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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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/"
] | 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. | velocity analytics might be a choice. |
2,662 | There's a survey on chess.com, [Do your friends play chess?](http://www.chess.com/survey/do-your-friends-play-chess), and the results aren't very encouraging. Personally, very few of my friends play chess.
Then I read this question: [What's the most prestigious chess competition, broadcasted on TV?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1009/whats-the-most-prestigious-chess-competition-broadcasted-on-tv) Chess was once broadcast on TV; is it getting less popular?
How many people actually attend the tournaments and watch them? I watch bowling, snooker, even darts on sky sport. Eurosport broadcasts sports like [Biathlon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon); could chess be less popular than that? Really?
Is FIDE trying to make it more popular? | 2013/08/03 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2662",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/1105/"
] | according to wikipedia, the USCF has experienced strong membership growth in recent times:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chess_Federation>
However, another angle would be to look at google search trends, and this suggests it is less popular, at least since 2005. For example, "chess", "learn chess" and "chess rules", "chess tutor", "chess books", "chess openings", "chess endgame", and "play chess online" show a downward trend. "how to play chess" shows a slight downward trend.
Overall popularity to other things could be compared by looking at the number of facebook likes that it has, although this estimate could be confounded by many different factors. You could at least get a rough comparison to other hobbies, though. | The USCF and FIDE have scholastic programs designed to get kids - boys and girls - into chess. This is one way they are trying to popularize it. |
2,662 | There's a survey on chess.com, [Do your friends play chess?](http://www.chess.com/survey/do-your-friends-play-chess), and the results aren't very encouraging. Personally, very few of my friends play chess.
Then I read this question: [What's the most prestigious chess competition, broadcasted on TV?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1009/whats-the-most-prestigious-chess-competition-broadcasted-on-tv) Chess was once broadcast on TV; is it getting less popular?
How many people actually attend the tournaments and watch them? I watch bowling, snooker, even darts on sky sport. Eurosport broadcasts sports like [Biathlon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon); could chess be less popular than that? Really?
Is FIDE trying to make it more popular? | 2013/08/03 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2662",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/1105/"
] | Chess isn't popular because all major tournaments make it lack emotion. For some reason, all major tournaments are those of *classic* chess, that is, with high quality games that last 5 hours or more. The outcome of these high quality games at the highest play level is most typically a draw. This is totally broken and does not have a chance to make it to the mainstream public.
Now look at soccer, which has a bit of popularity in Europe and South America. At the higher level there are few goals scored but games are more often than not full of emotion. Just like chess, a small mistake (even a referee mistake) can determine the result of a game. Just like chess, it is a game of mistakes, but there is a major difference: things happen fast, sometimes faster than the eye can tell. The center back does not let the forward to think as much time as he wishes so that he can make the shoot of the century. Instead, he tackles him. The difference of level among a division and the division below is the time they have left to make a decision once they have the ball. The higher the division, the shorter the time to think.
To answer your question, FIDE does not try to make chess more popular because it is promoting the classic games, which are of no interest and of a lot less quality than two machines playing against each other with a regular computer. FIDE has been losing time trying to make chess an Olympic sport so that it can get funds by governments that are willing to increase their vanity each 4 years by getting Olympic medals.
If FIDE had any interest in making it more popular, the major tournaments where all money and fame are need to be of fast games, from 5 to 10 minutes by player, with lower quality but a lot more fun, and leave the perfect games for the machines. | The USCF and FIDE have scholastic programs designed to get kids - boys and girls - into chess. This is one way they are trying to popularize it. |
2,662 | There's a survey on chess.com, [Do your friends play chess?](http://www.chess.com/survey/do-your-friends-play-chess), and the results aren't very encouraging. Personally, very few of my friends play chess.
Then I read this question: [What's the most prestigious chess competition, broadcasted on TV?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1009/whats-the-most-prestigious-chess-competition-broadcasted-on-tv) Chess was once broadcast on TV; is it getting less popular?
How many people actually attend the tournaments and watch them? I watch bowling, snooker, even darts on sky sport. Eurosport broadcasts sports like [Biathlon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon); could chess be less popular than that? Really?
Is FIDE trying to make it more popular? | 2013/08/03 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2662",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/1105/"
] | according to wikipedia, the USCF has experienced strong membership growth in recent times:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chess_Federation>
However, another angle would be to look at google search trends, and this suggests it is less popular, at least since 2005. For example, "chess", "learn chess" and "chess rules", "chess tutor", "chess books", "chess openings", "chess endgame", and "play chess online" show a downward trend. "how to play chess" shows a slight downward trend.
Overall popularity to other things could be compared by looking at the number of facebook likes that it has, although this estimate could be confounded by many different factors. You could at least get a rough comparison to other hobbies, though. | Chess made the top 10 most searched for games on Google for over 117 months. I think they've been recording the top searches for about 117 months. It's the most popular board game in the world.
<http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=chess> |
2,662 | There's a survey on chess.com, [Do your friends play chess?](http://www.chess.com/survey/do-your-friends-play-chess), and the results aren't very encouraging. Personally, very few of my friends play chess.
Then I read this question: [What's the most prestigious chess competition, broadcasted on TV?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1009/whats-the-most-prestigious-chess-competition-broadcasted-on-tv) Chess was once broadcast on TV; is it getting less popular?
How many people actually attend the tournaments and watch them? I watch bowling, snooker, even darts on sky sport. Eurosport broadcasts sports like [Biathlon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon); could chess be less popular than that? Really?
Is FIDE trying to make it more popular? | 2013/08/03 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2662",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/1105/"
] | Chess isn't popular because all major tournaments make it lack emotion. For some reason, all major tournaments are those of *classic* chess, that is, with high quality games that last 5 hours or more. The outcome of these high quality games at the highest play level is most typically a draw. This is totally broken and does not have a chance to make it to the mainstream public.
Now look at soccer, which has a bit of popularity in Europe and South America. At the higher level there are few goals scored but games are more often than not full of emotion. Just like chess, a small mistake (even a referee mistake) can determine the result of a game. Just like chess, it is a game of mistakes, but there is a major difference: things happen fast, sometimes faster than the eye can tell. The center back does not let the forward to think as much time as he wishes so that he can make the shoot of the century. Instead, he tackles him. The difference of level among a division and the division below is the time they have left to make a decision once they have the ball. The higher the division, the shorter the time to think.
To answer your question, FIDE does not try to make chess more popular because it is promoting the classic games, which are of no interest and of a lot less quality than two machines playing against each other with a regular computer. FIDE has been losing time trying to make chess an Olympic sport so that it can get funds by governments that are willing to increase their vanity each 4 years by getting Olympic medals.
If FIDE had any interest in making it more popular, the major tournaments where all money and fame are need to be of fast games, from 5 to 10 minutes by player, with lower quality but a lot more fun, and leave the perfect games for the machines. | according to wikipedia, the USCF has experienced strong membership growth in recent times:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chess_Federation>
However, another angle would be to look at google search trends, and this suggests it is less popular, at least since 2005. For example, "chess", "learn chess" and "chess rules", "chess tutor", "chess books", "chess openings", "chess endgame", and "play chess online" show a downward trend. "how to play chess" shows a slight downward trend.
Overall popularity to other things could be compared by looking at the number of facebook likes that it has, although this estimate could be confounded by many different factors. You could at least get a rough comparison to other hobbies, though. |
2,662 | There's a survey on chess.com, [Do your friends play chess?](http://www.chess.com/survey/do-your-friends-play-chess), and the results aren't very encouraging. Personally, very few of my friends play chess.
Then I read this question: [What's the most prestigious chess competition, broadcasted on TV?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1009/whats-the-most-prestigious-chess-competition-broadcasted-on-tv) Chess was once broadcast on TV; is it getting less popular?
How many people actually attend the tournaments and watch them? I watch bowling, snooker, even darts on sky sport. Eurosport broadcasts sports like [Biathlon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon); could chess be less popular than that? Really?
Is FIDE trying to make it more popular? | 2013/08/03 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2662",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/1105/"
] | Chess isn't popular because all major tournaments make it lack emotion. For some reason, all major tournaments are those of *classic* chess, that is, with high quality games that last 5 hours or more. The outcome of these high quality games at the highest play level is most typically a draw. This is totally broken and does not have a chance to make it to the mainstream public.
Now look at soccer, which has a bit of popularity in Europe and South America. At the higher level there are few goals scored but games are more often than not full of emotion. Just like chess, a small mistake (even a referee mistake) can determine the result of a game. Just like chess, it is a game of mistakes, but there is a major difference: things happen fast, sometimes faster than the eye can tell. The center back does not let the forward to think as much time as he wishes so that he can make the shoot of the century. Instead, he tackles him. The difference of level among a division and the division below is the time they have left to make a decision once they have the ball. The higher the division, the shorter the time to think.
To answer your question, FIDE does not try to make chess more popular because it is promoting the classic games, which are of no interest and of a lot less quality than two machines playing against each other with a regular computer. FIDE has been losing time trying to make chess an Olympic sport so that it can get funds by governments that are willing to increase their vanity each 4 years by getting Olympic medals.
If FIDE had any interest in making it more popular, the major tournaments where all money and fame are need to be of fast games, from 5 to 10 minutes by player, with lower quality but a lot more fun, and leave the perfect games for the machines. | Chess made the top 10 most searched for games on Google for over 117 months. I think they've been recording the top searches for about 117 months. It's the most popular board game in the world.
<http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=chess> |
2,544,215 | I'd like to work on a game, but for rapidly prototyping it, I'd like to keep it as simple as possible, so I'd do everything in top-down 2D in GDI+ and WinForms (hey, I like them!), so I can concentrate on the logic and architecture of the game itself.
I thinking about having the whole game logic (server) in one assembly, where the WinForms app would be a client to that game, and if/when the time is right, I'd write a 3D client.
I am tempted to use XNA, but I haven't really looked into it, so I don't know if it won't take too much time getting up to speed - I really don't want to spent much time doing other stuff than the game logic, at least while I have the inspiration. But I wouldn't have to abandon everything and transfer to new platform when transitioning from 2D to 3D.
Another idea is just to get over it and learn XNA/Unity/SDL/something at least to that level so I can make the same 2D version as I could in GDI+, and I won't have to worry about switching frameworks anymore.
Let's just say that the game is the kind where you watch a dude from behind, you run around the gameworld and interact with objects. So the bird's eye perspective could be doable for now.
Thanks. | 2010/03/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2544215",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/72746/"
] | You should really just bite the bullet and take a look at one of the frameworks you mentioned.
SDL is pretty good, but honestly, if you want to just get down to writing your game, XNA is incredible.
If you are already experienced in C#, you could follow the on-line tutorials, but picking up just a single book on XNA is enough to really get you going. | I'm not a game programmer, but I know that the difference between modeling physics problems in 2D and 3D is huge.
I agree that it's a good idea to start with 2D, but don't expect to be able to reuse much of that code in the 3D version. 3D is a different animal. |
2,544,215 | I'd like to work on a game, but for rapidly prototyping it, I'd like to keep it as simple as possible, so I'd do everything in top-down 2D in GDI+ and WinForms (hey, I like them!), so I can concentrate on the logic and architecture of the game itself.
I thinking about having the whole game logic (server) in one assembly, where the WinForms app would be a client to that game, and if/when the time is right, I'd write a 3D client.
I am tempted to use XNA, but I haven't really looked into it, so I don't know if it won't take too much time getting up to speed - I really don't want to spent much time doing other stuff than the game logic, at least while I have the inspiration. But I wouldn't have to abandon everything and transfer to new platform when transitioning from 2D to 3D.
Another idea is just to get over it and learn XNA/Unity/SDL/something at least to that level so I can make the same 2D version as I could in GDI+, and I won't have to worry about switching frameworks anymore.
Let's just say that the game is the kind where you watch a dude from behind, you run around the gameworld and interact with objects. So the bird's eye perspective could be doable for now.
Thanks. | 2010/03/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2544215",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/72746/"
] | This too long for a comment but... Your game physics world should pretty much be independent of the type of view you're using to see it. As an example, it's not uncommon for RTS (like say Warcraft III) to offer both a 3D view and a "mini map". If you think about it, Warcraft 1 that was 2D isn't that different from Warcraft 3 (which is fake 3D, but represented using real 3D).
Another example, you're talking about watching some character walking: it's not unlike CounterStrike (well, in CS you *are* the dude but anyway), where you have both your 3D view **and** also a minimap. And gameplay aside, I sure can walk around "Dust" (one of the most famous CS map) using only my minimap: I don't need the 3D view to walk around (now of course to aim I can't use the minimap).
In a lot of game the "physics world" is not the same as the "3D world": otherwise people with different configs wouldn't be able to play in a network game.
Another CounterStrike example: I had a really old crappy celeron with a crappy graphic card that was barely enough to run the game, so I modded the game to use "low polygons" models for the characters (this greatly enhanced the rendering speed and hence made the game very playable on my crappy config). And I still could play networked. Why? Because changing the *view world* doesn't change the *physics world*.
So the "view" really shouldn't be influencing too much your model because the view is a detail. Now of course you have to somehow decide on what you want: but if the "dude" you mentioned could be followed using a 2D top-down view as well as an isometric view as well as an "FPS-like" 3D view, then by all mean model your "physics" in a way that is completely unrelated to the view. That way you'll be able to start with something simple: 2D view, using pixels (like a CounterStrike or a Warcraft 3 minimap). And later on you can start adding a 3D view.
Now the kind of world you need to use depends on what you want: heck, there are both "2D physics / 3D view games", "3D physics / 2D view games", "2D physics / 2.5D view games" (GIYF if you don't know about the '2.5D' term in videogame development), etc.
My point is: the view is unrelated to the model/physics (once again, otherwise people couldn't be playing networked game of CounterStrike or Warcraft). | I'm not a game programmer, but I know that the difference between modeling physics problems in 2D and 3D is huge.
I agree that it's a good idea to start with 2D, but don't expect to be able to reuse much of that code in the 3D version. 3D is a different animal. |
2,544,215 | I'd like to work on a game, but for rapidly prototyping it, I'd like to keep it as simple as possible, so I'd do everything in top-down 2D in GDI+ and WinForms (hey, I like them!), so I can concentrate on the logic and architecture of the game itself.
I thinking about having the whole game logic (server) in one assembly, where the WinForms app would be a client to that game, and if/when the time is right, I'd write a 3D client.
I am tempted to use XNA, but I haven't really looked into it, so I don't know if it won't take too much time getting up to speed - I really don't want to spent much time doing other stuff than the game logic, at least while I have the inspiration. But I wouldn't have to abandon everything and transfer to new platform when transitioning from 2D to 3D.
Another idea is just to get over it and learn XNA/Unity/SDL/something at least to that level so I can make the same 2D version as I could in GDI+, and I won't have to worry about switching frameworks anymore.
Let's just say that the game is the kind where you watch a dude from behind, you run around the gameworld and interact with objects. So the bird's eye perspective could be doable for now.
Thanks. | 2010/03/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2544215",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/72746/"
] | You should really just bite the bullet and take a look at one of the frameworks you mentioned.
SDL is pretty good, but honestly, if you want to just get down to writing your game, XNA is incredible.
If you are already experienced in C#, you could follow the on-line tutorials, but picking up just a single book on XNA is enough to really get you going. | This too long for a comment but... Your game physics world should pretty much be independent of the type of view you're using to see it. As an example, it's not uncommon for RTS (like say Warcraft III) to offer both a 3D view and a "mini map". If you think about it, Warcraft 1 that was 2D isn't that different from Warcraft 3 (which is fake 3D, but represented using real 3D).
Another example, you're talking about watching some character walking: it's not unlike CounterStrike (well, in CS you *are* the dude but anyway), where you have both your 3D view **and** also a minimap. And gameplay aside, I sure can walk around "Dust" (one of the most famous CS map) using only my minimap: I don't need the 3D view to walk around (now of course to aim I can't use the minimap).
In a lot of game the "physics world" is not the same as the "3D world": otherwise people with different configs wouldn't be able to play in a network game.
Another CounterStrike example: I had a really old crappy celeron with a crappy graphic card that was barely enough to run the game, so I modded the game to use "low polygons" models for the characters (this greatly enhanced the rendering speed and hence made the game very playable on my crappy config). And I still could play networked. Why? Because changing the *view world* doesn't change the *physics world*.
So the "view" really shouldn't be influencing too much your model because the view is a detail. Now of course you have to somehow decide on what you want: but if the "dude" you mentioned could be followed using a 2D top-down view as well as an isometric view as well as an "FPS-like" 3D view, then by all mean model your "physics" in a way that is completely unrelated to the view. That way you'll be able to start with something simple: 2D view, using pixels (like a CounterStrike or a Warcraft 3 minimap). And later on you can start adding a 3D view.
Now the kind of world you need to use depends on what you want: heck, there are both "2D physics / 3D view games", "3D physics / 2D view games", "2D physics / 2.5D view games" (GIYF if you don't know about the '2.5D' term in videogame development), etc.
My point is: the view is unrelated to the model/physics (once again, otherwise people couldn't be playing networked game of CounterStrike or Warcraft). |
36,309 | Is it possible to throttle down the CPU speed of a VMWare image so that i can simulate a slow computer and test how my software works on a slow machine?
Or is there any other way to do this?
Im using VMWare Server 2.0 and its a CentOS Image. | 2009/07/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/36309",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/4913/"
] | This is not possible with the Player and Server products, but I believe it is in the ESXi (the free "bare-metal hypervisor" product) and the paid-for products like VMWare Workstation. | Yes, just limit that VM's CPU resources, you can go down to as low as 1Mhz (iirc).
Ah, just spotted the edit/addition - don't know Server 2.0 sorry, only ESX |
31,024 | Me maw used to say to me 'at the double', meaning for me to come as quick as possible. Just wondering today: what was the origin of this saying? It seems to me that the words don't apply to anything really specifically, so can some one provide a feasible explanation? | 2011/06/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31024",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/8183/"
] | Just two points Ham and Bacon didn't make clear: double time (the command is "At the double" in the British Army and "On the double" in the American) is literally twice the speed of a normal march, so 72 paces a minute (Britsih Light Infantry pace and I believe also the norm in the USMC) becomes 144, which is pretty much a run. And it's not 'would give the command': the practice continues, and probably will as long as armed forces remain in being, so it's 'gives' or maybe 'will give'. | I was reading about gut strings for violins and various other stringed instuments and how they are made and saw this: "Once a group of five or so sets are stripped they are bunched and knotted in the center. This is known as handling the casing "on the double", that is, at the center. Such an arrangement makes it easier to handle the thirty yards of length and eases the strain on the material." |
4,638,112 | I am just at starting levels in DB usage and have 2 basic questions
1. I have a generic UPDATE stored proc which updates all columns of a table.
But i need to make it conditional wherein it does not SET when the parameter is NULL.
Usage: I want to use this as a single SP to UPDATE any subset of columns, the caller from C# will fill in corresponding parameter values and leave other parameters NULL.
2
In case of , "UPDATE selected records" do i need to use locking inside stored proc ?
Why ? Isn't the operation in itself locked and transactional ?
I find the same question come up when i need to UPDATE selected(condition) records and then Return updated records. | 2011/01/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4638112",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/520348/"
] | You need:
* first to declare the different JRE in your Eclipse: See "[Eclipse - no Java (JRE) / (JDK) … no virtual machine…](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2030434/eclipse-no-java-jre-jdk-no-virtual-machine/2843837#2843837)"
* then to add the right JRE in your project settings (see this [blog post for instance](http://www.upgradingdave.com/unsupported-major-minor-version-49-what-the-hell-does-that-mean))
>
> The default JRE is shown with a check mark and is used by new eclipse projects unless the project specifically overrides the value.
>
> **So the next step is to check which JRE the current project is using**.
>
>
> * Right click the project and choose "properties".
> * Select "Java Build Path" and then click the tab labeled "Libraries". You should see an entry like "JRE System Library [version]".
>
> To change the JRE version,
> + highlight the entry and click "Remove".
> + Then click "Add Library...". Choose "JRE System Library".
>
> If you choose "Workspace Default", the project will use the JRe defined under "Windows -> Properties" as explained above.
>
> You may also specify an alternate JRE located somewhere on your file system, or choose an embedded execution environment provided by Eclipse.
>
>
> | you can configure VM in [eclipse.ini](http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse.ini) file. |
22,686 | We have a strong perimeter firewall. Would it make sense to still use IPTables on each host to hard block any and all ports except for the ones that are needed (DNS, 80 for the web server, nagios ports, etc.), or would this just lead to inefficiency. The web server gets millions of hits per day. | 2012/10/16 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/22686",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/13978/"
] | Yes, it is a good idea to lock down all of the hosts inside the firewall as well to protect against any threats coming from your internal network. That way, if someone gains access to your network or if there is a virus/worm/etc attacking your local machines, there are that many fewer services that could potentially be compromised.
Someone else will need to speak to the inefficiencies in this particular case, although my suspicion is that they would be negligible. | Definitely do this. I've made it a habit to deploy services using Puppet, so the allow service rules are written into the same definition file that installs the service. The generic firewall manifest file finishes off by dropping everything I didn't otherwise allow (besides ICMP. Don't turn off ICMP). |
251,171 | In my text book they said that:
>
> 1. If no resultant force acts on an object, it will not accelerate; **it will remain at rest or it will** **continue to move at constant speed**
> 2. If an object is at rest or is moving at a constant speed in a straight line ,we can say that there is no resultant force on it.
>
>
>
Now my question as it concentrates more on the first point.
How if the resultant forces or force are zero still the object moves at a constant speed and some times it does not move (or it is at rest as they say)? | 2016/04/21 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251171",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/115057/"
] | Welcome to the Stack Exchange community Yusuf. The first thing that you need to understand before you understand forces and their effect on bodies is relative motion. Whenever you mention distance or speed of any object, you always mention it with reference to a fixed point. For example, if someone asks you how far away is the school, you will reply that the school is x km away from something. This something can be your house or your friend's house or the leaning tower of Pisa or it can be the center of our galaxy and your answer will differ in each of the above cases.
Speed is also mentioned in reference to something. For example, if you tell your car's speed on a highway to someone, you would say something like, "My car is running at the speed of 120 km/h". This 120 km/h would be in reference to the road but it could also be relative to one of the other cars on the highway or relative to a flight from New Delhi to Dubai or a comet zooming past the sun and as before, the speed would be different in each of these cases.
Now to answer your question, I will take two cases, one in which the object is at rest and one in which the object is in motion relative to you.
Case 1:
Imagine a small car that is standing in the neutral gear and has the handbrake disengaged. If a person and his friend are equal in strength and if the person pushes the car from behind and his friend pushes the car from ahead and if they both push the car with same force, the car will not move an inch as both of them would be canceling each other's force.
Case 2:
Now imagine the car and the two people doing their pushing on a train that is moving at a constant speed in a constant direction. Let the railway track be frictionless and imagine yourself standing beside the railway track and watching the two people push the car. You would see the car moving at a constant speed but you would not notice any change in the speed of the car. To the two people on the train, it would seem as if the car is still but to you the car would appear to be moving at a constant speed.
So it is simply a matter of perspective because nothing is ever truly in motion if we don't mention the point of reference. | Basically, if no \*\*net \*\* force is acting on a body, it's acceleration is zero...
Now, acceleration is the change in velocity in unit time...
So, if velocity is constant or zero, it's acceleration is zero...
Hope this helps!!! |
251,171 | In my text book they said that:
>
> 1. If no resultant force acts on an object, it will not accelerate; **it will remain at rest or it will** **continue to move at constant speed**
> 2. If an object is at rest or is moving at a constant speed in a straight line ,we can say that there is no resultant force on it.
>
>
>
Now my question as it concentrates more on the first point.
How if the resultant forces or force are zero still the object moves at a constant speed and some times it does not move (or it is at rest as they say)? | 2016/04/21 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251171",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/115057/"
] | Welcome to the Stack Exchange community Yusuf. The first thing that you need to understand before you understand forces and their effect on bodies is relative motion. Whenever you mention distance or speed of any object, you always mention it with reference to a fixed point. For example, if someone asks you how far away is the school, you will reply that the school is x km away from something. This something can be your house or your friend's house or the leaning tower of Pisa or it can be the center of our galaxy and your answer will differ in each of the above cases.
Speed is also mentioned in reference to something. For example, if you tell your car's speed on a highway to someone, you would say something like, "My car is running at the speed of 120 km/h". This 120 km/h would be in reference to the road but it could also be relative to one of the other cars on the highway or relative to a flight from New Delhi to Dubai or a comet zooming past the sun and as before, the speed would be different in each of these cases.
Now to answer your question, I will take two cases, one in which the object is at rest and one in which the object is in motion relative to you.
Case 1:
Imagine a small car that is standing in the neutral gear and has the handbrake disengaged. If a person and his friend are equal in strength and if the person pushes the car from behind and his friend pushes the car from ahead and if they both push the car with same force, the car will not move an inch as both of them would be canceling each other's force.
Case 2:
Now imagine the car and the two people doing their pushing on a train that is moving at a constant speed in a constant direction. Let the railway track be frictionless and imagine yourself standing beside the railway track and watching the two people push the car. You would see the car moving at a constant speed but you would not notice any change in the speed of the car. To the two people on the train, it would seem as if the car is still but to you the car would appear to be moving at a constant speed.
So it is simply a matter of perspective because nothing is ever truly in motion if we don't mention the point of reference. | You might be confusing with pushing an object forward to maintain its motion.
For example, we pushed a CART forward and we got to maintain pushing it to keep it moving forever. Then, when we let go it will stop.
This is just because there is friction, this friction will cause the cart to stop, remove that and the cart will move forever! In real life Earth scenario however, this seldom happens, but push a cart in outer space and viola! It says goodbye us! |
251,171 | In my text book they said that:
>
> 1. If no resultant force acts on an object, it will not accelerate; **it will remain at rest or it will** **continue to move at constant speed**
> 2. If an object is at rest or is moving at a constant speed in a straight line ,we can say that there is no resultant force on it.
>
>
>
Now my question as it concentrates more on the first point.
How if the resultant forces or force are zero still the object moves at a constant speed and some times it does not move (or it is at rest as they say)? | 2016/04/21 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251171",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/115057/"
] | Recall Newton's Second Law,
*F=ma*
This means that resultant forces acting on an object will produce acceleration, which is a change in velocity. Remember that velocity is a vector, which includes both *speed* **and** *direction*. So if an object is accelerating, it has either its speed and/or direction of movement undergoing a change.
If an object is traveling at constant speed and still moving in the same direction, it is not experiencing acceleration, and thus the resultant forces acting on it are zero. This is exactly the same for an object at rest, except that its speed happens to be zero. | Basically, if no \*\*net \*\* force is acting on a body, it's acceleration is zero...
Now, acceleration is the change in velocity in unit time...
So, if velocity is constant or zero, it's acceleration is zero...
Hope this helps!!! |
251,171 | In my text book they said that:
>
> 1. If no resultant force acts on an object, it will not accelerate; **it will remain at rest or it will** **continue to move at constant speed**
> 2. If an object is at rest or is moving at a constant speed in a straight line ,we can say that there is no resultant force on it.
>
>
>
Now my question as it concentrates more on the first point.
How if the resultant forces or force are zero still the object moves at a constant speed and some times it does not move (or it is at rest as they say)? | 2016/04/21 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251171",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/115057/"
] | Recall Newton's Second Law,
*F=ma*
This means that resultant forces acting on an object will produce acceleration, which is a change in velocity. Remember that velocity is a vector, which includes both *speed* **and** *direction*. So if an object is accelerating, it has either its speed and/or direction of movement undergoing a change.
If an object is traveling at constant speed and still moving in the same direction, it is not experiencing acceleration, and thus the resultant forces acting on it are zero. This is exactly the same for an object at rest, except that its speed happens to be zero. | Welcome to the Stack Exchange community Yusuf. The first thing that you need to understand before you understand forces and their effect on bodies is relative motion. Whenever you mention distance or speed of any object, you always mention it with reference to a fixed point. For example, if someone asks you how far away is the school, you will reply that the school is x km away from something. This something can be your house or your friend's house or the leaning tower of Pisa or it can be the center of our galaxy and your answer will differ in each of the above cases.
Speed is also mentioned in reference to something. For example, if you tell your car's speed on a highway to someone, you would say something like, "My car is running at the speed of 120 km/h". This 120 km/h would be in reference to the road but it could also be relative to one of the other cars on the highway or relative to a flight from New Delhi to Dubai or a comet zooming past the sun and as before, the speed would be different in each of these cases.
Now to answer your question, I will take two cases, one in which the object is at rest and one in which the object is in motion relative to you.
Case 1:
Imagine a small car that is standing in the neutral gear and has the handbrake disengaged. If a person and his friend are equal in strength and if the person pushes the car from behind and his friend pushes the car from ahead and if they both push the car with same force, the car will not move an inch as both of them would be canceling each other's force.
Case 2:
Now imagine the car and the two people doing their pushing on a train that is moving at a constant speed in a constant direction. Let the railway track be frictionless and imagine yourself standing beside the railway track and watching the two people push the car. You would see the car moving at a constant speed but you would not notice any change in the speed of the car. To the two people on the train, it would seem as if the car is still but to you the car would appear to be moving at a constant speed.
So it is simply a matter of perspective because nothing is ever truly in motion if we don't mention the point of reference. |
251,171 | In my text book they said that:
>
> 1. If no resultant force acts on an object, it will not accelerate; **it will remain at rest or it will** **continue to move at constant speed**
> 2. If an object is at rest or is moving at a constant speed in a straight line ,we can say that there is no resultant force on it.
>
>
>
Now my question as it concentrates more on the first point.
How if the resultant forces or force are zero still the object moves at a constant speed and some times it does not move (or it is at rest as they say)? | 2016/04/21 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251171",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/115057/"
] | Recall Newton's Second Law,
*F=ma*
This means that resultant forces acting on an object will produce acceleration, which is a change in velocity. Remember that velocity is a vector, which includes both *speed* **and** *direction*. So if an object is accelerating, it has either its speed and/or direction of movement undergoing a change.
If an object is traveling at constant speed and still moving in the same direction, it is not experiencing acceleration, and thus the resultant forces acting on it are zero. This is exactly the same for an object at rest, except that its speed happens to be zero. | You might be confusing with pushing an object forward to maintain its motion.
For example, we pushed a CART forward and we got to maintain pushing it to keep it moving forever. Then, when we let go it will stop.
This is just because there is friction, this friction will cause the cart to stop, remove that and the cart will move forever! In real life Earth scenario however, this seldom happens, but push a cart in outer space and viola! It says goodbye us! |
251,171 | In my text book they said that:
>
> 1. If no resultant force acts on an object, it will not accelerate; **it will remain at rest or it will** **continue to move at constant speed**
> 2. If an object is at rest or is moving at a constant speed in a straight line ,we can say that there is no resultant force on it.
>
>
>
Now my question as it concentrates more on the first point.
How if the resultant forces or force are zero still the object moves at a constant speed and some times it does not move (or it is at rest as they say)? | 2016/04/21 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251171",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/115057/"
] | Recall Newton's Second Law,
*F=ma*
This means that resultant forces acting on an object will produce acceleration, which is a change in velocity. Remember that velocity is a vector, which includes both *speed* **and** *direction*. So if an object is accelerating, it has either its speed and/or direction of movement undergoing a change.
If an object is traveling at constant speed and still moving in the same direction, it is not experiencing acceleration, and thus the resultant forces acting on it are zero. This is exactly the same for an object at rest, except that its speed happens to be zero. | For an object to change from its state of rest to motion needs some force. When a force is applied the velocity of the object changes from 0 to some velocity V (and it keeps increasing as long as the force is present). This change in velocity is termed as acceleration.
Now if you remove the force, the object will move with the constant velocity V provided no other force is acting on it. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | [Is the concept of knowledge, or our use of the word *knowledge* (and our use of other such terms in the same and other languages), such as to be broken down into other concepts/uses of other words?](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/) Or, [on the contrary, John Cook Wilson reasoned that “we cannot make knowing itself a subject of inquiry in the sense of asking what knowing is”:](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wilson/#KnowBeli)
>
> We cannot *construct* knowing—the act of apprehending—out of any elements. ... Knowledge is *sui generis* and therefore a ‘theory’ of it is impossible.
>
>
>
If the concept of knowledge is composite, then it was composed for a reason. Skepticism is thus useless; it would be easier to simply drop the concept of knowledge altogether than to apply the concept so as to defeat its own application. The alternative, here, would be like defining the concept of a color in terms of the impossibility of perceiving any color, or especially the one so defined.
Or even if the concept of knowledge is irreducible, it still is open to us to ask if the concept is *important.* Suppose Alice is talking to Elise and they get to a point in the conversation where Elise asks, "But how do you *know* that?" Alice replies, "Why, I don't know it at all! It's just true, though." At most, Alice will deny that anyone actively knows the opposite, either, in that she will deny that anyone knows such things at all (c.f. Wittgenstein's talk of [hinge propositions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330091267_Hinges_Disagreements_and_Arguments_Rationally_Believing_Hinge_Propositions_and_Arguing_across_Deep_Disagreements)). But so perhaps in a [contextualist](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/) sense, the concept of knowledge is to be used only for things where it makes a difference whether the concept is applied; a highly esoteric statement like, "All is one in the All," does not sustain this difference (what would knowing this be, as opposed to not knowing it?).
So Agrippa's game, as set up, looks to be one where players can't win. They don't have the time to make an infinite series of moves; they're not allowed to make circles around the board (regardless of how nontrivial the circle is, say from one end of the board to another); and if they stop on one square of the board and say, "This is the first square," that too violates the rules of the game. But so what is the point of the game? And it does seem like just a game, now. | While [Mr. Klocking implies in his answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/97077/40730) that [fallibilism (IEP)](https://iep.utm.edu/fallibil/) easily and consensually among professional philosophers overcomes the problem of skepticism, [contemporary skepticism (IEP)](https://iep.utm.edu/skepcont/) lives on, and that's okay. I'm going to outline a broader line of attack by a contemporary philosopher and go above and beyond a reference to a book. I'll refer to [Robert Audi's Epstemology](https://books.google.com/books?id=N9UPmAEACAAJ&dq=epistemology%20robert%20audi&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmgcG9_Jr9AhV8kIkEHf9BAREQ6AF6BAgEEAI) and it's chapter "Skepticism" as a basis for the response.
Robert Audi's approach to answering moderate skepticism is as follows:
To show a belief is tenable, first show in a second order claim that the belief in belief is possible with a general premise:
>
> (1) An attentive belief to the effect that one is now in an occurrent mental state, such as thinking, is justified.
>
>
>
where "attentive belief is on based on careful attention to the matter in question, and where the justification is not absolute but simply strong enough to make it appropriate for a rational person to hold the belief".
Particularly,
>
> (2) I have an attentive belief I am now in such a state, namely thinking.
>
>
>
Therefore, by deduction:
>
> (3) My belief that I am thinking is justified.
>
>
>
He goes on to admit this reason is [defeasible](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/), such as applying a proposition about a history of recent troubles with hallucinations.
So, in short order, the notion that skepticism is indefeasbile, is not only open up to criticism through showing that reason itself, and hence the very conclusion is subject to defeasible conditions, but also by providing a positive argument that justification of belief is one of degree, not black and white, which would be an obvious [false dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Rationality entails accepting the fallibilistic nature of knowledge, thus dissolving the question of is there or isn't there knowledge.
So, one can accept both skepticism and credulity admitting they lead to fallibilism, by recognizing, as Audi puts it:
"These questions produce a tension. I want to believe [a certain proposition]... But I also want to avoid believing [the proposition] if it is not [true], for I have a deep-seated desire to avoid believing falsehoods... the former inclines us to believe readily... The latter ideal pushes us toward a kind of skepticism."
Thus, not only is the skeptical problem overcome by recognizing that radical skepticism itself is subject to skepticism, but positively it is the actual state of affairs of all people to find a balance between credulity and skepticism every day of their lives because rational people make attentive and reasonable presumptions pragmatically. To appeal to the classical logic of Agrippa is a good exercise, but accepting a non-naive realism is hardly a problem in contemporary discourse because of the acceptance of non-classical logics, a knowledge of the psychological, and a lot of progress made by epistemologists since the time of Pyrrho of Ellis. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | You didn't explain why you think skepticism is self-refuting, but I've heard people say this would be because skepticism would demand skepticism of skepticism itself, so I'll address that.
Yes, you should be skeptical of skepticism, but that doesn't make it self-refuting.
This seems to conflate skepticism and what I might call universal non-belief.
Universal non-belief may indeed be self-refuting, because you'd need to not believe that non-belief is a good idea, at which point you wouldn't subscribe to non-belief (or something like that).
Skepticism is not that. Skepticism is closer to holding that truly proving anything (that's non-trivial, or without assumptions) is impossible, and you should therefore not have absolute certainty about anything.
Crucially, this does not mean you should believe nothing, but rather that you should not assume any belief to be foolproof, and therefore all your beliefs should be tentative and you should question your beliefs as far as possible.
Now, one could hold that truly proving anything is impossible, without being absolutely sure that truly proving anything is impossible and accepting that your belief in this impossibility may not be foolproof. To apply skepticism here, one could try to truly prove something, or find a way to theoretically do so. Failing that, you would stick to the tentative belief that truly proving anything is impossible. No self-refutation here. | As per [my other answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/92305/14508), **a skeptical argument is not different than an assertion of the presence or lack of presence of something**.
For example:
>
> A: I see a boat out there.
>
>
> B: How do you know you see a boat out there?
>
>
>
What B is doing is asserting something, even if only indirectly. B asserts that A's sense (at that point) is incorrect and/or doubtful. But **this is an assertion**, and **an assertion needs to be based on something**, even if it is on a self-evident something.
So extracting the assertion out of a skeptical argument, makes it like any other argument and can be attacked or refuted all the same. One can simply ask the other to ground the implicit assertion the person makes on something, even on a self-evident something.
If one denies that an assertion needs to be based on something, then the skeptic *loses the teeth to bite*, since now the person cannot attack any statement made.
PS: That an assertion needs to be based on something holds for person A too. Possibly A can appeal to the self-evident fact of being a boat there, at least as a starting point.
**Is skepticism invincible?**
1. A skeptical argument or challenge, as argued above, is like any other argument or statement and can be attacked or refuted all the same. Nothing invincible in that.
2. Skepticism as a whole is nothing but the set of potential skeptical arguments or challenges. Nothing invincible in that either.
Note: you may be interested in [this post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/81795/is-there-any-counterexample-given-against-radical-skepticism/92321#92321) about *radical* skepticism.
Also you may be interested in the [solution(s) to the problem of infinite regress in epistemology](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/93954/14508) |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | You didn't explain why you think skepticism is self-refuting, but I've heard people say this would be because skepticism would demand skepticism of skepticism itself, so I'll address that.
Yes, you should be skeptical of skepticism, but that doesn't make it self-refuting.
This seems to conflate skepticism and what I might call universal non-belief.
Universal non-belief may indeed be self-refuting, because you'd need to not believe that non-belief is a good idea, at which point you wouldn't subscribe to non-belief (or something like that).
Skepticism is not that. Skepticism is closer to holding that truly proving anything (that's non-trivial, or without assumptions) is impossible, and you should therefore not have absolute certainty about anything.
Crucially, this does not mean you should believe nothing, but rather that you should not assume any belief to be foolproof, and therefore all your beliefs should be tentative and you should question your beliefs as far as possible.
Now, one could hold that truly proving anything is impossible, without being absolutely sure that truly proving anything is impossible and accepting that your belief in this impossibility may not be foolproof. To apply skepticism here, one could try to truly prove something, or find a way to theoretically do so. Failing that, you would stick to the tentative belief that truly proving anything is impossible. No self-refutation here. | Skeptism is self-refuting as noted by al-Ghazali which is why no major philosopher has been a sceptic. To do philosophy requires faith ... faith in truth as a category, faith also in our senses that they report the world faithfully. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | The history of philosophy has many examples of people who think they have refuted scepticism - Descartes, Berkeley, Locke and Hume not to mention Russell, Ryle and Wittgenstein are all examples. And yet people keep returning to the issue.
One would be justified in thinking that the problem is to understand why this is so.
For example, in the case of Agrippa's argument, I see it as an effective objection to foundationalist views about knowledge, but not against knowledge as such. It is possible that other arguments do not have the radical conclusions claimed for them and they are actually aimed at different forms of scepticism. Some, as in the case of Agrippa's argument, may be right.
Another line of thought can be seen in Hume and Russell and Ayer. Scepticism is not *per se* an enemy to be overcome, but a friend and ally to be relied on. We need to chart a distinction between destructive scepticism and constructive scepticism. That would, at least, be a clearly different problem.
Stanley Cavell in his *Claim of Reason* and *In Quest of the Ordinary* argues that we need to understand, rather than refute, scepticism (he means radical or destructive scepticism). He sees it as an inescapable part of the human condition. His project goes beyond the boundaries of analytic philosophy, but I can't see that as a fatal objection. | As of the titular question: No, it is not.
Tim Button has formally shown in his book *The Limits of Realism* that **all famous historical arguments for skepticism are incoherent/self-contradictory**.
For what it's worth, he does show the same for all famous historical arguments for realism, hence the title of the book. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | [Is the concept of knowledge, or our use of the word *knowledge* (and our use of other such terms in the same and other languages), such as to be broken down into other concepts/uses of other words?](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/) Or, [on the contrary, John Cook Wilson reasoned that “we cannot make knowing itself a subject of inquiry in the sense of asking what knowing is”:](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wilson/#KnowBeli)
>
> We cannot *construct* knowing—the act of apprehending—out of any elements. ... Knowledge is *sui generis* and therefore a ‘theory’ of it is impossible.
>
>
>
If the concept of knowledge is composite, then it was composed for a reason. Skepticism is thus useless; it would be easier to simply drop the concept of knowledge altogether than to apply the concept so as to defeat its own application. The alternative, here, would be like defining the concept of a color in terms of the impossibility of perceiving any color, or especially the one so defined.
Or even if the concept of knowledge is irreducible, it still is open to us to ask if the concept is *important.* Suppose Alice is talking to Elise and they get to a point in the conversation where Elise asks, "But how do you *know* that?" Alice replies, "Why, I don't know it at all! It's just true, though." At most, Alice will deny that anyone actively knows the opposite, either, in that she will deny that anyone knows such things at all (c.f. Wittgenstein's talk of [hinge propositions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330091267_Hinges_Disagreements_and_Arguments_Rationally_Believing_Hinge_Propositions_and_Arguing_across_Deep_Disagreements)). But so perhaps in a [contextualist](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/) sense, the concept of knowledge is to be used only for things where it makes a difference whether the concept is applied; a highly esoteric statement like, "All is one in the All," does not sustain this difference (what would knowing this be, as opposed to not knowing it?).
So Agrippa's game, as set up, looks to be one where players can't win. They don't have the time to make an infinite series of moves; they're not allowed to make circles around the board (regardless of how nontrivial the circle is, say from one end of the board to another); and if they stop on one square of the board and say, "This is the first square," that too violates the rules of the game. But so what is the point of the game? And it does seem like just a game, now. | As of the titular question: No, it is not.
Tim Button has formally shown in his book *The Limits of Realism* that **all famous historical arguments for skepticism are incoherent/self-contradictory**.
For what it's worth, he does show the same for all famous historical arguments for realism, hence the title of the book. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | The history of philosophy has many examples of people who think they have refuted scepticism - Descartes, Berkeley, Locke and Hume not to mention Russell, Ryle and Wittgenstein are all examples. And yet people keep returning to the issue.
One would be justified in thinking that the problem is to understand why this is so.
For example, in the case of Agrippa's argument, I see it as an effective objection to foundationalist views about knowledge, but not against knowledge as such. It is possible that other arguments do not have the radical conclusions claimed for them and they are actually aimed at different forms of scepticism. Some, as in the case of Agrippa's argument, may be right.
Another line of thought can be seen in Hume and Russell and Ayer. Scepticism is not *per se* an enemy to be overcome, but a friend and ally to be relied on. We need to chart a distinction between destructive scepticism and constructive scepticism. That would, at least, be a clearly different problem.
Stanley Cavell in his *Claim of Reason* and *In Quest of the Ordinary* argues that we need to understand, rather than refute, scepticism (he means radical or destructive scepticism). He sees it as an inescapable part of the human condition. His project goes beyond the boundaries of analytic philosophy, but I can't see that as a fatal objection. | While [Mr. Klocking implies in his answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/97077/40730) that [fallibilism (IEP)](https://iep.utm.edu/fallibil/) easily and consensually among professional philosophers overcomes the problem of skepticism, [contemporary skepticism (IEP)](https://iep.utm.edu/skepcont/) lives on, and that's okay. I'm going to outline a broader line of attack by a contemporary philosopher and go above and beyond a reference to a book. I'll refer to [Robert Audi's Epstemology](https://books.google.com/books?id=N9UPmAEACAAJ&dq=epistemology%20robert%20audi&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmgcG9_Jr9AhV8kIkEHf9BAREQ6AF6BAgEEAI) and it's chapter "Skepticism" as a basis for the response.
Robert Audi's approach to answering moderate skepticism is as follows:
To show a belief is tenable, first show in a second order claim that the belief in belief is possible with a general premise:
>
> (1) An attentive belief to the effect that one is now in an occurrent mental state, such as thinking, is justified.
>
>
>
where "attentive belief is on based on careful attention to the matter in question, and where the justification is not absolute but simply strong enough to make it appropriate for a rational person to hold the belief".
Particularly,
>
> (2) I have an attentive belief I am now in such a state, namely thinking.
>
>
>
Therefore, by deduction:
>
> (3) My belief that I am thinking is justified.
>
>
>
He goes on to admit this reason is [defeasible](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/), such as applying a proposition about a history of recent troubles with hallucinations.
So, in short order, the notion that skepticism is indefeasbile, is not only open up to criticism through showing that reason itself, and hence the very conclusion is subject to defeasible conditions, but also by providing a positive argument that justification of belief is one of degree, not black and white, which would be an obvious [false dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Rationality entails accepting the fallibilistic nature of knowledge, thus dissolving the question of is there or isn't there knowledge.
So, one can accept both skepticism and credulity admitting they lead to fallibilism, by recognizing, as Audi puts it:
"These questions produce a tension. I want to believe [a certain proposition]... But I also want to avoid believing [the proposition] if it is not [true], for I have a deep-seated desire to avoid believing falsehoods... the former inclines us to believe readily... The latter ideal pushes us toward a kind of skepticism."
Thus, not only is the skeptical problem overcome by recognizing that radical skepticism itself is subject to skepticism, but positively it is the actual state of affairs of all people to find a balance between credulity and skepticism every day of their lives because rational people make attentive and reasonable presumptions pragmatically. To appeal to the classical logic of Agrippa is a good exercise, but accepting a non-naive realism is hardly a problem in contemporary discourse because of the acceptance of non-classical logics, a knowledge of the psychological, and a lot of progress made by epistemologists since the time of Pyrrho of Ellis. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | The history of philosophy has many examples of people who think they have refuted scepticism - Descartes, Berkeley, Locke and Hume not to mention Russell, Ryle and Wittgenstein are all examples. And yet people keep returning to the issue.
One would be justified in thinking that the problem is to understand why this is so.
For example, in the case of Agrippa's argument, I see it as an effective objection to foundationalist views about knowledge, but not against knowledge as such. It is possible that other arguments do not have the radical conclusions claimed for them and they are actually aimed at different forms of scepticism. Some, as in the case of Agrippa's argument, may be right.
Another line of thought can be seen in Hume and Russell and Ayer. Scepticism is not *per se* an enemy to be overcome, but a friend and ally to be relied on. We need to chart a distinction between destructive scepticism and constructive scepticism. That would, at least, be a clearly different problem.
Stanley Cavell in his *Claim of Reason* and *In Quest of the Ordinary* argues that we need to understand, rather than refute, scepticism (he means radical or destructive scepticism). He sees it as an inescapable part of the human condition. His project goes beyond the boundaries of analytic philosophy, but I can't see that as a fatal objection. | **Agrippa's 5 tropes resoleved**
1. *Dissent*: Trust an other as thyself and you won't need the theses. An other is not an alien or evil, don't be mad in faith.
2. *Relation*: Point of view doesn't matters for alitheya, be at skeptic's point.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Not needed an justification if you are not an other-I.
4. *Axioms*: Art the axioms needed by an action in one place and one time. Axioms are something here and now only, not there and when.
5. *Circularity*: Don't use refers, break the vicious circle. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | As per [my other answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/92305/14508), **a skeptical argument is not different than an assertion of the presence or lack of presence of something**.
For example:
>
> A: I see a boat out there.
>
>
> B: How do you know you see a boat out there?
>
>
>
What B is doing is asserting something, even if only indirectly. B asserts that A's sense (at that point) is incorrect and/or doubtful. But **this is an assertion**, and **an assertion needs to be based on something**, even if it is on a self-evident something.
So extracting the assertion out of a skeptical argument, makes it like any other argument and can be attacked or refuted all the same. One can simply ask the other to ground the implicit assertion the person makes on something, even on a self-evident something.
If one denies that an assertion needs to be based on something, then the skeptic *loses the teeth to bite*, since now the person cannot attack any statement made.
PS: That an assertion needs to be based on something holds for person A too. Possibly A can appeal to the self-evident fact of being a boat there, at least as a starting point.
**Is skepticism invincible?**
1. A skeptical argument or challenge, as argued above, is like any other argument or statement and can be attacked or refuted all the same. Nothing invincible in that.
2. Skepticism as a whole is nothing but the set of potential skeptical arguments or challenges. Nothing invincible in that either.
Note: you may be interested in [this post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/81795/is-there-any-counterexample-given-against-radical-skepticism/92321#92321) about *radical* skepticism.
Also you may be interested in the [solution(s) to the problem of infinite regress in epistemology](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/93954/14508) | **Agrippa's 5 tropes resoleved**
1. *Dissent*: Trust an other as thyself and you won't need the theses. An other is not an alien or evil, don't be mad in faith.
2. *Relation*: Point of view doesn't matters for alitheya, be at skeptic's point.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Not needed an justification if you are not an other-I.
4. *Axioms*: Art the axioms needed by an action in one place and one time. Axioms are something here and now only, not there and when.
5. *Circularity*: Don't use refers, break the vicious circle. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | [Is the concept of knowledge, or our use of the word *knowledge* (and our use of other such terms in the same and other languages), such as to be broken down into other concepts/uses of other words?](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/) Or, [on the contrary, John Cook Wilson reasoned that “we cannot make knowing itself a subject of inquiry in the sense of asking what knowing is”:](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wilson/#KnowBeli)
>
> We cannot *construct* knowing—the act of apprehending—out of any elements. ... Knowledge is *sui generis* and therefore a ‘theory’ of it is impossible.
>
>
>
If the concept of knowledge is composite, then it was composed for a reason. Skepticism is thus useless; it would be easier to simply drop the concept of knowledge altogether than to apply the concept so as to defeat its own application. The alternative, here, would be like defining the concept of a color in terms of the impossibility of perceiving any color, or especially the one so defined.
Or even if the concept of knowledge is irreducible, it still is open to us to ask if the concept is *important.* Suppose Alice is talking to Elise and they get to a point in the conversation where Elise asks, "But how do you *know* that?" Alice replies, "Why, I don't know it at all! It's just true, though." At most, Alice will deny that anyone actively knows the opposite, either, in that she will deny that anyone knows such things at all (c.f. Wittgenstein's talk of [hinge propositions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330091267_Hinges_Disagreements_and_Arguments_Rationally_Believing_Hinge_Propositions_and_Arguing_across_Deep_Disagreements)). But so perhaps in a [contextualist](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/) sense, the concept of knowledge is to be used only for things where it makes a difference whether the concept is applied; a highly esoteric statement like, "All is one in the All," does not sustain this difference (what would knowing this be, as opposed to not knowing it?).
So Agrippa's game, as set up, looks to be one where players can't win. They don't have the time to make an infinite series of moves; they're not allowed to make circles around the board (regardless of how nontrivial the circle is, say from one end of the board to another); and if they stop on one square of the board and say, "This is the first square," that too violates the rules of the game. But so what is the point of the game? And it does seem like just a game, now. | Skeptism is self-refuting as noted by al-Ghazali which is why no major philosopher has been a sceptic. To do philosophy requires faith ... faith in truth as a category, faith also in our senses that they report the world faithfully. |
96,989 | **Agrippa's 5 tropes**
1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.
3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.
One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.
We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction
1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.
Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum
How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire? | 2023/02/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/96989",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/63423/"
] | As of the titular question: No, it is not.
Tim Button has formally shown in his book *The Limits of Realism* that **all famous historical arguments for skepticism are incoherent/self-contradictory**.
For what it's worth, he does show the same for all famous historical arguments for realism, hence the title of the book. | **Agrippa's 5 tropes resoleved**
1. *Dissent*: Trust an other as thyself and you won't need the theses. An other is not an alien or evil, don't be mad in faith.
2. *Relation*: Point of view doesn't matters for alitheya, be at skeptic's point.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Not needed an justification if you are not an other-I.
4. *Axioms*: Art the axioms needed by an action in one place and one time. Axioms are something here and now only, not there and when.
5. *Circularity*: Don't use refers, break the vicious circle. |
114,254 | Just tried Safari (got advised to save battery power over Chrome) and the "Save As" button is disabled!
Can't save a single page!
Any idea why this happens and what I can do against it?
Thanks!
EDIT. Safari version 6.1, MacOS 10.8.5 | 2013/12/18 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/114254",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/56300/"
] | Ok, I found it - it does not let me save page until it is fully loaded!
Which is painfully slow sometimes, comparing to Chrome.
As far as I can see, Chrome still lets me save page even if it is not complete and even when I just started loading it still works with previous page!
So I can still save the previous page after mistakenly clicking on a link. | I'm not sure on the *why* but if you use `Cmd`+`S`, the **Export** dialog pops up as expected (After that, **Save As...** is once again available. Until you reload the page).
I think it's a bug in Safari (I base this on the fact that it's also possible to reactivate **Save As...** by mousing over it in the menu, closing the menu and then reopening it again...) |
54,920,804 | I use xgboost to train a classification model. GridCVSearch gives the best max\_depth=1. This means all my hundreds of trees are split at a single node.
Does this mean that the problem/dataset that I work with is separable using simple models and I don't need to use complicated model such as xgboost?
In general, if all the trees have depth 1, does xgboost provide better prediction than simple models such as SVM/logistic regression?
Thanks! | 2019/02/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/54920804",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1500645/"
] | You arrive at ADABoost not even close to regular decision trees
ADABoost: Each tree has a depth of 1(weak learners)
Its about the your features not necessarily model, if you have few features then it does not make sense to go so deep in each tree | If Depth is 1 means you arrived with a regular decision tree and losts the advantage of XGBOOST. |
124,920 | The organisation of Starfleet is [somewhere between military and civilian](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization): Captain Picard and Gene Roddenberry both describe it as being non-military, but in some ways it has a very militarised structure, with military-looking uniforms and ranks, a strictly stratified command structure, and so on.
This is one of the main ways *Star Trek* differs from its fellow cult sci-fi TV show *Doctor Who*. In the latter, the main character is strongly against soldiers and any sort of military organisation. One of the most common ways he expresses his dislike is in not wanting people to salute him.
So when I started watching *Star Trek*, having heard about its much more militarised nature as opposed to *Doctor Who*, I was expecting a lot of saluting between the Starfleet officers. But so far (12 episodes into TNG) I haven't seen a single salute. Is this always going to be the case?
Do Starfleet crewmembers and officers ever salute each other?
------------------------------------------------------------- | 2016/04/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/124920",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/31394/"
] | Starfleet personnel don't salute each other, even on formal occasions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Starfleet can be characterised as maintaining *[certain military traditions](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization?lq=1)* (ranks, standing to attention, chain of command) they don't hold with all that silly saluting. Gene Roddenberry in his "[writer's bible](http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/2_The_Next_Generation/Star_Trek_-_The_Next_Generation_Bible.pdf)' made that abundantly clear to scriptwriters and for the most part, this view has held sway throughout the various shows.
>
> *In practice this means that our armaments and militarism have been
> de-emphasized over the previous series and very much de-emphasized
> over the movies. **We will not see saluting**. We may hear the word "sir",
> but it is extended as the same kind of courtesy used by junior and
> senior officers on civilian airliners.*
>
>
>
That being said, there are some (very few) instances where we do see some saluting. When it occurs, it's invariably intended ironically or when captains are showing respect to alien cultures.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/E2ptA.gif)
Star Trek V
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6evC.png)
Deleted Scene - TOS: Balance of Terror
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/N7HCu.jpg)
Sarek
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WJr6E.gif)
TNG: The Naked Now
Interestingly, the various [movie scripts](http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/tuc.txt) do refer to personnel [saluting each other](http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/twok.txt) (and the Federation flag) but in each case, this has been replaced by the person either standing to attention or simply having the scene cut entirely. I think we can put this down to writing error that was picked up during production. | ### Infrequently. Despite what most people think about the military, as an former military member, we don't actually spend a whole lot of time saluting each other.
In boot camp, we are trained and conditioned to salute anything that moves. The expression was: "Recruit, if it moves, salute it. If it doesn't, paint it." This structural adherence was to socialize the recruit into understanding their place in the overall social structure of the military. You are always subordinate to SOMEONE.
However, once you leave Boot, you find there is less and less saluting. Meeting new officers under specified conditions, morning reveille (only if you are outside in the public with a nearby flag) a new command, meeting for the first time, disciplinary hearings, there is an opening salute to the interaction, usually the obligatory: "Reporting for duty" or "reporting as ordered," or some such and then that's it.
**Only the most strict commanding officers will insist on everyone saluting every time they meet.**
Star Trek has taken that same structure and for the most part, people obey a particular discipline. In the regimented moments, passing in review, new command, funerals, the crew is at attention, hands at sides, heads up. Federation members rarely slouch, even when they are just hanging out. Personal pride and professional appearance are very much a Starfleet thing. They know HOW to salute, they just rarely, if ever do it in day to day life, especially aboard ship. As a member of the Navy, I can assure you, if you had to salute every time you passed a senior officer on a ship, you would take twice as long to get anywhere or get anything done.
They have obviously had the same kind of drilling we have on Earth, the same kind of discipline but with an understanding such salutes are either unnecessary, don't provide anything significant or undesirable.
The Federation may teach salutes for alien cultures, however, as an act of diplomacy or historical reference. Alien cultures however, may not have achieved that kind of understanding or may find salutes, particularly in militaristic cultures an acknowledgement of their rank or allegiance.
As an aside, military units on field ops rarely salute anyone. Saluting has the habit of indicating who is in charge of an operation. Since everyone is expected to know everyone else, there is no need for saluting. Proper respect is paid with "sir" and everyone keeps it moving. During live military operations, a salute can give away a commanding officer who might be promptly shot by a sniper (or perhaps in today's military, drone bombed) removing vital intelligence from the theater of war. |
124,920 | The organisation of Starfleet is [somewhere between military and civilian](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization): Captain Picard and Gene Roddenberry both describe it as being non-military, but in some ways it has a very militarised structure, with military-looking uniforms and ranks, a strictly stratified command structure, and so on.
This is one of the main ways *Star Trek* differs from its fellow cult sci-fi TV show *Doctor Who*. In the latter, the main character is strongly against soldiers and any sort of military organisation. One of the most common ways he expresses his dislike is in not wanting people to salute him.
So when I started watching *Star Trek*, having heard about its much more militarised nature as opposed to *Doctor Who*, I was expecting a lot of saluting between the Starfleet officers. But so far (12 episodes into TNG) I haven't seen a single salute. Is this always going to be the case?
Do Starfleet crewmembers and officers ever salute each other?
------------------------------------------------------------- | 2016/04/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/124920",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/31394/"
] | Starfleet personnel don't salute each other, even on formal occasions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Starfleet can be characterised as maintaining *[certain military traditions](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization?lq=1)* (ranks, standing to attention, chain of command) they don't hold with all that silly saluting. Gene Roddenberry in his "[writer's bible](http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/2_The_Next_Generation/Star_Trek_-_The_Next_Generation_Bible.pdf)' made that abundantly clear to scriptwriters and for the most part, this view has held sway throughout the various shows.
>
> *In practice this means that our armaments and militarism have been
> de-emphasized over the previous series and very much de-emphasized
> over the movies. **We will not see saluting**. We may hear the word "sir",
> but it is extended as the same kind of courtesy used by junior and
> senior officers on civilian airliners.*
>
>
>
That being said, there are some (very few) instances where we do see some saluting. When it occurs, it's invariably intended ironically or when captains are showing respect to alien cultures.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/E2ptA.gif)
Star Trek V
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6evC.png)
Deleted Scene - TOS: Balance of Terror
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/N7HCu.jpg)
Sarek
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WJr6E.gif)
TNG: The Naked Now
Interestingly, the various [movie scripts](http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/tuc.txt) do refer to personnel [saluting each other](http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/twok.txt) (and the Federation flag) but in each case, this has been replaced by the person either standing to attention or simply having the scene cut entirely. I think we can put this down to writing error that was picked up during production. | Somewhere on my large shelf of books is one from approximately the time of The Motion Picture which has a lot of cast and writer interviews about the show. It includes a section where Gene Roddenberry is explaining that the culture of Starfleet sees all individuals as social equals, even if they are of different ranks in the command structure. As such, salutes are never required. Nor is standing when an officer enters the room, or any other such military traditions. Which is not to say that it's forbidden, just that it's a personal choice on the part of the performer, not a requirement.
I honestly can't think of all that many places in any of the series or movies where any kind of salute is offered. The ones that do occur tend to be either ironic, or a sign of deep, personal respect. There are a few places where young, eager-to-please officers jump to their feet, but it's very much a culture where such things are optional and most people opt not to. |
124,920 | The organisation of Starfleet is [somewhere between military and civilian](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization): Captain Picard and Gene Roddenberry both describe it as being non-military, but in some ways it has a very militarised structure, with military-looking uniforms and ranks, a strictly stratified command structure, and so on.
This is one of the main ways *Star Trek* differs from its fellow cult sci-fi TV show *Doctor Who*. In the latter, the main character is strongly against soldiers and any sort of military organisation. One of the most common ways he expresses his dislike is in not wanting people to salute him.
So when I started watching *Star Trek*, having heard about its much more militarised nature as opposed to *Doctor Who*, I was expecting a lot of saluting between the Starfleet officers. But so far (12 episodes into TNG) I haven't seen a single salute. Is this always going to be the case?
Do Starfleet crewmembers and officers ever salute each other?
------------------------------------------------------------- | 2016/04/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/124920",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/31394/"
] | Starfleet personnel don't salute each other, even on formal occasions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Starfleet can be characterised as maintaining *[certain military traditions](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization?lq=1)* (ranks, standing to attention, chain of command) they don't hold with all that silly saluting. Gene Roddenberry in his "[writer's bible](http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/2_The_Next_Generation/Star_Trek_-_The_Next_Generation_Bible.pdf)' made that abundantly clear to scriptwriters and for the most part, this view has held sway throughout the various shows.
>
> *In practice this means that our armaments and militarism have been
> de-emphasized over the previous series and very much de-emphasized
> over the movies. **We will not see saluting**. We may hear the word "sir",
> but it is extended as the same kind of courtesy used by junior and
> senior officers on civilian airliners.*
>
>
>
That being said, there are some (very few) instances where we do see some saluting. When it occurs, it's invariably intended ironically or when captains are showing respect to alien cultures.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/E2ptA.gif)
Star Trek V
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h6evC.png)
Deleted Scene - TOS: Balance of Terror
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/N7HCu.jpg)
Sarek
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WJr6E.gif)
TNG: The Naked Now
Interestingly, the various [movie scripts](http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/tuc.txt) do refer to personnel [saluting each other](http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/twok.txt) (and the Federation flag) but in each case, this has been replaced by the person either standing to attention or simply having the scene cut entirely. I think we can put this down to writing error that was picked up during production. | In the U.S. services of naval tradition (USMC, Navy, Coast Guard) you do not (except for very specific circumstances) salute indoors or while actively in the field, and never without a cover (hat) on.
The nature of Star Trek means that 99.9% of the time they will be indoors or in the field (since when traveling about space in a spaceship you'd either be in the spaceship or actively in the field on a planet). Not to mention the dress of the typical uniforms they wear does not have a cover anyway (probably due to the fact that on a ship you are always indoors, and naval services do not wear covers indoors...so covers probably just stopped being normal at all for most crew).
So even if Starfleet protocol were supposed to be highly based on U.S. naval service tradition you still might not ever see much saluting on the show. And given that information it seems reasonable to assume that saluting has probably fallen into nearly solely a ceremonial/historical role in the Starfleet universe. |
124,920 | The organisation of Starfleet is [somewhere between military and civilian](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization): Captain Picard and Gene Roddenberry both describe it as being non-military, but in some ways it has a very militarised structure, with military-looking uniforms and ranks, a strictly stratified command structure, and so on.
This is one of the main ways *Star Trek* differs from its fellow cult sci-fi TV show *Doctor Who*. In the latter, the main character is strongly against soldiers and any sort of military organisation. One of the most common ways he expresses his dislike is in not wanting people to salute him.
So when I started watching *Star Trek*, having heard about its much more militarised nature as opposed to *Doctor Who*, I was expecting a lot of saluting between the Starfleet officers. But so far (12 episodes into TNG) I haven't seen a single salute. Is this always going to be the case?
Do Starfleet crewmembers and officers ever salute each other?
------------------------------------------------------------- | 2016/04/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/124920",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/31394/"
] | ### Infrequently. Despite what most people think about the military, as an former military member, we don't actually spend a whole lot of time saluting each other.
In boot camp, we are trained and conditioned to salute anything that moves. The expression was: "Recruit, if it moves, salute it. If it doesn't, paint it." This structural adherence was to socialize the recruit into understanding their place in the overall social structure of the military. You are always subordinate to SOMEONE.
However, once you leave Boot, you find there is less and less saluting. Meeting new officers under specified conditions, morning reveille (only if you are outside in the public with a nearby flag) a new command, meeting for the first time, disciplinary hearings, there is an opening salute to the interaction, usually the obligatory: "Reporting for duty" or "reporting as ordered," or some such and then that's it.
**Only the most strict commanding officers will insist on everyone saluting every time they meet.**
Star Trek has taken that same structure and for the most part, people obey a particular discipline. In the regimented moments, passing in review, new command, funerals, the crew is at attention, hands at sides, heads up. Federation members rarely slouch, even when they are just hanging out. Personal pride and professional appearance are very much a Starfleet thing. They know HOW to salute, they just rarely, if ever do it in day to day life, especially aboard ship. As a member of the Navy, I can assure you, if you had to salute every time you passed a senior officer on a ship, you would take twice as long to get anywhere or get anything done.
They have obviously had the same kind of drilling we have on Earth, the same kind of discipline but with an understanding such salutes are either unnecessary, don't provide anything significant or undesirable.
The Federation may teach salutes for alien cultures, however, as an act of diplomacy or historical reference. Alien cultures however, may not have achieved that kind of understanding or may find salutes, particularly in militaristic cultures an acknowledgement of their rank or allegiance.
As an aside, military units on field ops rarely salute anyone. Saluting has the habit of indicating who is in charge of an operation. Since everyone is expected to know everyone else, there is no need for saluting. Proper respect is paid with "sir" and everyone keeps it moving. During live military operations, a salute can give away a commanding officer who might be promptly shot by a sniper (or perhaps in today's military, drone bombed) removing vital intelligence from the theater of war. | Somewhere on my large shelf of books is one from approximately the time of The Motion Picture which has a lot of cast and writer interviews about the show. It includes a section where Gene Roddenberry is explaining that the culture of Starfleet sees all individuals as social equals, even if they are of different ranks in the command structure. As such, salutes are never required. Nor is standing when an officer enters the room, or any other such military traditions. Which is not to say that it's forbidden, just that it's a personal choice on the part of the performer, not a requirement.
I honestly can't think of all that many places in any of the series or movies where any kind of salute is offered. The ones that do occur tend to be either ironic, or a sign of deep, personal respect. There are a few places where young, eager-to-please officers jump to their feet, but it's very much a culture where such things are optional and most people opt not to. |
124,920 | The organisation of Starfleet is [somewhere between military and civilian](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization): Captain Picard and Gene Roddenberry both describe it as being non-military, but in some ways it has a very militarised structure, with military-looking uniforms and ranks, a strictly stratified command structure, and so on.
This is one of the main ways *Star Trek* differs from its fellow cult sci-fi TV show *Doctor Who*. In the latter, the main character is strongly against soldiers and any sort of military organisation. One of the most common ways he expresses his dislike is in not wanting people to salute him.
So when I started watching *Star Trek*, having heard about its much more militarised nature as opposed to *Doctor Who*, I was expecting a lot of saluting between the Starfleet officers. But so far (12 episodes into TNG) I haven't seen a single salute. Is this always going to be the case?
Do Starfleet crewmembers and officers ever salute each other?
------------------------------------------------------------- | 2016/04/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/124920",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/31394/"
] | ### Infrequently. Despite what most people think about the military, as an former military member, we don't actually spend a whole lot of time saluting each other.
In boot camp, we are trained and conditioned to salute anything that moves. The expression was: "Recruit, if it moves, salute it. If it doesn't, paint it." This structural adherence was to socialize the recruit into understanding their place in the overall social structure of the military. You are always subordinate to SOMEONE.
However, once you leave Boot, you find there is less and less saluting. Meeting new officers under specified conditions, morning reveille (only if you are outside in the public with a nearby flag) a new command, meeting for the first time, disciplinary hearings, there is an opening salute to the interaction, usually the obligatory: "Reporting for duty" or "reporting as ordered," or some such and then that's it.
**Only the most strict commanding officers will insist on everyone saluting every time they meet.**
Star Trek has taken that same structure and for the most part, people obey a particular discipline. In the regimented moments, passing in review, new command, funerals, the crew is at attention, hands at sides, heads up. Federation members rarely slouch, even when they are just hanging out. Personal pride and professional appearance are very much a Starfleet thing. They know HOW to salute, they just rarely, if ever do it in day to day life, especially aboard ship. As a member of the Navy, I can assure you, if you had to salute every time you passed a senior officer on a ship, you would take twice as long to get anywhere or get anything done.
They have obviously had the same kind of drilling we have on Earth, the same kind of discipline but with an understanding such salutes are either unnecessary, don't provide anything significant or undesirable.
The Federation may teach salutes for alien cultures, however, as an act of diplomacy or historical reference. Alien cultures however, may not have achieved that kind of understanding or may find salutes, particularly in militaristic cultures an acknowledgement of their rank or allegiance.
As an aside, military units on field ops rarely salute anyone. Saluting has the habit of indicating who is in charge of an operation. Since everyone is expected to know everyone else, there is no need for saluting. Proper respect is paid with "sir" and everyone keeps it moving. During live military operations, a salute can give away a commanding officer who might be promptly shot by a sniper (or perhaps in today's military, drone bombed) removing vital intelligence from the theater of war. | In the U.S. services of naval tradition (USMC, Navy, Coast Guard) you do not (except for very specific circumstances) salute indoors or while actively in the field, and never without a cover (hat) on.
The nature of Star Trek means that 99.9% of the time they will be indoors or in the field (since when traveling about space in a spaceship you'd either be in the spaceship or actively in the field on a planet). Not to mention the dress of the typical uniforms they wear does not have a cover anyway (probably due to the fact that on a ship you are always indoors, and naval services do not wear covers indoors...so covers probably just stopped being normal at all for most crew).
So even if Starfleet protocol were supposed to be highly based on U.S. naval service tradition you still might not ever see much saluting on the show. And given that information it seems reasonable to assume that saluting has probably fallen into nearly solely a ceremonial/historical role in the Starfleet universe. |
124,920 | The organisation of Starfleet is [somewhere between military and civilian](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54154/is-starfleet-a-military-or-civilian-organization): Captain Picard and Gene Roddenberry both describe it as being non-military, but in some ways it has a very militarised structure, with military-looking uniforms and ranks, a strictly stratified command structure, and so on.
This is one of the main ways *Star Trek* differs from its fellow cult sci-fi TV show *Doctor Who*. In the latter, the main character is strongly against soldiers and any sort of military organisation. One of the most common ways he expresses his dislike is in not wanting people to salute him.
So when I started watching *Star Trek*, having heard about its much more militarised nature as opposed to *Doctor Who*, I was expecting a lot of saluting between the Starfleet officers. But so far (12 episodes into TNG) I haven't seen a single salute. Is this always going to be the case?
Do Starfleet crewmembers and officers ever salute each other?
------------------------------------------------------------- | 2016/04/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/124920",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/31394/"
] | Somewhere on my large shelf of books is one from approximately the time of The Motion Picture which has a lot of cast and writer interviews about the show. It includes a section where Gene Roddenberry is explaining that the culture of Starfleet sees all individuals as social equals, even if they are of different ranks in the command structure. As such, salutes are never required. Nor is standing when an officer enters the room, or any other such military traditions. Which is not to say that it's forbidden, just that it's a personal choice on the part of the performer, not a requirement.
I honestly can't think of all that many places in any of the series or movies where any kind of salute is offered. The ones that do occur tend to be either ironic, or a sign of deep, personal respect. There are a few places where young, eager-to-please officers jump to their feet, but it's very much a culture where such things are optional and most people opt not to. | In the U.S. services of naval tradition (USMC, Navy, Coast Guard) you do not (except for very specific circumstances) salute indoors or while actively in the field, and never without a cover (hat) on.
The nature of Star Trek means that 99.9% of the time they will be indoors or in the field (since when traveling about space in a spaceship you'd either be in the spaceship or actively in the field on a planet). Not to mention the dress of the typical uniforms they wear does not have a cover anyway (probably due to the fact that on a ship you are always indoors, and naval services do not wear covers indoors...so covers probably just stopped being normal at all for most crew).
So even if Starfleet protocol were supposed to be highly based on U.S. naval service tradition you still might not ever see much saluting on the show. And given that information it seems reasonable to assume that saluting has probably fallen into nearly solely a ceremonial/historical role in the Starfleet universe. |
9,773 | I'm looking for a good job and I came to know about vacancies in company dealing in capital market. Will my income be halal if I work in that company? | 2013/10/15 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/9773",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/3371/"
] | As far as i know, according to the view of Shia, it won't be Haram if there is not any negative or haram ponit in the different jobs. Hence apparently the mentioned job is not Haram.
(of course if u r sure that the essence of the mentioned occupation is not haram either. | Any company that is interest-based or deals with taking and giving interest, it is not allowed to work for that company. Even writing down or typing the interest transaction in computer is haram. Because the prophet has cursed the taker of interest, the giver of interest, and the man involved in writing down the interest transactions. |
25,928,924 | I am newbie in jtable. i want to create a jtable in following format as attached.
Please help me.
thanks in advance.
 | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25928924",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1873106/"
] | You need TreeTable component. Out of box swing does not provide such a component. But there are a number of libraries having it. For example, swingx(<https://swingx.java.net/>) - JXTreeTable component.
As an alternative you may implement your own component. Just search the Internet 'swing treetable component' | As your image suggests, the component is generally referred to as a Property Editor. It's quite useful but Java Swing doesn't provide anything out of the box.
It's actually quite hard to do reliably, especially to support the various data types and not to mention the grouping aspect.
The speediest way of getting access to this type of component is to license it, as part of the [JIDE Grids](http://www.jidesoft.com/products/grids.htm) package from JIDESoft. It's well built, well supported and will Just Work.
The best alternative (that I'm aware of) is from [L2FProd](http://www.l2fprod.com/common/). It's rather out of date and documentation isn't as good so you'll have to do a bit of reading of the source and a bit of googling. I've used it in the past though and did get reasonable results (although I didn't push it too hard).
If you are interested in literally how to create one of those components then the L2FProd source will be interesting to you, as would Netbeans, which also has a PropertyEditor component. |
23,893,690 | I have a project to create a messaging system for iOS, Android, web browser as the client. What kind of protocol can i use? I have read about the HTTP and Socket programming. Some solution that come up:
1. GET/POST HTTP
2. Socket
If we have the socket programming, how can we arrange the socket connection with the load balancing?
Any idea which one can I apply or other protocol?
Thanks
---
My first plan is to create something like a usual chatting app we know nowadays, but integrated with some other functions in the current system. Which one should I use? | 2014/05/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/23893690",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2936719/"
] | I strongly recommend that you use an established protocol, IRC. For a general overview of IRC see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat>
Read about one Android library implementation at [IRC library for Android (From 2.3.3 to 4.0.3 )?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11131853/irc-library-for-android-from-2-3-3-to-4-0-3)
This could go a long way towards solving your problem. Mainly though, "don't reinvent the wheel" as the saying goes. | You can check SignalR to use on the Website part. This will allow you to create real time connections. It uses WebSockets:
<http://signalr.net/> |
20,006,965 | I am trying to send packets larger than 2 MB using BULKIO. I have modified giopMaxMsgSize in /etc/omniORB.cfg to be 8388608, but I am still receiving the following error message: "Call to pushPacket by BULKIO\_dataFloat\_Out\_i failed". Any suggestions on how to debug this? | 2013/11/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/20006965",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2370806/"
] | Try adjusting the omniORB logging level (see REDHAWK documentation, [Appendix H, section 3](http://redhawksdr.github.io/Documentation/mainap8.html#x34-433000H.3 "Appendix H, Section 3")). It can generate an awful lot of debug info, but it might help you narrow down your problem.
I tried this using two C++ components and was able to push large (> 2MB) BULKIO float packets by adjusting the omniORB.cfg property you had mentioned. Were you also using C++? Redhawk 1.9.0? | Normally this type of error will occur when the total amount of data exceeds your giopMaxMsgSize, size in total bytes. If we do the math 8388608/4 = 2097152 float values, where there are 4 bytes in a float. Therefore your vector cannot exceed 2097152 real samples, or 1048576 complex samples.
The one method it check this would be to LOG the size of the output vector before calling push. |
141 | What are the experiences in building a photo oriented site in EE?
There are some really nice plugins out there, like Channel Images or Assets, but they are all oriented around "uploading as you go" and not for serving images from some kind of back-end (like slideshowpro director or similar).
For myself and fellow photographers the input would be extremly useful around how others might have solved this. | 2012/11/21 | [
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/questions/141",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/users/43/"
] | If you like SSP Director (as do I, very slick interface, I'd love to see something like that come to the EE control panel), then maybe keep an eye on Koken: <http://koken.me/>
Something new developed by the same developer as SSP with a public beta coming soon. | EE doesn't have a real document/asset management addon, although one could certainly be built out of existing bits. I would start with Channel Images, because its directory structure really lends itself toward reuse of assets (it gives every asset a separate subdirectory).
Alternatively you could start with a separate DMS/AMS, and build some sort of integration bridge, as Natetronn suggested above with SSP Director. |
141 | What are the experiences in building a photo oriented site in EE?
There are some really nice plugins out there, like Channel Images or Assets, but they are all oriented around "uploading as you go" and not for serving images from some kind of back-end (like slideshowpro director or similar).
For myself and fellow photographers the input would be extremly useful around how others might have solved this. | 2012/11/21 | [
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/questions/141",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/users/43/"
] | If you like SSP Director (as do I, very slick interface, I'd love to see something like that come to the EE control panel), then maybe keep an eye on Koken: <http://koken.me/>
Something new developed by the same developer as SSP with a public beta coming soon. | Can you start by quantifying some numbers, I've built a few image/gallery'esque sites over time and it all comes down to the numbers.
The most used method is similar to a designers portfolio, one channel entry per shoot/location/project, 1 - 20 images per entry - matrix + assets - Add all the jquery/plugin magic you want because your dealing with specific entries.
If you're talking 100's of images per "entry" then mega-upload and channel images could be a worthy alternative.
In the end, it all comes down to how you want to present and how many images are in each presentation.
So, let us know how you plan to present the info with some objective numbers and a solution will become more obvious :) |
141 | What are the experiences in building a photo oriented site in EE?
There are some really nice plugins out there, like Channel Images or Assets, but they are all oriented around "uploading as you go" and not for serving images from some kind of back-end (like slideshowpro director or similar).
For myself and fellow photographers the input would be extremly useful around how others might have solved this. | 2012/11/21 | [
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/questions/141",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/users/43/"
] | Can you start by quantifying some numbers, I've built a few image/gallery'esque sites over time and it all comes down to the numbers.
The most used method is similar to a designers portfolio, one channel entry per shoot/location/project, 1 - 20 images per entry - matrix + assets - Add all the jquery/plugin magic you want because your dealing with specific entries.
If you're talking 100's of images per "entry" then mega-upload and channel images could be a worthy alternative.
In the end, it all comes down to how you want to present and how many images are in each presentation.
So, let us know how you plan to present the info with some objective numbers and a solution will become more obvious :) | All ended up with me using a totally separate application for images, Koken, with added styling similar to the main site. |
141 | What are the experiences in building a photo oriented site in EE?
There are some really nice plugins out there, like Channel Images or Assets, but they are all oriented around "uploading as you go" and not for serving images from some kind of back-end (like slideshowpro director or similar).
For myself and fellow photographers the input would be extremly useful around how others might have solved this. | 2012/11/21 | [
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/questions/141",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/users/43/"
] | Can you start by quantifying some numbers, I've built a few image/gallery'esque sites over time and it all comes down to the numbers.
The most used method is similar to a designers portfolio, one channel entry per shoot/location/project, 1 - 20 images per entry - matrix + assets - Add all the jquery/plugin magic you want because your dealing with specific entries.
If you're talking 100's of images per "entry" then mega-upload and channel images could be a worthy alternative.
In the end, it all comes down to how you want to present and how many images are in each presentation.
So, let us know how you plan to present the info with some objective numbers and a solution will become more obvious :) | EE doesn't have a real document/asset management addon, although one could certainly be built out of existing bits. I would start with Channel Images, because its directory structure really lends itself toward reuse of assets (it gives every asset a separate subdirectory).
Alternatively you could start with a separate DMS/AMS, and build some sort of integration bridge, as Natetronn suggested above with SSP Director. |
141 | What are the experiences in building a photo oriented site in EE?
There are some really nice plugins out there, like Channel Images or Assets, but they are all oriented around "uploading as you go" and not for serving images from some kind of back-end (like slideshowpro director or similar).
For myself and fellow photographers the input would be extremly useful around how others might have solved this. | 2012/11/21 | [
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/questions/141",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/users/43/"
] | If you like SSP Director (as do I, very slick interface, I'd love to see something like that come to the EE control panel), then maybe keep an eye on Koken: <http://koken.me/>
Something new developed by the same developer as SSP with a public beta coming soon. | All ended up with me using a totally separate application for images, Koken, with added styling similar to the main site. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | There are several texts that are readable. One is available on IMSLP: <https://imslp.org/wiki/Thorough-Bass_Made_Easy_(Pasquali%2C_Nicolo)>
Arnold's two volume set is available from Dover so not too expensive. Not all thorough bass manuals agree with each other. Likewise, much modern stuff (like secondary dominants AKA applied or attendent chords) were not well described until around 1890 (Francis York's and Frank Shepard's books freely available). It probably pays to look at older stuff in conjunction with modern texts.
Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven did have somewhat different educations. Bach studied with his brother and did lots of score study from well known musicians (as did others). Mozart studied with his father (a rather famous teacher at the time) and did lots (apparently) with "Partimenti" (See the site: Monuments of Partimenti) to see how various patterns were learned. Beethoven studied with Neef who was a well-known composer and teacher (and later with Haydn and Albrechtsberger). Albrechtsberger's teachings are available on the net.
All of these though use the hexachord description of scales (combined with some major-minor theory). One overlaps 6-note series with each other C-D-E-F-G-A and F-G-A-B(b)-C-D and G-A-B-C-D-E (which go by the names ut-re-mi-fa-so-la). This gives a method describing all notes from low G (gamma-ut) for several octaves. The name get funny as F can be either "ut" in the "soft" hexachord or fa in the "natural" hexachord (it doesn't occur in the "hard" hexachord.) It's rather complicated. Renaissance counterpoint used notes not describable with this system so more flats (and some sharps) were introduced and composers and performers were supposed to know how to insert unmarked accidentals. Here's a good description of hexachordal theory.
<http://www2.siba.fi/muste1/index.php?id=72&la=en> | Thanks to you I have found this link:
<https://www.musik-akademie.ch/dam/jcr:da28dd16-cec4-4f03-8b6c-56c4236bfe9f/Compendium_Generalbass_nur_Text_ohne_Audio.pdf>
It's in German and translated to English. So it will be very fine to me - as I'm here to make an course in English. If you want to learn German too it will be interesting to you too.
As I've had the experience that certain courses are quite theoretical, abstract and not very musically I would prefer in general to study the figured bass on real compositions where Bach or musicians of his epoque have notated the full setting. It will be easy to find both versions in IMSLP. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | There are several texts that are readable. One is available on IMSLP: <https://imslp.org/wiki/Thorough-Bass_Made_Easy_(Pasquali%2C_Nicolo)>
Arnold's two volume set is available from Dover so not too expensive. Not all thorough bass manuals agree with each other. Likewise, much modern stuff (like secondary dominants AKA applied or attendent chords) were not well described until around 1890 (Francis York's and Frank Shepard's books freely available). It probably pays to look at older stuff in conjunction with modern texts.
Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven did have somewhat different educations. Bach studied with his brother and did lots of score study from well known musicians (as did others). Mozart studied with his father (a rather famous teacher at the time) and did lots (apparently) with "Partimenti" (See the site: Monuments of Partimenti) to see how various patterns were learned. Beethoven studied with Neef who was a well-known composer and teacher (and later with Haydn and Albrechtsberger). Albrechtsberger's teachings are available on the net.
All of these though use the hexachord description of scales (combined with some major-minor theory). One overlaps 6-note series with each other C-D-E-F-G-A and F-G-A-B(b)-C-D and G-A-B-C-D-E (which go by the names ut-re-mi-fa-so-la). This gives a method describing all notes from low G (gamma-ut) for several octaves. The name get funny as F can be either "ut" in the "soft" hexachord or fa in the "natural" hexachord (it doesn't occur in the "hard" hexachord.) It's rather complicated. Renaissance counterpoint used notes not describable with this system so more flats (and some sharps) were introduced and composers and performers were supposed to know how to insert unmarked accidentals. Here's a good description of hexachordal theory.
<http://www2.siba.fi/muste1/index.php?id=72&la=en> | For myself and others a list of terms...
* figured bass: a system to represent chords, synonymous with 'thorough bass'
* basso continuo : executing a figured bass
* partimenti : figured bass exercises to teach students harmony and practice basso continuo performance
[The Art of Partimento](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0195394208): History, Theory, and Practice by Giorgio Sanguinetti
This isn't a collection of partmenti, but rather a text about the method and its history. Lots of musical illustrations, but not really a book from which to practice.
[The Langloz Manuscript: Fugal Improvisation through Figured Bass by William Renwick (Author)](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0198167296)
This may not have a lot of immediate practical value, but it's very interesting to read about how partimenti and figured bass as the foundation for the master skill of fugue improvization. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | There are several texts that are readable. One is available on IMSLP: <https://imslp.org/wiki/Thorough-Bass_Made_Easy_(Pasquali%2C_Nicolo)>
Arnold's two volume set is available from Dover so not too expensive. Not all thorough bass manuals agree with each other. Likewise, much modern stuff (like secondary dominants AKA applied or attendent chords) were not well described until around 1890 (Francis York's and Frank Shepard's books freely available). It probably pays to look at older stuff in conjunction with modern texts.
Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven did have somewhat different educations. Bach studied with his brother and did lots of score study from well known musicians (as did others). Mozart studied with his father (a rather famous teacher at the time) and did lots (apparently) with "Partimenti" (See the site: Monuments of Partimenti) to see how various patterns were learned. Beethoven studied with Neef who was a well-known composer and teacher (and later with Haydn and Albrechtsberger). Albrechtsberger's teachings are available on the net.
All of these though use the hexachord description of scales (combined with some major-minor theory). One overlaps 6-note series with each other C-D-E-F-G-A and F-G-A-B(b)-C-D and G-A-B-C-D-E (which go by the names ut-re-mi-fa-so-la). This gives a method describing all notes from low G (gamma-ut) for several octaves. The name get funny as F can be either "ut" in the "soft" hexachord or fa in the "natural" hexachord (it doesn't occur in the "hard" hexachord.) It's rather complicated. Renaissance counterpoint used notes not describable with this system so more flats (and some sharps) were introduced and composers and performers were supposed to know how to insert unmarked accidentals. Here's a good description of hexachordal theory.
<http://www2.siba.fi/muste1/index.php?id=72&la=en> | ### TL;DR
The curriculum for one modern course (ca. 2012) is based on:
1. Fux, *The Study of Counterpoint*
2. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard*
3. Kearney, *Figured Bass for Beginners*
---
I took a course in figured bass as part of a university music degree program. It was considered an upper-level course and the prerequisite was a standard two-year music theory course, which included introductory figured bass concepts.
The foundational material in most modern music theory curricula comes from **Fux's "The Study of Counterpoint"** and his "species" of counterpoint. Fux lays out several "species", starting from the very simple (a melody comprising whole notes — the "cantus firmus" — against which the student writes a whole-note counterpoint) to the more complex, involving the use of suspensions.
Modern textbooks adapt Fux as preparation for the modern, triad-based major/minor system, but the original Fux is based in the pre-Rameau modal system and modeled on Palestrina. His book holds up very well as a learning model, and provides an outstanding starting point toward learning figured bass.
The counterpoint course itself used two books:
1. R.O. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard: Part 1* (Oxford University Press, 1933).
2. Helen Keaney, *Figured Bass for Beginners* (E.C. Schirmer Music Company, 1981).
The Morris book is a collection of graded exercises, with chapter-by-chapter explanations of the technique being introduced.
Kearney is a collection of standard realizations of common figured bass techniques and situations. The idea is to memorize the exercises to create a readily available "toolbox".
Used together, these books allow for the development of a very solid foundation. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | As someone who is currently learning to play from figured bass on the harpsichord, I can recommend starting with the book "Continuo Playing According to Handel: His figured bass exercises" edited and with commentary by David Ledbetter.
The exercises start with just root position chords for the first exercise and mostly add one new concept with each exercise. While the exercises (basses) are by Handel, the commentary, guidance and sample realizations are by the editor. He gives guidance on realizing the basses in the standard 1+3 style (1 "voice" in the LH, 3 in the RH). This is a good place to start, but be aware that it doesn't stop there – skilled harpsichordists will often use more voices, as well as having more than one voice in the LH.
One thing that I feel would have been useful to add to the book is transposed versions of the exercises (particularly the early ones) to build fluency in different keys. However, you can make these yourself either with software or by writing them out by hand.
It may be helpful to know that the editor has a page of corrections and additions to the book: <https://davidledbetter-music.com/continuo-playing/> | Thanks to you I have found this link:
<https://www.musik-akademie.ch/dam/jcr:da28dd16-cec4-4f03-8b6c-56c4236bfe9f/Compendium_Generalbass_nur_Text_ohne_Audio.pdf>
It's in German and translated to English. So it will be very fine to me - as I'm here to make an course in English. If you want to learn German too it will be interesting to you too.
As I've had the experience that certain courses are quite theoretical, abstract and not very musically I would prefer in general to study the figured bass on real compositions where Bach or musicians of his epoque have notated the full setting. It will be easy to find both versions in IMSLP. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | Thanks to you I have found this link:
<https://www.musik-akademie.ch/dam/jcr:da28dd16-cec4-4f03-8b6c-56c4236bfe9f/Compendium_Generalbass_nur_Text_ohne_Audio.pdf>
It's in German and translated to English. So it will be very fine to me - as I'm here to make an course in English. If you want to learn German too it will be interesting to you too.
As I've had the experience that certain courses are quite theoretical, abstract and not very musically I would prefer in general to study the figured bass on real compositions where Bach or musicians of his epoque have notated the full setting. It will be easy to find both versions in IMSLP. | ### TL;DR
The curriculum for one modern course (ca. 2012) is based on:
1. Fux, *The Study of Counterpoint*
2. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard*
3. Kearney, *Figured Bass for Beginners*
---
I took a course in figured bass as part of a university music degree program. It was considered an upper-level course and the prerequisite was a standard two-year music theory course, which included introductory figured bass concepts.
The foundational material in most modern music theory curricula comes from **Fux's "The Study of Counterpoint"** and his "species" of counterpoint. Fux lays out several "species", starting from the very simple (a melody comprising whole notes — the "cantus firmus" — against which the student writes a whole-note counterpoint) to the more complex, involving the use of suspensions.
Modern textbooks adapt Fux as preparation for the modern, triad-based major/minor system, but the original Fux is based in the pre-Rameau modal system and modeled on Palestrina. His book holds up very well as a learning model, and provides an outstanding starting point toward learning figured bass.
The counterpoint course itself used two books:
1. R.O. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard: Part 1* (Oxford University Press, 1933).
2. Helen Keaney, *Figured Bass for Beginners* (E.C. Schirmer Music Company, 1981).
The Morris book is a collection of graded exercises, with chapter-by-chapter explanations of the technique being introduced.
Kearney is a collection of standard realizations of common figured bass techniques and situations. The idea is to memorize the exercises to create a readily available "toolbox".
Used together, these books allow for the development of a very solid foundation. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | As someone who is currently learning to play from figured bass on the harpsichord, I can recommend starting with the book "Continuo Playing According to Handel: His figured bass exercises" edited and with commentary by David Ledbetter.
The exercises start with just root position chords for the first exercise and mostly add one new concept with each exercise. While the exercises (basses) are by Handel, the commentary, guidance and sample realizations are by the editor. He gives guidance on realizing the basses in the standard 1+3 style (1 "voice" in the LH, 3 in the RH). This is a good place to start, but be aware that it doesn't stop there – skilled harpsichordists will often use more voices, as well as having more than one voice in the LH.
One thing that I feel would have been useful to add to the book is transposed versions of the exercises (particularly the early ones) to build fluency in different keys. However, you can make these yourself either with software or by writing them out by hand.
It may be helpful to know that the editor has a page of corrections and additions to the book: <https://davidledbetter-music.com/continuo-playing/> | For myself and others a list of terms...
* figured bass: a system to represent chords, synonymous with 'thorough bass'
* basso continuo : executing a figured bass
* partimenti : figured bass exercises to teach students harmony and practice basso continuo performance
[The Art of Partimento](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0195394208): History, Theory, and Practice by Giorgio Sanguinetti
This isn't a collection of partmenti, but rather a text about the method and its history. Lots of musical illustrations, but not really a book from which to practice.
[The Langloz Manuscript: Fugal Improvisation through Figured Bass by William Renwick (Author)](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0198167296)
This may not have a lot of immediate practical value, but it's very interesting to read about how partimenti and figured bass as the foundation for the master skill of fugue improvization. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | For myself and others a list of terms...
* figured bass: a system to represent chords, synonymous with 'thorough bass'
* basso continuo : executing a figured bass
* partimenti : figured bass exercises to teach students harmony and practice basso continuo performance
[The Art of Partimento](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0195394208): History, Theory, and Practice by Giorgio Sanguinetti
This isn't a collection of partmenti, but rather a text about the method and its history. Lots of musical illustrations, but not really a book from which to practice.
[The Langloz Manuscript: Fugal Improvisation through Figured Bass by William Renwick (Author)](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0198167296)
This may not have a lot of immediate practical value, but it's very interesting to read about how partimenti and figured bass as the foundation for the master skill of fugue improvization. | ### TL;DR
The curriculum for one modern course (ca. 2012) is based on:
1. Fux, *The Study of Counterpoint*
2. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard*
3. Kearney, *Figured Bass for Beginners*
---
I took a course in figured bass as part of a university music degree program. It was considered an upper-level course and the prerequisite was a standard two-year music theory course, which included introductory figured bass concepts.
The foundational material in most modern music theory curricula comes from **Fux's "The Study of Counterpoint"** and his "species" of counterpoint. Fux lays out several "species", starting from the very simple (a melody comprising whole notes — the "cantus firmus" — against which the student writes a whole-note counterpoint) to the more complex, involving the use of suspensions.
Modern textbooks adapt Fux as preparation for the modern, triad-based major/minor system, but the original Fux is based in the pre-Rameau modal system and modeled on Palestrina. His book holds up very well as a learning model, and provides an outstanding starting point toward learning figured bass.
The counterpoint course itself used two books:
1. R.O. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard: Part 1* (Oxford University Press, 1933).
2. Helen Keaney, *Figured Bass for Beginners* (E.C. Schirmer Music Company, 1981).
The Morris book is a collection of graded exercises, with chapter-by-chapter explanations of the technique being introduced.
Kearney is a collection of standard realizations of common figured bass techniques and situations. The idea is to memorize the exercises to create a readily available "toolbox".
Used together, these books allow for the development of a very solid foundation. |
82,093 | I've done some reading and I've discovered that our modern system of music theory (I'm looking at you Roman numeral analysis) is not the same system that most of the great composers used, including the "Big Three": Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Apparently, they favored the system of thoroughbass. Bach himself was supposedly against Rameau's theory of harmony, from which our modern system is derived.
I did a little more digging and I managed to find some good texts that I would like to study; however, there are just so many to choose from. It seems that thoroughbass was broken down into two different goals, writing down a realization (taking as much time as necessary to do this), and realizing a figured bass extemporaneously at a keyboard, as if sight reading.
My question is this: **What is the modern approach to teaching/learning thoroughbass?**
---
I wonder if a few particular items are still used in modern curricula:
It seems to me that the C.P.E Bach essay, as well as J.S. Bach's precepts and principles, are well known, but are a little difficult. There's also the Albrechtsberger book and a book that seems to be written by Mozart on the subject, though I don't know if the claim of Mozart's authorship is reliable.
Ultimately, I would like to be able to look at a figured bass and be able to provide a realization, either written down or extemporized, in any key. | 2019/03/28 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82093",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/58699/"
] | As someone who is currently learning to play from figured bass on the harpsichord, I can recommend starting with the book "Continuo Playing According to Handel: His figured bass exercises" edited and with commentary by David Ledbetter.
The exercises start with just root position chords for the first exercise and mostly add one new concept with each exercise. While the exercises (basses) are by Handel, the commentary, guidance and sample realizations are by the editor. He gives guidance on realizing the basses in the standard 1+3 style (1 "voice" in the LH, 3 in the RH). This is a good place to start, but be aware that it doesn't stop there – skilled harpsichordists will often use more voices, as well as having more than one voice in the LH.
One thing that I feel would have been useful to add to the book is transposed versions of the exercises (particularly the early ones) to build fluency in different keys. However, you can make these yourself either with software or by writing them out by hand.
It may be helpful to know that the editor has a page of corrections and additions to the book: <https://davidledbetter-music.com/continuo-playing/> | ### TL;DR
The curriculum for one modern course (ca. 2012) is based on:
1. Fux, *The Study of Counterpoint*
2. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard*
3. Kearney, *Figured Bass for Beginners*
---
I took a course in figured bass as part of a university music degree program. It was considered an upper-level course and the prerequisite was a standard two-year music theory course, which included introductory figured bass concepts.
The foundational material in most modern music theory curricula comes from **Fux's "The Study of Counterpoint"** and his "species" of counterpoint. Fux lays out several "species", starting from the very simple (a melody comprising whole notes — the "cantus firmus" — against which the student writes a whole-note counterpoint) to the more complex, involving the use of suspensions.
Modern textbooks adapt Fux as preparation for the modern, triad-based major/minor system, but the original Fux is based in the pre-Rameau modal system and modeled on Palestrina. His book holds up very well as a learning model, and provides an outstanding starting point toward learning figured bass.
The counterpoint course itself used two books:
1. R.O. Morris, *Figured Harmony at the Keyboard: Part 1* (Oxford University Press, 1933).
2. Helen Keaney, *Figured Bass for Beginners* (E.C. Schirmer Music Company, 1981).
The Morris book is a collection of graded exercises, with chapter-by-chapter explanations of the technique being introduced.
Kearney is a collection of standard realizations of common figured bass techniques and situations. The idea is to memorize the exercises to create a readily available "toolbox".
Used together, these books allow for the development of a very solid foundation. |
5,078 | I'm not a wine man but I believe the general rule is to keep the cork wet, although the story is entirely different with whisky due to the effect of its high alcohol content breaking down the cork.
If the rule for whisky is to store the bottle upright, will it not suffer the same fate as wine stored upright? Assuming I open a number of bottles for enjoyment rather than waxing the seal for longevity, how can I make my spirits last?
**Edit**: *for clarification, this question is focused on whisky that comes with a cork and by extension what to do with the cork, not whisky storage in general.* | 2016/06/10 | [
"https://beer.stackexchange.com/questions/5078",
"https://beer.stackexchange.com",
"https://beer.stackexchange.com/users/5538/"
] | **Hard spirits naturally [degrade over time once opened](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01116.x/full)**
You've already opened the bottle because you wanted to actually enjoy the drink, here are step you can take to help ensure the slow and unstoppable flavor degradation takes as long as possible.
1. Store out of the light in a cool and dry place.
A good general rule of thumb for just about any type of alcohol is to store the bottles in a cool, dry, and dark location this will prevent any fluctuation in the environment from causing changes and prevent UV radiation from getting in.
2. Keep the bottle completely sealed.
[Whiskey and other spirits will not mature](http://www.alcademics.com/2015/09/science-on-how-spirits-change-or-age-in-the-bottle-rather-than-the-barrel.html) like a wine in a bottle over time, in fact using an open cork will likely contribute to the breakdown of the flavor as the spirit will have more opportunity to oxidize. A proper rubber stop/cork will do the job just fine.
If you are looking to "age" a whiskey your best bet would be to store it in a small used whiskey cask or in a sealed class bottle with whiskey cask staves added. Both will allow the whiskey to absorb more flavors over time. | You should **not** keep the cork wet. The high alcohol content of most distilled spirits will begin to dissolve the cork, which is highly undesirable. They should always be stored upright. This applies to metal screw tops as well, as metal catalyzes the breakdown of organic compounds.
To improve the lifespan, the best thing you can do is keep the bottle in a cool, dark place. While it is true oxidation cannot happen without air, it is far slower without energy present, and reducing light-heat is much easier than removing air.
If you are able to keep the bottle in complete dark and below ~70F, it will last far longer. I store mine in a cabinet in my kitchen, and I have an Islay Scotch that has been open for 4 years and shows no signs of degrading, despite smoke being among the most easily destroyed flavors.
**Always void sunlight.** UV will quickly degrade the flavor of spirits. While the glass of most bottles blocks some UV, any getting through is extremely harmful.
Something else that can be done is to transfer partially filled bottles into smaller bottles. If you have half of a 0.750L, you might transfer it into 0.375L. This would reduce surface area and the amount of air in the bottle.
If you are committed to preserving a bottle that you do not often use, wine stores sell cans of Xenon which can be sprayed into bottles. The Xenon is heavier than air and covers the surface, preventing oxygen from coming in contact with the liquid. However, this is fairly expensive and will not prevent forms of heat/light degradation other than oxidation |
8,180 | Somehow I have gotten my Mac Mini into a state where every time I press a modifier key - shift, option, command or control - it shows an image of the symbol of the modifier key around the upper right of the screen. This is quite annoying and I do not know what this feature is called so it is difficult for me to find information about it. How can I disable this "feature"? | 2011/02/11 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/8180",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | It sounds like you have the “Sticky Keys” feature enabled.
To control the setting, open the *System Preferences* application ( > System Preferences…), load the *Universal Access* preference pane, goto the *Keyboard* tab. You can turn “Sticky Keys” Off (or On) there. You may also want to disable the “Press the Shift key five times to turn Sticky Keys on or off” feature. Or, if you want the sticky feature without the display, just disable “Display pressed keys on screen” and leave it enabled. | Go to System Preferences then select "Accessibility" then in both "General" and "Keyboard" sections, disable the sticky keys in the Keyboard and de-select the Sticky Keys in the Keyboard section. |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | In my opinion, the phrases:
1. 'the results' - refers to the specific results that will be refined;
2. 'the categories', - refers to the specific (provided) categories; and,
3. 'the left' - refers to the specific side (i.e., not the right side, not the top, etc.).
So, I don't think the word 'the' is overused. | @shin is correct. "The" is used three times in the sentence. Each time "the" is used, the word that follows "the" gets qualified, becomes specific. The sentence is ok. There is no overuse of "the". |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | @shin is correct, the sentence is fine. **To refine results, please use categories on the left.** is equivalent, but the difference is stylistic. | Technically, the sentence is correct but the is overused. I would rearrange the sentence to say "Refine results using the categories on the left". It removes a couple of words and also makes it a more active sentence. Also when writing instructions, avoid using please. These are instructions for performing a task and not a request so the word please is not necessary. |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | As others have said, your sentence is fine, as-is.
However, you might change it to "To refine *your* results, please use the categories on the left."
This would mitigate your concerns with the repeated "the". | Being strict, it depends on context.
If this message is an instruction provided before any results have been presented, then "the results" doesn't quite make sense because "the" is the *definite article*. That means "the results" refers to a specific set of results. Which specific results? If results don't already exist, it's not clear. I'll likely assume you're talking about "the results [of the next search]". I'd be right, so you'd still be communicating successfully, but it's not ideal.
On the other hand, if the message doesn't appear until after a search is performed and some results (especially a large number of them) are presented, it would work perfectly because "the results" refers to a specific set of results that exist in context. |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | In my opinion, the phrases:
1. 'the results' - refers to the specific results that will be refined;
2. 'the categories', - refers to the specific (provided) categories; and,
3. 'the left' - refers to the specific side (i.e., not the right side, not the top, etc.).
So, I don't think the word 'the' is overused. | Being strict, it depends on context.
If this message is an instruction provided before any results have been presented, then "the results" doesn't quite make sense because "the" is the *definite article*. That means "the results" refers to a specific set of results. Which specific results? If results don't already exist, it's not clear. I'll likely assume you're talking about "the results [of the next search]". I'd be right, so you'd still be communicating successfully, but it's not ideal.
On the other hand, if the message doesn't appear until after a search is performed and some results (especially a large number of them) are presented, it would work perfectly because "the results" refers to a specific set of results that exist in context. |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | In my opinion, the phrases:
1. 'the results' - refers to the specific results that will be refined;
2. 'the categories', - refers to the specific (provided) categories; and,
3. 'the left' - refers to the specific side (i.e., not the right side, not the top, etc.).
So, I don't think the word 'the' is overused. | As others have said, your sentence is fine, as-is.
However, you might change it to "To refine *your* results, please use the categories on the left."
This would mitigate your concerns with the repeated "the". |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | As a native speaker, I can definitely say 'the' is not overused in this sentence. The is one of the most common words in the English language, so often in fact you might use the word 'the' over 5,000 times *in one day.* | @shin is correct. "The" is used three times in the sentence. Each time "the" is used, the word that follows "the" gets qualified, becomes specific. The sentence is ok. There is no overuse of "the". |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | As others have said, your sentence is fine, as-is.
However, you might change it to "To refine *your* results, please use the categories on the left."
This would mitigate your concerns with the repeated "the". | @shin is correct. "The" is used three times in the sentence. Each time "the" is used, the word that follows "the" gets qualified, becomes specific. The sentence is ok. There is no overuse of "the". |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | As others have said, your sentence is fine, as-is.
However, you might change it to "To refine *your* results, please use the categories on the left."
This would mitigate your concerns with the repeated "the". | Technically, the sentence is correct but the is overused. I would rearrange the sentence to say "Refine results using the categories on the left". It removes a couple of words and also makes it a more active sentence. Also when writing instructions, avoid using please. These are instructions for performing a task and not a request so the word please is not necessary. |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | In my opinion, the phrases:
1. 'the results' - refers to the specific results that will be refined;
2. 'the categories', - refers to the specific (provided) categories; and,
3. 'the left' - refers to the specific side (i.e., not the right side, not the top, etc.).
So, I don't think the word 'the' is overused. | As a native speaker, I can definitely say 'the' is not overused in this sentence. The is one of the most common words in the English language, so often in fact you might use the word 'the' over 5,000 times *in one day.* |
74,502 | For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,
>
> To refine the results, please use the categories on the left
>
>
>
Can someone help? | 2015/12/01 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/74502",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/14217/"
] | As a native speaker, I can definitely say 'the' is not overused in this sentence. The is one of the most common words in the English language, so often in fact you might use the word 'the' over 5,000 times *in one day.* | @shin is correct, the sentence is fine. **To refine results, please use categories on the left.** is equivalent, but the difference is stylistic. |
104,704 | I am an entry level web developer for a small company in the US. I do full stack web development and lead my own medium sized projects. I have moved from intern to contractor and now recently to full time employee status.
I was very eager to accept the full time salaried offer of roughly ~45k(healthcare stipend included). Before I became salaried I was making 20$ hourly. I do not get any 401k or other benefits aside from vacation. Reflecting on this past year as I start to gather all of my tax info, I feel like I am actually making less money for more work, which is much more involved.
I get along great with my coworkers and feel like I am a key part of the team and also think I have surprised everyone with my work thus far. I was told I would get my salary adjusted in 6 months after my start date, but I almost feel like I am being taken advantage of as a junior/entry level developer. I am making fast progress and want to be compensated for my hard work.
How do I go about renegotiating? Should I wait until the 6months is up and try to negotiate then? Would going back to hourly be worth it? I do not have any other offers at this moment. From some research it seems the US entry level salary is around 65-70k for similar positions.
Location: North Central, KY | 2018/01/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/104704",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/81402/"
] | Face the facts, you accepted the offer. Now would not be the time for you to renegotiate an accepted offer, a 6 month review might be a little early, but it is certainly a time to do so if you believe you have made considerable work, a 1 year might be better given the circumstances.
On that note, comparing salary levels nationally to KY would not be reasonable given the state's lower cost of living. Look for local positions that are hiring in your field and experience for a better gauge of market wages.
In the meantime, the best ROI would be for you to ask if you can have your company pay for certifications and/or training to increase your knowledge and value. | It is a bit early to renegotiate after 6 months - but you can still do something.
After your trial period is over (if there is one) you should make a 1-1 appointment with your manager where you ask about a fair appraisal of your performance. Now, grouping the responses to this into 3
*1. Your performance is appraised as worse than you expected.* - Ask for direct deliverables and or measurables and get to work improving. The earlier after this meeting you can check off any of the performance targets you should. Then repeat and goto 2.
*2. Your performance has - in your words "surprised them"* - Yea, you have a good chance of getting a raise as long as you remain cool and collected about trying to have a salary that is on par with the performance. Be prepared - know what salary range you want, and name a *range* not a fixed price. (so as you can repeat this process in the future easier) I'd probably say something to the tune of *"I have been working real hard to prove that I am worth more than the junior/entry level salary"* - maybe you also can find something you can improve either with yourself or the work situation or environment and volunteer it as a measurable you can leverage your salary bid with. It can even be ridiculous stuff, I have a colleague who got a raise (partly) because he volunteered to do all the organizing for this years christmas party - because he knew the manager hated to have anything to do with it. Be on the offensive, but don't be - you know - *offensive* or aggressive.
\*3. *If your performance is even better than you expected* - they should volunteer to bump the pay grade themselves, if this does not happen, it is a red flag for how performance is being valued with salary in the company - and I would not put staying at the company in my 3 year plan if I were you... Otherwise, do as pt 2. |
104,704 | I am an entry level web developer for a small company in the US. I do full stack web development and lead my own medium sized projects. I have moved from intern to contractor and now recently to full time employee status.
I was very eager to accept the full time salaried offer of roughly ~45k(healthcare stipend included). Before I became salaried I was making 20$ hourly. I do not get any 401k or other benefits aside from vacation. Reflecting on this past year as I start to gather all of my tax info, I feel like I am actually making less money for more work, which is much more involved.
I get along great with my coworkers and feel like I am a key part of the team and also think I have surprised everyone with my work thus far. I was told I would get my salary adjusted in 6 months after my start date, but I almost feel like I am being taken advantage of as a junior/entry level developer. I am making fast progress and want to be compensated for my hard work.
How do I go about renegotiating? Should I wait until the 6months is up and try to negotiate then? Would going back to hourly be worth it? I do not have any other offers at this moment. From some research it seems the US entry level salary is around 65-70k for similar positions.
Location: North Central, KY | 2018/01/05 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/104704",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/81402/"
] | Face the facts, you accepted the offer. Now would not be the time for you to renegotiate an accepted offer, a 6 month review might be a little early, but it is certainly a time to do so if you believe you have made considerable work, a 1 year might be better given the circumstances.
On that note, comparing salary levels nationally to KY would not be reasonable given the state's lower cost of living. Look for local positions that are hiring in your field and experience for a better gauge of market wages.
In the meantime, the best ROI would be for you to ask if you can have your company pay for certifications and/or training to increase your knowledge and value. | Performance and productivity put aside, it is going to depend a great deal on the general policy of your company regarding salaries. Do you know anything about how your coworkers fare in that department ? I don't suggest you ask directly as this is often a touchy subject as best, but if you know ballpark figures, you might be able to handle the situation better.
It could be that your company generally pays well below market level, which would mean you might want to look for something else in a relatively short-term basis. Sure, if you really love the work and all, you can stay, but a low salary is likely to impact your salary evolution throughout your career. I'm not sure going back to hourly is an option : it seems like switching to full employee status is a step forward status-wise, and trying to take that away might be perceived negatively (as in "I don't like it that much here", or worse, "I don't know what I want", or even worse, both). In that case, maybe you should have kept to hourly, but there might have been other incentives to switch I am not aware of.
Maybe it's just company policy to offer a low starting salary, and reevaluate after some time to assess the value of new employees. In that case, just buckle up and show what you're capable of, which you are apparently already doing. This seems to be the most plausible scenario to me, considering your company already mentioned a reevaluation after 6 months. Since you are entry-level, you might not be aware of this, but know that 6 months is a pretty short time in the workplace : "proving yourself" is more a matter of a couple years at least. I wouldn't advise reminding them of their "engagement" to adjust your salary immediately after 6 months have passed, in fact, you can very well wait for a whole year, but that's more opinion-based. What seems sure to me is that if your company doesn't come back to you after 6 months, you shouldn't it back up immediately, or you risk being seen as greedy. You don't have to wait for a year, but don't make it look like you're only interested in the money.
Remember : if you're not satisfied, nothing keeps you from mentioning it, or finding somewhere else to work. But unless you really perceive your situation as unacceptable, I strongly suggest you take it slow. This is the kind of "issue" that can be resolved with patience and correct decision-making. |
259,600 | I have a problem over Steam. When I open the Batman Arkham Asylum game on Steam it shows this error message:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rt0oM.jpg)
>
> You must logged in to Steam
>
>
>
But I have logged in Steam! It still shows the same error.
I am very confused over this problem.
What do I have to do to fix this? | 2016/03/20 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/259600",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/142479/"
] | You not only need to be logged into Steam, you also need to buy a copy of [Batman Arkham Asylum](http://store.steampowered.com/app/35140/) and add the game to your Steam account. Instead you've used the "Add Non-Steam Game to My Library" option to add a shortcut to your library. This doesn't add the game to your Steam library, it only lets you launch games that don't require Steam from the Steam client. It doesn't work with games that require Steam, like Batman Arkham Asylum.
Once you add the game to your account and download it, it will look like this in your library:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SiasS.png) | I had this problem for the game Batman Arkham Asylum too.
You have to copy these two files (steam\_api.dll and steam\_api) from the DVD or you can also find them in the internet.
Second thing you have to copy these files and replace them in the game location file. |
109,147 | I am looking for a way to make the image below straight - like in the line. To make it clear - it would be a tattoo template, which will be placed *around* my upper arm.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zDVLA.jpg)
Is there any solution of this, in Photoshop? | 2018/05/09 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/109147",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/121042/"
] | It won't be perfect but you could use a Polar Coordinates filter (*Filter → Distort → Polar Coordinates...*) set to "Polar to Rectangular" on the image:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HK5db.png)
The result will be "straight", but will be distorted so you'll at least need to adjust the height to compensate. This is after transforming the layer to 50% height:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PfYYc.png)
With a further bit of correction using a mesh warp (*Edit → Transform → Warp*):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uNBxL.png) | This can be done. But not done very accurately. There will be some warping and distortion when you straighten it out. That said, here's what I would do.
1. Cut the piece into 3 separate pieces using your favorite selection method. I suggest the pen tool, but you don't really need to be that accurate.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CS9E0.jpg)
2. Put each piece on it's own layer.
3. Then use the Puppet Warp Tool (Edit > Puppet Warp) to straighten each piece out. Add points along the curve and align the points and image into a straight(ish) line.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHyvf.png)
4. If you need to, you can align the layers into one long line.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wdFRi.png) |
183,730 | I am doing outdoor landscape lighting. I used the 12 gauge wire but have run short. can I extend it with 14 gauge wire? Need about 20 feet more for the led lights. | 2020/01/30 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/183730",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/111817/"
] | It would depend on the transformer size existing distance of the 12 AWG and how many lights were already installed. As a great rule of thumb, never mix wire sizes. Voltage drop on landscaping lights is very important because the voltage is low to begin with. Adding 14AWG at the end of the circuit would not be good for that last light. Think of the future, you might want to add more lights. Don't limit a new installation. | If it's 12v lighting, and you have plenty of 14awg, you can use it by doubling up each connector; running 4 wires instead of 2. That will more than makeup for the increased resistance in the smaller gauge wire.
OTOH, using the 14 on it's own isn't really dangerous over 20' of lighting-level load, and if you're using LED lights, you likely won't notice the minor voltage drop on lights 20' away from the others.
If your system is AC, check your local regulations or just get more 12AWG. |
160,634 | I'm a senior developer in a mid-sized business. We are split into multiple sub-teams with specific roles for each. My allocated team's responsibility is for the day to day running of services and bug fixing issues that arise from our product.
I have recently had a bad case of burnout related to the current COVID situation. Amongst the several concerns that I have are that of an individual team member. This team member has a habit of making breaking changes, without much thought or consideration given to others in the team, let alone across sub-teams. It is almost the bane of my life, multiple system outages have been caused by this person, but they continue at an astonishing pace of development. This is obviously viewed by management as a "positive" thing as they're getting the work done.
The catch here is that each time there is an outage, the investigation follows. This involves multiple meetings, bug fixing (my team) and slowdown in our work while we put out the inevitable fires that have been started. Worst of all, it is really hard to get them to own up to their mistakes. Talking with them, it's never "their" code that's at fault. The individual even tried to blame the hardware ECC memory for memory corruption that originated from this individual's code.
I am all for people learning from mistakes, but we barely get to put out the last fire before the next one is started. Most recently, and while I have been under a lot of pressure to deliver, I went to get the final task of the day done. Lo and behold, they are at it again and a code commit broke my work.
I quite publicly flipped out on our team channels about it because I was pretty fed-up with the direct approach. This has got management attention, in that their manager got involved. After talking with management time and again, little seems to have changed with this individual.
How do I raise this to management’s attention, get them to act and, more importantly, help prevent this from continuing? | 2020/07/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/160634",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You must make an ironclad rule that if a person commits code that breaks the build, the commit is *instantly* reverted and *that person's work is not completed*.
If you don't have the authority to make and enforce such a rule, then you must convince the party who does have that authority. Document completely the actual costs of breaking the build.
Until this rule is in place, act as if it were. When the build is broken, revert to the last good build. Demonstrate that the only difference between project software that works and project software that does not work is that one commit.
You should be making a lot of noise about this, to everyone from your colleagues to upper management. | It's *their manager's* responsibility to deal with **all** "personnel issues." You should speak to *your* manager, describing the situation, so that (s)he can speak to the other manager.
You should be fully prepared, of course, for them to also want to speak to *you,* and you, too, are obliged to do your part (as *they* see it) to achieve resolution. Be prepared to be told -- and, to accept -- that *you* may be completely or partially wrong. "Be professional." |
160,634 | I'm a senior developer in a mid-sized business. We are split into multiple sub-teams with specific roles for each. My allocated team's responsibility is for the day to day running of services and bug fixing issues that arise from our product.
I have recently had a bad case of burnout related to the current COVID situation. Amongst the several concerns that I have are that of an individual team member. This team member has a habit of making breaking changes, without much thought or consideration given to others in the team, let alone across sub-teams. It is almost the bane of my life, multiple system outages have been caused by this person, but they continue at an astonishing pace of development. This is obviously viewed by management as a "positive" thing as they're getting the work done.
The catch here is that each time there is an outage, the investigation follows. This involves multiple meetings, bug fixing (my team) and slowdown in our work while we put out the inevitable fires that have been started. Worst of all, it is really hard to get them to own up to their mistakes. Talking with them, it's never "their" code that's at fault. The individual even tried to blame the hardware ECC memory for memory corruption that originated from this individual's code.
I am all for people learning from mistakes, but we barely get to put out the last fire before the next one is started. Most recently, and while I have been under a lot of pressure to deliver, I went to get the final task of the day done. Lo and behold, they are at it again and a code commit broke my work.
I quite publicly flipped out on our team channels about it because I was pretty fed-up with the direct approach. This has got management attention, in that their manager got involved. After talking with management time and again, little seems to have changed with this individual.
How do I raise this to management’s attention, get them to act and, more importantly, help prevent this from continuing? | 2020/07/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/160634",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | It's *their manager's* responsibility to deal with **all** "personnel issues." You should speak to *your* manager, describing the situation, so that (s)he can speak to the other manager.
You should be fully prepared, of course, for them to also want to speak to *you,* and you, too, are obliged to do your part (as *they* see it) to achieve resolution. Be prepared to be told -- and, to accept -- that *you* may be completely or partially wrong. "Be professional." | **Perform retrospectives and iterate your process to be resilient in the face of one person's error.**
Performing [blameless incident retrospectives](https://landing.google.com/sre/sre-book/chapters/postmortem-culture/) and regular development team retrospectives where you focus on the issues, all learn about your system, and devise ways to make your system resistant to errors is the best first step.
Identify the issues, figure out frequency and cost metrics around them, and figure out how to make it better. Does there need to be more testing and higher code coverage? Do people need to be committing more frequently so the PRs are smaller? Do more people need to be on a PR? Are build failure notifications being sent in actionable ways (in chat, in email, etc.) to the right party?
A developer should be free to make mistakes. There should be a framework in place that helps all the devs find errors, quickly, before passing them down the line.
**Maybe there still needs to be personnel action - maybe.**
Some folks believe "everything" is the system's issue. In reality there are some people who are slackers or screwups and no reasonable amount of development guardrails will correct that.
However, that's rarer than people think. If you have a very prolific developer that creates 5x more code than their colleagues, then if they create 5x the bugs/incidents of their colleagues that's normal, and I would prefer that employee to other employees because I'm getting 5x the output. It's only if they are causing 10x the problems that calculus starts to cross back over the line.
Even if you need to take this to their manager, be focused on solutions. "Talking to" the manager and their manager "talking to" them hasn't worked and usually doesn't. Engage him in fixing the problem. "How can flaws in your team's work not affect ours? What agreements or technical safeguards can we put in place to make this best for everyone?" Keep in mind YOU should not be doing this, but your manager should be talking with the other team's manager. |
160,634 | I'm a senior developer in a mid-sized business. We are split into multiple sub-teams with specific roles for each. My allocated team's responsibility is for the day to day running of services and bug fixing issues that arise from our product.
I have recently had a bad case of burnout related to the current COVID situation. Amongst the several concerns that I have are that of an individual team member. This team member has a habit of making breaking changes, without much thought or consideration given to others in the team, let alone across sub-teams. It is almost the bane of my life, multiple system outages have been caused by this person, but they continue at an astonishing pace of development. This is obviously viewed by management as a "positive" thing as they're getting the work done.
The catch here is that each time there is an outage, the investigation follows. This involves multiple meetings, bug fixing (my team) and slowdown in our work while we put out the inevitable fires that have been started. Worst of all, it is really hard to get them to own up to their mistakes. Talking with them, it's never "their" code that's at fault. The individual even tried to blame the hardware ECC memory for memory corruption that originated from this individual's code.
I am all for people learning from mistakes, but we barely get to put out the last fire before the next one is started. Most recently, and while I have been under a lot of pressure to deliver, I went to get the final task of the day done. Lo and behold, they are at it again and a code commit broke my work.
I quite publicly flipped out on our team channels about it because I was pretty fed-up with the direct approach. This has got management attention, in that their manager got involved. After talking with management time and again, little seems to have changed with this individual.
How do I raise this to management’s attention, get them to act and, more importantly, help prevent this from continuing? | 2020/07/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/160634",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | It's *their manager's* responsibility to deal with **all** "personnel issues." You should speak to *your* manager, describing the situation, so that (s)he can speak to the other manager.
You should be fully prepared, of course, for them to also want to speak to *you,* and you, too, are obliged to do your part (as *they* see it) to achieve resolution. Be prepared to be told -- and, to accept -- that *you* may be completely or partially wrong. "Be professional." | I agree with others who've advocated using a CI system and tests. In my startup, we run tests against each pull request, and only those that pass can be merged. After the merge, tests must pass again before the latest merge is deployed to production. And if a pull request breaks production, it is *immediately* reverted. Then it's up to the developer to clean it up, get it through code review again (usually with new tests to demonstrate that the problem is fixed), and ensure it passes tests. We still have problems that take down production, but only for a matter of minutes at most. If in doubt, we revert first and ask questions later. |
160,634 | I'm a senior developer in a mid-sized business. We are split into multiple sub-teams with specific roles for each. My allocated team's responsibility is for the day to day running of services and bug fixing issues that arise from our product.
I have recently had a bad case of burnout related to the current COVID situation. Amongst the several concerns that I have are that of an individual team member. This team member has a habit of making breaking changes, without much thought or consideration given to others in the team, let alone across sub-teams. It is almost the bane of my life, multiple system outages have been caused by this person, but they continue at an astonishing pace of development. This is obviously viewed by management as a "positive" thing as they're getting the work done.
The catch here is that each time there is an outage, the investigation follows. This involves multiple meetings, bug fixing (my team) and slowdown in our work while we put out the inevitable fires that have been started. Worst of all, it is really hard to get them to own up to their mistakes. Talking with them, it's never "their" code that's at fault. The individual even tried to blame the hardware ECC memory for memory corruption that originated from this individual's code.
I am all for people learning from mistakes, but we barely get to put out the last fire before the next one is started. Most recently, and while I have been under a lot of pressure to deliver, I went to get the final task of the day done. Lo and behold, they are at it again and a code commit broke my work.
I quite publicly flipped out on our team channels about it because I was pretty fed-up with the direct approach. This has got management attention, in that their manager got involved. After talking with management time and again, little seems to have changed with this individual.
How do I raise this to management’s attention, get them to act and, more importantly, help prevent this from continuing? | 2020/07/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/160634",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You must make an ironclad rule that if a person commits code that breaks the build, the commit is *instantly* reverted and *that person's work is not completed*.
If you don't have the authority to make and enforce such a rule, then you must convince the party who does have that authority. Document completely the actual costs of breaking the build.
Until this rule is in place, act as if it were. When the build is broken, revert to the last good build. Demonstrate that the only difference between project software that works and project software that does not work is that one commit.
You should be making a lot of noise about this, to everyone from your colleagues to upper management. | **Perform retrospectives and iterate your process to be resilient in the face of one person's error.**
Performing [blameless incident retrospectives](https://landing.google.com/sre/sre-book/chapters/postmortem-culture/) and regular development team retrospectives where you focus on the issues, all learn about your system, and devise ways to make your system resistant to errors is the best first step.
Identify the issues, figure out frequency and cost metrics around them, and figure out how to make it better. Does there need to be more testing and higher code coverage? Do people need to be committing more frequently so the PRs are smaller? Do more people need to be on a PR? Are build failure notifications being sent in actionable ways (in chat, in email, etc.) to the right party?
A developer should be free to make mistakes. There should be a framework in place that helps all the devs find errors, quickly, before passing them down the line.
**Maybe there still needs to be personnel action - maybe.**
Some folks believe "everything" is the system's issue. In reality there are some people who are slackers or screwups and no reasonable amount of development guardrails will correct that.
However, that's rarer than people think. If you have a very prolific developer that creates 5x more code than their colleagues, then if they create 5x the bugs/incidents of their colleagues that's normal, and I would prefer that employee to other employees because I'm getting 5x the output. It's only if they are causing 10x the problems that calculus starts to cross back over the line.
Even if you need to take this to their manager, be focused on solutions. "Talking to" the manager and their manager "talking to" them hasn't worked and usually doesn't. Engage him in fixing the problem. "How can flaws in your team's work not affect ours? What agreements or technical safeguards can we put in place to make this best for everyone?" Keep in mind YOU should not be doing this, but your manager should be talking with the other team's manager. |
160,634 | I'm a senior developer in a mid-sized business. We are split into multiple sub-teams with specific roles for each. My allocated team's responsibility is for the day to day running of services and bug fixing issues that arise from our product.
I have recently had a bad case of burnout related to the current COVID situation. Amongst the several concerns that I have are that of an individual team member. This team member has a habit of making breaking changes, without much thought or consideration given to others in the team, let alone across sub-teams. It is almost the bane of my life, multiple system outages have been caused by this person, but they continue at an astonishing pace of development. This is obviously viewed by management as a "positive" thing as they're getting the work done.
The catch here is that each time there is an outage, the investigation follows. This involves multiple meetings, bug fixing (my team) and slowdown in our work while we put out the inevitable fires that have been started. Worst of all, it is really hard to get them to own up to their mistakes. Talking with them, it's never "their" code that's at fault. The individual even tried to blame the hardware ECC memory for memory corruption that originated from this individual's code.
I am all for people learning from mistakes, but we barely get to put out the last fire before the next one is started. Most recently, and while I have been under a lot of pressure to deliver, I went to get the final task of the day done. Lo and behold, they are at it again and a code commit broke my work.
I quite publicly flipped out on our team channels about it because I was pretty fed-up with the direct approach. This has got management attention, in that their manager got involved. After talking with management time and again, little seems to have changed with this individual.
How do I raise this to management’s attention, get them to act and, more importantly, help prevent this from continuing? | 2020/07/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/160634",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You must make an ironclad rule that if a person commits code that breaks the build, the commit is *instantly* reverted and *that person's work is not completed*.
If you don't have the authority to make and enforce such a rule, then you must convince the party who does have that authority. Document completely the actual costs of breaking the build.
Until this rule is in place, act as if it were. When the build is broken, revert to the last good build. Demonstrate that the only difference between project software that works and project software that does not work is that one commit.
You should be making a lot of noise about this, to everyone from your colleagues to upper management. | I agree with others who've advocated using a CI system and tests. In my startup, we run tests against each pull request, and only those that pass can be merged. After the merge, tests must pass again before the latest merge is deployed to production. And if a pull request breaks production, it is *immediately* reverted. Then it's up to the developer to clean it up, get it through code review again (usually with new tests to demonstrate that the problem is fixed), and ensure it passes tests. We still have problems that take down production, but only for a matter of minutes at most. If in doubt, we revert first and ask questions later. |
160,634 | I'm a senior developer in a mid-sized business. We are split into multiple sub-teams with specific roles for each. My allocated team's responsibility is for the day to day running of services and bug fixing issues that arise from our product.
I have recently had a bad case of burnout related to the current COVID situation. Amongst the several concerns that I have are that of an individual team member. This team member has a habit of making breaking changes, without much thought or consideration given to others in the team, let alone across sub-teams. It is almost the bane of my life, multiple system outages have been caused by this person, but they continue at an astonishing pace of development. This is obviously viewed by management as a "positive" thing as they're getting the work done.
The catch here is that each time there is an outage, the investigation follows. This involves multiple meetings, bug fixing (my team) and slowdown in our work while we put out the inevitable fires that have been started. Worst of all, it is really hard to get them to own up to their mistakes. Talking with them, it's never "their" code that's at fault. The individual even tried to blame the hardware ECC memory for memory corruption that originated from this individual's code.
I am all for people learning from mistakes, but we barely get to put out the last fire before the next one is started. Most recently, and while I have been under a lot of pressure to deliver, I went to get the final task of the day done. Lo and behold, they are at it again and a code commit broke my work.
I quite publicly flipped out on our team channels about it because I was pretty fed-up with the direct approach. This has got management attention, in that their manager got involved. After talking with management time and again, little seems to have changed with this individual.
How do I raise this to management’s attention, get them to act and, more importantly, help prevent this from continuing? | 2020/07/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/160634",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Perform retrospectives and iterate your process to be resilient in the face of one person's error.**
Performing [blameless incident retrospectives](https://landing.google.com/sre/sre-book/chapters/postmortem-culture/) and regular development team retrospectives where you focus on the issues, all learn about your system, and devise ways to make your system resistant to errors is the best first step.
Identify the issues, figure out frequency and cost metrics around them, and figure out how to make it better. Does there need to be more testing and higher code coverage? Do people need to be committing more frequently so the PRs are smaller? Do more people need to be on a PR? Are build failure notifications being sent in actionable ways (in chat, in email, etc.) to the right party?
A developer should be free to make mistakes. There should be a framework in place that helps all the devs find errors, quickly, before passing them down the line.
**Maybe there still needs to be personnel action - maybe.**
Some folks believe "everything" is the system's issue. In reality there are some people who are slackers or screwups and no reasonable amount of development guardrails will correct that.
However, that's rarer than people think. If you have a very prolific developer that creates 5x more code than their colleagues, then if they create 5x the bugs/incidents of their colleagues that's normal, and I would prefer that employee to other employees because I'm getting 5x the output. It's only if they are causing 10x the problems that calculus starts to cross back over the line.
Even if you need to take this to their manager, be focused on solutions. "Talking to" the manager and their manager "talking to" them hasn't worked and usually doesn't. Engage him in fixing the problem. "How can flaws in your team's work not affect ours? What agreements or technical safeguards can we put in place to make this best for everyone?" Keep in mind YOU should not be doing this, but your manager should be talking with the other team's manager. | I agree with others who've advocated using a CI system and tests. In my startup, we run tests against each pull request, and only those that pass can be merged. After the merge, tests must pass again before the latest merge is deployed to production. And if a pull request breaks production, it is *immediately* reverted. Then it's up to the developer to clean it up, get it through code review again (usually with new tests to demonstrate that the problem is fixed), and ensure it passes tests. We still have problems that take down production, but only for a matter of minutes at most. If in doubt, we revert first and ask questions later. |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | Consider getting a software product which fully encrypts your hard drives. Such a software will prompt the user to enter the password used to encrypt the hard drive during boot. Without the correct password, the hard drive (including both the OS and any data) can not be decrypted, the system won't boot and the user won't get any access to the data.
In that case a thief might still be able to sell the hardware by nuking the disks, but won't have access to any sensitive information stored on it.
The default solution for Windows is [Microsoft BitLocker](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/protect-files-bitlocker-drive-encryption), which is already available out-of-the-box in some editions of Windows. There are also other products on the market like Sophos Safeguard or Truecrypt. For recommendations which product to use, consult [Software Recommendations Stackexchange](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com). | If the laptops don't need to be used offline, store no data on the laptops. Use the laptops as [thin clients](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client). This can then allow you to require multi-factor authentication, set up access hours, and many other additional improvements over storing the data locally. |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | Apart from using tracking software and full disk encryption, the company may invest in educating the concerned people to use their laptops only to connect to virtual private servers ([VPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_server)) where they must save their data. That way, if a laptop of a given worker is stolen, no data could be found within it (I take in account the fact you stated good safety practices are known). A similar goal can be achieved if they can invest to buy their own -physical- servers. | Firstly encrypt the hard disks to protect the information on the laptops.
You need to make it easier for the police to find the people and easier for put them in jail.
There are modifications to the bios of laptops that make then ping an IP address whenever they connect to a network. You can then look at the source address on the pocket and get a court order for the given ISP to tell you where the laptop is. www.absolute.com is one company that sells such a system that allows an device to be remotely disabled as well as tracked.
I would also think about having alarm that activate a [smart water spray](http://www.smartwater.com/forensic-spray) when it goes off, that way it is easy to prove that someone was in the building at the time the alarm went off.
>
> Upon activation the SmartWater Forensic Spray System sprays intruders
> with an invisible liquid, marking their skin and clothing. The liquid
> can only be seen under UV light, remaining on skin for weeks and
> indefinitely on clothing. It can be used to link a criminal to a
> particular crime scene, remaining detectable long after the crime has
> been committed.
>
>
>
I would be incline to do the above without putting up any warning notices with as few people knowing about it as possible. *It is better to put people in jail, then just get them to rob the next office instead of yours.* |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | If the laptops don't need to be used offline, store no data on the laptops. Use the laptops as [thin clients](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client). This can then allow you to require multi-factor authentication, set up access hours, and many other additional improvements over storing the data locally. | I feel that you are limiting yourself to the tech side too much.
first you need to
lock up the laptops at the end of the day in a secure room.
I mean secure room as the easiest way to the room is through a locked
door which lock can be easily changed.
in the room put some sort of security camera for in the case the thief
gets into the room. that way you will have an idea of who got in the room.
this change itself would make any thief lot less motivated to get to the laptops. and finally after employ full disk encryption |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | [Bios Level Passwords](http://www.howtogeek.com/186235/how-to-secure-your-computer-with-a-bios-or-uefi-password/) prevents anyone from even turning on the computer without a password, but this doesn't prevent them from putting the hard drive into an extrenal enclosure.
[Bitlocker full drive encryption](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/bitlocker-drive-encryption-overview) built into windows prevents them from reading the information entirely unless it is in that computer.
Even with/(out) all of this encryption private, harmful, and secret information should still be stored in an [encrypted & password protected folder](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2858642/you-can-encrypt-your-hard-drive-but-the-protection-may-not-be-worth-the-hassle.html).
At this point if a person steals the laptop, good luck EVER getting data off of it. Of course this also runs into the problem that now if someone forgets the passwords you up a creek, and so you need to run an in house password and username lookup system that is secure and safe. But that's the nature of security. The more secure you are, the less useable it is.
>
> The most secure computers are buried six feet underground, have no network access, are turned off, and destroyed.
>
>
>
Of course if Bitlocker is overkill, the are other options for [encrypting anything](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2025462/how-to-encrypt-almost-anything.html).
Another route to go is the thin client architecture that would mean no sensitive data would be stored on the laptop at all. This however requires a server to log into and store files on, and client and server setups, and VPNs that need to be encrypted as well. | As others have mentioned, I think you need to consider the physical security first. At the end of each day you collect the laptops back and lock them in a filing cabinet in a locked room.
I would set up an asset register to log the makes, models and serial numbers of the laptops and other IT equipment. This doesn't need to be anything fancier than a spreadsheet. This would give you something to hand over to the insurance company and police in the event of theft.
A seperate spreadsheet could be used to log the users of the laptops. They come to you and request a laptop, you enter their name in the sheet with a datestamp. If the laptop doesn't come back you know who to go and shout at.
If the laptop needs to leave the premise (to go to the courtroom in this instance) make sure the user is aware that they are financial responsible for it if it gets damaged, lost or stolen. People are a lot more careful with equipment if they know they might have to pay to repair/replace it.
When I worked for a tech support company several of our customers were solicitors. They got round the potential data loss issue by having a terminal server and their remote workers could only access email and client information through that. The laptops effectively became dumb terminals. This also meant that all the heavy processing was done on the server so cheaper laptops could be purchased.
Once the physical security is dealt with they can start to consider drive encryption and geo-tracking of laptops. We had great success with services like [AirWatch](http://www.air-watch.com/solutions/laptop-management). We only ever had one device go missing with AirWatch installed on it and the field engineer was able to retrieve it with our guidance via GPS. I felt like a spy, it was great! :) |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | Firstly encrypt the hard disks to protect the information on the laptops.
You need to make it easier for the police to find the people and easier for put them in jail.
There are modifications to the bios of laptops that make then ping an IP address whenever they connect to a network. You can then look at the source address on the pocket and get a court order for the given ISP to tell you where the laptop is. www.absolute.com is one company that sells such a system that allows an device to be remotely disabled as well as tracked.
I would also think about having alarm that activate a [smart water spray](http://www.smartwater.com/forensic-spray) when it goes off, that way it is easy to prove that someone was in the building at the time the alarm went off.
>
> Upon activation the SmartWater Forensic Spray System sprays intruders
> with an invisible liquid, marking their skin and clothing. The liquid
> can only be seen under UV light, remaining on skin for weeks and
> indefinitely on clothing. It can be used to link a criminal to a
> particular crime scene, remaining detectable long after the crime has
> been committed.
>
>
>
I would be incline to do the above without putting up any warning notices with as few people knowing about it as possible. *It is better to put people in jail, then just get them to rob the next office instead of yours.* | What measures to take depends on which of the inconveniences from the theft you want to protect against:
* **Loss of data**: Keep backups. Data which exists only on the laptop can of course not be avoided while the laptop is offline. But as soon as it is online with a decent connection the data need to be backed up.
* **Leaks of data**: Encrypt the entire disk. If the encryption solution is unable to wipe the keys from memory when the screen is locked or the laptop is suspended, then shut it down completely instead.
* **Financial loss**: Losing the hardware means a financial loss. The way to protect against that is by having an insurance.
* **Make it less attractive to steal**: There are two approaches to this. Increase the chance of getting caught by tracking the device. Make the hardware unusable to the thief. Making the hardware unusable is something which cannot be done with just software, it requires certain protections built into the hardware itself. My recommended way to measure the value of any measure to make the hardware less attractive to steal is: how much of a discount is the insurance company willing to give you.
One nice to have feature which doesn't fit into the above list is backups that works after the laptop was stolen. While the laptop is working offline and cannot backup immediately, it is possible to create incremental backups which are encrypted and signed, and then store those on the disk. This can be done in such a way that the encrypted and signed incremental backup can be send to a server without needing the disk encryption key to be provided. This is however a fairly complicated feature because it spans areas that are usually kept separate, so I wouldn't put it high on the priority list. In particular there is a significant risk of messing up the security of the disk encryption while adding such a feature. |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | Apart from using tracking software and full disk encryption, the company may invest in educating the concerned people to use their laptops only to connect to virtual private servers ([VPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_server)) where they must save their data. That way, if a laptop of a given worker is stolen, no data could be found within it (I take in account the fact you stated good safety practices are known). A similar goal can be achieved if they can invest to buy their own -physical- servers. | You can consider modern solutions like UEM (Unified Endpoint Management) solutions. It comes with a whole range of features to manage Windows devices (mobile and PCs) along with other platforms. In your situation, you can always use the remote tracking option or if you are also concerned about the data, you can remotely wipe them too. And also, when you enroll a device in UEM, it automatically captures its details which once exported can also be treated as an inventory of all devices you are managing. |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | Rule no.1: Contact law enforcement.
Rule no.2: If the firm itself doesn't seem to care, nor does it want to contact law enforcement, please consider stopping doing whatever business you have with them.
Rule no.3: Think about the attacks in their broad context, and do not limit yourself to technical measures.
Rule no.4: Installing keyloggers is unlikely to be helpful. Instead of preventing theft or uncovering attackers you open wide a backdoor which can be exploited by the attackers. | I feel that you are limiting yourself to the tech side too much.
first you need to
lock up the laptops at the end of the day in a secure room.
I mean secure room as the easiest way to the room is through a locked
door which lock can be easily changed.
in the room put some sort of security camera for in the case the thief
gets into the room. that way you will have an idea of who got in the room.
this change itself would make any thief lot less motivated to get to the laptops. and finally after employ full disk encryption |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | Consider getting a software product which fully encrypts your hard drives. Such a software will prompt the user to enter the password used to encrypt the hard drive during boot. Without the correct password, the hard drive (including both the OS and any data) can not be decrypted, the system won't boot and the user won't get any access to the data.
In that case a thief might still be able to sell the hardware by nuking the disks, but won't have access to any sensitive information stored on it.
The default solution for Windows is [Microsoft BitLocker](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/protect-files-bitlocker-drive-encryption), which is already available out-of-the-box in some editions of Windows. There are also other products on the market like Sophos Safeguard or Truecrypt. For recommendations which product to use, consult [Software Recommendations Stackexchange](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com). | I feel that you are limiting yourself to the tech side too much.
first you need to
lock up the laptops at the end of the day in a secure room.
I mean secure room as the easiest way to the room is through a locked
door which lock can be easily changed.
in the room put some sort of security camera for in the case the thief
gets into the room. that way you will have an idea of who got in the room.
this change itself would make any thief lot less motivated to get to the laptops. and finally after employ full disk encryption |
101,504 | A law firm I've been in contact with has recently been broken into 3 times in the past 4 months. In spite of a number of laptops and other equipment containing sensitive information being stolen, the tech support company occasionally doing work for them has done nothing to safeguard against future theft. I proposed installing anti-theft software (such as Prey) and later considered establishing one system as an information-gathering honeypot with hidden keyloggers sending information to a number of email addresses.
All physical security best practices aside, what other measures could possibly be implemented here? These are all Windows systems. I don't doubt the separate incidents are linked and being carried out by connected if not the same criminals.
The firm has already been in contact with the local authorities. However due to a lack of documentation on the stolen items, there are no serial numbers or additional helpful information on the missing devices besides make and model, so recovery seems a dead end but at the least they're aware of the incidents. | 2015/09/30 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/101504",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/88021/"
] | I feel that you are limiting yourself to the tech side too much.
first you need to
lock up the laptops at the end of the day in a secure room.
I mean secure room as the easiest way to the room is through a locked
door which lock can be easily changed.
in the room put some sort of security camera for in the case the thief
gets into the room. that way you will have an idea of who got in the room.
this change itself would make any thief lot less motivated to get to the laptops. and finally after employ full disk encryption | You can consider modern solutions like UEM (Unified Endpoint Management) solutions. It comes with a whole range of features to manage Windows devices (mobile and PCs) along with other platforms. In your situation, you can always use the remote tracking option or if you are also concerned about the data, you can remotely wipe them too. And also, when you enroll a device in UEM, it automatically captures its details which once exported can also be treated as an inventory of all devices you are managing. |
491 | I have applied as a GSoC student to work on a project that would provide Refunds and / or Partial Payments functionality for CiviCRM. I am seeking current solution to do this when needed so I can suggest and develop better solution. What is the manual way to use negative contributions for refunds as according to me this situation could have occurred several times.
Similarly, how are partial payments handled now with work-arounds? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/491",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/users/281/"
] | Refunds and partial payments are two different things.
Currently for refunds the work-around is to edit the contribution (possibly associated with membership or event ticket purchase) and set amount received to zero (for a full refund).
For partial payments, there was a release of back office functionality in 4.5 for events ie staff could enter partial payments but the gereal public could not. I suppose one work-around for not having this available to the public is setting up a contribution page for a lesser amount, then having staff manually record the partial payments each time they come in against the event purchase, and cancel the contribution. Similarly, for a membership, a separate Contribution page could be set up to receive these payments which could be manually cancelled after a payment for a similar amount has been created manually. | I use a different approach for refunds.
If it is for a membership I "renew" the membership paying a negative amount and then edit the membership end date to show the correct date. This lets us keep track of each individual credit card payment/refund and provides an accurate history of "contributions" linked to the membership.
If it is "just" a contribution I enter a negative contribution.
We aren't running events through CiviCRM at the moment, but if we were I would see if I got the desired result by making a negative contribution and then directly editing the civicrm\_participant\_payment table to add a line linking the payment to the participant id.
By making negative payments we still have an accurate daily records at the line item level for entering into our accounting package. |
491 | I have applied as a GSoC student to work on a project that would provide Refunds and / or Partial Payments functionality for CiviCRM. I am seeking current solution to do this when needed so I can suggest and develop better solution. What is the manual way to use negative contributions for refunds as according to me this situation could have occurred several times.
Similarly, how are partial payments handled now with work-arounds? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/491",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/users/281/"
] | Refunds and partial payments are two different things.
Currently for refunds the work-around is to edit the contribution (possibly associated with membership or event ticket purchase) and set amount received to zero (for a full refund).
For partial payments, there was a release of back office functionality in 4.5 for events ie staff could enter partial payments but the gereal public could not. I suppose one work-around for not having this available to the public is setting up a contribution page for a lesser amount, then having staff manually record the partial payments each time they come in against the event purchase, and cancel the contribution. Similarly, for a membership, a separate Contribution page could be set up to receive these payments which could be manually cancelled after a payment for a similar amount has been created manually. | Four different refund cases and their current handling:
1) Full refund - just going in the contribution & changing it to cancelled.
2) Partial refund when payment was made by Pay-later - going into the contribution & changing the amount. This doesn't work with a credit card payment.
3) Partial refund when payment was made by credit card and refunded by credit card. If necessary, create a new temporary price and go into the event registration and receipt it at this price. It appears to edit the existing entry rather than creating a new one.
4) Partial or full refund when payment was made by credit card & refunded by bank deposit and vice versa. Create a new temporary negative price and create a second registration for the person in the same event with the negative fee. |
491 | I have applied as a GSoC student to work on a project that would provide Refunds and / or Partial Payments functionality for CiviCRM. I am seeking current solution to do this when needed so I can suggest and develop better solution. What is the manual way to use negative contributions for refunds as according to me this situation could have occurred several times.
Similarly, how are partial payments handled now with work-arounds? | 2015/04/13 | [
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/491",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/users/281/"
] | I use a different approach for refunds.
If it is for a membership I "renew" the membership paying a negative amount and then edit the membership end date to show the correct date. This lets us keep track of each individual credit card payment/refund and provides an accurate history of "contributions" linked to the membership.
If it is "just" a contribution I enter a negative contribution.
We aren't running events through CiviCRM at the moment, but if we were I would see if I got the desired result by making a negative contribution and then directly editing the civicrm\_participant\_payment table to add a line linking the payment to the participant id.
By making negative payments we still have an accurate daily records at the line item level for entering into our accounting package. | Four different refund cases and their current handling:
1) Full refund - just going in the contribution & changing it to cancelled.
2) Partial refund when payment was made by Pay-later - going into the contribution & changing the amount. This doesn't work with a credit card payment.
3) Partial refund when payment was made by credit card and refunded by credit card. If necessary, create a new temporary price and go into the event registration and receipt it at this price. It appears to edit the existing entry rather than creating a new one.
4) Partial or full refund when payment was made by credit card & refunded by bank deposit and vice versa. Create a new temporary negative price and create a second registration for the person in the same event with the negative fee. |
27,456,470 | i am new to java.
i wanted to know this.
what is the need to create the .class file in java ?
can't we just pass the source code to every machine so that each machine can compile it according to the OS and the hardware ? | 2014/12/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27456470",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | I believe it's mostly for efficiency reasons.
From wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytecode>:
>
> Bytecode, also known as p-code (portable code), is a form of
> instruction set designed for efficient execution by a software
> interpreter. Unlike human-readable source code, bytecodes are compact
> numeric codes, constants, and references (normally numeric addresses)
> which encode the result of parsing and semantic analysis of things
> like type, scope, and nesting depths of program objects. **They
> therefore allow much better performance than direct interpretation of
> source code.**
>
>
>
(my emphasis)
And as others have mentioned possible weak [obfuscation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation) of the source code. | The main reason for the compilation is that the Virtual Machines which are used to host java classes and run them only understands bytecode
And since compiling a class each time to the language the virtual machine understands is expensive. That's the only reason why the source code is compiled into bytecode.
But we can also use some compilers which compiles source code directly into machine code.But that's a different story which I don't know about much. |
47,954 | I'm finally getting around to reading [*Night's Black Agents*](http://www.pelgranepress.com/?cat=153) and I love it. But in the section on building the vampires (NBA features modular, customizable vampires), I'm stuck on the base values for:
* Aberrance
* Health
* Hand-to-Hand
I see lots of text that says, essentially, *apply this modifier if this condition is true*. For example:
>
> If he had long talons instead of claws, his swipe would do +1 damage...
>
>
>
(which I know is about Damage, not any of the Basic Abilities)
But...where do the assumed starting values come from? | 2014/09/16 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47954",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/696/"
] | Basic damage modifiers for vampires are listed on page 125. Remember that damage in GUMSHOE is always d6+a modifier, so in the case of mr longtaloned vampire, he'd be hitting for 1d6 (a +0 modifier, as per the table).
Base Aberrance and Health are really up to the Director. Aberrance less than 8 indicate a comparatively non-supernatural threat; 12+ opens up serious weirdness. It may help to think of Health in 5-point chunks (I know I do), with each 5-point chunk giving the creature enough Health to last one round of combat against committed foes (modulo supernatural defences). So, if I want my bruiser-type monstrosity to definitely last three rounds, give it 15 health. (That assumes that the monster's defeated at 0 Health, which is true for most bad guys but may not be true for vampires.) | If you skip ahead to some of the sample vampires, there is a quick calculator for these abilities based on the length of unlife (page 143; the writeup of a Linea Dracula leech). It looks like most vampires begin with about 10 Aberrance, and Health & combat abilities comparable to a PC. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | A "story" does not necessarily correspond 1:1 with a development task. You need to determine *from* the story what needs to be done, and by whom, in order to complete it. | As Bogdan already mentioned: "the team owns all of the stories", & the team should also owns the way to get those stories done. I mean pre-assigning to individual member or pulling when sprint progress are both fine.
One practice in my team is we always have individual owner at story level even when multiple members involve. The owner will be in charge (in front of the team) to facilitate all sub-tasks & relevant members to get the whole story done. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | Since you're asking about user stories, not tasks: A user story usually consists of several tasks that can be tackled by different team members, sometimes even different crafts. That means that, while you can certainly assign team members to any of the story's *tasks* (though you don't have to do that, either), **the story is more likely to be owned by the team as a whole**.
There can be exceptions, of course. For example, you could have a user story entirely made up of tasks that can only be solved by a specialist in the team, so it might make sense to assign the story to this person to make that visible. | As Bogdan already mentioned: "the team owns all of the stories", & the team should also owns the way to get those stories done. I mean pre-assigning to individual member or pulling when sprint progress are both fine.
One practice in my team is we always have individual owner at story level even when multiple members involve. The owner will be in charge (in front of the team) to facilitate all sub-tasks & relevant members to get the whole story done. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | The November 2020 Scrum Guide says:
>
> The Sprint Backlog is composed of the Sprint Goal (why), the set of Product Backlog items selected for the Sprint (what), as well as an actionable plan for delivering the Increment (how).
>
>
>
In this definition, the unit of work is not defined. That is, the Product Backlog Item may not be the unit of work that is Done by one or more members of the Development Team.
In my experience, most teams do one of two things. One common approach is for the Product Backlog Items to be allocated to one or more members of the Development Team. The team itself decides how this work is allocated, but the sign of a self-organizing team is frequently self-assignment and a pull-based approach. Another approach is that a team decomposes the Product Backlog Items into subtasks and those subtasks are allocated to members of the Development Team. Again, self-assignment and pulling work indicate a self-organizing team.
The exact "assignment" depends on the practices of the team and the tooling. Practices such as pair programming and mob programming have two or more people working on a single unit of work, so there isn't a single assignee. However, even in these cases, a team may opt to decide on a single person to "own" the work and they would be identified as the assignee. The tooling also matters since tools may have limitations on who is allowed to be an assignee. For example, Jira only allows one person in the assignee field, so teams may leave this blank, create team accounts, or use custom fields as a workaround.
Specifically, in Jira, you have several options:
* Add a "Team" custom field. This is generally helpful in an environment with multiple teams working on one Product Backlog but can be useful to help identify which team has taken on responsibility for the work.
* Add a "Paired" custom field. The default Assignee field can be used if there is a single owner while the new custom field can be a list of users who are pairing or mobbing on the work.
* Do nothing. If you're using the Scrum configuration with Sprints, you don't need an assignee to bring items into Sprints or move things along a Sprint Board. | We have component ownership (there is a business lead and development lead for each).
We personally didn't automate the assignment of the ticket to DEV lead, but automated to assign to business lead according to the component (first component mentioned in the ticket - responsible assignee - it's set up in the Project's settings on JIRA).
Once the story is ready for development, business lead/ regular analyst re-assigns it to the proper DEV lead (in order to get rid of code ownership there is a rotation of DEV leads, so we refer to a specific table on confluence - it's updated by project manager).
It's more relevant for us, because business lead always knows the proper person, as business lead does usually collaborate with DEV lead of the component on LOE estimation, proposals to the Customer, etc.
Seems like a little overhead, but irl it's not. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | We have component ownership (there is a business lead and development lead for each).
We personally didn't automate the assignment of the ticket to DEV lead, but automated to assign to business lead according to the component (first component mentioned in the ticket - responsible assignee - it's set up in the Project's settings on JIRA).
Once the story is ready for development, business lead/ regular analyst re-assigns it to the proper DEV lead (in order to get rid of code ownership there is a rotation of DEV leads, so we refer to a specific table on confluence - it's updated by project manager).
It's more relevant for us, because business lead always knows the proper person, as business lead does usually collaborate with DEV lead of the component on LOE estimation, proposals to the Customer, etc.
Seems like a little overhead, but irl it's not. | As Bogdan already mentioned: "the team owns all of the stories", & the team should also owns the way to get those stories done. I mean pre-assigning to individual member or pulling when sprint progress are both fine.
One practice in my team is we always have individual owner at story level even when multiple members involve. The owner will be in charge (in front of the team) to facilitate all sub-tasks & relevant members to get the whole story done. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | It's up to the team to create the sprint backlog based on the backlog items chosen by the Product Owner. Some teams do use sprint planning to allocate at least some items to individual developers, other teams adopt a "pull system", meaning items are not pre-allocated and it's up to each individual to pick up items off the backlog when they have the capacity to do so.
In Jira, if you want an issue to be worked on by more than one person then the easiest way is to have each developer create their own separate sub-tasks assigned to themselves. | As Bogdan already mentioned: "the team owns all of the stories", & the team should also owns the way to get those stories done. I mean pre-assigning to individual member or pulling when sprint progress are both fine.
One practice in my team is we always have individual owner at story level even when multiple members involve. The owner will be in charge (in front of the team) to facilitate all sub-tasks & relevant members to get the whole story done. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | A "story" does not necessarily correspond 1:1 with a development task. You need to determine *from* the story what needs to be done, and by whom, in order to complete it. | We have component ownership (there is a business lead and development lead for each).
We personally didn't automate the assignment of the ticket to DEV lead, but automated to assign to business lead according to the component (first component mentioned in the ticket - responsible assignee - it's set up in the Project's settings on JIRA).
Once the story is ready for development, business lead/ regular analyst re-assigns it to the proper DEV lead (in order to get rid of code ownership there is a rotation of DEV leads, so we refer to a specific table on confluence - it's updated by project manager).
It's more relevant for us, because business lead always knows the proper person, as business lead does usually collaborate with DEV lead of the component on LOE estimation, proposals to the Customer, etc.
Seems like a little overhead, but irl it's not. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | When the team plans a sprint, they pull product backlog items or user stories from the top of the backlog and into their sprint. The stories they selected to do that sprint now form the "[sprint backlog](https://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#artifacts-sprintbacklog)".
Now, **concerning assignment of these stories... it depends**.
As part of the planning, developers also can decide who does what. Jake could assign himself Story 1, Jane could assign herself Story 2, and so on. That's a visual indicator of who does what work, but it's not actually mandatory. **The team owns all of the stories, no matter the individual who works on them**.
For example, I worked in a team where we didn't assign the stories. Almost all of us were full stack developers so we just took stories and worked on them as we became available. We knew who was working on what because we were in the same office, we communicated when taking new stuff to work on, and we synchronized and planned our work during the daily. So stories were moving from TODO to IN PROGRESS without being assigned to anyone. Jira has no problem doing that. The story just shows up as UNASSIGNED in Jira.
So it depends on what you want to do. If you find the information useful to see, you can assign a story. If not, the team will still know how to organize themselves and do the work. | As Bogdan already mentioned: "the team owns all of the stories", & the team should also owns the way to get those stories done. I mean pre-assigning to individual member or pulling when sprint progress are both fine.
One practice in my team is we always have individual owner at story level even when multiple members involve. The owner will be in charge (in front of the team) to facilitate all sub-tasks & relevant members to get the whole story done. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | The November 2020 Scrum Guide says:
>
> The Sprint Backlog is composed of the Sprint Goal (why), the set of Product Backlog items selected for the Sprint (what), as well as an actionable plan for delivering the Increment (how).
>
>
>
In this definition, the unit of work is not defined. That is, the Product Backlog Item may not be the unit of work that is Done by one or more members of the Development Team.
In my experience, most teams do one of two things. One common approach is for the Product Backlog Items to be allocated to one or more members of the Development Team. The team itself decides how this work is allocated, but the sign of a self-organizing team is frequently self-assignment and a pull-based approach. Another approach is that a team decomposes the Product Backlog Items into subtasks and those subtasks are allocated to members of the Development Team. Again, self-assignment and pulling work indicate a self-organizing team.
The exact "assignment" depends on the practices of the team and the tooling. Practices such as pair programming and mob programming have two or more people working on a single unit of work, so there isn't a single assignee. However, even in these cases, a team may opt to decide on a single person to "own" the work and they would be identified as the assignee. The tooling also matters since tools may have limitations on who is allowed to be an assignee. For example, Jira only allows one person in the assignee field, so teams may leave this blank, create team accounts, or use custom fields as a workaround.
Specifically, in Jira, you have several options:
* Add a "Team" custom field. This is generally helpful in an environment with multiple teams working on one Product Backlog but can be useful to help identify which team has taken on responsibility for the work.
* Add a "Paired" custom field. The default Assignee field can be used if there is a single owner while the new custom field can be a list of users who are pairing or mobbing on the work.
* Do nothing. If you're using the Scrum configuration with Sprints, you don't need an assignee to bring items into Sprints or move things along a Sprint Board. | As Bogdan already mentioned: "the team owns all of the stories", & the team should also owns the way to get those stories done. I mean pre-assigning to individual member or pulling when sprint progress are both fine.
One practice in my team is we always have individual owner at story level even when multiple members involve. The owner will be in charge (in front of the team) to facilitate all sub-tasks & relevant members to get the whole story done. |
30,541 | Let's suppose the development team is planning the next Sprint. What does it technically mean that a User Story is added to the Sprint Backlog? Is it assigned to a developer or to the whole team? (If it's assigned to the whole development team, then how do we do this in Jira?) | 2020/11/01 | [
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/30541",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com",
"https://pm.stackexchange.com/users/40376/"
] | When the team plans a sprint, they pull product backlog items or user stories from the top of the backlog and into their sprint. The stories they selected to do that sprint now form the "[sprint backlog](https://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#artifacts-sprintbacklog)".
Now, **concerning assignment of these stories... it depends**.
As part of the planning, developers also can decide who does what. Jake could assign himself Story 1, Jane could assign herself Story 2, and so on. That's a visual indicator of who does what work, but it's not actually mandatory. **The team owns all of the stories, no matter the individual who works on them**.
For example, I worked in a team where we didn't assign the stories. Almost all of us were full stack developers so we just took stories and worked on them as we became available. We knew who was working on what because we were in the same office, we communicated when taking new stuff to work on, and we synchronized and planned our work during the daily. So stories were moving from TODO to IN PROGRESS without being assigned to anyone. Jira has no problem doing that. The story just shows up as UNASSIGNED in Jira.
So it depends on what you want to do. If you find the information useful to see, you can assign a story. If not, the team will still know how to organize themselves and do the work. | The November 2020 Scrum Guide says:
>
> The Sprint Backlog is composed of the Sprint Goal (why), the set of Product Backlog items selected for the Sprint (what), as well as an actionable plan for delivering the Increment (how).
>
>
>
In this definition, the unit of work is not defined. That is, the Product Backlog Item may not be the unit of work that is Done by one or more members of the Development Team.
In my experience, most teams do one of two things. One common approach is for the Product Backlog Items to be allocated to one or more members of the Development Team. The team itself decides how this work is allocated, but the sign of a self-organizing team is frequently self-assignment and a pull-based approach. Another approach is that a team decomposes the Product Backlog Items into subtasks and those subtasks are allocated to members of the Development Team. Again, self-assignment and pulling work indicate a self-organizing team.
The exact "assignment" depends on the practices of the team and the tooling. Practices such as pair programming and mob programming have two or more people working on a single unit of work, so there isn't a single assignee. However, even in these cases, a team may opt to decide on a single person to "own" the work and they would be identified as the assignee. The tooling also matters since tools may have limitations on who is allowed to be an assignee. For example, Jira only allows one person in the assignee field, so teams may leave this blank, create team accounts, or use custom fields as a workaround.
Specifically, in Jira, you have several options:
* Add a "Team" custom field. This is generally helpful in an environment with multiple teams working on one Product Backlog but can be useful to help identify which team has taken on responsibility for the work.
* Add a "Paired" custom field. The default Assignee field can be used if there is a single owner while the new custom field can be a list of users who are pairing or mobbing on the work.
* Do nothing. If you're using the Scrum configuration with Sprints, you don't need an assignee to bring items into Sprints or move things along a Sprint Board. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.