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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. |
34,097 | Which photo has the more correct White Balance? For me the second is much better than the first. My understanding is that the R+G+B histogram needs to be as balanced as possible. Is this true, or does it depend?
 | 2013/01/30 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34097",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/15894/"
] | Without referencing a white object in your photo, we cannot decide which one has a better white balance. In short, white balance is process of removing unrealistic color cast on your image, i.e., correct the white area in your image that captured as gray. So it cannot be judged by histogram. If you know what part of your image should be white and the image is not affect by other light source, you can adjust the rgb balance in your image until the white part has a balanced rgb value. | The technically correct white balance setting is the setting that "cancels out" the color of the lights lighting your scene so that the color of items in your image is the same as the color in real life.
You can't judge white balance from the histogram or anything in the photo without some reference to that item real color (that's how the white balance "eye dropper" works - you tell him that the specific color in the image is actually white or neutral gray and it re-calibrates the entire image around it).
And finally, unless you are shooting products or photojournalism you don't have to limit yourself to the "technically correct" white balance, playing with white balance can create very nice effects (especially if you have multiple lights with different WB and you set them up intentionally) |
34,097 | Which photo has the more correct White Balance? For me the second is much better than the first. My understanding is that the R+G+B histogram needs to be as balanced as possible. Is this true, or does it depend?
 | 2013/01/30 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34097",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/15894/"
] | Like with photograhps in general, it's down to opinion and there is no real "correct".
[White Balance](http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm) is based on [Colour Temperature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature) where different light source temperatures create unnormal colours (to what we see with our eyes).
Here's is a table of typical light source scenarios:
[From here.](https://www.mediacollege.com/lighting/colour/colour-temperature.html)
In processing the image, whether in camera or PP on a computer, it adjusts the overall colours of the image to look more redish or blueish.
In your particular image:
<http://rdrs.uaic.ro/temp/before_and_after_WT.jpg>
The original image shows no clear overall redish or blueish, so it's hard to tell. It may not even have needed WB adjustments but the first one has a slight red tinge to it in the "silver" areas. In my opinion, the first one is better and didn't need adjusting however, the second is more "silvery" because of the more blueish tinge. It neutralised the grey areas more. | The technically correct white balance setting is the setting that "cancels out" the color of the lights lighting your scene so that the color of items in your image is the same as the color in real life.
You can't judge white balance from the histogram or anything in the photo without some reference to that item real color (that's how the white balance "eye dropper" works - you tell him that the specific color in the image is actually white or neutral gray and it re-calibrates the entire image around it).
And finally, unless you are shooting products or photojournalism you don't have to limit yourself to the "technically correct" white balance, playing with white balance can create very nice effects (especially if you have multiple lights with different WB and you set them up intentionally) |
425,161 | I have just a few tenants on my application right now, but the number is going to increase over time. The processing logic for each tenant is slightly different from each other and right now the logic for each tenant is residing in the same microservice.
From a best practice viewpoint, is it a good idea to create an individual microservice for each tenant given that each tenant has different processing logic, and over time with increased number of tenants it might become messy to incorporate multiple tenants in the same microservice?
More update on what my application is doing:
I am aggregating data from users, where different tenants are submitting forms that have different schema. Now, what I want to do is have one microservice per tenant that will convert the data into a common schema on which I'm going to do further processing and push to my DB. Right now, I'm finding a bit too many if else cases with my implementation, thinking if there's a better way to do this. | 2021/04/06 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/425161",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/389553/"
] | There is no one size fits all answer here.
>
> Right now, I'm finding a bit too many if else cases with my implementation, thinking if there's a better way to do this.
>
>
>
On the spectrum of good to bad for your specific needs, tenanted microservices are on the better end of the spectrum than hardcoded if/else chains, but there are many things inbetween that you have skipped over.
It sounds like you're struggling to properly separate your specific tenant logic, and are trying to put the microservice boundary there to strongly enforce it. That's not necessarily wrong, but it is disproportionate overkill. It's the equivalent of enforcing that you wake up on time on the morning, and getting an industrial fog horn to wake you up.
Just like how much more reasonable alarm clocks exist for a lower price, the same kind of code separation can be achieved with self-discipline and clean coding practices in the same codebase, which costs less overhead than taking the microservice route.
>
> Now, what I want to do is have one microservice per tenant that will convert the data into a common schema on which I'm going to do further processing and push to my DB.
>
>
>
The main issue here, as far as I am concerned, is that you're trying to have multiple microservices access the same database (and by the sound of it, the same tables).
That's a big red flag I suggest staying away from. Either you:
* Commit to the microservice architecture and make a "common schema" microservice, which does the "further processing" and db access, and which all the tenanted microservices rely on; or
* Stay away from microservices and properly separate your code a different way.
>
> The processing logic for each tenant is slightly different from each other
>
>
>
A big question here is how sizeable that logic is. Based on your (admittedly vague) description, it sounds like some minor mapping logic rather than a completely redesigned business layer.
The smaller the size of the changed logic, the less justification there is for hosting separate microservices for this logic.
It doesn't sound like microservices are the right way to go about this. You're not really getting the benefit of independent life cycles since you're relying on a shared database, and shared common schema processing logic.
Instead, I suggest you look are restructuring your codebase in order to **cleanly separate the interface (common schema) from the implementations (tenanted logic)**, so that your distinct implementations can be orchestrated by a specific dependency graph as opposed to if/else chains. | Yes. **IF** the logic is different and not shared. **AND** you buy into the micro-service philosophy in general.
Leave the word tenant out of the equation for a bit. You have two separate operations to perform. The alternative to two separate applications would be one application with multiple modules.
Sure you can do it that way, but if you believe in microservices, then you think that the benefits of independent deployment and decoupling are worth the downsides of. I dunno more complex deployments? more code?
Put the word tenant back in and you have similar pluses and minuses. Yes you can add more tenants without touching the others. Potentially you **MUST** write new apps for new tenants, slowing down your on-boarding. But presumably only tenants which use custom processes rather than your standard one. |
425,161 | I have just a few tenants on my application right now, but the number is going to increase over time. The processing logic for each tenant is slightly different from each other and right now the logic for each tenant is residing in the same microservice.
From a best practice viewpoint, is it a good idea to create an individual microservice for each tenant given that each tenant has different processing logic, and over time with increased number of tenants it might become messy to incorporate multiple tenants in the same microservice?
More update on what my application is doing:
I am aggregating data from users, where different tenants are submitting forms that have different schema. Now, what I want to do is have one microservice per tenant that will convert the data into a common schema on which I'm going to do further processing and push to my DB. Right now, I'm finding a bit too many if else cases with my implementation, thinking if there's a better way to do this. | 2021/04/06 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/425161",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/389553/"
] | The idea behind multi-tenancy is that you have a single application that is shared by multiple customers. Having separate services is antithetical to this approach. That doesn't mean that would be a bad idea in some cases, but that wouldn't be multi-tenancy.
So, what do do with customers that need different features? The way you handle that in a multi-tenant environment is to implement the feature for ALL tenants, but also include a per-tenant configuration switch that enables or disables the feature. For example, if two of your customers are Bank of America and the Royal Bank of Scotland, you would avoid writing BoA and RBS-specific services. Instead, you'd build in support for both US and UK currency (along with any other necessary features), and add a column to the tenant table that specifies which one to use. The feature configuration is thus agnostic with respect to customer, but still allows for the flexibility you and your customers need. It's more work, but it allows you to maintain a single code base for everyone, and allows you to expand your services to new tenants without having to deploy or write anything new. | There is no one size fits all answer here.
>
> Right now, I'm finding a bit too many if else cases with my implementation, thinking if there's a better way to do this.
>
>
>
On the spectrum of good to bad for your specific needs, tenanted microservices are on the better end of the spectrum than hardcoded if/else chains, but there are many things inbetween that you have skipped over.
It sounds like you're struggling to properly separate your specific tenant logic, and are trying to put the microservice boundary there to strongly enforce it. That's not necessarily wrong, but it is disproportionate overkill. It's the equivalent of enforcing that you wake up on time on the morning, and getting an industrial fog horn to wake you up.
Just like how much more reasonable alarm clocks exist for a lower price, the same kind of code separation can be achieved with self-discipline and clean coding practices in the same codebase, which costs less overhead than taking the microservice route.
>
> Now, what I want to do is have one microservice per tenant that will convert the data into a common schema on which I'm going to do further processing and push to my DB.
>
>
>
The main issue here, as far as I am concerned, is that you're trying to have multiple microservices access the same database (and by the sound of it, the same tables).
That's a big red flag I suggest staying away from. Either you:
* Commit to the microservice architecture and make a "common schema" microservice, which does the "further processing" and db access, and which all the tenanted microservices rely on; or
* Stay away from microservices and properly separate your code a different way.
>
> The processing logic for each tenant is slightly different from each other
>
>
>
A big question here is how sizeable that logic is. Based on your (admittedly vague) description, it sounds like some minor mapping logic rather than a completely redesigned business layer.
The smaller the size of the changed logic, the less justification there is for hosting separate microservices for this logic.
It doesn't sound like microservices are the right way to go about this. You're not really getting the benefit of independent life cycles since you're relying on a shared database, and shared common schema processing logic.
Instead, I suggest you look are restructuring your codebase in order to **cleanly separate the interface (common schema) from the implementations (tenanted logic)**, so that your distinct implementations can be orchestrated by a specific dependency graph as opposed to if/else chains. |
425,161 | I have just a few tenants on my application right now, but the number is going to increase over time. The processing logic for each tenant is slightly different from each other and right now the logic for each tenant is residing in the same microservice.
From a best practice viewpoint, is it a good idea to create an individual microservice for each tenant given that each tenant has different processing logic, and over time with increased number of tenants it might become messy to incorporate multiple tenants in the same microservice?
More update on what my application is doing:
I am aggregating data from users, where different tenants are submitting forms that have different schema. Now, what I want to do is have one microservice per tenant that will convert the data into a common schema on which I'm going to do further processing and push to my DB. Right now, I'm finding a bit too many if else cases with my implementation, thinking if there's a better way to do this. | 2021/04/06 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/425161",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/389553/"
] | The idea behind multi-tenancy is that you have a single application that is shared by multiple customers. Having separate services is antithetical to this approach. That doesn't mean that would be a bad idea in some cases, but that wouldn't be multi-tenancy.
So, what do do with customers that need different features? The way you handle that in a multi-tenant environment is to implement the feature for ALL tenants, but also include a per-tenant configuration switch that enables or disables the feature. For example, if two of your customers are Bank of America and the Royal Bank of Scotland, you would avoid writing BoA and RBS-specific services. Instead, you'd build in support for both US and UK currency (along with any other necessary features), and add a column to the tenant table that specifies which one to use. The feature configuration is thus agnostic with respect to customer, but still allows for the flexibility you and your customers need. It's more work, but it allows you to maintain a single code base for everyone, and allows you to expand your services to new tenants without having to deploy or write anything new. | Yes. **IF** the logic is different and not shared. **AND** you buy into the micro-service philosophy in general.
Leave the word tenant out of the equation for a bit. You have two separate operations to perform. The alternative to two separate applications would be one application with multiple modules.
Sure you can do it that way, but if you believe in microservices, then you think that the benefits of independent deployment and decoupling are worth the downsides of. I dunno more complex deployments? more code?
Put the word tenant back in and you have similar pluses and minuses. Yes you can add more tenants without touching the others. Potentially you **MUST** write new apps for new tenants, slowing down your on-boarding. But presumably only tenants which use custom processes rather than your standard one. |
1,214 | I manage a support forum for software that changes pretty rapidly. Content therefore ages out in usefulness.
We are currently trying to figure out how to address this... and if we should. Does anyone here have best practices around labeling/archiving/removing older content? Heck, even going through and locating what is "older" content can be challenging.
Has anyone tackled this? How have you addressed it? | 2015/06/30 | [
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/questions/1214",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com",
"https://moderators.stackexchange.com/users/502/"
] | It's difficult to give a single answer as to when these times would be, but if your target audience is school students then they are more likely to be online just after school (~4pm - depending on exactly when they finish school) and at weekends, whereas if you are targeting working adults then lunchtimes and later evenings might be the best time.
If possible you should do some research to find out when your users are online and likely to see the content. If you can access logs of when users have visited the site so that's a good starting point, however, with a public platform like Facebook that won't always be possible.
After that you want to make sure that the content is going to be visible for long enough for most of your target audience to see it. On a busy site you might not have very long before other posts push yours down the page, so you need to pick your time with care. If it's really important you could consider pinning the post in some way so that it stays visible for longer.
Some sites (like Stack Exchange and Facebook) will republish a post to the home page if it changes in some way (edits, replies, comments etc.) so you could periodically prod the post in some way so that it reappears on the home page. Be careful with this though, some sites (especially Stack Exchange) take a dim view of someone making meaningless edits to their posts just to bump them.
The other thing to consider is sharing links to your post on other social media platforms at different times of the day to catch a wider spectrum of your audience. | It really depends on what kind of content you're posting (B2B or B2C) and what your CTA (call-to-action) is.
My recommendation would be posting around 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. (when people are on their lunch and typically looking at their phones or checking their social media) or around 4 p.m. - 6 p.m. (when they're probably done with their day and are waiting for the clock to strike 5 p.m.). Typically I would post more mid-week or Friday afternoon since Mondays, people are catching up over the weekend if you're targeting businesses.
It's really based on your demographic. I would research the typical times people are looking at their phone in your area. I live in San Francisco, so my times would be way different then someone in Indianapolis. |
2,874,657 | Which is the book one should start with in the domain of spiking neural networks? I know about Gerstner's ["Spiking Neuron Models"](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0521890799), published in 2002. Is there a more recent book, or maybe a more suitable one? I have a background in maths and artificial neural networks.
If there are some good articles or overviews in this domain, also add them to the list.
Thanks.
**LATER EDIT**
Karel's answer:
>
> " It depends what do you mean by spiking neural networks - there are
> at least several basic points of view. Gerstner represents the first
> one - he is focused on modelling of biological neurons. And his book
> from 2002 is really good starting point for understanding bio-physical
> models of neuron. It the past it was possible to find this book also
> in html ..
>
>
> On the other hand by ¨Spiking neuron" in the computer science context
> is usually meant the SRMo model (Spike Response Model), which can be
> used also as an alternative to classical percepron-based networks.
>
>
> This model is described very well in the works of Wolfgang Maass
> (<http://www.igi.tugraz.at/maass/>). He has focused on the computational
> power of the model and he compares the SRM model with percepron and
> RBF-unit.
>
>
> If you want to use the model in a network I recommend to you works of
> Sander Bohte (<http://homepages.cwi.nl/~sbohte/>) who derived SpikeProp
> algorithm.
>
>
> (I personally derived a variant of SpikeProp which was fast enough to
> be used for real-word applications.) "
>
>
> | 2010/05/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2874657",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11464/"
] | Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) or Pulsed Neural Networks (PNNs) are artificial neural networks (ANNs) that more closely emulate the behaviours of natural neural mechanisms. I would like to advise you following fundamental books:
* Fundamentals of Computational Neuroscience by Thomas Trappenberg
* Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems by Peter Dayan
* Spiking Neuron Models: Single Neurons, Populations, Plasticity by Wulfram Gerstner
I personally derived a variant of Remote Supervised Method (ReSuMe) which has better learning rate and morphological advantages compared to ReSuMe introduced by Filip Ponulak.
In the meantime, I would like to list some of simulator tools dealing with SNNs. Most of them which I played with are based on Python so please take into account that as well. There might be more others based on other languages.
* ANNarchy
* [Brian2](https://brian2.readthedocs.io/en/stable/)
* Nengo
* [Elephant](https://elephant.readthedocs.io)
* Neuron
* [PyNN](https://neuralensemble.org/docs/PyNN/)
* [NEST / pynest](https://www.nest-simulator.org)
* PCSIM
* Pypcsim
* [BindsNet](https://github.com/BindsNET/bindsnet) | Don't forget [BindsNet](https://github.com/BindsNET/bindsnet): Best choice. And trending. |
666,306 | I've made a quite big domain model with entity framework. I wanted to know if it is possible to map it so i create automaticly the tables in the database wanted?
I've looked up edmgen.exe but still couldn't find the right command.
thank's for helping!
Edit1: I know the tool LightSpeed from Mindscape ofer this features that's why i think that entity framework does the same.
Edit2 : Non one likes me... | 2009/03/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/666306",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/60561/"
] | currently this is not available but i thing this feature will be shipped with vs2010 | My guess is that the answer is "no." The Entity Framework isn't necessarily meant to map 1-1 to the database, it's actually supposed to be a business object representation of how you want to use data stored in the database. Therefore it would be very, very difficult to write something that created a database from your Entity Model since you can't expect things to be mapped back to the database on a 1-1 level. |
666,306 | I've made a quite big domain model with entity framework. I wanted to know if it is possible to map it so i create automaticly the tables in the database wanted?
I've looked up edmgen.exe but still couldn't find the right command.
thank's for helping!
Edit1: I know the tool LightSpeed from Mindscape ofer this features that's why i think that entity framework does the same.
Edit2 : Non one likes me... | 2009/03/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/666306",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/60561/"
] | According to this [blog entry](http://blog.nakedobjects.net/?p=58), it's currently (v1) not possible to create the database from an entity model.
About half way down, under the heading of "2. Process and tooling issues", you'll find:
>
> * It is not currently possible to create the database schema
> automatically from the Entity Model.
> This is simply extraordinary - as it
> seems to easy to do!
>
>
>
Let's hope for EF v2 (in .NET 4.0 / VS2010).
Marc | My guess is that the answer is "no." The Entity Framework isn't necessarily meant to map 1-1 to the database, it's actually supposed to be a business object representation of how you want to use data stored in the database. Therefore it would be very, very difficult to write something that created a database from your Entity Model since you can't expect things to be mapped back to the database on a 1-1 level. |
666,306 | I've made a quite big domain model with entity framework. I wanted to know if it is possible to map it so i create automaticly the tables in the database wanted?
I've looked up edmgen.exe but still couldn't find the right command.
thank's for helping!
Edit1: I know the tool LightSpeed from Mindscape ofer this features that's why i think that entity framework does the same.
Edit2 : Non one likes me... | 2009/03/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/666306",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/60561/"
] | currently this is not available but i thing this feature will be shipped with vs2010 | According to this [blog entry](http://blog.nakedobjects.net/?p=58), it's currently (v1) not possible to create the database from an entity model.
About half way down, under the heading of "2. Process and tooling issues", you'll find:
>
> * It is not currently possible to create the database schema
> automatically from the Entity Model.
> This is simply extraordinary - as it
> seems to easy to do!
>
>
>
Let's hope for EF v2 (in .NET 4.0 / VS2010).
Marc |
380,130 | Which of these verbs would you choose to insert?
The survey on the wall stretches present in the burg, along with the subsequent comparison with the masonry of the medieval tower, have contributed to **hypothesize/guess** the evolution of the wall belt and therefore the possible expansion of the burg. | 2017/03/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/380130",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/223668/"
] | **Neither**, because a noun rather than a verb is needed.
The structure of the sentence you are asking about seems to be:
>
> The survey and other things have contributed to…
>
>
>
+
>
> *Insert missing verb — hypothesize or guess*
>
>
>
+
>
> …the development of the archaelogical site (or whatever).
>
>
>
In English “contribute to” must be followed by a noun, rather than a verb; and in this sentence that would be followed by a relative pronoun, “that”. So the verbs would become the nouns “hypothesis” (always preferable in any case, as the original form) and “guess”. In a technical publication the honesty of “guess” is unlikely to attract professional approval, so that “hypothesis” would be the better alternative. However I would consider using the simpler and less pretentious word, “idea”:
>
> The survey and other things have contributed to **the idea that** the development of the archaelogical site…
>
>
>
Having solved that problem you are left with the fact that the surrounding parts of the sentence are almost incomprehensible. The general solution to such an overweight sentence is to divide it into two. One way of doing this would be:
>
> 1. The wall was surveyed and compared with the masonary of the present-day tower (or whatever the first part of your sentence means).
> 2. This led to the idea/hypothesis that the wall-belt evolved (Darwin where are you now? Do you mean was extended over time?) as perhaps did the town(?).
>
>
> | If you are writing this at the beginning of a paper I would choose ***'hypothesise'***, as *'guess'* is very informal and suggests a lack of empirical evidence.
If this is at the end of the writing, like a conclusion, I would use **"Theorise"** as a hypothesis is usually stated at the beginning of a paper to be tested throughout, though all of that depends heavily of the context you are writing in. |
22,382,818 | Is there a flexible framework for fuzzy testing in Java?
The [Wikipedia article on Fuzz testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzz_testing) defines fuzz testing as follows:
>
> Fuzz testing or fuzzing is a software testing technique, often automated or semi-automated, that involves providing invalid, unexpected, or random data to the inputs of a computer program. The program is then monitored for exceptions such as crashes, or failing built-in code assertions or for finding potential memory leaks. Fuzzing is commonly used to test for security problems in software or computer systems.
>
>
>
I know there is such a framework for Erlang. Any hints are welcome. | 2014/03/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/22382818",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/844177/"
] | You may want to look into JQF:
<https://github.com/rohanpadhye/jqf> | Looks like there is a [Java port of Quickcheck](https://bitbucket.org/blob79/quickcheck).
>
> The goal of QuickCheck is to replace manually picked values with generated values. A QuickCheck-based test tries to cover the laws of a domain whereas classical testing can only test the validity for distinct values.
>
>
> Basically, QuickCheck is about generators of data. The QuickCheck runner method is just a fancy for loop implementation. QuickCheck can help in scenarios where whole classes of test cases have to be tested and it is not feasible to write tests for all distinct test scenarios.
>
>
> |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I suppose I should answer this because:
* According to [the records](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&filter=all) I have cast more votes in total than anyone else
* I am also one of the "very high rep members" that m\_goldberg refers to
* As a Community Moderator my conduct should be held to a higher standard
(i.e. if I'm doing it wrong people should criticize me)
As it happens my policy is somewhere between the existing answers and it has changed over time.
When the site was young I voted for every well written question and every useful answer that I had the time to read and the ability to comprehend. I felt at that time that it was important to keep activity and morale high and I hoped that my action supported that.
Quite soon however I noticed that vote totals often bore no resemblance to my subjective evaluation of posts: [Why do excellent answers languish with few votes and what can be done to combat it?](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/q/348/121) That made me consider the weight of an individual vote and the effect of vote dilution. I became hesitant to up-vote every Answer to a particular question as I realized this does nothing to rank or differentiate them.
Presently:
* On Questions of interest I skim the answers and vote for the one(s) I feel to be the best.
* I vote for any answer that teaches me something significant and applicable. Contrary to [m\_goldberg's assertion](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357/your-answer-up-voting-policy#comment5787_1359) **this happens with great regularity.** Admittedly I would *never* claim to be one of the most knowledgeable people here, nevertheless I do not imagine anyone knows everything there is to know about *Mathematica*, not even Wolfram himself.
* When it seems appropriate I vote to reward effort. One example: sometimes its clear that a user has put a lot of work into an answer with [little expectation of accolade](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1102/121); I try to support this beneficence by up-voting.
* Like Simon Woods I am a bit capricious in my voting. Subconsciously I follow these guidelines, and a few others as well, but certainly I am not consistent in the way I vote all the time. I don't go though a lengthy internal justification process before I click the arrow.
* **In all cases** I am volitionally biased toward the first correct answer using a particular method. I feel that this is important to not diminish original contribution. I may vote for a derivative answer if it is sufficiently different or superior but I vote for the older one as well.
A note: I have been quite sparing in my use of the down-vote as I know from my early experience on Stack Overflow that it can be quite discouraging but I am starting to use this tool more often as I increasingly recognize its utility. | I wasn't around when this was asked, but I feel I should also be putting in my take.
My upvoting criterion is capriciously arbitrary: if I "enjoyed" reading the answer, or learned something genuinely new, or it is an answer that I would have written myself (also counting the case where it was written in a far better style than I would've done), only then do I upvote the answer. It is the exact same voting criterion I use on other SE sites, and I like to think it has served me well.
My downvoting criterion for answers is way more strict: I will only downvote if an answer is actively wrong/harmful, and the answerer has proven uncooperative in nudges (through comments) to fix his/her answer. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I wasn't around when this was asked, but I feel I should also be putting in my take.
My upvoting criterion is capriciously arbitrary: if I "enjoyed" reading the answer, or learned something genuinely new, or it is an answer that I would have written myself (also counting the case where it was written in a far better style than I would've done), only then do I upvote the answer. It is the exact same voting criterion I use on other SE sites, and I like to think it has served me well.
My downvoting criterion for answers is way more strict: I will only downvote if an answer is actively wrong/harmful, and the answerer has proven uncooperative in nudges (through comments) to fix his/her answer. | I think of my voting policy as very conservative. Every vote must be justified (at least ideally). Nonetheless, there's a lot of good content on the site, so it's not hard for even a conservative voter to have cast a lot of votes in aggregate. My voting is also very subjective, although it has become less so over time (cf. the second bullet points in each category).
Let's presuppose that anything I upvote is coherent and correctly formed, at least intellectually. (I normally correct minor formatting or writing problems, if there are any, before voting. This is particularly easy to excuse for newcomers to the site who bring with them fresh ideas.)
A **question** gets my upvote if
* it asks about a interesting problem that I would either have to think moderately hard about in order to provide a good answer (which is also the best way to attract my answer), or (for more challenging problems, if I don't have time to answer, and where I have insufficient understanding of the subject to provide an answer of my own) where I expect I could learn something from the approaches taken by other people. Or,
* where a definitive answer immediately comes to mind, but the question has extraordinary value for the community (e.g. it raises a commonly encountered issue in a particularly clear and incisive way).
An **answer** gets my upvote when
* I learn something from it. I very rarely upvote an answer that doesn't teach me anything. Although this doesn't have to be especially profound--in performance tuning questions, when people collect others' answers together and benchmark the codes against each other, that also gets my upvote, because it provides the answer to a natural question and leads to a better understanding of the existing answers. Or,
* it is a technically impeccable answer from a new user, even if not particularly enlightening to me personally. I do this because everyone needs some encouragement and a certain amount of points in order to be able to use the site fully and feel as if they're a part of the community.
I try never to vote for answers simply on the grounds of correctness. A correct answer must also fulfil one of the other criteria in order to get my upvote. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I suppose I should answer this because:
* According to [the records](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&filter=all) I have cast more votes in total than anyone else
* I am also one of the "very high rep members" that m\_goldberg refers to
* As a Community Moderator my conduct should be held to a higher standard
(i.e. if I'm doing it wrong people should criticize me)
As it happens my policy is somewhere between the existing answers and it has changed over time.
When the site was young I voted for every well written question and every useful answer that I had the time to read and the ability to comprehend. I felt at that time that it was important to keep activity and morale high and I hoped that my action supported that.
Quite soon however I noticed that vote totals often bore no resemblance to my subjective evaluation of posts: [Why do excellent answers languish with few votes and what can be done to combat it?](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/q/348/121) That made me consider the weight of an individual vote and the effect of vote dilution. I became hesitant to up-vote every Answer to a particular question as I realized this does nothing to rank or differentiate them.
Presently:
* On Questions of interest I skim the answers and vote for the one(s) I feel to be the best.
* I vote for any answer that teaches me something significant and applicable. Contrary to [m\_goldberg's assertion](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357/your-answer-up-voting-policy#comment5787_1359) **this happens with great regularity.** Admittedly I would *never* claim to be one of the most knowledgeable people here, nevertheless I do not imagine anyone knows everything there is to know about *Mathematica*, not even Wolfram himself.
* When it seems appropriate I vote to reward effort. One example: sometimes its clear that a user has put a lot of work into an answer with [little expectation of accolade](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1102/121); I try to support this beneficence by up-voting.
* Like Simon Woods I am a bit capricious in my voting. Subconsciously I follow these guidelines, and a few others as well, but certainly I am not consistent in the way I vote all the time. I don't go though a lengthy internal justification process before I click the arrow.
* **In all cases** I am volitionally biased toward the first correct answer using a particular method. I feel that this is important to not diminish original contribution. I may vote for a derivative answer if it is sufficiently different or superior but I vote for the older one as well.
A note: I have been quite sparing in my use of the down-vote as I know from my early experience on Stack Overflow that it can be quite discouraging but I am starting to use this tool more often as I increasingly recognize its utility. | My approach is subjective. I upvote answers from which I learn something new and unexpected. I sometimes downvote an answer when I have the impression that it too heavily relies on comments or answers already given. Sometimes I downvote questions if the OP doesn't participate ("Do my homework but don't bother me with questions or comments"). Sometimes I regret that one cannot upvote comments. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I wasn't around when this was asked, but I feel I should also be putting in my take.
My upvoting criterion is capriciously arbitrary: if I "enjoyed" reading the answer, or learned something genuinely new, or it is an answer that I would have written myself (also counting the case where it was written in a far better style than I would've done), only then do I upvote the answer. It is the exact same voting criterion I use on other SE sites, and I like to think it has served me well.
My downvoting criterion for answers is way more strict: I will only downvote if an answer is actively wrong/harmful, and the answerer has proven uncooperative in nudges (through comments) to fix his/her answer. | This is a Q & A page.
When I need answers to specific questions, I search with keywords and usually find fair questions but even better answers. If a Q / A element solves my question or brings me a good bit closer to the solution I rate also old solutions positive.
I do upvote "old" responses.
One time "Questioner" I ignore.
A good question is well written, well researched and reduced to the minimum, a "minimal working example" in the proper sense. Such questions are interesting because they show that the questioner is interested on his level of an answer. Such questions I upvote. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I suppose I should answer this because:
* According to [the records](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&filter=all) I have cast more votes in total than anyone else
* I am also one of the "very high rep members" that m\_goldberg refers to
* As a Community Moderator my conduct should be held to a higher standard
(i.e. if I'm doing it wrong people should criticize me)
As it happens my policy is somewhere between the existing answers and it has changed over time.
When the site was young I voted for every well written question and every useful answer that I had the time to read and the ability to comprehend. I felt at that time that it was important to keep activity and morale high and I hoped that my action supported that.
Quite soon however I noticed that vote totals often bore no resemblance to my subjective evaluation of posts: [Why do excellent answers languish with few votes and what can be done to combat it?](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/q/348/121) That made me consider the weight of an individual vote and the effect of vote dilution. I became hesitant to up-vote every Answer to a particular question as I realized this does nothing to rank or differentiate them.
Presently:
* On Questions of interest I skim the answers and vote for the one(s) I feel to be the best.
* I vote for any answer that teaches me something significant and applicable. Contrary to [m\_goldberg's assertion](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357/your-answer-up-voting-policy#comment5787_1359) **this happens with great regularity.** Admittedly I would *never* claim to be one of the most knowledgeable people here, nevertheless I do not imagine anyone knows everything there is to know about *Mathematica*, not even Wolfram himself.
* When it seems appropriate I vote to reward effort. One example: sometimes its clear that a user has put a lot of work into an answer with [little expectation of accolade](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1102/121); I try to support this beneficence by up-voting.
* Like Simon Woods I am a bit capricious in my voting. Subconsciously I follow these guidelines, and a few others as well, but certainly I am not consistent in the way I vote all the time. I don't go though a lengthy internal justification process before I click the arrow.
* **In all cases** I am volitionally biased toward the first correct answer using a particular method. I feel that this is important to not diminish original contribution. I may vote for a derivative answer if it is sufficiently different or superior but I vote for the older one as well.
A note: I have been quite sparing in my use of the down-vote as I know from my early experience on Stack Overflow that it can be quite discouraging but I am starting to use this tool more often as I increasingly recognize its utility. | I think of my voting policy as very conservative. Every vote must be justified (at least ideally). Nonetheless, there's a lot of good content on the site, so it's not hard for even a conservative voter to have cast a lot of votes in aggregate. My voting is also very subjective, although it has become less so over time (cf. the second bullet points in each category).
Let's presuppose that anything I upvote is coherent and correctly formed, at least intellectually. (I normally correct minor formatting or writing problems, if there are any, before voting. This is particularly easy to excuse for newcomers to the site who bring with them fresh ideas.)
A **question** gets my upvote if
* it asks about a interesting problem that I would either have to think moderately hard about in order to provide a good answer (which is also the best way to attract my answer), or (for more challenging problems, if I don't have time to answer, and where I have insufficient understanding of the subject to provide an answer of my own) where I expect I could learn something from the approaches taken by other people. Or,
* where a definitive answer immediately comes to mind, but the question has extraordinary value for the community (e.g. it raises a commonly encountered issue in a particularly clear and incisive way).
An **answer** gets my upvote when
* I learn something from it. I very rarely upvote an answer that doesn't teach me anything. Although this doesn't have to be especially profound--in performance tuning questions, when people collect others' answers together and benchmark the codes against each other, that also gets my upvote, because it provides the answer to a natural question and leads to a better understanding of the existing answers. Or,
* it is a technically impeccable answer from a new user, even if not particularly enlightening to me personally. I do this because everyone needs some encouragement and a certain amount of points in order to be able to use the site fully and feel as if they're a part of the community.
I try never to vote for answers simply on the grounds of correctness. A correct answer must also fulfil one of the other criteria in order to get my upvote. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | My policy is simple too: Try to act, **always**. It is important that this doesn't automatically means an up-vote. It includes down-votes, close-votes, reopen-votes or comments. The idea behind this is simple, if I take the time click on a post to read a question, I have already spend some of my time. Usually, I do this because I find the question interesting or I see that I probably can answer it easily. Anyway, in my opinion, leaving this page without any action, will turn our community into an ignorant crowd I see so often on other SE sites.
My specific policy is the following:
* When I answer a question, I up-vote the question in 90% of the time. There are corner cases, but in general a question which interests me enough that I write an answer, deserves an up-vote from me. The most annoying posts are, where people have written several answers (with up-votes) and the question has only one or two up-votes. Look at [this post](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/42007/187): 6 answers, 17 up-votes in total and **no one** voted for the question? Either the question is really bad, then it deserves to be down-voted or closed, or it is a valid question another beginner probably will stumble upon sooner or later, then there should be at least some up-votes.
* If a question has many answers, I try to read through all of them and give an up-vote to each that has value for later visitors in it. Sometimes, I start reading from the bottom, just to see whether the current order of answers is really due to *quality* or due to other SE effects like [*fastest gun in the west*](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/9731). In my opinion the difference of votes between answers is often not fair. Take for instance [this post](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/11192/187), where I gave the accepted answer. Don't you think that the other answer deserves some more up-votes and the the difference of currently 9 votes is only because many people just up-vote the answer at the top? What if I tell you that @librik works for Wolfram and has an awesome knowledge about low-level I/O? Go ahead, read his answer (and maybe look [over another one of his posts](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/17875/187)) and then come back and rate the quality of the information he has given again.
* If a question is not well formatted or lacks of important information, then I usually vote to close and comment. If I think the question has no value whatsoever, then I additionally down-vote, because questions with a score of -4 or lower are no longer shown on the main-page. In the case of answers, I down-vote only if the answer contains wrong information or it really doesn't add any value to the issue. This case is really rare.
Finally, I don't think that everyone's specific policy is *that* important. It is fundamentally important **that** you vote. Otherwise, and here I'm pretty sure, our main site will soon look like [the main site of this community](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Q0V8.png) and this is not what we have worked our asses off to get this site going. | This is a Q & A page.
When I need answers to specific questions, I search with keywords and usually find fair questions but even better answers. If a Q / A element solves my question or brings me a good bit closer to the solution I rate also old solutions positive.
I do upvote "old" responses.
One time "Questioner" I ignore.
A good question is well written, well researched and reduced to the minimum, a "minimal working example" in the proper sense. Such questions are interesting because they show that the questioner is interested on his level of an answer. Such questions I upvote. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I wasn't around when this was asked, but I feel I should also be putting in my take.
My upvoting criterion is capriciously arbitrary: if I "enjoyed" reading the answer, or learned something genuinely new, or it is an answer that I would have written myself (also counting the case where it was written in a far better style than I would've done), only then do I upvote the answer. It is the exact same voting criterion I use on other SE sites, and I like to think it has served me well.
My downvoting criterion for answers is way more strict: I will only downvote if an answer is actively wrong/harmful, and the answerer has proven uncooperative in nudges (through comments) to fix his/her answer. | My approach is subjective. I upvote answers from which I learn something new and unexpected. I sometimes downvote an answer when I have the impression that it too heavily relies on comments or answers already given. Sometimes I downvote questions if the OP doesn't participate ("Do my homework but don't bother me with questions or comments"). Sometimes I regret that one cannot upvote comments. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I don't really have a firm "policy" - I have a tendency towards indecisiveness and I'd spend far too much time pondering whether or not an answer met my criteria (and whether or not my criteria needed revising!).
So I vote fast and often, without overthinking it. If I read an answer and think "yeah, good answer", I upvote. It might be good because I learnt something, or because it contains a great explanation of a tricky concept, or a lot of time and effort went into it, or just because it includes some nice elegant bit of code. | This is a Q & A page.
When I need answers to specific questions, I search with keywords and usually find fair questions but even better answers. If a Q / A element solves my question or brings me a good bit closer to the solution I rate also old solutions positive.
I do upvote "old" responses.
One time "Questioner" I ignore.
A good question is well written, well researched and reduced to the minimum, a "minimal working example" in the proper sense. Such questions are interesting because they show that the questioner is interested on his level of an answer. Such questions I upvote. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | I suppose I should answer this because:
* According to [the records](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&filter=all) I have cast more votes in total than anyone else
* I am also one of the "very high rep members" that m\_goldberg refers to
* As a Community Moderator my conduct should be held to a higher standard
(i.e. if I'm doing it wrong people should criticize me)
As it happens my policy is somewhere between the existing answers and it has changed over time.
When the site was young I voted for every well written question and every useful answer that I had the time to read and the ability to comprehend. I felt at that time that it was important to keep activity and morale high and I hoped that my action supported that.
Quite soon however I noticed that vote totals often bore no resemblance to my subjective evaluation of posts: [Why do excellent answers languish with few votes and what can be done to combat it?](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/q/348/121) That made me consider the weight of an individual vote and the effect of vote dilution. I became hesitant to up-vote every Answer to a particular question as I realized this does nothing to rank or differentiate them.
Presently:
* On Questions of interest I skim the answers and vote for the one(s) I feel to be the best.
* I vote for any answer that teaches me something significant and applicable. Contrary to [m\_goldberg's assertion](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357/your-answer-up-voting-policy#comment5787_1359) **this happens with great regularity.** Admittedly I would *never* claim to be one of the most knowledgeable people here, nevertheless I do not imagine anyone knows everything there is to know about *Mathematica*, not even Wolfram himself.
* When it seems appropriate I vote to reward effort. One example: sometimes its clear that a user has put a lot of work into an answer with [little expectation of accolade](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1102/121); I try to support this beneficence by up-voting.
* Like Simon Woods I am a bit capricious in my voting. Subconsciously I follow these guidelines, and a few others as well, but certainly I am not consistent in the way I vote all the time. I don't go though a lengthy internal justification process before I click the arrow.
* **In all cases** I am volitionally biased toward the first correct answer using a particular method. I feel that this is important to not diminish original contribution. I may vote for a derivative answer if it is sufficiently different or superior but I vote for the older one as well.
A note: I have been quite sparing in my use of the down-vote as I know from my early experience on Stack Overflow that it can be quite discouraging but I am starting to use this tool more often as I increasingly recognize its utility. | This is a Q & A page.
When I need answers to specific questions, I search with keywords and usually find fair questions but even better answers. If a Q / A element solves my question or brings me a good bit closer to the solution I rate also old solutions positive.
I do upvote "old" responses.
One time "Questioner" I ignore.
A good question is well written, well researched and reduced to the minimum, a "minimal working example" in the proper sense. Such questions are interesting because they show that the questioner is interested on his level of an answer. Such questions I upvote. |
1,357 | Mine is simple. I up vote any answer I think will be of value to the OP and to others with a similar problem. If I think the answer will only be of use to the OP (this usually stems from the question being very localized), I will up vote the answer when the answer takes a broad view of the question and goes sufficiently beyond the local needs of the OP to have archival value. I always feel sad when such an answer is lost because the question gets closed.
To be fair to all who answer a question, my policy requires me to revisit a question whenever a new answer has been added to up vote again if another worthy answer has been added. I accept this responsibility.
I'm pretty sure some others have different policies. I don't claim mine is best. In fact, I suspect it might be too simplistic. I'd like to see other policies expressed. One might be so much better than mine that I will replace my current policy with it.
Do you have a different policy? If so please write it up as an answer.
### Edit
I already discussed my criterion for rating a question as good in [this answer](https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1308/3066) to Mr.Wizard's question. That set my ***question*** up-voting policy because a good question is worth an up vote. | 2014/07/27 | [
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1357",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://mathematica.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3066/"
] | My policy is simple too: Try to act, **always**. It is important that this doesn't automatically means an up-vote. It includes down-votes, close-votes, reopen-votes or comments. The idea behind this is simple, if I take the time click on a post to read a question, I have already spend some of my time. Usually, I do this because I find the question interesting or I see that I probably can answer it easily. Anyway, in my opinion, leaving this page without any action, will turn our community into an ignorant crowd I see so often on other SE sites.
My specific policy is the following:
* When I answer a question, I up-vote the question in 90% of the time. There are corner cases, but in general a question which interests me enough that I write an answer, deserves an up-vote from me. The most annoying posts are, where people have written several answers (with up-votes) and the question has only one or two up-votes. Look at [this post](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/42007/187): 6 answers, 17 up-votes in total and **no one** voted for the question? Either the question is really bad, then it deserves to be down-voted or closed, or it is a valid question another beginner probably will stumble upon sooner or later, then there should be at least some up-votes.
* If a question has many answers, I try to read through all of them and give an up-vote to each that has value for later visitors in it. Sometimes, I start reading from the bottom, just to see whether the current order of answers is really due to *quality* or due to other SE effects like [*fastest gun in the west*](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/9731). In my opinion the difference of votes between answers is often not fair. Take for instance [this post](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/11192/187), where I gave the accepted answer. Don't you think that the other answer deserves some more up-votes and the the difference of currently 9 votes is only because many people just up-vote the answer at the top? What if I tell you that @librik works for Wolfram and has an awesome knowledge about low-level I/O? Go ahead, read his answer (and maybe look [over another one of his posts](https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/17875/187)) and then come back and rate the quality of the information he has given again.
* If a question is not well formatted or lacks of important information, then I usually vote to close and comment. If I think the question has no value whatsoever, then I additionally down-vote, because questions with a score of -4 or lower are no longer shown on the main-page. In the case of answers, I down-vote only if the answer contains wrong information or it really doesn't add any value to the issue. This case is really rare.
Finally, I don't think that everyone's specific policy is *that* important. It is fundamentally important **that** you vote. Otherwise, and here I'm pretty sure, our main site will soon look like [the main site of this community](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Q0V8.png) and this is not what we have worked our asses off to get this site going. | My approach is subjective. I upvote answers from which I learn something new and unexpected. I sometimes downvote an answer when I have the impression that it too heavily relies on comments or answers already given. Sometimes I downvote questions if the OP doesn't participate ("Do my homework but don't bother me with questions or comments"). Sometimes I regret that one cannot upvote comments. |
189,183 | My colleague and I are currently teaching "true infinitesimal calculus" (TIC), in the sense of calculus with infinitesimals, to a class of about 120 freshmen at our university, based on the book by Keisler <https://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html>. Two of my colleagues in Belgium are similarly teaching TIC at two universities there. I am also aware of such teaching going on in France in the Strasbourg area, based on Edward Nelson's approach, though I don't have any details on that.
*Which schools, colleges, or universities teach true infinitesimal calculus?*
A colleague in Italy has told me about a conference a few months ago on using infinitesimals in teaching in Italian highschools. This NSA (nonstandard analysis) conference was apparently well attended (over 100 teachers showed up).
In Geneva, there are two highschools that have been teaching calculus using ultrasmall numbers for the past 10 years.
Anybody with more information about this (who to contact, what the current status of the proposal is, etc.) is hereby requested to provide such information here.
Note 1 in response to Dan's comment: usually nowadays the term *infinitesimal calculus* is used as a dead metaphor for "the calculus". Thus, calculus courses routinely go under the name "infinitesimal calculus" for historical reasons, whereas in point of fact no infinitesimal ever appears on the blackboard. When I refer to "true infinitesimal calculus" I mean calculus with infinitesimals (as explained above) as opposed to ordinary "infinitesimal calculus" as found in Thomas-Finney and other textbooks.
Note 2 in response to Pietro's comment: I should clarify that calculus using infinitesimals is not limited to Keisler's book. There are several books of this sort, including some that are unrelated to Robinson's theory, such as those by A. Kock and J. Bell.
Note 3: thanks to Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen for the update on the history of TIC teaching at the University of Hawaii. | 2014/12/08 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/189183",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/28128/"
] | Since you mentioned University of Hawaii --
[David Ross](http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ross/) regularly teaches nonstandard analysis and infinitesimal calculus at University of Hawaii in various forms, for instance
* [MATH 649K](http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ross/649.htm) (a regular grad course), Spring 2008
* [MATH 699](http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ross/699.htm) (reading course), Spring 2011
We also usually cover the topic in our senior-level course on mathematical logic (MATH 455), although I suppose a lot of universities do that.
**But** infinitesimal calculus is not part of our standard calculus syllabus. | So far I have been able to find out that true infinitesimal calculus was taught at the following universities:
University of Hawaii;
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;
University of Iowa;
University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Anyone who has either taught or studied in such courses there is requested to share his or her experiences. |
11,199,540 | I'm writing a simple image upload function with php + image magick using amazon ec2 + s3.
The function basically receives the image, possibly compresses, and resizes it into 3~4 different sizes and the images get accessed more frequently than they are uploaded.
Not being an expert on digital images, I'm still deciding on whether to convert uploaded images into jpeg or keep their original format (jpeg, png, gif - gif will be converted into a still image in case the format gets converted).
There are two things to take into consideration that I can think of.
1. computing power usage (better not to convert)
2. network bandwidth (better to convert)
any recommendation? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11199540",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/811599/"
] | From my experience, you want to keep the original image. You might need it later if you decide to redesign site and change image formats globally. If you don't keep the original, you will not be able to re-process them in such situation.
Re. computing power usage -- you should not worry about that. You resize only once, and then optimized image size compensate on CPU and bandwidth later every time images are loaded. | It's typically not a great idea to change the image format that a user uploaded. Certain formats have their own characteristics and benefits, and changing the format may not be ideal. For example, png has better support for transparency than gif or jpeg. So the conversion may cause your image to look odd. |
11,199,540 | I'm writing a simple image upload function with php + image magick using amazon ec2 + s3.
The function basically receives the image, possibly compresses, and resizes it into 3~4 different sizes and the images get accessed more frequently than they are uploaded.
Not being an expert on digital images, I'm still deciding on whether to convert uploaded images into jpeg or keep their original format (jpeg, png, gif - gif will be converted into a still image in case the format gets converted).
There are two things to take into consideration that I can think of.
1. computing power usage (better not to convert)
2. network bandwidth (better to convert)
any recommendation? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11199540",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/811599/"
] | From my experience, you want to keep the original image. You might need it later if you decide to redesign site and change image formats globally. If you don't keep the original, you will not be able to re-process them in such situation.
Re. computing power usage -- you should not worry about that. You resize only once, and then optimized image size compensate on CPU and bandwidth later every time images are loaded. | png and gif are better at compressing certain types of images, basically blocky graphics, while jpeg are better for photo-like images. So depending on the type of images your uploading there may not be a gain there in saving bandwidth/storage space.
The computation to convert will be expensive and it will slow down your web server if you aren't doing it asynchronously.
If your usage of the images can accept either type (jpg, png, gif) than I would suggest keeping them in the format that it receives. |
1,983,710 | I'm now learning a bit of MATLAB and I have two versions of it. Version 4.2c, that I use on my emulated Windows 3.11 and the lastest one, that I use on my Windows Vista.
Here is a screenshot of it:
[MATLAB 4.2c On My Windows 3.11 http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4042/matlabv4.png](http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4042/matlabv4.png)
Then I want to know:
* What are the main differences?
* Are there are any differences in the language itself?
* Will new libraries work? | 2009/12/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1983710",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/126353/"
] | **EDIT:** Now that I see the screenshot, I realize you really *are* referring to MATLAB Version 4.2c (R7). I thought perhaps you were mistakenly referring to the MATLAB *Compiler* instead, since I didn't think anyone would still be using [a version that's over 15 years old](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATLAB#Release_history)! The oldest version I've used was when I first started learning MATLAB in 1996 on Version 5.0 (R8)!
The basic matrix and vector operations probably haven't changed much since Version 4.2c, although there are some newer functions to manipulate matrix data in different ways, like [ACCUMARRAY](http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/ref/accumarray.html), [BSXFUN](http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/ref/bsxfun.html), and [ARRAYFUN](http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/ref/arrayfun.html) to name a few. Virtually everything else has probably changed in some subtle or not-so-subtle way: [the MATLAB Desktop and Editor](http://blogs.mathworks.com/desktop/2009/12/21/r2009-in-review/), [graphics and plotting tools](http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/creating_plots/bqrw9tj.html), [creating graphical user interfaces](http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/creating_guis/bqz79mu.html), etc.. You can also do object-oriented programming now using [MATLAB classes](http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/matlab_oop/brh2rgw.html).
Anyhow, for all MATLAB releases starting from the newest Version 7.9 (R2009b) and going all the way back to Version 7 (R14, 2004) you can find the release notes on [The MathWorks website](http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/rn/rn_intro.html). These release notes highlight the new features and bug fixes added to each MATLAB version since the previous release. For example, in order to see the difference between Versions 7.6 and 7.9, you'd have to look through the release notes from 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9. If you *really* need release notes going farther back in time, you will probably have to [contact the MathWorks directly](http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/contact_us/index.html).
*P.S. I may actually still have my old notes from my first MATLAB course, which I'm tempted to dig out of storage and take a look at just to see what may have changed since then. ;)* | There are a huge number of differences since that time. New variable types (logical, sparse, cell arrays, uint(N), single, etc.), objects, anonymous and nested functions, gui tools, toolbox changes galore.
Having said that, I have code written in 1988 (20+ years) that still runs with essentially no change. (Maybe version 3.5 or so?) And I just tripped recently over a piece of code from that era that is still actively being used.
The MathWorks does make great efforts to continue backwards compatibility for all code. Only under a great deal of discussion do they break that rule. |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | I don't know of any standards. I agree that it's frustrating. The ubiquity of cheap 16:9 panels design for television makes it understandable that these digital frames aren't available in more photography-friendly aspect ratios.
I think one reason that there's no standard is that it really depends on your content and what you're presenting. If the images are primarily art, the scrolling effect is probably detrimental — but if they're documentary, then it may be ideal (there's a reason it's called the Ken Burns effect, after all).
Cropping to the frame's ratio is likewise very content- and subject-dependent. Even where it can *work* without losing parts of the subject, a different framing can make a big difference (see [What should I consider for cropping aspect ratios?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/14034/what-should-i-consider-for-cropping-aspect-ratios) for some examples).
And, when padding (or "letterboxing") images, the question of black, white, another solid color, or a pattern — well, same story here. It depends on the image. Overall, this is generally the least destructive, so it's my preference for a default — but if you're trying to fit a 2:3 portrait image into a 16:9 frame that doesn't easily rotate, that can be awkward.
Even the stretching option *might* work in some cases (although... as you say, usually not).
Sorry I don't have a better answer, but I don't think there is one. The best practice, I think, is to **consider and do the best thing for each individual image**, or, if all presented together, for consistency **as the best for the set of images**. | >
> I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios.
>
>
>
Maybe you do and you don't know it.
Back when I used to do chemical photography, I had an enlarging easel that held paper in four sizes: 8x10, 5x7, 3.5x5 and 2.5x3.5. There wasn't a whole lot of aspect ratio diversity there, with one at 1.25:1 and three at or near 1.4:1. The standard technique was that you decided how much paper you wanted to burn on the print and then found a crop that worked in that size. Having been been handed a medium with fixed aspect ratio, you're in pretty much the same boat.
Pick a dozen or so images out of your library, load them into your favorite processing software, set the crop tool to 16:9 and have at it. This is an exercise where you need to treat the crop area like your viewfinder looking for composition in a world that's constrained to what you've already shot. Somewhere in most images are a couple of stories you can tell at whatever aspect ratio you want without depending on the elements of composition in the original. Look for the unusual, and don't forget that you can take a vertical crop out of a horizontal image. Your target medium is a 37-inch, low-resolution surface that gives you a lot of options you wouldn't have with a 37-inch print. |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | I don't know of any standards. I agree that it's frustrating. The ubiquity of cheap 16:9 panels design for television makes it understandable that these digital frames aren't available in more photography-friendly aspect ratios.
I think one reason that there's no standard is that it really depends on your content and what you're presenting. If the images are primarily art, the scrolling effect is probably detrimental — but if they're documentary, then it may be ideal (there's a reason it's called the Ken Burns effect, after all).
Cropping to the frame's ratio is likewise very content- and subject-dependent. Even where it can *work* without losing parts of the subject, a different framing can make a big difference (see [What should I consider for cropping aspect ratios?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/14034/what-should-i-consider-for-cropping-aspect-ratios) for some examples).
And, when padding (or "letterboxing") images, the question of black, white, another solid color, or a pattern — well, same story here. It depends on the image. Overall, this is generally the least destructive, so it's my preference for a default — but if you're trying to fit a 2:3 portrait image into a 16:9 frame that doesn't easily rotate, that can be awkward.
Even the stretching option *might* work in some cases (although... as you say, usually not).
Sorry I don't have a better answer, but I don't think there is one. The best practice, I think, is to **consider and do the best thing for each individual image**, or, if all presented together, for consistency **as the best for the set of images**. | **The natural choice is to let the user decide.** One of the standout features of using an electronic display compared to print is that you can change not only what images to display, but how to display them.
You can see a fine example on any HDTV set. Because there's still plenty of 4:3 video being broadcast every day, most HD monitors and other hardware let you choose how to deal with that format. TiVo provides these options:
* zoom (crop the top and bottom)
* full (stretch to fill the screen)
* panel (black bars on the sides)
One button is all it'd take to cycle between a small set of different options.
A slightly more complex interface could let the user zoom in and out, like you can on any digital camera. That would again let them choose between cropping and having black bars, where the cropped mode would just be zoomed in a little farther. But it'd also let the user choose to see 2, 4, 9, or more images tiled on the screen. This could be accomplished with a pair of buttons or a thumb wheel.
A digital frame is meant to mostly display images without user input, and you don't want controls to be noticeable from the front, but they could easily be hidden in the edge or back of the frame. Assuming you're using something like a Raspberry Pi to control the screen, it should be easy to manage the display mode and to integrate some simple controls. |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | I don't know of any standards. I agree that it's frustrating. The ubiquity of cheap 16:9 panels design for television makes it understandable that these digital frames aren't available in more photography-friendly aspect ratios.
I think one reason that there's no standard is that it really depends on your content and what you're presenting. If the images are primarily art, the scrolling effect is probably detrimental — but if they're documentary, then it may be ideal (there's a reason it's called the Ken Burns effect, after all).
Cropping to the frame's ratio is likewise very content- and subject-dependent. Even where it can *work* without losing parts of the subject, a different framing can make a big difference (see [What should I consider for cropping aspect ratios?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/14034/what-should-i-consider-for-cropping-aspect-ratios) for some examples).
And, when padding (or "letterboxing") images, the question of black, white, another solid color, or a pattern — well, same story here. It depends on the image. Overall, this is generally the least destructive, so it's my preference for a default — but if you're trying to fit a 2:3 portrait image into a 16:9 frame that doesn't easily rotate, that can be awkward.
Even the stretching option *might* work in some cases (although... as you say, usually not).
Sorry I don't have a better answer, but I don't think there is one. The best practice, I think, is to **consider and do the best thing for each individual image**, or, if all presented together, for consistency **as the best for the set of images**. | Thank you, everyone - and I do mean that literally, as everyone who responded had something worthwhile to offer.
I was especially drawn to the notion of laying things out as a triptych or mosaic - basically, treating the screen real-estate as a space to lay down whatever 'story' I have in mind. Most of the fun I've been having with the digital frame has been in assembling sequences of images that 'go together' somehow (they change every 30-60 minutes or so, so a sequence can take days to finish)(so I prefer not to think of it as a 'slide show'). That in mind, arranging 2 or more images on the screen feels like a very natural next step.
This may or may not work for you. Whether it does or not, when it comes to cropping or scaling or filling a fixed-size frame, I think @mattdm expressed it best: "do the best thing for each individual image, or, if all presented together, for consistency as the best for the set of images."
(For what it is worth, I have avoided mentioning any manufacturers. Also, I have not yet played with a 4K frame, although there are a few models available (and one or two of them even don't cost a fortune). While I'm certain that quadruple the resolution will be nice, what I'm personally looking forward to is the enhanced colorspace promised by Rec.2020 (approx 12 bits per (r,g,b) triplet versus the Rec.709 (8 bits per triplet) that we've been using for decades). Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no-one offers a digital art frame with Rec.2020 colorspace. In fact, I think it is only within the last year or so that a few television manufacturers have introduced units that exceed Rec.709 - although note that they don't meet Rec.2020; instead they hit a halfway point that equates to about 10 bits per triplet. So it might be a year or two or three before affordable 4K / Rec.2020 art frames appear on the market. When that happens, I suspect that even photographers who are critical of digital frames will warm to the higher resolution and larger colorspace they provide). |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | An option I don't see mentioned above is the same approach that videographers generally take as they will target a particular aspect ratio, but ensure the content works in other aspect ratios.
Obviously this only works if you can go back to the source (and it works with the content). I will usually compose my pictures with a good quantity of extra space around the edge, so that they can be cropped to several different aspect ratios so that any 'padding' is from the original scene. | >
> I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios.
>
>
>
Maybe you do and you don't know it.
Back when I used to do chemical photography, I had an enlarging easel that held paper in four sizes: 8x10, 5x7, 3.5x5 and 2.5x3.5. There wasn't a whole lot of aspect ratio diversity there, with one at 1.25:1 and three at or near 1.4:1. The standard technique was that you decided how much paper you wanted to burn on the print and then found a crop that worked in that size. Having been been handed a medium with fixed aspect ratio, you're in pretty much the same boat.
Pick a dozen or so images out of your library, load them into your favorite processing software, set the crop tool to 16:9 and have at it. This is an exercise where you need to treat the crop area like your viewfinder looking for composition in a world that's constrained to what you've already shot. Somewhere in most images are a couple of stories you can tell at whatever aspect ratio you want without depending on the elements of composition in the original. Look for the unusual, and don't forget that you can take a vertical crop out of a horizontal image. Your target medium is a 37-inch, low-resolution surface that gives you a lot of options you wouldn't have with a 37-inch print. |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | An option I don't see mentioned above is the same approach that videographers generally take as they will target a particular aspect ratio, but ensure the content works in other aspect ratios.
Obviously this only works if you can go back to the source (and it works with the content). I will usually compose my pictures with a good quantity of extra space around the edge, so that they can be cropped to several different aspect ratios so that any 'padding' is from the original scene. | **The natural choice is to let the user decide.** One of the standout features of using an electronic display compared to print is that you can change not only what images to display, but how to display them.
You can see a fine example on any HDTV set. Because there's still plenty of 4:3 video being broadcast every day, most HD monitors and other hardware let you choose how to deal with that format. TiVo provides these options:
* zoom (crop the top and bottom)
* full (stretch to fill the screen)
* panel (black bars on the sides)
One button is all it'd take to cycle between a small set of different options.
A slightly more complex interface could let the user zoom in and out, like you can on any digital camera. That would again let them choose between cropping and having black bars, where the cropped mode would just be zoomed in a little farther. But it'd also let the user choose to see 2, 4, 9, or more images tiled on the screen. This could be accomplished with a pair of buttons or a thumb wheel.
A digital frame is meant to mostly display images without user input, and you don't want controls to be noticeable from the front, but they could easily be hidden in the edge or back of the frame. Assuming you're using something like a Raspberry Pi to control the screen, it should be easy to manage the display mode and to integrate some simple controls. |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | An option I don't see mentioned above is the same approach that videographers generally take as they will target a particular aspect ratio, but ensure the content works in other aspect ratios.
Obviously this only works if you can go back to the source (and it works with the content). I will usually compose my pictures with a good quantity of extra space around the edge, so that they can be cropped to several different aspect ratios so that any 'padding' is from the original scene. | Thank you, everyone - and I do mean that literally, as everyone who responded had something worthwhile to offer.
I was especially drawn to the notion of laying things out as a triptych or mosaic - basically, treating the screen real-estate as a space to lay down whatever 'story' I have in mind. Most of the fun I've been having with the digital frame has been in assembling sequences of images that 'go together' somehow (they change every 30-60 minutes or so, so a sequence can take days to finish)(so I prefer not to think of it as a 'slide show'). That in mind, arranging 2 or more images on the screen feels like a very natural next step.
This may or may not work for you. Whether it does or not, when it comes to cropping or scaling or filling a fixed-size frame, I think @mattdm expressed it best: "do the best thing for each individual image, or, if all presented together, for consistency as the best for the set of images."
(For what it is worth, I have avoided mentioning any manufacturers. Also, I have not yet played with a 4K frame, although there are a few models available (and one or two of them even don't cost a fortune). While I'm certain that quadruple the resolution will be nice, what I'm personally looking forward to is the enhanced colorspace promised by Rec.2020 (approx 12 bits per (r,g,b) triplet versus the Rec.709 (8 bits per triplet) that we've been using for decades). Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no-one offers a digital art frame with Rec.2020 colorspace. In fact, I think it is only within the last year or so that a few television manufacturers have introduced units that exceed Rec.709 - although note that they don't meet Rec.2020; instead they hit a halfway point that equates to about 10 bits per triplet. So it might be a year or two or three before affordable 4K / Rec.2020 art frames appear on the market. When that happens, I suspect that even photographers who are critical of digital frames will warm to the higher resolution and larger colorspace they provide). |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | Another option is to combine several (related) images, maybe with a large main image and two or three smaller ones filling the space. A 37" screen seems large enough to support that.
You could make a mosaic, or a triptychon, or any other arrangement. | >
> I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios.
>
>
>
Maybe you do and you don't know it.
Back when I used to do chemical photography, I had an enlarging easel that held paper in four sizes: 8x10, 5x7, 3.5x5 and 2.5x3.5. There wasn't a whole lot of aspect ratio diversity there, with one at 1.25:1 and three at or near 1.4:1. The standard technique was that you decided how much paper you wanted to burn on the print and then found a crop that worked in that size. Having been been handed a medium with fixed aspect ratio, you're in pretty much the same boat.
Pick a dozen or so images out of your library, load them into your favorite processing software, set the crop tool to 16:9 and have at it. This is an exercise where you need to treat the crop area like your viewfinder looking for composition in a world that's constrained to what you've already shot. Somewhere in most images are a couple of stories you can tell at whatever aspect ratio you want without depending on the elements of composition in the original. Look for the unusual, and don't forget that you can take a vertical crop out of a horizontal image. Your target medium is a 37-inch, low-resolution surface that gives you a lot of options you wouldn't have with a 37-inch print. |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | Another option is to combine several (related) images, maybe with a large main image and two or three smaller ones filling the space. A 37" screen seems large enough to support that.
You could make a mosaic, or a triptychon, or any other arrangement. | **The natural choice is to let the user decide.** One of the standout features of using an electronic display compared to print is that you can change not only what images to display, but how to display them.
You can see a fine example on any HDTV set. Because there's still plenty of 4:3 video being broadcast every day, most HD monitors and other hardware let you choose how to deal with that format. TiVo provides these options:
* zoom (crop the top and bottom)
* full (stretch to fill the screen)
* panel (black bars on the sides)
One button is all it'd take to cycle between a small set of different options.
A slightly more complex interface could let the user zoom in and out, like you can on any digital camera. That would again let them choose between cropping and having black bars, where the cropped mode would just be zoomed in a little farther. But it'd also let the user choose to see 2, 4, 9, or more images tiled on the screen. This could be accomplished with a pair of buttons or a thumb wheel.
A digital frame is meant to mostly display images without user input, and you don't want controls to be noticeable from the front, but they could easily be hidden in the edge or back of the frame. Assuming you're using something like a Raspberry Pi to control the screen, it should be easy to manage the display mode and to integrate some simple controls. |
82,342 | Background: I do not wish to debate their merits or lack thereof, but of late I have been experimenting with a couple of "digital art frames" - these are 37" diagonal, 1920x1080 HD, in a nice frame, optimized for maximum viewing angle and low power consumption.
The Question: the frame can be hung in landscape (1920x1080 aka 16:9) or portrait (1080x1920 aka 9:16) orientation. I find that I do not have a lot of content in those aspect ratios. So: are there any 'standard' techniques for coping with this situation? There are a few techniques that come to mind, although each has its own unique disadvantage:
1. Use Photoshop or some other tool to distort the image to fit. The issues are obvious.
2. Crop the content to fit. Sometimes this is impossible without losing a critical part of the composition.
3. 'Ken Burns Effect' - a looping animation that pans / zooms over the image. This is not always an option (neither of the frames I'm using support it) plus this kind of animation may simply be inappropriate under the circumstances.
4. Large blank areas above / below (or left / right) of the content. Sometimes this works - sometimes it looks awful.
5. Adding patterns / content to the blank areas - for some reason, the example that comes immediately to my mind is a book cover:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fMunI.jpg)
This could perhaps be automated to some extent?
6+. I'm sure there are many other things one could do.
To Summarize: I would like to know how other people deal with this issue. Are there any standards or guideline or principles that lay out what is acceptable / what is not acceptable?
Edit:
Thank you, everyone who weighed in! At the very least, it is nice to know that yes, this is something of an issue, at least for some people. And you have helped me develop some vocabulary to use when discussing the issue (i.e., "letterboxing"). And: very perceptive to note how this could be a problem that requires a solution for a set of related images.
In case anyone is curious, I spent some time yesterday messing around with Photoshop's 'content aware' Fill and Scale functions - which can sometimes work a bit *too* well - scary stuff. I think it's something of an ethics question as to whether or not such generated pixels are 'better' or 'worse' than, say, applying a transformation to stretch the original image by 10% - but it occurs to me that these pixels could perhaps be used for textured padding when letterboxing an image.
Next stop: I'm curious if anyone has attempted to automate this kind of thing.
Again, thank you all! | 2016/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82342",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56201/"
] | Another option is to combine several (related) images, maybe with a large main image and two or three smaller ones filling the space. A 37" screen seems large enough to support that.
You could make a mosaic, or a triptychon, or any other arrangement. | Thank you, everyone - and I do mean that literally, as everyone who responded had something worthwhile to offer.
I was especially drawn to the notion of laying things out as a triptych or mosaic - basically, treating the screen real-estate as a space to lay down whatever 'story' I have in mind. Most of the fun I've been having with the digital frame has been in assembling sequences of images that 'go together' somehow (they change every 30-60 minutes or so, so a sequence can take days to finish)(so I prefer not to think of it as a 'slide show'). That in mind, arranging 2 or more images on the screen feels like a very natural next step.
This may or may not work for you. Whether it does or not, when it comes to cropping or scaling or filling a fixed-size frame, I think @mattdm expressed it best: "do the best thing for each individual image, or, if all presented together, for consistency as the best for the set of images."
(For what it is worth, I have avoided mentioning any manufacturers. Also, I have not yet played with a 4K frame, although there are a few models available (and one or two of them even don't cost a fortune). While I'm certain that quadruple the resolution will be nice, what I'm personally looking forward to is the enhanced colorspace promised by Rec.2020 (approx 12 bits per (r,g,b) triplet versus the Rec.709 (8 bits per triplet) that we've been using for decades). Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no-one offers a digital art frame with Rec.2020 colorspace. In fact, I think it is only within the last year or so that a few television manufacturers have introduced units that exceed Rec.709 - although note that they don't meet Rec.2020; instead they hit a halfway point that equates to about 10 bits per triplet. So it might be a year or two or three before affordable 4K / Rec.2020 art frames appear on the market. When that happens, I suspect that even photographers who are critical of digital frames will warm to the higher resolution and larger colorspace they provide). |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | "Nope" is informal. You wouldn't usually want to use it, for example, answering questions for a job interview, but it would be an appropriate answer to a friend's question "Have you seen that movie yet?" | I think the context has a lot to do with how the word Nope is perceived:
1. Somebody asks you for something.
>
> - Will you do something for me?
> - Nope. << Rude
>
>
>
2. Somebody asks for information.
>
> - Is your name Sam?
> - Nope. << Playful / informal
>
>
>
Maybe the word Nope implies a casual, relaxed attitude, which in some cases may come off as dismissive. |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | From [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/59658/31820), they have no difference in meaning; but *nope* is more informal, only used in a sense of opposite to *yes* (or *yup*). Also, *nope* is not used often in writing.
You wouldn't say "there were nope errors", for example. | "Nope" is informal. You wouldn't usually want to use it, for example, answering questions for a job interview, but it would be an appropriate answer to a friend's question "Have you seen that movie yet?" |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | The first and most important point to note it that it's *very* informal (more so than using contractions such as my ***it's*** there, for example).
The main reason for using it at all stems from that "extreme informality". It normally conveys a *relaxed attitude* on the part of the speaker. Depending on context, it can be more *or* less emphatic than "No".
You only use *nope* to mean ***[my answer is] "No"*** – it never replaces *no* in any other contexts. And you wouldn't normally use it where you want to be *very* emphatic (shouting "No!" at the top of your voice). Which example illustrates a defining characteristic – "Nope" isn't often followed by an exclamation mark!
Finally, I'd echo [John Lawler's](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/59670/2637) words: *"nope" occurs **only as a one-word answer** to Y/N questions*. That's to say, a written form such as:
>
> "Nope I *don't* want to"
>
>
>
doesn't look right. We expect a full stop (or at the very least a comma) after "Nope" because in real-world speech there always would be a pause there. But that doesn't happen with:
>
> "No I *don't* want to!"
>
>
>
because it's perfectly possible to speak those words without pausing appreciably after "No" (without necessarily placing extra stress on *"don't"*, either; I just italicised it as one possible enunciation). | Nope is used informally, normally during chat where you want to give a quick, fluid answer to a question without halting it like 'No' would.
They both mean the same thing, and 'Nope' is very rarely written. |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | Nope is used informally, normally during chat where you want to give a quick, fluid answer to a question without halting it like 'No' would.
They both mean the same thing, and 'Nope' is very rarely written. | I think there is a subtle difference between emphatic and dismissive or terminal. And I think that nope is often used in the latter two ways. Think of how the lips must close together and this gives nope its terminal feeling in a physical way. Pursed lips. Can't pry them open. Not going to change. |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | I agree with the person who says that nope is dismissive and slightly rude and I would add that a text nope feels rude to the recipient. It feels like a "final" no. | I think there is a subtle difference between emphatic and dismissive or terminal. And I think that nope is often used in the latter two ways. Think of how the lips must close together and this gives nope its terminal feeling in a physical way. Pursed lips. Can't pry them open. Not going to change. |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | "Nope" is informal. You wouldn't usually want to use it, for example, answering questions for a job interview, but it would be an appropriate answer to a friend's question "Have you seen that movie yet?" | Nope is used informally, normally during chat where you want to give a quick, fluid answer to a question without halting it like 'No' would.
They both mean the same thing, and 'Nope' is very rarely written. |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | From [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/59658/31820), they have no difference in meaning; but *nope* is more informal, only used in a sense of opposite to *yes* (or *yup*). Also, *nope* is not used often in writing.
You wouldn't say "there were nope errors", for example. | 'Nope' is a variant of 'no' (exclamation).
First known use: 1888 ([M-W](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nope#h1))
Phonologically, pronunciation can explain where the P came from.
Suppose someone asked you a question and you said 'No'. You'd usually pause after saying 'No' (exclamation) with your lips already positioned to articulate a P, that's why most people articulate a P. That's called *excrescent P*. (Sometimes producing a little puff of air is for emphasising 'no' while leaving it unreleased indicates lazy and sloppy speech.) |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | The first and most important point to note it that it's *very* informal (more so than using contractions such as my ***it's*** there, for example).
The main reason for using it at all stems from that "extreme informality". It normally conveys a *relaxed attitude* on the part of the speaker. Depending on context, it can be more *or* less emphatic than "No".
You only use *nope* to mean ***[my answer is] "No"*** – it never replaces *no* in any other contexts. And you wouldn't normally use it where you want to be *very* emphatic (shouting "No!" at the top of your voice). Which example illustrates a defining characteristic – "Nope" isn't often followed by an exclamation mark!
Finally, I'd echo [John Lawler's](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/59670/2637) words: *"nope" occurs **only as a one-word answer** to Y/N questions*. That's to say, a written form such as:
>
> "Nope I *don't* want to"
>
>
>
doesn't look right. We expect a full stop (or at the very least a comma) after "Nope" because in real-world speech there always would be a pause there. But that doesn't happen with:
>
> "No I *don't* want to!"
>
>
>
because it's perfectly possible to speak those words without pausing appreciably after "No" (without necessarily placing extra stress on *"don't"*, either; I just italicised it as one possible enunciation). | I think the context has a lot to do with how the word Nope is perceived:
1. Somebody asks you for something.
>
> - Will you do something for me?
> - Nope. << Rude
>
>
>
2. Somebody asks for information.
>
> - Is your name Sam?
> - Nope. << Playful / informal
>
>
>
Maybe the word Nope implies a casual, relaxed attitude, which in some cases may come off as dismissive. |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | In my opinion Nope is a dismissive and slightly rude version of no. Nope should never be used in a professional context e.g. it should never be used as an option for web site or search engine users to select as a response to a question, because it makes the company using it look un-professional and rude to their customers. The use of the word nope by Google and others makes me cringe so much that I will never click on it in response to a question. | I agree with the person who says that nope is dismissive and slightly rude and I would add that a text nope feels rude to the recipient. It feels like a "final" no. |
30 | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?
Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like *nope* is better to use than *no* even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | "Nope" is informal. You wouldn't usually want to use it, for example, answering questions for a job interview, but it would be an appropriate answer to a friend's question "Have you seen that movie yet?" | *Nope* is an informal variant of one of the meanings *No* which is:
>
> 3 : not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal (**e.g.** no, I'm not going)
>
> [Webster-Merriam](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no)
>
>
>
That is why, we can only use it for *Yes/No questions*. |
27,107 | I just had my 7 month old male cat neutered 4 days ago but now his sister has gone in heat and he is chasing and mounting her.
Since he is only newly fixed can he still get her pregnant?
Should I lock them away from each other? | 2020/02/17 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/27107",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/17356/"
] | He can impregnate her for a short period after neutering.
Separate them from each other at this early stage.
When a cat is neutered the testicles are removed, making the cat unable to create sperm. The residual sperm can still impregnate a female cat. A search shows different time frames for which this residual sperm can still be viable and impregnate a cat. The ASPCA suggests 30 days, Catster suggests a few days and another source suggested 6 weeks. If you ask your vet, they should give you direction about this.
As for the behaviours, it takes some time for these behaviours to settle down, but in such a young cat, it's likely they will.
[From Greencross Vets](https://www.greencrossvets.com.au/aftercare/dog-cat-desexing-aftercare/):
>
> ... Male cats must be separated from any females on heat for one week
> after the operation as there may still be viable sperm in their lower
> passages that cannot be removed by surgery. Only after this week has
> passed will male cats not be able to sire any kittens.
>
>
>
[From the ASPCA](https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/upload/images/caring-for-your-cat-or-dog-after-surgery-1.pdf):
>
> **Keep Your Pet Away from Other Animals.**
>
> Keep neutered males away from unspayed females. **Neutered males can get an unspayed female
> pregnant for up to 30 days after spay/neuter surgery.** Keep spayed
> females away from unneutered males who may wish to mount them. Animals
> returning from the Mobile Spay/Neuter Clinic may also smell different
> to other animals in the household. This can cause the animals to
> fight, so be prepared to keep your pets in separate areas for a few
> days following surgery
>
>
>
From [Catster](https://www.catster.com/lifestyle/can-freshly-neutered-males-still-impregnate-females-and-why-do-young-cats-suddenly-perish):
>
> ... After the testicles are removed, it takes several days for all of
> the residual sperm to clear out of the pipes. During this time, a
> freshly-neutered male cat can still impregnate females.
>
>
> It can take more than a week for the male’s testosterone levels to
> drop. During this time he will remain at increased risk of fighting,
> spraying, and engaging in other undesirable (from our point of view)
> behaviors.
>
>
> | Yes, a [neutered male cat can still get a female pregnant](https://learnaboutcat.com/can-a-neutered-male-cat-still-get-a-female-pregnant/). Your male cat's genital tract will still contain testosterone and sperm for **at least six weeks after neutering**. Therefore, he is still capable of impregnating female cats. If your male cat has recently been neutered, **you should keep it away from your female cat for almost 30 days.**
After being neutered, neutered cats will no longer produce sperm, so they won't engage in sexual activities. He also loses interest in mating because his testosterone levels are significantly diminished. |
63,092,165 | I have a very simple question that is essentially as stated in the title.
**When implementing a JWT authentication scheme that incorporates short-lived access tokens and longer term refresh tokens, should these two token types be signed with different secrets?**
I have been learning more about this authentication scheme recently and in my reading I didn't come across a strong opinion or conclusive answer to this question. Some brief Googling and searching Stack Overflow didn't produce any meaningful answers either.
Thank you for your time! | 2020/07/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/63092165",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13190130/"
] | **Answer:** No
**Why?**
2 tokens we're speaking of are
1. access token
2. refresh token
Cryptographically there is no upper-bound on key-usage that I'm aware of for either HMAC, RSA or ECDSA. So signing with the same key is totally reasonable to protect from [existential forgery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature_forgery).
However, if your access-token and refresh-token issuing endpoints are on separate servers, from a key-management security perspective you may wish to sign with different secrets to contain a compromise of one of the two secrets. | My intuition tells me to separate the secrets for the two tokens. But not because of security reasons. I mean, if on of the secrets leaks then you are done. And the attack surface is IMHO the same if there is one secret or two.
The reason for me to keep the secrets apart would be usability and error prevention. Developers sometimes tend to do stupid things, like mixing stuff. One day the developer will try to send a refresh token in place of an access token. If the secrets are different - the token will be simply rejected. If the secrets are the same - what happens next is beyond my imagination (so I would like to prevent this). |
63,092,165 | I have a very simple question that is essentially as stated in the title.
**When implementing a JWT authentication scheme that incorporates short-lived access tokens and longer term refresh tokens, should these two token types be signed with different secrets?**
I have been learning more about this authentication scheme recently and in my reading I didn't come across a strong opinion or conclusive answer to this question. Some brief Googling and searching Stack Overflow didn't produce any meaningful answers either.
Thank you for your time! | 2020/07/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/63092165",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13190130/"
] | **Answer:** No
**Why?**
2 tokens we're speaking of are
1. access token
2. refresh token
Cryptographically there is no upper-bound on key-usage that I'm aware of for either HMAC, RSA or ECDSA. So signing with the same key is totally reasonable to protect from [existential forgery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature_forgery).
However, if your access-token and refresh-token issuing endpoints are on separate servers, from a key-management security perspective you may wish to sign with different secrets to contain a compromise of one of the two secrets. | From cryptographic aspect I can agree with the accepted answer.
But one thing to think about is, that if you are using the same secret, you should care how you validate the refresh token. If you just check that the JWT is valid, one could send an access token as the refresh token and obtain a new access token from an previous valid access token.
So you should either use different secrets or care that you specify and validate a flag in the JWT body indicating if this is an access or refresh token. |
32,364 | I have seen the following argument in several places:
>
> Consciousness cannot be an illusion, and it surely exists.
>
>
> An illusion is perceiving something to be true when this something is not actually the case. "Perceiving" and "being conscious of" can be taken to be synonymous, so saying that consciousness is an illusion is a contradiction.
>
>
>
The argument is very strong as it relies on semantics.
**What is the first written philosophical account of this argument?** | 2016/02/24 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32364",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19486/"
] | 1) Taken your question literally: One does not need to argue that consciousness exists. Everybody when awake is conscious and experiences consciousness.
One can discuss whether every perception is a conscious perception. Because we know that humans can also be triggered by unconscious stimuli. This kind of stimulation is used by marketing mechanisms or by priming, applied in an experimental context of cognitive psychology.
2) Hence the question is not, whether consciousness exists. The questions are:
* How to define conscious mental processes and how to establish the border to unconscious processes?
* Why are some mental processes conscious while others are not? What is the function of conscious processes?
As an introduction I recommend *Koch, Christof: Consciousness - Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist.* (2012). Chapter III reviews some definitions of conscious processes, taken from different view points.
Whether a person is conscious or not and to which degree he is conscious can be derived from its behaviour. That’s a method used by paramedics using a checklist.
A more refined criterion to decide about the conscious state of a person is to check the activity of the neocortex and the thalamus.
A more philosophical definition of being conscious is to register how things seem to us (qualia).
In any case, conscious mental processes are restricted to the neocortex.
3) An early classification of states of consciousness is given by the Mandukya Upanishad from the beginning of the common era. The Mandukya Upanishad distinguishes four quarters of atman (= the self):
* Vaisvanara: “situated in the waking state, perceiving what is outside […]” (verse 3)
* Taijasa: “situated in the state of dream, perceiving what is inside […]” (verse 4)
* Prajna: “situated in the state of sleep – deep sleep is when a sleeping man entains no desires or sees no dreams […]” (verse 5)
* “They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what is outside, not even both together; not as a mass of perperceptions […]” (verse 7) | Anaxogoras, of Clyzomanae in Asia Minor, around 500 BC write of *nous* as an ordering force in the cosmos:
>
> B12: *Nous* is unlimited and self-ruling and has been mixed with no thing; but is alone itself, by itself ... and *nous* has control over all things that have soul, both the larger and the smaller; and *nous* controlled the whole revolution, so that it started to revolve in the beginning.
>
>
>
Roughly a century earlier, in Miletus, Thales had supposed (reported by Aristotle in *On the Soul*):
>
> all things have souls
>
>
>
In the scriptural corpus of Vedantic Philosophy, the [principal Upanishads](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muktik%C4%81) have a composition date around the turn of the 1st milleneum BCE; the *Eesha Upanishad*, has:
>
> The Self is one. Unmoving, it is swifter than the mind. The senses lag, but Self runs ahead. Unmoving it outruns pursuit. Out of Self comes the breath that is the life of all things.
>
>
>
and
>
> The Self is everywhere, without a body, without a shape, whole, pure, wise, all-knowing, far-shining, self-depending, all transcending; it assigns to every period, it's proper duty.
>
>
>
The Self, is sometimes translated as Consciousness; earlier translations had used soul, which had distinctly Christian overtones - which is possibly why Yeats opted for Self in the collaborative translation, excerpted above; (and possibly, the same artifact of translation is apparent in the translations of the Greek above). |
32,364 | I have seen the following argument in several places:
>
> Consciousness cannot be an illusion, and it surely exists.
>
>
> An illusion is perceiving something to be true when this something is not actually the case. "Perceiving" and "being conscious of" can be taken to be synonymous, so saying that consciousness is an illusion is a contradiction.
>
>
>
The argument is very strong as it relies on semantics.
**What is the first written philosophical account of this argument?** | 2016/02/24 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32364",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19486/"
] | Anaxogoras, of Clyzomanae in Asia Minor, around 500 BC write of *nous* as an ordering force in the cosmos:
>
> B12: *Nous* is unlimited and self-ruling and has been mixed with no thing; but is alone itself, by itself ... and *nous* has control over all things that have soul, both the larger and the smaller; and *nous* controlled the whole revolution, so that it started to revolve in the beginning.
>
>
>
Roughly a century earlier, in Miletus, Thales had supposed (reported by Aristotle in *On the Soul*):
>
> all things have souls
>
>
>
In the scriptural corpus of Vedantic Philosophy, the [principal Upanishads](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muktik%C4%81) have a composition date around the turn of the 1st milleneum BCE; the *Eesha Upanishad*, has:
>
> The Self is one. Unmoving, it is swifter than the mind. The senses lag, but Self runs ahead. Unmoving it outruns pursuit. Out of Self comes the breath that is the life of all things.
>
>
>
and
>
> The Self is everywhere, without a body, without a shape, whole, pure, wise, all-knowing, far-shining, self-depending, all transcending; it assigns to every period, it's proper duty.
>
>
>
The Self, is sometimes translated as Consciousness; earlier translations had used soul, which had distinctly Christian overtones - which is possibly why Yeats opted for Self in the collaborative translation, excerpted above; (and possibly, the same artifact of translation is apparent in the translations of the Greek above). | Upanishads are earlier recorded arguments on consciousness and other internal phenomena.
You can browse various translations of these scriptures in English.
P.S. It seems any reference to Indian Philosophies are getting negative voting on this site.
Edit: Aitareya Upanisad from the rigveda which is older than any given scripture.
An English translation of one of the Sloka:
>
> III-i-3: This One is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajapati; this is all these gods; and this is these five elements, viz. earth, air, space, water, fire; and this is all these (big creatures), together with the small ones, that are the procreators of others and referable in pairs – to wit, those that are born of eggs, of wombs, of moisture of the earth, viz. horses, cattle, men, elephants, and all the creatures that there are which move or fly and those which do not move. **All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.**
>
>
>
Here you guys can find numerous iterations of consciousness word.
Other Upanishad from Rigveda:
Aitareya
Atmabodha
Kaushitaki
Mudgala
Nirvana
Nadabindu
Akshamaya
Tripura
Bahvruka
Saubhagyalakshmi |
32,364 | I have seen the following argument in several places:
>
> Consciousness cannot be an illusion, and it surely exists.
>
>
> An illusion is perceiving something to be true when this something is not actually the case. "Perceiving" and "being conscious of" can be taken to be synonymous, so saying that consciousness is an illusion is a contradiction.
>
>
>
The argument is very strong as it relies on semantics.
**What is the first written philosophical account of this argument?** | 2016/02/24 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32364",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19486/"
] | 1) Taken your question literally: One does not need to argue that consciousness exists. Everybody when awake is conscious and experiences consciousness.
One can discuss whether every perception is a conscious perception. Because we know that humans can also be triggered by unconscious stimuli. This kind of stimulation is used by marketing mechanisms or by priming, applied in an experimental context of cognitive psychology.
2) Hence the question is not, whether consciousness exists. The questions are:
* How to define conscious mental processes and how to establish the border to unconscious processes?
* Why are some mental processes conscious while others are not? What is the function of conscious processes?
As an introduction I recommend *Koch, Christof: Consciousness - Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist.* (2012). Chapter III reviews some definitions of conscious processes, taken from different view points.
Whether a person is conscious or not and to which degree he is conscious can be derived from its behaviour. That’s a method used by paramedics using a checklist.
A more refined criterion to decide about the conscious state of a person is to check the activity of the neocortex and the thalamus.
A more philosophical definition of being conscious is to register how things seem to us (qualia).
In any case, conscious mental processes are restricted to the neocortex.
3) An early classification of states of consciousness is given by the Mandukya Upanishad from the beginning of the common era. The Mandukya Upanishad distinguishes four quarters of atman (= the self):
* Vaisvanara: “situated in the waking state, perceiving what is outside […]” (verse 3)
* Taijasa: “situated in the state of dream, perceiving what is inside […]” (verse 4)
* Prajna: “situated in the state of sleep – deep sleep is when a sleeping man entains no desires or sees no dreams […]” (verse 5)
* “They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what is outside, not even both together; not as a mass of perperceptions […]” (verse 7) | Upanishads would be the earliest. One of the *Mahavakyas* ('Great Sayings') of the Upanishads (there are 4 in total) is *Prajnanam Brahma* - Consciousness is Brahman. It appears in the *Aitareya Upanishad* III. i. 3. The *Aitareya Upanishad* is part of the *Rig Veda*, considered by many as the oldest Veda. Most consider the Vedas at least 1500 BC. Verses 2-3 says (Swami Nikhilananda translator):
>
> It is the heart and mind. It is [known in accordance with its different functions, as] consciousness, lordship, knowledge [of arts], wisdom, retentive power of mind, sense knowledge, steadfastness, thought, thoughtfulness, sorrow, memory, concepts, purpose, life, desire, longing [for sense-objects]: all these are but various names of Consciousness (Prajnanam).
>
>
> He is Brahman, He is Indra, He is Prajapati: He is all these gods; He is the five great elements--earth, air, akasa [space], water, light; He is all these small creatures and the others which are mixed [with them]; He is the origin [of the moving and unmoving]--those born of an egg, of a womb, of sweat, and of a sprout; He is horses, cows, human beings, elephants--whatever breathes here, whether moving on legs or flying in the air or unmoving. All this is guided by Consciousness (Prajnanam), is supported by Consciousness. The basis [of the universe] is Consciousness. Consciousness is Brahman.
>
>
> |
32,364 | I have seen the following argument in several places:
>
> Consciousness cannot be an illusion, and it surely exists.
>
>
> An illusion is perceiving something to be true when this something is not actually the case. "Perceiving" and "being conscious of" can be taken to be synonymous, so saying that consciousness is an illusion is a contradiction.
>
>
>
The argument is very strong as it relies on semantics.
**What is the first written philosophical account of this argument?** | 2016/02/24 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32364",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19486/"
] | Upanishads would be the earliest. One of the *Mahavakyas* ('Great Sayings') of the Upanishads (there are 4 in total) is *Prajnanam Brahma* - Consciousness is Brahman. It appears in the *Aitareya Upanishad* III. i. 3. The *Aitareya Upanishad* is part of the *Rig Veda*, considered by many as the oldest Veda. Most consider the Vedas at least 1500 BC. Verses 2-3 says (Swami Nikhilananda translator):
>
> It is the heart and mind. It is [known in accordance with its different functions, as] consciousness, lordship, knowledge [of arts], wisdom, retentive power of mind, sense knowledge, steadfastness, thought, thoughtfulness, sorrow, memory, concepts, purpose, life, desire, longing [for sense-objects]: all these are but various names of Consciousness (Prajnanam).
>
>
> He is Brahman, He is Indra, He is Prajapati: He is all these gods; He is the five great elements--earth, air, akasa [space], water, light; He is all these small creatures and the others which are mixed [with them]; He is the origin [of the moving and unmoving]--those born of an egg, of a womb, of sweat, and of a sprout; He is horses, cows, human beings, elephants--whatever breathes here, whether moving on legs or flying in the air or unmoving. All this is guided by Consciousness (Prajnanam), is supported by Consciousness. The basis [of the universe] is Consciousness. Consciousness is Brahman.
>
>
> | Upanishads are earlier recorded arguments on consciousness and other internal phenomena.
You can browse various translations of these scriptures in English.
P.S. It seems any reference to Indian Philosophies are getting negative voting on this site.
Edit: Aitareya Upanisad from the rigveda which is older than any given scripture.
An English translation of one of the Sloka:
>
> III-i-3: This One is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajapati; this is all these gods; and this is these five elements, viz. earth, air, space, water, fire; and this is all these (big creatures), together with the small ones, that are the procreators of others and referable in pairs – to wit, those that are born of eggs, of wombs, of moisture of the earth, viz. horses, cattle, men, elephants, and all the creatures that there are which move or fly and those which do not move. **All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.**
>
>
>
Here you guys can find numerous iterations of consciousness word.
Other Upanishad from Rigveda:
Aitareya
Atmabodha
Kaushitaki
Mudgala
Nirvana
Nadabindu
Akshamaya
Tripura
Bahvruka
Saubhagyalakshmi |
32,364 | I have seen the following argument in several places:
>
> Consciousness cannot be an illusion, and it surely exists.
>
>
> An illusion is perceiving something to be true when this something is not actually the case. "Perceiving" and "being conscious of" can be taken to be synonymous, so saying that consciousness is an illusion is a contradiction.
>
>
>
The argument is very strong as it relies on semantics.
**What is the first written philosophical account of this argument?** | 2016/02/24 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32364",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19486/"
] | 1) Taken your question literally: One does not need to argue that consciousness exists. Everybody when awake is conscious and experiences consciousness.
One can discuss whether every perception is a conscious perception. Because we know that humans can also be triggered by unconscious stimuli. This kind of stimulation is used by marketing mechanisms or by priming, applied in an experimental context of cognitive psychology.
2) Hence the question is not, whether consciousness exists. The questions are:
* How to define conscious mental processes and how to establish the border to unconscious processes?
* Why are some mental processes conscious while others are not? What is the function of conscious processes?
As an introduction I recommend *Koch, Christof: Consciousness - Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist.* (2012). Chapter III reviews some definitions of conscious processes, taken from different view points.
Whether a person is conscious or not and to which degree he is conscious can be derived from its behaviour. That’s a method used by paramedics using a checklist.
A more refined criterion to decide about the conscious state of a person is to check the activity of the neocortex and the thalamus.
A more philosophical definition of being conscious is to register how things seem to us (qualia).
In any case, conscious mental processes are restricted to the neocortex.
3) An early classification of states of consciousness is given by the Mandukya Upanishad from the beginning of the common era. The Mandukya Upanishad distinguishes four quarters of atman (= the self):
* Vaisvanara: “situated in the waking state, perceiving what is outside […]” (verse 3)
* Taijasa: “situated in the state of dream, perceiving what is inside […]” (verse 4)
* Prajna: “situated in the state of sleep – deep sleep is when a sleeping man entains no desires or sees no dreams […]” (verse 5)
* “They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what is outside, not even both together; not as a mass of perperceptions […]” (verse 7) | Upanishads are earlier recorded arguments on consciousness and other internal phenomena.
You can browse various translations of these scriptures in English.
P.S. It seems any reference to Indian Philosophies are getting negative voting on this site.
Edit: Aitareya Upanisad from the rigveda which is older than any given scripture.
An English translation of one of the Sloka:
>
> III-i-3: This One is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajapati; this is all these gods; and this is these five elements, viz. earth, air, space, water, fire; and this is all these (big creatures), together with the small ones, that are the procreators of others and referable in pairs – to wit, those that are born of eggs, of wombs, of moisture of the earth, viz. horses, cattle, men, elephants, and all the creatures that there are which move or fly and those which do not move. **All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.**
>
>
>
Here you guys can find numerous iterations of consciousness word.
Other Upanishad from Rigveda:
Aitareya
Atmabodha
Kaushitaki
Mudgala
Nirvana
Nadabindu
Akshamaya
Tripura
Bahvruka
Saubhagyalakshmi |
48,767,380 | We are using docker container for .net core. When we execute build command from window's power shell go the following error message:
hcsshim: timeout waiting for notification extra info
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/beoKn.png)
Here is our docker file:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yktbe.png) | 2018/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/48767380",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9167469/"
] | So I had this issue now for a couple of days and couldn't really pin point it down.
What did the trick for me was:
* Uninstalling docker
* Removing all docker folders
* Removing the windows features Containers and Hyper-v
* Restart
* Reinstall docker
* Let docker handle the Windows features
* Restart
And that's it... | I think in my case the fix was that I needed to run Windows Powershell in Admin mode. However following @halbherz's answer. I uninstalled docker for windows. Un-installation wasn't easy. For uninstalling I had to do following:
* First I tried to uninstall it using uninstaller which got stuck for
like forever in the end and nothing happened.
* I cancelled the uninstaller which was stuck.
* I deleted the contents of the folder C:\Program Files\Docker,
manually.
* Ran uninstaller again from Programs and Features which removed the
entry 'Docker for Windows' from my list of installed programs.
Further I downloaded docker for windows again. Re-installed it again. Ran Windows Powershell in admin mode. Deleted old image, pulled the image again. Tried creating container again and this time it ran successfully. |
48,767,380 | We are using docker container for .net core. When we execute build command from window's power shell go the following error message:
hcsshim: timeout waiting for notification extra info
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/beoKn.png)
Here is our docker file:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yktbe.png) | 2018/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/48767380",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9167469/"
] | So I had this issue now for a couple of days and couldn't really pin point it down.
What did the trick for me was:
* Uninstalling docker
* Removing all docker folders
* Removing the windows features Containers and Hyper-v
* Restart
* Reinstall docker
* Let docker handle the Windows features
* Restart
And that's it... | solution worked for me: (windows 10, windows containers)
1. uninstall hyper-v (windows features)
2. restart pc
3. install hyper-v (windows features)
4. restart pc
and it worked to build my container |
2,016,250 | I'm working on a Java password manager and I currently have all of the user's data, after being decrypted from a file, sitting around in memory at all times and stored plainly as a String for displaying in the UI etc.
Is this a security risk in any way? I'm particularly concerned with someone "dumping" or reading the computer's memory in some way and finding a user's naked data.
I've considered keeping all sensitive pieces of data (the passwords) encrypted and only decrypting each piece as needed and destroying thereafter... but I'd rather not go through and change a lot of code on a superstition. | 2010/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2016250",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/242405/"
] | If your adversary has the ability to run arbitrary code on your target machine (with the debug privileges required to dump a process image), you are all sorts of screwed.
If your adversary has the ability to read memory at a distance accurately (ie. [TEMPEST](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST)), you are all sorts of screwed.
Protect the data in transit and in storage (on the wire and on the disk), but don't worry\* about data in memory.
\*Ok, there are classes of programs that DO need to worry. 99.99% of all applications don't, I'm betting yours doesn't. | Yes it certainly is, especially since you quite trivially can debug an application. Most code dealing with encryption and unsafe data use char arrays instead of strings. By using char arrays, you can overwrite the memory with sensitive details, limiting the lifetime of the sensitive data. |
2,016,250 | I'm working on a Java password manager and I currently have all of the user's data, after being decrypted from a file, sitting around in memory at all times and stored plainly as a String for displaying in the UI etc.
Is this a security risk in any way? I'm particularly concerned with someone "dumping" or reading the computer's memory in some way and finding a user's naked data.
I've considered keeping all sensitive pieces of data (the passwords) encrypted and only decrypting each piece as needed and destroying thereafter... but I'd rather not go through and change a lot of code on a superstition. | 2010/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2016250",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/242405/"
] | If your adversary has the ability to run arbitrary code on your target machine (with the debug privileges required to dump a process image), you are all sorts of screwed.
If your adversary has the ability to read memory at a distance accurately (ie. [TEMPEST](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST)), you are all sorts of screwed.
Protect the data in transit and in storage (on the wire and on the disk), but don't worry\* about data in memory.
\*Ok, there are classes of programs that DO need to worry. 99.99% of all applications don't, I'm betting yours doesn't. | In theory, you cannot protect anything in memory completely. Some group out there managed to deep freeze the memory chips and read their contents 4 hours after the computer was turned off. Even without going to such lengths, a debugger and a breakpoint at just the right time will do the trick.
Practically though, just don't hold the plaintext in memory for longer than absolutely necessary. A determined enough attacker will get to it, but oh well. |
2,016,250 | I'm working on a Java password manager and I currently have all of the user's data, after being decrypted from a file, sitting around in memory at all times and stored plainly as a String for displaying in the UI etc.
Is this a security risk in any way? I'm particularly concerned with someone "dumping" or reading the computer's memory in some way and finding a user's naked data.
I've considered keeping all sensitive pieces of data (the passwords) encrypted and only decrypting each piece as needed and destroying thereafter... but I'd rather not go through and change a lot of code on a superstition. | 2010/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2016250",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/242405/"
] | If your adversary has the ability to run arbitrary code on your target machine (with the debug privileges required to dump a process image), you are all sorts of screwed.
If your adversary has the ability to read memory at a distance accurately (ie. [TEMPEST](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST)), you are all sorts of screwed.
Protect the data in transit and in storage (on the wire and on the disk), but don't worry\* about data in memory.
\*Ok, there are classes of programs that DO need to worry. 99.99% of all applications don't, I'm betting yours doesn't. | It is worth noting that the OS might decide to swap memory to disk, where it might remain for quite a while. Of course, reading the swap file requires strong priviledges, but who knows? The user's laptop might get stolen ... |
50,656 | Whenever I hear someone like, say, Daniel Dennett say that consciousness is an "illusion", I'm always left pretty much stumped. Firstly, both the terms "consciousness" and "illusion" are generally left undefined, although this is more apparent with the term "illusion". With this, I have to use the default definitions of these terms, "consciousness" being a somewhat self-explanatory "state of conscious awareness", and "illusion" being "a delusion of some sort". This is really where the main problem arises for me. How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original claim actively denies the existence of? Granted, this subject doesn't have to be an "I", but the denial of any decieved subject at all seems to negate the argument itself.
The other problem I have with the claim is that it seems to contradict the fairly self evident claim that, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks, therefore it is".
Is the claim really as nonsensical as it seems, or am I missing something big? Perhaps the definition of a term or multiple terms? | 2018/04/06 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50656",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I can't deny myself (the 'I' or the consciousness of being myself). Can you? If you say "Yes", you would never have asked your question. In other words, this question must be asked unconsciously. If you say "Yes" again, why can't you say the consciousness for asking this question is somewhere else? So....
**One can deny everything except consciousness (though actually it is Pure consciousness).**
But there is a chance for denial of consciousness until that person meets a great Guru. In other words, if he says so, that means he has never met such a person.
In short, I would say, if you try to weld the terms 'consciousness' and 'illusion' the latter burns completely without leaving out a sign of its 'particles'. Our sense organs will become useless after our death, so it cannot show you the 'real knowledge'. The real knowledge must be beyond all the knowledge acquired through our sense organs.
>
> How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept
> of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original
> claim actively denies the existence of?
>
>
>
In enlightenment, when the duality disappears, the observer, the observed and the act of observing all become one. Consciousness is not an illusion.
>
> Is there any coherent argument in support of consciousness being an
> illusion?
>
>
>
If there is one such argument, it must never be coherent.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_(consciousness)> | When I run across problematic statements of this sort, I always prefer to follow Wittgenstein and look for the error in language that lies behind it. This is precisely the kind of 'philosophy' he thought needed therapy more than analysis.
The first step in that Wittgensteinian therapy is to step back and consider what *purpose* this claim has in Dennett's worldview. I don't mean to ask what the claim *means*, per se. Instead, I want to think of this claim as a move in, say, an abstract, philosophical game of chess, and ask what line of progression this claim is meant to block, or what intellectual territory it is attempting to claim. Looked at that way, the purpose is almost self-evident: the concept of 'consciousness' — ill-defined as it is — has long been associated with metaphysical and religious concepts like God and the soul and moral behavior. Disposing of consciousness immediately undercuts a wide range of philosophical arguments from theology, moral philosophy, and social theory. Since Dennett's *raison d'être* has always been anti-Abrahamic anti-theism, this kind of claim makes perfect practical sense. Whether it makes *philosophical* sense is almost irrelevant, because the position is too useful to the ultimate goal of the intellectual contest to be given up without a fight. This is why he settles on the idea that consciousness is an 'illusion': he cannot deny that we experience something we call consciousness, so instead he tries to pry it away from any direct ontological referent and reconstruct it as an emergent phenomenon of interconnected organic systems.
Of course, this is just scientism: speculative philosophy based on an over-extension of scientific observations. 'Consciousness is an illusion' is no more empirically verifiable than 'consciousness is the product of a divine soul'. But even as mere scientism it creates enough ambiguity to undercut religious certainty on the matter, so it serves that purpose well.
The therapy in this case is to recognize that neither Dennett nor his opponents have any idea what consciousness *is*, but all acknowledge that the term points at *something*. The rest is merely wrangling over lexical issues: efforts to assert one formulation or another as *a priori* true. We can (if we choose) skip all that as contested territory, and move forward to actual substance of the game, which is over the sociopolitical balance of power between religious and secular segments of modern society. |
50,656 | Whenever I hear someone like, say, Daniel Dennett say that consciousness is an "illusion", I'm always left pretty much stumped. Firstly, both the terms "consciousness" and "illusion" are generally left undefined, although this is more apparent with the term "illusion". With this, I have to use the default definitions of these terms, "consciousness" being a somewhat self-explanatory "state of conscious awareness", and "illusion" being "a delusion of some sort". This is really where the main problem arises for me. How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original claim actively denies the existence of? Granted, this subject doesn't have to be an "I", but the denial of any decieved subject at all seems to negate the argument itself.
The other problem I have with the claim is that it seems to contradict the fairly self evident claim that, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks, therefore it is".
Is the claim really as nonsensical as it seems, or am I missing something big? Perhaps the definition of a term or multiple terms? | 2018/04/06 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50656",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I can't deny myself (the 'I' or the consciousness of being myself). Can you? If you say "Yes", you would never have asked your question. In other words, this question must be asked unconsciously. If you say "Yes" again, why can't you say the consciousness for asking this question is somewhere else? So....
**One can deny everything except consciousness (though actually it is Pure consciousness).**
But there is a chance for denial of consciousness until that person meets a great Guru. In other words, if he says so, that means he has never met such a person.
In short, I would say, if you try to weld the terms 'consciousness' and 'illusion' the latter burns completely without leaving out a sign of its 'particles'. Our sense organs will become useless after our death, so it cannot show you the 'real knowledge'. The real knowledge must be beyond all the knowledge acquired through our sense organs.
>
> How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept
> of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original
> claim actively denies the existence of?
>
>
>
In enlightenment, when the duality disappears, the observer, the observed and the act of observing all become one. Consciousness is not an illusion.
>
> Is there any coherent argument in support of consciousness being an
> illusion?
>
>
>
If there is one such argument, it must never be coherent.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_(consciousness)> | Your scepticism of Dennett is well-grounded. Claims similar to Dennetts were given by Skinner under the rubric of behavioral psychology where one supposed thinking things (*res cogitans*) were merely things, that is automatons, and one was not supposed to ask a man about his inner self, his *telos* or his intentions, or indeed how things were going with him, as one was supposed to merely observe his actions, his gestures, his attitudes and then tell him truly how things were going with him, his intentions, his purposes.
These claims were blown apart by Chomsky who pointed out the chicanery of supposing human beings were to be studied as though they were merely objects of the disinterested scientific gaze - like rocks or laboratory rats. The chicanery goes deeper as it also sullies the good name of science by a methodology that simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Likewise Dennett is sullying the good name of philosophy by dogmatically flogging a dead thought to a coterie of admirers who should know better - but don't - and to a larger audience who do know better but are cowed or over-awed by his linguistic gymnastics.
Every language under the sun has the word 'I'. Self-awareness, self-consciousness exists. It's not an illusion. The only illusion here is that Dennett is doing good philosophy when he's doing bad philosophy. |
50,656 | Whenever I hear someone like, say, Daniel Dennett say that consciousness is an "illusion", I'm always left pretty much stumped. Firstly, both the terms "consciousness" and "illusion" are generally left undefined, although this is more apparent with the term "illusion". With this, I have to use the default definitions of these terms, "consciousness" being a somewhat self-explanatory "state of conscious awareness", and "illusion" being "a delusion of some sort". This is really where the main problem arises for me. How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original claim actively denies the existence of? Granted, this subject doesn't have to be an "I", but the denial of any decieved subject at all seems to negate the argument itself.
The other problem I have with the claim is that it seems to contradict the fairly self evident claim that, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks, therefore it is".
Is the claim really as nonsensical as it seems, or am I missing something big? Perhaps the definition of a term or multiple terms? | 2018/04/06 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50656",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | This phrasing is used by different philosophers for different purposes, so one must take the phrase in context. However, in general, it is used in reference to the idea that consciousness is a thing which is separable from other things.
Denett argues that consciousness does not exist except as an image which describes the interplay of events within the brain. I use the word image here to avoid the loaded term "illusion." The key factor here is that the image is a depiction of the thing rather than the thing itself. Denett would argue that if one were to take this image and look for it in the real world, we would not find it. Instead we would find the interplay of events in the brain. In this sense, I might argue that his position is that consciousness is to reality as the number 1 is to the series {1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 15/16, ...}. It could be viewed as a limit were the process to be continued, but it never actually reaches that point. In his view, the reality never quite reaches the vaunted concept we call consciousness.
In this sense, the word illusion is chosen for pragmatic reasons. It instills the correct imagery in the minds of those who believe consciousness exists. For those who agree with Denett, the word must naturally shift meaning, for there is no consciousness to ascribe meaning to the word "illusion." There may be a self-consistent viewpoint regarding how the brain *really* works such that that phrase is interpreted correctly, but Denett may not call this out with extra words.
Other philosophers have used this concept for other reasons. Alan Watts, for instance, argues that no self is truly isolated from its environment. According to him, there is no consciousness which can be isolated from its environment and pointed at to say "this is a consciousness." He argues that "for every inside there is an outside." Thus there is no consciousness outside or isolated from its environment. | When I run across problematic statements of this sort, I always prefer to follow Wittgenstein and look for the error in language that lies behind it. This is precisely the kind of 'philosophy' he thought needed therapy more than analysis.
The first step in that Wittgensteinian therapy is to step back and consider what *purpose* this claim has in Dennett's worldview. I don't mean to ask what the claim *means*, per se. Instead, I want to think of this claim as a move in, say, an abstract, philosophical game of chess, and ask what line of progression this claim is meant to block, or what intellectual territory it is attempting to claim. Looked at that way, the purpose is almost self-evident: the concept of 'consciousness' — ill-defined as it is — has long been associated with metaphysical and religious concepts like God and the soul and moral behavior. Disposing of consciousness immediately undercuts a wide range of philosophical arguments from theology, moral philosophy, and social theory. Since Dennett's *raison d'être* has always been anti-Abrahamic anti-theism, this kind of claim makes perfect practical sense. Whether it makes *philosophical* sense is almost irrelevant, because the position is too useful to the ultimate goal of the intellectual contest to be given up without a fight. This is why he settles on the idea that consciousness is an 'illusion': he cannot deny that we experience something we call consciousness, so instead he tries to pry it away from any direct ontological referent and reconstruct it as an emergent phenomenon of interconnected organic systems.
Of course, this is just scientism: speculative philosophy based on an over-extension of scientific observations. 'Consciousness is an illusion' is no more empirically verifiable than 'consciousness is the product of a divine soul'. But even as mere scientism it creates enough ambiguity to undercut religious certainty on the matter, so it serves that purpose well.
The therapy in this case is to recognize that neither Dennett nor his opponents have any idea what consciousness *is*, but all acknowledge that the term points at *something*. The rest is merely wrangling over lexical issues: efforts to assert one formulation or another as *a priori* true. We can (if we choose) skip all that as contested territory, and move forward to actual substance of the game, which is over the sociopolitical balance of power between religious and secular segments of modern society. |
50,656 | Whenever I hear someone like, say, Daniel Dennett say that consciousness is an "illusion", I'm always left pretty much stumped. Firstly, both the terms "consciousness" and "illusion" are generally left undefined, although this is more apparent with the term "illusion". With this, I have to use the default definitions of these terms, "consciousness" being a somewhat self-explanatory "state of conscious awareness", and "illusion" being "a delusion of some sort". This is really where the main problem arises for me. How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original claim actively denies the existence of? Granted, this subject doesn't have to be an "I", but the denial of any decieved subject at all seems to negate the argument itself.
The other problem I have with the claim is that it seems to contradict the fairly self evident claim that, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks, therefore it is".
Is the claim really as nonsensical as it seems, or am I missing something big? Perhaps the definition of a term or multiple terms? | 2018/04/06 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50656",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | This phrasing is used by different philosophers for different purposes, so one must take the phrase in context. However, in general, it is used in reference to the idea that consciousness is a thing which is separable from other things.
Denett argues that consciousness does not exist except as an image which describes the interplay of events within the brain. I use the word image here to avoid the loaded term "illusion." The key factor here is that the image is a depiction of the thing rather than the thing itself. Denett would argue that if one were to take this image and look for it in the real world, we would not find it. Instead we would find the interplay of events in the brain. In this sense, I might argue that his position is that consciousness is to reality as the number 1 is to the series {1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 15/16, ...}. It could be viewed as a limit were the process to be continued, but it never actually reaches that point. In his view, the reality never quite reaches the vaunted concept we call consciousness.
In this sense, the word illusion is chosen for pragmatic reasons. It instills the correct imagery in the minds of those who believe consciousness exists. For those who agree with Denett, the word must naturally shift meaning, for there is no consciousness to ascribe meaning to the word "illusion." There may be a self-consistent viewpoint regarding how the brain *really* works such that that phrase is interpreted correctly, but Denett may not call this out with extra words.
Other philosophers have used this concept for other reasons. Alan Watts, for instance, argues that no self is truly isolated from its environment. According to him, there is no consciousness which can be isolated from its environment and pointed at to say "this is a consciousness." He argues that "for every inside there is an outside." Thus there is no consciousness outside or isolated from its environment. | Your scepticism of Dennett is well-grounded. Claims similar to Dennetts were given by Skinner under the rubric of behavioral psychology where one supposed thinking things (*res cogitans*) were merely things, that is automatons, and one was not supposed to ask a man about his inner self, his *telos* or his intentions, or indeed how things were going with him, as one was supposed to merely observe his actions, his gestures, his attitudes and then tell him truly how things were going with him, his intentions, his purposes.
These claims were blown apart by Chomsky who pointed out the chicanery of supposing human beings were to be studied as though they were merely objects of the disinterested scientific gaze - like rocks or laboratory rats. The chicanery goes deeper as it also sullies the good name of science by a methodology that simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Likewise Dennett is sullying the good name of philosophy by dogmatically flogging a dead thought to a coterie of admirers who should know better - but don't - and to a larger audience who do know better but are cowed or over-awed by his linguistic gymnastics.
Every language under the sun has the word 'I'. Self-awareness, self-consciousness exists. It's not an illusion. The only illusion here is that Dennett is doing good philosophy when he's doing bad philosophy. |
50,656 | Whenever I hear someone like, say, Daniel Dennett say that consciousness is an "illusion", I'm always left pretty much stumped. Firstly, both the terms "consciousness" and "illusion" are generally left undefined, although this is more apparent with the term "illusion". With this, I have to use the default definitions of these terms, "consciousness" being a somewhat self-explanatory "state of conscious awareness", and "illusion" being "a delusion of some sort". This is really where the main problem arises for me. How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original claim actively denies the existence of? Granted, this subject doesn't have to be an "I", but the denial of any decieved subject at all seems to negate the argument itself.
The other problem I have with the claim is that it seems to contradict the fairly self evident claim that, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks, therefore it is".
Is the claim really as nonsensical as it seems, or am I missing something big? Perhaps the definition of a term or multiple terms? | 2018/04/06 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50656",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | >
> From Google:
>
>
> il·lu·sion
>
>
> noun
>
>
> 1. a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses
> 2. a deceptive appearance or impression
> 3. a false idea or belief.
>
>
>
Daniel Dennett in *Consciousness Explained* lays out his argument for how consciousness is illusory by starting with debunking [Cartesian duality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism) and concluding with an assessment of Searle's [*Chinese Room*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) and addressing Nagel's [*What is it Like to Be a Bat?*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F) among others. Obviously any characterization of argument made over 450 pages reduced to a few paragraphs would be liable to be misleading, however:
What Dennett highlights in his book is that the uniformity of the conscious experience (what is known as the [phenomenological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy))) is itself a composition of many distinct processes that can be teased apart in [heterophenomenolgical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology) discourse. This is nothing more than what might be characterized as people sharing and reasoning through their experience as a group presuming that an individual's experience is not authoritative. This is, of course, is an accepted tenet in legal or scientific reasoning.
In fact, what Dennett repeatedly does throughout the book is to show how science, be it that of psychology or computers, shows that the human brain is composed of many subsystems that can be reasonably understood as a computer. Using these facts, he then makes an argument that subjective experience is actually a composition that doesn't neatly align with physical reality, but is rather a construction that resembles a [virtual machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine) and that entities, properties, and relationships as traditionally perceived in philosophy fall short. He uses color as a prime example.
"Objects" don't have colors. The sky, for instance, isn't really blue. The "blueness" of the "sky" is an illusion, because "blueness" and "sky" as our subjective experience is concerned are constructions of the mind. This is not to say that EM waves don't have wavelengths, or that the "sky" isn't the atmosphere as we understand it heterophenomenologically, but rather our phenomenological experience isn't what reality is. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson call these "transactional properties", which are understood to be neurocomputational structures which associate the physical with the mental. (See [*Philosophy in the Flesh*](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0465056741).)
It's a well accepted fact that your conscious experience is vulnerable to illusion, confabulation, bias, fallacy, and deception from others. To claim that consciousness is an illusion is merely to concede these, and provide a philosophy of mind that is compatible with [materialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) and [physicalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) thinking. In essence, to claim consciousness is an illusion is merely an attempt to reduce the qualia and a holistic interpretation of subjectivity to intersubjective and reproducible processes. It's an attempt of those with [positivist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism) and [analytical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy) roots philosophically to create an [operational definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition) as other people's awareness is not directly accessible by our own (as per the [problem of other minds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds)). | When I run across problematic statements of this sort, I always prefer to follow Wittgenstein and look for the error in language that lies behind it. This is precisely the kind of 'philosophy' he thought needed therapy more than analysis.
The first step in that Wittgensteinian therapy is to step back and consider what *purpose* this claim has in Dennett's worldview. I don't mean to ask what the claim *means*, per se. Instead, I want to think of this claim as a move in, say, an abstract, philosophical game of chess, and ask what line of progression this claim is meant to block, or what intellectual territory it is attempting to claim. Looked at that way, the purpose is almost self-evident: the concept of 'consciousness' — ill-defined as it is — has long been associated with metaphysical and religious concepts like God and the soul and moral behavior. Disposing of consciousness immediately undercuts a wide range of philosophical arguments from theology, moral philosophy, and social theory. Since Dennett's *raison d'être* has always been anti-Abrahamic anti-theism, this kind of claim makes perfect practical sense. Whether it makes *philosophical* sense is almost irrelevant, because the position is too useful to the ultimate goal of the intellectual contest to be given up without a fight. This is why he settles on the idea that consciousness is an 'illusion': he cannot deny that we experience something we call consciousness, so instead he tries to pry it away from any direct ontological referent and reconstruct it as an emergent phenomenon of interconnected organic systems.
Of course, this is just scientism: speculative philosophy based on an over-extension of scientific observations. 'Consciousness is an illusion' is no more empirically verifiable than 'consciousness is the product of a divine soul'. But even as mere scientism it creates enough ambiguity to undercut religious certainty on the matter, so it serves that purpose well.
The therapy in this case is to recognize that neither Dennett nor his opponents have any idea what consciousness *is*, but all acknowledge that the term points at *something*. The rest is merely wrangling over lexical issues: efforts to assert one formulation or another as *a priori* true. We can (if we choose) skip all that as contested territory, and move forward to actual substance of the game, which is over the sociopolitical balance of power between religious and secular segments of modern society. |
50,656 | Whenever I hear someone like, say, Daniel Dennett say that consciousness is an "illusion", I'm always left pretty much stumped. Firstly, both the terms "consciousness" and "illusion" are generally left undefined, although this is more apparent with the term "illusion". With this, I have to use the default definitions of these terms, "consciousness" being a somewhat self-explanatory "state of conscious awareness", and "illusion" being "a delusion of some sort". This is really where the main problem arises for me. How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original claim actively denies the existence of? Granted, this subject doesn't have to be an "I", but the denial of any decieved subject at all seems to negate the argument itself.
The other problem I have with the claim is that it seems to contradict the fairly self evident claim that, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks, therefore it is".
Is the claim really as nonsensical as it seems, or am I missing something big? Perhaps the definition of a term or multiple terms? | 2018/04/06 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50656",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | >
> From Google:
>
>
> il·lu·sion
>
>
> noun
>
>
> 1. a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses
> 2. a deceptive appearance or impression
> 3. a false idea or belief.
>
>
>
Daniel Dennett in *Consciousness Explained* lays out his argument for how consciousness is illusory by starting with debunking [Cartesian duality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism) and concluding with an assessment of Searle's [*Chinese Room*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) and addressing Nagel's [*What is it Like to Be a Bat?*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F) among others. Obviously any characterization of argument made over 450 pages reduced to a few paragraphs would be liable to be misleading, however:
What Dennett highlights in his book is that the uniformity of the conscious experience (what is known as the [phenomenological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy))) is itself a composition of many distinct processes that can be teased apart in [heterophenomenolgical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology) discourse. This is nothing more than what might be characterized as people sharing and reasoning through their experience as a group presuming that an individual's experience is not authoritative. This is, of course, is an accepted tenet in legal or scientific reasoning.
In fact, what Dennett repeatedly does throughout the book is to show how science, be it that of psychology or computers, shows that the human brain is composed of many subsystems that can be reasonably understood as a computer. Using these facts, he then makes an argument that subjective experience is actually a composition that doesn't neatly align with physical reality, but is rather a construction that resembles a [virtual machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine) and that entities, properties, and relationships as traditionally perceived in philosophy fall short. He uses color as a prime example.
"Objects" don't have colors. The sky, for instance, isn't really blue. The "blueness" of the "sky" is an illusion, because "blueness" and "sky" as our subjective experience is concerned are constructions of the mind. This is not to say that EM waves don't have wavelengths, or that the "sky" isn't the atmosphere as we understand it heterophenomenologically, but rather our phenomenological experience isn't what reality is. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson call these "transactional properties", which are understood to be neurocomputational structures which associate the physical with the mental. (See [*Philosophy in the Flesh*](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0465056741).)
It's a well accepted fact that your conscious experience is vulnerable to illusion, confabulation, bias, fallacy, and deception from others. To claim that consciousness is an illusion is merely to concede these, and provide a philosophy of mind that is compatible with [materialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) and [physicalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) thinking. In essence, to claim consciousness is an illusion is merely an attempt to reduce the qualia and a holistic interpretation of subjectivity to intersubjective and reproducible processes. It's an attempt of those with [positivist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism) and [analytical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy) roots philosophically to create an [operational definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition) as other people's awareness is not directly accessible by our own (as per the [problem of other minds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds)). | Your scepticism of Dennett is well-grounded. Claims similar to Dennetts were given by Skinner under the rubric of behavioral psychology where one supposed thinking things (*res cogitans*) were merely things, that is automatons, and one was not supposed to ask a man about his inner self, his *telos* or his intentions, or indeed how things were going with him, as one was supposed to merely observe his actions, his gestures, his attitudes and then tell him truly how things were going with him, his intentions, his purposes.
These claims were blown apart by Chomsky who pointed out the chicanery of supposing human beings were to be studied as though they were merely objects of the disinterested scientific gaze - like rocks or laboratory rats. The chicanery goes deeper as it also sullies the good name of science by a methodology that simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Likewise Dennett is sullying the good name of philosophy by dogmatically flogging a dead thought to a coterie of admirers who should know better - but don't - and to a larger audience who do know better but are cowed or over-awed by his linguistic gymnastics.
Every language under the sun has the word 'I'. Self-awareness, self-consciousness exists. It's not an illusion. The only illusion here is that Dennett is doing good philosophy when he's doing bad philosophy. |
50,656 | Whenever I hear someone like, say, Daniel Dennett say that consciousness is an "illusion", I'm always left pretty much stumped. Firstly, both the terms "consciousness" and "illusion" are generally left undefined, although this is more apparent with the term "illusion". With this, I have to use the default definitions of these terms, "consciousness" being a somewhat self-explanatory "state of conscious awareness", and "illusion" being "a delusion of some sort". This is really where the main problem arises for me. How can one claim that consciousness is an illusion when the concept of "illusion" requires a subject to be deluded, which the original claim actively denies the existence of? Granted, this subject doesn't have to be an "I", but the denial of any decieved subject at all seems to negate the argument itself.
The other problem I have with the claim is that it seems to contradict the fairly self evident claim that, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks, therefore it is".
Is the claim really as nonsensical as it seems, or am I missing something big? Perhaps the definition of a term or multiple terms? | 2018/04/06 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50656",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Your scepticism of Dennett is well-grounded. Claims similar to Dennetts were given by Skinner under the rubric of behavioral psychology where one supposed thinking things (*res cogitans*) were merely things, that is automatons, and one was not supposed to ask a man about his inner self, his *telos* or his intentions, or indeed how things were going with him, as one was supposed to merely observe his actions, his gestures, his attitudes and then tell him truly how things were going with him, his intentions, his purposes.
These claims were blown apart by Chomsky who pointed out the chicanery of supposing human beings were to be studied as though they were merely objects of the disinterested scientific gaze - like rocks or laboratory rats. The chicanery goes deeper as it also sullies the good name of science by a methodology that simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Likewise Dennett is sullying the good name of philosophy by dogmatically flogging a dead thought to a coterie of admirers who should know better - but don't - and to a larger audience who do know better but are cowed or over-awed by his linguistic gymnastics.
Every language under the sun has the word 'I'. Self-awareness, self-consciousness exists. It's not an illusion. The only illusion here is that Dennett is doing good philosophy when he's doing bad philosophy. | When I run across problematic statements of this sort, I always prefer to follow Wittgenstein and look for the error in language that lies behind it. This is precisely the kind of 'philosophy' he thought needed therapy more than analysis.
The first step in that Wittgensteinian therapy is to step back and consider what *purpose* this claim has in Dennett's worldview. I don't mean to ask what the claim *means*, per se. Instead, I want to think of this claim as a move in, say, an abstract, philosophical game of chess, and ask what line of progression this claim is meant to block, or what intellectual territory it is attempting to claim. Looked at that way, the purpose is almost self-evident: the concept of 'consciousness' — ill-defined as it is — has long been associated with metaphysical and religious concepts like God and the soul and moral behavior. Disposing of consciousness immediately undercuts a wide range of philosophical arguments from theology, moral philosophy, and social theory. Since Dennett's *raison d'être* has always been anti-Abrahamic anti-theism, this kind of claim makes perfect practical sense. Whether it makes *philosophical* sense is almost irrelevant, because the position is too useful to the ultimate goal of the intellectual contest to be given up without a fight. This is why he settles on the idea that consciousness is an 'illusion': he cannot deny that we experience something we call consciousness, so instead he tries to pry it away from any direct ontological referent and reconstruct it as an emergent phenomenon of interconnected organic systems.
Of course, this is just scientism: speculative philosophy based on an over-extension of scientific observations. 'Consciousness is an illusion' is no more empirically verifiable than 'consciousness is the product of a divine soul'. But even as mere scientism it creates enough ambiguity to undercut religious certainty on the matter, so it serves that purpose well.
The therapy in this case is to recognize that neither Dennett nor his opponents have any idea what consciousness *is*, but all acknowledge that the term points at *something*. The rest is merely wrangling over lexical issues: efforts to assert one formulation or another as *a priori* true. We can (if we choose) skip all that as contested territory, and move forward to actual substance of the game, which is over the sociopolitical balance of power between religious and secular segments of modern society. |
3,704 | I am making something for outdoor use and I've painted it with a matte exterior latex paint. I'm satisfied with the protection that the paint will offer but I'm experimenting with ways to make it look nicer.
Right now I am considering glossy finishes. I have found that I much prefer the appearance and texture of shellac (de-waxed) to a high gloss spar urethane.
I don't really need good scratch resistance for this particular piece, and the paint should protect the wood enough from moisture and sunlight.
I'm also not too concerned about color changes over time as long as it is uniform. The paint is just brown, and maintaining the precise brown isn't super important.
My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice. Should I expect flaking? Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)? Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance? If it does get grimy, will it be prone to staining (with polyurethane a good wipe down with an all purpose cleaner takes care of it)?
I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves. | 2016/03/21 | [
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/questions/3704",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/users/1250/"
] | >
> My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice.
>
>
>
I'm going to reference [this thread](https://advice.thisoldhouse.com/showthread.php?8804-Urethane-over-Shellac-Shellac-over-Urethane-Shellac-outside) at This Old House for some of these answers.
>
> Should I expect flaking?
>
>
>
Yep. Shellac will trap moisture under the finish, which will cause the finish itself to bubble, flake, and peel over time.
>
> Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)?
>
>
>
Yep and yep. Besides the aforementioned issues with flaking/peeling, shellac does not like getting wet. If you've ever left a hot or a sweating beverage on a bare shellac-ed wood surface, you've seen the dreaded ring in the finish. Now imagine that, but all over, and most likely non-uniform. The clouding eventually disappears (or lessens), but that takes a while of non-wet conditions and low enough humidity or high enough heat to make it happen.
>
> Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance?
>
>
>
Varnishes (and other varnish-like finishes) just don't hold up well outdoors. The constant battering by UV rays and weather wreaks havoc on the film, which requires quite frequent maintenance to keep in anything resembling decent shape.
>
> I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves.
>
>
>
If you don't want to waste your time further down the road reapplying finish, I'd bite the bullet and get the correct product *now*. | Shellac doesn't do well with water, that's your starting point here. It's also relatively brittle and with the expected movement in the wood you're likely to see problems with cracking.
Bonding to the paint shouldn't be an issue initially at least, the perceived wisdom is that "shellac sticks to everything and everything sticks to shellac" and while that's a bit of an exaggeration it should bond very well to just about any paint. But you may see the paint shucking it off after multiple cycles of swelling and contraction.
The main objection of course might be shellac's well-known issue of clouding when exposed to water.
>
> I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves.
>
>
>
I would suggest you try thinned varnish. It's not inherently a bad idea to coat paint with varnish, it's actually done more commonly that we tend to think although this is for interior projects. However, there is a potential problem here in that you'd probably want to use spar varnish (specifically formulated to be more flexible than regular varnishes) but this is noticeably yellow or amber and could give too much of a colour change for your liking, even if applied in 2-3 thin coats. |
3,704 | I am making something for outdoor use and I've painted it with a matte exterior latex paint. I'm satisfied with the protection that the paint will offer but I'm experimenting with ways to make it look nicer.
Right now I am considering glossy finishes. I have found that I much prefer the appearance and texture of shellac (de-waxed) to a high gloss spar urethane.
I don't really need good scratch resistance for this particular piece, and the paint should protect the wood enough from moisture and sunlight.
I'm also not too concerned about color changes over time as long as it is uniform. The paint is just brown, and maintaining the precise brown isn't super important.
My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice. Should I expect flaking? Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)? Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance? If it does get grimy, will it be prone to staining (with polyurethane a good wipe down with an all purpose cleaner takes care of it)?
I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves. | 2016/03/21 | [
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/questions/3704",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/users/1250/"
] | >
> My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice.
>
>
>
I'm going to reference [this thread](https://advice.thisoldhouse.com/showthread.php?8804-Urethane-over-Shellac-Shellac-over-Urethane-Shellac-outside) at This Old House for some of these answers.
>
> Should I expect flaking?
>
>
>
Yep. Shellac will trap moisture under the finish, which will cause the finish itself to bubble, flake, and peel over time.
>
> Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)?
>
>
>
Yep and yep. Besides the aforementioned issues with flaking/peeling, shellac does not like getting wet. If you've ever left a hot or a sweating beverage on a bare shellac-ed wood surface, you've seen the dreaded ring in the finish. Now imagine that, but all over, and most likely non-uniform. The clouding eventually disappears (or lessens), but that takes a while of non-wet conditions and low enough humidity or high enough heat to make it happen.
>
> Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance?
>
>
>
Varnishes (and other varnish-like finishes) just don't hold up well outdoors. The constant battering by UV rays and weather wreaks havoc on the film, which requires quite frequent maintenance to keep in anything resembling decent shape.
>
> I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves.
>
>
>
If you don't want to waste your time further down the road reapplying finish, I'd bite the bullet and get the correct product *now*. | Shellac is perhaps the worst choice for the outdoor use. If you ever set a wet glass on shellac finished furniture, you'll notice a white ring. Water softens shellac and overtime it will wear away from the surface. When it softens with water, it has a tacky feel which is a magnet for dust. When it dries, any dust or dirt essentially glues to it.
The lowest cost solution, is to just leave the paint as is and reapply it when it looks weathered. If the paint you're using is a good quality latex paint, it won't crack and flake off.
If you want a very durable and relatively inexpensive solution, get some polyurethane (preferably water-based, since it doesn't darken the color) and wipe or brush it on. |
3,704 | I am making something for outdoor use and I've painted it with a matte exterior latex paint. I'm satisfied with the protection that the paint will offer but I'm experimenting with ways to make it look nicer.
Right now I am considering glossy finishes. I have found that I much prefer the appearance and texture of shellac (de-waxed) to a high gloss spar urethane.
I don't really need good scratch resistance for this particular piece, and the paint should protect the wood enough from moisture and sunlight.
I'm also not too concerned about color changes over time as long as it is uniform. The paint is just brown, and maintaining the precise brown isn't super important.
My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice. Should I expect flaking? Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)? Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance? If it does get grimy, will it be prone to staining (with polyurethane a good wipe down with an all purpose cleaner takes care of it)?
I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves. | 2016/03/21 | [
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/questions/3704",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/users/1250/"
] | >
> My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice.
>
>
>
I'm going to reference [this thread](https://advice.thisoldhouse.com/showthread.php?8804-Urethane-over-Shellac-Shellac-over-Urethane-Shellac-outside) at This Old House for some of these answers.
>
> Should I expect flaking?
>
>
>
Yep. Shellac will trap moisture under the finish, which will cause the finish itself to bubble, flake, and peel over time.
>
> Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)?
>
>
>
Yep and yep. Besides the aforementioned issues with flaking/peeling, shellac does not like getting wet. If you've ever left a hot or a sweating beverage on a bare shellac-ed wood surface, you've seen the dreaded ring in the finish. Now imagine that, but all over, and most likely non-uniform. The clouding eventually disappears (or lessens), but that takes a while of non-wet conditions and low enough humidity or high enough heat to make it happen.
>
> Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance?
>
>
>
Varnishes (and other varnish-like finishes) just don't hold up well outdoors. The constant battering by UV rays and weather wreaks havoc on the film, which requires quite frequent maintenance to keep in anything resembling decent shape.
>
> I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves.
>
>
>
If you don't want to waste your time further down the road reapplying finish, I'd bite the bullet and get the correct product *now*. | I've wondered this and done some experimentation myself. Shellac is the most beautiful finish, IMO, and non-toxic, natural, has character, etc--so of course I would like to use it. The answer is not so simple. The clear sanding-sealer and "clear" slightly colored shellacs are not good for outdoors. I tried it on my deck and the sanding sealer clouded. However then I used an amber shellac and it looked great, it didn't cloud much and over time flaked off. However I felt it might be too slick for a deck. Then I read that canoe builders use the amber shellac on the bottom of their boats--so yes the darker kind with wax is used in water. I finished a bannister in it and it flaked off after a year or two, but looked good. Most recently I just mixed some amber shellac with linseed oil. It looks good in an antique way but not quite as good as shellac alone perhaps. Old time spar varnish I've heard was made by mixing shellac plus linseed for flexibility. I suspect the linseed was heated to a high (450+?) degrees so that the shellac polymerized. I suspect this because this is how music instrument varnish is made--at that temperature certain changes occur which make it tougher I think. If you're going to try that, make sure you use all adequate precautions and common sense and research about heating hot oil. I didn't heat, I just mixed some tried and true linseed oil with amber shellac.In my imagination there is a perfect outdoor formula with shellac. |
3,704 | I am making something for outdoor use and I've painted it with a matte exterior latex paint. I'm satisfied with the protection that the paint will offer but I'm experimenting with ways to make it look nicer.
Right now I am considering glossy finishes. I have found that I much prefer the appearance and texture of shellac (de-waxed) to a high gloss spar urethane.
I don't really need good scratch resistance for this particular piece, and the paint should protect the wood enough from moisture and sunlight.
I'm also not too concerned about color changes over time as long as it is uniform. The paint is just brown, and maintaining the precise brown isn't super important.
My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice. Should I expect flaking? Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)? Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance? If it does get grimy, will it be prone to staining (with polyurethane a good wipe down with an all purpose cleaner takes care of it)?
I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves. | 2016/03/21 | [
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/questions/3704",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/users/1250/"
] | Shellac doesn't do well with water, that's your starting point here. It's also relatively brittle and with the expected movement in the wood you're likely to see problems with cracking.
Bonding to the paint shouldn't be an issue initially at least, the perceived wisdom is that "shellac sticks to everything and everything sticks to shellac" and while that's a bit of an exaggeration it should bond very well to just about any paint. But you may see the paint shucking it off after multiple cycles of swelling and contraction.
The main objection of course might be shellac's well-known issue of clouding when exposed to water.
>
> I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves.
>
>
>
I would suggest you try thinned varnish. It's not inherently a bad idea to coat paint with varnish, it's actually done more commonly that we tend to think although this is for interior projects. However, there is a potential problem here in that you'd probably want to use spar varnish (specifically formulated to be more flexible than regular varnishes) but this is noticeably yellow or amber and could give too much of a colour change for your liking, even if applied in 2-3 thin coats. | Shellac is perhaps the worst choice for the outdoor use. If you ever set a wet glass on shellac finished furniture, you'll notice a white ring. Water softens shellac and overtime it will wear away from the surface. When it softens with water, it has a tacky feel which is a magnet for dust. When it dries, any dust or dirt essentially glues to it.
The lowest cost solution, is to just leave the paint as is and reapply it when it looks weathered. If the paint you're using is a good quality latex paint, it won't crack and flake off.
If you want a very durable and relatively inexpensive solution, get some polyurethane (preferably water-based, since it doesn't darken the color) and wipe or brush it on. |
3,704 | I am making something for outdoor use and I've painted it with a matte exterior latex paint. I'm satisfied with the protection that the paint will offer but I'm experimenting with ways to make it look nicer.
Right now I am considering glossy finishes. I have found that I much prefer the appearance and texture of shellac (de-waxed) to a high gloss spar urethane.
I don't really need good scratch resistance for this particular piece, and the paint should protect the wood enough from moisture and sunlight.
I'm also not too concerned about color changes over time as long as it is uniform. The paint is just brown, and maintaining the precise brown isn't super important.
My question is, how should I expect a fairly thick shellac finish (over paint) to behave outdoors over time? It will be exposed to sunlight, a wide range of temperatures, and plenty of rain, snow, and ice. Should I expect flaking? Spotting? Blemishes (I've heard it gets cloudy with moisture)? Other weird stuff? Or will it maintain its nice appearance? If it does get grimy, will it be prone to staining (with polyurethane a good wipe down with an all purpose cleaner takes care of it)?
I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves. | 2016/03/21 | [
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/questions/3704",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com",
"https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/users/1250/"
] | Shellac doesn't do well with water, that's your starting point here. It's also relatively brittle and with the expected movement in the wood you're likely to see problems with cracking.
Bonding to the paint shouldn't be an issue initially at least, the perceived wisdom is that "shellac sticks to everything and everything sticks to shellac" and while that's a bit of an exaggeration it should bond very well to just about any paint. But you may see the paint shucking it off after multiple cycles of swelling and contraction.
The main objection of course might be shellac's well-known issue of clouding when exposed to water.
>
> I already own the paint and don't really want to buy another gallon of glossy paint; I'm trying to do this with the stuff I already have sitting around collecting dust on my shelves.
>
>
>
I would suggest you try thinned varnish. It's not inherently a bad idea to coat paint with varnish, it's actually done more commonly that we tend to think although this is for interior projects. However, there is a potential problem here in that you'd probably want to use spar varnish (specifically formulated to be more flexible than regular varnishes) but this is noticeably yellow or amber and could give too much of a colour change for your liking, even if applied in 2-3 thin coats. | I've wondered this and done some experimentation myself. Shellac is the most beautiful finish, IMO, and non-toxic, natural, has character, etc--so of course I would like to use it. The answer is not so simple. The clear sanding-sealer and "clear" slightly colored shellacs are not good for outdoors. I tried it on my deck and the sanding sealer clouded. However then I used an amber shellac and it looked great, it didn't cloud much and over time flaked off. However I felt it might be too slick for a deck. Then I read that canoe builders use the amber shellac on the bottom of their boats--so yes the darker kind with wax is used in water. I finished a bannister in it and it flaked off after a year or two, but looked good. Most recently I just mixed some amber shellac with linseed oil. It looks good in an antique way but not quite as good as shellac alone perhaps. Old time spar varnish I've heard was made by mixing shellac plus linseed for flexibility. I suspect the linseed was heated to a high (450+?) degrees so that the shellac polymerized. I suspect this because this is how music instrument varnish is made--at that temperature certain changes occur which make it tougher I think. If you're going to try that, make sure you use all adequate precautions and common sense and research about heating hot oil. I didn't heat, I just mixed some tried and true linseed oil with amber shellac.In my imagination there is a perfect outdoor formula with shellac. |
29,001 | I work on my computer at office in 45-50 minutes blocks and then take a break. During the break, I walk around and drink a glass of water and do a fixed number of pushups. Just over a year ago, I started with a fairly small number of pushups (20) during every break. For an 8 hour day, it would result in 8×20 = 160 pushups. Every week, I would add 1 or 2 pushups for every set. So for the second week, I had 8×21 = 168 pushups. This continued for the whole year and now I am on a count of 64 per set and 8×64 = 512 pushups per day. Also, in the last set, I continue without stopping and usually go to 100 pushups or more.
Before I continue this routine for decades and then experimentally find out what kinds of problems it caused, I want to know if I am doing the right thing or should I change something about it. And beyond what count will it actually start hurting my body? | 2016/02/21 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/29001",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | * Edit: The assumption is that you are healthy, and have no weight issues, especially that you are not over-weight, and not too old.
* Supposing you have 10 minutes to train per "break" (not really a break any more...), the maximum amount of push-ups you will possibly be able to do (down the road) during one single break is perhaps around 400 to 800 push-ups. If your maximum is 600, your daily limit will be 600 x 8 = 4800 push-ups. If 800, it will be 6400.
* Edit: Starting at 20, if you increase your push-up counts by 45 each year, you will possibly reach 400 push-up per 10 minute in around 9 years (meaning in 8 more years).
* So your first question is whether or not, after a gradual progression, you can keep doing, let's say, 400-600 reps in 10 min x 8 sets with 50 min break 5 times per week with perhaps two days (weekend) of rest throughout much of the year without considerable harm to your body (edit: until a reasonable age (40? 45? 50? 55?)).
* (Edited) While I'm tempted to suggest other approaches... (if it's important for you to achieve a high numbers of reps of push-ups) I'd answer: you may possibly do around 100-250-400\* reps in 10 minute as described above under the following conditions:
1. That you keep following a gradual progression with fixed numbers so that the exercise remains endurance centered.
2. That you at least avoid maxing out on consecutive days (what you seem to be doing with your last set). I'd even suggest perhaps halving the overall routine on the day subsequent to a max-out day (as in, doing only 4 sets on the next day w/ no max-out).
-> Edit: Ideally, you should not intensively workout the same muscle group on consecutive days. Depending on the load, you may even need to rest an entire week for proper recovery. But considering the fairly low load for many years, I think you could also consider adopting these two types of alternating menu: (a) one day push-ups, the next day something else; (b) one day 8 sets of push-ups, the next day only 2-4 sets if you simply love push-ups.
3. Rest a whole day (as in no push-ups) if your body says it needs a real break. -> (Edit:) I think this is the best approach to determining what is reasonable for your body. You will probably be fairly comfortable continuing this routine until your pass the 100 reps mark. Then gradually you'll see if you need to rest out a day or two or more to recover. Your body should indicate the safe maximum.
Edit: \*I've picked 100-250-400 based on the information that Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury used to do about 3000-4000 push-ups a day at different intervals. If 250-400 feels too strenuous for your muscle or joints, fall back to 100-250, and consider adding more rest days.
* As to whether or not you are doing the "right thing", the question doesn't really stand as you have not set a real goal to your activity. If you just want to safely keep increasing your push-up routine during your break time, 1-2 weekly increase in reps sounds reasonable.
* And as long as you stick to the very gradually increasing rep limit and to the time limit (hypothetically 10 min), and especially with at least 2 days of weekly rest, I think you can possibly fairly safely go up to 100/10 min and maybe up to 250/10 min by following common sense rules (eat/drink/sleep well, listen to your body, don't force it when your body is tired/sick...) but you may end up needing to take alternating day off in the end, and it's hard to guess how your body will react beyond 100. I'm only guessing based on testimonies of Guinness record holders for push-ups.
* As to possible suggestions, unless you're aiming to beat the Guinness record for push-ups, I'd suggest (1) not focusing on the number of push-ups, but to vary the types of push-ups to provide greater stimulus and overall training effect.
* I'd also suggest (2) setting one day for another muscle group such as with squats. One day push-ups (w/ variations), the other day squats, perhaps even a sit-up day in the middle. Or throw in pull-ups after work, etc. You can push one muscle group more on one day, and rest it the next day. I'd simply rest the muscle more.
* All in all, setting a good, meaningful goal for yourself is the most important of all. (Unless you are trying to break the GB record, I don't think you should focus on the # of reps of push-ups, and on doing them at such high-rep on consecutive days.) | Sorry to spoil your dreams pal, but I would say you could, at maximum, only do a **truly** safe number of about 300 push ups, three times per week. Sorry to rat on your accepted answer, but doing 5000 push ups a day five times a week will damage you for good. Here will be some side effects of 100-200 push ups twice a week:
* Developed chest, tricep, shoulder, and forearm muscles
* Overall increase in core strength
* Stronger, healthier bones
Here will be some results of 5000 push ups a day five times per week:
* Extreme muscle soreness/tiredness
* Damaged cartilage in your wrists
* Weaker immune system leading to several colds
* Permanent nerve damage in most areas of the upper body
* Arthritis will develop too early in your hands, wrists and fingers
* Loss in muscle mass/weakened bones
* Physical deformity
* Extreme hunger/dehydration
* In rare cases, death
Now which one would you rather choose? I still would suggest working out at an actual gym however, because just like running can hurt your feet over the years if you do it often, push ups can sometimes do the same thing to your wrists. Again, I am just trying to be safe with you here, doing push ups on occasion is not that bad, usually. Good luck, pal. These are the true guaranteed effects, don't just shove them away. You will hurt yourself if you overwork. |
144,746 | It appears that we are having a problem with the disk i/o speed on our Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition server (64-bit). As we were initializing a database that created two 1G tablespaces on 3 different machines, it became obvious that the two smaller machines (each 32-bit Windows 2003 Standard Edition with less RAM) killed the larger machine when creating the files. The larger machine took 10x as long to create the tablespaces than did the other machines.
Now, I am left wondering how that could be. What programs or scripts would you guys recommend for tracking down the I/O problem? I think the issue may be with the controller card (all boxes are hardware RAID 10, but have different controller cards), but I would like to check the actual disk I/O speed as well, so I have some hard numbers to work with.
Any help would be appreciated. | 2010/05/24 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/144746",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/43829/"
] | Try benchmarking the 'service-bare' machine with [IOZone](http://www.iozone.org/), this will tell you if you have an IO-subsystem or application-level issue. | Could this help?
[MSDN : Database File Initialization](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175935.aspx)
From the article:
*Data and log files are initialized to overwrite any existing data left on the disk from previously deleted files. Data and log files are first initialized by filling the files with zeros when you perform one of the following operations:*
* *Create a database.*
* *Add files, log or data, to an existing database.*
* *Increase the size of an existing file (including autogrow operations).*
* *Restore a database or filegroup.*
*File initialization causes these operations to take longer. However, when data is written to the files for the first time, the operating system does not have to fill the files with zeros.* |
56,886,571 | Is there a way to achieve exporting the entire active records in a rails application to csv where each relation is a sheet of csv or there is another way to export full db data.Any suggestions? | 2019/07/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56886571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10476417/"
] | I solved this issue by clearing cache for Nuget Packages. | I know I'm a bit late but since the answer for this matter did not work for me, here is how I solved it:
First of all, it's obviously a NuGet packages problem, so I searched in my .nuget folder at C:\Users{yourUser}.nuget\packages and looked inside some of the folders, in my case the Android support libraries folders, and saw that there were folders for many versions of that library excetp for the one I was referencing in my project wich was 28.0.0.3, the last version at this moment, the newest I had in the folder was for 28.0.0.1 so instead un uninstalling and installing everything again I just modified the android.csproj, changed the referenced versions for the support libraries for 28.0.0.1 and then it gave another error, I just literally downgraded some other libraries to 28.0.0.1 from Visual Studio NuGet package manager and then everything worked fine.
Have a nice one. It took weeks for me of trying to find out. |
56,886,571 | Is there a way to achieve exporting the entire active records in a rails application to csv where each relation is a sheet of csv or there is another way to export full db data.Any suggestions? | 2019/07/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56886571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10476417/"
] | I solved this issue by clearing cache for Nuget Packages. | Neither of the above solutions worked for me. I encountered the error opening an Xamarin project that was created in VS 2015 on VS 2019. I changed the "Compile using android version" in the manifest to Android 9.0, updated the NuGet packages, but this error remained. I also attempted the tried-and-true deleting ".vs", "bin" and "obj" folders.
What finally got rid of the "Program type already present: android.support.annotation.PluralsRes" error was deleting everything in the "Packages" folder for the project. My understanding is that directory was eliminated in VS 2017, but suppose because the original project was VS 2015 it was still being utilized and causing the conflict. |
56,886,571 | Is there a way to achieve exporting the entire active records in a rails application to csv where each relation is a sheet of csv or there is another way to export full db data.Any suggestions? | 2019/07/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56886571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10476417/"
] | I solved this issue by clearing cache for Nuget Packages. | I was getting
Program type already present: androidx.appcompat.content.res.AppCompatResources$ColorStateListCacheEntry error.
I had 2 references
a)Xamarin.AndroidX.Appcompat and
b)Xmarin.Androidx.appcompat.content.res.AppCompatResources
I removed the reference Xmarin.Androidx.appcompat.content.res.AppCompatResources
And now the project builds without errors |
56,886,571 | Is there a way to achieve exporting the entire active records in a rails application to csv where each relation is a sheet of csv or there is another way to export full db data.Any suggestions? | 2019/07/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56886571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10476417/"
] | I know I'm a bit late but since the answer for this matter did not work for me, here is how I solved it:
First of all, it's obviously a NuGet packages problem, so I searched in my .nuget folder at C:\Users{yourUser}.nuget\packages and looked inside some of the folders, in my case the Android support libraries folders, and saw that there were folders for many versions of that library excetp for the one I was referencing in my project wich was 28.0.0.3, the last version at this moment, the newest I had in the folder was for 28.0.0.1 so instead un uninstalling and installing everything again I just modified the android.csproj, changed the referenced versions for the support libraries for 28.0.0.1 and then it gave another error, I just literally downgraded some other libraries to 28.0.0.1 from Visual Studio NuGet package manager and then everything worked fine.
Have a nice one. It took weeks for me of trying to find out. | Neither of the above solutions worked for me. I encountered the error opening an Xamarin project that was created in VS 2015 on VS 2019. I changed the "Compile using android version" in the manifest to Android 9.0, updated the NuGet packages, but this error remained. I also attempted the tried-and-true deleting ".vs", "bin" and "obj" folders.
What finally got rid of the "Program type already present: android.support.annotation.PluralsRes" error was deleting everything in the "Packages" folder for the project. My understanding is that directory was eliminated in VS 2017, but suppose because the original project was VS 2015 it was still being utilized and causing the conflict. |
56,886,571 | Is there a way to achieve exporting the entire active records in a rails application to csv where each relation is a sheet of csv or there is another way to export full db data.Any suggestions? | 2019/07/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56886571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10476417/"
] | I know I'm a bit late but since the answer for this matter did not work for me, here is how I solved it:
First of all, it's obviously a NuGet packages problem, so I searched in my .nuget folder at C:\Users{yourUser}.nuget\packages and looked inside some of the folders, in my case the Android support libraries folders, and saw that there were folders for many versions of that library excetp for the one I was referencing in my project wich was 28.0.0.3, the last version at this moment, the newest I had in the folder was for 28.0.0.1 so instead un uninstalling and installing everything again I just modified the android.csproj, changed the referenced versions for the support libraries for 28.0.0.1 and then it gave another error, I just literally downgraded some other libraries to 28.0.0.1 from Visual Studio NuGet package manager and then everything worked fine.
Have a nice one. It took weeks for me of trying to find out. | I was getting
Program type already present: androidx.appcompat.content.res.AppCompatResources$ColorStateListCacheEntry error.
I had 2 references
a)Xamarin.AndroidX.Appcompat and
b)Xmarin.Androidx.appcompat.content.res.AppCompatResources
I removed the reference Xmarin.Androidx.appcompat.content.res.AppCompatResources
And now the project builds without errors |
57,217 | I know that I can update my ECT record (using InfoPath forms I created for the external lists), by passing the BdcIdentity (ID) to the form and it will find that record and enable me to edit.
How do I edit a record without the BdcIdentity ID. Say I know some of the other IDs I need to uniquely identify a record. EG, MyID=1
How can I get the infopath form to retreive the record where column MyID=1?? so I can update.
thanks,
KS | 2013/01/16 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/57217",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/3003/"
] | Just for others who might come across this, try a full refresh by pressing CTRL+F5. This is likely a cache issue, especially if it only occurs in one browser. This happened to me after the Default Website was started while the Portal Web App was stopped and I hit the site. Once I stopped the Default Website and started the Portal Web App, I was still seeing the IIS Welcome screen. CTRL+F5 forced IE to reload the site. | Since the new version of IE, it cache all get requests. So that is possible that the site is already cached. Try to empty it and then it will be working. |
10,699 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Is there a 'rule of thumb' that I can use to estimate depth of field while shooting?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6047/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-that-i-can-use-to-estimate-depth-of-field-while-shooti)
>
>
>
How do you estimate the aperture needed to produce sufficient depth of field for a given subject?
For example:
Suppose I am facing a bicycle from the front and use whatever combination of focal length and subject distance is necessary to have the bicycle completely fill the frame. I focus on the handle bars as I would like this to be the sharpest point of focus. How can I best estimate the aperture needed to ensure that entire length of the bicycle is within acceptable focus?
I have tried using my camera's DOF preview button, but the resulting image is too dark in the viewfinder to determine the depth of field.
I could use a DOF calculator, but this would take too long.
I could take a few shots at varying apertures, but again, this would take too long.
What methods do you use to visualise depth of field in situations like this? | 2011/04/08 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10699",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/3775/"
] | I would either stop down as far as I can get away with, or shoot and check the image on the rear LCD.
I'm sure there's an approximation of the DOF formula that's simple enough to do a quick mental calculation, after guessing your subject distance and reading the focal length off the lens, but it's important to understand that there's really only one plane of focus, i.e. one depth that is as sharp as possible, and a certain area either side which is merely "sharp enough".
DOF calculators rely on a standard definition for what it *acceptably sharp* **\***. The depth values given guarantee that anything in those depths will be "acceptably sharp". But what if your definition of what is acceptable differs? With high resolution digital sensors some areas within the accepted depth of field limits will be less sharp than others. By shooting a couple of test images you can quickly verify if the areas you care about are sharp enough for *your* standards of acceptability.
I've said this before on similar questions, but it's worth stating again *why estimate when you can have the actual answer in front of you in seconds?*
--
**\*** To be fair the standard definition is sensible as it's based on the angular resolution of the eye so it applies to printed images you have in front of you as much as it does to billboards, **provided you view the whole image at once**. This is not the only way to view images, however! Let's say you're selling the bike on a website and want to create images people can zoom right into to see the details. Now you might need those areas to be a bit sharper. In this case it's important not to rely too heavily on DOF calculations. | >
> What methods do you use to visualise depth of field?
>
>
>
When I used a Nikon FE, I used to look through the viewfinder and press the "stop-down"/"depth of field preview (DOF)" button.
None of my cameras since have had one. It is certainly a feature I miss. Nowadays I mostly guess. |
10,699 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Is there a 'rule of thumb' that I can use to estimate depth of field while shooting?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6047/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-that-i-can-use-to-estimate-depth-of-field-while-shooti)
>
>
>
How do you estimate the aperture needed to produce sufficient depth of field for a given subject?
For example:
Suppose I am facing a bicycle from the front and use whatever combination of focal length and subject distance is necessary to have the bicycle completely fill the frame. I focus on the handle bars as I would like this to be the sharpest point of focus. How can I best estimate the aperture needed to ensure that entire length of the bicycle is within acceptable focus?
I have tried using my camera's DOF preview button, but the resulting image is too dark in the viewfinder to determine the depth of field.
I could use a DOF calculator, but this would take too long.
I could take a few shots at varying apertures, but again, this would take too long.
What methods do you use to visualise depth of field in situations like this? | 2011/04/08 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10699",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/3775/"
] | Experience! Once you've taken enough photos at various apertures and distances, you will have the experience to get the DOF right on the first or second try, without having to measure distances or perform calculations. With an accurate enough estimate, bracketing should get you quickly to the right aperture. Many cameras offer auto-bracketing options, so if you're able to do a relatively accurate guesstimate, then you can fire off three or five bracketed shots with one press of the shutter button.
Until you have the experience, you're either going to have to make guesses and review the results in the viewfinder (my recommendation), or get out the tape measure and use a calculator if you really require precision. | >
> What methods do you use to visualise depth of field?
>
>
>
When I used a Nikon FE, I used to look through the viewfinder and press the "stop-down"/"depth of field preview (DOF)" button.
None of my cameras since have had one. It is certainly a feature I miss. Nowadays I mostly guess. |
10,699 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Is there a 'rule of thumb' that I can use to estimate depth of field while shooting?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6047/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-that-i-can-use-to-estimate-depth-of-field-while-shooti)
>
>
>
How do you estimate the aperture needed to produce sufficient depth of field for a given subject?
For example:
Suppose I am facing a bicycle from the front and use whatever combination of focal length and subject distance is necessary to have the bicycle completely fill the frame. I focus on the handle bars as I would like this to be the sharpest point of focus. How can I best estimate the aperture needed to ensure that entire length of the bicycle is within acceptable focus?
I have tried using my camera's DOF preview button, but the resulting image is too dark in the viewfinder to determine the depth of field.
I could use a DOF calculator, but this would take too long.
I could take a few shots at varying apertures, but again, this would take too long.
What methods do you use to visualise depth of field in situations like this? | 2011/04/08 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10699",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/3775/"
] | DoF calculators are good for when you can take your time setting up a landscape shot (and if your lens has a focus distance scale), but for more dynamic situations there are general rules of thumb that can help you.
For wildlife or portraits, you should be fine pretty much wide open on a normal lens - about f/4-f/5.6 should be fine.
If depth of field isn't a major issue, say if your subject is against a wall or multiple subjects are all at the same distance from the camera, a general aperture of f/8-f/11 should be fine.
For situations like you describe in your question, I'd go for something like f/16 - but don't be afraid to go up around f/22 if you have the light to handle it. There's a lot of scare-mongering around the net that f/22 or similar will give you horrible diffraction, which simply isn't true.
One thing to be aware of is that as your apertures get smaller, you have to make sure you're getting a decent shutter speed to minimise blurring. This is especially tricky when you are trying to balance DoF with a fast shutter speed for subjects like cyclists - unless you have bright sunlight, you will probably have to bump up the ISO to compensate. | >
> What methods do you use to visualise depth of field?
>
>
>
When I used a Nikon FE, I used to look through the viewfinder and press the "stop-down"/"depth of field preview (DOF)" button.
None of my cameras since have had one. It is certainly a feature I miss. Nowadays I mostly guess. |
83,684 | I recently bought my first DSLR and made the decision to spend a similar amount on the lens as on the body, on the basis that the lens is where the optics are, and I would guess that changing the optics make a much greater difference to image quality than changing the sensor. Camera reviews seemed to implicitly confirm this suspicion, because they seem to focus much more on features than on image quality, and when they do discuss image quality it mostly seems like a review of the kit lens rather than the body itself, at least in the case of the entry level DSLRs I was looking at.
But now I'm curious: what effect *does* the body have on image quality? I'm not asking so much about things like APS-C vs. full-frame, in-body image stabilisation, ISO range or resolution; things like that have well-defined effects that can easily be compared "on paper". I'm asking more about whether the body imparts any of its own special character to images in the same way that lenses do. In other words, can two bodies with similar specs differ in the quality of image they can produce with the same lens? I'm asking mostly from curiosity, but it would be a useful thing to know if I'm choosing a camera again. | 2016/10/14 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/83684",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56937/"
] | >
> What effect does the body have on the character and quality of images?
>
>
>
After you eliminate "... things like APS-C vs. full-frame, in-body image stabilisation, ISO range or resolution..." there's not much left. Sensor size, pixel size, sensor efficiency (how much of the light that hits a sensor actually makes it down a pixel well and gets counted), etc. are the primary determining factors in how images of the same scene recorded through the same lens by various sensors differ. Sensor design decisions for things such as on-die noise reduction or post analog-to-digital conversion noise reduction will also affect things to a degree. On-die NR tends to "eat stars" by eliminating weaker stars along with noise in cameras that do more noise reduction on the analog signal before it is converted to digital. They also give cleaner shadows when the shadows are pushed, for the same reason.
When people say things like Canon cameras tend to have warmer skin tones while Nikon's skin tones are cooler they're really referring to decisions made with regard to the way the camera's firmware converts the raw data coming off the sensor into color information. | Probably we can narrow them into
* Noise 1. I would not discard ISO range. This is one of the most important things. Ok I am not refering on the maximum ISO directly. But if a camera has a higher ISO sensitivity, for example one with a max ISO of 1,600 and one with max ISO of 64,000, the second most likely will perform better on the same ISO 1,600.
* Noise 2. Some cameras have a slight pattern visible in low light conditions. This changes how you can manipulate an image, for example underexposing it and recovering detail in the shadows.
* This is related to dynamic range. Some cameras could show more detail on the shadows and the highlights than others.
* Color rendering. This could depend on some processed data, like shooting directly on jpg. But also some shoots on raw could see more detail on one color than others. Take a look at this page <https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6>, where you can compare a standard target between diferent camera bodies. If you choose the same brand you probably minimize the lens variable.
* Some sharpeness. Some sensor arrays are more optimized per square area than others, so that can give some diferences in sharpness. |
94,837 | Apologies from a QGIS beginner but I have added a WMS layer of polygons to fill in the gaps of an existing data set I have. the problem is that I want all of this data to have the same style (colour etc) and the WMS layer which comes up as orange cross hatching doesn't seeem to be able to be modified to a single colour for example. Is it actually possible to change the style of a WMS layer in a way that is possible for beginners? | 2014/05/02 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/94837",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/29843/"
] | No. WMS is a image that is generated and sent from a server. Once you have it in QGIS it's too late to change it. | Yes, if you use GeoServer with [Dynamic Colormap Generation](http://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/user/community/colormap/index.html). |
90,014 | I still can't wrap my head around this one and have to consult references every time I want to be safe:
* Is it "0.4 point" or "0.4 points"?
* Is it "1.0 point" or "1.0 points"?
I know that I can work around that by using ***four tenths of a point*** or ***one point*** instead, but sometimes writing ***0.4 point/points*** or ***1.0 point/points*** is called for, especially in technical documents.
I gathered that this mostly goes by the style guide I choose to (or have to) use, and it's quite possible that there is no universally accepted convention for this. Then again, in light of potential benefits for learners here, I think it's worth asking, and I hope that we can lay out some rules of thumb, something that can be used as a general guideline, especially on writing tests and exams.
Addendum: another case that's worth mentioning in answers, for completeness, is "0.0 point" or "0.0 points"? In my humble opinion, it's safe to assume that most learners on our site know what to use when the quantity falls out of the range between -1.0 and 1.0. | 2016/05/15 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/90014",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/3281/"
] | I started analyzing this question by trying to figure out a context where I might use this. I thought of a gymnastics meet, where someone might say:
>
> *Alex lost by X points*.
>
>
>
If X = 1, the answer is obvious. If X = 1.0, though, the answer isn't so clear, particularly if the it's presumed the speaker would include the "point oh" part of the numerical value in the quote.
I think I'd be inclined to use the plural:
>
> *Alex lost by one point zero **points***.
>
>
>
because I'd certainly use the plural if the eventually winner had scored a tenth of a point more or less:
>
> *Alex lost by one point one **points***. (for 1.1)
>
> *Alex lost by zero point nine **points***. (for 0.9)
>
>
>
That's how [this quiz](https://www.coursehero.com/file/9785325/PSYC221-QUIZ-6/) seems to handle the quandary, and, while it's not unanimous, that's the conclusion that seems to have been drawn on [this forum](https://www.englishforums.com/English/10PointOr10Points/lrncm/post.htm), too.
Interestingly enough, when I tried to find instances of “1.0 point” online, many of the hits were preceded by an article, where the singular would make more sense:
>
> This is **a** [1.0 point](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B00006IE7I) [pen], and what I wanted was the 1.6 point.
>
>
> Typically, these loans come with a 3.0 or 3.5 point fee attached, but right now you can receive a 48-60 month Buy & Hold loan with just [a 1.0 point](http://blog.zincfinancial.net/2013/06/special-offer-1-0-point-fee-on-zinc-buy-hold/) fee.
>
>
> | The simple rule is that 1 is singular and anything else is plural so 1.0 point all else is plural as it is a multiple or fraction of 1. However, in the written form 0.5 points would be half point |
24,564,094 | currently I'm looking for an open source project that gives me the opportunity to install software easily. I prefer direct calls or access with a REST interface.
I thought that CloudFoundry would fits my needs but it is'nt so.
AppFog (<https://www.appfog.com/product/>) comes much closer to my goal. It allows me to install Drupal, Wordpress, PhpMyAdmin, NodeJS Apps and so on.
The conclusion is that I'm looking for an project that...
* is open source.
* gives that possibility to install, configure and
uninstall software
* is extendable when a specific software not
available
* is accessible with an interface like REST.
* is "hostable" on my own linux server
I would be happy for all kind of hints and tips :)
Cheers Tobias | 2014/07/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24564094",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1477415/"
] | [Docker](http://docker.com) is seems to be the next big thing in the PaaS world. There are dozens new projects that build on top of docker or supporting it. For example OpenShift and Apache Stratos support docker. So if you look at solutions based on docker you can find a solution for you needs.
Right now I'm using docker for hosting couple of Drupal websites with simple bash scripts to manage them. Nginx is used for web traffic routing
1. Docker is open source
2. Gives you ability to prepare and install apps
3. You can build what you need on top of it
4. It has REST interface
5. It is running on nearly all major Linux distros
6. Its relatively easy to learn and use
7. Has great community | Tobias,
Suggest you look at **Apache Stratos:**
* 100% open source
* Easy to Get Up and Running
* Highly extensible, flexible, expandable
* Uses REST APIs
* Runs on Linux (Ubuntu or SUSE)
* Mature (version 4)
See:
* **Intro article -- "Why Apache Stratos is the Preferred Choice in the PaaS Space"**
<http://wso2.com/library/articles/2014/05/why-apache-stratos-is-the-preferred-choice-in-the-paas-space/>
* **Apache Stratos Project site** -- which notes that "Stratos PaaS is easy to get it up and running in quick time. A developer will be able to run and test PaaS framework on a single machine to try out."
<http://stratos.apache.org/>
Cheers,
Michael |
24,564,094 | currently I'm looking for an open source project that gives me the opportunity to install software easily. I prefer direct calls or access with a REST interface.
I thought that CloudFoundry would fits my needs but it is'nt so.
AppFog (<https://www.appfog.com/product/>) comes much closer to my goal. It allows me to install Drupal, Wordpress, PhpMyAdmin, NodeJS Apps and so on.
The conclusion is that I'm looking for an project that...
* is open source.
* gives that possibility to install, configure and
uninstall software
* is extendable when a specific software not
available
* is accessible with an interface like REST.
* is "hostable" on my own linux server
I would be happy for all kind of hints and tips :)
Cheers Tobias | 2014/07/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24564094",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1477415/"
] | [Docker](http://docker.com) is seems to be the next big thing in the PaaS world. There are dozens new projects that build on top of docker or supporting it. For example OpenShift and Apache Stratos support docker. So if you look at solutions based on docker you can find a solution for you needs.
Right now I'm using docker for hosting couple of Drupal websites with simple bash scripts to manage them. Nginx is used for web traffic routing
1. Docker is open source
2. Gives you ability to prepare and install apps
3. You can build what you need on top of it
4. It has REST interface
5. It is running on nearly all major Linux distros
6. Its relatively easy to learn and use
7. Has great community | OpenShift is what you looking for :
1. it is open source and free for 3 gears for ever.
2. gives that possibility to install, configure and uninstall software in [openshift.redhat.com](https://www.openshift.com/) or in [rhc client tools](https://www.openshift.com/developers/rhc-client-tools-install).
3. it is extendable when a specific software not available is accessible throw [DIY(Do it yourself)](https://www.openshift.com/developers/do-it-yourself)
4. with an [REST interface](https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/OpenShift/2.0/html/REST_API_Guide/)
5. is "hostable" on [Fedora or CentOS](http://openshift.github.io/documentation/oo_deployment_guide_comprehensive.html) .
6. It is really easy to setup throw Eclipse. |
319,821 | I have seen some general comments online about running a 6V DC motor on 9V Battery being OK.
I am looking to run an air mattress pump originally designed for 4x 1.5V D batteries (6V DC) from a universal car laptop adapter. The lowest output voltage on the car adapter is 9V.
Nothing on the air pump motor mentions input power specs specifically. The only markings I can see are the following 3 lines and I get no hits googling each string.
hb-138-101
rs-380ph-6016rb
630301
The alternative would be to use an AC inverter and an DC 6v 2A adapter. It sounds like overkill to go from 12v to 120v AC just to get 6VDC, but so is running a car engine.
Will I burn the motor if I ran it on 9V DC? | 2017/07/22 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/319821",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/157702/"
] | Yes, the same number of electrons is being transferred per unit of time in each case.
Nonetheless, more power is being delivered to the load in the case with higher voltage. | Practically, I have two situations where that amperage is the same. My Electric Vehicle charges at 16 Amps with either a 110 Volt charger or a 220 Volt charger. The 110 Volt charger takes twice the time to charge the car battery at the same amperage. When I look at my electric company's energy use in kWh the total cost to charge my car battery is approximately the same. Hence with 1/2 of the voltage, only 1/2 of the power is delivered per hour.
Back to the water analogy. Is it the case that with the 220 Volt charger, my "water flow" is the same per hour, but with the 220 Volt charger I am using "two 110 Volt hoses" (hence 2x the amount of power per hour compared to a 110 Volt charger)?? |
319,821 | I have seen some general comments online about running a 6V DC motor on 9V Battery being OK.
I am looking to run an air mattress pump originally designed for 4x 1.5V D batteries (6V DC) from a universal car laptop adapter. The lowest output voltage on the car adapter is 9V.
Nothing on the air pump motor mentions input power specs specifically. The only markings I can see are the following 3 lines and I get no hits googling each string.
hb-138-101
rs-380ph-6016rb
630301
The alternative would be to use an AC inverter and an DC 6v 2A adapter. It sounds like overkill to go from 12v to 120v AC just to get 6VDC, but so is running a car engine.
Will I burn the motor if I ran it on 9V DC? | 2017/07/22 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/319821",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/157702/"
] | Short answer, yes. Both the circuits have same amount of electrons transferred in the same period of time.
**Theory behind it:**
Current is the rate of flow of charge and voltage is the amount of work done in moving that charge from some point to another point.
Now since both the circuits are drawing 100mA of current that means both the circuits have same no of electrons flowing at any particular point. But different amount of work needs to be done to achieve that same flow and hence different amount of power in both the circuits (P=VI)
A good analogy is a water, so current (rate of flow) is a flow of water where as the voltage is analogous to pressure in the system that will cause the water to flow (ie current).
So both the systems have the same amount of water flowing in given time period but one system needs to work more than the other to achieve the same rate of flow.
That means 5V circuit is putting more amount of work to maintain 100mA in circuit compared to 3.3V circuit. | Practically, I have two situations where that amperage is the same. My Electric Vehicle charges at 16 Amps with either a 110 Volt charger or a 220 Volt charger. The 110 Volt charger takes twice the time to charge the car battery at the same amperage. When I look at my electric company's energy use in kWh the total cost to charge my car battery is approximately the same. Hence with 1/2 of the voltage, only 1/2 of the power is delivered per hour.
Back to the water analogy. Is it the case that with the 220 Volt charger, my "water flow" is the same per hour, but with the 220 Volt charger I am using "two 110 Volt hoses" (hence 2x the amount of power per hour compared to a 110 Volt charger)?? |
11,820 | How would I go about creating a menu system with fonts in OpenGL? I want to make a dungeon crawler and will need a menu for inventory and stats for the weapons. I can draw a world made out of blocks ok but I'm not quite sure how to do this.
I think I need to use the matrix that glortho applies to the matrix stack. Specifically I'm using WebGL and I don't have access to fonts so it seems like I have to create my own.
Any help with how I would go about doing this would be appreciated. | 2011/05/01 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/11820",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/3128/"
] | If you're using WebGL, using the properties of the underlying 'canvas' element from which you created the context from to draw text. Don't make it harder than it needs to be until it needs to be. | Maybe I just don't understand your question, but if you want to draw text, you can use function [glutBitmapCharacter](http://www.opengl.org/resources/libraries/glut/spec3/node76.html). |
11,820 | How would I go about creating a menu system with fonts in OpenGL? I want to make a dungeon crawler and will need a menu for inventory and stats for the weapons. I can draw a world made out of blocks ok but I'm not quite sure how to do this.
I think I need to use the matrix that glortho applies to the matrix stack. Specifically I'm using WebGL and I don't have access to fonts so it seems like I have to create my own.
Any help with how I would go about doing this would be appreciated. | 2011/05/01 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/11820",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/3128/"
] | OpenGL know nothing of fonts, so you have two choices. Either use bitmap fonts (a font written into a texture) or use Canvas/HTML to display your text.
Most regular OpenGL games uses bitmap fonts. | Maybe I just don't understand your question, but if you want to draw text, you can use function [glutBitmapCharacter](http://www.opengl.org/resources/libraries/glut/spec3/node76.html). |
11,820 | How would I go about creating a menu system with fonts in OpenGL? I want to make a dungeon crawler and will need a menu for inventory and stats for the weapons. I can draw a world made out of blocks ok but I'm not quite sure how to do this.
I think I need to use the matrix that glortho applies to the matrix stack. Specifically I'm using WebGL and I don't have access to fonts so it seems like I have to create my own.
Any help with how I would go about doing this would be appreciated. | 2011/05/01 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/11820",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/3128/"
] | OpenGL know nothing of fonts, so you have two choices. Either use bitmap fonts (a font written into a texture) or use Canvas/HTML to display your text.
Most regular OpenGL games uses bitmap fonts. | If you're using WebGL, using the properties of the underlying 'canvas' element from which you created the context from to draw text. Don't make it harder than it needs to be until it needs to be. |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | I think it has a different and specific meaning.
"Do a shop" or "Do the shop" is a specific task, eg. the weekly trip to the supermarket for the big grocery shop.
"Go shopping" is a more general, recreational, go out and look at the shops but with no specific aim.
It's the same way that "load" is a verb or a noun. Shop is the place you buy stuff, the process of buying it or now the stuff you buy. | "Do the shop."
Usually means, "Do the weekly shop".
Grammatically, going for a shop, is like going for a walk. "Walk" can be either a noun or a verb - "to walk", "the walk".
When people say, "to go for a walk", what they mean is "to go walking" or to go on "the walk", or "the usual walk".
Do people stop to consider whether it is a noun or a verb before they say it? I don't think so. Is it understandable? Yes
Possibly it is an example of an ellipsis:
>
> (grammar, rhetoric) 2. The omission of a grammatically required word or phrase that can be inferred.
>
>
> |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | If you don't use this phrase, you may not know that it carries some precision. If I say that after I do X, I think I will have time to go shopping, you don't know if I just intend to randomly browse, get birthday presents, or buy the weekly groceries. If I say I think I will have time to shop, then the random browsing is excluded (among the people I talk to) by that phrasing. And if I say I have time to do a shop, it's marked as a sort of to-do list item of regular occurence, meaning the weekly "grocery shop" that has to be done at a regular rhythm. The reason we have three ways of saying the same thing is because they aren't precisely the same thing. | The OED’s definition 2e for *shop* is ‘An act of shopping for purchases’ and it is described as colloquial. The earliest citation in this sense is from 1960: *You should find it possible to have one big ‘shop’ a week with a small mid-week ‘shop’ for perishables.* Once we see *shop* used as a noun in this way, any grammatical difficulty over it following *do* disappears. It's fairly common in the UK, but *shop* is more likely to be preceded by an adjective such as *big* or *weekly* than not. |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | "Do the shop."
Usually means, "Do the weekly shop".
Grammatically, going for a shop, is like going for a walk. "Walk" can be either a noun or a verb - "to walk", "the walk".
When people say, "to go for a walk", what they mean is "to go walking" or to go on "the walk", or "the usual walk".
Do people stop to consider whether it is a noun or a verb before they say it? I don't think so. Is it understandable? Yes
Possibly it is an example of an ellipsis:
>
> (grammar, rhetoric) 2. The omission of a grammatically required word or phrase that can be inferred.
>
>
> | "Do a shop" is no more or less "correct" than other slang, e.g., "Let's do lunch", "Let's take a meeting", and "**Enhance** your manhood by 3 inches instantly!" It's what people say. If they say it, and if other people understand what they mean, what on Earth does it matter? |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | If you don't use this phrase, you may not know that it carries some precision. If I say that after I do X, I think I will have time to go shopping, you don't know if I just intend to randomly browse, get birthday presents, or buy the weekly groceries. If I say I think I will have time to shop, then the random browsing is excluded (among the people I talk to) by that phrasing. And if I say I have time to do a shop, it's marked as a sort of to-do list item of regular occurence, meaning the weekly "grocery shop" that has to be done at a regular rhythm. The reason we have three ways of saying the same thing is because they aren't precisely the same thing. | "Do the shop."
Usually means, "Do the weekly shop".
Grammatically, going for a shop, is like going for a walk. "Walk" can be either a noun or a verb - "to walk", "the walk".
When people say, "to go for a walk", what they mean is "to go walking" or to go on "the walk", or "the usual walk".
Do people stop to consider whether it is a noun or a verb before they say it? I don't think so. Is it understandable? Yes
Possibly it is an example of an ellipsis:
>
> (grammar, rhetoric) 2. The omission of a grammatically required word or phrase that can be inferred.
>
>
> |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | I think it has a different and specific meaning.
"Do a shop" or "Do the shop" is a specific task, eg. the weekly trip to the supermarket for the big grocery shop.
"Go shopping" is a more general, recreational, go out and look at the shops but with no specific aim.
It's the same way that "load" is a verb or a noun. Shop is the place you buy stuff, the process of buying it or now the stuff you buy. | "Do a shop" is no more or less "correct" than other slang, e.g., "Let's do lunch", "Let's take a meeting", and "**Enhance** your manhood by 3 inches instantly!" It's what people say. If they say it, and if other people understand what they mean, what on Earth does it matter? |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | If you don't use this phrase, you may not know that it carries some precision. If I say that after I do X, I think I will have time to go shopping, you don't know if I just intend to randomly browse, get birthday presents, or buy the weekly groceries. If I say I think I will have time to shop, then the random browsing is excluded (among the people I talk to) by that phrasing. And if I say I have time to do a shop, it's marked as a sort of to-do list item of regular occurence, meaning the weekly "grocery shop" that has to be done at a regular rhythm. The reason we have three ways of saying the same thing is because they aren't precisely the same thing. | I think it has a different and specific meaning.
"Do a shop" or "Do the shop" is a specific task, eg. the weekly trip to the supermarket for the big grocery shop.
"Go shopping" is a more general, recreational, go out and look at the shops but with no specific aim.
It's the same way that "load" is a verb or a noun. Shop is the place you buy stuff, the process of buying it or now the stuff you buy. |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | If the noun *a shop* is taken to mean *the act of shopping* then *do a shop* is the same grammatical construction as phrases like *do a backflip*. I don't know where it came from but it is certainly common idiomatic usage here in the UK. As @BarrieEngland states it is most often used with an adjective (big, weekly, etc.). It is generally premeditated grocery shopping - not just picking up a couple of things and certainly not shopping as a leisure activity. | I think it has a different and specific meaning.
"Do a shop" or "Do the shop" is a specific task, eg. the weekly trip to the supermarket for the big grocery shop.
"Go shopping" is a more general, recreational, go out and look at the shops but with no specific aim.
It's the same way that "load" is a verb or a noun. Shop is the place you buy stuff, the process of buying it or now the stuff you buy. |
80,698 | This has puzzled me for a few years now. When preceded by *'a'*, *shop* becomes a noun. Does "do a shop" even make sense then? The correct phrase for me was always "go shopping", or similar.
Can anyone tell me where "do a shop" came from and whether it's grammatical?
Take the article in the following link, from an Irish broadsheet newspaper:
<http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/i-have-seven-children-and-my-weekly-shop-includes-200-nappies-and-20-litres-of-milk-3217903.html>
The headline, which appears to be a quote(but is not contained in the actual article body) shows an example.
Take the following line from the article *"it takes two trolleys to carry the weekly shopping"*. If we were to replace *'shopping'* with *'shop'*, would it still make sense? | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/80698",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/25703/"
] | The OED’s definition 2e for *shop* is ‘An act of shopping for purchases’ and it is described as colloquial. The earliest citation in this sense is from 1960: *You should find it possible to have one big ‘shop’ a week with a small mid-week ‘shop’ for perishables.* Once we see *shop* used as a noun in this way, any grammatical difficulty over it following *do* disappears. It's fairly common in the UK, but *shop* is more likely to be preceded by an adjective such as *big* or *weekly* than not. | "Do the shop."
Usually means, "Do the weekly shop".
Grammatically, going for a shop, is like going for a walk. "Walk" can be either a noun or a verb - "to walk", "the walk".
When people say, "to go for a walk", what they mean is "to go walking" or to go on "the walk", or "the usual walk".
Do people stop to consider whether it is a noun or a verb before they say it? I don't think so. Is it understandable? Yes
Possibly it is an example of an ellipsis:
>
> (grammar, rhetoric) 2. The omission of a grammatically required word or phrase that can be inferred.
>
>
> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.