qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5,426 | I have 2 SharePoint WFE Servers, due to some changes by my previous administrator, one of the WFE is out of synch. Can you please suggest.. what could be the issue?
Example: When a create a new web application, it creates the website only on One WFE and not on other. ANother thing.. when I am creating a new web application.. "Opeartion in Progress " continues for ever...
Please suggest. | 2010/09/12 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/5426",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | restarting the timer services should resolve the issue if the server is healthy.
You can also run stsadm -o execadmsvcjobs to initiate any pending changes immediately. | We faced a similar problem in MOSS 2007 environment . where the webapplication is created in one server and it is not created in the other.
The steps which we did was delete the webapplication first
Restart the timer services in both the WFE and try creating a webapplication . This should solve |
12,675,520 | How to create an embedded resource in a Web Site project?
In a web application project I can change the 'build action' through the properties window of a file. In an Web Site project there is no properties window. I noticed, in a web application project, the .csproj file is changed when you change the build action of a file. In a Web site project there is no .csproj file of course.
Is it possible to create an embedded resource in an Web Site project?
In mainwhile, we changed the project to a web application project. But I'm still curious.. | 2012/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12675520",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/464668/"
] | You can't add an embedded resource, because web site projects are not pre-compiled. There is no generated dll to embed the resource in. | You can still get a properties window on a Web Site project - do you mean that you want to mark an item in your website project to be included for deployment? If so that would be done by setting the Build Action property for the selected file in your solution to Content.
Embedded Resource is an option but is aimed at items you wish to embed within the compiled DLL corresponding to your App\_Code. You would then need to load the resource from your assembly. |
23,228,444 | In the similar question [Sonar-Runner talks to the local database](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17106921/sonar-runner-talks-to-the-local-database) "David RACODON - SonarSource" wrote:
>
> The SonarQube Runner needs to talk to both the database and the web server.
>
>
>
I'm will try to understand why Sonar Runner talks do sonar database, because somebody who use sonar runner will known database user and password and do anything on it, for example change admin password and take control on Sonar instance.
On the other hand, at sonar runner docs (<http://docs.sonarqube.org/display/SONAR/Installing+and+Configuring+SonarQube+Runner>) I see info:
>
> The SonarQube Runner is recommended as the default launcher to analyze a project with SonarQube.
>
>
>
So, it means that I should give database password to each developer of my team? This is inconsistent. Could somebody explain it? | 2014/04/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/23228444",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3049486/"
] | SonarQube needs to talk to the database in order to save the results (metrics) of the analysis.
I will not talk about all the different possibilities that you can implement in order to avoid SonarQube's users to know the admin login, but here is the one I use:
1. SonarQube + Runner
2. Jenkins with Sonar plugin
This post (on my blog) is 1 year old <http://qualilogy.com/en/install-sonarqube-the-sonarqub-jenkins-plugin/>) but it will give you an idea.
You already have SonarQube + Runner installed.
1. Install Jenkins
2. Install SonarQube plugin for Jenkins
3. Configure the plugin:
* Location of Runner
* SonarQube dashboard URL
* Connection to the DB : password is encrypted.
Then, when configuring and running an analysis from Jenkins, no need to use any DB login as a parameter.
Hope it helps. | As of version 5.2, this is no longer the case. Now, all DB credentials/connections are managed by Sonar itself, not the runner. |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | There's also *refectory*:
>
> A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions. One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries. It is derived from the Latin reficere: to remake or restore, via Late Latin refectorium, which means a place one goes to be restored. [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
the root of which it shares with *restaurant*:
>
> Modern restaurants ... emerged only in 18th-century Europe, although similar establishments had also developed in China. A restaurant owner is called a restaurateur; both words derive from the French verb *restaurer*, meaning "to restore". [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
Oh, and of course *beanery*, *hash house*, *greasy spoon*, & *automat*. | Some common "eating place" words are:
>
> bar, cafeteria, café, canteen, chophouse, coffee shop, diner, dining room, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, eating place, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint\*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet\*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole [src](http://thesaurus.com/browse/restaurant)
>
>
> |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | There's also *refectory*:
>
> A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions. One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries. It is derived from the Latin reficere: to remake or restore, via Late Latin refectorium, which means a place one goes to be restored. [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
the root of which it shares with *restaurant*:
>
> Modern restaurants ... emerged only in 18th-century Europe, although similar establishments had also developed in China. A restaurant owner is called a restaurateur; both words derive from the French verb *restaurer*, meaning "to restore". [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
Oh, and of course *beanery*, *hash house*, *greasy spoon*, & *automat*. | Maybe you're looking for the word "**eatery**".
>
> One of the best eateries in town.
>
>
>
Also the phrase "**eating place**" is very common.
There are some other words that I don't think you're looking for them. But you can also check them out.
Other words:
***cafe***, **self-service**, **diner**, **bistro**, **cafeteria**, **canteen**, **brasserie** |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | Some common "eating place" words are:
>
> bar, cafeteria, café, canteen, chophouse, coffee shop, diner, dining room, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, eating place, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint\*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet\*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole [src](http://thesaurus.com/browse/restaurant)
>
>
> | A restaurant, a diner, an eatery, and a café are all places where people go to eat meals. |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria, restaurant, mess hall (military), galley (Navy), and so on.
Be aware that "dormitory" has a specific meaning, and is usually associated with schools, especially colleges. There are other words for sleeping place, including bedroom. If you're wondering if there are any words for eating place that are derived from the Latin meaning "eat" (as *dormitory* is from the Latin word for "sleep"), I'm not aware of any. | Some common "eating place" words are:
>
> bar, cafeteria, café, canteen, chophouse, coffee shop, diner, dining room, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, eating place, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint\*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet\*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole [src](http://thesaurus.com/browse/restaurant)
>
>
> |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | There's also *refectory*:
>
> A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions. One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries. It is derived from the Latin reficere: to remake or restore, via Late Latin refectorium, which means a place one goes to be restored. [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
the root of which it shares with *restaurant*:
>
> Modern restaurants ... emerged only in 18th-century Europe, although similar establishments had also developed in China. A restaurant owner is called a restaurateur; both words derive from the French verb *restaurer*, meaning "to restore". [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
Oh, and of course *beanery*, *hash house*, *greasy spoon*, & *automat*. | There is no single word for eating place, there are many.
* Restaurant
* Diner
* Cafeteria
* Eatery
You have to make a choice. |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | There's also *refectory*:
>
> A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions. One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries. It is derived from the Latin reficere: to remake or restore, via Late Latin refectorium, which means a place one goes to be restored. [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
the root of which it shares with *restaurant*:
>
> Modern restaurants ... emerged only in 18th-century Europe, although similar establishments had also developed in China. A restaurant owner is called a restaurateur; both words derive from the French verb *restaurer*, meaning "to restore". [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
Oh, and of course *beanery*, *hash house*, *greasy spoon*, & *automat*. | A restaurant, a diner, an eatery, and a café are all places where people go to eat meals. |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | There's also *refectory*:
>
> A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions. One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries. It is derived from the Latin reficere: to remake or restore, via Late Latin refectorium, which means a place one goes to be restored. [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
the root of which it shares with *restaurant*:
>
> Modern restaurants ... emerged only in 18th-century Europe, although similar establishments had also developed in China. A restaurant owner is called a restaurateur; both words derive from the French verb *restaurer*, meaning "to restore". [Wikipedia]
>
>
>
Oh, and of course *beanery*, *hash house*, *greasy spoon*, & *automat*. | There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria, restaurant, mess hall (military), galley (Navy), and so on.
Be aware that "dormitory" has a specific meaning, and is usually associated with schools, especially colleges. There are other words for sleeping place, including bedroom. If you're wondering if there are any words for eating place that are derived from the Latin meaning "eat" (as *dormitory* is from the Latin word for "sleep"), I'm not aware of any. |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | Maybe you're looking for the word "**eatery**".
>
> One of the best eateries in town.
>
>
>
Also the phrase "**eating place**" is very common.
There are some other words that I don't think you're looking for them. But you can also check them out.
Other words:
***cafe***, **self-service**, **diner**, **bistro**, **cafeteria**, **canteen**, **brasserie** | There is no single word for eating place, there are many.
* Restaurant
* Diner
* Cafeteria
* Eatery
You have to make a choice. |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | Maybe you're looking for the word "**eatery**".
>
> One of the best eateries in town.
>
>
>
Also the phrase "**eating place**" is very common.
There are some other words that I don't think you're looking for them. But you can also check them out.
Other words:
***cafe***, **self-service**, **diner**, **bistro**, **cafeteria**, **canteen**, **brasserie** | A restaurant, a diner, an eatery, and a café are all places where people go to eat meals. |
12,918 | The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"? | 2011/02/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2019/"
] | There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria, restaurant, mess hall (military), galley (Navy), and so on.
Be aware that "dormitory" has a specific meaning, and is usually associated with schools, especially colleges. There are other words for sleeping place, including bedroom. If you're wondering if there are any words for eating place that are derived from the Latin meaning "eat" (as *dormitory* is from the Latin word for "sleep"), I'm not aware of any. | There is no single word for eating place, there are many.
* Restaurant
* Diner
* Cafeteria
* Eatery
You have to make a choice. |
53,124 | In the light of the [recently-added feature](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3155/show-updates-to-favorite-questions-in-recent-activity/3808#3808) to automatically notify the user of any changes to "favorited" questions, this term "favorite" is becoming less and less accurate. [Some users don't even realize that the best way to "follow" a question is to click the star icon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53114/loads-of-comments-still-miss-intended-recipient/53116#53116) (see the first comment). In fact, they are pretty much equivalent now -- but I feel that the term "favorite" does not really accurately describe its most common use.
Personally, I don't "favorite" some questions purely because of the wording -- I may want to follow question X (e.g. if I have asked a question as a comment), but I don't want to imply that I think it is a *good* question, let alone a favourite of mine. If this classification were renamed "followed" or "subscribed", I would be much more willing to temporarily click the little star in order to receive change notifications.
Alternatively, "favorite" questions and "followed" questions could be treated separately -- the former would go back to how they were before this new feature (users are rewarded, via badges, for the number of users who say they like the question), and the change notifications are moved to the new designation of "followed questions". However, I'm not yet convinced that there needs to be a distinction between these two states; I'm interested in what others think. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53124",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/132636/"
] | I wouldn't suggest the word "followed" because the term has a [different connotation](http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq) in Area 51. If there is a need for different terminology, I would suggest "bookmark." The already-existing web term is consistent with its function. | If it's your "favorite", why wouldn't you be interested in things happening to it?
It just seems odd to me that one would say
>
> This question is one of my favorites!
>
>
>
And then
>
> ... but I am totally uninterested in any new answers or changes to it!
>
>
>
That said, there is this request, which I could support:
<https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/51947/allow-users-to-opt-out-of-all-favorite-notifications> |
53,124 | In the light of the [recently-added feature](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3155/show-updates-to-favorite-questions-in-recent-activity/3808#3808) to automatically notify the user of any changes to "favorited" questions, this term "favorite" is becoming less and less accurate. [Some users don't even realize that the best way to "follow" a question is to click the star icon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53114/loads-of-comments-still-miss-intended-recipient/53116#53116) (see the first comment). In fact, they are pretty much equivalent now -- but I feel that the term "favorite" does not really accurately describe its most common use.
Personally, I don't "favorite" some questions purely because of the wording -- I may want to follow question X (e.g. if I have asked a question as a comment), but I don't want to imply that I think it is a *good* question, let alone a favourite of mine. If this classification were renamed "followed" or "subscribed", I would be much more willing to temporarily click the little star in order to receive change notifications.
Alternatively, "favorite" questions and "followed" questions could be treated separately -- the former would go back to how they were before this new feature (users are rewarded, via badges, for the number of users who say they like the question), and the change notifications are moved to the new designation of "followed questions". However, I'm not yet convinced that there needs to be a distinction between these two states; I'm interested in what others think. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53124",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/132636/"
] | The name “favorite” is definitely misleading. E.g. see [Why not get reputation when your question is marked a favorite by somebody?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8457/why-not-get-reputation-when-your-question-is-marked-a-favorite-by-somebody/97314#97314)
If favorites will be renamed to BOOKMARKs, it will avoid confusion. | If it's your "favorite", why wouldn't you be interested in things happening to it?
It just seems odd to me that one would say
>
> This question is one of my favorites!
>
>
>
And then
>
> ... but I am totally uninterested in any new answers or changes to it!
>
>
>
That said, there is this request, which I could support:
<https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/51947/allow-users-to-opt-out-of-all-favorite-notifications> |
53,124 | In the light of the [recently-added feature](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3155/show-updates-to-favorite-questions-in-recent-activity/3808#3808) to automatically notify the user of any changes to "favorited" questions, this term "favorite" is becoming less and less accurate. [Some users don't even realize that the best way to "follow" a question is to click the star icon](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53114/loads-of-comments-still-miss-intended-recipient/53116#53116) (see the first comment). In fact, they are pretty much equivalent now -- but I feel that the term "favorite" does not really accurately describe its most common use.
Personally, I don't "favorite" some questions purely because of the wording -- I may want to follow question X (e.g. if I have asked a question as a comment), but I don't want to imply that I think it is a *good* question, let alone a favourite of mine. If this classification were renamed "followed" or "subscribed", I would be much more willing to temporarily click the little star in order to receive change notifications.
Alternatively, "favorite" questions and "followed" questions could be treated separately -- the former would go back to how they were before this new feature (users are rewarded, via badges, for the number of users who say they like the question), and the change notifications are moved to the new designation of "followed questions". However, I'm not yet convinced that there needs to be a distinction between these two states; I'm interested in what others think. | 2010/06/09 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53124",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/132636/"
] | I wouldn't suggest the word "followed" because the term has a [different connotation](http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq) in Area 51. If there is a need for different terminology, I would suggest "bookmark." The already-existing web term is consistent with its function. | The name “favorite” is definitely misleading. E.g. see [Why not get reputation when your question is marked a favorite by somebody?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8457/why-not-get-reputation-when-your-question-is-marked-a-favorite-by-somebody/97314#97314)
If favorites will be renamed to BOOKMARKs, it will avoid confusion. |
178 | This question [Kiel traduki Esperante tiun ĉi ludkarton?](https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/questions/2486/kiel-traduki-esperante-tiun-%c4%89i-ludkarton) requests a translation of the text of a playing card, not any specific word or phrase. Is it outside the topic for this site? | 2016/12/22 | [
"https://esperanto.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/178",
"https://esperanto.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://esperanto.meta.stackexchange.com/users/60/"
] | word-difference: you ask for the difference between **words**
word-choice: you ask which word you **should** use in a **specific context**
The emphasis can be very different. With "word-choice" you can ask opinion about if the word is uzinda or is useable in a specific context. "word-difference" is much more about the meaning, and not the usability and uzindability. | No, since they aren't synonyms. [word-difference](https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/word-difference "show questions tagged 'word-difference'") is for questions asking about the difference between two words; [word-choice](https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/word-choice "show questions tagged 'word-choice'") is for questions about which word should be used, given a list of words.
Clearly, since Stack Exchange sites expect well-scoped questions, I would generally expect [word-difference](https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/word-difference "show questions tagged 'word-difference'") questions to make clear in which context the OP is asking; questions should not be about the difference between two words in general, since that would probably make the question too broad and less or no helpful to future users (which is the target of any Stack Exchange site, together the user who asked the question).
In the same way, [word-choice](https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/word-choice "show questions tagged 'word-choice'") question should not ask for choosing a word from the full dictionary; the OP should make clear which words they think could be used. |
7,803,520 | I'm looking for a tool that will play nicely with Python.
Except for my Python requirement, my question is the same as this [one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74879/any-tools-to-generate-an-xsd-schema-from-an-xml-instance-document):
>
> "I am looking for a tool which will take an XML instance document and output a corresponding XSD schema."
>
>
> | 2011/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7803520",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/917272/"
] | According to the [PyCharm docs](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/pycharm/2016.1/generating-xml-schema-from-instance-document.html "PyCharm docs"), PyCharm has a facility for this. This is not exactly accessible by a program as an API. You are probably better off using [XML Schema Learner](https://github.com/kore/XML-Schema-learner) as a separate program since it is a command line program (subprocess friendly!). | Are you looking for something like [pyxsd](http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyxsd)? (primarily used for validation against a schema) Or maybe [PyXB](http://pyxb.sourceforge.net/)? (can generate classes based on xml) Otherwise, I don't think there's a tool [yet] that will generate the schema from within Python. Can you do it on demand using something like xsd.exe? Does it have to be programmatic/repeatable? |
7,803,520 | I'm looking for a tool that will play nicely with Python.
Except for my Python requirement, my question is the same as this [one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74879/any-tools-to-generate-an-xsd-schema-from-an-xml-instance-document):
>
> "I am looking for a tool which will take an XML instance document and output a corresponding XSD schema."
>
>
> | 2011/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7803520",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/917272/"
] | According to the [PyCharm docs](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/pycharm/2016.1/generating-xml-schema-from-instance-document.html "PyCharm docs"), PyCharm has a facility for this. This is not exactly accessible by a program as an API. You are probably better off using [XML Schema Learner](https://github.com/kore/XML-Schema-learner) as a separate program since it is a command line program (subprocess friendly!). | Currently, there is no module that will run within your python program and do this conversion. But I see the problem of creating a XSD schema from XML as a tooling problem. It's the kind of functionality that I'll use once, to get a schema started but after that I'll be maintaining the schema myself. From reading a single XML file the XSD generator will create a starting point for a real schema, it cannot infer all the functionality and options offered by XSD.
Basically, I don't see the need to have this conversion run as a module inside of my code, generating new XSDs every time the XML changes. After all, it's the schema that defines the XML not the other way around.
As end-user pointed out you could use xsd.exe but you might also want to look at other tools such as [trang](http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/trang.html) (a bit old) for Java and [stylusstudio](http://www.stylusstudio.com/) (XML tool). |
498,597 | ok so as stated in the subject line i have an HP DL380 G7 running esxi 5.0 free and an ILO3. Is there any way for me to get some decent monitoring of the hardware without paying any extra money for a vmware license which allows me to set the SNMP community string, or without needing to purchase HP SIM? I don't seem to be able to get to the <https://[hostname]:2381> management page and from what i've read, that's linux/windows only. Also the firewall of esxi free doesn't seem to be able unblock that port for me. I seem to be receiving test traps from the device to my target server but nothing else.
What iv'e tried so far:
-logging into the ilo and setting trap destinations. That allows me to get test traps but i don't get any alerts when the drive status changes. This makes sense since I didn't see any place to setup an alert based on an event
-using VMA (vmware management assistant) to set the SNMP community string
-setting the esxi free firewall to accept connections on port 2381, though that seems like a dead end.
Any words of wisdom from someone else who has torn out their hair would be welcome! | 2013/04/11 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/498597",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/103897/"
] | This limitation is created to "help" you decide to purchase the paid version.
However if you enable SNMP during the evaluation period the service will remain active.
It is also possible to monitor the ESXi server via CIM/WBEM. See: <http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2010/04/hardware-health-monitoring-via-cim.html> | I'm a little curious about what you were expecting...
There's no HP System Management Page at port 2381 for ESXi installations. However, [HP Systems Insight Manager (HP SIM)](http://h18013.www1.hp.com/products/servers/management/hpsim/index.html?jumpid=go/hpsim) is free and available for download. It's overkill for one host, though.
* Add the HP management agents to the ESXi host. [You will find them here](http://h20566.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/template.PAGE/public/psi/swdHome/?sp4ts.oid=4091432&spf_p.tpst=swdMain&spf_p.prp_swdMain=wsrp-navigationalState=swEnvOID%253D4141%257CswLang%253D%257Caction%253DlistDriver&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken), along with installation instructions. These will give you some hardware insight through the vSphere client. In particular, this adds storage, ILO and some other platform-specific sensors.
* Using the hp-tools bundle, you get ESXi console-based storage and ILO utilities.
Also see: [How do you monitor your HP hardware while running virtual servers?](https://serverfault.com/questions/451190/how-do-you-monitor-your-hp-hardware-while-running-virtual-servers/451231#451231)
and: [How to find out more hardware details using only ESXi4.1 and (possibly) shell](https://serverfault.com/questions/313843/how-to-find-out-more-hardware-details-using-only-esxi4-1-and-possibly-shell/313884#313884) |
498,597 | ok so as stated in the subject line i have an HP DL380 G7 running esxi 5.0 free and an ILO3. Is there any way for me to get some decent monitoring of the hardware without paying any extra money for a vmware license which allows me to set the SNMP community string, or without needing to purchase HP SIM? I don't seem to be able to get to the <https://[hostname]:2381> management page and from what i've read, that's linux/windows only. Also the firewall of esxi free doesn't seem to be able unblock that port for me. I seem to be receiving test traps from the device to my target server but nothing else.
What iv'e tried so far:
-logging into the ilo and setting trap destinations. That allows me to get test traps but i don't get any alerts when the drive status changes. This makes sense since I didn't see any place to setup an alert based on an event
-using VMA (vmware management assistant) to set the SNMP community string
-setting the esxi free firewall to accept connections on port 2381, though that seems like a dead end.
Any words of wisdom from someone else who has torn out their hair would be welcome! | 2013/04/11 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/498597",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/103897/"
] | This limitation is created to "help" you decide to purchase the paid version.
However if you enable SNMP during the evaluation period the service will remain active.
It is also possible to monitor the ESXi server via CIM/WBEM. See: <http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2010/04/hardware-health-monitoring-via-cim.html> | Another option is not to use SNMP, but to use the iLO XML interface. You can query health status through it by crafting some XML and making an HTTP request. I use this all the time (though for keeping inventory, not for monitoring).
If you don't want to hand-craft XML (and who in his right mind would), maybe look at the [python library and CLI tool](http://seveas.github.io/python-hpilo/) I wrote as I didn't want to do that either. |
498,597 | ok so as stated in the subject line i have an HP DL380 G7 running esxi 5.0 free and an ILO3. Is there any way for me to get some decent monitoring of the hardware without paying any extra money for a vmware license which allows me to set the SNMP community string, or without needing to purchase HP SIM? I don't seem to be able to get to the <https://[hostname]:2381> management page and from what i've read, that's linux/windows only. Also the firewall of esxi free doesn't seem to be able unblock that port for me. I seem to be receiving test traps from the device to my target server but nothing else.
What iv'e tried so far:
-logging into the ilo and setting trap destinations. That allows me to get test traps but i don't get any alerts when the drive status changes. This makes sense since I didn't see any place to setup an alert based on an event
-using VMA (vmware management assistant) to set the SNMP community string
-setting the esxi free firewall to accept connections on port 2381, though that seems like a dead end.
Any words of wisdom from someone else who has torn out their hair would be welcome! | 2013/04/11 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/498597",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/103897/"
] | This limitation is created to "help" you decide to purchase the paid version.
However if you enable SNMP during the evaluation period the service will remain active.
It is also possible to monitor the ESXi server via CIM/WBEM. See: <http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2010/04/hardware-health-monitoring-via-cim.html> | You do not need to **purchase** HP SIM. The basic functionality of HP SIM that you need to monitor your ESXi hosts' hardware via WBEM is available for free! |
26,221,163 | I am running Atlassian stash and I can see the Pull request option on the Web based UI, but I want to know if my users can create Pull requests from their consoles for their working copies without using the stash web UI ? | 2014/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/26221163",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4114151/"
] | There are 2 Stash command line tools available:
<https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/stash-command-line-tools>
<https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/org.swift.stash.cli>
Note that a pull request requires commits in a branch to be pushed rather than using the local working copy, and this works well in practice. | I have never done this, but it should be possible using the [Stash REST api](https://developer.atlassian.com/static/rest/stash/3.0.1/stash-rest.html) via some bash script or something to do the *POST*
>
> **/rest/api/1.0/projects/{projectKey}/repos/{repositorySlug}/pull-requests**
>
> This API can also be invoked via a user-centric URL when addressing
> repositories in personal projects. Create a new pull request between
> two branches. The branches may be in the same repository, or different
> ones. When using different repositories, they must still be in the
> same {@link Repository#getHierarchyId() hierarchy}.
>
>
> The authenticated user must have REPO\_READ permission for the "from"
> and "to"repositories to call this resource.
>
>
>
It sounds like quite some work, considering you will need to authenticate and all that, but it might still be worth it for you |
14,636,312 | Is there an easy howto on writing C++ app for Samsung Smart TV that should be able to run in background (so not an HTML/JS applet) and access /dev/ttyUSBx device plugged in the TV?
Do they have some API to access /dev/ttyUSBx or it will be a simple Linux app? Do they allow to load such apps? Is there a toolchain to compile such apps? | 2013/01/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14636312",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/363297/"
] | At least according to Samsung, "No."
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Q: Do you support C++ in the SDK?
> > >
> > >
> > > A: No, Samsung platform only supports web technologies based apps (JS, CSS, HTML, FLASH)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
<http://www.samsungdforum.com/Support/FAQList?page=1&faqCateID=2> | For Samsung SmartTVs you cannot use C++, the only allowed language/technology is HTML/JavaScript/CSS and Flash (not used much).
Majority of the applications are JavaScript based.
Might be you can have some exclusive agreement with the Samsung, since e.g. Skype is most probably not developed in JavaScript and the AngryBirds I heard are C++ as well.
BR
STeN |
14,636,312 | Is there an easy howto on writing C++ app for Samsung Smart TV that should be able to run in background (so not an HTML/JS applet) and access /dev/ttyUSBx device plugged in the TV?
Do they have some API to access /dev/ttyUSBx or it will be a simple Linux app? Do they allow to load such apps? Is there a toolchain to compile such apps? | 2013/01/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14636312",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/363297/"
] | At least according to Samsung, "No."
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Q: Do you support C++ in the SDK?
> > >
> > >
> > > A: No, Samsung platform only supports web technologies based apps (JS, CSS, HTML, FLASH)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
<http://www.samsungdforum.com/Support/FAQList?page=1&faqCateID=2> | In the SDK 4.5 will include Native Client technology, NaCl, Currently supported languages are C and C + +. For more information: <http://www.samsungdforum.com/Guide/d17/index.html> |
14,636,312 | Is there an easy howto on writing C++ app for Samsung Smart TV that should be able to run in background (so not an HTML/JS applet) and access /dev/ttyUSBx device plugged in the TV?
Do they have some API to access /dev/ttyUSBx or it will be a simple Linux app? Do they allow to load such apps? Is there a toolchain to compile such apps? | 2013/01/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14636312",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/363297/"
] | In the SDK 4.5 will include Native Client technology, NaCl, Currently supported languages are C and C + +. For more information: <http://www.samsungdforum.com/Guide/d17/index.html> | For Samsung SmartTVs you cannot use C++, the only allowed language/technology is HTML/JavaScript/CSS and Flash (not used much).
Majority of the applications are JavaScript based.
Might be you can have some exclusive agreement with the Samsung, since e.g. Skype is most probably not developed in JavaScript and the AngryBirds I heard are C++ as well.
BR
STeN |
27,357,618 | I have done some research on line and noticed that the apps you write in apple swift language would be working on OS X 10.9 and higher only.
In order to make apps that work on earlier versions of OS X like 10.6 you would have to write them in objective C.
[Here](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/BuildingCocoaApps/MixandMatch.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014216-CH10-XID_77) this apple document shows that you can write an app with a mix of both Swift and Objective C. I was wondering if anyone has been working in a similar project and if so, how have you gone with deciding what part to be coded in Swift and what part in objective C to make the app run on earlier versions of OS x?
In other words, what part makes the swift language not to be working on earlier versions of OS X? I want to minimize the use of the objective C in an app and use Swift mostly and at the same time be able to run the app on earlier versions of OS X as well.
Any ideas and in put would be highly appreciated. | 2014/12/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27357618",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4327809/"
] | If you want it to run on an earlier version of OSX, then just have to write it in Objective-C.
You need to bundle a run-time library with swift code, and this library will not work correctly on releases earlier than 10.9 and usually crashes.
In addition, if you try to target an earlier release of OSX with your swift code, it will refuse to compile. | According to Apple Swift blog, Mavericks is the lowest [compatible](https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=2) version:
>
> Simply put, if you write a Swift app today and submit it to the App Store this Fall when iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite are released, you can trust that your app will work well into the future.
> In fact, you can target back to OS X Mavericks or iOS 7 with that same app.
>
>
> |
1,418 | We're treading down a wrong path here, there needs to be some quality control in terms of answers. Just treating everything as "it's creative, don't hate" is such a bad way to regulate question and answer quality.
For example, this question: <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/3911/a-man-pushes-his-car>
An answer like this: <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/3925/4425> reads just like a Y! Answer. Completely random, made up. Sure it's a lateral thinking puzzle, but that's just a bad excuse for "anything goes in this question".
Is this just me? | 2014/11/12 | [
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1418",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4425/"
] | I blame the questions.
If “solve this riddle” is a valid question, then those are decent answers.
[These puzzles are officially off-topic](https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1254/why-are-questions-off-topic-if-they-invite-answers-which-are-not-demonstrably-co), but pretty much nobody appears to be enforcing this. | That is actually a good answer by StackExchange standards. The answerer provided a link to a reputable source (Wikipedia) as well as summarizing the condition in his own words. Then he explained how it answered the question.
There's some debate here as to whether we want to include well-known puzzles like these that are easily found on the web. That answer is a great reason for why we should. Most people may know (or can easily find) the classic answer, but that doesn't mean that new answers can't be discovered. Finding new answers to classic puzzles is a great way of adding value to the site and also growing and improving the art of puzzle solving. |
1,418 | We're treading down a wrong path here, there needs to be some quality control in terms of answers. Just treating everything as "it's creative, don't hate" is such a bad way to regulate question and answer quality.
For example, this question: <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/3911/a-man-pushes-his-car>
An answer like this: <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/3925/4425> reads just like a Y! Answer. Completely random, made up. Sure it's a lateral thinking puzzle, but that's just a bad excuse for "anything goes in this question".
Is this just me? | 2014/11/12 | [
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1418",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4425/"
] | It's not just you. The problems you've mentioned here are the main reason I stopped participating in this site several months ago. I have no intent to return in the future unless they are worked out (which I'm not hopeful of). I decided to describe what I expected this site would be and compare to what it actually became; while this isn't entirely relevant to the question I think it may provide some useful context.
Early on, based on the [definition questions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/45128?phase=definition), I thought the questions this site would entertain would not be so much individual "puzzles" as trying to understand the theory and practice behind them. By puzzles, I mean specifically things like the following (not exhaustive):
* Rubik's cubes and other twisty/mechanical puzzles
* Sudoku and other similar puzzles
* Crossword puzzles, word searches, cryptograms, and other linguistic puzzles
And questions on the following aspects of these:
* The strategy behind solving a particular puzzle
* Mathematical theory of the puzzle
* "Practical" questions like e.g. how best to modify a Rubik's cube for speedcubing
* The history of various puzzles
* Very few (if any) questions of the nature "Solve this puzzle: [description]"
To be honest, I was almost exclusively interested in twisty puzzles, mostly for theoretically oriented questions. I have quite a bit of knowledge about higher dimensional analogues of the Rubik's cube, for example. I would not have minded sharing the site with the other topics above though, which are similar in nature. During private beta there were some signs that we were going in a good direction. Sure, the overall volume would have been low if we had gone in this way, but it would have been a high quality site.
Instead, a few new types of questions emerged which have basically completely took over the site. I'm specifically referring to [logic-puzzle](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/logic-puzzle "show questions tagged 'logic-puzzle'"), [brainteaser](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/brainteaser "show questions tagged 'brainteaser'"), [riddle](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/riddle "show questions tagged 'riddle'"), [word-problem](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/word-problem "show questions tagged 'word-problem'"), [lateral-thinking](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/lateral-thinking "show questions tagged 'lateral-thinking'"), and other similar types of questions. These are very much "Solve this puzzle" type questions, and they use a very broad definition of the term "puzzle" which was not apparent to me at all when we were in definition and commitment phase. It seems that "puzzle" here means essentially any question (on any topic) which is cryptic enough to not be obvious, but not so cryptic that there are multiple answers, none of which is obviously correct (at which point it becomes "speculative"). So "what did I have for lunch today?" might very well be a puzzle if I chose to include a specific set of facts to make it into one. I find this simultaneously incredibly broad and very confusing. But at any rate, it's pretty clearly not the vision that I had for this site or where I expected we'd go from our Area 51 definition, and most of the questions I want to ask don't seem to fit in at all any more.
Given that this community accepts, and even encourages (by measure of voting), questions like this, it's not surprising how the site has turned out. There's little to no formal expertise or training involved in solving riddles that I know of. What sets Stack Exchange sites apart from Yahoo Answers and other Q&A sites is that the communities here are supposed to be experts on the topic. Without that distinction, there's really no reason to expect the quality here to stay high; it'll naturally go to the same level as most everything else on the internet of people talking about things they don't really know or care about very much. That's what you're seeing happen here.
Rather than trying to stick around and fix the site, I decided just to leave. I'm not interested in the direction this site is heading, and I'm not invested enough in this site's success to care if it fails. For the questions I do care about, many of them can go on [Math SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/) or [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/). Speedcubing questions still have no good home in the network, which is a shame, but there are other sites dedicated to it outside the network and I don't see any indication that such a question would be any better here than e.g. on [Sports SE](https://sports.stackexchange.com/). For anyone who is still around and agrees that this needs to improve, I wish you the best of luck, but I think it may be too little too late to turn this site around and I have no idea how to do it. | That is actually a good answer by StackExchange standards. The answerer provided a link to a reputable source (Wikipedia) as well as summarizing the condition in his own words. Then he explained how it answered the question.
There's some debate here as to whether we want to include well-known puzzles like these that are easily found on the web. That answer is a great reason for why we should. Most people may know (or can easily find) the classic answer, but that doesn't mean that new answers can't be discovered. Finding new answers to classic puzzles is a great way of adding value to the site and also growing and improving the art of puzzle solving. |
1,418 | We're treading down a wrong path here, there needs to be some quality control in terms of answers. Just treating everything as "it's creative, don't hate" is such a bad way to regulate question and answer quality.
For example, this question: <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/3911/a-man-pushes-his-car>
An answer like this: <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/3925/4425> reads just like a Y! Answer. Completely random, made up. Sure it's a lateral thinking puzzle, but that's just a bad excuse for "anything goes in this question".
Is this just me? | 2014/11/12 | [
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1418",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4425/"
] | I blame the questions.
If “solve this riddle” is a valid question, then those are decent answers.
[These puzzles are officially off-topic](https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1254/why-are-questions-off-topic-if-they-invite-answers-which-are-not-demonstrably-co), but pretty much nobody appears to be enforcing this. | It's not just you. The problems you've mentioned here are the main reason I stopped participating in this site several months ago. I have no intent to return in the future unless they are worked out (which I'm not hopeful of). I decided to describe what I expected this site would be and compare to what it actually became; while this isn't entirely relevant to the question I think it may provide some useful context.
Early on, based on the [definition questions](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/45128?phase=definition), I thought the questions this site would entertain would not be so much individual "puzzles" as trying to understand the theory and practice behind them. By puzzles, I mean specifically things like the following (not exhaustive):
* Rubik's cubes and other twisty/mechanical puzzles
* Sudoku and other similar puzzles
* Crossword puzzles, word searches, cryptograms, and other linguistic puzzles
And questions on the following aspects of these:
* The strategy behind solving a particular puzzle
* Mathematical theory of the puzzle
* "Practical" questions like e.g. how best to modify a Rubik's cube for speedcubing
* The history of various puzzles
* Very few (if any) questions of the nature "Solve this puzzle: [description]"
To be honest, I was almost exclusively interested in twisty puzzles, mostly for theoretically oriented questions. I have quite a bit of knowledge about higher dimensional analogues of the Rubik's cube, for example. I would not have minded sharing the site with the other topics above though, which are similar in nature. During private beta there were some signs that we were going in a good direction. Sure, the overall volume would have been low if we had gone in this way, but it would have been a high quality site.
Instead, a few new types of questions emerged which have basically completely took over the site. I'm specifically referring to [logic-puzzle](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/logic-puzzle "show questions tagged 'logic-puzzle'"), [brainteaser](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/brainteaser "show questions tagged 'brainteaser'"), [riddle](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/riddle "show questions tagged 'riddle'"), [word-problem](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/word-problem "show questions tagged 'word-problem'"), [lateral-thinking](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/lateral-thinking "show questions tagged 'lateral-thinking'"), and other similar types of questions. These are very much "Solve this puzzle" type questions, and they use a very broad definition of the term "puzzle" which was not apparent to me at all when we were in definition and commitment phase. It seems that "puzzle" here means essentially any question (on any topic) which is cryptic enough to not be obvious, but not so cryptic that there are multiple answers, none of which is obviously correct (at which point it becomes "speculative"). So "what did I have for lunch today?" might very well be a puzzle if I chose to include a specific set of facts to make it into one. I find this simultaneously incredibly broad and very confusing. But at any rate, it's pretty clearly not the vision that I had for this site or where I expected we'd go from our Area 51 definition, and most of the questions I want to ask don't seem to fit in at all any more.
Given that this community accepts, and even encourages (by measure of voting), questions like this, it's not surprising how the site has turned out. There's little to no formal expertise or training involved in solving riddles that I know of. What sets Stack Exchange sites apart from Yahoo Answers and other Q&A sites is that the communities here are supposed to be experts on the topic. Without that distinction, there's really no reason to expect the quality here to stay high; it'll naturally go to the same level as most everything else on the internet of people talking about things they don't really know or care about very much. That's what you're seeing happen here.
Rather than trying to stick around and fix the site, I decided just to leave. I'm not interested in the direction this site is heading, and I'm not invested enough in this site's success to care if it fails. For the questions I do care about, many of them can go on [Math SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/) or [MathOverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/). Speedcubing questions still have no good home in the network, which is a shame, but there are other sites dedicated to it outside the network and I don't see any indication that such a question would be any better here than e.g. on [Sports SE](https://sports.stackexchange.com/). For anyone who is still around and agrees that this needs to improve, I wish you the best of luck, but I think it may be too little too late to turn this site around and I have no idea how to do it. |
9,997,587 | Is it possible that the data of a QRCode could contain an image and text? I am not talking about an image placed on top of the QRCode, but when you scan the QRCode that it would contain the data of an image to display along with some text?
Basically when I scan my QRCode, I would like for it to show my photo name and phone number. I am pretty sure that standard QRCode readers wouldnt be able to read the data so I am sure that I would also need a custom QRCode reader. | 2012/04/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9997587",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/775414/"
] | Not really. The maximum amount of data you can store in a QR code is ~4KB. That's not really enough for any image files. | **Yes**, it can be possible by compressing an image to near about 1.5kb and then convert it into BASE64 format by following whatever you text want to place into QR code.However, you might require more than 10mp camera to fetch information from QR Code.[This is the example of Qr Code with image and text.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aSILo.png) |
49,454,858 | I'm trying to perform an action when the playback reaches a certain time. I can't find any delegate methods or examples of how to do this. How can I call a method when the playback reaches a certain point? | 2018/03/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/49454858",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/48523/"
] | Console wraps your text. Set heigher column number in console settings | The problem is that java treats your text as a single line and cmd wraps it, so it becomes unreadable. To make a new line, use the newline character `\n`. |
18,233,946 | I know that I need to pass through google to search etc, I did but they don't offer what I need 90% of this sites give the same example and even sometimes the same explanation, If there someone who have for example links from university or school or may be in his dropbox, I will be very thankfull. | 2013/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/18233946",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2529175/"
] | Unfortunately it seems that the best resources for learning Standard ML are various paper books (e.g. [Introduction to Programming using SML](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0201398206) by Hansen & Rischel, [ML for the Working Programmer](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/052156543X) by Larry C. Paulson, or [Programming in Standard ML](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/introsml/) by Robert Harper (the last one is available for free online), as well as resource material from various university courses of which none I have encountered excels.
Here is [a number of exam assignments](http://sshine.github.io/standardml-exercises.html) from one course using Standard ML: | I am using the book Programming in Standard ML by Colin Meyers,Chris Clark,Ellen Poon
and ML for the working Programmer by L C Paulson.The former is really a great book as it always puts types in function declarations..this way you will master the underlying types in sml |
18,233,946 | I know that I need to pass through google to search etc, I did but they don't offer what I need 90% of this sites give the same example and even sometimes the same explanation, If there someone who have for example links from university or school or may be in his dropbox, I will be very thankfull. | 2013/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/18233946",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2529175/"
] | I took the [Programming Languages Course](https://www.coursera.org/course/proglang) at Coursera and it was superb. Most of the course is based on SML.
The first first four weeks are entirely about SML. The material distributed in the course is great and every week there are plenty of interesting exercises to solve.
The good news is that this course is about to start in October 3, 2013 again. So this is your opportunity.
I own the list of books mentioned in the [other answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/18235726/697630). They all are very good. But I also own another one not mentioned above and that I considered great for initial ML learning: [Elements of ML Programming](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0137903871) by Jeffrey Ulman. In fact I preferred this to the others mentioned above because I found its explanations simpler and the exercises more progressively challenging. | I am using the book Programming in Standard ML by Colin Meyers,Chris Clark,Ellen Poon
and ML for the working Programmer by L C Paulson.The former is really a great book as it always puts types in function declarations..this way you will master the underlying types in sml |
55,383 | I'm a wanna-be indie developer, and I am working on my first flash game. But, before I even start with the code, I want to know this: When determining the title of my game, how can I decide if it is copyrighted or not?
For example, at first I thought about "Into the Void" for the title. When I Googled it, I found out that it is a name of a song by Black Sabbath. Is it okay if I use this title, or is it copyright infringement? | 2013/05/12 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/55383",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/30604/"
] | Short answer: you can use that name for your game legally, as long as you abide by the copyright laws and the name is not [trademarked](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark).
For the long answer, we refer to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement):
>
> **Copyright infringement** is the unauthorized use of works under
> [copyright](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright), infringing the copyright holder's "[exclusive rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right)", such
> as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the
> copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted
> works, or to make [derivative works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work). It often refers to copying
> "[intellectual property](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property)" without written permission from the copyright
> holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing
> or assigned by the work's creator.
>
>
>
If you really want to avoid any confusion or problems that may occur in the future, try contacting Black Sabbath and ask them if you can use that name for your game. If they say "no", then perhaps consider a lawyer, or just come up with a different name. If they say "yes", make sure to keep your [paper trail](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paper_trail) for reference in the future.
**Relevent Links:**
* [Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short
Phrases](http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf)
* [Copyright vs. Trademark vs. Patent](http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm)
* [What resources can I use to determine if the name of my game violates any copyrights or trademarks?](https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/14941/what-resources-can-i-use-to-determine-if-the-name-of-my-game-violates-any-copyri) | If you want proper legal advice speak to a lawyer.
However, as far as I know copyright isn't a big issue with titles for games, especially when it clashes with something that's not a game. Trademarks are something you should avoid though.
However if you want people to be able to find your game on a search engine, having a name that hasn't already been used for something well known is probably a good idea, and that should also keep you safe from any legal issues. |
55,383 | I'm a wanna-be indie developer, and I am working on my first flash game. But, before I even start with the code, I want to know this: When determining the title of my game, how can I decide if it is copyrighted or not?
For example, at first I thought about "Into the Void" for the title. When I Googled it, I found out that it is a name of a song by Black Sabbath. Is it okay if I use this title, or is it copyright infringement? | 2013/05/12 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/55383",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/30604/"
] | If you want proper legal advice speak to a lawyer.
However, as far as I know copyright isn't a big issue with titles for games, especially when it clashes with something that's not a game. Trademarks are something you should avoid though.
However if you want people to be able to find your game on a search engine, having a name that hasn't already been used for something well known is probably a good idea, and that should also keep you safe from any legal issues. | The title of a game isn't copyrighted - it is trademarked. Trademark law and copyright law are related but entirely different areas.
While registration of a copyright is optional, a trademark must be registred to be enforceable (there are exceptions, like claiming an unregistred trademark through notoriety, but these are hard to prove in court).
Trademarks registred in the US can be researched on <http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/> but keep in mind that trademarks always apply to individual countries. So when you sell a game internationally, you need to make sure that you don't advertise it in any country where the trademark is registred.
Trademarks always apply for specific groups of goods and services. So when I have a trademark "SuperAwesome2000" for toothpaste, kitchen appliances and sportswear, you could still name your game "SuperAwesome2000" without infringing my trademark, because entertainment software is a completely different field. You could even register the trademark yourself, as long as you do it for different product groups than I did. But when you start selling t-shirts advertising your game, we have a problem because you are infringing my trademark on sportswear.
Interesting read in this regard: [Apple Corps vs. Apple Computers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer).
But like in every legal matter: **When in doubt consult a lawyer.** |
55,383 | I'm a wanna-be indie developer, and I am working on my first flash game. But, before I even start with the code, I want to know this: When determining the title of my game, how can I decide if it is copyrighted or not?
For example, at first I thought about "Into the Void" for the title. When I Googled it, I found out that it is a name of a song by Black Sabbath. Is it okay if I use this title, or is it copyright infringement? | 2013/05/12 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/55383",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/30604/"
] | Short answer: you can use that name for your game legally, as long as you abide by the copyright laws and the name is not [trademarked](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark).
For the long answer, we refer to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement):
>
> **Copyright infringement** is the unauthorized use of works under
> [copyright](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright), infringing the copyright holder's "[exclusive rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right)", such
> as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the
> copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted
> works, or to make [derivative works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work). It often refers to copying
> "[intellectual property](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property)" without written permission from the copyright
> holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing
> or assigned by the work's creator.
>
>
>
If you really want to avoid any confusion or problems that may occur in the future, try contacting Black Sabbath and ask them if you can use that name for your game. If they say "no", then perhaps consider a lawyer, or just come up with a different name. If they say "yes", make sure to keep your [paper trail](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paper_trail) for reference in the future.
**Relevent Links:**
* [Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short
Phrases](http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf)
* [Copyright vs. Trademark vs. Patent](http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm)
* [What resources can I use to determine if the name of my game violates any copyrights or trademarks?](https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/14941/what-resources-can-i-use-to-determine-if-the-name-of-my-game-violates-any-copyri) | The title of a game isn't copyrighted - it is trademarked. Trademark law and copyright law are related but entirely different areas.
While registration of a copyright is optional, a trademark must be registred to be enforceable (there are exceptions, like claiming an unregistred trademark through notoriety, but these are hard to prove in court).
Trademarks registred in the US can be researched on <http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/> but keep in mind that trademarks always apply to individual countries. So when you sell a game internationally, you need to make sure that you don't advertise it in any country where the trademark is registred.
Trademarks always apply for specific groups of goods and services. So when I have a trademark "SuperAwesome2000" for toothpaste, kitchen appliances and sportswear, you could still name your game "SuperAwesome2000" without infringing my trademark, because entertainment software is a completely different field. You could even register the trademark yourself, as long as you do it for different product groups than I did. But when you start selling t-shirts advertising your game, we have a problem because you are infringing my trademark on sportswear.
Interesting read in this regard: [Apple Corps vs. Apple Computers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer).
But like in every legal matter: **When in doubt consult a lawyer.** |
24,688,897 | Apologies for the confusing question title, I wasn't sure how to describe the problem.
Background and objectives:
I have a large dataset in Excel, near 1 Million rows.
I have a key field (not primary cause there's duplicates).
The key field will become the primary key field in a new table.
For every row with the same key field in the original dataset, I need to:
Find the max of one of the columns
See if a text string exists in one of the columns
Then I'd like to put the key field, the corresponding max, and the corresponding result of the text search into a new dataset in one row, 3 columns.
A VBA or PivotTable solution is acceptable. Given the size of the dataset, code efficiency/memory management is critical.
Thanks in advance, any kind of help would be appreciated! | 2014/07/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24688897",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3448738/"
] | i had the same issue, try this :
open a new file and check the color mode at the beginning. then open up your file again! | When you save a file it gives you various colour management profiles depending on your set up (or needs). If you save without any colour management profile then the colours will be true |
24,688,897 | Apologies for the confusing question title, I wasn't sure how to describe the problem.
Background and objectives:
I have a large dataset in Excel, near 1 Million rows.
I have a key field (not primary cause there's duplicates).
The key field will become the primary key field in a new table.
For every row with the same key field in the original dataset, I need to:
Find the max of one of the columns
See if a text string exists in one of the columns
Then I'd like to put the key field, the corresponding max, and the corresponding result of the text search into a new dataset in one row, 3 columns.
A VBA or PivotTable solution is acceptable. Given the size of the dataset, code efficiency/memory management is critical.
Thanks in advance, any kind of help would be appreciated! | 2014/07/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24688897",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3448738/"
] | i had the same issue, try this :
open a new file and check the color mode at the beginning. then open up your file again! | May be you are using CMYK color mode. try to change it. go to image then mode and click RGB color. RGB use for displaying purpose while CMYK Mode use for Printing purpose. Since this is web site item design, select RGB Color mode. |
24,688,897 | Apologies for the confusing question title, I wasn't sure how to describe the problem.
Background and objectives:
I have a large dataset in Excel, near 1 Million rows.
I have a key field (not primary cause there's duplicates).
The key field will become the primary key field in a new table.
For every row with the same key field in the original dataset, I need to:
Find the max of one of the columns
See if a text string exists in one of the columns
Then I'd like to put the key field, the corresponding max, and the corresponding result of the text search into a new dataset in one row, 3 columns.
A VBA or PivotTable solution is acceptable. Given the size of the dataset, code efficiency/memory management is critical.
Thanks in advance, any kind of help would be appreciated! | 2014/07/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24688897",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3448738/"
] | i had the same issue, try this :
open a new file and check the color mode at the beginning. then open up your file again! | The export for web uses sRGB. You use US Web Coated. Change your document to RGB mode and sRGB profile.
The sRGB color is the smallest RGB color space.
You typically always work in the smallest space, even if your screen allows a wider RGB. |
185,199 | Looking for info on a book I found as a kid. It was a scifi anthology from the 70s-80s. I remember a story about a space war and time dilation, with the main character coming back to find a note from his lover in an old archive and waiting for her return. Another story used eagle and deer metaphors, and another was about a man returning to a post-war home and finding out the woman he was speaking with was an alien. She gives him a cat - he thinks it's a real cat, but it's a robot. Help?
Edit: Cat story is "Precious Artifact" and probably not in the book I read. I've read other Philip K. Dick anthologies and am probably misremembering where that specific story came from.
Other two have been ID'd as "Time Deer" and probably "End Game." Still looking for which book they're both in. For backstory, I found the book in a box in a cave in 2003-04 and had it confiscated by a parent shortly thereafter. Visited the cave again a few days ago and started wondering if I could find another copy of the book! | 2018/04/09 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/185199",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/98923/"
] | Yes, definitely. From LotR:
Introduction:
>
> Thus began the Shire-reckoning, for the year of the crossing of the Brandywine (as the Hobbits turned the name) became Year One of the Shire... There for a thousand years they were little troubled by wars, and they prospered and multiplied after the Dark Plague (S.R. 37)
>
>
>
and, in an appendix:
>
> In the days of Argeleb II the plague came into Eriador from the Southeast, and most of the people of Cardolan perished, especially in Minhiriath. The Hobbits and all other peoples suffered greatly, but the plague lessened as it passed northwards, and the northern parts of Arthedain were little affected.
>
>
>
Kings of Gondor:
>
> Aldamir (second son of Eldacar) †1540, Hyarmendacil II (Vinyarion) 1621, Minardil †1634, Telemnar †1636. Telemnar and all his children perished in the plague;
>
>
>
later:
>
> The second and greatest evil came upon Gondor in the reign of Telemnar, the twenty-sixth king, whose father Minardil, son of Eldacar, was slain at Pelargir by the Corsairs of Umbar. (They were led by Angamaitë and Sangahyando, the great-grandsons of Castamir.) Soon after a deadly plague came with dark winds out of the East The King and all his children died, and great numbers of the people of Gondor, especially those that lived in Osgiliath.
>
>
> | The Evil Breath
---------------
The "Evil Breath" was an epidemic that caused many children to get sick and die towards the end of the First Age.
>
> ‘Ever will some new evil be hatched in Angband beyond the guess of Elves and Men,’ they said. And in the autumn of that year, to point their words, **there came an ill wind from the North under leaden skies. The Evil Breath it was called, for it was pestilent; and many sickened and died in the fall of the year in the northern lands that bordered on the Anfauglith, and they were for the most part the children or the rising youth in the houses of Men.**
>
> *The Children of Húrin* - Chapter 1 - "The Childhood of Túrin"
>
>
>
Túrin and his sister get it, and although Túrin recovers, his sister dies.
>
> But before the year was out the truth of his father’s words was shown; for **the Evil Breath came to Dor-lómin, and Túrin took sick, and lay long in a fever and dark dream.** And when he was healed, for such was his fate and the strength of life that was in him, he asked for Lalaith. But his nurse answered: ‘Speak no more of Lalaith, son of Húrin; but of your sister Urwen you must ask tidings of your mother.’
>
> And when Morwen came to him, Túrin said to her: **‘I am no longer sick, and I wish to see Urwen; but why must I not say Lalaith any more?’**
>
> **‘Because Urwen is dead,** and laughter is stilled in this house,’ she answered. ‘But you live, son of Morwen; and so does the Enemy who has done this to us.’
>
> *The Children of Húrin* - Chapter 1 - "The Childhood of Túrin"
>
>
>
The Great Plague
----------------
Around mid-way through the third age, their was a new epidemic known as "the Great Plague" or "the Dark Plague". This led to the decline and depopulation of Gondor that we see in *The Lord of the Rings* a few hundred years later, and to the watch on Mordor being let down enough for Sauron to reestablish himself
>
> The waning of the Northmen of Rhovanion began with the Great Plague, which appeared there in the winter of the year 1635 and soon spread to Gondor. **In Gondor the mortality was great especially among those who dwelt in cities.** It was greater in Rhovanion, for though its people lived mostly in the open and had no great cities, **the Plague came with a cold winter when horses and men were driven into shelter and their low wooden houses and stables were thronged;** moreover they were little skilled in the arts of healing and medicine, of which much was still known in Gondor, preserved from the wisdom of Númenor. **When the Plague passed it is said that more than half of the foil of Rhovanion had perished, and of their horses also.**
>
> *Unfinished Tales* - "Cirion and Eorl and the Friendship of Gondor and Rohan"
>
>
>
>
> In the days of Argeleb II **the plague came into Eriador from the South-east, and most of the people of Cardolan perished, especially in Minhiriath. The Hobbits and all other peoples suffered greatly, but the plague lessened as it passed northwards, and the northern parts of Arthedain were little affected.** It was at this time that an end came of the Dúnedain of Cardolan, and evil spirits out of Angmar and Rhudaur entered into the deserted mounds and dwelt there.
>
> *The Lord of the Rings* - Appendix A I iii - "Eriador, Arnor, and the Heirs of Isildur"
>
>
>
>
> Soon after **a deadly plague came with dark winds out of the East. The King and all his children died, and great numbers of the people of Gondor, especially those that lived in Osgiliath.** Then for weariness and fewness of men the watch on the borders of Mordor ceased and the fortresses that guarded the passes were unmanned.
>
> *The Lord of the Rings* - Appendix A I iv - "Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion"
>
>
>
>
> 1636: **The Great Plague devastates Gondor.** Death of King Telemnar and his children. The White Tree dies in Minas Anor. **The plague spreads north and west, and many parts of Eriador become desolate. Beyond the Baranduin the Periannath survive, but suffer great loss.**
>
> *The Lord of the Rings* - Appendix B - "The Tale of Years"
>
>
>
>
> And in the days of Telemnar, the third and twentieth of the line of Meneldil, **a plague came upon dark winds out of the east, and it smote the King and his children, and many of the people of Gondor perished.** Then the forts on the borders of Mordor were deserted, and Minas Ithil was emptied of its people; and evil entered again into the Black Land secretly, and the ashes of Gorgoroth were stirred as by a cold wind, for dark shapes gathered there.
>
> *The Silmarillion* - "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"
>
>
>
>
> **The Dunlendings suffered, like all the peoples of Arnor and Gondor, in the Great Plague of the years 1636-7 of the Third Age,** but less than most, since they dwelt apart and had few dealings with other men.
>
> *Unfinished Tales* - "The Battles of the Fords of Isen"
>
>
>
In *The Atlas of Middle-earth*, Karen Wynn Fonstad has put together a map showing the effect of the Great Plague.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lj23h.jpg)
*The Atlas of Middle-earth* - page 57 - "The Great Plague" |
266,263 | We have some databases with index fragmentation that is > 95%. As best I can tell the indexes have never been rebuilt much less reorganized. In years.
(In fairness, these tables do seem to have auto-updated statistics enabled. Also in fairness, he is diligent about backups: full daily and trx logs hourly.)
When I asked, the DBA said he was reluctant to rebuild or reorg the indexes. When I asked why, he couldn't really articulate it. Eventually he said he was concerned about potential data loss. For instance one of the databases is used by our Great Plains Dynamics accounting application, and he seemed very anxious about that.
I am not a DBA but from what I've read, his anxiety seems ... difficult for me to understand.
I am not sure what do to next. Suggestions how I should proceed? | 2011/05/04 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/266263",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/64837/"
] | Rebuilding a database index should not cause any data loss. It will however probably cause a substantial performance degradation as the indexes being rebuilt will normally not be available for use until the rebuild finishes. For that reason it should be done during off-hours when the affected systems are idle.
Paranoia is a Good Thing in a DBA - If they're worried about data loss I would have them do a proper test of the backups (restore them to a separate system and make sure the data is all there), and if they're still concerned then performing a full backup before rebuilding the indexes would be a reasonable precaution to take. | Reorganizing the indexes will take less time, and less effort from the SQL server thus they can be done in a weeknight type of instances. If you what you are saying is true, even reorganizing the indexes that have never been, may cause a larger impact on the server as well. Rebuilding the indexes will take a substantial amount of effort from the SQL server since they are dropped and rebuilt. Doing a rebuild on a weeknight isn't worth the risk of the server being busy with indexes and not serving the people using it.
I agree with voretaq7, if he is that worried about working with indexes, try it out on the development or test servers first to see how the react. |
266,263 | We have some databases with index fragmentation that is > 95%. As best I can tell the indexes have never been rebuilt much less reorganized. In years.
(In fairness, these tables do seem to have auto-updated statistics enabled. Also in fairness, he is diligent about backups: full daily and trx logs hourly.)
When I asked, the DBA said he was reluctant to rebuild or reorg the indexes. When I asked why, he couldn't really articulate it. Eventually he said he was concerned about potential data loss. For instance one of the databases is used by our Great Plains Dynamics accounting application, and he seemed very anxious about that.
I am not a DBA but from what I've read, his anxiety seems ... difficult for me to understand.
I am not sure what do to next. Suggestions how I should proceed? | 2011/05/04 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/266263",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/64837/"
] | Rebuilding a database index should not cause any data loss. It will however probably cause a substantial performance degradation as the indexes being rebuilt will normally not be available for use until the rebuild finishes. For that reason it should be done during off-hours when the affected systems are idle.
Paranoia is a Good Thing in a DBA - If they're worried about data loss I would have them do a proper test of the backups (restore them to a separate system and make sure the data is all there), and if they're still concerned then performing a full backup before rebuilding the indexes would be a reasonable precaution to take. | There is no risk of data loss from rebuilding or defragging indexes. |
266,263 | We have some databases with index fragmentation that is > 95%. As best I can tell the indexes have never been rebuilt much less reorganized. In years.
(In fairness, these tables do seem to have auto-updated statistics enabled. Also in fairness, he is diligent about backups: full daily and trx logs hourly.)
When I asked, the DBA said he was reluctant to rebuild or reorg the indexes. When I asked why, he couldn't really articulate it. Eventually he said he was concerned about potential data loss. For instance one of the databases is used by our Great Plains Dynamics accounting application, and he seemed very anxious about that.
I am not a DBA but from what I've read, his anxiety seems ... difficult for me to understand.
I am not sure what do to next. Suggestions how I should proceed? | 2011/05/04 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/266263",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/64837/"
] | There is no risk of data loss from rebuilding or defragging indexes. | Reorganizing the indexes will take less time, and less effort from the SQL server thus they can be done in a weeknight type of instances. If you what you are saying is true, even reorganizing the indexes that have never been, may cause a larger impact on the server as well. Rebuilding the indexes will take a substantial amount of effort from the SQL server since they are dropped and rebuilt. Doing a rebuild on a weeknight isn't worth the risk of the server being busy with indexes and not serving the people using it.
I agree with voretaq7, if he is that worried about working with indexes, try it out on the development or test servers first to see how the react. |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | Sorry, given your constraints (client-side Javascript only), there is no way to connect to a plain old SSH server.
WebSockets is not plain TCP. It's a framed protocol with a HTTP-like handshake between the client and server that includes origin policy.
Flash can make plain TCP connections, but it also has origin policy enforcement. The way it does this is by making a connection to the same server on port 843 and asking for a special XML file that contains the origin policy.
If you are willing to relax your constraints slightly such that you are willing to run a generic WebSockets to TCP proxy either on a server (any server) or on the client then you can do what you are wanting to do. noVNC includes a C and python WebSockets to TCP proxy: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/tree/master/utils/>.
Other info you might find useful:
* Current WebSocket draft: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76>
* Simple (insecure) way of running a flash policy server (Linux/UNIX with socat) is described here: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/blob/master/docs/flash_policy.txt>
* More info about the flash policy file: <http://code.google.com/p/doctype/wiki/ArticleFlashSecurity> | You can take a look at [serfish](http://www.serfish.com/console/). It's a solution to access a SSH server. But if you're hosting your web application on the same server as your ssh, there are other solutions such as [shell in a box](http://code.google.com/p/shellinabox/). |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | You can take a look at [serfish](http://www.serfish.com/console/). It's a solution to access a SSH server. But if you're hosting your web application on the same server as your ssh, there are other solutions such as [shell in a box](http://code.google.com/p/shellinabox/). | For those still searching, **[paramikojs](http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/fireftp/src/content/js/connection/paramikojs/)** could be the answer.
I'm currently having a similar issue:I need a SSH JS client-side implementation, and I need it to be BSD licensed. Alas paramikojs seems to be GPL licensed. |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | You can take a look at [serfish](http://www.serfish.com/console/). It's a solution to access a SSH server. But if you're hosting your web application on the same server as your ssh, there are other solutions such as [shell in a box](http://code.google.com/p/shellinabox/). | It's definitely possible using a Linux emulator with full network support like the great OpenRISC emulator [jor1k](https://s-macke.github.io/jor1k/demos/main.html).
Note that I've created [browser-tools.net](https://browser-tools.net), a collection of in-browser tools from number of different projects. |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | You can take a look at [serfish](http://www.serfish.com/console/). It's a solution to access a SSH server. But if you're hosting your web application on the same server as your ssh, there are other solutions such as [shell in a box](http://code.google.com/p/shellinabox/). | Yes you can
1. Install SSH server on your server
2. Write a server side program (could be in PHP) that uses SSH
client in the background
3. Redirect messages between the SSH client (that probably has been residing in the same server as SSH server) and the JavaScript program in the web browser other side of the internet.
That server side program acts like a postman only and the java script program in the browser is just another postman between the user and server program.
(SSH server)<->(SSH client)<->(PHP e.g)<->(JavaScript)
Also don't forget that in the JavaScript program could have use Ajax for better mechanism. Also SSH client might be not completely and absolutely necessary because that PHP server side program could directly connect to SSH server |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | Sorry, given your constraints (client-side Javascript only), there is no way to connect to a plain old SSH server.
WebSockets is not plain TCP. It's a framed protocol with a HTTP-like handshake between the client and server that includes origin policy.
Flash can make plain TCP connections, but it also has origin policy enforcement. The way it does this is by making a connection to the same server on port 843 and asking for a special XML file that contains the origin policy.
If you are willing to relax your constraints slightly such that you are willing to run a generic WebSockets to TCP proxy either on a server (any server) or on the client then you can do what you are wanting to do. noVNC includes a C and python WebSockets to TCP proxy: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/tree/master/utils/>.
Other info you might find useful:
* Current WebSocket draft: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76>
* Simple (insecure) way of running a flash policy server (Linux/UNIX with socat) is described here: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/blob/master/docs/flash_policy.txt>
* More info about the flash policy file: <http://code.google.com/p/doctype/wiki/ArticleFlashSecurity> | For those still searching, **[paramikojs](http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/fireftp/src/content/js/connection/paramikojs/)** could be the answer.
I'm currently having a similar issue:I need a SSH JS client-side implementation, and I need it to be BSD licensed. Alas paramikojs seems to be GPL licensed. |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | Sorry, given your constraints (client-side Javascript only), there is no way to connect to a plain old SSH server.
WebSockets is not plain TCP. It's a framed protocol with a HTTP-like handshake between the client and server that includes origin policy.
Flash can make plain TCP connections, but it also has origin policy enforcement. The way it does this is by making a connection to the same server on port 843 and asking for a special XML file that contains the origin policy.
If you are willing to relax your constraints slightly such that you are willing to run a generic WebSockets to TCP proxy either on a server (any server) or on the client then you can do what you are wanting to do. noVNC includes a C and python WebSockets to TCP proxy: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/tree/master/utils/>.
Other info you might find useful:
* Current WebSocket draft: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76>
* Simple (insecure) way of running a flash policy server (Linux/UNIX with socat) is described here: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/blob/master/docs/flash_policy.txt>
* More info about the flash policy file: <http://code.google.com/p/doctype/wiki/ArticleFlashSecurity> | It's definitely possible using a Linux emulator with full network support like the great OpenRISC emulator [jor1k](https://s-macke.github.io/jor1k/demos/main.html).
Note that I've created [browser-tools.net](https://browser-tools.net), a collection of in-browser tools from number of different projects. |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | Sorry, given your constraints (client-side Javascript only), there is no way to connect to a plain old SSH server.
WebSockets is not plain TCP. It's a framed protocol with a HTTP-like handshake between the client and server that includes origin policy.
Flash can make plain TCP connections, but it also has origin policy enforcement. The way it does this is by making a connection to the same server on port 843 and asking for a special XML file that contains the origin policy.
If you are willing to relax your constraints slightly such that you are willing to run a generic WebSockets to TCP proxy either on a server (any server) or on the client then you can do what you are wanting to do. noVNC includes a C and python WebSockets to TCP proxy: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/tree/master/utils/>.
Other info you might find useful:
* Current WebSocket draft: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76>
* Simple (insecure) way of running a flash policy server (Linux/UNIX with socat) is described here: <http://github.com/kanaka/noVNC/blob/master/docs/flash_policy.txt>
* More info about the flash policy file: <http://code.google.com/p/doctype/wiki/ArticleFlashSecurity> | Yes you can
1. Install SSH server on your server
2. Write a server side program (could be in PHP) that uses SSH
client in the background
3. Redirect messages between the SSH client (that probably has been residing in the same server as SSH server) and the JavaScript program in the web browser other side of the internet.
That server side program acts like a postman only and the java script program in the browser is just another postman between the user and server program.
(SSH server)<->(SSH client)<->(PHP e.g)<->(JavaScript)
Also don't forget that in the JavaScript program could have use Ajax for better mechanism. Also SSH client might be not completely and absolutely necessary because that PHP server side program could directly connect to SSH server |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | For those still searching, **[paramikojs](http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/fireftp/src/content/js/connection/paramikojs/)** could be the answer.
I'm currently having a similar issue:I need a SSH JS client-side implementation, and I need it to be BSD licensed. Alas paramikojs seems to be GPL licensed. | It's definitely possible using a Linux emulator with full network support like the great OpenRISC emulator [jor1k](https://s-macke.github.io/jor1k/demos/main.html).
Note that I've created [browser-tools.net](https://browser-tools.net), a collection of in-browser tools from number of different projects. |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | For those still searching, **[paramikojs](http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/fireftp/src/content/js/connection/paramikojs/)** could be the answer.
I'm currently having a similar issue:I need a SSH JS client-side implementation, and I need it to be BSD licensed. Alas paramikojs seems to be GPL licensed. | Yes you can
1. Install SSH server on your server
2. Write a server side program (could be in PHP) that uses SSH
client in the background
3. Redirect messages between the SSH client (that probably has been residing in the same server as SSH server) and the JavaScript program in the web browser other side of the internet.
That server side program acts like a postman only and the java script program in the browser is just another postman between the user and server program.
(SSH server)<->(SSH client)<->(PHP e.g)<->(JavaScript)
Also don't forget that in the JavaScript program could have use Ajax for better mechanism. Also SSH client might be not completely and absolutely necessary because that PHP server side program could directly connect to SSH server |
3,897,649 | I know there is an implementation of VNC using WebSockets (http://novnc.com) but that still requires a server. I am looking to create a simple client-side JavaScript only (no Flash) connection to a port running SSH. I am guessing WebSockets is the only way to go since it does TCP. Any example code? Any other way? | 2010/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3897649",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/471136/"
] | It's definitely possible using a Linux emulator with full network support like the great OpenRISC emulator [jor1k](https://s-macke.github.io/jor1k/demos/main.html).
Note that I've created [browser-tools.net](https://browser-tools.net), a collection of in-browser tools from number of different projects. | Yes you can
1. Install SSH server on your server
2. Write a server side program (could be in PHP) that uses SSH
client in the background
3. Redirect messages between the SSH client (that probably has been residing in the same server as SSH server) and the JavaScript program in the web browser other side of the internet.
That server side program acts like a postman only and the java script program in the browser is just another postman between the user and server program.
(SSH server)<->(SSH client)<->(PHP e.g)<->(JavaScript)
Also don't forget that in the JavaScript program could have use Ajax for better mechanism. Also SSH client might be not completely and absolutely necessary because that PHP server side program could directly connect to SSH server |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | There's two kinds of antonyms: opposites (left and right) and present/absent (light and dark, where dark describes the absence of light).
Capitalism is basically the default economic system. It has both good and bad aspects to it. Even in total anarchy, you'll find Capitalism in some form. Nobody establishes Capitalism. The reason it is the default is that it tends to be self-leveling in managing supply and demand (i.e. [market forces](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012815/how-does-invisible-hand-affect-capitalist-economy.asp)).
Communism, for contrast, is a **political philosophy** that says the government should control the economy, with the theory being that Capitalism is inherently unfair. The goal of Communism is, more or less, to use the power of government to remove Capitalism (in other words, create the absence of Capitalism). It does this by attempting to manage supply and demand with direct regulatory power (i.e. the state owns everything). This can, however, produce [disastrous results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Most modern states regulate Capitalism in some form. Those that want to aim more for the ideals espoused by Communism (i.e. Socialism), without the disastrous side effects, have states limit how much control they exert over various areas of the economy.
>
> **NOTE** This is oversimplified for the sake of argument. The question pertains to why Capitalism isn't a political system. Don't get bogged down in the precise economic terms please.
>
>
> | Capitalism is not a form of government, or even a governmental ideology. It is an economic ideology.
Democracy is the governmental ideology behind most capitalist nations. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | Capitalism is not a form of government, or even a governmental ideology. It is an economic ideology.
Democracy is the governmental ideology behind most capitalist nations. | Short answer : because capitalism is a **transversal** marker and because most countries **take for granted** that they're capitalists. Why would you need to state that you're capitalistic when you feel like it's the default setting?
(so much so that they sometimes don't even realize that they are -- just like you when you write "the US are not so much of a capitalistic country", which is hilarious).
So they focus on **other aspects** of their ideology: for example, within the world that relies on markets, they feel like their differences come from something else, such as their type of government (republic versus monarchy versus whatever) or within the muslim world they focus on their religious families (are we more sunnites or more hiites or etc.)
I would add that **most countries switched to capitalism without realizing it**. Capitalism as we know it is the result of moving away from manufactures (think of them as half-baked factories relying on large-scale craftsmanship and royal approval+funding). In countries such as France in happened **alongside another big change** which was more visible and more easily labelled (such as the Revolution and the institution of democracy as a Republic). It took over a century for people like Marx to pinpoint what actually happened, from a **societal** pespective; People like Adam Smith had analyzed very early the economical aspect of things but didn't see how much capitalism is intertweened in the philosophy and government system. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | Out of [195 US recognized states](https://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm), it seems there are these types, based solely on names:
1. Republic
* 81 use the word *Republic*.
* 9 use the word *Democratic*, but all of those also use the word *Republic*
* 2 use the word *Socialist*, but again all also use the word *Republic*, and 1 uses the word *Democratic*.
2. Kingdoms
* 18 use *Kingdom*
* 3 use *Principality*
* 1 uses *Grand Duchy*.
3. Independent or cooperative
* 3 use *Commonwealth*, which is ignorantly associated with *Socialist* at times, but is better understood as "once influenced by England".
* 10 use some form of *Federal*, including 1 using *Confederation*, with 6 of them also using the word *Republic*.
* 7 use the either *Union* or *United*, with 1 using *Republic* and 1 using *Kingdom*.
* 9 use the word *State*.
* 2 use the word *Independent*, both using the word *State* as well.
4. Communist
* 5 use the word *People's*, all of them also use *Republic*, and 3 of them also use the word *Democratic*.
5. Religious
* 4 use the word *Islamic*, with all of them using the word *Republic* again.
* 1 uses the highly religious word *Holy*
6. Unaffiliated
* Most of the rest do not use any ideological words in their names.
If you look closely at any of those in the list above, there is no rhyme or reason why some of them would use the words they use in their official long names. There is no consistency in the use of these words in country names. Especially with the word Republic, some of these names do not accurately describe the the ideology of the state's government at all.
For example, take any of the Independent states under item 3. Many of them are quite capitalist, but the first thought for any of them when you see their names is probably "free from authoritarian government", not "capitalist". While at the same time, many of the Kingdoms are not the typical authoritarian types we'd imagine. Some of them are impeccably free, and some are more capitalist than others by a large degree.
But to actually answer your question, why do none of them use the word Capitalist? As others have said, capitalism is not viewed as much ideology as some of these other words. It's far more associated with economy rather than government, while many of the other words listed above are very much associated with government ideology. The word Capitalist comes from the word capital, as in money and property, and such was [the limit of its use until 1850](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology). Much of the modern meaning's early use was made by communist and socialist societal critics. These critics created ideology that centered around Socialism and Communism. Eventually, these ideologies bore new countries, and the names reflected that. Capitalism never bore a new country. It seems more of a default position. No revolution was fought and won over a communist state then reorganized and renamed as a capitalist state. Renaming "Capitalist Republic of ..." would make little sense. If the trend to use the word Capitalism as an ideology (perhaps defined mostly by minimal governmental interference), then maybe new states in the future will take the name, but it seems the Independent category already fills that need.
With all this in mind, it seems that naming countries descriptively is a failed practice. Perhaps naming a country is more of a populist effort. So even if a country did use the word Capitalist in its name, I wouldn't take it any more seriously than the word Republic. | Apart from all the other answers, no nation should call itself "Capitalist Republic of ..." because there isn't currently any nation which is purely capitalistic. We mostly live in **mixed** economic systems, a mix of capitalistic and socialist rules, so we don't starve to death if we are poor or have to redistribute all our wealth if we are rich. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | Capitalism as we currently understand it in the modern sense is a political philosophy that requires the government to institute policies to create capitalist markets. For example, there is no way to create a joint-stock company without laws to establish them as legal entities and to regulate them. Read [Debt: The First 5000 Years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years) and specifically the part about the "Iron Law of Liberalism" for more details about the need for governments to create Capitalist Markets.
However, due to the fact that since the period of European Capitalist Colonialism (e.g. East India Company was a Joint-Stock Company) the dominant world system has been Capitalism. Since it was the default, there was no need call a country as such. Most socialist countries are called that in response to the default of Capitalism. Same thing with Islam, its not that their culture is more focus on religion but that those stats are established in response to previous secular rules. The Islamic Republic of Iran is called that in response to the [more secular Shah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Contemporary_era) that had been previously installed by the US & Britain. Afghanistan under Taliban rule was called ["Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan) but that's after a secular Soviet invasion. Saudi Arabia's formal name on the other hand is "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" despite the fact that they are very religious because its not response to secular rule.
In a similar vein, when Bolivia changed its constitution in 2009 to give more power to its indigenous communities, it also changes it's formal name to the "Plurinational State of Bolivia" to [recognize its multi-ethnic nature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia) in contrast to previous domination by people with Spanish ancestry. | Apart from all the other answers, no nation should call itself "Capitalist Republic of ..." because there isn't currently any nation which is purely capitalistic. We mostly live in **mixed** economic systems, a mix of capitalistic and socialist rules, so we don't starve to death if we are poor or have to redistribute all our wealth if we are rich. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | Short answer : because capitalism is a **transversal** marker and because most countries **take for granted** that they're capitalists. Why would you need to state that you're capitalistic when you feel like it's the default setting?
(so much so that they sometimes don't even realize that they are -- just like you when you write "the US are not so much of a capitalistic country", which is hilarious).
So they focus on **other aspects** of their ideology: for example, within the world that relies on markets, they feel like their differences come from something else, such as their type of government (republic versus monarchy versus whatever) or within the muslim world they focus on their religious families (are we more sunnites or more hiites or etc.)
I would add that **most countries switched to capitalism without realizing it**. Capitalism as we know it is the result of moving away from manufactures (think of them as half-baked factories relying on large-scale craftsmanship and royal approval+funding). In countries such as France in happened **alongside another big change** which was more visible and more easily labelled (such as the Revolution and the institution of democracy as a Republic). It took over a century for people like Marx to pinpoint what actually happened, from a **societal** pespective; People like Adam Smith had analyzed very early the economical aspect of things but didn't see how much capitalism is intertweened in the philosophy and government system. | Apart from all the other answers, no nation should call itself "Capitalist Republic of ..." because there isn't currently any nation which is purely capitalistic. We mostly live in **mixed** economic systems, a mix of capitalistic and socialist rules, so we don't starve to death if we are poor or have to redistribute all our wealth if we are rich. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | >
> Why few/no countries claim capitalism as their ideology?
>
>
> Why no country ever claims capitalism as their state ideology?
>
>
>
*Capitalism* is an economic system[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism),[2](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism), it's not an ideology per se (it could be treated as an ideology in a broader sense though).
Capitalism is also known as *Free Market Economy*[2](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism). So, the antonym of Capitalism should be *Planned Economy*[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) or *Command Economy*[4](https://www.britannica.com/topic/command-economy).
>
> What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic Republic of North Korea. But that would be another question.
>
>
>
This is because North Korea considers its system as democratic[5](https://www.nknews.org/2014/02/why-is-north-korea-called-the-dprk/),[6](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/north-korea-elections-guide/358875/).
For instance, communist Germany was known as German Democratic Republic (GDR)[7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany). Chinese government also sees China as a democracy[8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F821Fe2_wBk&t=1094s).
>
> Why there is **no** "Capitalist Republic of America"?
>
>
>
USA is a capitalistic and federal style democracy.
They could have named their country as the *Federal Republic of America*. But, they preferred to lionize their **union** (of states) and hence the name. That is the same reason why Russia is *Russian Federation* and not the *Federal Republic of Russia*.
**Reference**
1. [Capitalism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
2. [Capitalism - Encyclopaedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism)
3. [Planned economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy)
4. [Command Economy](https://www.britannica.com/topic/command-economy)
5. [Why is North Korea called DPRK?](https://www.nknews.org/2014/02/why-is-north-korea-called-the-dprk/)
6. [Yes, There Are Elections in North Korea and Here's How They Work](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/north-korea-elections-guide/358875/)
7. [East Germany - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany)
8. [Is democracy wrong for China? | Head to Head](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F821Fe2_wBk&t=1094s) | Apart from all the other answers, no nation should call itself "Capitalist Republic of ..." because there isn't currently any nation which is purely capitalistic. We mostly live in **mixed** economic systems, a mix of capitalistic and socialist rules, so we don't starve to death if we are poor or have to redistribute all our wealth if we are rich. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | Capitalism is not a form of government, or even a governmental ideology. It is an economic ideology.
Democracy is the governmental ideology behind most capitalist nations. | Out of [195 US recognized states](https://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm), it seems there are these types, based solely on names:
1. Republic
* 81 use the word *Republic*.
* 9 use the word *Democratic*, but all of those also use the word *Republic*
* 2 use the word *Socialist*, but again all also use the word *Republic*, and 1 uses the word *Democratic*.
2. Kingdoms
* 18 use *Kingdom*
* 3 use *Principality*
* 1 uses *Grand Duchy*.
3. Independent or cooperative
* 3 use *Commonwealth*, which is ignorantly associated with *Socialist* at times, but is better understood as "once influenced by England".
* 10 use some form of *Federal*, including 1 using *Confederation*, with 6 of them also using the word *Republic*.
* 7 use the either *Union* or *United*, with 1 using *Republic* and 1 using *Kingdom*.
* 9 use the word *State*.
* 2 use the word *Independent*, both using the word *State* as well.
4. Communist
* 5 use the word *People's*, all of them also use *Republic*, and 3 of them also use the word *Democratic*.
5. Religious
* 4 use the word *Islamic*, with all of them using the word *Republic* again.
* 1 uses the highly religious word *Holy*
6. Unaffiliated
* Most of the rest do not use any ideological words in their names.
If you look closely at any of those in the list above, there is no rhyme or reason why some of them would use the words they use in their official long names. There is no consistency in the use of these words in country names. Especially with the word Republic, some of these names do not accurately describe the the ideology of the state's government at all.
For example, take any of the Independent states under item 3. Many of them are quite capitalist, but the first thought for any of them when you see their names is probably "free from authoritarian government", not "capitalist". While at the same time, many of the Kingdoms are not the typical authoritarian types we'd imagine. Some of them are impeccably free, and some are more capitalist than others by a large degree.
But to actually answer your question, why do none of them use the word Capitalist? As others have said, capitalism is not viewed as much ideology as some of these other words. It's far more associated with economy rather than government, while many of the other words listed above are very much associated with government ideology. The word Capitalist comes from the word capital, as in money and property, and such was [the limit of its use until 1850](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology). Much of the modern meaning's early use was made by communist and socialist societal critics. These critics created ideology that centered around Socialism and Communism. Eventually, these ideologies bore new countries, and the names reflected that. Capitalism never bore a new country. It seems more of a default position. No revolution was fought and won over a communist state then reorganized and renamed as a capitalist state. Renaming "Capitalist Republic of ..." would make little sense. If the trend to use the word Capitalism as an ideology (perhaps defined mostly by minimal governmental interference), then maybe new states in the future will take the name, but it seems the Independent category already fills that need.
With all this in mind, it seems that naming countries descriptively is a failed practice. Perhaps naming a country is more of a populist effort. So even if a country did use the word Capitalist in its name, I wouldn't take it any more seriously than the word Republic. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | There's two kinds of antonyms: opposites (left and right) and present/absent (light and dark, where dark describes the absence of light).
Capitalism is basically the default economic system. It has both good and bad aspects to it. Even in total anarchy, you'll find Capitalism in some form. Nobody establishes Capitalism. The reason it is the default is that it tends to be self-leveling in managing supply and demand (i.e. [market forces](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012815/how-does-invisible-hand-affect-capitalist-economy.asp)).
Communism, for contrast, is a **political philosophy** that says the government should control the economy, with the theory being that Capitalism is inherently unfair. The goal of Communism is, more or less, to use the power of government to remove Capitalism (in other words, create the absence of Capitalism). It does this by attempting to manage supply and demand with direct regulatory power (i.e. the state owns everything). This can, however, produce [disastrous results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Most modern states regulate Capitalism in some form. Those that want to aim more for the ideals espoused by Communism (i.e. Socialism), without the disastrous side effects, have states limit how much control they exert over various areas of the economy.
>
> **NOTE** This is oversimplified for the sake of argument. The question pertains to why Capitalism isn't a political system. Don't get bogged down in the precise economic terms please.
>
>
> | Apart from all the other answers, no nation should call itself "Capitalist Republic of ..." because there isn't currently any nation which is purely capitalistic. We mostly live in **mixed** economic systems, a mix of capitalistic and socialist rules, so we don't starve to death if we are poor or have to redistribute all our wealth if we are rich. |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | There's two kinds of antonyms: opposites (left and right) and present/absent (light and dark, where dark describes the absence of light).
Capitalism is basically the default economic system. It has both good and bad aspects to it. Even in total anarchy, you'll find Capitalism in some form. Nobody establishes Capitalism. The reason it is the default is that it tends to be self-leveling in managing supply and demand (i.e. [market forces](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012815/how-does-invisible-hand-affect-capitalist-economy.asp)).
Communism, for contrast, is a **political philosophy** that says the government should control the economy, with the theory being that Capitalism is inherently unfair. The goal of Communism is, more or less, to use the power of government to remove Capitalism (in other words, create the absence of Capitalism). It does this by attempting to manage supply and demand with direct regulatory power (i.e. the state owns everything). This can, however, produce [disastrous results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Most modern states regulate Capitalism in some form. Those that want to aim more for the ideals espoused by Communism (i.e. Socialism), without the disastrous side effects, have states limit how much control they exert over various areas of the economy.
>
> **NOTE** This is oversimplified for the sake of argument. The question pertains to why Capitalism isn't a political system. Don't get bogged down in the precise economic terms please.
>
>
> | >
> Why few/no countries claim capitalism as their ideology?
>
>
> Why no country ever claims capitalism as their state ideology?
>
>
>
*Capitalism* is an economic system[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism),[2](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism), it's not an ideology per se (it could be treated as an ideology in a broader sense though).
Capitalism is also known as *Free Market Economy*[2](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism). So, the antonym of Capitalism should be *Planned Economy*[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) or *Command Economy*[4](https://www.britannica.com/topic/command-economy).
>
> What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic Republic of North Korea. But that would be another question.
>
>
>
This is because North Korea considers its system as democratic[5](https://www.nknews.org/2014/02/why-is-north-korea-called-the-dprk/),[6](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/north-korea-elections-guide/358875/).
For instance, communist Germany was known as German Democratic Republic (GDR)[7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany). Chinese government also sees China as a democracy[8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F821Fe2_wBk&t=1094s).
>
> Why there is **no** "Capitalist Republic of America"?
>
>
>
USA is a capitalistic and federal style democracy.
They could have named their country as the *Federal Republic of America*. But, they preferred to lionize their **union** (of states) and hence the name. That is the same reason why Russia is *Russian Federation* and not the *Federal Republic of Russia*.
**Reference**
1. [Capitalism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
2. [Capitalism - Encyclopaedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism)
3. [Planned economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy)
4. [Command Economy](https://www.britannica.com/topic/command-economy)
5. [Why is North Korea called DPRK?](https://www.nknews.org/2014/02/why-is-north-korea-called-the-dprk/)
6. [Yes, There Are Elections in North Korea and Here's How They Work](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/north-korea-elections-guide/358875/)
7. [East Germany - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany)
8. [Is democracy wrong for China? | Head to Head](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F821Fe2_wBk&t=1094s) |
29,892 | Think about it: capitalism has brought so much prosperity to so many people.
Yet no country claims our national ideology is capitalism - none that I know of.
Americans can proudly claim they are capitalists. Well. First. Not so much. And then, it's not technically the American national ideology.
There are "Socialist states of...". There are "Islamic states of...". Then there is "Democratic republic of..."
What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But that would be another question.
Why does no country ever claim capitalism as their state ideology?
Why is there no "Capitalist Republic of America"? | 2018/03/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/29892",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5894/"
] | >
> Why few/no countries claim capitalism as their ideology?
>
>
> Why no country ever claims capitalism as their state ideology?
>
>
>
*Capitalism* is an economic system[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism),[2](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism), it's not an ideology per se (it could be treated as an ideology in a broader sense though).
Capitalism is also known as *Free Market Economy*[2](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism). So, the antonym of Capitalism should be *Planned Economy*[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) or *Command Economy*[4](https://www.britannica.com/topic/command-economy).
>
> What's funny is that countries that claim they are democratic are usually not democratic either. North Korea is called the Democratic Republic of North Korea. But that would be another question.
>
>
>
This is because North Korea considers its system as democratic[5](https://www.nknews.org/2014/02/why-is-north-korea-called-the-dprk/),[6](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/north-korea-elections-guide/358875/).
For instance, communist Germany was known as German Democratic Republic (GDR)[7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany). Chinese government also sees China as a democracy[8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F821Fe2_wBk&t=1094s).
>
> Why there is **no** "Capitalist Republic of America"?
>
>
>
USA is a capitalistic and federal style democracy.
They could have named their country as the *Federal Republic of America*. But, they preferred to lionize their **union** (of states) and hence the name. That is the same reason why Russia is *Russian Federation* and not the *Federal Republic of Russia*.
**Reference**
1. [Capitalism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
2. [Capitalism - Encyclopaedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism)
3. [Planned economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy)
4. [Command Economy](https://www.britannica.com/topic/command-economy)
5. [Why is North Korea called DPRK?](https://www.nknews.org/2014/02/why-is-north-korea-called-the-dprk/)
6. [Yes, There Are Elections in North Korea and Here's How They Work](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/north-korea-elections-guide/358875/)
7. [East Germany - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany)
8. [Is democracy wrong for China? | Head to Head](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F821Fe2_wBk&t=1094s) | Capitalism is not a form of government, or even a governmental ideology. It is an economic ideology.
Democracy is the governmental ideology behind most capitalist nations. |
55,622,383 | In iOS 12.2, apple added a new “feature” where motion and orientation access in safari is disabled by default. Is there a way to use JavaScript to access this option (or trigger a system pop-up that the user can say yes or no to that will enable access) so the user doesn’t have to manually enable it? | 2019/04/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/55622383",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11343115/"
] | Not yet.
"The only solution right now is to show a message to user to go to Settings and enable feature before some of the events are started (such as deviceorientation).
There is an API coming to request permission per site, but the WebKit team didn’t have time to get it done for this release. Chris Dumez from Apple confirmed that."
<https://medium.com/@firt/whats-new-on-ios-12-2-for-progressive-web-apps-75c348f8e945> | theres no official way yet, but you can probably do something like this (user will still have to manually enable it but at least you can tell them whats going on):
<https://github.com/w3c/deviceorientation/issues/57> |
2,633,532 | I've been playing around with the iPad SDK looking for ways to improve my current iPhone app. I've got a couple place where I think the new "SplitView" would look pretty good. My question is if it's possible to navigate to a "SplitView" with my current navigation based application? Mainly I'm not sure how to push that SplitViewController onto my current stack of views. Any thoughts? | 2010/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2633532",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/256828/"
] | It should always be the root controller according to Apple.
>
> The split view controller’s view
> should always be installed as the root
> view of your application window. You
> should never present a split view
> inside of a navigation or tab bar
> interface.
>
>
> | Check out the [Multiple Detail Views](https://developer.apple.com/library/content/samplecode/MultipleDetailViews/Introduction/Intro.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40009775 "Multiple Detail Views") sample app on Apple's Documentation, this could give you a good idea on how to deal with navigation structure and how to display views on the "splitViewController". |
2,633,532 | I've been playing around with the iPad SDK looking for ways to improve my current iPhone app. I've got a couple place where I think the new "SplitView" would look pretty good. My question is if it's possible to navigate to a "SplitView" with my current navigation based application? Mainly I'm not sure how to push that SplitViewController onto my current stack of views. Any thoughts? | 2010/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2633532",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/256828/"
] | It should always be the root controller according to Apple.
>
> The split view controller’s view
> should always be installed as the root
> view of your application window. You
> should never present a split view
> inside of a navigation or tab bar
> interface.
>
>
> | You can use a UISplitViewController in a UITabBarController without any problems. I have not attempted to push a UISplitViewController into an UINavigationController however. |
2,633,532 | I've been playing around with the iPad SDK looking for ways to improve my current iPhone app. I've got a couple place where I think the new "SplitView" would look pretty good. My question is if it's possible to navigate to a "SplitView" with my current navigation based application? Mainly I'm not sure how to push that SplitViewController onto my current stack of views. Any thoughts? | 2010/04/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2633532",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/256828/"
] | It should always be the root controller according to Apple.
>
> The split view controller’s view
> should always be installed as the root
> view of your application window. You
> should never present a split view
> inside of a navigation or tab bar
> interface.
>
>
> | (At least) with iOS 8 (which runs on any ipad except the first one) it's possible to use a "present modally"-segue to display a splitviewcontroller.
Drawback is that an existing navigation bar isn't displayed. |
36,822 | What I want to know is if it is possible for two planets to be close enough together to tidally lock each other (as in both planets are tidally locked), but in such a manner that they don't orbit each other. More specifically, could this happen in such a manner that the one further from their star would be perpetually in the shadow of the other?
I know, weirdly specific question. I'd be interested in the reasoning/science behind the answer, but a simple yes/no answer would actually suffice. (in case anyone's wondering, backstory for two a WH40k Wolf successor armies). | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36822",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18538/"
] | **Yes**, but the orbit will drift over time.
This may be possible if and only if there are no other (major) planets in your solar system. They won't be tidally locked, but the smaller one might be mostly in the shade. Consider a [Halo orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit) or [Lissajous orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit) around the [L₂ point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L2) of a sufficiently low-density planet. The smaller planet may be in the shade most or even all of the time, if the configuration is right.
[](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lagrange_points2.svg)
(Source: [Wikimedia commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lagrange_points2.svg))
It is possible to orbit L₂, in an orbit known as a [Halo orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit). In our solar system, those orbits are unstable, because of disturbances by other bodies such as the Moon and Jupiter. But if you envision a solar system where no other bodies of significance exists, such a configuration could temporarily exist.
Imagine such a world. At the larger planet, gravitation is too large and climate is too hot for life to exist, but by being much smaller and shady most of the time, the smaller planet has a reasonable climate, such that in the period of less than 50 million years, intelligent life emerges. Life goes on, until at some point scientists on the smaller planet discover that their orbit is very slowly diverging. It's not a problem for the next several thousand years, but the periods in the scorching Sun are getting slightly longer every century. Models predict this will only get worse, perhaps due to a passing star less than a light year away. Within the next 20,000 years, life will become unbearably hot. Can science come up with a solution? Can we generate enough thrust to keep our planet close enough to L₂ to manage our climate? Can science save the world? Stay tuned for this exciting new novel *Life at L₂*!
---
See also those questions on Space Exploration SE:
* [*What does the Sun-Earth-Moon system look like from the Sun-Earth L-2 point?*](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/10355/33)
* [*Are there any (Lagrange) points in the Solar System in perpetual shade?*](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/3565/33) | There is a non-orbital solution as well. We've not got the technology to build it but 40k is considerably more advanced in many ways.
Have the larger planet orbiting at it's natural orbit.
Have the smaller planet orbiting in the shadow of the larger one further away from the larger planet.
As already discussed there is a problem with this, they will drift apart.
Embed a tether made of unobtanium through the cores of both planets and through space between them. That tether is strong enough to stop them from drifting apart. They now orbit as a joint unit. You would need to arrange the dynamics so that they hold the same position relative to each other (good thing you wanted tidally locked) and keep a modest tension on the tether. |
36,822 | What I want to know is if it is possible for two planets to be close enough together to tidally lock each other (as in both planets are tidally locked), but in such a manner that they don't orbit each other. More specifically, could this happen in such a manner that the one further from their star would be perpetually in the shadow of the other?
I know, weirdly specific question. I'd be interested in the reasoning/science behind the answer, but a simple yes/no answer would actually suffice. (in case anyone's wondering, backstory for two a WH40k Wolf successor armies). | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36822",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18538/"
] | **Yes**, but the orbit will drift over time.
This may be possible if and only if there are no other (major) planets in your solar system. They won't be tidally locked, but the smaller one might be mostly in the shade. Consider a [Halo orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit) or [Lissajous orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit) around the [L₂ point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L2) of a sufficiently low-density planet. The smaller planet may be in the shade most or even all of the time, if the configuration is right.
[](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lagrange_points2.svg)
(Source: [Wikimedia commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lagrange_points2.svg))
It is possible to orbit L₂, in an orbit known as a [Halo orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit). In our solar system, those orbits are unstable, because of disturbances by other bodies such as the Moon and Jupiter. But if you envision a solar system where no other bodies of significance exists, such a configuration could temporarily exist.
Imagine such a world. At the larger planet, gravitation is too large and climate is too hot for life to exist, but by being much smaller and shady most of the time, the smaller planet has a reasonable climate, such that in the period of less than 50 million years, intelligent life emerges. Life goes on, until at some point scientists on the smaller planet discover that their orbit is very slowly diverging. It's not a problem for the next several thousand years, but the periods in the scorching Sun are getting slightly longer every century. Models predict this will only get worse, perhaps due to a passing star less than a light year away. Within the next 20,000 years, life will become unbearably hot. Can science come up with a solution? Can we generate enough thrust to keep our planet close enough to L₂ to manage our climate? Can science save the world? Stay tuned for this exciting new novel *Life at L₂*!
---
See also those questions on Space Exploration SE:
* [*What does the Sun-Earth-Moon system look like from the Sun-Earth L-2 point?*](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/10355/33)
* [*Are there any (Lagrange) points in the Solar System in perpetual shade?*](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/3565/33) | This sort of configuration may be possible if the smaller planet is located at the L1 or L2 [Lagrange point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) of the larger. I doubt this would work out in real life (and haven't done the math to determine how close or far apart they'd need to be if it did), but, fortunately, Warhammer 40k is not a scientifically rigorous setting, so you can probably get away with simply invoking Lagrange points along with a bit of handwavium to stabilize that configuration.
Also, technically, the planets would be tide-locked to their shared sun, not to each other, but the practical effect would be the same as what you're looking for. |
36,822 | What I want to know is if it is possible for two planets to be close enough together to tidally lock each other (as in both planets are tidally locked), but in such a manner that they don't orbit each other. More specifically, could this happen in such a manner that the one further from their star would be perpetually in the shadow of the other?
I know, weirdly specific question. I'd be interested in the reasoning/science behind the answer, but a simple yes/no answer would actually suffice. (in case anyone's wondering, backstory for two a WH40k Wolf successor armies). | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36822",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18538/"
] | Yes, but only for a few moments or hours before they crash into each other.
In the absence of a mutual orbit, there is no force to prevent their mutual gravitational attraction from pulling them into each other, and this will happen very quickly. | This sort of configuration may be possible if the smaller planet is located at the L1 or L2 [Lagrange point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) of the larger. I doubt this would work out in real life (and haven't done the math to determine how close or far apart they'd need to be if it did), but, fortunately, Warhammer 40k is not a scientifically rigorous setting, so you can probably get away with simply invoking Lagrange points along with a bit of handwavium to stabilize that configuration.
Also, technically, the planets would be tide-locked to their shared sun, not to each other, but the practical effect would be the same as what you're looking for. |
36,822 | What I want to know is if it is possible for two planets to be close enough together to tidally lock each other (as in both planets are tidally locked), but in such a manner that they don't orbit each other. More specifically, could this happen in such a manner that the one further from their star would be perpetually in the shadow of the other?
I know, weirdly specific question. I'd be interested in the reasoning/science behind the answer, but a simple yes/no answer would actually suffice. (in case anyone's wondering, backstory for two a WH40k Wolf successor armies). | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36822",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18538/"
] | This sort of configuration may be possible if the smaller planet is located at the L1 or L2 [Lagrange point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) of the larger. I doubt this would work out in real life (and haven't done the math to determine how close or far apart they'd need to be if it did), but, fortunately, Warhammer 40k is not a scientifically rigorous setting, so you can probably get away with simply invoking Lagrange points along with a bit of handwavium to stabilize that configuration.
Also, technically, the planets would be tide-locked to their shared sun, not to each other, but the practical effect would be the same as what you're looking for. | There is a non-orbital solution as well. We've not got the technology to build it but 40k is considerably more advanced in many ways.
Have the larger planet orbiting at it's natural orbit.
Have the smaller planet orbiting in the shadow of the larger one further away from the larger planet.
As already discussed there is a problem with this, they will drift apart.
Embed a tether made of unobtanium through the cores of both planets and through space between them. That tether is strong enough to stop them from drifting apart. They now orbit as a joint unit. You would need to arrange the dynamics so that they hold the same position relative to each other (good thing you wanted tidally locked) and keep a modest tension on the tether. |
36,822 | What I want to know is if it is possible for two planets to be close enough together to tidally lock each other (as in both planets are tidally locked), but in such a manner that they don't orbit each other. More specifically, could this happen in such a manner that the one further from their star would be perpetually in the shadow of the other?
I know, weirdly specific question. I'd be interested in the reasoning/science behind the answer, but a simple yes/no answer would actually suffice. (in case anyone's wondering, backstory for two a WH40k Wolf successor armies). | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36822",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18538/"
] | Yes, but only for a few moments or hours before they crash into each other.
In the absence of a mutual orbit, there is no force to prevent their mutual gravitational attraction from pulling them into each other, and this will happen very quickly. | If the two planets are close to the same size, it would be possible to give them each a relative velocity such that neither is technically orbiting the other, but rather both are orbiting a point in space between the two. Such an orbit could easily be stable as long as there aren't too many other large bodies passing by, and the planets would tend to become tidally locked to each other over time. To my knowledge, we haven't seen any planets arranged like this yet, but there are binary star systems with such a configuration.
With a bit of juggling of the math, and the mass of the star and the planets you could probably find a point where the orbital period of the two planets around their common point matched the orbital period around the sun, leading to one being in perpetual (or near perpetual) shade. Mental approximations of the math, however, make me think that you'd likely end up with some combination of the planets being too light or the star too heavy for such planets to support terrestrial conditions. (I think you'd end up being 1/8th the mass of Earth per planet to do this with a sun-type star at 1AU and the second planet roughly as far away as our moon.) So the previously-suggested halo orbit is probably the more believable (albeit less stable) option.
If terrestrial conditions aren't required, then you can just look up the basic orbital mechanics equations on Wikipedia. First calculate the orbital period of your desired planetary set, and then see how far from your desired stellar mass you'd have to put it to make the periods match. (You can adjust the surface gravity of the planets more-or-less independently of their mass by adjusting their density, just keep in mind that density is based on what they're made of, and a solid ball of uranium wouldn't be conducive to supporting life.)
Do keep in mind that, if the outer planet really is always completely in the shade, it's going to get really cold. Like, nitrogen snow kind of cold. Calculating how much of the outer planet would actually be shaded can be done from the relative diameters of the sun and the inner planet and their distance for the shape of the inner planet's shadow, and the distance between the two planets for what diameter that shadow will be when it gets to the other planet. You probably want at least some sunshine, or else your people will have to live around the terminator of the inner planet instead. |
36,822 | What I want to know is if it is possible for two planets to be close enough together to tidally lock each other (as in both planets are tidally locked), but in such a manner that they don't orbit each other. More specifically, could this happen in such a manner that the one further from their star would be perpetually in the shadow of the other?
I know, weirdly specific question. I'd be interested in the reasoning/science behind the answer, but a simple yes/no answer would actually suffice. (in case anyone's wondering, backstory for two a WH40k Wolf successor armies). | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36822",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18538/"
] | This sort of configuration may be possible if the smaller planet is located at the L1 or L2 [Lagrange point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) of the larger. I doubt this would work out in real life (and haven't done the math to determine how close or far apart they'd need to be if it did), but, fortunately, Warhammer 40k is not a scientifically rigorous setting, so you can probably get away with simply invoking Lagrange points along with a bit of handwavium to stabilize that configuration.
Also, technically, the planets would be tide-locked to their shared sun, not to each other, but the practical effect would be the same as what you're looking for. | If the two planets are close to the same size, it would be possible to give them each a relative velocity such that neither is technically orbiting the other, but rather both are orbiting a point in space between the two. Such an orbit could easily be stable as long as there aren't too many other large bodies passing by, and the planets would tend to become tidally locked to each other over time. To my knowledge, we haven't seen any planets arranged like this yet, but there are binary star systems with such a configuration.
With a bit of juggling of the math, and the mass of the star and the planets you could probably find a point where the orbital period of the two planets around their common point matched the orbital period around the sun, leading to one being in perpetual (or near perpetual) shade. Mental approximations of the math, however, make me think that you'd likely end up with some combination of the planets being too light or the star too heavy for such planets to support terrestrial conditions. (I think you'd end up being 1/8th the mass of Earth per planet to do this with a sun-type star at 1AU and the second planet roughly as far away as our moon.) So the previously-suggested halo orbit is probably the more believable (albeit less stable) option.
If terrestrial conditions aren't required, then you can just look up the basic orbital mechanics equations on Wikipedia. First calculate the orbital period of your desired planetary set, and then see how far from your desired stellar mass you'd have to put it to make the periods match. (You can adjust the surface gravity of the planets more-or-less independently of their mass by adjusting their density, just keep in mind that density is based on what they're made of, and a solid ball of uranium wouldn't be conducive to supporting life.)
Do keep in mind that, if the outer planet really is always completely in the shade, it's going to get really cold. Like, nitrogen snow kind of cold. Calculating how much of the outer planet would actually be shaded can be done from the relative diameters of the sun and the inner planet and their distance for the shape of the inner planet's shadow, and the distance between the two planets for what diameter that shadow will be when it gets to the other planet. You probably want at least some sunshine, or else your people will have to live around the terminator of the inner planet instead. |
36,822 | What I want to know is if it is possible for two planets to be close enough together to tidally lock each other (as in both planets are tidally locked), but in such a manner that they don't orbit each other. More specifically, could this happen in such a manner that the one further from their star would be perpetually in the shadow of the other?
I know, weirdly specific question. I'd be interested in the reasoning/science behind the answer, but a simple yes/no answer would actually suffice. (in case anyone's wondering, backstory for two a WH40k Wolf successor armies). | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36822",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18538/"
] | Yes, but only for a few moments or hours before they crash into each other.
In the absence of a mutual orbit, there is no force to prevent their mutual gravitational attraction from pulling them into each other, and this will happen very quickly. | There is a non-orbital solution as well. We've not got the technology to build it but 40k is considerably more advanced in many ways.
Have the larger planet orbiting at it's natural orbit.
Have the smaller planet orbiting in the shadow of the larger one further away from the larger planet.
As already discussed there is a problem with this, they will drift apart.
Embed a tether made of unobtanium through the cores of both planets and through space between them. That tether is strong enough to stop them from drifting apart. They now orbit as a joint unit. You would need to arrange the dynamics so that they hold the same position relative to each other (good thing you wanted tidally locked) and keep a modest tension on the tether. |
13,551,772 | Fairly ignorant about efficient animation, so all help appreciated! I'm using libgdx in java, and have 128px water tiles in my game that need to be animated. I currently am using 19 frames for the animation, but I have changed that number from 2-19 and I'm going from over 60fps (capped at 60) to 20fps.
The only thing I could think of was the repeated calls to getting the right texture, because I'm using a reasonably powerful graphics card that's handled java games with more animations very easily. How do I increase performance here?
Cheers | 2012/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13551772",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1291820/"
] | Use a profiler to find out where the time is being spent. You can either use a profiling tool, or just litter your code with timestamp (I used java.lang.System.nanotime()) checks, and keep a histogram to print regularly or print "outliers" or even draw the results on screen.
While you or I may be able to guess where the time is going, having tools to help you actually find out where the time is being spent is much more productive. | The answer to use a profiler is good advice. However, if you are not already packing your textures then it is a good idea to do so, as that will reduce the number of textures that are in use, which in turn will reduce the number of (relatively expensive) texture switches. Given that you have square textures you could just tile them.
That leaves the question about how large a texture can be. This is device dependent, and is discussed [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8573178/limitation-on-texture-size-android-open-gl-es-2-0) for Android devices.
Even packing a relatively small number of textures into a single texture will still reduce the number of texture switches. For example, a texture size limit of 1024px x 1024px would allow you to pack 64 128x128 textures. This would accommodate your requirement for 19 textures without the need for a texture switch.
Similarly, a texture size limit of 512px x 512px would allow you to pack 16 128x128 textures, so only one texture switch would be required. |
367,444 | I forgot my apple id and email that associated with this apple id, but i know the password of my apple id.
how can i find my apple id?
note that this apple id doesn't set on any other devices. | 2019/08/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/367444",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/343243/"
] | You can’t typically brute force a missing email through <https://forgot.apple.com> website for several reasons. If I understand your question correctly, to rephrase the situation, you have the pin code to get to your voicemail but you forgot the telephone number. It may not make sense to start dialing every number possible and keep trying your pin code on each unless you have some idea what “number” you chose.
Unless you used that email and saved receipts, wrote things down, used that ID for other services, you’re out of luck. There is no reverse lookup possible to show all the emails that used a specific password.
I’m not sure why you would even want back an ID you didn’t use, but maybe there’s more backstory or a different problem you’re solving but didn’t include in the body of your question. | You can go through Apple's "Find my Apple ID" process at <https://iforgot.apple.com/appleid#!§ion=appleid>
Hope this helps! |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | Prakhar, this is really the hardest kind of question. There are so many things that could make an OS run badly, that it would be impossible to give you a direct answer.
For starters, you could try: cold boot, and as soon as you log in, open GEdit (or any text editor you might use), open /var/log/syslog and copy it on <http://paste.ubuntu.com> and paste the link for us here. So guys around can try to spot weird things.
It's not fair to compare it to Windows 7. Any OS could do bad when the conditions are innapropriate. I can assure you there are guys around who can't use their computer with any Windows version, but run Linux flawlesly. BTW, I have an older computer (but I'm lucky to have 1GB RAM on it) running both Win7 & Ubuntu 10.10 with no problems. Slowly, but not as slowly as you described for yours.
I'm still guessing it could be some part of your hardware slowing you down (in this case, Win7 probably supports it with no problems). But it's just a wild guess.
Waiting for any logs you could provide us with. | One of possible solutions:
Install previous Ubuntu version (for instance, starting from 9.10) then gradually upgrade to the latest one. In many cases it works fine. Anyway you will see how perfomance is changing from previous version to next one. |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | Prakhar, this is really the hardest kind of question. There are so many things that could make an OS run badly, that it would be impossible to give you a direct answer.
For starters, you could try: cold boot, and as soon as you log in, open GEdit (or any text editor you might use), open /var/log/syslog and copy it on <http://paste.ubuntu.com> and paste the link for us here. So guys around can try to spot weird things.
It's not fair to compare it to Windows 7. Any OS could do bad when the conditions are innapropriate. I can assure you there are guys around who can't use their computer with any Windows version, but run Linux flawlesly. BTW, I have an older computer (but I'm lucky to have 1GB RAM on it) running both Win7 & Ubuntu 10.10 with no problems. Slowly, but not as slowly as you described for yours.
I'm still guessing it could be some part of your hardware slowing you down (in this case, Win7 probably supports it with no problems). But it's just a wild guess.
Waiting for any logs you could provide us with. | It is most likely due to a bad VGA driver. You can easily confirm this by selecting Ubuntu 2D before you log in by pressing the button next to the password field. If that gives you a fast desktop, then you need to get some drivers for your VGA. If you need help doing that, you should open a new question. |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | Prakhar, this is really the hardest kind of question. There are so many things that could make an OS run badly, that it would be impossible to give you a direct answer.
For starters, you could try: cold boot, and as soon as you log in, open GEdit (or any text editor you might use), open /var/log/syslog and copy it on <http://paste.ubuntu.com> and paste the link for us here. So guys around can try to spot weird things.
It's not fair to compare it to Windows 7. Any OS could do bad when the conditions are innapropriate. I can assure you there are guys around who can't use their computer with any Windows version, but run Linux flawlesly. BTW, I have an older computer (but I'm lucky to have 1GB RAM on it) running both Win7 & Ubuntu 10.10 with no problems. Slowly, but not as slowly as you described for yours.
I'm still guessing it could be some part of your hardware slowing you down (in this case, Win7 probably supports it with no problems). But it's just a wild guess.
Waiting for any logs you could provide us with. | Maybe there is a problem with your ACPI.
y'know, i installed Ubuntu on My computer and my friend's. we have **exactly the same hardware** on **different Motherboards**. It didn't installed normally on my pc, i used the '*ACPI Workarounds*' option to make it go, but on her PC everything was okay. Ubuntu runs perfectly smooth and fast on her PC, but it's very very slow on mine.
to check this, -if you're using Windows- go to '*Device Manager*' and see if there is an item probably named '*Unknown Device*' |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | I suspect it is the graphics card slowing you down (it is a low end model) - what driver are you using for the card?
You should install the Nvidia restricted driver for the best possible performance.
Also you mention no issues on Win7 - does it work on the aero interface OK? | One of possible solutions:
Install previous Ubuntu version (for instance, starting from 9.10) then gradually upgrade to the latest one. In many cases it works fine. Anyway you will see how perfomance is changing from previous version to next one. |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | I suspect it is the graphics card slowing you down (it is a low end model) - what driver are you using for the card?
You should install the Nvidia restricted driver for the best possible performance.
Also you mention no issues on Win7 - does it work on the aero interface OK? | It is most likely due to a bad VGA driver. You can easily confirm this by selecting Ubuntu 2D before you log in by pressing the button next to the password field. If that gives you a fast desktop, then you need to get some drivers for your VGA. If you need help doing that, you should open a new question. |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | I suspect it is the graphics card slowing you down (it is a low end model) - what driver are you using for the card?
You should install the Nvidia restricted driver for the best possible performance.
Also you mention no issues on Win7 - does it work on the aero interface OK? | Maybe there is a problem with your ACPI.
y'know, i installed Ubuntu on My computer and my friend's. we have **exactly the same hardware** on **different Motherboards**. It didn't installed normally on my pc, i used the '*ACPI Workarounds*' option to make it go, but on her PC everything was okay. Ubuntu runs perfectly smooth and fast on her PC, but it's very very slow on mine.
to check this, -if you're using Windows- go to '*Device Manager*' and see if there is an item probably named '*Unknown Device*' |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | One of possible solutions:
Install previous Ubuntu version (for instance, starting from 9.10) then gradually upgrade to the latest one. In many cases it works fine. Anyway you will see how perfomance is changing from previous version to next one. | Maybe there is a problem with your ACPI.
y'know, i installed Ubuntu on My computer and my friend's. we have **exactly the same hardware** on **different Motherboards**. It didn't installed normally on my pc, i used the '*ACPI Workarounds*' option to make it go, but on her PC everything was okay. Ubuntu runs perfectly smooth and fast on her PC, but it's very very slow on mine.
to check this, -if you're using Windows- go to '*Device Manager*' and see if there is an item probably named '*Unknown Device*' |
18,108 | I'm running ubuntu lucid lynx on the following config:
* 2GB DDR2 Ram
* 1.50Ghz Core2Duo
* Nvidia 128MB 8400GS GFX Card
Due to some reason the entire operating system feels laggy. The window manager, firefox and rhythmbox and almost all apps feel a bit slow. There is almost a second time lag between the time I press ctrl+T to open a new tab on firefox and the time it actually opens. This site itself renders in frames and the scrolling up and down is a pain.
Rhythmbox takes 1 sec to maximize and minimize and I cant even dream of a changing the workspace.
My question is if Windows 7 is running perfectly on my comp why isnt Ubuntu? I really hope there is a way because I would love to ditch windows and move over to linux full time.
Is there anyone for whom ubuntu works as it should while running a similar config?
Thanks | 2010/12/19 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/18108",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/6956/"
] | It is most likely due to a bad VGA driver. You can easily confirm this by selecting Ubuntu 2D before you log in by pressing the button next to the password field. If that gives you a fast desktop, then you need to get some drivers for your VGA. If you need help doing that, you should open a new question. | Maybe there is a problem with your ACPI.
y'know, i installed Ubuntu on My computer and my friend's. we have **exactly the same hardware** on **different Motherboards**. It didn't installed normally on my pc, i used the '*ACPI Workarounds*' option to make it go, but on her PC everything was okay. Ubuntu runs perfectly smooth and fast on her PC, but it's very very slow on mine.
to check this, -if you're using Windows- go to '*Device Manager*' and see if there is an item probably named '*Unknown Device*' |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | I'm going to be a contrarian on this one.
Hypothetically, if the point is to wipe out humans, would we even be capable of using animals for agricultural work? Without machinery, farming for large populations becomes difficult to sustain. While we could always hunt for meat, plowing is EXTREMELY energetically intensive, and there wouldn't be enough "wild food" to sustain human populations at 1 A.D.
Early hominids were grouped in small populations and fairly mobile in order to follow their food sources (excepting food rich environments like inhabited jungles). Additionally, EVERYONE was taught the skills to survive, and specialization was comparatively mild.
The sudden cessation of all agriculture would lead to mass die offs. Even assuming slave labor, farmers would have a hard time plowing and planting crops, since humans are weak in comparison to domesticated mammals. Basically all city dwellers would die, since they lack basic survival skills. Soldiers and the like might learn to hunt large game, but military tactics and formations used against large groups of humans don't translate well to individual animal quarries. Regardless, a population sated with meat would still suffer nutritional deficiencies. Your empires would fall without their bread baskets, and while small populations of subsistence farmers might remain, it's likely that genetic inbreeding would eventually lead to gradual extinction.
***TL;DR:*** Early humans survived against megafauna due to small populations, high mobility, and lack of specialisation. By 1 A.D., our accumulation of technology means none of these factors hold. If we lose the capacity to engage in agriculture due to the larger farm animals "un-domesticating," then it is likely that humans will slowly go extinct. | Well honestly if even normal animals had been organized to attack humans(even without doubling size) then humans would already have been wipedout. So, if "mother nature" is trying to destroy humans in such a roundabout way(I mean it should be able to kill us all in a thousand different ways), then I can only assume that 'she' would still not be able to organize that when they are larger.
However even if the animals grew bigger, stronger and then became more agressive towards humans. Without the inteligence or instruction to wipe out all humans, humans would more than likely survive, adapt to the situation and then grow again; because necessity is the mother of invention and humans are like cockroaches.
Ofcoarse if a being intelligent enough to hunt all humans down is born and it has the abillities to back it up then the likely of humans being destroyed rises significantly. Also humans could just be unlucky. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | Well honestly if even normal animals had been organized to attack humans(even without doubling size) then humans would already have been wipedout. So, if "mother nature" is trying to destroy humans in such a roundabout way(I mean it should be able to kill us all in a thousand different ways), then I can only assume that 'she' would still not be able to organize that when they are larger.
However even if the animals grew bigger, stronger and then became more agressive towards humans. Without the inteligence or instruction to wipe out all humans, humans would more than likely survive, adapt to the situation and then grow again; because necessity is the mother of invention and humans are like cockroaches.
Ofcoarse if a being intelligent enough to hunt all humans down is born and it has the abillities to back it up then the likely of humans being destroyed rises significantly. Also humans could just be unlucky. | Pretty sure this will be closed soon. So I'll try to help you. First, you really can't just double the sized of animals and have them move or even exist the same way. As you pointed out their volume goes up with the cube while their surface area only goes up with the square. This is a big deal for energy exchange. Also, why didn't the humans double in size? Anyway, none of that really matters. Humans rule because we can manipulate tools. We routinely bring down larger animals (and sometimes fall prey to them) with all of them the size they are now. We still win. I use the term 'win' loosely here, since I can't say for certain that our reign will be as long or as fruitful as those that preceded us.
Also, if you are going to write this into a world, you should really work on your grammar. I'm not intending to be cruel here, just pointing it out. Sorry. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | I'm going to be a contrarian on this one.
Hypothetically, if the point is to wipe out humans, would we even be capable of using animals for agricultural work? Without machinery, farming for large populations becomes difficult to sustain. While we could always hunt for meat, plowing is EXTREMELY energetically intensive, and there wouldn't be enough "wild food" to sustain human populations at 1 A.D.
Early hominids were grouped in small populations and fairly mobile in order to follow their food sources (excepting food rich environments like inhabited jungles). Additionally, EVERYONE was taught the skills to survive, and specialization was comparatively mild.
The sudden cessation of all agriculture would lead to mass die offs. Even assuming slave labor, farmers would have a hard time plowing and planting crops, since humans are weak in comparison to domesticated mammals. Basically all city dwellers would die, since they lack basic survival skills. Soldiers and the like might learn to hunt large game, but military tactics and formations used against large groups of humans don't translate well to individual animal quarries. Regardless, a population sated with meat would still suffer nutritional deficiencies. Your empires would fall without their bread baskets, and while small populations of subsistence farmers might remain, it's likely that genetic inbreeding would eventually lead to gradual extinction.
***TL;DR:*** Early humans survived against megafauna due to small populations, high mobility, and lack of specialisation. By 1 A.D., our accumulation of technology means none of these factors hold. If we lose the capacity to engage in agriculture due to the larger farm animals "un-domesticating," then it is likely that humans will slowly go extinct. | Are animals that are 2x bigger actually more dangerous? (not really)
(Blatantly copying my answer to a similar question)
This analysis assumes that all the organs of the animals are scaled evenly in all directions.
**There is something called the square cube law.**
There are many good things that grow with the square of the of the scal like muscle strength (which is proportional to the cross section area of the muscle) so 2x in each dimension is 4x strength.
There are many bad things that grow with the cube of size like weight which is proportional to the volume of the creature. So 2x in each dimension is 8x weight. Since the creature is caring 8x the weight it must consume 8x the calories to not starve. The required strength of lungs and heart which now must supply oxygen to 8x muscle, and push 8x the blood volume 2x higher.
Assuming that running speed is proportional to strength / weight we would expect large creatures to be twice as slow.
A larger creature has a harder time with stealth.
**What does this mean**
* Some species would die out.
Some species would no longer fit in their ecological niches, bees would be to large to drink pollen from flowers monkeys could no longer climb trees water striders will no longer walk on the surface of the water.
Some could not consume enough calories
Cows eat most of the day to get enough calories, there is not time for them to eat 8x more. They would either have to switch to a more calorie dense food or starve.
* The large animals would be very venerable to bows
The creatures are very large targets that are significantly slower than the ones we have today. They have 2x higher blood pressure so they will bleed out much faster if wounded. They are huge targets and will trouble sneaking up on anything. They must eat much more so they cannot afford to stalk or wait long they must attack.
* They would be much more deadly at close range.
A giant lion would be capable of impressive destruction, but if a lion reaches you, you are dead anyway whether or not it is giant or normal. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | Unless the animals are magically guided to specifically attack human beings, no way.
Specifically, humans already did this once, about 12 thousand years ago. The giant ground sloths, giant rodents, regular lions and tigers on the American continent were systematically wiped out for practical or culinary reasons in the centuries following human arrival.
Humans needed flint, sticks, fire, and language. They still have all these things in the year 0, but now they also have armies, written language, boats, and metals.
If you would like a specific example: The [polar bear hunters of Zhokov island](https://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/18/the-ancient-polar-bear-hunters-of-zhokhov-island-siberia/). 397 polar bear skulls, hunted with bone and stone tools. | Well honestly if even normal animals had been organized to attack humans(even without doubling size) then humans would already have been wipedout. So, if "mother nature" is trying to destroy humans in such a roundabout way(I mean it should be able to kill us all in a thousand different ways), then I can only assume that 'she' would still not be able to organize that when they are larger.
However even if the animals grew bigger, stronger and then became more agressive towards humans. Without the inteligence or instruction to wipe out all humans, humans would more than likely survive, adapt to the situation and then grow again; because necessity is the mother of invention and humans are like cockroaches.
Ofcoarse if a being intelligent enough to hunt all humans down is born and it has the abillities to back it up then the likely of humans being destroyed rises significantly. Also humans could just be unlucky. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | Unless the animals are magically guided to specifically attack human beings, no way.
Specifically, humans already did this once, about 12 thousand years ago. The giant ground sloths, giant rodents, regular lions and tigers on the American continent were systematically wiped out for practical or culinary reasons in the centuries following human arrival.
Humans needed flint, sticks, fire, and language. They still have all these things in the year 0, but now they also have armies, written language, boats, and metals.
If you would like a specific example: The [polar bear hunters of Zhokov island](https://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/18/the-ancient-polar-bear-hunters-of-zhokhov-island-siberia/). 397 polar bear skulls, hunted with bone and stone tools. | Possibly Yes.
=============
Discussion
==========
### Technology
I'll begin with a rough list of [various technological achievements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions#1st_millennium_BC) by 1 AD:
1. The Great Wall of China had already been constructed in whole (by ~100BCE) and part (by ~700 BCE).
2. The Romans had constructed aqueducts (312 BCE) and roads (~300BCE).
3. The Romans had begun using hydraulic mining in NW Spain by 25BCE.
4. The Romans and Chinese had 200 and 300 years of respective experience **forging steel**.
5. The Chinese had 500 years of crossbows.
6. Sun Tzu's Art of War was written by 500BCE. (though not a technology it was an impressive *and lasting* achievement nonetheless)
Note: China wouldn't fully develop gunpowder until Wujing Zongyao was written in 1040-1044 ADE; however, **[Saltpeter was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#China)D**
### History
By well over 1000 BCE Homo Sapiens had already hunted down animals significantly larger than them (Woolly Mammoths, Elephants). As @Resonating noted, we also wiped out large animals on the American Continents. Fastforward to 1ADE and 3 major empires are present:
1. Roman Empire under Augustus
2. Chinese Han Dynasty
3. Parthians
Of them I'll ignore the Parthians since I'm unfamiliar with their history.
Romans
======
BY 1 ADE the Roman Empire had been ruled by Augustus for 28 years. Following "The Transformation", city dwellers would panic over the size of vermin and rural citizens would panic over the size of their cattle or wild animals. The cities would **calm rather quickly given the presence of Praetorian Guard, police, and fire fighting established by Augustus** and the Roman Legionnaires of course (who happens to include rural farmers in their ranks). Given the large presence of weapons among the populace, I expect they'd make short work of any animals that happens upon them. Deaths by mauling or animal attacks would surely increase; but, **this would motivate a systematic response from the Senate and Emperor.**
Given their technological prowess, I expect the Romans would construct walls to keep out larger animals. Unlike the Germanic tribes, the Romans would benefit from light sources, horses, roads, and steel/iron weapons. As such, the Germanic tribes would never become a threat to the Romans. Furthermore, given the different chain of events, it's debatable whether Augustus would die when he did (14 AD), especially if Livia did poison him. Considering the Roman Empire's existing domestication and distribution channels the Roman food supply would increase eightfold from meat sources and massively from agriculture (since agriculture would grow to compensate for the animal's increased diet). Furthermore, it's not a stretch to consider how quickly they'd attempt to tame said animals and use them for work or transportation. One of Rome's biggest technological issues was energy sources. With 'The Transformation', every animal they *put to work* would output 2-8x more energy. How far could a horse 2x taller and longer travel? Imagine how that would affect the Cursus Publicas (*also implemented by Augustus*)? How would this affect the ability to transport the materials needed to construct walls and aqueducts? This would be a *very* different Roman Empire without much of the limits that crippled it by 1000 AD.
What is questionable though is the status of their outlying regions (Egypt, Anatolia, Phoenicia, Spain, France). Here I won't speculate (for the moment).
China
=====
Unlike the Romans, the Chinese are a different beast. By 1 AD they'd mastered warfare and have strongly unified. With the onset of "The Transformation", they'd have the capacity for a rapid response. Since they were quite familiar with East Asia, they'd successfully [wage a land war](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mTlnrXFAXE) against the animals. I say this because they have strategy, steel weapons, and most importantly: crossbows. Where the Romans have numbers & organization, the Chinese armies would excel in the use of Sun Tzu's stratagems and the skillful application of weapons. Given the knowledge of Salt Peter and China's history of technological advancements during 'war' (namely the warring states period), I have no doubt that they'd develop gunpowder centuries ahead of time.
Conclusion
==========
Yes, Humanity would survive; but, it'd be a vastly different world likely dominated by Rome & China.
Further Questions
1. What animals would pose an existential threat to mankind?
2. When would the scientific revolution occur in this new world? |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | Unless the animals are magically guided to specifically attack human beings, no way.
Specifically, humans already did this once, about 12 thousand years ago. The giant ground sloths, giant rodents, regular lions and tigers on the American continent were systematically wiped out for practical or culinary reasons in the centuries following human arrival.
Humans needed flint, sticks, fire, and language. They still have all these things in the year 0, but now they also have armies, written language, boats, and metals.
If you would like a specific example: The [polar bear hunters of Zhokov island](https://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/18/the-ancient-polar-bear-hunters-of-zhokhov-island-siberia/). 397 polar bear skulls, hunted with bone and stone tools. | Are animals that are 2x bigger actually more dangerous? (not really)
(Blatantly copying my answer to a similar question)
This analysis assumes that all the organs of the animals are scaled evenly in all directions.
**There is something called the square cube law.**
There are many good things that grow with the square of the of the scal like muscle strength (which is proportional to the cross section area of the muscle) so 2x in each dimension is 4x strength.
There are many bad things that grow with the cube of size like weight which is proportional to the volume of the creature. So 2x in each dimension is 8x weight. Since the creature is caring 8x the weight it must consume 8x the calories to not starve. The required strength of lungs and heart which now must supply oxygen to 8x muscle, and push 8x the blood volume 2x higher.
Assuming that running speed is proportional to strength / weight we would expect large creatures to be twice as slow.
A larger creature has a harder time with stealth.
**What does this mean**
* Some species would die out.
Some species would no longer fit in their ecological niches, bees would be to large to drink pollen from flowers monkeys could no longer climb trees water striders will no longer walk on the surface of the water.
Some could not consume enough calories
Cows eat most of the day to get enough calories, there is not time for them to eat 8x more. They would either have to switch to a more calorie dense food or starve.
* The large animals would be very venerable to bows
The creatures are very large targets that are significantly slower than the ones we have today. They have 2x higher blood pressure so they will bleed out much faster if wounded. They are huge targets and will trouble sneaking up on anything. They must eat much more so they cannot afford to stalk or wait long they must attack.
* They would be much more deadly at close range.
A giant lion would be capable of impressive destruction, but if a lion reaches you, you are dead anyway whether or not it is giant or normal. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | Possibly Yes.
=============
Discussion
==========
### Technology
I'll begin with a rough list of [various technological achievements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions#1st_millennium_BC) by 1 AD:
1. The Great Wall of China had already been constructed in whole (by ~100BCE) and part (by ~700 BCE).
2. The Romans had constructed aqueducts (312 BCE) and roads (~300BCE).
3. The Romans had begun using hydraulic mining in NW Spain by 25BCE.
4. The Romans and Chinese had 200 and 300 years of respective experience **forging steel**.
5. The Chinese had 500 years of crossbows.
6. Sun Tzu's Art of War was written by 500BCE. (though not a technology it was an impressive *and lasting* achievement nonetheless)
Note: China wouldn't fully develop gunpowder until Wujing Zongyao was written in 1040-1044 ADE; however, **[Saltpeter was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#China)D**
### History
By well over 1000 BCE Homo Sapiens had already hunted down animals significantly larger than them (Woolly Mammoths, Elephants). As @Resonating noted, we also wiped out large animals on the American Continents. Fastforward to 1ADE and 3 major empires are present:
1. Roman Empire under Augustus
2. Chinese Han Dynasty
3. Parthians
Of them I'll ignore the Parthians since I'm unfamiliar with their history.
Romans
======
BY 1 ADE the Roman Empire had been ruled by Augustus for 28 years. Following "The Transformation", city dwellers would panic over the size of vermin and rural citizens would panic over the size of their cattle or wild animals. The cities would **calm rather quickly given the presence of Praetorian Guard, police, and fire fighting established by Augustus** and the Roman Legionnaires of course (who happens to include rural farmers in their ranks). Given the large presence of weapons among the populace, I expect they'd make short work of any animals that happens upon them. Deaths by mauling or animal attacks would surely increase; but, **this would motivate a systematic response from the Senate and Emperor.**
Given their technological prowess, I expect the Romans would construct walls to keep out larger animals. Unlike the Germanic tribes, the Romans would benefit from light sources, horses, roads, and steel/iron weapons. As such, the Germanic tribes would never become a threat to the Romans. Furthermore, given the different chain of events, it's debatable whether Augustus would die when he did (14 AD), especially if Livia did poison him. Considering the Roman Empire's existing domestication and distribution channels the Roman food supply would increase eightfold from meat sources and massively from agriculture (since agriculture would grow to compensate for the animal's increased diet). Furthermore, it's not a stretch to consider how quickly they'd attempt to tame said animals and use them for work or transportation. One of Rome's biggest technological issues was energy sources. With 'The Transformation', every animal they *put to work* would output 2-8x more energy. How far could a horse 2x taller and longer travel? Imagine how that would affect the Cursus Publicas (*also implemented by Augustus*)? How would this affect the ability to transport the materials needed to construct walls and aqueducts? This would be a *very* different Roman Empire without much of the limits that crippled it by 1000 AD.
What is questionable though is the status of their outlying regions (Egypt, Anatolia, Phoenicia, Spain, France). Here I won't speculate (for the moment).
China
=====
Unlike the Romans, the Chinese are a different beast. By 1 AD they'd mastered warfare and have strongly unified. With the onset of "The Transformation", they'd have the capacity for a rapid response. Since they were quite familiar with East Asia, they'd successfully [wage a land war](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mTlnrXFAXE) against the animals. I say this because they have strategy, steel weapons, and most importantly: crossbows. Where the Romans have numbers & organization, the Chinese armies would excel in the use of Sun Tzu's stratagems and the skillful application of weapons. Given the knowledge of Salt Peter and China's history of technological advancements during 'war' (namely the warring states period), I have no doubt that they'd develop gunpowder centuries ahead of time.
Conclusion
==========
Yes, Humanity would survive; but, it'd be a vastly different world likely dominated by Rome & China.
Further Questions
1. What animals would pose an existential threat to mankind?
2. When would the scientific revolution occur in this new world? | Are animals that are 2x bigger actually more dangerous? (not really)
(Blatantly copying my answer to a similar question)
This analysis assumes that all the organs of the animals are scaled evenly in all directions.
**There is something called the square cube law.**
There are many good things that grow with the square of the of the scal like muscle strength (which is proportional to the cross section area of the muscle) so 2x in each dimension is 4x strength.
There are many bad things that grow with the cube of size like weight which is proportional to the volume of the creature. So 2x in each dimension is 8x weight. Since the creature is caring 8x the weight it must consume 8x the calories to not starve. The required strength of lungs and heart which now must supply oxygen to 8x muscle, and push 8x the blood volume 2x higher.
Assuming that running speed is proportional to strength / weight we would expect large creatures to be twice as slow.
A larger creature has a harder time with stealth.
**What does this mean**
* Some species would die out.
Some species would no longer fit in their ecological niches, bees would be to large to drink pollen from flowers monkeys could no longer climb trees water striders will no longer walk on the surface of the water.
Some could not consume enough calories
Cows eat most of the day to get enough calories, there is not time for them to eat 8x more. They would either have to switch to a more calorie dense food or starve.
* The large animals would be very venerable to bows
The creatures are very large targets that are significantly slower than the ones we have today. They have 2x higher blood pressure so they will bleed out much faster if wounded. They are huge targets and will trouble sneaking up on anything. They must eat much more so they cannot afford to stalk or wait long they must attack.
* They would be much more deadly at close range.
A giant lion would be capable of impressive destruction, but if a lion reaches you, you are dead anyway whether or not it is giant or normal. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | Possibly Yes.
=============
Discussion
==========
### Technology
I'll begin with a rough list of [various technological achievements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions#1st_millennium_BC) by 1 AD:
1. The Great Wall of China had already been constructed in whole (by ~100BCE) and part (by ~700 BCE).
2. The Romans had constructed aqueducts (312 BCE) and roads (~300BCE).
3. The Romans had begun using hydraulic mining in NW Spain by 25BCE.
4. The Romans and Chinese had 200 and 300 years of respective experience **forging steel**.
5. The Chinese had 500 years of crossbows.
6. Sun Tzu's Art of War was written by 500BCE. (though not a technology it was an impressive *and lasting* achievement nonetheless)
Note: China wouldn't fully develop gunpowder until Wujing Zongyao was written in 1040-1044 ADE; however, **[Saltpeter was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#China)D**
### History
By well over 1000 BCE Homo Sapiens had already hunted down animals significantly larger than them (Woolly Mammoths, Elephants). As @Resonating noted, we also wiped out large animals on the American Continents. Fastforward to 1ADE and 3 major empires are present:
1. Roman Empire under Augustus
2. Chinese Han Dynasty
3. Parthians
Of them I'll ignore the Parthians since I'm unfamiliar with their history.
Romans
======
BY 1 ADE the Roman Empire had been ruled by Augustus for 28 years. Following "The Transformation", city dwellers would panic over the size of vermin and rural citizens would panic over the size of their cattle or wild animals. The cities would **calm rather quickly given the presence of Praetorian Guard, police, and fire fighting established by Augustus** and the Roman Legionnaires of course (who happens to include rural farmers in their ranks). Given the large presence of weapons among the populace, I expect they'd make short work of any animals that happens upon them. Deaths by mauling or animal attacks would surely increase; but, **this would motivate a systematic response from the Senate and Emperor.**
Given their technological prowess, I expect the Romans would construct walls to keep out larger animals. Unlike the Germanic tribes, the Romans would benefit from light sources, horses, roads, and steel/iron weapons. As such, the Germanic tribes would never become a threat to the Romans. Furthermore, given the different chain of events, it's debatable whether Augustus would die when he did (14 AD), especially if Livia did poison him. Considering the Roman Empire's existing domestication and distribution channels the Roman food supply would increase eightfold from meat sources and massively from agriculture (since agriculture would grow to compensate for the animal's increased diet). Furthermore, it's not a stretch to consider how quickly they'd attempt to tame said animals and use them for work or transportation. One of Rome's biggest technological issues was energy sources. With 'The Transformation', every animal they *put to work* would output 2-8x more energy. How far could a horse 2x taller and longer travel? Imagine how that would affect the Cursus Publicas (*also implemented by Augustus*)? How would this affect the ability to transport the materials needed to construct walls and aqueducts? This would be a *very* different Roman Empire without much of the limits that crippled it by 1000 AD.
What is questionable though is the status of their outlying regions (Egypt, Anatolia, Phoenicia, Spain, France). Here I won't speculate (for the moment).
China
=====
Unlike the Romans, the Chinese are a different beast. By 1 AD they'd mastered warfare and have strongly unified. With the onset of "The Transformation", they'd have the capacity for a rapid response. Since they were quite familiar with East Asia, they'd successfully [wage a land war](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mTlnrXFAXE) against the animals. I say this because they have strategy, steel weapons, and most importantly: crossbows. Where the Romans have numbers & organization, the Chinese armies would excel in the use of Sun Tzu's stratagems and the skillful application of weapons. Given the knowledge of Salt Peter and China's history of technological advancements during 'war' (namely the warring states period), I have no doubt that they'd develop gunpowder centuries ahead of time.
Conclusion
==========
Yes, Humanity would survive; but, it'd be a vastly different world likely dominated by Rome & China.
Further Questions
1. What animals would pose an existential threat to mankind?
2. When would the scientific revolution occur in this new world? | Pretty sure this will be closed soon. So I'll try to help you. First, you really can't just double the sized of animals and have them move or even exist the same way. As you pointed out their volume goes up with the cube while their surface area only goes up with the square. This is a big deal for energy exchange. Also, why didn't the humans double in size? Anyway, none of that really matters. Humans rule because we can manipulate tools. We routinely bring down larger animals (and sometimes fall prey to them) with all of them the size they are now. We still win. I use the term 'win' loosely here, since I can't say for certain that our reign will be as long or as fruitful as those that preceded us.
Also, if you are going to write this into a world, you should really work on your grammar. I'm not intending to be cruel here, just pointing it out. Sorry. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | Unless the animals are magically guided to specifically attack human beings, no way.
Specifically, humans already did this once, about 12 thousand years ago. The giant ground sloths, giant rodents, regular lions and tigers on the American continent were systematically wiped out for practical or culinary reasons in the centuries following human arrival.
Humans needed flint, sticks, fire, and language. They still have all these things in the year 0, but now they also have armies, written language, boats, and metals.
If you would like a specific example: The [polar bear hunters of Zhokov island](https://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/18/the-ancient-polar-bear-hunters-of-zhokhov-island-siberia/). 397 polar bear skulls, hunted with bone and stone tools. | Pretty sure this will be closed soon. So I'll try to help you. First, you really can't just double the sized of animals and have them move or even exist the same way. As you pointed out their volume goes up with the cube while their surface area only goes up with the square. This is a big deal for energy exchange. Also, why didn't the humans double in size? Anyway, none of that really matters. Humans rule because we can manipulate tools. We routinely bring down larger animals (and sometimes fall prey to them) with all of them the size they are now. We still win. I use the term 'win' loosely here, since I can't say for certain that our reign will be as long or as fruitful as those that preceded us.
Also, if you are going to write this into a world, you should really work on your grammar. I'm not intending to be cruel here, just pointing it out. Sorry. |
82,449 | Okay, I just asked a [question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82436/would-humankind-remain-the-dominat-species-in-a-world-with-twice-as-big-animals), in which mother nature transformed all animals (or brain containing living beings, if that fits better for you) into a being twice as big in order for them to kill of humankind, recovering the ecosystem.
Well, with twice the heigth, length and width, it's actually eight times the size ($2^3$).
The question was, if humankind could remain as the dominant species and the answers made it clear: Yes, easily.
But it got me thinking. Would the result be the same, if all animals would have turned twice as big at the year 0?
The rules are the same:
* This transformation happened worldwide at the same time and only took about a minute.
* The physical abilities (strength, speed etc.) scale accordingly to the size and the animals are able to handle the gained mass just as good as their reallife counterparts.
* Mother Nature DO provide the earth with enough food to feed the bigger animals. After all, she wants to keep her children alive, killing only humankind.
Well, carnivore don't need changes, as their prey scale accordingly. Let's just say the vegetable food grows faster, there is more of it or it provides more of whatever keeps the animals alive. (Doesn't really matter, the question is about the fight between humankind and animals)
* The earth was EXACTLY ours until the year 0.
With all that: Would humankind still be able to become the dominant species in the year 2000 (or earlier), or wouldn't they be able to handle the changes? | 2017/06/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/82449",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/38611/"
] | I'm going to be a contrarian on this one.
Hypothetically, if the point is to wipe out humans, would we even be capable of using animals for agricultural work? Without machinery, farming for large populations becomes difficult to sustain. While we could always hunt for meat, plowing is EXTREMELY energetically intensive, and there wouldn't be enough "wild food" to sustain human populations at 1 A.D.
Early hominids were grouped in small populations and fairly mobile in order to follow their food sources (excepting food rich environments like inhabited jungles). Additionally, EVERYONE was taught the skills to survive, and specialization was comparatively mild.
The sudden cessation of all agriculture would lead to mass die offs. Even assuming slave labor, farmers would have a hard time plowing and planting crops, since humans are weak in comparison to domesticated mammals. Basically all city dwellers would die, since they lack basic survival skills. Soldiers and the like might learn to hunt large game, but military tactics and formations used against large groups of humans don't translate well to individual animal quarries. Regardless, a population sated with meat would still suffer nutritional deficiencies. Your empires would fall without their bread baskets, and while small populations of subsistence farmers might remain, it's likely that genetic inbreeding would eventually lead to gradual extinction.
***TL;DR:*** Early humans survived against megafauna due to small populations, high mobility, and lack of specialisation. By 1 A.D., our accumulation of technology means none of these factors hold. If we lose the capacity to engage in agriculture due to the larger farm animals "un-domesticating," then it is likely that humans will slowly go extinct. | Pretty sure this will be closed soon. So I'll try to help you. First, you really can't just double the sized of animals and have them move or even exist the same way. As you pointed out their volume goes up with the cube while their surface area only goes up with the square. This is a big deal for energy exchange. Also, why didn't the humans double in size? Anyway, none of that really matters. Humans rule because we can manipulate tools. We routinely bring down larger animals (and sometimes fall prey to them) with all of them the size they are now. We still win. I use the term 'win' loosely here, since I can't say for certain that our reign will be as long or as fruitful as those that preceded us.
Also, if you are going to write this into a world, you should really work on your grammar. I'm not intending to be cruel here, just pointing it out. Sorry. |
10,563 | The scenario is as follows:
* There are clients that users can access and work with.
* These clients can be online or offline.
* There is a central database on a server, holding all the authorization data.
* The clients each hold a mirror of a part of the central database.
* At regular intervals, the client go online to connect to the central server, and update its local database to match that of the central server.
The purpose of the local authentication database is that a program running on the client can determine what levels of access users (when the client is offline) are authorized to when running the program.
Are there any general best practices on how to protect the local database on the client from being viewed and manipulated by unathorized users? | 2012/01/11 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/10563",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/6879/"
] | Are these (local and central) databases holding authorization or authentication data (or both)? Your question refers to it using both ways.
But, whichever it is, if the database is local and the user (or, equivalently, a process running as that user) has to be able to read it (e.g. to check that they have valid authentication/authorization) and that read has to be (by definition!) before the user is authenticated and authorized, then you are out of luck -- the user will need to have read access so they will be able to read the data.
You may be able to prevent modification of the data (or at least detect and reject such modification e.g. via a cryptographic signature/public key encryption using a private key held on the server whose public key pair is held on the client machine) but the user could still subvert the authentication/authorization within the client application's "offline" mode by modifying/injecting into the locally running code.
In addition to any such "roadblocks" you'll also need to make sure that when the client reconnects, the server prevents any unauthorised changes which were made while in offline mode from propagating to the server. | I should say two things:
1- This is not a good model if users have strong enough incentive to access the data they are not supposed to have access to (since it looks like they have all the data but the client software prevents them from "seeing" all of it based on the permissions defined in the database)
2- If you must do it the way you say, you need to encrypt the client database. |
4,200 | So there is a debate about how to edit ellipses in posts on the site. This has come to a head [in this latest post](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/129353/is-on-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-a-cliche-to-be-avoided).
Here is what needs to be decided as an official policy so that we don't end up with edit wars/community wikis from too many edits.
What do we want for a site policy?
1. use three periods ...
2. use three periods with a space in between . . .
3. use a narrow-space plus dots (separate each dot with U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE)
4. use a proper UTF8 ellipsis …
5. let the poster decide which method to use and otherwise leave it alone | 2013/09/30 | [
"https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4200",
"https://english.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8360/"
] | Personally I could live with any of 1,2 or (preferably) 5. Expecting people to use symbols that are not easily available on all keyboards and setups seems unnecessarily complex and, which is more, will simply be ignored by the vast majority of users.
If I had to choose, I would go for 5. While I appreciate correct punctuation as much as anyone and will be quick to edit out things like "I am wondering.........." which are so common in internetspeak, I feel that requesting strict adherence to typographical conventions is not really reasonable on a public Q&A site. In any case, the conventions themselves are not so clear here with different style guides [suggesting different variants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis#In_English).
Then there are the various problems associated with some people not having set their browser to auto detect character encoding or who have set it to non UTF8 defaults. They won't be able to see options 3 and 4 correctly which makes these, in my opinion, more effort than they're worth.
Given that each of these options has its adherents and *all of them will be understood* I think the best option is 5. | If I can restrain myself from editing out the first word in all those ELU questions starting with a redundant ***So*** ([like](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/129380/) [these](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/128106/) [three](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/127868/)), I see no reason why others can't just accept the OP's typography.
Having said that, I don't *entirely* subscribe to Kitfox's option #5 here. Whilst I don't think mods (or anyone else, for that matter) should put any effort into "standardising" this particular aspect of typography (in *Answers*, too? - how about *Comments*?), I don't see any reason to rail against anyone who wants to do it. Unless the OP in question objects, in which case he has the final say.
We've been given [clear guidelines](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/77866/2637) on some typographical conventions adopted by one of our more "professional" users. Which is all very nice, but I doubt even *he* seriously thinks it would be worthwhile attempting to enforce consistency across all ELU posts. |
4,200 | So there is a debate about how to edit ellipses in posts on the site. This has come to a head [in this latest post](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/129353/is-on-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-a-cliche-to-be-avoided).
Here is what needs to be decided as an official policy so that we don't end up with edit wars/community wikis from too many edits.
What do we want for a site policy?
1. use three periods ...
2. use three periods with a space in between . . .
3. use a narrow-space plus dots (separate each dot with U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE)
4. use a proper UTF8 ellipsis …
5. let the poster decide which method to use and otherwise leave it alone | 2013/09/30 | [
"https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4200",
"https://english.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8360/"
] | The only possible correct answer ***for a site policy*** is option 5: let the poster decide, and leave it the [expletive deleted] alone.
Edit wars like in the linked example are laughable. It's an ellipsis in an internet post, folks, not a government ID number on a tax return.
If you encounter a post where someone used regular spaces between the periods and it's breaking across two lines, then you can edit to fix it; but please also fix *all* typos and misspellings in the post while you're at it. If they merely used non-breaking spaces and you like your ellipses space-free (or vice versa), then please, for the love of all that's holy, go find something better to do with your time. | If I can restrain myself from editing out the first word in all those ELU questions starting with a redundant ***So*** ([like](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/129380/) [these](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/128106/) [three](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/127868/)), I see no reason why others can't just accept the OP's typography.
Having said that, I don't *entirely* subscribe to Kitfox's option #5 here. Whilst I don't think mods (or anyone else, for that matter) should put any effort into "standardising" this particular aspect of typography (in *Answers*, too? - how about *Comments*?), I don't see any reason to rail against anyone who wants to do it. Unless the OP in question objects, in which case he has the final say.
We've been given [clear guidelines](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/77866/2637) on some typographical conventions adopted by one of our more "professional" users. Which is all very nice, but I doubt even *he* seriously thinks it would be worthwhile attempting to enforce consistency across all ELU posts. |
11,347 | My firm is looking for an out-of-the-box database system to store and query high-frequency tick data. What are the best options? It seems that kdb+ is the market leader in this field. | 2014/05/18 | [
"https://quant.stackexchange.com/questions/11347",
"https://quant.stackexchange.com",
"https://quant.stackexchange.com/users/8090/"
] | An alternative is the [TeaFiles file format](https://teafiles.codeplex.com/). It's simple and boasts a high performance but I believe you'll have to reinvent some wheels. | kdb+ seems to be the leader but their programming language is a pain really. Personally I use a HDF5. It is a No-SQL database. It integrates very nicely with python.
I have been very happy with it so far. |
11,347 | My firm is looking for an out-of-the-box database system to store and query high-frequency tick data. What are the best options? It seems that kdb+ is the market leader in this field. | 2014/05/18 | [
"https://quant.stackexchange.com/questions/11347",
"https://quant.stackexchange.com",
"https://quant.stackexchange.com/users/8090/"
] | An alternative is the [TeaFiles file format](https://teafiles.codeplex.com/). It's simple and boasts a high performance but I believe you'll have to reinvent some wheels. | velocity analytics might be a choice. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.