot out on the ground when we replant them. It seems to work best in sandy soil. Good for potted plants as a moisture holder. As a mulch works well around out Mango, lemon, lime, mango trees. & coconut & banana trees. There we just cut them up & lay on ground around the trees. Let them rot into the soil. | If it is organic and dead it is decomposing. My problems with this Hugelkultur are; 1) As long as the decomposing is happening which will be years, the decomposers require lots of nitrogen and the other micro and macro organisms go dormant until there is DECOMPOSED organic matter to 'eat', 2) When this matter finally decomposed that 'hill' or raised bed will sink to become a swale, 3) Plant roots for water and taking up chemicals are only 4 to 6" deep, the important part of that profile should be heavily laden with decomposed organic matter to improve the tilth, 4) Water sucked up in this man made bog will not have drainage (perched water table) and I foresee anaerobic decomposition with all it's subsequent chemistry again, plant roots for the most part are only 4 to 6" deep.
Raised beds are the only way to garden, double dug but with a flat top and at least 3' wide. The sides are great for SOME vegetables but in my experience the plants on the sides do not do as well as those on the top, no matter the soil type. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aeBap.jpg)
First time these beds were double dug I threw decomposed not composing but decomposed organic matter into the mix as I made these beds as well as lime OR sulfur depending on the pH I wanted to push (after soil tests) in the right direction. These beds are now 4 years old, never to be double dug again. I simply use decomposed organic mulch as a top dressing replacing it 3 or 4 times each season. The organisms are reproducing and are drawn to this soil because there is food available they can eat now. Not happening as organic matter is decomposing. These organisms are my little slaves; I feed them they go back into the soil profile and poop this stuff out mixing it into the soil profile down to a foot in depth, doing all that work FOR me. As I dig the trenches out once per years I throw more soil on top of the beds. Best drainage in the world... |
114,187 | So, in my case, I have a list of boroughs and connected cities. The way it works here in Montreal is we have boroughs and connected cities(like Westmount; geographically-speaking, it's still on the island and an outsider would think it's a regular borough, but it's not..). So, it wouldn't make sense to use 2 dropdowns since they're pretty much the same, but I was wondering if it's bad practice to use dividers or subtitles inside a dropdown. And yeah,I watched that video called "F\*ck dropdowns!" and I decided that a dropdown would be a good solution for this. | 2017/12/09 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/114187",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/109070/"
] | I don't think it's necessarily 'bad practice' to have subdivided selects (dropdowns). After all, there are specific HTML tags for select list subgroups so it's accessible too.
However, it *is* bad practice to have long select lists - they make things difficult to find and are physically difficult to use.
Almost any list that requires subgrouping is likely to be too long and that's where the problem lies. Yes, you can subgroup your list to make things easier to find but, in doing so, you might be ignoring the fact that your list is too long in the first place.
The solution that most people use is to put their 'heading' list into one select and let that choice set the content for a second select list. | You can use fancy dropdown widgets like [Shield UI's DropDown](http://demos.shieldui.com/web/dropdown/templates), which allow you to render anything, from distinctive images to indents and paddings for each item. |
114,187 | So, in my case, I have a list of boroughs and connected cities. The way it works here in Montreal is we have boroughs and connected cities(like Westmount; geographically-speaking, it's still on the island and an outsider would think it's a regular borough, but it's not..). So, it wouldn't make sense to use 2 dropdowns since they're pretty much the same, but I was wondering if it's bad practice to use dividers or subtitles inside a dropdown. And yeah,I watched that video called "F\*ck dropdowns!" and I decided that a dropdown would be a good solution for this. | 2017/12/09 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/114187",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/109070/"
] | I don't think it's necessarily 'bad practice' to have subdivided selects (dropdowns). After all, there are specific HTML tags for select list subgroups so it's accessible too.
However, it *is* bad practice to have long select lists - they make things difficult to find and are physically difficult to use.
Almost any list that requires subgrouping is likely to be too long and that's where the problem lies. Yes, you can subgroup your list to make things easier to find but, in doing so, you might be ignoring the fact that your list is too long in the first place.
The solution that most people use is to put their 'heading' list into one select and let that choice set the content for a second select list. | I would suggest to use grouping within the drop-down menu. The groups can be collapsible so that user can go towards the required option easily. Also, don't forget to provide search feature (in the form of auto-complete) when user enters some text to find a country.
If it is a mobile interface, then providing two level list would be a good idea. First level will display boroughs and selecting an option will display the list of countries in that borough. |
146,185 | I'm trying to simulate this effect in cycles with materials
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SGw9V.jpg)
This phenomena is called "Opposition Surge/effect", and is a result of the phase angle between a light source (sun) and the observer approaches zero. The effect is mostly seen on rough surfaces, as the shadows of said surface disappear when the observer is directly between the surface and the light source
This is something I've been trying to simulate in cycles with materials. Now this effect should in theory be achieved simply by creating rough physical geometry, however, it is not very practical for large scale scenes as the physical geometry takes up a lot of memory. Can anyone think of a way to simulate this effect within a material? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/146185",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/37812/"
] | You can create dense geometry only where needed with [Adaptive Subdivision](https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/2.80/render/cycles/object_settings/adaptive_subdiv.html) and displacement in Blender. It's still an experimental feature, but seems to work quite well. | Or you can create gravel with a particle system or use linked duplicates. |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | Adding to what Scott Davies had to say:
1. Make absolutely sure you know what your program is all about before you start. What *is* your program? What will it *not* do? What problem is it trying to solve?
2. Your first set of use cases shouldn't be a laundry list of everything the program will eventually do. Start with the smallest set of use cases you can come up with that still captures the essence of what your program is for. For this web site, for example, the core use cases might be *log in*, *ask a question*, *answer a question*, and *view questions and answers*. Nothing about reputation, voting, or the community wiki, just the raw essence of what you're shooting for.
3. As you come up with potential classes, don't think of them only in terms of what noun they represent, but what responsibilities they have. I've found this to be the biggest aid in figuring out how classes relate to each other during program execution. It's easy to come up with relationships like "a dog is an animal" or "a puppy has one mother." It's usually harder to figure out relationships describing run-time interactions between objects. You're program's algorithms are at least as important as your objects, and they're much easier to design if you've spelled out what each class's job is.
4. Once you've got that minimal set of use cases and objects, start coding. Get something that actually runs as soon as possible, even though it doesn't do much and probably looks like crap. It's a starting point, and will force you to answer questions you might gloss over on paper.
5. Now go back and pick more use cases, write up how they'll work, modify your class model, and write more code. Just like your first cut, take on as little at a time as you can while still adding something meaningful. Rinse and repeat.
Just my two cents. Hopefully it's useful. | Just quoting <http://www.fysh.org/~katie/computing/methodologies.txt>
And at the core of RUP is a small area where you have to use OO design
talents.... if you don't have them, it's like having a methodology for
running the 100m.
"Step 1: write about running really fast.
Step 2: Go and draw a plan of the racetrack.
Step 3: go and buy really tight lycra shorts.
Step 4: run really, really, really fast.
Step 5: cross line first"
It's that step 4 that's the tough one. But if you put lots of emphasis
on 1,2,3 and 5 it's possible no-one will notice and then you could
probably make a lot of money selling the methodology to would be
athletes who think there's some "secret" to being a 100m runner over |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | The technique I've used in real projects with reasonable success is Responsibility Driven Design, inspired by Wirfs-Brock's book.
Start with the top level user stories, and with colleagues, at a whiteboard, sketch the high-level interactions they imply. This gets you the first idea of what the big modules are; and an iteration or two of high level CRC-card like play you should have stabilised a list of major components, what they do and how they interact.
Then, if any of the responsibilities are large or complex, refine those modules down until you have things that are small and simple enough to be objects, by playing out the interactions inside the module for each of the major operations identified by the higher level interactions.
Knowing when to stop is a matter of judgement (which only comes with experience). | Honestly, a good step would be going back and looking at flow charting and sequence diagramming. There are a ton of good sites that show you how to do it. I find it to be invaluable when looking at how I want to break down a program into classes as I know exactly what the program needs inputted, computed, and outputted and each step can be broken down into one part of the program. |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | The problem with large projects is that you can not oversee all the interactions between components. It is thus important to reduce the complexity of the project. Class and Sequence diagrams are too detailed for this phase of design.
First try to think from a higher abstraction level. Think about major components and their responsibilities (their interface to other components), look at some architectural patterns for inspiration (no, not design patterns, these are too low level! MVC and Multi-Tier are architectural pattern examples).
For reasonably large projects, such a view should have about 3-5 components.
Only then you zoom into a certain component and try to design that. Now we are at the level of design patterns and class diagrams. Try to focus upon this part of the project, if you find you need to add a responsibility to one of the other components, just add it to your documentation/ todo list. Do not waste time thinking about the implications at this point they change far too quickly, review when the design is more solid.
You do not need to fully design each component at this point, although it is probably wise to have a piece of code that implements the unimplemented components interface and generates simple but useful responses. This way, you can start development (and design) one component at a time and test it to a reasonable degree.
Of course, when new components are completed, you should test how (and if) they integrate with each other before moving on.
In very short:
Take the OO and information hiding principle, and pull it up another level!
---
PS:
Do a lot of sketching while designing, it's just like real architecture!
PPS: Try to approach the matter from different angles, think outside the box (although the box might be the way to go), discussing with peers can be very useful for this... and you have something to talk about over lunch. | I am afraid that this is not an answer *people like to hear*. Anyway, let me state my opinion.
OOP should be viewed as one of the paradigms, not as the superior paradigm. OOP is good for solving certain kind of problems, like developing a GUI library. It also fits into the style of software development usually followed by large software companies - an elite team of *designers* or *architects* lays down the software design in UML diagrams or some other similar medium and a less enlightened team of *developers* translate that design into source code. OOP offer little benefit if you are working alone or with a small team of highly talented programmers. Then, it is better to use a language that supports multiple paradigms and will help you to come up with a prototype fast. Python, Ruby, Lisp/Scheme etc are good choices. The prototype is your design. Then you improve on that. Use the paradigm that is best to solve the problem at hand. If needed, optimize hot spots with extensions written in C or some other systems language. By using one of these languages, you also get *extensibility* for free, not just at the programmer level but also at the user level. Languages like Lisp can dynamically generate and execute code, which means your users can extend the application by writing small code snippets, in the language that the software itself is coded! Or if you choose to write the program in C or C++, consider embedding an interpreter for a small language like Lua. Expose functionalities as *plugins* written in that language.
I think that, most of the time OOP and OOD create software that are victims of over design.
To summarize, my preferred way to write software is:
1. Use a dynamic language.
2. Write the design (prototype) in that language itself.
3. If necessary, optimize certain areas using C/C++.
4. Provide extensibility by way of the interpreter of the implementation language itself.
The last feature enables the software to easily adapt to specific user (including myself!) requirements. |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | **Learn design patterns**. It has been my personal revolution the past two years regarding OOP. Get a book. I would recommend you this one:
[Head First Design Patterns](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0596007124)
It is in Java but it can be extensible to any language. | As answered in [What is the workflow you follow to design the software you’re about to write?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/454382/what-is-the-workflow-you-follow-to-design-the-software-youre-about-to-write/454406#454406) |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | 1. study & master Design Patterns.
2. Next, learn about the Domain Driven Design
3. After that, learn the requirement gathering
>
> I took an OOD course a few semesters
> back and learned a lot from it; like
> writing UML, and translating
> requirements documents into objects
> and classes. We learned sequence
> diagrams too but somehow I missed the
> lecture or something, they didn't
> really stick with me.
>
>
>
4. You know about the step 3. You need to master it. I mean, via a lot of practice to make it become your second nature. That's because the method you learn, is simply against the way we used to have. So you need to really master it. Otherwise, you will always find yourself go back to your original way of doing thing. This is somehow like Test Driven Process, where a lot of java developer give it up after a few tries. Unless they fully master it, otherwise it's just a burden to them
5. Write use cases, especially for alternate course. Alternate course occupy more than 50% of our development time. Normally when your PM assign you a task, for instance, create a login system, he will think it's straight forward, you can take 1 day to finish it off. But he never take into account that you need to consider, 1. what if user key in wrong password, 2. what if user key in wrong password for 3 times, 3. what if user doesn't type in user name and etc. You need to list them out, and show it to your PM, ask him to reschedule the deadline. | One useful technique is to relate your unique problem description to something you can find in the real world. For example, you are modelling a complex health care system that will take the world by storm. Are there any examples you can readily call upon to model this?
Indeed. Observe how the side pharmacy would operate, or the doctor's room.
Bring your domain problem down to something understandable to you; something to which you can relate.
Then once the "players" within the domain start to appear obvious, and you start to model your code, opt for a "provider-consumer" modelling approach i.e. your code is the "provider" of the model, and *you* are the "consumer".
Relating to the domain and understanding it at a high level is key part of any design. |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | **Design Patterns**
**Creational Design Patterns**
Singleton - Ensure that only one instance of a class is created and Provide a global access point to the object.
Factory(Simplified version of Factory Method)- Creates objects without exposing the instantiation logic to the client and Refers to the newly created object through a common interface.
Factory Method - Defines an interface for creating objects, but let subclasses to decide which class to instantiate and Refers to the newly created object through a common interface.
Abstract Factory - Offers the interface for creating a family of related objects, without explicitly specifying their classes.
Builder - Defines an instance for creating an object but letting subclasses decide which class to instantiate and Allows a finer control over the construction process.
Prototype - Specify the kinds of objects to create using a prototypical instance, and create new objects by copying this prototype.
**Behavioral Design Patterns**
Chain of Responsibiliy - It avoids attaching the sender of a request to its receiver, giving this way other objects the possibility of handling the request too.
- The objects become parts of a chain and the request is sent from one object to another across the chain until one of the objects will handle it.
Command - Encapsulate a request in an object, Allows the parameterization of clients with different requests and Allows saving the requests in a queue.
Interpreter - Given a language, define a representation for its grammar along with an interpreter that uses the representation to interpret sentences in the language / Map a domain to a language, the language to a grammar, and the grammar to a hierarchical object-oriented design
Iterator - Provide a way to access the elements of an aggregate object sequentially without exposing its underlying representation.
Mediator - Define an object that encapsulates how a set of objects interact. Mediator promotes loose coupling by keeping objects from referring to each other explicitly, and it lets you vary their interaction independently.
Observer - Define a one-to-many dependency between objects so that when one object changes state, all its dependents are notified and updated automatically.
Strategy - Define a family of algorithms, encapsulate each one, and make them interchangeable. Strategy lets the algorithm vary independently from clients that use it.
Template Method - Define the skeleton of an algorithm in an operation, deferring some steps to subclasses / Template Method lets subclasses redefine certain steps of an algorithm without letting them to change the algorithm's structure.
Visitor - Represents an operation to be performed on the elements of an object structure / Visitor lets you define a new operation without changing the classes of the elements on which it operates.
Null Object - Provide an object as a surrogate for the lack of an object of a given type. / The Null Object Pattern provides intelligent do nothing behavior, hiding the details from its collaborators.
**Structural Design Patterns**
Adapter - Convert the interface of a class into another interface clients expect. / Adapter lets classes work together, that could not otherwise because of incompatible interfaces.
Bridge - Compose objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies. / Composite lets clients treat individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly.
Composite - Compose objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies. / Composite lets clients treat individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly.
Decorator - add additional responsibilities dynamically to an object.
Flyweight - use sharing to support a large number of objects that have part of their internal state in common where the other part of state can vary.
Memento - capture the internal state of an object without violating encapsulation and thus providing a mean for restoring the object into initial state when needed.
Proxy - provide a “Placeholder” for an object to control references to it. | If you have domain expertise on the project you are going to work on like say banking. It's easy to structure your objects and you know how those enhancements come every other day.
If you don't have that expertise work with someone who has that expertise and convert those ideas into technical details.
If you are confused about how to structure your project design. BLINDLY follow "pragmatic programmer" book. I was in same situation before, try reading a chapter from that book. you will see the difference, It will change the way you think as a software developer. |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | It's oft repeated but completely true - understand your data.
For OOP your classes should describe salient pieces of information and how they interact.
If you have a mental model that well-describes the behaviour and lifetime of the data, you'll have an easy ride laying out your classes.
This is simply an extension of: Know exactly what you're trying to do. | First of all - design should come from your soul. You must feel it by your every fibre. I usually walk it down for two or three months before I start doing anything, Just walking down the streets (really). And thinking. Walking is a good meditation, you know. So it lets you to concentrate well.
Secondly - use OOP and classes only where a natural object hierarchy exists. Don't 'screw-in' it to that artificially. If no strict hierarchy exists (like in most business applications) - go for procedural/functional, or, at least use objects only as data containers with isolated accessors.
And the last - try to read this: [The Algorithm of Creative Thinking](http://my.opera.com/vladas/blog/show.dml/412690) |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | Try using behavior driven development. It'll be hard to break your old habits, but I've found that BDD really is your best bet when it comes to developing in the real world.
<http://behaviour-driven.org/> | Honestly, a good step would be going back and looking at flow charting and sequence diagramming. There are a ton of good sites that show you how to do it. I find it to be invaluable when looking at how I want to break down a program into classes as I know exactly what the program needs inputted, computed, and outputted and each step can be broken down into one part of the program. |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | 1. study & master Design Patterns.
2. Next, learn about the Domain Driven Design
3. After that, learn the requirement gathering
>
> I took an OOD course a few semesters
> back and learned a lot from it; like
> writing UML, and translating
> requirements documents into objects
> and classes. We learned sequence
> diagrams too but somehow I missed the
> lecture or something, they didn't
> really stick with me.
>
>
>
4. You know about the step 3. You need to master it. I mean, via a lot of practice to make it become your second nature. That's because the method you learn, is simply against the way we used to have. So you need to really master it. Otherwise, you will always find yourself go back to your original way of doing thing. This is somehow like Test Driven Process, where a lot of java developer give it up after a few tries. Unless they fully master it, otherwise it's just a burden to them
5. Write use cases, especially for alternate course. Alternate course occupy more than 50% of our development time. Normally when your PM assign you a task, for instance, create a login system, he will think it's straight forward, you can take 1 day to finish it off. But he never take into account that you need to consider, 1. what if user key in wrong password, 2. what if user key in wrong password for 3 times, 3. what if user doesn't type in user name and etc. You need to list them out, and show it to your PM, ask him to reschedule the deadline. | As answered in [What is the workflow you follow to design the software you’re about to write?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/454382/what-is-the-workflow-you-follow-to-design-the-software-youre-about-to-write/454406#454406) |
1,100,819 | I'm working on a large project (for me) which will have many classes and will need to be extensible, but I'm not sure how to plan out my program and how the classes need to interact.
I took an OOD course a few semesters back and learned a lot from it; like writing UML, and translating requirements documents into objects and classes. We learned sequence diagrams too but somehow I missed the lecture or something, they didn't really stick with me.
With previous projects I've tried using methods I learned from the course but usually end up with code that as soon as I can say "yeah that looks something like what I had in mind" i have no desire to dig through the muck to add new features.
I've got a copy of Steve McConnell's *Code Complete* which I continually hear is amazing, here and elsewhere. I read the chapter on design and didn't seem to come out with the information I'm looking for. I know he says that it's not a cut and dried process, that it's mostly based on heuristics, but I can't seem to take all his information and apply it to my projects.
So **what are things you do during the high level design phase (before you begin programming) to determine what are the classes you need (especially ones not based on any 'real world objects') and how will they interact with each other**?
Specifically I'm interested in what are the methods you use? What is the process you follow that usually yeilds a good, clean design that will closely represent the final product? | 2009/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1100819",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/125946/"
] | The steps that I use for initial design (getting to a class diagram), are:
1. Requirements gathering. Talk to the client and factor out the use cases to define what functionality the software should have.
2. Compose a narrative of the individual use cases.
3. Go through the narrative and highlight nouns (person, place, thing), as candidate classes and verbs (actions), as methods / behaviors.
4. Discard duplicate nouns and factor out common functionality.
5. Create a class diagram. If you're a Java developer, NetBeans 6.7 from Sun has a UML module that allows for diagramming as well as round-trip engineering and it's FREE. Eclipse (an open source Java IDE), also has a modeling framework, but I have no experience with it. You may also want to try out ArgoUML, an open source tool.
6. Apply OOD principles to organize your classes (factor out common functionality, build hierarchies, etc.) | I am afraid that this is not an answer *people like to hear*. Anyway, let me state my opinion.
OOP should be viewed as one of the paradigms, not as the superior paradigm. OOP is good for solving certain kind of problems, like developing a GUI library. It also fits into the style of software development usually followed by large software companies - an elite team of *designers* or *architects* lays down the software design in UML diagrams or some other similar medium and a less enlightened team of *developers* translate that design into source code. OOP offer little benefit if you are working alone or with a small team of highly talented programmers. Then, it is better to use a language that supports multiple paradigms and will help you to come up with a prototype fast. Python, Ruby, Lisp/Scheme etc are good choices. The prototype is your design. Then you improve on that. Use the paradigm that is best to solve the problem at hand. If needed, optimize hot spots with extensions written in C or some other systems language. By using one of these languages, you also get *extensibility* for free, not just at the programmer level but also at the user level. Languages like Lisp can dynamically generate and execute code, which means your users can extend the application by writing small code snippets, in the language that the software itself is coded! Or if you choose to write the program in C or C++, consider embedding an interpreter for a small language like Lua. Expose functionalities as *plugins* written in that language.
I think that, most of the time OOP and OOD create software that are victims of over design.
To summarize, my preferred way to write software is:
1. Use a dynamic language.
2. Write the design (prototype) in that language itself.
3. If necessary, optimize certain areas using C/C++.
4. Provide extensibility by way of the interpreter of the implementation language itself.
The last feature enables the software to easily adapt to specific user (including myself!) requirements. |
4,161,399 | We've got an app that needs to run in a Java app server. I've got to develop a webapp to go with it. I've started reading about Ruby on Rails, and I really like the approach: MVC, convention over configuration, tons of stuff taken care of for you.
I may be dreaming the impossible dream, but are there any Java webapp development frameworks out there that work in a similar way?
Straight JSP is miserable, because logic and presentation are mixed. Simple template systems, like Velocity and Freemarker don't do the database stuff. I don't know much about Spring.
Everybody here knows Java, and we don't have time before the next release cycle to learn an entirely new language and library, else I'd plunge into RoR in a serious way. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4161399",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/237815/"
] | Not impossible at all. It's already been done.
Here are a few Java-equivalents:
* Grails <http://www.grails.org/>
* SpringRoo. <http://www.springsource.org/roo>
* Spring MVC. <http://www.springsource.org/>
All are products of SpringSource. If you're getting serious about Java web development, I highly recommend you check them out.
Grails was actually inspired by Rails, hence the name, so you'll see many similarities in features and paradigms between the two, including MVC, convention-over-configuration, and code generation. So if you're looking to get right into Rails-like development in Java, I highly recommend Grails. I should note that Grails has more features than Rails, some of which I think Rails should adopt. An example is Grails provides a service layer to handle all business logic. You could easily implement a service layer in Rails, but its convenience we all love, and because Grails includes it, it is more convenient. I've hopped between Rails and Grails once upon a time, both great frameworks.
Keep in mind that you can do Rails development with Java as well, via JRuby, which is not a bad option either. You get all the features of the Ruby language (v. 1.8), along with the ability to integrate and use Java libraries within your Ruby code.
SpringRoo is SpringSource's new code generator framework, so you can use it with the Spring framework to aid in agile/rapid application development.
Grails is actually built on-top of the Spring framework and Groovy. Groovy is Java-derivative which looks more like a scripting language and provides all the meta/dynamic programming goodness that you see in languages such as Ruby and Python. However, Groovy allows you to write Java code as well, so there's no need to learn it, not entirely at least. | Have a good look at the the [Play Framework](http://www.playframework.org/). I think that it's the best way to develop Java web applications at the moment. Certainly the quickest. There is no deploy cycle. Save the code and refresh the browser.
It comes with Hibernate and a host of enhanced functionality that streamlines the development process. Totally REST based and stateless.
Add in [jQuery](http://jquery.com/) and it feels like web heaven. |
4,903,770 | I have an application that needs to peek into blobs get out small numbers of bytes (via getBytes(long pos, int length)). The blobs are ~30MB. When I ask for bytes near the beginning of the blob, the performance is reasonable. When I ask for bytes near the end of the blob, the performance is much worse. Looking at the source code (JdbcBlob.java) it appears that the blob is read sequentially instead of randomly (via an input stream).
Does anybody know of any workarounds? I'm a huge H2 fan and this issue isn't a deal breaker but I think it could be improved.
Thanks | 2011/02/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4903770",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/603917/"
] | It's slow, because H2 uses an InputStream and doesn't do random access (so you have already answered the question yourself). The reason why random access it is not supported is: so far nobody requested this feature :-)
I don't think there is a simple workaround. H2 needs to be changed to support random access. For BLOB data, this should be relatively easy; for CLOB data it will be harder (because data is stored in UTF-8 form, and it's not so easy to seek to the right point).
I have now added a feature request in the roadmap, but if you really need this feature in the near future, then I'm afraid you will have to implement it yourself. H2 is open source, and patches are always welcome :-) | I just upgraded to version 1.3.166 and was happy to find that this issue has been corrected. Peeking near the end of the blob in my case took about 500ms.
It now takes 4ms. |
235,395 | Right now USB C ports are just arriving in laptops and I unfortunately dedicated to go with a cheaper laptop (pc) but with thunderbolt-2.
The thing I don't like about thunderbolt 2 products is the premium price you pay for the Lacie external drives with thunderbolt2. I hope that in the future USB-C devices will come out that will be a bit cheaper as the PC world and mac are seemingly getting 1 standard thunderbolt3 and USB-C.
Long story short will the thunderbolt 2 connection be of ANY use to me in the future world of USB-C on my windows laptop in regards to my normal USB3.0 ports? If yes then what applications of USB-C will it work with?
The only application I really care about is if I could connect an external HD sold with the new USB-C to my Thunderbolt2 via an adapter.
I am thinking I will only get a benefit from thunderbolt 3 devices that are labeled as such to get an adapter to thunderbolt 2 ports for me to get a speed gain compared to USB3.0.
In short the whole idea behind these questions is to have a fast connection between disks and laptop as I am working on big files in Photoshop and TB's of photo's and film ect. Even if USB 3.0 is "fast enough" I would still like to have the Thunderbolt 2 speeds rather then the USB 3.0 speeds.
If it is compatible will the theoretical and effective speed of a USB-C to Thunderbolt2 connection surpass the USB 3.0 max speed? | 2016/04/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/235395",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/180246/"
] | In specific. Thunderbolt can carry USB but USB cannot carry thunderbolt.
In general, as long as your Mac has any Thunderbolt connector, it is highly likely you will be advantaged to connect over thunderbolt instead of using USB. For my money even Thunderbolt 1 is superior in many ways to the best USB 3 chipsets we have today. Now - the above statement is going to be obsolete soon since the newest Thunderbolt 3 chipsets and USB Alternate Mode Functionality mean that USB can be other protocols and TB3 looks to be an awesome step forward for simplifying the need for adapters that you would need on Thunderbolt 2 to get USB 3.0 connectivity today.
* [What Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 cables/adapters exist for OS X and Mac hardware?](https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/136143/what-thunderbolt-to-usb-3-0-cables-adapters-exist-for-os-x-and-mac-hardware) | this entire question is backwards... the old connection CANNOT be adapted to by a new one. You can't get an adapter to use USB-C drives on USB or Thunderbolt. You MAY be able to use Thunderbolt 2 on USB-C. USB-C is a faster connection, so you won't be able to shove it into a smaller pipe. |
235,395 | Right now USB C ports are just arriving in laptops and I unfortunately dedicated to go with a cheaper laptop (pc) but with thunderbolt-2.
The thing I don't like about thunderbolt 2 products is the premium price you pay for the Lacie external drives with thunderbolt2. I hope that in the future USB-C devices will come out that will be a bit cheaper as the PC world and mac are seemingly getting 1 standard thunderbolt3 and USB-C.
Long story short will the thunderbolt 2 connection be of ANY use to me in the future world of USB-C on my windows laptop in regards to my normal USB3.0 ports? If yes then what applications of USB-C will it work with?
The only application I really care about is if I could connect an external HD sold with the new USB-C to my Thunderbolt2 via an adapter.
I am thinking I will only get a benefit from thunderbolt 3 devices that are labeled as such to get an adapter to thunderbolt 2 ports for me to get a speed gain compared to USB3.0.
In short the whole idea behind these questions is to have a fast connection between disks and laptop as I am working on big files in Photoshop and TB's of photo's and film ect. Even if USB 3.0 is "fast enough" I would still like to have the Thunderbolt 2 speeds rather then the USB 3.0 speeds.
If it is compatible will the theoretical and effective speed of a USB-C to Thunderbolt2 connection surpass the USB 3.0 max speed? | 2016/04/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/235395",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/180246/"
] | In specific. Thunderbolt can carry USB but USB cannot carry thunderbolt.
In general, as long as your Mac has any Thunderbolt connector, it is highly likely you will be advantaged to connect over thunderbolt instead of using USB. For my money even Thunderbolt 1 is superior in many ways to the best USB 3 chipsets we have today. Now - the above statement is going to be obsolete soon since the newest Thunderbolt 3 chipsets and USB Alternate Mode Functionality mean that USB can be other protocols and TB3 looks to be an awesome step forward for simplifying the need for adapters that you would need on Thunderbolt 2 to get USB 3.0 connectivity today.
* [What Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 cables/adapters exist for OS X and Mac hardware?](https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/136143/what-thunderbolt-to-usb-3-0-cables-adapters-exist-for-os-x-and-mac-hardware) | >
> Will there be a USB-C to thunderbolt 2 adaptor?
>
>
>
USB-C is a connector, Thunderbolt is a protocol, which makes this something of a nonsense question. USB-C can carry a number of protocols, including Thunderbolt and USB. Thunderbolt is a protocol used on USB-C and mini-DP connectors, if there are more external connectors than this in common use then I am not aware of it.
There are Thunderbolt mini-DP to Thunderbolt USB-C adapters available. Apple sells one. <https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMEL2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-usb-c-to-thunderbolt-2-adapter>
This is not an adapter to the USB protocol, any drive connected by this adapter will have to be a Thunderbolt drive to work. Having a USB-C port is not sufficient for this adapter to work, there are many drives that use USB-C but the USB protocol instead of the Thunderbolt protocol.
Thunderbolt drives with USB-C will likely be no faster or slower than Thunderbolt drives with the old mini-DP connector but they are likely to be cheaper. USB-C drives have a bigger market and this will mean lower prices out of economy of scale.
Using a Thunderbolt drive with a mini-DP connector with a computer that supports Thunderbolt on a USB-C port only requires that Apple adapter or something like it. Using a Thunderbolt drive with a USB-C port with a computer that supports Thunderbolt on a mini-DP port means using the same adapter, the adapter is bi-directional. Using a Thunderbolt drive with a captive USB-C cable, a cable that is permanently attached and a USB-C male connector on the end, will not work with that adapter. Or at least not with that adapter alone. Adapters with female USB-C ports do not meet the USB-C spec. They exist, can be purchased, but by not meeting the spec they can damage something. It's best to find the right drive without the captive cable.
>
> I only need data transfer to be higher then USB 3.0
>
>
>
USB 3.0 will allow 5 Gbps, USB 3.1 will allow 10 Gbps. USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 can use the old USB-A and "wide" micro-USB-B connectors that are common on many computers and hard drives, or they can use USB-C. Any USB drive with a USB-C port doesn't make the USB protocol any faster, but it can make them more convenient because USB-C is a nicer connector than the old micro-USB-B.
Getting faster than USB 3.0 with a computer that has a mini-DP Thunderbolt 2 port, and a drive with a USB-C port, means using a Thunderbolt drive and a Thunderbolt mini-DP to USB-C adapter. If the drive does not support the Thunderbolt protocol then it will not work with the Thunderbolt port and adapter. It is possible for an adapter from Thunderbolt 2 on a mini-DP connector to USB 3.1 on a USB-C connector to exist but I haven't seen one. Using a Thunderbolt 2 to PCIe expansion chassis and a PCIe card with USB 3.1 on USB-C ports will also get faster than USB 3.0 with a USB-C drive but that's going to be expensive.
Buyer beware. There are USB-C drives that use the USB protocol, these are limited to USB 3.0 speeds with this computer. There are USB-C drives that use the Thunderbolt protocol, those with the USB-C port can be attached easily. Those with the USB-C captive cable cannot be attached easily. Check the specs before you buy.
A bit of a side note about the future of USB and Thunderbolt...
USB 3.2, which is not all that common and may not become common since USB4 came out so soon after USB 3.2, can reach 20 Gbps but only with the USB-C connector. This is the same speed as Thunderbolt 2, half the speed USB4 and Thunderbolt 3. USB4 is a protocol that allows the option to include support for the Thunderbolt protocol, making it backward compatible with Thunderbolt 3 and Thunderbolt 2 but not necessarily reaching the maximum speed of either. The USB4 protocol requires backward compatibility with previous USB versions but this can mean up to USB 3.2 speed, or less than USB 2.0 speed. To claim meeting the USB4 spec requires use of the USB-C connector, but doesn't require offering any higher speed than previous USB versions. Buyer beware again.
Oh, and use the right cable as not all ables are created equal.
A cable tested to meet the USB spec will have the USB icon on it and often a number indicating the speed it was tested to meet in Gbps. No number with the USB icon but with the stylized "SS" symbol usually means 5 Gbps tested speed, it might allow higher speeds, and it might not. A cable that has been tested to meet the Thunderbolt spec will have the Thunderbolt icon on it, this is pass/fail and not different speed tests like USB, the icon means it was tested at the highest data rate. No icon, or not a Thunderbolt or USB icon, does not mean it won't work but does mean it's not tested to meet the spec. A mini-DP cable without the Thunderbolt icon will fit a Thunderbolt 2 port but is not likely to work with any Thunderbolt 2 device. A USB-C cable with no USB or Thunderbolt icon will likely work at some speed, just perhaps not at the maximum speed the computer and device are capable. Buyer beware one more time. |
235,395 | Right now USB C ports are just arriving in laptops and I unfortunately dedicated to go with a cheaper laptop (pc) but with thunderbolt-2.
The thing I don't like about thunderbolt 2 products is the premium price you pay for the Lacie external drives with thunderbolt2. I hope that in the future USB-C devices will come out that will be a bit cheaper as the PC world and mac are seemingly getting 1 standard thunderbolt3 and USB-C.
Long story short will the thunderbolt 2 connection be of ANY use to me in the future world of USB-C on my windows laptop in regards to my normal USB3.0 ports? If yes then what applications of USB-C will it work with?
The only application I really care about is if I could connect an external HD sold with the new USB-C to my Thunderbolt2 via an adapter.
I am thinking I will only get a benefit from thunderbolt 3 devices that are labeled as such to get an adapter to thunderbolt 2 ports for me to get a speed gain compared to USB3.0.
In short the whole idea behind these questions is to have a fast connection between disks and laptop as I am working on big files in Photoshop and TB's of photo's and film ect. Even if USB 3.0 is "fast enough" I would still like to have the Thunderbolt 2 speeds rather then the USB 3.0 speeds.
If it is compatible will the theoretical and effective speed of a USB-C to Thunderbolt2 connection surpass the USB 3.0 max speed? | 2016/04/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/235395",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/180246/"
] | >
> Will there be a USB-C to thunderbolt 2 adaptor?
>
>
>
USB-C is a connector, Thunderbolt is a protocol, which makes this something of a nonsense question. USB-C can carry a number of protocols, including Thunderbolt and USB. Thunderbolt is a protocol used on USB-C and mini-DP connectors, if there are more external connectors than this in common use then I am not aware of it.
There are Thunderbolt mini-DP to Thunderbolt USB-C adapters available. Apple sells one. <https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMEL2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-usb-c-to-thunderbolt-2-adapter>
This is not an adapter to the USB protocol, any drive connected by this adapter will have to be a Thunderbolt drive to work. Having a USB-C port is not sufficient for this adapter to work, there are many drives that use USB-C but the USB protocol instead of the Thunderbolt protocol.
Thunderbolt drives with USB-C will likely be no faster or slower than Thunderbolt drives with the old mini-DP connector but they are likely to be cheaper. USB-C drives have a bigger market and this will mean lower prices out of economy of scale.
Using a Thunderbolt drive with a mini-DP connector with a computer that supports Thunderbolt on a USB-C port only requires that Apple adapter or something like it. Using a Thunderbolt drive with a USB-C port with a computer that supports Thunderbolt on a mini-DP port means using the same adapter, the adapter is bi-directional. Using a Thunderbolt drive with a captive USB-C cable, a cable that is permanently attached and a USB-C male connector on the end, will not work with that adapter. Or at least not with that adapter alone. Adapters with female USB-C ports do not meet the USB-C spec. They exist, can be purchased, but by not meeting the spec they can damage something. It's best to find the right drive without the captive cable.
>
> I only need data transfer to be higher then USB 3.0
>
>
>
USB 3.0 will allow 5 Gbps, USB 3.1 will allow 10 Gbps. USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 can use the old USB-A and "wide" micro-USB-B connectors that are common on many computers and hard drives, or they can use USB-C. Any USB drive with a USB-C port doesn't make the USB protocol any faster, but it can make them more convenient because USB-C is a nicer connector than the old micro-USB-B.
Getting faster than USB 3.0 with a computer that has a mini-DP Thunderbolt 2 port, and a drive with a USB-C port, means using a Thunderbolt drive and a Thunderbolt mini-DP to USB-C adapter. If the drive does not support the Thunderbolt protocol then it will not work with the Thunderbolt port and adapter. It is possible for an adapter from Thunderbolt 2 on a mini-DP connector to USB 3.1 on a USB-C connector to exist but I haven't seen one. Using a Thunderbolt 2 to PCIe expansion chassis and a PCIe card with USB 3.1 on USB-C ports will also get faster than USB 3.0 with a USB-C drive but that's going to be expensive.
Buyer beware. There are USB-C drives that use the USB protocol, these are limited to USB 3.0 speeds with this computer. There are USB-C drives that use the Thunderbolt protocol, those with the USB-C port can be attached easily. Those with the USB-C captive cable cannot be attached easily. Check the specs before you buy.
A bit of a side note about the future of USB and Thunderbolt...
USB 3.2, which is not all that common and may not become common since USB4 came out so soon after USB 3.2, can reach 20 Gbps but only with the USB-C connector. This is the same speed as Thunderbolt 2, half the speed USB4 and Thunderbolt 3. USB4 is a protocol that allows the option to include support for the Thunderbolt protocol, making it backward compatible with Thunderbolt 3 and Thunderbolt 2 but not necessarily reaching the maximum speed of either. The USB4 protocol requires backward compatibility with previous USB versions but this can mean up to USB 3.2 speed, or less than USB 2.0 speed. To claim meeting the USB4 spec requires use of the USB-C connector, but doesn't require offering any higher speed than previous USB versions. Buyer beware again.
Oh, and use the right cable as not all ables are created equal.
A cable tested to meet the USB spec will have the USB icon on it and often a number indicating the speed it was tested to meet in Gbps. No number with the USB icon but with the stylized "SS" symbol usually means 5 Gbps tested speed, it might allow higher speeds, and it might not. A cable that has been tested to meet the Thunderbolt spec will have the Thunderbolt icon on it, this is pass/fail and not different speed tests like USB, the icon means it was tested at the highest data rate. No icon, or not a Thunderbolt or USB icon, does not mean it won't work but does mean it's not tested to meet the spec. A mini-DP cable without the Thunderbolt icon will fit a Thunderbolt 2 port but is not likely to work with any Thunderbolt 2 device. A USB-C cable with no USB or Thunderbolt icon will likely work at some speed, just perhaps not at the maximum speed the computer and device are capable. Buyer beware one more time. | this entire question is backwards... the old connection CANNOT be adapted to by a new one. You can't get an adapter to use USB-C drives on USB or Thunderbolt. You MAY be able to use Thunderbolt 2 on USB-C. USB-C is a faster connection, so you won't be able to shove it into a smaller pipe. |
66,721,983 | I am running into weird issue with Vscode integrated terminal.
It cannot find a git repository, while my normal linux terminal finds it perfectly fine.
Below image clearly tells the problem. What might be the issue here?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OZsZY.png) | 2021/03/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/66721983",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8663277/"
] | I had the same issue and what worked for me is to disable **Git: Terminal Authentication** in the settings. It will prompt the username and the password in the terminal. Hope that this solution/workaround is good for other people.
From this site I found this solution/workaround:
<https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/136970> | I have had a few strange issues with VSCode git integration versus working in the integrated terminal.
For example, sometimes the git integration in VSCode and and in the terminal disagree with each other, and sometimes the terminal's history is apparently corrupted by VS Code. See my question here: [Why do I get a different git status in a shared folder when logged in on a local VM?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63815075/why-do-i-get-a-different-git-status-in-a-shared-folder-when-logged-in-on-a-local)
I haven't entirely sorted out why this occurs, so I can't guarantee that it is the same problem as you are finding, but it could be related. |
137,361 | In Star Trek Beyond, they fix up the old Federation ship, USS Franklin. It wasn't made to fly in atmosphere, so in order to take off they need to propel it off a cliff and reach terminal velocity before the impulse engines can fire. (From what I can recall from a single viewing - if any of those assumptions are wrong please correct.)
What I don't understand is *how* does terminal velocity allow impulse engines to just "start working"? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/137361",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/69852/"
] | The quote from the film is
>
> **Kirk:** *Scotty, can you get this thing started?*
>
>
> **Scott:** *Started yes, Sir. Flying, that's a different thing. These old vessels, they were built in space. They were never supposed to
> take off from atmosphere.*
>
>
>
then
>
> **Chekov:** *We have to achieve terminal velocity **in order for the stabilizers to provide lift.***
>
>
>
Quite why this is the case isn't explained other than it being [treknobabble](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Technobabble) to explain why they need to push the ship off of the cliff.
---
Stabilizers are, at least in the Abramsverse, an integral part of starship atmospheric flight
>
> “Mr. Sulu,” Spock exclaimed, “divert all remaining power to stabilizers!”
> “Doing what I can, sir,” the helmsman replied as he desperately fought to comply. “Doing what I can.”
>
> Spock tried his best to see that the Enterprise’s vanishing energy resources were parceled out meticulously among the ship’s most critical active systems. While life support drew the most attention, he and Sulu attempted to steady the starship’s wildly skewing and rapidly failing artificial gravity. If he couldn’t stabilize it any better, there was a good chance a large percentage of the ship’s crew would never be able to make it to their assigned evacuation stations. Yet if he shunted power from life support to the precessers, there was a chance atmospheric pressure would fall too low and kill everyone on board.
>
>
> [Star Trek Into Darkness - Official Novelisation](http://kn)
>
>
> | They specifically get the inspiration from the idea of the jumpstart. Then they basically "push started" the starship. So I'm assuming the older starships have a manual transmission, and they popped the clutch after getting up to speed. On a car, the wheels transmit the motion to the engine and engaging the engine suddenly can get the engine running without a battery. So, I guess there's something that rotates or moves on the basis of the air (or solar wind?) traveling on the outside of the hull, and engaging the engines suddenly allowed them to start without the power cells working.
But honestly, this part of the movie bothers me more than anything else they've done. It just makes no sense at all! |
137,361 | In Star Trek Beyond, they fix up the old Federation ship, USS Franklin. It wasn't made to fly in atmosphere, so in order to take off they need to propel it off a cliff and reach terminal velocity before the impulse engines can fire. (From what I can recall from a single viewing - if any of those assumptions are wrong please correct.)
What I don't understand is *how* does terminal velocity allow impulse engines to just "start working"? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/137361",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/69852/"
] | The quote from the film is
>
> **Kirk:** *Scotty, can you get this thing started?*
>
>
> **Scott:** *Started yes, Sir. Flying, that's a different thing. These old vessels, they were built in space. They were never supposed to
> take off from atmosphere.*
>
>
>
then
>
> **Chekov:** *We have to achieve terminal velocity **in order for the stabilizers to provide lift.***
>
>
>
Quite why this is the case isn't explained other than it being [treknobabble](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Technobabble) to explain why they need to push the ship off of the cliff.
---
Stabilizers are, at least in the Abramsverse, an integral part of starship atmospheric flight
>
> “Mr. Sulu,” Spock exclaimed, “divert all remaining power to stabilizers!”
> “Doing what I can, sir,” the helmsman replied as he desperately fought to comply. “Doing what I can.”
>
> Spock tried his best to see that the Enterprise’s vanishing energy resources were parceled out meticulously among the ship’s most critical active systems. While life support drew the most attention, he and Sulu attempted to steady the starship’s wildly skewing and rapidly failing artificial gravity. If he couldn’t stabilize it any better, there was a good chance a large percentage of the ship’s crew would never be able to make it to their assigned evacuation stations. Yet if he shunted power from life support to the precessers, there was a chance atmospheric pressure would fall too low and kill everyone on board.
>
>
> [Star Trek Into Darkness - Official Novelisation](http://kn)
>
>
> | Spaceships in atmosphere are usually depicted as flying due to downward force from an engine, like a hovering harrier. Since the Franklin wasn't designed to fly in atmosphere, it may not be able to direct sufficient force in a downward direction to effect a vertical takeoff.
So, if it can't just take off straight up, it must need to generate lift a different way. Assuming that the ship is producing lift via [Bernoulli's Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle) and an [airfoil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil), needing a jump start makes perfect sense.
The lift generated by an airfoil is dependent upon the speed at which the craft is moving through the air. This means that the craft needs to get going fast before it can actually fly. This is why commercial aircraft require long runways, so they can get up to speed. As you may have noticed, there was no runway in front of the Franklin.
Therefore, before the ship could fly under its own power, it needed to get going fast enough that the stabilizers could keep it flying, despite providing minimal lift on their own. This required falling off a cliff.
In other words, it's just what Chekov said:
>
> We have to achieve terminal velocity in order for the stabilizers to provide lift.
>
>
> |
137,361 | In Star Trek Beyond, they fix up the old Federation ship, USS Franklin. It wasn't made to fly in atmosphere, so in order to take off they need to propel it off a cliff and reach terminal velocity before the impulse engines can fire. (From what I can recall from a single viewing - if any of those assumptions are wrong please correct.)
What I don't understand is *how* does terminal velocity allow impulse engines to just "start working"? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/137361",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/69852/"
] | Spaceships in atmosphere are usually depicted as flying due to downward force from an engine, like a hovering harrier. Since the Franklin wasn't designed to fly in atmosphere, it may not be able to direct sufficient force in a downward direction to effect a vertical takeoff.
So, if it can't just take off straight up, it must need to generate lift a different way. Assuming that the ship is producing lift via [Bernoulli's Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle) and an [airfoil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil), needing a jump start makes perfect sense.
The lift generated by an airfoil is dependent upon the speed at which the craft is moving through the air. This means that the craft needs to get going fast before it can actually fly. This is why commercial aircraft require long runways, so they can get up to speed. As you may have noticed, there was no runway in front of the Franklin.
Therefore, before the ship could fly under its own power, it needed to get going fast enough that the stabilizers could keep it flying, despite providing minimal lift on their own. This required falling off a cliff.
In other words, it's just what Chekov said:
>
> We have to achieve terminal velocity in order for the stabilizers to provide lift.
>
>
> | They specifically get the inspiration from the idea of the jumpstart. Then they basically "push started" the starship. So I'm assuming the older starships have a manual transmission, and they popped the clutch after getting up to speed. On a car, the wheels transmit the motion to the engine and engaging the engine suddenly can get the engine running without a battery. So, I guess there's something that rotates or moves on the basis of the air (or solar wind?) traveling on the outside of the hull, and engaging the engines suddenly allowed them to start without the power cells working.
But honestly, this part of the movie bothers me more than anything else they've done. It just makes no sense at all! |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | The Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are true for the worldlings who have craving (tanha) and greed (lobha) or aversion / revulsion (dosa), caused by ignorance (moha). Tanha, lobha, dosa, moha provides nourishment for the continuation of life from existence to existence.
The worldlings have five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas). In the case of Arahants – the awakened ones - there is no craving. They have rooted out the “I concept”. They have fully realized five groups of existence and the five grasping groups of existence (Panncakkhandha and panca upadanakkhandha) . Arahants have only the five aggregates in detachment (Anupadana). Upadana means ‘grasping’ and Anupadana means ‘non-grasping’ or letting go.While Upadana leads to Samsara, Anupadana leads to Nibbana.
To put it in another way, (for better understanding), after the elimination of all defilements an arahant lives in society without Upadana or Attachment to any thing in the world. He does not have the five grasping groups (pancaupadanakkhandha) but only five groups,aggregates (Pancakkhandha), namely, rupa (body), vedana (feeling), sanna (perception), sankhara (volitional formation), and vinnana (consciousness). His consciousness is ‘translucent’ (for wont of a better word) as no food is provided. In this he is immeasurable - is like the Buddha. All measurement is from a here to a there, with in-betweens. In the Buddha, there is neither a here nor a there nor any in-between. He is thus immeasurable. See [Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya - Ud 1.10](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html)
>
> “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there’s no you in that. When there’s no you in that, there’s no you there. When there’s no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.” (Ud I.l0)...
>
>
>
An arahant is sustained by ONLY the physical food that does not create upadana. He does not have the other three ‘mental’ foods as he has rooted out the “I concept”. He is free from attavada upadana by seeing it as a deceit (the true nature). So if there is no nutriment consciousness, an Arahants consciousness is mere presence. Since there cannot be presence without something being present, it is what distinguishes living from non-living, such as tables and chairs. The Buddha has stated that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness. In an Arahant, Paticcasamuppada (dependent arising) ceases. Which means Vinnana paccaya (conditioned by consciousness) too ceases. | * Son's flesh - eating itself is unsatisfactory (as the sensations produced by it is unsatisfactory - [Kīta,giri Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/11.1-Kitagiri-S-m70-piya.pdf)). eating should be only to maintain life to fulfil holy life and not for the please of it.
* Skinned cow - there is not place or way to avoid contact. With contact follows sensations [[Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html), see Dependent Origination] which are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence it nibbles.
* Pit of glowing embers - all volitions are accompanied by sensations throughout the body. [121 mental states] Whatever sensations end in misery, thus burns. Also this is the fuels which drives you and burns you until death
* Robber's struck with spears - it is thought consciousness that you know and experience. If not for consciousness you will not feel sensations. [[Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.17-Dhatu-Vibhanga-S-m140-piya.pdf)] Being alive is like having consciousness. All sensation are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence the pain of been struck by spears. |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | Its simple, i will explain each 4 nutriement in points
(1) physical food- it is to be regarded only for survival ,not for flavour or intoxication. We should treat our physical food like we are feeding on our young baby
(2) contact- if contact happens with our six senses (eye, ear, skin ,etc) to its corresponding object (vision, touch etc) then that object chew on it.. for example if you have eye and lets say its corresponding object is pornography.. then we should regard pornography as something chewing our eye.. ultimately destroying it...but since we normally dont question our sense-object , we enjoy it till our ruin.
(3) volition- buddha said you should regard volition as survival instinct only.... here a man hates death.. but a practitioner sholuld not fear death... so he is saying normally we have volition that act upon survival instinct..we dont act truly but act according to survival instinct
(4) consciousness- well , if u are ever depressed, tensed and wanted to end your life ,,you should know its all because of your damn consciousness...so consciousness is spear acting upon us..buddha is saying to take this consciousness in command
Finally, what he meant is that the above 4 food is necessary for survival. . If you cant survive then how will you attain nirvana...but he is saying dont take these food unmindfully..see what game is undergoing behind the scene..in 1 word right view ...right view about these food is necessary for salvation ..hope it helps. If any question please ask. Glory to Buddha | * Son's flesh - eating itself is unsatisfactory (as the sensations produced by it is unsatisfactory - [Kīta,giri Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/11.1-Kitagiri-S-m70-piya.pdf)). eating should be only to maintain life to fulfil holy life and not for the please of it.
* Skinned cow - there is not place or way to avoid contact. With contact follows sensations [[Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html), see Dependent Origination] which are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence it nibbles.
* Pit of glowing embers - all volitions are accompanied by sensations throughout the body. [121 mental states] Whatever sensations end in misery, thus burns. Also this is the fuels which drives you and burns you until death
* Robber's struck with spears - it is thought consciousness that you know and experience. If not for consciousness you will not feel sensations. [[Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.17-Dhatu-Vibhanga-S-m140-piya.pdf)] Being alive is like having consciousness. All sensation are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence the pain of been struck by spears. |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | The Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are true for the worldlings who have craving (tanha) and greed (lobha) or aversion / revulsion (dosa), caused by ignorance (moha). Tanha, lobha, dosa, moha provides nourishment for the continuation of life from existence to existence.
The worldlings have five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas). In the case of Arahants – the awakened ones - there is no craving. They have rooted out the “I concept”. They have fully realized five groups of existence and the five grasping groups of existence (Panncakkhandha and panca upadanakkhandha) . Arahants have only the five aggregates in detachment (Anupadana). Upadana means ‘grasping’ and Anupadana means ‘non-grasping’ or letting go.While Upadana leads to Samsara, Anupadana leads to Nibbana.
To put it in another way, (for better understanding), after the elimination of all defilements an arahant lives in society without Upadana or Attachment to any thing in the world. He does not have the five grasping groups (pancaupadanakkhandha) but only five groups,aggregates (Pancakkhandha), namely, rupa (body), vedana (feeling), sanna (perception), sankhara (volitional formation), and vinnana (consciousness). His consciousness is ‘translucent’ (for wont of a better word) as no food is provided. In this he is immeasurable - is like the Buddha. All measurement is from a here to a there, with in-betweens. In the Buddha, there is neither a here nor a there nor any in-between. He is thus immeasurable. See [Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya - Ud 1.10](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html)
>
> “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there’s no you in that. When there’s no you in that, there’s no you there. When there’s no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.” (Ud I.l0)...
>
>
>
An arahant is sustained by ONLY the physical food that does not create upadana. He does not have the other three ‘mental’ foods as he has rooted out the “I concept”. He is free from attavada upadana by seeing it as a deceit (the true nature). So if there is no nutriment consciousness, an Arahants consciousness is mere presence. Since there cannot be presence without something being present, it is what distinguishes living from non-living, such as tables and chairs. The Buddha has stated that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness. In an Arahant, Paticcasamuppada (dependent arising) ceases. Which means Vinnana paccaya (conditioned by consciousness) too ceases. | Here's my personal interpretation of [SN 12.63](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.63/en/bodhi).
To understand each of the similes, the clue is in the epilogue of each simile. The nutriments are not taken literally. Each simile becomes harder to interpret than the previous one. Each simile is also related in some way to the previous simile.
First simile
------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment edible food is fully understood, lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood.*" The five cords of sensual pleasure ([MN13](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.013.than.html)) are forms, sounds, aroma, flavours and tactile sensations.
The nutriment of edible food here is not literally edible food, but refers to the external sources of forms, sounds, aroma, flavours and tactile sensations.
The simile teaches us that these "edible food" should be used only as a means to get through samsara, while living the holy life, to reach the end of suffering, and one should not have passion for them.
The nutriment of the external sources of the five cords of sensual pleasure, nourish and sustain the five cords of sensual pleasure. Literal edible food is the source of flavours, for example.
Second simile
-------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment contact is fully understood, the three kinds of feeling are fully understood.*" The three types of feeling ([Iti 52](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-052)) are pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure-nor-pain. There are six types of contacts ([SN 12.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)) - eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact and intellect-contact.
The cow is exposed to different environments like wall, tree, water, open air. These are like **contacts**. The creatures biting her are the three types of **feeling**. The biting itself is **craving**. The painful sensation that arises from the biting is **suffering** (from dependent origination: from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving; and from the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is craving).
The simile teaches us to abandon passion for the three types of feeling arising from contacts. The creatures (feeling) are fine, but don't let them bite you (craving). For the bite is painful (suffering). The nutriment of contacts nourish and sustain the three types of feeling.
To link back to the previous simile, [SN 12.44](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html) says for example, "*dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact*". So, five types of contacts are directly related to the five cords of sensual pleasure. The sixth type of contact is indirectly related to the five cords of sensual pleasure.
Third simile
------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment mental volition is fully understood, the three kinds of craving are fully understood.*" The three types of craving ([Iti 58](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-058)) are craving for sensuality, craving for becoming and craving for non-becoming.
The word for "nutriment of mental volition" in this sutta is *manosañcetanāhāro*. From [SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi), we read: "*what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness.*" I interpret mental volition here as intention (*cetana*) and latent tendencies (*anusaya*).
[SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi) also says "*If one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness*", which shows latent tendencies are required for the maintenance of consciousness, even if intention isn't present. There are 7 types of latent tendencies in [AN 7.11](https://suttacentral.net/an7.11/en/sujato).
The two strong men are either **latent tendencies** (*anusaya*) or latent tendencies and intention (*cetana*). They grab the man and drag him towards the charcoal pit with glowing coals. The glowing coals are **craving**. If the man comes into contact with the glowing coals, the arising pain is **suffering** (from the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is craving).
The simile teaches us to abandon latent tendencies. Don't let the strong men (latent tendencies) drag you into the charcoal pit of glowing coals (craving). Run away from the strong men (latent tendencies). The coals are painful (suffering). The nutriment of latent tendencies nourish and sustain the three types of craving.
To link back to the previous simile, the three types of feeling will not result in the arising of craving, if there are no latent tendencies.
Fourth simile
-------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment consciousness is fully understood, name-and-form is fully understood.*" Based on the definition of name-and-form in [SN 12.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html), name-and-form is a kind of mind-body link (according to Theravada interpretation).
And what is consciousness? From dependent origination: from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From the traditional Theravada interpretation of consciousness in dependent origination, this is the consciousness that results in the continuity of suffering beyond physical death, called "rebirth linking consciousness" (*cuti citta*) in the Abhidhamma.
This is supported by [SN 12.39](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/bodhi): "*When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form*", and [SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi): "*When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence.*" When the suttas talk about the growth, increase, maturing, landing and establishing of consciousness, it essentially talks about consciousness resulting in the descent of name-and-form ("rebirth").
In dependent origination, craving leads to clinging, which leads to becoming. These show the outflow of [effluents](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9414/471) or mental fermentations or taints (*asava*), which according to [this "cyclic" question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25874/471) causes the arising of ignorance. Then ignorance in turn causes the arising of effluents once again ([MN 9](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html)), which is mental formations (*sankhara*) including latent tendencies (*anusaya*). This then causes the arising of consciousness, which causes the descent of name-and-form (mind-body link) i.e. "rebirth".
This loop back from craving-clinging-becoming back to ignorance is hinted at, in [SN 44.9](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html): "*when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time.*"
The bandit or criminal is the one who delights in craving, the **fool** from [SN 12.19](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/bodhi), who clings (steals). The king could be ignorance or samsara. The king's men who strike him with spears are mental formations (especially **latent tendencies**). The spears are (rebirth linking) **consciousness**. The striking of the spears is the **descent of name-and-form** (that is "rebirth"). The pain caused by the striking of spears is **suffering** (birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair). Morning, afternoon and evening could be different aeons.
Wouldn't three hundred lifetimes be painful? Well, even one lifetime is painful enough, don't you find from experience? The simile teaches us to abandon stealing (craving), in order to not get struck ("rebirth") by spears (renewed "rebirth linking consciousness") again.
This is reinforced in the [Tears Sutta (SN 15.3)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html):
>
> From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning
> point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
> by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
> experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
> cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
> enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
>
>
>
The nutriment of (rebirth linking) consciousness nourishes and sustains the (descent of) name-and-form.
To link back to the previous simile, the three types of craving (plus clinging and becoming) are the effluents that cause ignorance, and ignorance causes effluents (latent tendencies especially) in turn, that causes (rebirth linking) consciousness to rise again, causing the descent of name-and-form ("rebirth").
Case of arahants
----------------
How does this apply to the case of arahants?
From Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary of [Iti 44](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044):
>
> With fuel remaining (*sa-upadisesa*) and with no fuel remaining
> (*anupadisesa*): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
> flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
> fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
> here is the [five aggregates](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html). While the arahant is
> still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
> not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
> arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
> here or anywhere else.
>
>
>
A living arahant experiences the nutriment of edible food and the nutriment of contacts, but he has ended the nutriment of mental volition (i.e. latent tendencies) and therefore also ended the nutriment of (rebirth linking) consciousness. Then, consciousness has no place to land or get established any more ([SN 12.64](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.64/en/bodhi)) i.e. no more descent of name-and-form ([SN 12.39](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/bodhi)) meaning no more continuity of suffering after physical death. After parinibbana, all nutriments would have ceased permanently.
Conclusion
----------
The sutta is talking about dependent origination, what keeps dependent origination going, how to end dependent origination, and the truth of the continuity of suffering beyond physical death.
It is true then that the noble eightfold path does not just lead to the cessation of (craving for) form, but also the cessation of (the rearising of) form. (see [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31138/471)) |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | Existence is nourished by four nutriments as pointed out in the Sutta in @Dhammadhatu ‘s OP. They are essential to continue life in this repeated existence in samsara. This is true even to the deities in the celestial world and brahmas in the Brahma world. Of these four kinds, one is material/physical, and the other three are mental nutriments. The first is the easy one as @Dhammadhatu pointed out. But how can one see one’s mental state or mental growth if not for the guidance that the Buddha provided in many of the suttas? The Buddha provided the explanation in the [Atthi Raga Sutta (where there is passion) in the Samyutta Nikaya](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.064.than.html).
How we have to view the four similes is that ONLY if we eradicate the Cause, would the Result be eradicated, and NOT otherwise. It is our Desire for Life that prevents this. The day that we establish wisdom over ignorance, and liberation over desire, we will see the light. The day we remove our passion, delight and craving for the four nutriments Consciousness will not arise. Then mentality-materiality won’t happen, and as a result there is no growth of fabrications, and no renewed becoming. If no future birth, there is no decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair.
**To explain the 2nd simile - that of the nutriment sense-impression:**
Sense impression (phassa ahara) is Contact. So what is contact? It is the coming together of three things. It is the eye, the visible object and consciousness coming in contact with each other (seeing forms). It is the ear, sounds and consciousness coming in contact with each other (hearing sound). it is the nose, odours and consciousness coming in contact with each other (smelling odours), and likewise. What is important to understand is with the arising of consciousness, it is inevitable for contact to arise. Only if we eradicate the desire for what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think, will the contact and consciousness not arise. The simile of the flayed cow is about this contact that one cannot get away from as long as there is desire.
**To explain the 3rd simile - that of the nutriment volitional thought:**
Volitional thought (Cetana) is Intellectual Intention. It is the arising of wholesome or unwholesome intentions. As before, these mental factors are a result of desire. Beings who cannot comprehend that these mental factors are not permanent, that they constantly change, and be mindful, gets thrown into the pit whether they like it or not. Only getaway is eradicating the cause – the arising of ‘cetana’ – of intellectual intention.
**To explain the 4th simile - that of the nutriment of Consciousness:**
Our sense faculties are constantly contacted and stimulated because of Consciousness as explained before. The two that I did not touch on are that of the body and intellect. Dependent on the body and tactile sensations, arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect (ideas/thoughts), there arises consciousness at the intellect. With the Consciousness, desire arises. This arising of passion, delight and craving results in greed, hatred and delusion – these are the spears that one gets shot at with. As long as you have passion, delight and craving, you are alive and get shot at and experiences pain and distress.
So our Desire for the Dhamma, to live in the Dhamma should be even greater than our desire for Life. Those are the ones who will stay in the finger tip. What the Buddha has said is patisotagami or against the current of conventional thinking. Buddha knew this well. That is why He said,
>
> “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.”
>
>
> | * Son's flesh - eating itself is unsatisfactory (as the sensations produced by it is unsatisfactory - [Kīta,giri Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/11.1-Kitagiri-S-m70-piya.pdf)). eating should be only to maintain life to fulfil holy life and not for the please of it.
* Skinned cow - there is not place or way to avoid contact. With contact follows sensations [[Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html), see Dependent Origination] which are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence it nibbles.
* Pit of glowing embers - all volitions are accompanied by sensations throughout the body. [121 mental states] Whatever sensations end in misery, thus burns. Also this is the fuels which drives you and burns you until death
* Robber's struck with spears - it is thought consciousness that you know and experience. If not for consciousness you will not feel sensations. [[Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.17-Dhatu-Vibhanga-S-m140-piya.pdf)] Being alive is like having consciousness. All sensation are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence the pain of been struck by spears. |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | The Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are true for the worldlings who have craving (tanha) and greed (lobha) or aversion / revulsion (dosa), caused by ignorance (moha). Tanha, lobha, dosa, moha provides nourishment for the continuation of life from existence to existence.
The worldlings have five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas). In the case of Arahants – the awakened ones - there is no craving. They have rooted out the “I concept”. They have fully realized five groups of existence and the five grasping groups of existence (Panncakkhandha and panca upadanakkhandha) . Arahants have only the five aggregates in detachment (Anupadana). Upadana means ‘grasping’ and Anupadana means ‘non-grasping’ or letting go.While Upadana leads to Samsara, Anupadana leads to Nibbana.
To put it in another way, (for better understanding), after the elimination of all defilements an arahant lives in society without Upadana or Attachment to any thing in the world. He does not have the five grasping groups (pancaupadanakkhandha) but only five groups,aggregates (Pancakkhandha), namely, rupa (body), vedana (feeling), sanna (perception), sankhara (volitional formation), and vinnana (consciousness). His consciousness is ‘translucent’ (for wont of a better word) as no food is provided. In this he is immeasurable - is like the Buddha. All measurement is from a here to a there, with in-betweens. In the Buddha, there is neither a here nor a there nor any in-between. He is thus immeasurable. See [Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya - Ud 1.10](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html)
>
> “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there’s no you in that. When there’s no you in that, there’s no you there. When there’s no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.” (Ud I.l0)...
>
>
>
An arahant is sustained by ONLY the physical food that does not create upadana. He does not have the other three ‘mental’ foods as he has rooted out the “I concept”. He is free from attavada upadana by seeing it as a deceit (the true nature). So if there is no nutriment consciousness, an Arahants consciousness is mere presence. Since there cannot be presence without something being present, it is what distinguishes living from non-living, such as tables and chairs. The Buddha has stated that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness. In an Arahant, Paticcasamuppada (dependent arising) ceases. Which means Vinnana paccaya (conditioned by consciousness) too ceases. | I am happy to see this quiz or riddle being attempted. For many years I used to wonder about this teaching of nutriments, was never satisfied with Ven. Nyanaponika's explanation & could not work out a satisfactory explanation for myself.
My personal interpretation is as follows:
1. The skinned cow refers to all sense contact, including the [sense contact of arahants](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044), which still experience pleasant & unpleasant vedana (feeling). Therefore, the noble disciple comprehends sense contact affected by feeling (vedana) will always occur like the skinned cow & thus stops/eradicts craving & attachment towards the 'creatures' ('vedana') nibbling at sense contact.
2. The two strong mean are good & bad intentions, which both can lead to trouble & suffering, thus the English saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Therefore, the noble disciple acts with wise intention rather than good or bad intention.
3. The 'thief' or 'criminal' is attachment (upadana), which takes possession of ('appropriates') sense objects of sense consciousness as "I", "me" & "mine". The Buddha taught that the sense spheres of consciousness are "not-yours". Therefore, the noble disciple does not, like a thief, take possession of sense objects that do not belong to them (otherwise, they will be punished by dukkha each time they take possession of a sense object).
>
> *The eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Forms are not yours...
> Eye-consciousness is not yours... Eye-contact is not yours... Whatever
> arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced either as pleasure,
> as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let
> go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness &
> benefit.*
>
>
> *"The ear is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The nose is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The tongue is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The body is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Ideas are not yours...
> Intellect-consciousness is not yours... Intellect-contact is not
> yours... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact,
> experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as
> neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your
> letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.*
>
>
> *Na
> Tumhaka Sutta: Not Yours*
>
>
> |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | Its simple, i will explain each 4 nutriement in points
(1) physical food- it is to be regarded only for survival ,not for flavour or intoxication. We should treat our physical food like we are feeding on our young baby
(2) contact- if contact happens with our six senses (eye, ear, skin ,etc) to its corresponding object (vision, touch etc) then that object chew on it.. for example if you have eye and lets say its corresponding object is pornography.. then we should regard pornography as something chewing our eye.. ultimately destroying it...but since we normally dont question our sense-object , we enjoy it till our ruin.
(3) volition- buddha said you should regard volition as survival instinct only.... here a man hates death.. but a practitioner sholuld not fear death... so he is saying normally we have volition that act upon survival instinct..we dont act truly but act according to survival instinct
(4) consciousness- well , if u are ever depressed, tensed and wanted to end your life ,,you should know its all because of your damn consciousness...so consciousness is spear acting upon us..buddha is saying to take this consciousness in command
Finally, what he meant is that the above 4 food is necessary for survival. . If you cant survive then how will you attain nirvana...but he is saying dont take these food unmindfully..see what game is undergoing behind the scene..in 1 word right view ...right view about these food is necessary for salvation ..hope it helps. If any question please ask. Glory to Buddha | Here's my personal interpretation of [SN 12.63](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.63/en/bodhi).
To understand each of the similes, the clue is in the epilogue of each simile. The nutriments are not taken literally. Each simile becomes harder to interpret than the previous one. Each simile is also related in some way to the previous simile.
First simile
------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment edible food is fully understood, lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood.*" The five cords of sensual pleasure ([MN13](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.013.than.html)) are forms, sounds, aroma, flavours and tactile sensations.
The nutriment of edible food here is not literally edible food, but refers to the external sources of forms, sounds, aroma, flavours and tactile sensations.
The simile teaches us that these "edible food" should be used only as a means to get through samsara, while living the holy life, to reach the end of suffering, and one should not have passion for them.
The nutriment of the external sources of the five cords of sensual pleasure, nourish and sustain the five cords of sensual pleasure. Literal edible food is the source of flavours, for example.
Second simile
-------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment contact is fully understood, the three kinds of feeling are fully understood.*" The three types of feeling ([Iti 52](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-052)) are pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure-nor-pain. There are six types of contacts ([SN 12.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)) - eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact and intellect-contact.
The cow is exposed to different environments like wall, tree, water, open air. These are like **contacts**. The creatures biting her are the three types of **feeling**. The biting itself is **craving**. The painful sensation that arises from the biting is **suffering** (from dependent origination: from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving; and from the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is craving).
The simile teaches us to abandon passion for the three types of feeling arising from contacts. The creatures (feeling) are fine, but don't let them bite you (craving). For the bite is painful (suffering). The nutriment of contacts nourish and sustain the three types of feeling.
To link back to the previous simile, [SN 12.44](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html) says for example, "*dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact*". So, five types of contacts are directly related to the five cords of sensual pleasure. The sixth type of contact is indirectly related to the five cords of sensual pleasure.
Third simile
------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment mental volition is fully understood, the three kinds of craving are fully understood.*" The three types of craving ([Iti 58](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-058)) are craving for sensuality, craving for becoming and craving for non-becoming.
The word for "nutriment of mental volition" in this sutta is *manosañcetanāhāro*. From [SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi), we read: "*what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness.*" I interpret mental volition here as intention (*cetana*) and latent tendencies (*anusaya*).
[SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi) also says "*If one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness*", which shows latent tendencies are required for the maintenance of consciousness, even if intention isn't present. There are 7 types of latent tendencies in [AN 7.11](https://suttacentral.net/an7.11/en/sujato).
The two strong men are either **latent tendencies** (*anusaya*) or latent tendencies and intention (*cetana*). They grab the man and drag him towards the charcoal pit with glowing coals. The glowing coals are **craving**. If the man comes into contact with the glowing coals, the arising pain is **suffering** (from the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is craving).
The simile teaches us to abandon latent tendencies. Don't let the strong men (latent tendencies) drag you into the charcoal pit of glowing coals (craving). Run away from the strong men (latent tendencies). The coals are painful (suffering). The nutriment of latent tendencies nourish and sustain the three types of craving.
To link back to the previous simile, the three types of feeling will not result in the arising of craving, if there are no latent tendencies.
Fourth simile
-------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment consciousness is fully understood, name-and-form is fully understood.*" Based on the definition of name-and-form in [SN 12.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html), name-and-form is a kind of mind-body link (according to Theravada interpretation).
And what is consciousness? From dependent origination: from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From the traditional Theravada interpretation of consciousness in dependent origination, this is the consciousness that results in the continuity of suffering beyond physical death, called "rebirth linking consciousness" (*cuti citta*) in the Abhidhamma.
This is supported by [SN 12.39](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/bodhi): "*When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form*", and [SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi): "*When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence.*" When the suttas talk about the growth, increase, maturing, landing and establishing of consciousness, it essentially talks about consciousness resulting in the descent of name-and-form ("rebirth").
In dependent origination, craving leads to clinging, which leads to becoming. These show the outflow of [effluents](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9414/471) or mental fermentations or taints (*asava*), which according to [this "cyclic" question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25874/471) causes the arising of ignorance. Then ignorance in turn causes the arising of effluents once again ([MN 9](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html)), which is mental formations (*sankhara*) including latent tendencies (*anusaya*). This then causes the arising of consciousness, which causes the descent of name-and-form (mind-body link) i.e. "rebirth".
This loop back from craving-clinging-becoming back to ignorance is hinted at, in [SN 44.9](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html): "*when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time.*"
The bandit or criminal is the one who delights in craving, the **fool** from [SN 12.19](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/bodhi), who clings (steals). The king could be ignorance or samsara. The king's men who strike him with spears are mental formations (especially **latent tendencies**). The spears are (rebirth linking) **consciousness**. The striking of the spears is the **descent of name-and-form** (that is "rebirth"). The pain caused by the striking of spears is **suffering** (birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair). Morning, afternoon and evening could be different aeons.
Wouldn't three hundred lifetimes be painful? Well, even one lifetime is painful enough, don't you find from experience? The simile teaches us to abandon stealing (craving), in order to not get struck ("rebirth") by spears (renewed "rebirth linking consciousness") again.
This is reinforced in the [Tears Sutta (SN 15.3)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html):
>
> From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning
> point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
> by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
> experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
> cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
> enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
>
>
>
The nutriment of (rebirth linking) consciousness nourishes and sustains the (descent of) name-and-form.
To link back to the previous simile, the three types of craving (plus clinging and becoming) are the effluents that cause ignorance, and ignorance causes effluents (latent tendencies especially) in turn, that causes (rebirth linking) consciousness to rise again, causing the descent of name-and-form ("rebirth").
Case of arahants
----------------
How does this apply to the case of arahants?
From Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary of [Iti 44](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044):
>
> With fuel remaining (*sa-upadisesa*) and with no fuel remaining
> (*anupadisesa*): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
> flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
> fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
> here is the [five aggregates](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html). While the arahant is
> still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
> not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
> arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
> here or anywhere else.
>
>
>
A living arahant experiences the nutriment of edible food and the nutriment of contacts, but he has ended the nutriment of mental volition (i.e. latent tendencies) and therefore also ended the nutriment of (rebirth linking) consciousness. Then, consciousness has no place to land or get established any more ([SN 12.64](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.64/en/bodhi)) i.e. no more descent of name-and-form ([SN 12.39](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/bodhi)) meaning no more continuity of suffering after physical death. After parinibbana, all nutriments would have ceased permanently.
Conclusion
----------
The sutta is talking about dependent origination, what keeps dependent origination going, how to end dependent origination, and the truth of the continuity of suffering beyond physical death.
It is true then that the noble eightfold path does not just lead to the cessation of (craving for) form, but also the cessation of (the rearising of) form. (see [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31138/471)) |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | While the sutta did not state the nutriments are evil, it did give vivid and explicit similes of the son's flesh, the skinned cow, the man being dragged toward a burning pit, and a criminal being pierced with three hundred spears. Needless to say, one doesn't have to be very smart to think carefully before indulging oneself with the nutriments after hearing what the Buddha just said. Imho, SN 12.63 reflects the Dukkha inherent in all conditioned phenomena. And the Four Nutriments are no exception. For us regular worldlings, we tend to only understand the 1st of the 3 aspects of Dukkha, Dukkha-dukkha, for the obvious reason that it's right there in front of our naked eye. That's why we continue to indulge in the nutriments and sense pleasures. It would take a significant degree of cultivation and penetrative insight to understand the other 2: Viparinama-dukkha and Sankhara-dukkha. And until then, we'd still only be able to have some superficial understanding of what SN 12.63 was trying to say. Per ChrisW's suggestion, I've reposted as an answer and include the 2 very helpful links from Prof. Tan and Ven. Nyanaponika with detailed commentary on SN 12.63:
<http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20.6-Puttamamsa-S-s12.63-piya.pdf>
<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel105.html> | Its simple, i will explain each 4 nutriement in points
(1) physical food- it is to be regarded only for survival ,not for flavour or intoxication. We should treat our physical food like we are feeding on our young baby
(2) contact- if contact happens with our six senses (eye, ear, skin ,etc) to its corresponding object (vision, touch etc) then that object chew on it.. for example if you have eye and lets say its corresponding object is pornography.. then we should regard pornography as something chewing our eye.. ultimately destroying it...but since we normally dont question our sense-object , we enjoy it till our ruin.
(3) volition- buddha said you should regard volition as survival instinct only.... here a man hates death.. but a practitioner sholuld not fear death... so he is saying normally we have volition that act upon survival instinct..we dont act truly but act according to survival instinct
(4) consciousness- well , if u are ever depressed, tensed and wanted to end your life ,,you should know its all because of your damn consciousness...so consciousness is spear acting upon us..buddha is saying to take this consciousness in command
Finally, what he meant is that the above 4 food is necessary for survival. . If you cant survive then how will you attain nirvana...but he is saying dont take these food unmindfully..see what game is undergoing behind the scene..in 1 word right view ...right view about these food is necessary for salvation ..hope it helps. If any question please ask. Glory to Buddha |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | I am happy to see this quiz or riddle being attempted. For many years I used to wonder about this teaching of nutriments, was never satisfied with Ven. Nyanaponika's explanation & could not work out a satisfactory explanation for myself.
My personal interpretation is as follows:
1. The skinned cow refers to all sense contact, including the [sense contact of arahants](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044), which still experience pleasant & unpleasant vedana (feeling). Therefore, the noble disciple comprehends sense contact affected by feeling (vedana) will always occur like the skinned cow & thus stops/eradicts craving & attachment towards the 'creatures' ('vedana') nibbling at sense contact.
2. The two strong mean are good & bad intentions, which both can lead to trouble & suffering, thus the English saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Therefore, the noble disciple acts with wise intention rather than good or bad intention.
3. The 'thief' or 'criminal' is attachment (upadana), which takes possession of ('appropriates') sense objects of sense consciousness as "I", "me" & "mine". The Buddha taught that the sense spheres of consciousness are "not-yours". Therefore, the noble disciple does not, like a thief, take possession of sense objects that do not belong to them (otherwise, they will be punished by dukkha each time they take possession of a sense object).
>
> *The eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Forms are not yours...
> Eye-consciousness is not yours... Eye-contact is not yours... Whatever
> arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced either as pleasure,
> as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let
> go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness &
> benefit.*
>
>
> *"The ear is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The nose is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The tongue is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The body is not yours: let go of it...*
>
>
> *"The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Ideas are not yours...
> Intellect-consciousness is not yours... Intellect-contact is not
> yours... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact,
> experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as
> neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your
> letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.*
>
>
> *Na
> Tumhaka Sutta: Not Yours*
>
>
> | * Son's flesh - eating itself is unsatisfactory (as the sensations produced by it is unsatisfactory - [Kīta,giri Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/11.1-Kitagiri-S-m70-piya.pdf)). eating should be only to maintain life to fulfil holy life and not for the please of it.
* Skinned cow - there is not place or way to avoid contact. With contact follows sensations [[Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html), see Dependent Origination] which are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence it nibbles.
* Pit of glowing embers - all volitions are accompanied by sensations throughout the body. [121 mental states] Whatever sensations end in misery, thus burns. Also this is the fuels which drives you and burns you until death
* Robber's struck with spears - it is thought consciousness that you know and experience. If not for consciousness you will not feel sensations. [[Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.17-Dhatu-Vibhanga-S-m140-piya.pdf)] Being alive is like having consciousness. All sensation are unsatisfactory [[Cūla Vedalla Sutta](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf)], hence the pain of been struck by spears. |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | While the sutta did not state the nutriments are evil, it did give vivid and explicit similes of the son's flesh, the skinned cow, the man being dragged toward a burning pit, and a criminal being pierced with three hundred spears. Needless to say, one doesn't have to be very smart to think carefully before indulging oneself with the nutriments after hearing what the Buddha just said. Imho, SN 12.63 reflects the Dukkha inherent in all conditioned phenomena. And the Four Nutriments are no exception. For us regular worldlings, we tend to only understand the 1st of the 3 aspects of Dukkha, Dukkha-dukkha, for the obvious reason that it's right there in front of our naked eye. That's why we continue to indulge in the nutriments and sense pleasures. It would take a significant degree of cultivation and penetrative insight to understand the other 2: Viparinama-dukkha and Sankhara-dukkha. And until then, we'd still only be able to have some superficial understanding of what SN 12.63 was trying to say. Per ChrisW's suggestion, I've reposted as an answer and include the 2 very helpful links from Prof. Tan and Ven. Nyanaponika with detailed commentary on SN 12.63:
<http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20.6-Puttamamsa-S-s12.63-piya.pdf>
<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel105.html> | Existence is nourished by four nutriments as pointed out in the Sutta in @Dhammadhatu ‘s OP. They are essential to continue life in this repeated existence in samsara. This is true even to the deities in the celestial world and brahmas in the Brahma world. Of these four kinds, one is material/physical, and the other three are mental nutriments. The first is the easy one as @Dhammadhatu pointed out. But how can one see one’s mental state or mental growth if not for the guidance that the Buddha provided in many of the suttas? The Buddha provided the explanation in the [Atthi Raga Sutta (where there is passion) in the Samyutta Nikaya](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.064.than.html).
How we have to view the four similes is that ONLY if we eradicate the Cause, would the Result be eradicated, and NOT otherwise. It is our Desire for Life that prevents this. The day that we establish wisdom over ignorance, and liberation over desire, we will see the light. The day we remove our passion, delight and craving for the four nutriments Consciousness will not arise. Then mentality-materiality won’t happen, and as a result there is no growth of fabrications, and no renewed becoming. If no future birth, there is no decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair.
**To explain the 2nd simile - that of the nutriment sense-impression:**
Sense impression (phassa ahara) is Contact. So what is contact? It is the coming together of three things. It is the eye, the visible object and consciousness coming in contact with each other (seeing forms). It is the ear, sounds and consciousness coming in contact with each other (hearing sound). it is the nose, odours and consciousness coming in contact with each other (smelling odours), and likewise. What is important to understand is with the arising of consciousness, it is inevitable for contact to arise. Only if we eradicate the desire for what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think, will the contact and consciousness not arise. The simile of the flayed cow is about this contact that one cannot get away from as long as there is desire.
**To explain the 3rd simile - that of the nutriment volitional thought:**
Volitional thought (Cetana) is Intellectual Intention. It is the arising of wholesome or unwholesome intentions. As before, these mental factors are a result of desire. Beings who cannot comprehend that these mental factors are not permanent, that they constantly change, and be mindful, gets thrown into the pit whether they like it or not. Only getaway is eradicating the cause – the arising of ‘cetana’ – of intellectual intention.
**To explain the 4th simile - that of the nutriment of Consciousness:**
Our sense faculties are constantly contacted and stimulated because of Consciousness as explained before. The two that I did not touch on are that of the body and intellect. Dependent on the body and tactile sensations, arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect (ideas/thoughts), there arises consciousness at the intellect. With the Consciousness, desire arises. This arising of passion, delight and craving results in greed, hatred and delusion – these are the spears that one gets shot at with. As long as you have passion, delight and craving, you are alive and get shot at and experiences pain and distress.
So our Desire for the Dhamma, to live in the Dhamma should be even greater than our desire for Life. Those are the ones who will stay in the finger tip. What the Buddha has said is patisotagami or against the current of conventional thinking. Buddha knew this well. That is why He said,
>
> “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.”
>
>
> |
17,167 | In the [Puttamansa Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html), the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').
The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning.
These three similes are:
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
> to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
> cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
> living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
> creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
> open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
> that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
> it.*
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
> to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
> Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
> wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
> seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
> monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
> his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
> 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
> deadly pain.*'
>
>
> *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
> him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
> Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
> tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
> spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
> noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
> alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
> a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
> again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
> evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.*
>
>
>
What do we think each of these similes means? | 2016/08/06 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17167",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/"
] | Existence is nourished by four nutriments as pointed out in the Sutta in @Dhammadhatu ‘s OP. They are essential to continue life in this repeated existence in samsara. This is true even to the deities in the celestial world and brahmas in the Brahma world. Of these four kinds, one is material/physical, and the other three are mental nutriments. The first is the easy one as @Dhammadhatu pointed out. But how can one see one’s mental state or mental growth if not for the guidance that the Buddha provided in many of the suttas? The Buddha provided the explanation in the [Atthi Raga Sutta (where there is passion) in the Samyutta Nikaya](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.064.than.html).
How we have to view the four similes is that ONLY if we eradicate the Cause, would the Result be eradicated, and NOT otherwise. It is our Desire for Life that prevents this. The day that we establish wisdom over ignorance, and liberation over desire, we will see the light. The day we remove our passion, delight and craving for the four nutriments Consciousness will not arise. Then mentality-materiality won’t happen, and as a result there is no growth of fabrications, and no renewed becoming. If no future birth, there is no decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair.
**To explain the 2nd simile - that of the nutriment sense-impression:**
Sense impression (phassa ahara) is Contact. So what is contact? It is the coming together of three things. It is the eye, the visible object and consciousness coming in contact with each other (seeing forms). It is the ear, sounds and consciousness coming in contact with each other (hearing sound). it is the nose, odours and consciousness coming in contact with each other (smelling odours), and likewise. What is important to understand is with the arising of consciousness, it is inevitable for contact to arise. Only if we eradicate the desire for what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think, will the contact and consciousness not arise. The simile of the flayed cow is about this contact that one cannot get away from as long as there is desire.
**To explain the 3rd simile - that of the nutriment volitional thought:**
Volitional thought (Cetana) is Intellectual Intention. It is the arising of wholesome or unwholesome intentions. As before, these mental factors are a result of desire. Beings who cannot comprehend that these mental factors are not permanent, that they constantly change, and be mindful, gets thrown into the pit whether they like it or not. Only getaway is eradicating the cause – the arising of ‘cetana’ – of intellectual intention.
**To explain the 4th simile - that of the nutriment of Consciousness:**
Our sense faculties are constantly contacted and stimulated because of Consciousness as explained before. The two that I did not touch on are that of the body and intellect. Dependent on the body and tactile sensations, arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect (ideas/thoughts), there arises consciousness at the intellect. With the Consciousness, desire arises. This arising of passion, delight and craving results in greed, hatred and delusion – these are the spears that one gets shot at with. As long as you have passion, delight and craving, you are alive and get shot at and experiences pain and distress.
So our Desire for the Dhamma, to live in the Dhamma should be even greater than our desire for Life. Those are the ones who will stay in the finger tip. What the Buddha has said is patisotagami or against the current of conventional thinking. Buddha knew this well. That is why He said,
>
> “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.”
>
>
> | Here's my personal interpretation of [SN 12.63](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.63/en/bodhi).
To understand each of the similes, the clue is in the epilogue of each simile. The nutriments are not taken literally. Each simile becomes harder to interpret than the previous one. Each simile is also related in some way to the previous simile.
First simile
------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment edible food is fully understood, lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood.*" The five cords of sensual pleasure ([MN13](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.013.than.html)) are forms, sounds, aroma, flavours and tactile sensations.
The nutriment of edible food here is not literally edible food, but refers to the external sources of forms, sounds, aroma, flavours and tactile sensations.
The simile teaches us that these "edible food" should be used only as a means to get through samsara, while living the holy life, to reach the end of suffering, and one should not have passion for them.
The nutriment of the external sources of the five cords of sensual pleasure, nourish and sustain the five cords of sensual pleasure. Literal edible food is the source of flavours, for example.
Second simile
-------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment contact is fully understood, the three kinds of feeling are fully understood.*" The three types of feeling ([Iti 52](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-052)) are pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure-nor-pain. There are six types of contacts ([SN 12.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)) - eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact and intellect-contact.
The cow is exposed to different environments like wall, tree, water, open air. These are like **contacts**. The creatures biting her are the three types of **feeling**. The biting itself is **craving**. The painful sensation that arises from the biting is **suffering** (from dependent origination: from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving; and from the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is craving).
The simile teaches us to abandon passion for the three types of feeling arising from contacts. The creatures (feeling) are fine, but don't let them bite you (craving). For the bite is painful (suffering). The nutriment of contacts nourish and sustain the three types of feeling.
To link back to the previous simile, [SN 12.44](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html) says for example, "*dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact*". So, five types of contacts are directly related to the five cords of sensual pleasure. The sixth type of contact is indirectly related to the five cords of sensual pleasure.
Third simile
------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment mental volition is fully understood, the three kinds of craving are fully understood.*" The three types of craving ([Iti 58](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-058)) are craving for sensuality, craving for becoming and craving for non-becoming.
The word for "nutriment of mental volition" in this sutta is *manosañcetanāhāro*. From [SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi), we read: "*what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness.*" I interpret mental volition here as intention (*cetana*) and latent tendencies (*anusaya*).
[SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi) also says "*If one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness*", which shows latent tendencies are required for the maintenance of consciousness, even if intention isn't present. There are 7 types of latent tendencies in [AN 7.11](https://suttacentral.net/an7.11/en/sujato).
The two strong men are either **latent tendencies** (*anusaya*) or latent tendencies and intention (*cetana*). They grab the man and drag him towards the charcoal pit with glowing coals. The glowing coals are **craving**. If the man comes into contact with the glowing coals, the arising pain is **suffering** (from the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is craving).
The simile teaches us to abandon latent tendencies. Don't let the strong men (latent tendencies) drag you into the charcoal pit of glowing coals (craving). Run away from the strong men (latent tendencies). The coals are painful (suffering). The nutriment of latent tendencies nourish and sustain the three types of craving.
To link back to the previous simile, the three types of feeling will not result in the arising of craving, if there are no latent tendencies.
Fourth simile
-------------
The epilogue says "*When the nutriment consciousness is fully understood, name-and-form is fully understood.*" Based on the definition of name-and-form in [SN 12.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html), name-and-form is a kind of mind-body link (according to Theravada interpretation).
And what is consciousness? From dependent origination: from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From the traditional Theravada interpretation of consciousness in dependent origination, this is the consciousness that results in the continuity of suffering beyond physical death, called "rebirth linking consciousness" (*cuti citta*) in the Abhidhamma.
This is supported by [SN 12.39](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/bodhi): "*When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form*", and [SN 12.38](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi): "*When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence.*" When the suttas talk about the growth, increase, maturing, landing and establishing of consciousness, it essentially talks about consciousness resulting in the descent of name-and-form ("rebirth").
In dependent origination, craving leads to clinging, which leads to becoming. These show the outflow of [effluents](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9414/471) or mental fermentations or taints (*asava*), which according to [this "cyclic" question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25874/471) causes the arising of ignorance. Then ignorance in turn causes the arising of effluents once again ([MN 9](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html)), which is mental formations (*sankhara*) including latent tendencies (*anusaya*). This then causes the arising of consciousness, which causes the descent of name-and-form (mind-body link) i.e. "rebirth".
This loop back from craving-clinging-becoming back to ignorance is hinted at, in [SN 44.9](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html): "*when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time.*"
The bandit or criminal is the one who delights in craving, the **fool** from [SN 12.19](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/bodhi), who clings (steals). The king could be ignorance or samsara. The king's men who strike him with spears are mental formations (especially **latent tendencies**). The spears are (rebirth linking) **consciousness**. The striking of the spears is the **descent of name-and-form** (that is "rebirth"). The pain caused by the striking of spears is **suffering** (birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair). Morning, afternoon and evening could be different aeons.
Wouldn't three hundred lifetimes be painful? Well, even one lifetime is painful enough, don't you find from experience? The simile teaches us to abandon stealing (craving), in order to not get struck ("rebirth") by spears (renewed "rebirth linking consciousness") again.
This is reinforced in the [Tears Sutta (SN 15.3)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html):
>
> From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning
> point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
> by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
> experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
> cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
> enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
>
>
>
The nutriment of (rebirth linking) consciousness nourishes and sustains the (descent of) name-and-form.
To link back to the previous simile, the three types of craving (plus clinging and becoming) are the effluents that cause ignorance, and ignorance causes effluents (latent tendencies especially) in turn, that causes (rebirth linking) consciousness to rise again, causing the descent of name-and-form ("rebirth").
Case of arahants
----------------
How does this apply to the case of arahants?
From Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary of [Iti 44](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044):
>
> With fuel remaining (*sa-upadisesa*) and with no fuel remaining
> (*anupadisesa*): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
> flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
> fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
> here is the [five aggregates](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html). While the arahant is
> still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
> not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
> arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
> here or anywhere else.
>
>
>
A living arahant experiences the nutriment of edible food and the nutriment of contacts, but he has ended the nutriment of mental volition (i.e. latent tendencies) and therefore also ended the nutriment of (rebirth linking) consciousness. Then, consciousness has no place to land or get established any more ([SN 12.64](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.64/en/bodhi)) i.e. no more descent of name-and-form ([SN 12.39](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/bodhi)) meaning no more continuity of suffering after physical death. After parinibbana, all nutriments would have ceased permanently.
Conclusion
----------
The sutta is talking about dependent origination, what keeps dependent origination going, how to end dependent origination, and the truth of the continuity of suffering beyond physical death.
It is true then that the noble eightfold path does not just lead to the cessation of (craving for) form, but also the cessation of (the rearising of) form. (see [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31138/471)) |
84,477 | I have a newbie question about focal length, what it actually means for lenses and how I can translate this into "how close to the target it's going to practically take me" (I don't want to use the term zoom here to avoid confusion, perhaps magnifying power is what describes best what I'm after, basically shots from the distance, not macro).
Here's an example:
I currently have a Sigma 18-200mm lens (therefore approx. 11x zoom), which I use with Canon EOS 400D and also a compact Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX60 with focal length 4.3-129mm (approx. 30x zoom).
Even though 200mm is obviously more than 129mm the Sony camera takes me closer to the target.
Looking at zoom factor (30x comparing to 11x) this may seem obvious, but it's less obvious when you compare it to other lenses, e.g. 200-500mm lens, which effectively has "only" 2.5x zoom, but actually takes me closer to the target.
How can I make sense of this when looking at other lenses?
For example let's consider Tamron 16-300mm, its zoom is obviously approx. 20x, but how can I compare it to Sigma 18-200mm or Cyber-Shot 4.3-129mm? Is it going to take me closer to the target, e.g. magnify objects better then both of them or only better than Sigma, but still not as good as Sony? (ignoring quality of picture of course) | 2016/11/13 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/84477",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/58322/"
] | Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX60 has a small sensor ([6.16x4.62 mm](http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_cybershot-dsc-hx60/)). When talking about "Sigma 18-200mm lens", you don't mention which camera you use it on, but I guess it's an APS-C sensor (24×16 mm), hence 3.8 times bigger. At constant image size on the sensor, the small sensor will only get a tiny portion of the image, hence the subject will appear 3.8 times bigger on your Sony than with your Sigma lens mounted on an APS-C body for the same focal length.
When comparing focal length with different sensor size, it's better to compare in terms of "35mm equivalent", i.e. multiply by 1.5 for APS-C sensors, and by 5.8 for your Sony camera. | Your question cannot be answered that way. There are instead other factors.
Your 18-200 Sigma lens is for a APS size camera, with a relatively large digital sensor.
Your little compact has a very tiny sensor (all compacts and phones do).
These are very important differences regarding the size image they can show.
So to take a "reasonable" picture, showing a "normal" scene width view comparable to what all other cameras normally show, the large sensor can use a longer lens, and the tiny compact sensor must use a vastly shorter lens, very short ... in order to fit all of the normal scene onto the sensor. A much shorter lens than would be usable on the larger camera. In this way, then either camera takes a "normal" picture, showing about the same normal view, regardless that the tiny sensor is so small.
What effects how "close up" the picture can be are two things. Minimum focus distance (about 15 inches for the APS Sigma lens, and perhaps 1/2 inch for most tiny compacts). The closer it focuses, the larger the subject appears.
Also the focal length is a magnification factor, longer focal length (like telephoto) brings the subject up much closer.
And then FWIW, the larger sensors allow more enlargement of the picture.
Sigma calls it "macro", because it does focus a little closer than most normal lens, and can do a 1:3 reproduction ratio. But it is NOT a real macro lens that can to 1:1.
Here's the deal: If you want macro benefits, then you should buy a real macro lens for the APS size camera. That this what they do, focus up extremely close (a very few inches), and are optimized for the closer distances. Typically, they can do 1:1 reproduction, 1:1 meaning that the image on the sensor is the SAME size as the actual object (the APS sensor is less than 5/8 inch tall). Meaning, an image of US dime coin will be slightly larger than the APS sensor can fully show.
Then the larger sensor APS sensor size can enlarge the dickens out of it too. |
84,477 | I have a newbie question about focal length, what it actually means for lenses and how I can translate this into "how close to the target it's going to practically take me" (I don't want to use the term zoom here to avoid confusion, perhaps magnifying power is what describes best what I'm after, basically shots from the distance, not macro).
Here's an example:
I currently have a Sigma 18-200mm lens (therefore approx. 11x zoom), which I use with Canon EOS 400D and also a compact Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX60 with focal length 4.3-129mm (approx. 30x zoom).
Even though 200mm is obviously more than 129mm the Sony camera takes me closer to the target.
Looking at zoom factor (30x comparing to 11x) this may seem obvious, but it's less obvious when you compare it to other lenses, e.g. 200-500mm lens, which effectively has "only" 2.5x zoom, but actually takes me closer to the target.
How can I make sense of this when looking at other lenses?
For example let's consider Tamron 16-300mm, its zoom is obviously approx. 20x, but how can I compare it to Sigma 18-200mm or Cyber-Shot 4.3-129mm? Is it going to take me closer to the target, e.g. magnify objects better then both of them or only better than Sigma, but still not as good as Sony? (ignoring quality of picture of course) | 2016/11/13 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/84477",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/58322/"
] | Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX60 has a small sensor ([6.16x4.62 mm](http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_cybershot-dsc-hx60/)). When talking about "Sigma 18-200mm lens", you don't mention which camera you use it on, but I guess it's an APS-C sensor (24×16 mm), hence 3.8 times bigger. At constant image size on the sensor, the small sensor will only get a tiny portion of the image, hence the subject will appear 3.8 times bigger on your Sony than with your Sigma lens mounted on an APS-C body for the same focal length.
When comparing focal length with different sensor size, it's better to compare in terms of "35mm equivalent", i.e. multiply by 1.5 for APS-C sensors, and by 5.8 for your Sony camera. | **Overall the image from the smaller sensor is being enlarged about 3.6X more than the image captured by the larger APS-C sensor when viewed at the same display size. That's why objects in the picture taken by the compact camera from the same distance appear larger than the same objects in the picture taken by the camera with the larger sensor.**
All of the other answers dance around it, but the main reason a 129mm lens on the compact with a very small sensor makes a distant object look larger than a 200mm lens on an APS-C camera is that an image from the smaller sensor is magnified/enlarged by a much greater factor to be displayed at the same size for viewing as an image from the APS-C camera with a much larger sensor.
The APS-C EOS 400D camera has a sensor size of roughly 22x15 mm for a [crop factor](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/139/what-is-crop-factor-and-how-does-it-relate-to-focal-length) of 1.6X. *Crop factor* is based on the length of the diagonal of a sensor compared to a 36x24mm frame of film. In order to view an image at a size of 200x300 mm (≈8x12 inches) the image as it is projected onto the EOS 400D's APS-C sensor must be enlarged by a factor of about 13.5X
The Sony has a sensor that is only about 6x4.5 mm with a crop factor of 5.6X. In order to view an image at a size of 225x300 mm (≈9x12 inches) the image as it is projected onto the sensor must be enlarged by a factor of about 48.7X
Notice that the aspect ratio of the smaller sensor is 4:3 while the aspect ratio of the larger sensor is 3:2. That is, the smaller sensor is 1.333333 times wider than it is tall while the APS-C sensor is 1.5 times wider than it is tall. Our comparison here preserves the length of the long edge rather than the length of the diagonal which is why the enlargement ratios vary a bit from the relationship between each camera's crop factor.
The diagonal of a 36x24mm "full frame" is 43.27mm.
The diagonal of the APS-C sensor in the EOS 400D is 26.68mm.
The diagonal of the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX60 sensor is 7.70mm.
The diagonal of a standard 8x10 print is 325.279mm (12.8 inches) |
36,866 | I guess it's technically a Mornay, it has Parmesan and Fontina. I've got about 1 1/2 cups in my fridge. Refrigerated it's solid enough to hold a knife vertically, when it was warm it was just barely pourable and self spreading. It's a darn good sauce, I'd hate to waste it, but after all my adventures lately making an 'ultimate' lasagna, I won't end up using it for pasta. I'd like to put it to use in an entirely different way, preferably with a totally different flavor profile.
Any ideas?
Bonus points if it would make a nice lunch for the day after the extreme lasagna dinner. | 2013/09/17 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183/"
] | Crouque-Monsier or the similar "Hot Brown" sandwich is perfect for my needs. That will use up the sauce in a completely different way. It will also make a great lunch. Thanks SAJ14SAJ for the tip. | You're already half way towards [kroketten](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquette#Netherlands).
(Search for 'Dutch Croquettes' to find recipes in English) |
36,866 | I guess it's technically a Mornay, it has Parmesan and Fontina. I've got about 1 1/2 cups in my fridge. Refrigerated it's solid enough to hold a knife vertically, when it was warm it was just barely pourable and self spreading. It's a darn good sauce, I'd hate to waste it, but after all my adventures lately making an 'ultimate' lasagna, I won't end up using it for pasta. I'd like to put it to use in an entirely different way, preferably with a totally different flavor profile.
Any ideas?
Bonus points if it would make a nice lunch for the day after the extreme lasagna dinner. | 2013/09/17 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183/"
] | Crouque-Monsier or the similar "Hot Brown" sandwich is perfect for my needs. That will use up the sauce in a completely different way. It will also make a great lunch. Thanks SAJ14SAJ for the tip. | You can mix it with a little bit of tomatoes and pour it over spicy burritos the oven heat makes everything golden brown and crusty. |
36,866 | I guess it's technically a Mornay, it has Parmesan and Fontina. I've got about 1 1/2 cups in my fridge. Refrigerated it's solid enough to hold a knife vertically, when it was warm it was just barely pourable and self spreading. It's a darn good sauce, I'd hate to waste it, but after all my adventures lately making an 'ultimate' lasagna, I won't end up using it for pasta. I'd like to put it to use in an entirely different way, preferably with a totally different flavor profile.
Any ideas?
Bonus points if it would make a nice lunch for the day after the extreme lasagna dinner. | 2013/09/17 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183/"
] | Crouque-Monsier or the similar "Hot Brown" sandwich is perfect for my needs. That will use up the sauce in a completely different way. It will also make a great lunch. Thanks SAJ14SAJ for the tip. | If you want something kind of healthy, you can always mix it with steamed spinach and it can't be more delicious!!! Oh, with brocoli works pretty well too ;-) |
355,233 | I like the new notification version of the review icon, which I'm guessing is still undergoing A/B testing:
It does a better job at saying "attention here, please" than the old icon which was almost indiscernible, and certainly easily ignored.
What it doesn't do is tell me any useful information behind the alert. It's obvious that [Shog's request](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/350836/please-change-the-review-icon-back-to-a-text-link) is not being implemented (yet), but I'm curious about the logic behind this new look.
Does the red icon light up via the same logic as before? E.g. when the review queues [haven't been visited in an hour](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/353844/2756409). Or does it light up when a particular queue is full to a certain threshold? I ask because only some of the queues have red dots next to them in the new dropdown style.
Also, if I have used up all my reviews in total, or for a given queue, will the red dot still appear for me if I have not visited the queues in a while? It would be a bit annoying to see a red dot for the CV queue if I have done 40 reviews already. | 2017/08/17 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/355233",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/2756409/"
] | >
> Or does it light up when a particular queue is full to a certain threshold?
>
>
>
This. ~~Currently the thresholds are based on 90% of the max hourly value over the past couple weeks~~ (test is done, thresholds now aspirational - see below); we'll adjust those based on the initial test results in an effort to determine if that'll help with prioritization and, uh, indicator blindness.
Kudos to the many people who suggested something like this in response to my previous thread on the matter; if it doesn't work I'm holding you all personally responsible.
September 11, 2017 - test is successful, new UI is live for everyone
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The results over nearly a month of testing were pretty conclusive: the new indicator draws more people to click the button *and* to click through to specific queues once the drop-down is displayed. But don't believe me - believe this screenshot of our funky internal testing tool!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zN7aB.png)
The BIG win here is that we can now direct folks to specific queues that need more attention - things like Suggested Edits or Low Quality. With the test at an end, I've gone and altered the thresholds to make it much more likely that those two queues will light up promptly (while hopefully keeping them high enough that folks don't end up disappointed when too many reviewers hit the queue at once). Current "danger zone" thresholds (subject to change without notice) are:
* Low Quality, First Posts & Late Answers: 90 tasks
* Suggested Edits: 90 tasks
* Triage: 100 tasks
* Reopen and Help/Improvement: 150 tasks
* Close: 10000 tasks
Thanks again to everyone who suggested this, and especially those who patiently suffered with seemingly-random UI changes while the test was underway. | Just in case anyone decides that the lack of any useful information behind the alert is enough of a reason to want to hide the redness altogether, @Glorfindel made a nice little script that hides exactly that part of the CSS [over here](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/358157/1338280).
Of course, at some point your wishes may be granted in a more constructive fashion - so be sure to disable it now and then so you don't miss any improvements. |
89,401 | In confirmatory analysis do you basically just test hypotheses? Then in exploratory analysis you try to generate hypotheses? In general, I know that you can first do exploratory analysis to form hypotheses and then confirmatory analysis to test them. But can you first do confirmatory analysis and then do exploratory analysis? | 2014/03/10 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/89401",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/41612/"
] | First EDA will be done on the data set to understand the data & prepare the hypothesis, then confirmatory analysis is done. In EDA, most of the time we do visual analysis. Whereas in Confirmatory analysis we take probability models into consideration.
Comparison from [here](http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g210_w07/lecture_notes/lect01/oh07_01_2.html):
* **Confirmatory Analysis**
+ Inferential Statistics - Deductive Approach
- Heavy reliance on probability models
- Must accept untestable assumptions
- Look for definite answers to specific questions
- Emphasis on numerical calculations
- Hypotheses determined at outset
- Hypothesis tests and formal confidence interval estimation
+ Advantages
- Provide precise information in the right circumstances
- Well-established theory and methods
+ Disadvantages
- Misleading impression of precision in less than ideal circumstances
- Analysis driven by preconceived ideas
- Difficult to notice unexpected results
* **Exploratory Analysis**
+ Descriptive Statistics - Inductive Approach
- Look for flexible ways to examine data without preconceptions
- Attempt to evaluate validity of assumptions
- Heavy reliance on graphical displays
- Let data suggest questions
- Focus on indications and approximate error magnitudes
+ Advantages
- Flexible ways to generate hypotheses
- More realistic statements of accuracy
- Does not require more than data can support
- Promotes deeper understanding of processes
- Statistical learning
+ Disadvantages
- Usually does not provide definitive answers
- Difficult to avoid optimistic bias produced by overfitting
- Requires judgement and artistry - can't be cookbooked
For further reading [read this](http://www.dataperspective.info/2014/03/exploratory-data-analysis-techniques.html). | I don't think there is a set recipe for when to perform which. You have to use the tools required for the task, whether they are most useful for an exploratory analysis or testing hypotheses. It is likely you will begin with hypotheses (that's why you collected this data in the first place right?) and then test them. Your results may not be what you expect. Then you go back to exploring the data and generate new hypotheses. This is just how the scientific method works. |
123,398 | My agency has been developing an application that they're hoping will bring in a lot of revenue and they're going about it the wrong way. The agency usually only deals with wordpress and drupal type sites. Our typical client approaches us for 3-6 months of work on a custom theme and then follows up after that with maintenance work.
At the beginning of last year the agency took on a whole new type of client that wanted a web app built, both for desktop and a mobile version for phone. I was hired as a team lead because of my experience with React, React Native, and Node. This job scope is still pretty new to me. So for the past 18 months that web app has kind of been my teams life and we've been sequestered off from other projects.
At the end of last year the other teams started working on a new web app, however, as their main experience is in wordpress, they have attempted to build the entire thing in wordpress. My project is winding down and they've started noticing that the app we built acts much more like an actual app than a website and they want me to apply that to their project. The thing is, for the scale they want this applied to, the project should have never started in wordpress. They're trying to contort a CMS into something it's not. At the very least the only way react is going to play nice with their back end is to change the entire thing into a headless api.
This leaves me with telling them that the months of work they've put into the project were kind of a waste of time as they used the wrong tools from the outset. It's not that they didn't use react but that they didn't use any framework. Almost all of their front end manipulation is done by very hap hazard jQuery. The other issue is that they want to apply some very heavy data analysis to the back end and wordpress was never meant to do things like that so it's causing a massive slow down of the whole thing.
The person who would make the final decision on this has a very profit focused mind though (as a business owner should) and will really focus on 'time to market'. The idea of me saying the concept is great but the whole thing needs to be refurbished will immediately cause him second thoughts on anything I say after that. More so, as many of the original team members are unfamiliar with react, angular, or any other framework it puts them at an immediate loss. I can definitely understand the strength of building in what you know vs learning something new.
For example last week while discussing an npm package we'd used for the mobile version of our previous app the other team noticed we'd solved a big problem they were having and asked us to implement it for them. After looking at their code that's when I realized there was no way to use this npm module without setting up webpack or browserify in the project and they weren't about that at all. After 3 days we were able to write a vanilla js script that did what they needed but I have a feeling this uphill battle is what we'd be in for the entire time.
What is the best way to present all of this to them. I don't want to just say straight up "no we won't work on this as it is" but I also don't want my team taking ownership of the front end of the project only to take blame a few weeks or months from now when it can't perform as they want. Basically I feel like this is going to set us up to fail monumentally. | 2018/11/25 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/123398",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/94952/"
] | Build a consensus amongst the technical team. Take what you've written here and bring it to the lead dev of the other team and see what they say. Preface it with "We can do it, but I have some reservations" and lay out your concerns.
If you get the other person to agree with you, you both bring it to the boss presenting a united front. For business decisions, you need to lay out time estimates and costs associated with either course - the one that brings the most financial benefits will usually be chosen by a rational actor.
On a business level it doesn't matter how pretty it is so long as it works sufficiently well that enough people are willing to pay for it to make a profit, and everything else is subordinate to that.
After that, you see what the boss says. If they agree, good. If they don't you do your best. At the end of the day it's not your company, all you need to care about is getting paid. | You don't get involved with another teams project over which you have no control in terms of enforcing what is used and how.
If they request something, you refer them to decision makers who can then ask you if they want. If they do then this is the point at which you treat it as your teams project and let them know what would be required, timeframes etc,.
Ideally you wouldn't touch it unless it becomes your responsibility along with the authority to do it your way. |
123,398 | My agency has been developing an application that they're hoping will bring in a lot of revenue and they're going about it the wrong way. The agency usually only deals with wordpress and drupal type sites. Our typical client approaches us for 3-6 months of work on a custom theme and then follows up after that with maintenance work.
At the beginning of last year the agency took on a whole new type of client that wanted a web app built, both for desktop and a mobile version for phone. I was hired as a team lead because of my experience with React, React Native, and Node. This job scope is still pretty new to me. So for the past 18 months that web app has kind of been my teams life and we've been sequestered off from other projects.
At the end of last year the other teams started working on a new web app, however, as their main experience is in wordpress, they have attempted to build the entire thing in wordpress. My project is winding down and they've started noticing that the app we built acts much more like an actual app than a website and they want me to apply that to their project. The thing is, for the scale they want this applied to, the project should have never started in wordpress. They're trying to contort a CMS into something it's not. At the very least the only way react is going to play nice with their back end is to change the entire thing into a headless api.
This leaves me with telling them that the months of work they've put into the project were kind of a waste of time as they used the wrong tools from the outset. It's not that they didn't use react but that they didn't use any framework. Almost all of their front end manipulation is done by very hap hazard jQuery. The other issue is that they want to apply some very heavy data analysis to the back end and wordpress was never meant to do things like that so it's causing a massive slow down of the whole thing.
The person who would make the final decision on this has a very profit focused mind though (as a business owner should) and will really focus on 'time to market'. The idea of me saying the concept is great but the whole thing needs to be refurbished will immediately cause him second thoughts on anything I say after that. More so, as many of the original team members are unfamiliar with react, angular, or any other framework it puts them at an immediate loss. I can definitely understand the strength of building in what you know vs learning something new.
For example last week while discussing an npm package we'd used for the mobile version of our previous app the other team noticed we'd solved a big problem they were having and asked us to implement it for them. After looking at their code that's when I realized there was no way to use this npm module without setting up webpack or browserify in the project and they weren't about that at all. After 3 days we were able to write a vanilla js script that did what they needed but I have a feeling this uphill battle is what we'd be in for the entire time.
What is the best way to present all of this to them. I don't want to just say straight up "no we won't work on this as it is" but I also don't want my team taking ownership of the front end of the project only to take blame a few weeks or months from now when it can't perform as they want. Basically I feel like this is going to set us up to fail monumentally. | 2018/11/25 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/123398",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/94952/"
] | Build a consensus amongst the technical team. Take what you've written here and bring it to the lead dev of the other team and see what they say. Preface it with "We can do it, but I have some reservations" and lay out your concerns.
If you get the other person to agree with you, you both bring it to the boss presenting a united front. For business decisions, you need to lay out time estimates and costs associated with either course - the one that brings the most financial benefits will usually be chosen by a rational actor.
On a business level it doesn't matter how pretty it is so long as it works sufficiently well that enough people are willing to pay for it to make a profit, and everything else is subordinate to that.
After that, you see what the boss says. If they agree, good. If they don't you do your best. At the end of the day it's not your company, all you need to care about is getting paid. | If the company culture allows it, I would have an open chat with the decision maker and, without slandering the other team, explain that you reviewed the requirements, and to apply your better performing solution the most efficient way is to recreate the other project from scratch. Nobody wants infighting or to make another team feel like crap, and the other team lead would probably get defensive, as he should, because of the original, suboptimal choice.
So: talk to the decision maker, and let him make the decision. But make it clear that you don't want to cause a rift in the relationships with the other team.
This is a massive exercise in politics, but you seem to have the right sensibility to make it. |
123,398 | My agency has been developing an application that they're hoping will bring in a lot of revenue and they're going about it the wrong way. The agency usually only deals with wordpress and drupal type sites. Our typical client approaches us for 3-6 months of work on a custom theme and then follows up after that with maintenance work.
At the beginning of last year the agency took on a whole new type of client that wanted a web app built, both for desktop and a mobile version for phone. I was hired as a team lead because of my experience with React, React Native, and Node. This job scope is still pretty new to me. So for the past 18 months that web app has kind of been my teams life and we've been sequestered off from other projects.
At the end of last year the other teams started working on a new web app, however, as their main experience is in wordpress, they have attempted to build the entire thing in wordpress. My project is winding down and they've started noticing that the app we built acts much more like an actual app than a website and they want me to apply that to their project. The thing is, for the scale they want this applied to, the project should have never started in wordpress. They're trying to contort a CMS into something it's not. At the very least the only way react is going to play nice with their back end is to change the entire thing into a headless api.
This leaves me with telling them that the months of work they've put into the project were kind of a waste of time as they used the wrong tools from the outset. It's not that they didn't use react but that they didn't use any framework. Almost all of their front end manipulation is done by very hap hazard jQuery. The other issue is that they want to apply some very heavy data analysis to the back end and wordpress was never meant to do things like that so it's causing a massive slow down of the whole thing.
The person who would make the final decision on this has a very profit focused mind though (as a business owner should) and will really focus on 'time to market'. The idea of me saying the concept is great but the whole thing needs to be refurbished will immediately cause him second thoughts on anything I say after that. More so, as many of the original team members are unfamiliar with react, angular, or any other framework it puts them at an immediate loss. I can definitely understand the strength of building in what you know vs learning something new.
For example last week while discussing an npm package we'd used for the mobile version of our previous app the other team noticed we'd solved a big problem they were having and asked us to implement it for them. After looking at their code that's when I realized there was no way to use this npm module without setting up webpack or browserify in the project and they weren't about that at all. After 3 days we were able to write a vanilla js script that did what they needed but I have a feeling this uphill battle is what we'd be in for the entire time.
What is the best way to present all of this to them. I don't want to just say straight up "no we won't work on this as it is" but I also don't want my team taking ownership of the front end of the project only to take blame a few weeks or months from now when it can't perform as they want. Basically I feel like this is going to set us up to fail monumentally. | 2018/11/25 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/123398",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/94952/"
] | Build a consensus amongst the technical team. Take what you've written here and bring it to the lead dev of the other team and see what they say. Preface it with "We can do it, but I have some reservations" and lay out your concerns.
If you get the other person to agree with you, you both bring it to the boss presenting a united front. For business decisions, you need to lay out time estimates and costs associated with either course - the one that brings the most financial benefits will usually be chosen by a rational actor.
On a business level it doesn't matter how pretty it is so long as it works sufficiently well that enough people are willing to pay for it to make a profit, and everything else is subordinate to that.
After that, you see what the boss says. If they agree, good. If they don't you do your best. At the end of the day it's not your company, all you need to care about is getting paid. | Another possible outcome is that the manager decides the feature isn't important after all, or not important enough to rewrite what they have. You mention it will require great expense, but not how much it will help out. |
123,398 | My agency has been developing an application that they're hoping will bring in a lot of revenue and they're going about it the wrong way. The agency usually only deals with wordpress and drupal type sites. Our typical client approaches us for 3-6 months of work on a custom theme and then follows up after that with maintenance work.
At the beginning of last year the agency took on a whole new type of client that wanted a web app built, both for desktop and a mobile version for phone. I was hired as a team lead because of my experience with React, React Native, and Node. This job scope is still pretty new to me. So for the past 18 months that web app has kind of been my teams life and we've been sequestered off from other projects.
At the end of last year the other teams started working on a new web app, however, as their main experience is in wordpress, they have attempted to build the entire thing in wordpress. My project is winding down and they've started noticing that the app we built acts much more like an actual app than a website and they want me to apply that to their project. The thing is, for the scale they want this applied to, the project should have never started in wordpress. They're trying to contort a CMS into something it's not. At the very least the only way react is going to play nice with their back end is to change the entire thing into a headless api.
This leaves me with telling them that the months of work they've put into the project were kind of a waste of time as they used the wrong tools from the outset. It's not that they didn't use react but that they didn't use any framework. Almost all of their front end manipulation is done by very hap hazard jQuery. The other issue is that they want to apply some very heavy data analysis to the back end and wordpress was never meant to do things like that so it's causing a massive slow down of the whole thing.
The person who would make the final decision on this has a very profit focused mind though (as a business owner should) and will really focus on 'time to market'. The idea of me saying the concept is great but the whole thing needs to be refurbished will immediately cause him second thoughts on anything I say after that. More so, as many of the original team members are unfamiliar with react, angular, or any other framework it puts them at an immediate loss. I can definitely understand the strength of building in what you know vs learning something new.
For example last week while discussing an npm package we'd used for the mobile version of our previous app the other team noticed we'd solved a big problem they were having and asked us to implement it for them. After looking at their code that's when I realized there was no way to use this npm module without setting up webpack or browserify in the project and they weren't about that at all. After 3 days we were able to write a vanilla js script that did what they needed but I have a feeling this uphill battle is what we'd be in for the entire time.
What is the best way to present all of this to them. I don't want to just say straight up "no we won't work on this as it is" but I also don't want my team taking ownership of the front end of the project only to take blame a few weeks or months from now when it can't perform as they want. Basically I feel like this is going to set us up to fail monumentally. | 2018/11/25 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/123398",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/94952/"
] | You don't get involved with another teams project over which you have no control in terms of enforcing what is used and how.
If they request something, you refer them to decision makers who can then ask you if they want. If they do then this is the point at which you treat it as your teams project and let them know what would be required, timeframes etc,.
Ideally you wouldn't touch it unless it becomes your responsibility along with the authority to do it your way. | If the company culture allows it, I would have an open chat with the decision maker and, without slandering the other team, explain that you reviewed the requirements, and to apply your better performing solution the most efficient way is to recreate the other project from scratch. Nobody wants infighting or to make another team feel like crap, and the other team lead would probably get defensive, as he should, because of the original, suboptimal choice.
So: talk to the decision maker, and let him make the decision. But make it clear that you don't want to cause a rift in the relationships with the other team.
This is a massive exercise in politics, but you seem to have the right sensibility to make it. |
123,398 | My agency has been developing an application that they're hoping will bring in a lot of revenue and they're going about it the wrong way. The agency usually only deals with wordpress and drupal type sites. Our typical client approaches us for 3-6 months of work on a custom theme and then follows up after that with maintenance work.
At the beginning of last year the agency took on a whole new type of client that wanted a web app built, both for desktop and a mobile version for phone. I was hired as a team lead because of my experience with React, React Native, and Node. This job scope is still pretty new to me. So for the past 18 months that web app has kind of been my teams life and we've been sequestered off from other projects.
At the end of last year the other teams started working on a new web app, however, as their main experience is in wordpress, they have attempted to build the entire thing in wordpress. My project is winding down and they've started noticing that the app we built acts much more like an actual app than a website and they want me to apply that to their project. The thing is, for the scale they want this applied to, the project should have never started in wordpress. They're trying to contort a CMS into something it's not. At the very least the only way react is going to play nice with their back end is to change the entire thing into a headless api.
This leaves me with telling them that the months of work they've put into the project were kind of a waste of time as they used the wrong tools from the outset. It's not that they didn't use react but that they didn't use any framework. Almost all of their front end manipulation is done by very hap hazard jQuery. The other issue is that they want to apply some very heavy data analysis to the back end and wordpress was never meant to do things like that so it's causing a massive slow down of the whole thing.
The person who would make the final decision on this has a very profit focused mind though (as a business owner should) and will really focus on 'time to market'. The idea of me saying the concept is great but the whole thing needs to be refurbished will immediately cause him second thoughts on anything I say after that. More so, as many of the original team members are unfamiliar with react, angular, or any other framework it puts them at an immediate loss. I can definitely understand the strength of building in what you know vs learning something new.
For example last week while discussing an npm package we'd used for the mobile version of our previous app the other team noticed we'd solved a big problem they were having and asked us to implement it for them. After looking at their code that's when I realized there was no way to use this npm module without setting up webpack or browserify in the project and they weren't about that at all. After 3 days we were able to write a vanilla js script that did what they needed but I have a feeling this uphill battle is what we'd be in for the entire time.
What is the best way to present all of this to them. I don't want to just say straight up "no we won't work on this as it is" but I also don't want my team taking ownership of the front end of the project only to take blame a few weeks or months from now when it can't perform as they want. Basically I feel like this is going to set us up to fail monumentally. | 2018/11/25 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/123398",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/94952/"
] | You don't get involved with another teams project over which you have no control in terms of enforcing what is used and how.
If they request something, you refer them to decision makers who can then ask you if they want. If they do then this is the point at which you treat it as your teams project and let them know what would be required, timeframes etc,.
Ideally you wouldn't touch it unless it becomes your responsibility along with the authority to do it your way. | Another possible outcome is that the manager decides the feature isn't important after all, or not important enough to rewrite what they have. You mention it will require great expense, but not how much it will help out. |
7,086 | I 'm new to Elementary OS , I'm adapting to the desktop and to their way of seeing things "I have a few questions . :
One is whether there is any way to put a new folder in the area of personal directories Files Pantheon [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GB1nL.png)
, I wanted to put a new one that "Work" is called, know how I can do.
The other question is if I set for documents showing the type icon extension instead of a preliminary vistra .
A greeting. | 2016/07/28 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/7086",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/5691/"
] | Click on "Carpeta Personal", create your Work file in Home (or wherever you want). Then right-click that new file and left click on Bookmark (or for you it's probably "Marcador" or something like that). Then it should be available on the left-hand panel.
I made a little slideshow for you: <https://goo.gl/photos/Zvk4KbZ3iMnHkJH36> | Right click on the folder you want to add and left click 'bookmark' in the menu that appears. |
7,086 | I 'm new to Elementary OS , I'm adapting to the desktop and to their way of seeing things "I have a few questions . :
One is whether there is any way to put a new folder in the area of personal directories Files Pantheon [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GB1nL.png)
, I wanted to put a new one that "Work" is called, know how I can do.
The other question is if I set for documents showing the type icon extension instead of a preliminary vistra .
A greeting. | 2016/07/28 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/7086",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/5691/"
] | You can drag and drop the folder too. Just look for the cursor to have a green plus sign and a line to appear indicating where in the list the folder will appear. | Right click on the folder you want to add and left click 'bookmark' in the menu that appears. |
7,086 | I 'm new to Elementary OS , I'm adapting to the desktop and to their way of seeing things "I have a few questions . :
One is whether there is any way to put a new folder in the area of personal directories Files Pantheon [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GB1nL.png)
, I wanted to put a new one that "Work" is called, know how I can do.
The other question is if I set for documents showing the type icon extension instead of a preliminary vistra .
A greeting. | 2016/07/28 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/7086",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/5691/"
] | Click on "Carpeta Personal", create your Work file in Home (or wherever you want). Then right-click that new file and left click on Bookmark (or for you it's probably "Marcador" or something like that). Then it should be available on the left-hand panel.
I made a little slideshow for you: <https://goo.gl/photos/Zvk4KbZ3iMnHkJH36> | You can drag and drop the folder too. Just look for the cursor to have a green plus sign and a line to appear indicating where in the list the folder will appear. |
3,163,775 | If I download a module which is not stable to run in Drupal (red color over download link), is this causing issues to my drupal installation even if it is not enabled ?
In other words, if I enable it, and use it.. could it cause issues to other modules or drupal core that remain there even after I've disabled it ?
thanks | 2010/07/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3163775",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/257022/"
] | If a bug in the module messes up configuration settings or other data in your database, these will remain even after you uninstalled the module. So yes, it could cause issues for other modules or Drupal core, even after removal.
Note that this could happen with 'stable' modules as well, as the decision on when to declare a module as 'ready for production' is more or less up to the maintainer!
This is one of many reasons to **never, ever** test new modules (stable or not) directly on a production install. Create a test/staging install first, install the new module(s) and test, test, test.
The same is valid for updates, even for Drupal core updates. **Always** do a test run on a separate install first (at the very least, make sure you have a working, restorable backup of your database and code that you can switch back to, in case anything goes wrong). | There are two things you need to do which may help
1. Clear the cache manually Under admin->performance
2. Uninstall the module (there is a tab at the top of the modules page to allow you to do this).
Modules which are well written should not affect your site after these steps are taken, but they may corrupt the data which other modules use. Which would lead to more difficult to fix issues. |
418,210 | What are the things I should be looking for when I produce a dependency graph?
Or to put it another way, what are the characteristics of a good looking graph vs a bad one?
Edit: The context here is my first look at my assemblies in NDepend. | 2009/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/418210",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/337/"
] | a dependency graph of what? classes? stored procedures?
cycles are bad... | If changing one dependency means you need to change a whole lot of others, it's bad.
But yea, some context could help. |
418,210 | What are the things I should be looking for when I produce a dependency graph?
Or to put it another way, what are the characteristics of a good looking graph vs a bad one?
Edit: The context here is my first look at my assemblies in NDepend. | 2009/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/418210",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/337/"
] | a dependency graph of what? classes? stored procedures?
cycles are bad... | I don't known what NDepend shows but artifacts that tend to get into many sections (particularly unrelated sections) of code would tend to be bad (IMHO). I've thought of that as "Cancer Code". |
418,210 | What are the things I should be looking for when I produce a dependency graph?
Or to put it another way, what are the characteristics of a good looking graph vs a bad one?
Edit: The context here is my first look at my assemblies in NDepend. | 2009/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/418210",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/337/"
] | a dependency graph of what? classes? stored procedures?
cycles are bad... | A speaker at a NFJS conference showed us some dependency graphs...
One smell he pointed out was to look for things with relationships to different functional parts of your codebase. These likely break encapsulation.
Also I would look at the general complexity of each section.. ones with lines all over are suspects. |
65,832,949 | I'm learning about goroutines and channels and have a question about what happens if multiple goroutines try fetching data from the same channel.
How does the go runtime makes sure that data in a channel that is being read by multiple goroutines is provided to only one of the goroutines waiting on the channel and not duplicated or sent to multiple goroutines.
Does the go runtime prevent race conditions when there are multiple goroutines trying to fetch data from the exact same channel? Is there some kind of ordering as to which of the waiting goroutines is given the data for instance First Come First Served? | 2021/01/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/65832949",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5163149/"
] | Channels are one of the primary ways for goroutines to synchronize with each other. Therefore they contain a mechanism to ensure that only one goroutine at a time is able to pull a data item from a channel and that the data item retrieved is not duplicated.
You can't really count on any particular sequence of multiple goroutines reading successfully from the same channel as which specific goroutine's read will complete depends on the multi-threading algorithm used.
See this discussion, *[Goroutines are cooperatively scheduled. Does that mean that goroutines that don't yield execution will cause goroutines to run one by one?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37469995/goroutines-are-cooperatively-scheduled-does-that-mean-that-goroutines-that-don)*
You can depend on if multiple goroutines are reading from the same channel. Then when there is data in the channel to be read, one of those goroutines will succeed in its read and the data read will not be read by any of the other goroutines that are waiting on a read from the channel to succeed.
See [Concurrency from golang-book.com](https://www.golang-book.com/books/intro/10) which explains concurrency and goroutines and channels.
See as well *[How to use channels to safely synchronise data in Go](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40133814/how-to-use-channels-to-safely-synchronise-data-in-golang)*.
See as well this answer which describes using channels rather than a synchronization primitive such as a mutex to maintain a dynamic list of listeners: *<https://stackoverflow.com/a/18897083/1466970>*
See also this long and somewhat exhausting description of [Anatomy of Channels in Go - Concurrency in Go](https://medium.com/rungo/anatomy-of-channels-in-go-concurrency-in-go-1ec336086adb). | There is a quite good analysis of Go channel internals here <https://codeburst.io/diving-deep-into-the-golang-channels-549fd4ed21a8>
Basically, the channel maintains an internal queue of goroutines waiting for the read operations. And when something is sent, it just selects one goroutine from that queue and feeds it with data. If there is no one waiting - data goes into a buffer or blocks the writer. |
1,581,818 | My laptop is connected to 2 external monitors (which makes 3 monitors with laptop inbuilt monitor). Windows 10 only offers "second screen only" but no "third screen only" option. Which means that to use one of the 2 external monitors, I need to unplug the other.
I know the monitors are well detected because I can (only) "extend" the desktop to both monitors. So I could work with 3 monitors on "extend" mode, but that's not what I'm looking for.
**How can I use the "third monitor only" without unplugging the second monitor?** (I need to unplug it several time per day which might damage the connections) | 2020/08/30 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1581818",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/235752/"
] | Following these steps seems to work
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OyXAF.png)
I discovered I could even add some hotkey to switch (and shut down) the monitors. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OzdxF.png)
\*edit: there is a little bug. If by mistake, I switch to a monitor that isn't powered, there are 2 problems:
1. it doesn't show as "second screen only" but as "extend"
2. it detects the wrong resolution size (it takes the size of the other external monitor. And changing its resolution on windows doesn't work (option grayed out), and changing it using the Intel's "graphic and media control panel" throw an error: intel graphic input signal out of range" ). I need to plug in and out the VGA connector to get it recognized.\* | In case you may be working with windows 11 now you can do the following:
1- Make sure you are in 2nd display-only mode, then go to display settings (by right-clicking on the home screen or just by pulling up settings).
2- Click the monitor that is labeled as 2.
3- In the section at the top that allows for display adjustment, click the drop-down menu directly right of identity, then select disconnect this display.
4- It will bring a pop-up menu asking if you want to keep the changes, click "Keep changes".
This should still keep it connected for when you change to extend or other monitor options but then disconnect it when you switch to 2nd display.
Apologies if anything is unclear. Not sure if this is plausible on windows 10. |
173,853 | I have heard the phrase "feeding the dragon" used to describe pouring time, resources, and energy into a situation that is self-perpetuating, caught in a positive feedback loop with negative consequences, or is growing out of control because of actions being taken. I think "giving a mouse a cookie" has similar meaning but with much less harsh connotations. Searches for the phrase online reveals many hits on Chinese economics and references to another phrase, "chasing the dragon" none of which shed some light on the meaning of "*feeding* the dragon". I have not been able to find much else. What is the etymology of this phrase? | 2014/05/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/173853",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/75188/"
] | The phrase appears to be a straightforward metaphor, as Dispensador observes. One early instance where the dragon really is a dragon occurs in Karl Stieler, Hans Wachenhusen, and Friedrich Hacklander, [*The Rhine From Its Source to the Sea*](http://books.google.com/books?id=dk0MAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA315&dq=%22feeding+the+dragon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9HeHU-KKJMT7oASA5oHACA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22feeding%20the%20dragon%22&f=false) (1878):
>
> Another version of the legend [of the Drachenfels] is, that by the advice of their priests, the pagans of the mountain were in the habit of **feeding the dragon** with the bodies of their prisoners, and in order to keep him in good humour they were obliged constantly to provide him with fresh victims.
>
>
>
But the phrase "feed the dragon" has been used metaphorically even earlier. From "[The Substitute](http://books.google.com/books?id=WEMxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=%22feed+the+dragon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sm-HU4jIBoPuoASyyoGYDQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22feed%20the%20dragon%22&f=false)" in *The St. James Magazine and United Empire Review* (December 1863 to March 1864):
>
> The levy was being vigorously pushed on, at that very time, throughout the north-eastern States, and Colonel Zerubbabel Wilks, with his regiment, had arrived in New London for the purpose of enforcing the draft, in case of resistance being offered to the Commissioners. Men must be had to **feed the dragon** of war, and bounties had long since failed of their primitive effect. There had been much growling and talk of armed opposition on the part of the labouring population of the little seaport, but the presence of Wilks and his Zouaves, coupled with the knowledge that Colonel Schurtzer and his marauding regiment of Germans, renowned for their lax discipline and rough treatment of civilians, were encamped on the banks of the Connecticut River, caused the discontent to evaporate in harmless grumbling.
>
>
>
The dragon here is a destructive engine that requires constant refreshment of human (and monetary) fuel, but is so fearsome that people take the path of least resistance in dealing with it. A one-word term for this policy might be *appeasement*, though there is some irony in applying that term (in this instance) to feeding a dragon of war, rather than to feeding a dragon against whom we fear to go to war.
Similarly, from "[The Magical Cure](http://books.google.com/books?id=Ldo1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA263&dq=%22feed+the+dragon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sm-HU4jIBoPuoASyyoGYDQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22feed%20the%20dragon%22&f=false)," in *The Health Reformer* (May 1871):
>
> My good friend, you are in a terrible situation ; but I can help you if you will follow my directions. You have a horrible animal in your stomach—a dragon with seven mouths. I must talk with the dragon myself, face to face, so you must come to me. But in the first place you must on no account either drive in a carriage or ride on horseback—you must travel on the shoemaker's nags ; otherwise you will disturb the dragon and he will devour your intestines in his anger. In the second place, you dare not eat anything but the simplest food ; in the morning, a little soup with vegetables sliced in it ; at mid-day, a sausage and one plate of vegetables ; the same at evening, only an egg ion place of the sausage. Whatever else you may eat will only **feed the dragon**, who will grow larger, and your tailor will very soon be obliged to yield his place to the undertaker.
>
>
>
In this case, the dragon is internal: an unhealthful combination of diet and inactivity. | IT seems to "feed the dragon" is a metaphor for supplying more fuel to that which does not serve us. And yet, a dragon is not a beast, nor is it a negative, it's a myth, a metaphor.
Dragon's have power, if the dragon is within the psyche it needs food to thrive to be powerful and must be fed.
We fear the dragon, and we resist feeding it, we restrict the flow to the dragon and the dragon becomes the latent hunger that drives the behaviors, but this is not the dragon, its the result of not feeding, purposefully avoiding feeding the dragon, restricting the dragon at ones own peril.
During our drumming journey tonight, several people had a similar experience with a dragon. All of us actually, and the dragon left a clear message with one to "Feed your dragon".
The evidence to restricting life's flow would unbalance and drive compulsive behavior... as will any restriction. A happy dragon would be one that holds power and is regularly fed and with no fear of being denied what it most needs - it's food.
To starve a dragon would seem to unleash the monster, and at your peril on your own head be it. |
173,853 | I have heard the phrase "feeding the dragon" used to describe pouring time, resources, and energy into a situation that is self-perpetuating, caught in a positive feedback loop with negative consequences, or is growing out of control because of actions being taken. I think "giving a mouse a cookie" has similar meaning but with much less harsh connotations. Searches for the phrase online reveals many hits on Chinese economics and references to another phrase, "chasing the dragon" none of which shed some light on the meaning of "*feeding* the dragon". I have not been able to find much else. What is the etymology of this phrase? | 2014/05/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/173853",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/75188/"
] | I would interpret the phrase as a derivation of ***to feed the beast***. The earliest Google Books results for this phrase refer to the literal feeding of animals, but by 1900 we have uses such as
>
> They perfectly understand the utility of “[feeding the beast](http://books.google.com/books?id=oJhyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA245#v=onepage&q&f=false)” with a nice dinner to keep him good-tempered
>
>
>
in reference to keeping a potentially [beastly](http://www.collinsdictionry.com/dictionary/english/beastly) person happy, or of subduing *the beast within*, representing the savage instincts of humanity that ration and civilization keep in check. That phrase may have [originated in](http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.10.ix.html) translations of Plato's *Republic*:
>
> I mean those which are awake when the reasoning and human and ruling power is asleep; then **the wild beast within us**, gorged with meat or drink, starts up and having shaken off sleep, goes forth to satisfy his desires; and there is no conceivable folly or crime … which at such a time, when he has parted company with all shame and sense, a man may not be ready to commit.
>
>
>
To *feed the beast*, then, is to surrender to something wild and uncontrollable. Perhaps you feed it just enough to stay quiet, hoping to tame it— but perhaps you indulge it, to make it stronger and more vicious (not unlike *adding fuel to the fire*).
You see results relating to China because the dragon is a synecdoche for China, which is being viewed as a metaphorical beast in some way (after all, *feeding the panda* or *feeding the crane* is not nearly as threatening). Similarly, you see uses like *[feed the bear](http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2007/03/01/dont-feed-the-bear/)* for indulging Russia. To *starve the beast* is to end one's obeisance to the beast, enduring the consequences, in hopes of being freed of it; for fiscal conservatives, for example, *to [starve the beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast)* is to deprive the government of revenue under the theory that it would force the government to reduce spending.
---
*Chasing the dragon* similarly uses a dragon to represent China, but is an unrelated phrase. It may refer to competing with China, or it may mean an impossible pursuit, or something else; it is hard to say without context. | The etymology seems to be related to morality:
**Dragonism** is defined as "unremitting watchfulness" and there is a historical reference in clergyman Joshua Lacy Wilson's **Episcopal Methodism; or Dragonism Exhibited** (1811)
Wilson, a Presbyterian clergyman, and professor of "moral philosophy
and logic" campaigned against *theaters, dancing and
Masonic order* in the above-mentioned '**Dragonism**' pamphlet. -"A companion biographical reference work to Who's who in America."
Physical Description: v. 27 cm. (1607-1896)
&
The etymology may be in the [oroborus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros) (uroboros, oureboros) or the symbol depicting a dragon eating its own tail. - referred to in the **Pistis Sophia** (Gnostic text) (3rd -4th centuries AD) |
173,853 | I have heard the phrase "feeding the dragon" used to describe pouring time, resources, and energy into a situation that is self-perpetuating, caught in a positive feedback loop with negative consequences, or is growing out of control because of actions being taken. I think "giving a mouse a cookie" has similar meaning but with much less harsh connotations. Searches for the phrase online reveals many hits on Chinese economics and references to another phrase, "chasing the dragon" none of which shed some light on the meaning of "*feeding* the dragon". I have not been able to find much else. What is the etymology of this phrase? | 2014/05/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/173853",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/75188/"
] | I always thought that "feeding the dragon" came from the opium dens of Victorian England, where addicts would pour more and more time and money into their habit only to reinforce their addiction.
As mentioned in several other answers, "the dragon" part of the phrase came from the Chinese connection, although whether as a direct reference or because the dragon symbol was frequently used to suggest a "Chinese" parlor of this nature I'm not sure. | IT seems to "feed the dragon" is a metaphor for supplying more fuel to that which does not serve us. And yet, a dragon is not a beast, nor is it a negative, it's a myth, a metaphor.
Dragon's have power, if the dragon is within the psyche it needs food to thrive to be powerful and must be fed.
We fear the dragon, and we resist feeding it, we restrict the flow to the dragon and the dragon becomes the latent hunger that drives the behaviors, but this is not the dragon, its the result of not feeding, purposefully avoiding feeding the dragon, restricting the dragon at ones own peril.
During our drumming journey tonight, several people had a similar experience with a dragon. All of us actually, and the dragon left a clear message with one to "Feed your dragon".
The evidence to restricting life's flow would unbalance and drive compulsive behavior... as will any restriction. A happy dragon would be one that holds power and is regularly fed and with no fear of being denied what it most needs - it's food.
To starve a dragon would seem to unleash the monster, and at your peril on your own head be it. |
173,853 | I have heard the phrase "feeding the dragon" used to describe pouring time, resources, and energy into a situation that is self-perpetuating, caught in a positive feedback loop with negative consequences, or is growing out of control because of actions being taken. I think "giving a mouse a cookie" has similar meaning but with much less harsh connotations. Searches for the phrase online reveals many hits on Chinese economics and references to another phrase, "chasing the dragon" none of which shed some light on the meaning of "*feeding* the dragon". I have not been able to find much else. What is the etymology of this phrase? | 2014/05/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/173853",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/75188/"
] | The phrase appears to be a straightforward metaphor, as Dispensador observes. One early instance where the dragon really is a dragon occurs in Karl Stieler, Hans Wachenhusen, and Friedrich Hacklander, [*The Rhine From Its Source to the Sea*](http://books.google.com/books?id=dk0MAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA315&dq=%22feeding+the+dragon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9HeHU-KKJMT7oASA5oHACA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22feeding%20the%20dragon%22&f=false) (1878):
>
> Another version of the legend [of the Drachenfels] is, that by the advice of their priests, the pagans of the mountain were in the habit of **feeding the dragon** with the bodies of their prisoners, and in order to keep him in good humour they were obliged constantly to provide him with fresh victims.
>
>
>
But the phrase "feed the dragon" has been used metaphorically even earlier. From "[The Substitute](http://books.google.com/books?id=WEMxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=%22feed+the+dragon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sm-HU4jIBoPuoASyyoGYDQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22feed%20the%20dragon%22&f=false)" in *The St. James Magazine and United Empire Review* (December 1863 to March 1864):
>
> The levy was being vigorously pushed on, at that very time, throughout the north-eastern States, and Colonel Zerubbabel Wilks, with his regiment, had arrived in New London for the purpose of enforcing the draft, in case of resistance being offered to the Commissioners. Men must be had to **feed the dragon** of war, and bounties had long since failed of their primitive effect. There had been much growling and talk of armed opposition on the part of the labouring population of the little seaport, but the presence of Wilks and his Zouaves, coupled with the knowledge that Colonel Schurtzer and his marauding regiment of Germans, renowned for their lax discipline and rough treatment of civilians, were encamped on the banks of the Connecticut River, caused the discontent to evaporate in harmless grumbling.
>
>
>
The dragon here is a destructive engine that requires constant refreshment of human (and monetary) fuel, but is so fearsome that people take the path of least resistance in dealing with it. A one-word term for this policy might be *appeasement*, though there is some irony in applying that term (in this instance) to feeding a dragon of war, rather than to feeding a dragon against whom we fear to go to war.
Similarly, from "[The Magical Cure](http://books.google.com/books?id=Ldo1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA263&dq=%22feed+the+dragon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sm-HU4jIBoPuoASyyoGYDQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22feed%20the%20dragon%22&f=false)," in *The Health Reformer* (May 1871):
>
> My good friend, you are in a terrible situation ; but I can help you if you will follow my directions. You have a horrible animal in your stomach—a dragon with seven mouths. I must talk with the dragon myself, face to face, so you must come to me. But in the first place you must on no account either drive in a carriage or ride on horseback—you must travel on the shoemaker's nags ; otherwise you will disturb the dragon and he will devour your intestines in his anger. In the second place, you dare not eat anything but the simplest food ; in the morning, a little soup with vegetables sliced in it ; at mid-day, a sausage and one plate of vegetables ; the same at evening, only an egg ion place of the sausage. Whatever else you may eat will only **feed the dragon**, who will grow larger, and your tailor will very soon be obliged to yield his place to the undertaker.
>
>
>
In this case, the dragon is internal: an unhealthful combination of diet and inactivity. | I always thought that "feeding the dragon" came from the opium dens of Victorian England, where addicts would pour more and more time and money into their habit only to reinforce their addiction.
As mentioned in several other answers, "the dragon" part of the phrase came from the Chinese connection, although whether as a direct reference or because the dragon symbol was frequently used to suggest a "Chinese" parlor of this nature I'm not sure. |
173,853 | I have heard the phrase "feeding the dragon" used to describe pouring time, resources, and energy into a situation that is self-perpetuating, caught in a positive feedback loop with negative consequences, or is growing out of control because of actions being taken. I think "giving a mouse a cookie" has similar meaning but with much less harsh connotations. Searches for the phrase online reveals many hits on Chinese economics and references to another phrase, "chasing the dragon" none of which shed some light on the meaning of "*feeding* the dragon". I have not been able to find much else. What is the etymology of this phrase? | 2014/05/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/173853",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/75188/"
] | I would interpret the phrase as a derivation of ***to feed the beast***. The earliest Google Books results for this phrase refer to the literal feeding of animals, but by 1900 we have uses such as
>
> They perfectly understand the utility of “[feeding the beast](http://books.google.com/books?id=oJhyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA245#v=onepage&q&f=false)” with a nice dinner to keep him good-tempered
>
>
>
in reference to keeping a potentially [beastly](http://www.collinsdictionry.com/dictionary/english/beastly) person happy, or of subduing *the beast within*, representing the savage instincts of humanity that ration and civilization keep in check. That phrase may have [originated in](http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.10.ix.html) translations of Plato's *Republic*:
>
> I mean those which are awake when the reasoning and human and ruling power is asleep; then **the wild beast within us**, gorged with meat or drink, starts up and having shaken off sleep, goes forth to satisfy his desires; and there is no conceivable folly or crime … which at such a time, when he has parted company with all shame and sense, a man may not be ready to commit.
>
>
>
To *feed the beast*, then, is to surrender to something wild and uncontrollable. Perhaps you feed it just enough to stay quiet, hoping to tame it— but perhaps you indulge it, to make it stronger and more vicious (not unlike *adding fuel to the fire*).
You see results relating to China because the dragon is a synecdoche for China, which is being viewed as a metaphorical beast in some way (after all, *feeding the panda* or *feeding the crane* is not nearly as threatening). Similarly, you see uses like *[feed the bear](http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2007/03/01/dont-feed-the-bear/)* for indulging Russia. To *starve the beast* is to end one's obeisance to the beast, enduring the consequences, in hopes of being freed of it; for fiscal conservatives, for example, *to [starve the beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast)* is to deprive the government of revenue under the theory that it would force the government to reduce spending.
---
*Chasing the dragon* similarly uses a dragon to represent China, but is an unrelated phrase. It may refer to competing with China, or it may mean an impossible pursuit, or something else; it is hard to say without context. | As a attorney who represents people charged with [drug crimes](http://www.idefendva.com/fairfax-drug-lawyer) I know that "feeding the dragon" is actually not the correct phrase. The correct phraseology is "chasing the dragon." I always tell my clients that the secret to chasing the dragon is to make sure that they never actually "catch the dragon." |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.