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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
192,551 | **Side note: This is for an actual nation roleplay, and there is QUITE a bit of leeway there, but I highly recommend you base your answer on science. It's fine if you don't, but please try.**
The Fortnite Zero Point is this big ball that has *unimaginable* energy.
In a way, I thought of an idea like that. Let's just call it "the point" for now.
Basically, it is this big sphere of compressed energy, and it somehow generates its own energy. In a way, it's a recharging megabattery.
The thing is, *would this even be possible?* Or would there be absolutely NO WAY that could exist?
Current rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy)
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed)
* Nuclear reactors and variants (fusion reactors, etc) are banned. I do not know why, it was an admin decision. | 2020/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/192551",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/81449/"
] | It's a very, very, very small [white hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole).
That is, there's a black hole out there with the usual gravity field: nothing that falls in can escape, including light. Tidal forces will tear apart anything that tries. Consequently as the remnants fall through space and time until they exit the white hole, only energy remains.
It's the bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" that would need some handwaving. Perhaps they are needed to stabilize the space-time continuum and keep it in place, or in place relative to the people using it. (That white holes are purely theoretical gives you a lot of hand-waving room where someone can say that no one predicted this in advance.) | **Nuclear reactor with extra steps**
I am one of those people who do not know what that "Fortnite Zero point" is, but what you have described here kinda fills the bill of a nuclear reactor.
By your rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy) - **Check**.
The energy will depend on the neutron flux inside the reactor. Too much flux will cause a chain reaction that can spiral [out of control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster), too little will cause the reactor to shut down (in simplified terms). This can be regulated by introducing additional material, like boron to adjust the neutron flux to the level you need it at.
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?) - **Check**
Nuclear reactors do not, in fact, grow.
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK) - **Check**
There is obviously radiation, but you can (and probably should) shield the reactor.
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed) - **Check**
Radioactive material will eventually decay and you will need to replace it with a new portion.
As for "Unimaginable" power, that is a pretty broad definition. Nuclear materials can be used to generate A LOT of power so it depends what you consider unimaginable.
There are also various propositions for different reactor designs. If you want a big glowy ball of light to represent your energy sphere, perhaps a gas-core reactor with electrostatically or magnetically confined fission material will fit your bill. And if you want even more power, go for fusion reactor. In any case the rest is just a case of capturing the energy and using it (most likely) to generate electricity, which is exactly what nuclear reactors do. |
192,551 | **Side note: This is for an actual nation roleplay, and there is QUITE a bit of leeway there, but I highly recommend you base your answer on science. It's fine if you don't, but please try.**
The Fortnite Zero Point is this big ball that has *unimaginable* energy.
In a way, I thought of an idea like that. Let's just call it "the point" for now.
Basically, it is this big sphere of compressed energy, and it somehow generates its own energy. In a way, it's a recharging megabattery.
The thing is, *would this even be possible?* Or would there be absolutely NO WAY that could exist?
Current rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy)
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed)
* Nuclear reactors and variants (fusion reactors, etc) are banned. I do not know why, it was an admin decision. | 2020/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/192551",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/81449/"
] | Let's begin with the obvious frame challenge here: **It WILL emit radiation**. Anything that releases energy is releasing some form of radiation, it is how the radiation acts that actually matters.
The real question is what kind of radiation you are emitting and how you are generating it. First of all, there are many kinds of radiation: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Thermal, Neutrino, etc. In general though, Gamma radiation is going to be the most useful product of any really high energy reaction: you see it as a byproduct of Fission, Atomic Fusion, Quark Fusion, Antimatter Reactions... pretty much if it is sci-fi and it makes a lot of energy, that energy is mostly gamma radiation.
To generate a useful power source, it is not enough to have a source of energy, but you need it to radiate that energy into a medium that can absorb your chosen source of radiation and convert into an electrical current.
The most common method for this is to heat water. Now it is important to note that nothing absorbs 100% of radiation per se, rather radiation absorption is all about how much medium it takes to reduce the radiation to safe levels. Water for example will absorb about 1/2 of Gamma radiation every 7cm. So if you have a reactor that is emitting 1 million times as much gamma radiation as is safe for humans, you can put this reactor in a pool where it is surrounded by 140cm† of water on all sides, and the radiation that escapes the pool will then be reduced to safe levels. But that absorbed radiation does not just disappear, it heats up the water which will boil it into steam which can then be used to spin turbines, and it is actually the turbines that give you your electrical current, not the energy source itself.
So, what really matters is NOT if your power source produces radiation, but if the spent fuel continues to produce radiation after it is no longer a viable fuel sources, and THAT is the actual issue with nuclear power as we know it. In general though, this is mostly a problem with reactions that continue to happen even after the fuel is no long a viable fuel source. Fission is the biggest offender here because its fuel has a half-life where it continues to break down releasing energy slower and slower over time, but not really just stopping on its own.
Helium-3 Fusion
---------------
Since you are going for science based, nuclear fusion is probably going to be your most believable since humans can already (sort of) do it. The only real constraint right now with fusion is figuring out how to contain a fusion reaction without needing to input more power than you are getting back out of the system. The most common hand waves for how to solve for this are either the use of artificial gravity which could create a constant compressive force on your fuel source without needing to keep adding mass or energy to the system, or to use "cold fusion" which means you've solved for how to make fusion happen at much lower temperatures/compression than in nature allowing for more normal containment systems to the reaction. Just be mindful that artificial gravity, if discovered, could open up a flood gate of technological advancements that would violate physics as we know it; so, if you want to avoid a bunch of MagicTech popping up in your story, I'd suggest you go the Cold Fusion route.
**Now let's look at how this meets your criteria:**
>
> Zero Point is this big ball that has unimaginable energy.
>
>
>
Fusion reactions are much more energetic than fission. So, every 2.5kg of Helium-3 you have in your core, you will have about the same energy potential as a metric ton of Plutonium in a normal nuclear reactor.
>
> Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate
> faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially
> gaining more energy)
>
>
>
Fusion reactors theoretically can not melt down the same way a fission reactor does. If containment is somehow breached or damaged or overheated etc. a fusion reactor would quickly lose the theoretical compression required to maintain the reaction and it would fizzle out rather than cascade into a more energetic reaction. IE: adding fuel faster will produce more power up to the point you are not able to contain more power without it damaging itself.
>
> Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
>
>
>
It can only grow to the point at which your containment method fails. He3 fusion reactions require a lot of compression and temperature maintain. So, once your containment fails; so does your compression which which will then end the fusion reaction.
>
> If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
>
>
>
This where He3 is going to be such a good fuel source for you. As I mentioned in my introduction, all reactions radiate something, but the real environmental and safety concerns are in how much radiation their spent fuel puts off. Fusion reaction in general are much "cleaner" than fission reactions because they are not self-sustaining. Helium-3 creates an especially clean reaction even compared to other fusion reactions because it uses up all of the electrons, protons, and neutrons from its reaction not expelling any ionizing radiation at all which could otherwize turn non-radiative elements into radioactive isotopes. Therefore, once you turn the reactor off, the spent fuel, and the containment chamber should all be safe to handle as soon as it cools down.
>
> Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will
> slowly run out of energy if not fed)
>
>
>
It uses Helium-3 as its fuel source. Stop giving it He3, and it stops producing power.
Lastly: Why call it a zero point reactor?
-----------------------------------------
Fusion happens as a function of how hot and how compressed your matter is. The more you compress it, the less hot you need to make it; so, a Zero-Point reaction could be described as what happens when you compress helium so much that it fusses at temperatures low enough for humans to contain: thus giving you cold fusion.
†*This is because when you divide a number over and over again like this you get an exponential falloff. If you half a number once it is 1/2, do it again, it is 1/4, then 1/8, 1/16, etc. until you get to the 20th iteration which is 1/1,048,576 also known as 1/ (2^20). So you multiply 20 iterations by 7cm per iteration resulting in a close approximation of 140cm. Once you decide just how energetic your core is, you can use this method to decide how much water you need to keep around it to utilize its energy output.* | **Nuclear reactor with extra steps**
I am one of those people who do not know what that "Fortnite Zero point" is, but what you have described here kinda fills the bill of a nuclear reactor.
By your rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy) - **Check**.
The energy will depend on the neutron flux inside the reactor. Too much flux will cause a chain reaction that can spiral [out of control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster), too little will cause the reactor to shut down (in simplified terms). This can be regulated by introducing additional material, like boron to adjust the neutron flux to the level you need it at.
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?) - **Check**
Nuclear reactors do not, in fact, grow.
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK) - **Check**
There is obviously radiation, but you can (and probably should) shield the reactor.
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed) - **Check**
Radioactive material will eventually decay and you will need to replace it with a new portion.
As for "Unimaginable" power, that is a pretty broad definition. Nuclear materials can be used to generate A LOT of power so it depends what you consider unimaginable.
There are also various propositions for different reactor designs. If you want a big glowy ball of light to represent your energy sphere, perhaps a gas-core reactor with electrostatically or magnetically confined fission material will fit your bill. And if you want even more power, go for fusion reactor. In any case the rest is just a case of capturing the energy and using it (most likely) to generate electricity, which is exactly what nuclear reactors do. |
192,551 | **Side note: This is for an actual nation roleplay, and there is QUITE a bit of leeway there, but I highly recommend you base your answer on science. It's fine if you don't, but please try.**
The Fortnite Zero Point is this big ball that has *unimaginable* energy.
In a way, I thought of an idea like that. Let's just call it "the point" for now.
Basically, it is this big sphere of compressed energy, and it somehow generates its own energy. In a way, it's a recharging megabattery.
The thing is, *would this even be possible?* Or would there be absolutely NO WAY that could exist?
Current rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy)
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed)
* Nuclear reactors and variants (fusion reactors, etc) are banned. I do not know why, it was an admin decision. | 2020/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/192551",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/81449/"
] | **Nuclear reactor with extra steps**
I am one of those people who do not know what that "Fortnite Zero point" is, but what you have described here kinda fills the bill of a nuclear reactor.
By your rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy) - **Check**.
The energy will depend on the neutron flux inside the reactor. Too much flux will cause a chain reaction that can spiral [out of control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster), too little will cause the reactor to shut down (in simplified terms). This can be regulated by introducing additional material, like boron to adjust the neutron flux to the level you need it at.
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?) - **Check**
Nuclear reactors do not, in fact, grow.
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK) - **Check**
There is obviously radiation, but you can (and probably should) shield the reactor.
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed) - **Check**
Radioactive material will eventually decay and you will need to replace it with a new portion.
As for "Unimaginable" power, that is a pretty broad definition. Nuclear materials can be used to generate A LOT of power so it depends what you consider unimaginable.
There are also various propositions for different reactor designs. If you want a big glowy ball of light to represent your energy sphere, perhaps a gas-core reactor with electrostatically or magnetically confined fission material will fit your bill. And if you want even more power, go for fusion reactor. In any case the rest is just a case of capturing the energy and using it (most likely) to generate electricity, which is exactly what nuclear reactors do. | **A zero point reactor will use zero point energy.**
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy>
That's why they call it that, right? The TV show Stargate had Z-point energy generators that were about the size of footballs. I am sure this is where Fortnite got the idea.
>
> Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum
> mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum
> systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described
> by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] As well as atoms and
> molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties...
> Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding
> zero-point energy; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized
> and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[4]
> Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point
> radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than
> nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to
> boil all the world's oceans.[5]
>
>
> Scientists are not in agreement about how much energy is contained in
> the vacuum. Quantum mechanics requires the energy to be large as Paul
> Dirac claimed it is, like a sea of energy. Other scientists
> specializing in General Relativity require the energy to be small
> enough for curvature of space to agree with observed astronomy. The
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows the energy to be as large as
> needed to promote quantum actions for a brief moment of time, even if
> the average energy is small enough to satisfy relativity and flat
> space. To cope with disagreements, the vacuum energy is described as a
> virtual energy potential of positive and negative energy.[94]
>
>
>
How to sum this up? The vacuum is not empty. Things pop into and out of existence all the time. If you have waves popping into and out of existence, and two mirrors very close together, there is only room for small waves in between. On the outside of the mirrors there are small waves and big waves. A net force exerted by these energies manifesting in the vacuum push the mirrors together.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/>
>
> This effect, that two mirrors in a vacuum will be attracted to each
> other, is the Casimir Effect. It was first predicted in 1948 by Dutch
> physicist Hendrick Casimir. Steve K. Lamoreaux, now at Los Alamos
> National Laboratory, initially measured the tiny force in 1996.
>
>
> One of the most interesting aspects of vacuum energy (with or without
> mirrors) is that, calculated in quantum field theory, it is infinite!
> To some, this finding implies that the vacuum of space could be an
> enormous source of energy--called "zero point energy."
>
>
>
So that is your zero point.. A r*egion* which taps this limitless Z-point energy. Infinite energy counts as *unimaginable* energy I think. Presumably this ball would be a vacuum state which differs in its quantum energy from the adjacent normal space, and this difference is tapped as energy.
Z-point energy is heady stuff.
If you want to get into the weeds so more, here is some light reading.
<http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph240/blakemore1/>
I was interested to see that NASA has an experimental engine based on Z-point energy! |
192,551 | **Side note: This is for an actual nation roleplay, and there is QUITE a bit of leeway there, but I highly recommend you base your answer on science. It's fine if you don't, but please try.**
The Fortnite Zero Point is this big ball that has *unimaginable* energy.
In a way, I thought of an idea like that. Let's just call it "the point" for now.
Basically, it is this big sphere of compressed energy, and it somehow generates its own energy. In a way, it's a recharging megabattery.
The thing is, *would this even be possible?* Or would there be absolutely NO WAY that could exist?
Current rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy)
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed)
* Nuclear reactors and variants (fusion reactors, etc) are banned. I do not know why, it was an admin decision. | 2020/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/192551",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/81449/"
] | It's a very, very, very small [white hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole).
That is, there's a black hole out there with the usual gravity field: nothing that falls in can escape, including light. Tidal forces will tear apart anything that tries. Consequently as the remnants fall through space and time until they exit the white hole, only energy remains.
It's the bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" that would need some handwaving. Perhaps they are needed to stabilize the space-time continuum and keep it in place, or in place relative to the people using it. (That white holes are purely theoretical gives you a lot of hand-waving room where someone can say that no one predicted this in advance.) | Let's begin with the obvious frame challenge here: **It WILL emit radiation**. Anything that releases energy is releasing some form of radiation, it is how the radiation acts that actually matters.
The real question is what kind of radiation you are emitting and how you are generating it. First of all, there are many kinds of radiation: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Thermal, Neutrino, etc. In general though, Gamma radiation is going to be the most useful product of any really high energy reaction: you see it as a byproduct of Fission, Atomic Fusion, Quark Fusion, Antimatter Reactions... pretty much if it is sci-fi and it makes a lot of energy, that energy is mostly gamma radiation.
To generate a useful power source, it is not enough to have a source of energy, but you need it to radiate that energy into a medium that can absorb your chosen source of radiation and convert into an electrical current.
The most common method for this is to heat water. Now it is important to note that nothing absorbs 100% of radiation per se, rather radiation absorption is all about how much medium it takes to reduce the radiation to safe levels. Water for example will absorb about 1/2 of Gamma radiation every 7cm. So if you have a reactor that is emitting 1 million times as much gamma radiation as is safe for humans, you can put this reactor in a pool where it is surrounded by 140cm† of water on all sides, and the radiation that escapes the pool will then be reduced to safe levels. But that absorbed radiation does not just disappear, it heats up the water which will boil it into steam which can then be used to spin turbines, and it is actually the turbines that give you your electrical current, not the energy source itself.
So, what really matters is NOT if your power source produces radiation, but if the spent fuel continues to produce radiation after it is no longer a viable fuel sources, and THAT is the actual issue with nuclear power as we know it. In general though, this is mostly a problem with reactions that continue to happen even after the fuel is no long a viable fuel source. Fission is the biggest offender here because its fuel has a half-life where it continues to break down releasing energy slower and slower over time, but not really just stopping on its own.
Helium-3 Fusion
---------------
Since you are going for science based, nuclear fusion is probably going to be your most believable since humans can already (sort of) do it. The only real constraint right now with fusion is figuring out how to contain a fusion reaction without needing to input more power than you are getting back out of the system. The most common hand waves for how to solve for this are either the use of artificial gravity which could create a constant compressive force on your fuel source without needing to keep adding mass or energy to the system, or to use "cold fusion" which means you've solved for how to make fusion happen at much lower temperatures/compression than in nature allowing for more normal containment systems to the reaction. Just be mindful that artificial gravity, if discovered, could open up a flood gate of technological advancements that would violate physics as we know it; so, if you want to avoid a bunch of MagicTech popping up in your story, I'd suggest you go the Cold Fusion route.
**Now let's look at how this meets your criteria:**
>
> Zero Point is this big ball that has unimaginable energy.
>
>
>
Fusion reactions are much more energetic than fission. So, every 2.5kg of Helium-3 you have in your core, you will have about the same energy potential as a metric ton of Plutonium in a normal nuclear reactor.
>
> Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate
> faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially
> gaining more energy)
>
>
>
Fusion reactors theoretically can not melt down the same way a fission reactor does. If containment is somehow breached or damaged or overheated etc. a fusion reactor would quickly lose the theoretical compression required to maintain the reaction and it would fizzle out rather than cascade into a more energetic reaction. IE: adding fuel faster will produce more power up to the point you are not able to contain more power without it damaging itself.
>
> Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
>
>
>
It can only grow to the point at which your containment method fails. He3 fusion reactions require a lot of compression and temperature maintain. So, once your containment fails; so does your compression which which will then end the fusion reaction.
>
> If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
>
>
>
This where He3 is going to be such a good fuel source for you. As I mentioned in my introduction, all reactions radiate something, but the real environmental and safety concerns are in how much radiation their spent fuel puts off. Fusion reaction in general are much "cleaner" than fission reactions because they are not self-sustaining. Helium-3 creates an especially clean reaction even compared to other fusion reactions because it uses up all of the electrons, protons, and neutrons from its reaction not expelling any ionizing radiation at all which could otherwize turn non-radiative elements into radioactive isotopes. Therefore, once you turn the reactor off, the spent fuel, and the containment chamber should all be safe to handle as soon as it cools down.
>
> Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will
> slowly run out of energy if not fed)
>
>
>
It uses Helium-3 as its fuel source. Stop giving it He3, and it stops producing power.
Lastly: Why call it a zero point reactor?
-----------------------------------------
Fusion happens as a function of how hot and how compressed your matter is. The more you compress it, the less hot you need to make it; so, a Zero-Point reaction could be described as what happens when you compress helium so much that it fusses at temperatures low enough for humans to contain: thus giving you cold fusion.
†*This is because when you divide a number over and over again like this you get an exponential falloff. If you half a number once it is 1/2, do it again, it is 1/4, then 1/8, 1/16, etc. until you get to the 20th iteration which is 1/1,048,576 also known as 1/ (2^20). So you multiply 20 iterations by 7cm per iteration resulting in a close approximation of 140cm. Once you decide just how energetic your core is, you can use this method to decide how much water you need to keep around it to utilize its energy output.* |
192,551 | **Side note: This is for an actual nation roleplay, and there is QUITE a bit of leeway there, but I highly recommend you base your answer on science. It's fine if you don't, but please try.**
The Fortnite Zero Point is this big ball that has *unimaginable* energy.
In a way, I thought of an idea like that. Let's just call it "the point" for now.
Basically, it is this big sphere of compressed energy, and it somehow generates its own energy. In a way, it's a recharging megabattery.
The thing is, *would this even be possible?* Or would there be absolutely NO WAY that could exist?
Current rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy)
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed)
* Nuclear reactors and variants (fusion reactors, etc) are banned. I do not know why, it was an admin decision. | 2020/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/192551",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/81449/"
] | It's a very, very, very small [white hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole).
That is, there's a black hole out there with the usual gravity field: nothing that falls in can escape, including light. Tidal forces will tear apart anything that tries. Consequently as the remnants fall through space and time until they exit the white hole, only energy remains.
It's the bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" that would need some handwaving. Perhaps they are needed to stabilize the space-time continuum and keep it in place, or in place relative to the people using it. (That white holes are purely theoretical gives you a lot of hand-waving room where someone can say that no one predicted this in advance.) | **A zero point reactor will use zero point energy.**
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy>
That's why they call it that, right? The TV show Stargate had Z-point energy generators that were about the size of footballs. I am sure this is where Fortnite got the idea.
>
> Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum
> mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum
> systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described
> by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] As well as atoms and
> molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties...
> Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding
> zero-point energy; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized
> and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[4]
> Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point
> radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than
> nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to
> boil all the world's oceans.[5]
>
>
> Scientists are not in agreement about how much energy is contained in
> the vacuum. Quantum mechanics requires the energy to be large as Paul
> Dirac claimed it is, like a sea of energy. Other scientists
> specializing in General Relativity require the energy to be small
> enough for curvature of space to agree with observed astronomy. The
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows the energy to be as large as
> needed to promote quantum actions for a brief moment of time, even if
> the average energy is small enough to satisfy relativity and flat
> space. To cope with disagreements, the vacuum energy is described as a
> virtual energy potential of positive and negative energy.[94]
>
>
>
How to sum this up? The vacuum is not empty. Things pop into and out of existence all the time. If you have waves popping into and out of existence, and two mirrors very close together, there is only room for small waves in between. On the outside of the mirrors there are small waves and big waves. A net force exerted by these energies manifesting in the vacuum push the mirrors together.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/>
>
> This effect, that two mirrors in a vacuum will be attracted to each
> other, is the Casimir Effect. It was first predicted in 1948 by Dutch
> physicist Hendrick Casimir. Steve K. Lamoreaux, now at Los Alamos
> National Laboratory, initially measured the tiny force in 1996.
>
>
> One of the most interesting aspects of vacuum energy (with or without
> mirrors) is that, calculated in quantum field theory, it is infinite!
> To some, this finding implies that the vacuum of space could be an
> enormous source of energy--called "zero point energy."
>
>
>
So that is your zero point.. A r*egion* which taps this limitless Z-point energy. Infinite energy counts as *unimaginable* energy I think. Presumably this ball would be a vacuum state which differs in its quantum energy from the adjacent normal space, and this difference is tapped as energy.
Z-point energy is heady stuff.
If you want to get into the weeds so more, here is some light reading.
<http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph240/blakemore1/>
I was interested to see that NASA has an experimental engine based on Z-point energy! |
192,551 | **Side note: This is for an actual nation roleplay, and there is QUITE a bit of leeway there, but I highly recommend you base your answer on science. It's fine if you don't, but please try.**
The Fortnite Zero Point is this big ball that has *unimaginable* energy.
In a way, I thought of an idea like that. Let's just call it "the point" for now.
Basically, it is this big sphere of compressed energy, and it somehow generates its own energy. In a way, it's a recharging megabattery.
The thing is, *would this even be possible?* Or would there be absolutely NO WAY that could exist?
Current rules:
* Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially gaining more energy)
* Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
* If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
* Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will slowly run out of energy if not fed)
* Nuclear reactors and variants (fusion reactors, etc) are banned. I do not know why, it was an admin decision. | 2020/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/192551",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/81449/"
] | Let's begin with the obvious frame challenge here: **It WILL emit radiation**. Anything that releases energy is releasing some form of radiation, it is how the radiation acts that actually matters.
The real question is what kind of radiation you are emitting and how you are generating it. First of all, there are many kinds of radiation: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Thermal, Neutrino, etc. In general though, Gamma radiation is going to be the most useful product of any really high energy reaction: you see it as a byproduct of Fission, Atomic Fusion, Quark Fusion, Antimatter Reactions... pretty much if it is sci-fi and it makes a lot of energy, that energy is mostly gamma radiation.
To generate a useful power source, it is not enough to have a source of energy, but you need it to radiate that energy into a medium that can absorb your chosen source of radiation and convert into an electrical current.
The most common method for this is to heat water. Now it is important to note that nothing absorbs 100% of radiation per se, rather radiation absorption is all about how much medium it takes to reduce the radiation to safe levels. Water for example will absorb about 1/2 of Gamma radiation every 7cm. So if you have a reactor that is emitting 1 million times as much gamma radiation as is safe for humans, you can put this reactor in a pool where it is surrounded by 140cm† of water on all sides, and the radiation that escapes the pool will then be reduced to safe levels. But that absorbed radiation does not just disappear, it heats up the water which will boil it into steam which can then be used to spin turbines, and it is actually the turbines that give you your electrical current, not the energy source itself.
So, what really matters is NOT if your power source produces radiation, but if the spent fuel continues to produce radiation after it is no longer a viable fuel sources, and THAT is the actual issue with nuclear power as we know it. In general though, this is mostly a problem with reactions that continue to happen even after the fuel is no long a viable fuel source. Fission is the biggest offender here because its fuel has a half-life where it continues to break down releasing energy slower and slower over time, but not really just stopping on its own.
Helium-3 Fusion
---------------
Since you are going for science based, nuclear fusion is probably going to be your most believable since humans can already (sort of) do it. The only real constraint right now with fusion is figuring out how to contain a fusion reaction without needing to input more power than you are getting back out of the system. The most common hand waves for how to solve for this are either the use of artificial gravity which could create a constant compressive force on your fuel source without needing to keep adding mass or energy to the system, or to use "cold fusion" which means you've solved for how to make fusion happen at much lower temperatures/compression than in nature allowing for more normal containment systems to the reaction. Just be mindful that artificial gravity, if discovered, could open up a flood gate of technological advancements that would violate physics as we know it; so, if you want to avoid a bunch of MagicTech popping up in your story, I'd suggest you go the Cold Fusion route.
**Now let's look at how this meets your criteria:**
>
> Zero Point is this big ball that has unimaginable energy.
>
>
>
Fusion reactions are much more energetic than fission. So, every 2.5kg of Helium-3 you have in your core, you will have about the same energy potential as a metric ton of Plutonium in a normal nuclear reactor.
>
> Cannot exponentially gain energy (energy put into it makes it generate
> faster, but there has to be a way to stop it from exponentially
> gaining more energy)
>
>
>
Fusion reactors theoretically can not melt down the same way a fission reactor does. If containment is somehow breached or damaged or overheated etc. a fusion reactor would quickly lose the theoretical compression required to maintain the reaction and it would fizzle out rather than cascade into a more energetic reaction. IE: adding fuel faster will produce more power up to the point you are not able to contain more power without it damaging itself.
>
> Should not grow in size (Do you want it to eat the entire earth?)
>
>
>
It can only grow to the point at which your containment method fails. He3 fusion reactions require a lot of compression and temperature maintain. So, once your containment fails; so does your compression which which will then end the fusion reaction.
>
> If possible, it shouldn't emit any radiation (But if needed, its OK)
>
>
>
This where He3 is going to be such a good fuel source for you. As I mentioned in my introduction, all reactions radiate something, but the real environmental and safety concerns are in how much radiation their spent fuel puts off. Fusion reaction in general are much "cleaner" than fission reactions because they are not self-sustaining. Helium-3 creates an especially clean reaction even compared to other fusion reactions because it uses up all of the electrons, protons, and neutrons from its reaction not expelling any ionizing radiation at all which could otherwize turn non-radiative elements into radioactive isotopes. Therefore, once you turn the reactor off, the spent fuel, and the containment chamber should all be safe to handle as soon as it cools down.
>
> Needs occasional bursts of mass or energy to keep it "charged" (will
> slowly run out of energy if not fed)
>
>
>
It uses Helium-3 as its fuel source. Stop giving it He3, and it stops producing power.
Lastly: Why call it a zero point reactor?
-----------------------------------------
Fusion happens as a function of how hot and how compressed your matter is. The more you compress it, the less hot you need to make it; so, a Zero-Point reaction could be described as what happens when you compress helium so much that it fusses at temperatures low enough for humans to contain: thus giving you cold fusion.
†*This is because when you divide a number over and over again like this you get an exponential falloff. If you half a number once it is 1/2, do it again, it is 1/4, then 1/8, 1/16, etc. until you get to the 20th iteration which is 1/1,048,576 also known as 1/ (2^20). So you multiply 20 iterations by 7cm per iteration resulting in a close approximation of 140cm. Once you decide just how energetic your core is, you can use this method to decide how much water you need to keep around it to utilize its energy output.* | **A zero point reactor will use zero point energy.**
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy>
That's why they call it that, right? The TV show Stargate had Z-point energy generators that were about the size of footballs. I am sure this is where Fortnite got the idea.
>
> Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum
> mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum
> systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described
> by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] As well as atoms and
> molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties...
> Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding
> zero-point energy; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized
> and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[4]
> Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point
> radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than
> nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to
> boil all the world's oceans.[5]
>
>
> Scientists are not in agreement about how much energy is contained in
> the vacuum. Quantum mechanics requires the energy to be large as Paul
> Dirac claimed it is, like a sea of energy. Other scientists
> specializing in General Relativity require the energy to be small
> enough for curvature of space to agree with observed astronomy. The
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows the energy to be as large as
> needed to promote quantum actions for a brief moment of time, even if
> the average energy is small enough to satisfy relativity and flat
> space. To cope with disagreements, the vacuum energy is described as a
> virtual energy potential of positive and negative energy.[94]
>
>
>
How to sum this up? The vacuum is not empty. Things pop into and out of existence all the time. If you have waves popping into and out of existence, and two mirrors very close together, there is only room for small waves in between. On the outside of the mirrors there are small waves and big waves. A net force exerted by these energies manifesting in the vacuum push the mirrors together.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/>
>
> This effect, that two mirrors in a vacuum will be attracted to each
> other, is the Casimir Effect. It was first predicted in 1948 by Dutch
> physicist Hendrick Casimir. Steve K. Lamoreaux, now at Los Alamos
> National Laboratory, initially measured the tiny force in 1996.
>
>
> One of the most interesting aspects of vacuum energy (with or without
> mirrors) is that, calculated in quantum field theory, it is infinite!
> To some, this finding implies that the vacuum of space could be an
> enormous source of energy--called "zero point energy."
>
>
>
So that is your zero point.. A r*egion* which taps this limitless Z-point energy. Infinite energy counts as *unimaginable* energy I think. Presumably this ball would be a vacuum state which differs in its quantum energy from the adjacent normal space, and this difference is tapped as energy.
Z-point energy is heady stuff.
If you want to get into the weeds so more, here is some light reading.
<http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph240/blakemore1/>
I was interested to see that NASA has an experimental engine based on Z-point energy! |
5,255 | This is part of my quest how to test my tests and test data. I looked at the techniques that would help improve my test cases. While *code/branch coverage* can tell me whether my test suites cover my code base sufficiently, it will not tell me whether my test oracles are able to detect all faults. So, here comes [mutation testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_testing) with help:
>
> *Mutation testing* involves modifying a program's source code or byte
> code in small ways. A test suite that does not detect and reject the
> mutated code is considered defective.
>
>
>
In extreme case it will detect useless assertions `1==1` in your tests :-)
There are [tools](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/246495/what-mutation-testing-frameworks-exist) for performing mutation testing (in Java and other programming languages), some well integrated with xUnit frameworks. However, configuring those tools and interpreting their results seems time-consuming to me, and the tools [might return many false negatives](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=261062.261067) (called equivalent mutants) that I must filter out manually. Hence, I'm curious whether it is worth investing more time on learning that technique.
1. Have you found those tools, or mutation testing in general, *useful* for improving your tests?
2. What kind of *deficiencies* have you found in your tests with mutation testing?
I've read about some [hands-on experiences](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/242650/is-mutation-testing-useful-in-practice) with this technique but no details what deficiencies were found in real test cases and how serious they were. | 2012/11/24 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5255",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/1933/"
] | I'm the author of one of the tools for Java (<http://pitest.org>).
I have found mutation testing useful in practice, working on large legacy corporate code bases and smaller test driven projects.
I've seen a lot of dismissals of the value of mutation testing such as Bj Rollison's answer. I generally don't disagree with the points he makes, however some implicit assumptions are being made about how mutation testing can/should be used.
Mutation testing is useful (in my experience) when performed in the following ways
**1. From the outset of a small/medium project.**
In this scenario mutation testing supports you as you code. You can realistically aim to achieve a high mutation score.
Mutation testing will highlight gaps in your test suite (examples I keep seeing are interaction focused tests that don't check that methods actually return the value they're meant to calculate, unchecked boundaries, and lots
of instances where the TDD process you claim to be following clearly wasn't followed as you can take methods calls out without a test failing).
A surviving mutation will result in you doing one of three things
a) Writing a new test
b) Deleting some code
c) Rewriting some code
Often the outcome is b) or c).
b) is self explanatory - you have some useless code that can be removed, c) is less obvious and relates to equivalent mutations. I've found that often code that can be mutated to an equilvaent mutation can be better expressed by code that can't be mutated to an equivalent mutation. The result is usually easier to understand and maintain.
Some equivalment mutations will always remain however - usually these are from performance concerns within the code.
The definition of what constitutes a small/medium project is a little tricky to tie down - but basically small enough that the analysis completes in a time low enough to be acceptable as part of you coding feedback loop. Fortunately mutation testing tools have improved their performance by orders of in recent years. (see <http://pitest.org/java_mutation_testing_systems/> for some discussion of why/how).
**2. To support new development within an existing large code base**
The same as above but the analysis is limited to new code. It can be useful both while developing, and part of pair review etc. It finds test suite gaps, but can also generate some useful discussion about the code.
**3. To support changes to existing code within an existing larger code base**
In this scenario a slice of a codebase of interest is picked out for analysis - often to support a refactoring.
As before you might end up adding tests, but probably wouldn't bother deleting or rewriting code as it is likely to be replaced anyway. Once all the surviving mutations have been investigated you have however gained an accurate
understanding of the risk involved in refactoring.
They way most people seem to assume that mutation testing should be used is ..
**4. Try and achieve a 100%/85%/75% etc mutation score for an existing project**
I've never tried this, and wouldn't expect it to deliver much value.
If the code base is large analysis times will be long, and the number of surviving mutations likely to be high. Trying to assess each one would be prohibitively time consuming (javalanche is meant to provide some help in this space - I've not tried it myself
though, and gather it comes with a high performance cost).
Mutation testing could perhaps still be used to assess the overall quality of and existing suite. A random sample of surviving mutation could be taken and each assesed to see if it equivalent - this could then be used to determine the likely number of surviving mutations
that repesent test suite deficiencies. This is not something I have tried myself however. | Mutation testing is generally interesting from an academic perspective. I have never seen or heard of anyone using mutation testing on software that is delivered to customers on a schedule. The time and expense involved in mutation testing is huge compared to the perceived value returned. In complex projects with several developers contributing to the product mutation testing of even a small component can block continuous integration cycles. In general, mutation testing is probably one of the most expensive solutions to a goal of improving test case effectiveness (assuming that you have a problem of ineffective test cases).
Mutation testing may be useful in training, or smaller projects with limited participants and no timelines, but it is generally more complicated than flipping a single bit and analyzing the results of a subset of tests.
Also, it is a faulty assumption that an oracle (human or automated) will detect all faults. Automated oracles can only detect problems they are programmed to check for. |
5,255 | This is part of my quest how to test my tests and test data. I looked at the techniques that would help improve my test cases. While *code/branch coverage* can tell me whether my test suites cover my code base sufficiently, it will not tell me whether my test oracles are able to detect all faults. So, here comes [mutation testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_testing) with help:
>
> *Mutation testing* involves modifying a program's source code or byte
> code in small ways. A test suite that does not detect and reject the
> mutated code is considered defective.
>
>
>
In extreme case it will detect useless assertions `1==1` in your tests :-)
There are [tools](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/246495/what-mutation-testing-frameworks-exist) for performing mutation testing (in Java and other programming languages), some well integrated with xUnit frameworks. However, configuring those tools and interpreting their results seems time-consuming to me, and the tools [might return many false negatives](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=261062.261067) (called equivalent mutants) that I must filter out manually. Hence, I'm curious whether it is worth investing more time on learning that technique.
1. Have you found those tools, or mutation testing in general, *useful* for improving your tests?
2. What kind of *deficiencies* have you found in your tests with mutation testing?
I've read about some [hands-on experiences](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/242650/is-mutation-testing-useful-in-practice) with this technique but no details what deficiencies were found in real test cases and how serious they were. | 2012/11/24 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5255",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/1933/"
] | Mutation testing is generally interesting from an academic perspective. I have never seen or heard of anyone using mutation testing on software that is delivered to customers on a schedule. The time and expense involved in mutation testing is huge compared to the perceived value returned. In complex projects with several developers contributing to the product mutation testing of even a small component can block continuous integration cycles. In general, mutation testing is probably one of the most expensive solutions to a goal of improving test case effectiveness (assuming that you have a problem of ineffective test cases).
Mutation testing may be useful in training, or smaller projects with limited participants and no timelines, but it is generally more complicated than flipping a single bit and analyzing the results of a subset of tests.
Also, it is a faulty assumption that an oracle (human or automated) will detect all faults. Automated oracles can only detect problems they are programmed to check for. | Mutation testing has been used in some small systems e.g.: see article ["An intuitive approach to determine test adequacy in safety-critical software"](http://se.kaist.ac.kr/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/An-Intuitive-Approach-to-Determine-Test-Adequacy-in-Safety-critical-Software.pdf). Here's the abstract:
>
> Safety-critical software must adhere to stringent quality standards
> and is expected to be thoroughly tested. However, exhaustive testing
> of software is usually impractical. The two main challenges faced by a
> software testing team are generation of effective test cases and
> demonstration of testing adequacy.
>
>
> This paper proposes an intuitive and conservative approach to
> **determine the test adequacy in safety-critical software**. The approach is demonstrated through a case study: the core temperature
> monitoring system of a nuclear reactor. We combine conservative test
> coverage of unique execution path test cases, and **the results from
> mutation testing to determine the test adequacy**.
>
>
> Although mutation testing is a powerful technique, the **difficulty in
> identifying equivalent mutants has limited its practical utility**. To
> gain confidence on the computed test adequacy:
>
>
> 1. faults during mutation testing must be induced at all possible execution paths of the code,
> 2. properties of unkilled mutants must be studied, and
> 3. all equivalent mutants must be detected.
>
>
> In this regard;
>
>
> * results of static, dynamic and **coverage analysis of the mutants** is presented, and
> * a **technique to identify the likely equivalent mutants** is proposed.
>
>
> |
5,255 | This is part of my quest how to test my tests and test data. I looked at the techniques that would help improve my test cases. While *code/branch coverage* can tell me whether my test suites cover my code base sufficiently, it will not tell me whether my test oracles are able to detect all faults. So, here comes [mutation testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_testing) with help:
>
> *Mutation testing* involves modifying a program's source code or byte
> code in small ways. A test suite that does not detect and reject the
> mutated code is considered defective.
>
>
>
In extreme case it will detect useless assertions `1==1` in your tests :-)
There are [tools](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/246495/what-mutation-testing-frameworks-exist) for performing mutation testing (in Java and other programming languages), some well integrated with xUnit frameworks. However, configuring those tools and interpreting their results seems time-consuming to me, and the tools [might return many false negatives](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=261062.261067) (called equivalent mutants) that I must filter out manually. Hence, I'm curious whether it is worth investing more time on learning that technique.
1. Have you found those tools, or mutation testing in general, *useful* for improving your tests?
2. What kind of *deficiencies* have you found in your tests with mutation testing?
I've read about some [hands-on experiences](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/242650/is-mutation-testing-useful-in-practice) with this technique but no details what deficiencies were found in real test cases and how serious they were. | 2012/11/24 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5255",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/1933/"
] | I'm the author of one of the tools for Java (<http://pitest.org>).
I have found mutation testing useful in practice, working on large legacy corporate code bases and smaller test driven projects.
I've seen a lot of dismissals of the value of mutation testing such as Bj Rollison's answer. I generally don't disagree with the points he makes, however some implicit assumptions are being made about how mutation testing can/should be used.
Mutation testing is useful (in my experience) when performed in the following ways
**1. From the outset of a small/medium project.**
In this scenario mutation testing supports you as you code. You can realistically aim to achieve a high mutation score.
Mutation testing will highlight gaps in your test suite (examples I keep seeing are interaction focused tests that don't check that methods actually return the value they're meant to calculate, unchecked boundaries, and lots
of instances where the TDD process you claim to be following clearly wasn't followed as you can take methods calls out without a test failing).
A surviving mutation will result in you doing one of three things
a) Writing a new test
b) Deleting some code
c) Rewriting some code
Often the outcome is b) or c).
b) is self explanatory - you have some useless code that can be removed, c) is less obvious and relates to equivalent mutations. I've found that often code that can be mutated to an equilvaent mutation can be better expressed by code that can't be mutated to an equivalent mutation. The result is usually easier to understand and maintain.
Some equivalment mutations will always remain however - usually these are from performance concerns within the code.
The definition of what constitutes a small/medium project is a little tricky to tie down - but basically small enough that the analysis completes in a time low enough to be acceptable as part of you coding feedback loop. Fortunately mutation testing tools have improved their performance by orders of in recent years. (see <http://pitest.org/java_mutation_testing_systems/> for some discussion of why/how).
**2. To support new development within an existing large code base**
The same as above but the analysis is limited to new code. It can be useful both while developing, and part of pair review etc. It finds test suite gaps, but can also generate some useful discussion about the code.
**3. To support changes to existing code within an existing larger code base**
In this scenario a slice of a codebase of interest is picked out for analysis - often to support a refactoring.
As before you might end up adding tests, but probably wouldn't bother deleting or rewriting code as it is likely to be replaced anyway. Once all the surviving mutations have been investigated you have however gained an accurate
understanding of the risk involved in refactoring.
They way most people seem to assume that mutation testing should be used is ..
**4. Try and achieve a 100%/85%/75% etc mutation score for an existing project**
I've never tried this, and wouldn't expect it to deliver much value.
If the code base is large analysis times will be long, and the number of surviving mutations likely to be high. Trying to assess each one would be prohibitively time consuming (javalanche is meant to provide some help in this space - I've not tried it myself
though, and gather it comes with a high performance cost).
Mutation testing could perhaps still be used to assess the overall quality of and existing suite. A random sample of surviving mutation could be taken and each assesed to see if it equivalent - this could then be used to determine the likely number of surviving mutations
that repesent test suite deficiencies. This is not something I have tried myself however. | Mutation testing has been used in some small systems e.g.: see article ["An intuitive approach to determine test adequacy in safety-critical software"](http://se.kaist.ac.kr/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/An-Intuitive-Approach-to-Determine-Test-Adequacy-in-Safety-critical-Software.pdf). Here's the abstract:
>
> Safety-critical software must adhere to stringent quality standards
> and is expected to be thoroughly tested. However, exhaustive testing
> of software is usually impractical. The two main challenges faced by a
> software testing team are generation of effective test cases and
> demonstration of testing adequacy.
>
>
> This paper proposes an intuitive and conservative approach to
> **determine the test adequacy in safety-critical software**. The approach is demonstrated through a case study: the core temperature
> monitoring system of a nuclear reactor. We combine conservative test
> coverage of unique execution path test cases, and **the results from
> mutation testing to determine the test adequacy**.
>
>
> Although mutation testing is a powerful technique, the **difficulty in
> identifying equivalent mutants has limited its practical utility**. To
> gain confidence on the computed test adequacy:
>
>
> 1. faults during mutation testing must be induced at all possible execution paths of the code,
> 2. properties of unkilled mutants must be studied, and
> 3. all equivalent mutants must be detected.
>
>
> In this regard;
>
>
> * results of static, dynamic and **coverage analysis of the mutants** is presented, and
> * a **technique to identify the likely equivalent mutants** is proposed.
>
>
> |
14,296 | I'm trying to build a "list" which is comprised of a bunch of workflows. Example workflows would be: Travel, Reimbursement, Software Request. I would like to list these workflows and allow a user to click the Software Request workflow to launch a new instance of the Software Request workflow. The workflows do not relate to a specific item in a list.
How would add a list of workflows to a page? | 2011/06/09 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/14296",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/3349/"
] | Since you have created site workflows and they don’t have a list item or document to start from, they must be started either:
1) manually - <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee662540.aspx>
or
2) Using API - example - <http://unclepaul84.blogspot.com/2009/12/starting-sharepoint-2010-site-workflows.html>
Let us know if you find a better way... | Create hyperlinks to the NewForm pages of the lists that hold the workflows. Workflows have to run on list or library items, so users have to submit something. |
36,790,312 | I'd like to be able to manage voice skype calls using [Microsoft Bot Framework](https://dev.botframework.com) and creating Skype Bot I see this option:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xVcyC.png)
I read **Limited Preview**, do I have to make a special request or is it enough my account I used to create Skype Bot? In the first case how to do it?
Finally, where I can find documentation to start learning how to develop this process? For example, where I can find a webhook for this service?
What I would like to to is to call to Bot by phone call then analyze speech, analize it by Luis and/or Bot Framework then reply to user by text to Speech.
Is it a reasonable scenario? Is it the way or is there another solution?
Thanks | 2016/04/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/36790312",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2013945/"
] | The Skype Calling API is now available in the bot framework as of V3 which was released just a couple of weeks ago. The API lets your bot answer calls, record audio, recognize speech (using LUIS congnitive service) or accept digits from the user on the dial pad. You can combine these actions and create complex dialogs with the user.
You can see all the info about the Calling API at <https://docs.botframework.com/en-us/skype/calling/>
Hope that helps! | Voice is bot yet available in the botframework.
Not sure that it will be available soon. |
101,068 | I use the Olympus micro four thirds (MFT) system. One of the problems with this is that there are no shift lenses for this format, so taking landscape photos with buildings is problematic. I can kind of get around it by taking panoramas if there is no motion in the scene. The photo below shows the typical problem:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kvmj4.png)
I don't really want to get into morphing in post production, although for the photo above, it might be a feasible solution since the resulting pixel stretching would be limited.
My preferred approach would be to adapt a shift or PC lens to the Olympus, but I am not sure whether this will be possible. For example, Voigtlander makes a series of rectilinear lenses such as its [heliar hyper wide 10mm](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1219550-REG/voigtlander_ba334b_heliar_hyper_wide_10mm_f_5_6.html) for E-mounts, but the Sony E-mount has an 18mm flange focal distance while MFT has a 19.24mm flange focal distance and from what I understand you can't shorten the flange distance. Also, I am dealing with converting a full frame lens to a 4/3rds sensor, so there might be problems with that if a shift lens is being used. Is a mounting like this even possible?
A different option might be to use the [Canon EF to MFT Metabones speedbooster adapter](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B011GEMHU4). I am not a big fan of [Canon's shift lens, the TSE 17mm](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606803-USA/Canon_3553B002_Wide_Tilt_Shift_TS_E_17mm.html), but if that is the only option, so be it. Should I basically try to make this work, or are the Voigtlander lenses possible? | 2018/08/29 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/101068",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/56382/"
] | Be aware that some sophisticated wide angle lenses (floating element primes, wide angle zooms) are *extremely* sensitive to flange distance mismatches, so be sure that any adapter you use is precise in that regard. A mismatch of fractions of a mm that would merely throw off infinity focus with a normal prime can wreck havoc on the corrections and thus the image quality of an ultrawide. | There is one tilt-shift lens with an MFT mount: [the Samyang 24mm f/3.5](https://www.samyanglensglobal.com/en/product/product-view.php?seq=266).
But no, you can't adapt E-mount. But you can find shift adapters (and tilt-shift adapters) for full frame lenses to MFT. Kipon and [Fotodiox](https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/micro-four-thirds-adapters/adapter-type_shift-adapters) are two companies that make them, with a lot of cheaper varieties available on eBay.
You want to start with a full frame lens because you need a lens with an image circle large enough to be shifted without losing sensor coverage (this is typically why the cheaper dSLR tilt-shift lenses are old Russian medium-format lenses on tilt/shift mounts). But the main problem will be finding a lens to adapt that is wide on MFT, due to the crop factor.
Personally, I'd say you might be better off with post-processing to do perspective correction, until Panasonic or Olympus build a tilt-shift. |
13,812,509 | I have a search string that is getting passed
>
> Eg: "a+b",a, b, "C","d+e",a-b,d
>
>
>
I want to filter out all sub strings surrounded by double quotes("").
In above sample Output should contain:
>
> "a+b","C","d+e"
>
>
>
Is there a way to do this without looping?
Also I then need to extract a string without above values to do further processing
>
> Eg: a,b,a-b,d
>
>
>
Any suggestions on how to do this with minimal performance impact?
Thank you in advance for all your comments and suggestions | 2012/12/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13812509",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1436510/"
] | You can check <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsphone/develop/windows.phone.applicationmodel.applicationprofile.modes(v=vs.105).aspx>
Windows.Phone.ApplicationModel.ApplicationProfile namespace | I don't currently know any way to access the starting point of an app. This would be the information necessary to know if the user was in Kids Corner or not. |
326,359 | If you link a GPO to an OU that is designed to push out say, Excel 2007, and half of the computers in that OU already have that software installed, will the GPO be smart enough to notice, or will it force the install to all computers in the OU regardless? | 2011/10/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/326359",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/12510/"
] | Afaik it depends on the previous installation. If it's the exact same one as published by the GPO it will be smart enough. In all other cases there could be problems. | It does depend on the smartness of the MSI. The installation is triggered in any case, no matter if the software is already installed or not (with the obvious exception that it will not be triggered if it was installed by the very same group policy). In most cases you should see a repair install / reinstall of the application happening.
If you need something with more sophisticated checks, you could take a look at [WPKG](http://wpkg.org/) - it is a scripting engine for software rollouts and allows you to choose whether to install depending on check results. |
3,067,050 | Most of the online sites on registration do send a link to activate the site and on any further correspondence with the end user they provide information about the site and also provide the login credentials with password in clear text (as given below)
Username - myname@gmail.com
Password - mysecretpassword
What would you do in such a case? From a usability perspective does it make sense to send the password information in clear text or should you just avoid sending this information. I was under the impression that most of the passwords are MD5 hashed before storing in the database and hence the service provider will not have any access to clear text passwords, is this a security violation? | 2010/06/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3067050",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/253714/"
] | It's a commonly-held fallacy that if you receive a password in plain-text it means they aren't stored securely - passwords like any other data can be stored using reversible encryption.
Having said that, it's pretty likely anyone that sends you a plaintext password does not have a clue about security and is probably storing them carelessly (unless the passwords are used as weak real-world identifiers, say as part of an in-store membership scheme, in which case they shouldn't be called passwords lest your customers get confused).
If you send a password plain-text you may as well assume that if it is linked to something important then it has been compromised. There are just too many weak points. You can also do a lot more unintentional damage.
1. The email could be intercepted giving someone else the password.
2. Someone could see them open the email on their screen (been at mates houses and had this happen to both of us so many times, and every time is a massive headache to go change all your passwords).
3. The email might be forwarded to other addresses which are not secure.
4. The email might bounce/encounter a server error and then you (perhaps your untrusted staff or outsourced helpdesk too?), and the email server's system admin will probably get copies of the original email.
5. Someone who obtains access to the user's emails through a cookie hijack or even just a briefly unattended open email account will now be able to see their password. Worse, their password is probably used elsewhere (or at least has a common stem, e.g. "password1", "password1$$" "passwordSuperSecure123") so you've now compromised more than just your own service. Worse still, it might be the password to the email account that's been hijacked and now they can steal this person's email account and thus identity for a much longer time than the expiry date on the cookie/session. (This has all happened to people I know). | Yes, this is definitely a security violation. Only a salted and hashed version of passwords should be stored.
It *is* common to have reset password functionality that sends either a temporary auto-generated password (which should be good for only one login) or a one-time reset link. This does mean your other accounts are only as secure as your email.
However, you should steer clear of any site that will email your actual password in clear text. |
3,067,050 | Most of the online sites on registration do send a link to activate the site and on any further correspondence with the end user they provide information about the site and also provide the login credentials with password in clear text (as given below)
Username - myname@gmail.com
Password - mysecretpassword
What would you do in such a case? From a usability perspective does it make sense to send the password information in clear text or should you just avoid sending this information. I was under the impression that most of the passwords are MD5 hashed before storing in the database and hence the service provider will not have any access to clear text passwords, is this a security violation? | 2010/06/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3067050",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/253714/"
] | Yes, this is definitely a security violation. Only a salted and hashed version of passwords should be stored.
It *is* common to have reset password functionality that sends either a temporary auto-generated password (which should be good for only one login) or a one-time reset link. This does mean your other accounts are only as secure as your email.
However, you should steer clear of any site that will email your actual password in clear text. | There are always trade-offs, and developers have to consider useability, the savvy-ness of the intended users, the secrecy and importance of the data, the frequency that the website will be used, and so on. Of course users don't want their privacy violated, but on the other hand "ordinary" web users may be turned off by having to remember a password, or even having to invent one in the first place (some websites simplify user registration by generating a random password and emailing it). Website developers have a responsibility to keep the users' best interests in mind when designing security.
My advice is that passwords should only be emailed in the clear when they are randomly generated. This avoids the following awkward scenario: a user registers with a password which they are *already using* for various other web services, and then receives a registration confirmation email containing the password they just entered. A lot of users may not be security-conscious enough to use unique passwords for every website, but they *are* security-conscious enough to recognize that "sensitive" passwords should not be sent around by email. |
3,067,050 | Most of the online sites on registration do send a link to activate the site and on any further correspondence with the end user they provide information about the site and also provide the login credentials with password in clear text (as given below)
Username - myname@gmail.com
Password - mysecretpassword
What would you do in such a case? From a usability perspective does it make sense to send the password information in clear text or should you just avoid sending this information. I was under the impression that most of the passwords are MD5 hashed before storing in the database and hence the service provider will not have any access to clear text passwords, is this a security violation? | 2010/06/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3067050",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/253714/"
] | It's a commonly-held fallacy that if you receive a password in plain-text it means they aren't stored securely - passwords like any other data can be stored using reversible encryption.
Having said that, it's pretty likely anyone that sends you a plaintext password does not have a clue about security and is probably storing them carelessly (unless the passwords are used as weak real-world identifiers, say as part of an in-store membership scheme, in which case they shouldn't be called passwords lest your customers get confused).
If you send a password plain-text you may as well assume that if it is linked to something important then it has been compromised. There are just too many weak points. You can also do a lot more unintentional damage.
1. The email could be intercepted giving someone else the password.
2. Someone could see them open the email on their screen (been at mates houses and had this happen to both of us so many times, and every time is a massive headache to go change all your passwords).
3. The email might be forwarded to other addresses which are not secure.
4. The email might bounce/encounter a server error and then you (perhaps your untrusted staff or outsourced helpdesk too?), and the email server's system admin will probably get copies of the original email.
5. Someone who obtains access to the user's emails through a cookie hijack or even just a briefly unattended open email account will now be able to see their password. Worse, their password is probably used elsewhere (or at least has a common stem, e.g. "password1", "password1$$" "passwordSuperSecure123") so you've now compromised more than just your own service. Worse still, it might be the password to the email account that's been hijacked and now they can steal this person's email account and thus identity for a much longer time than the expiry date on the cookie/session. (This has all happened to people I know). | There are always trade-offs, and developers have to consider useability, the savvy-ness of the intended users, the secrecy and importance of the data, the frequency that the website will be used, and so on. Of course users don't want their privacy violated, but on the other hand "ordinary" web users may be turned off by having to remember a password, or even having to invent one in the first place (some websites simplify user registration by generating a random password and emailing it). Website developers have a responsibility to keep the users' best interests in mind when designing security.
My advice is that passwords should only be emailed in the clear when they are randomly generated. This avoids the following awkward scenario: a user registers with a password which they are *already using* for various other web services, and then receives a registration confirmation email containing the password they just entered. A lot of users may not be security-conscious enough to use unique passwords for every website, but they *are* security-conscious enough to recognize that "sensitive" passwords should not be sent around by email. |
555,256 | Modern power FET's can be unreliable in some linear applications due to thermal instability causing die hotspots and premature failure. This is called the Spirito effect. How do Silicon Carbide devices compare? | 2021/03/25 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/555256",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/70314/"
] | Take a look at how off-the-line switch mode power supplies work. The very first thing they do is rectify the AC input to DC, using a bridge rectifier. You could literally use such a supply that's rated for 230V AC and connect it to your DC source, bearing in mind that two out of the four diodes in the bridge will be carrying the load. With your modest current / power requirements this should not be an issue.
Using an existing AC-DC switchmode power supply with DC input not only solves your step-down problem, it also isolates your low-voltage side from the dangerously high DC. | Basically just a +1 to hacktastical answer, this is copied from Mean Well FAQ:
>
> Q32: In MEAN WELL's catalog, we see AC and DC at input, what is it all about?
>
>
>
>
> Ans: Due to different circuit designs, MEAN WELL power supply's input consists of three types as below:
> (VAC≒VDC)
> a.85~264VAC;120~370VDC
> b.176~264VAC;250~370VDC
> c.85~132VAC/176~264VAC by Switch; 250~370VDC
>
>
>
>
> In a and b inputs models, power supply can work properly no matter under AC or DC input. Some models need correct connection of input poles, positive pole connects to AC/L; negative pole connects to AC/N. Others may require opposite connection, positive pole to AC/N; negative pole to AC/L. If customers make a wrong connection, the power supply will not be broken. You can just reverse the input poles and power supply will still work.
> In c input models, please make sure that you switch the 115/230V input correctly. If the switch is on the 115V side and the real input is 230V, the power supply will be damaged.
>
>
>
[source](https://www.meanwell.com/qa.aspx) |
1,512,138 | I need to refresh a bunch of EDMX files in my solution. We have disected our tables into groups and each model represents one component or process. However, there are some overlapping tables, which means sometimes I need to refresh/update multiple Entity Models.
*Refreshing a group of different entity models in VS 2008 is slow and dangerous. If I miss an out-of-date model, my application won't work*
I need to verify that all of the models in my solution are up to date with my development database.
**Ultimate solution:** How can I script this? Is there an API to Visual Studio for refreshing an EDMX file? I do the exact same thing every time. Can't I program this?
**Ok Solution:** Can I set something up in Visual Studio to inform me when an Entity Model doesn't match a DB? What is the recommended way to test the model against a DB?
Thanks in advance. | 2009/10/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1512138",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/34183/"
] | Check out the EDM Generator
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb387165.aspx>
You could put in a pre-build event to regenerate the model.
It's also wise to pre-generate the Views which increases performance substantially.
Hope this helps. | Open the .edmx file in the Model Browser (double click it in VS.Net). Right-click anywhere and choose "Update Model from Database...". The wizard that opens up will show you a limited diff: new tables and deleted tables. But its granularity stops there. It doesn't show changes in fields, for instance. |
1,512,138 | I need to refresh a bunch of EDMX files in my solution. We have disected our tables into groups and each model represents one component or process. However, there are some overlapping tables, which means sometimes I need to refresh/update multiple Entity Models.
*Refreshing a group of different entity models in VS 2008 is slow and dangerous. If I miss an out-of-date model, my application won't work*
I need to verify that all of the models in my solution are up to date with my development database.
**Ultimate solution:** How can I script this? Is there an API to Visual Studio for refreshing an EDMX file? I do the exact same thing every time. Can't I program this?
**Ok Solution:** Can I set something up in Visual Studio to inform me when an Entity Model doesn't match a DB? What is the recommended way to test the model against a DB?
Thanks in advance. | 2009/10/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1512138",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/34183/"
] | As far as I can tell EdmGen will only work for WPF apps. Since you are looking to update a .EDMX file you will not have access to the xml files which the EdmGen tries to validate.
I would suggest checking the The ADO.NET blog: <http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet/archive/2008/06/26/edm-tools-options-part-3-of-4.aspx>
They have an explination of how to update an EDMX file but it is pretty involved. Hopefully VS10 will have a better solution for this. | Open the .edmx file in the Model Browser (double click it in VS.Net). Right-click anywhere and choose "Update Model from Database...". The wizard that opens up will show you a limited diff: new tables and deleted tables. But its granularity stops there. It doesn't show changes in fields, for instance. |
7,492 | I want to go to Haridwar from Delhi. Which is the fastest and cheapest way to reach there? Also I want to know which are the must visit places there and nearby to it? | 2012/06/05 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/7492",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/2321/"
] | The best way to get there is an overnight train ride by [Mussoorie Express](http://indiarailinfo.com/train/1126/349/456) which is fully booked at this time for general class but you can get a foreign quota ticket for any day since there are four tickets available daily. BTW, this train doesn't depart from New Delhi station but from Delhi Sarai Rohilla.
You can also get a bus for 300 rupees but I would definitely advise against it as it was horrible for me in a non-AC bus (maybe AC one is better). Also, you will probably get charged 350 to 400 rupees for that aforementioned ticket.
Nearby places that you should visit are Rishikesh, famous for temples and adventure activities such as rafting, kayaking, bungee etc. and [Rajaji National Park](http://www.rajajinationalpark.co.in/) that is pretty close to Haridwar but it gets expensive if you want a safari trip there.
EDIT:
There are also fast Shatabdi trains such as [New Delhi-Dehradun Shatabdi](http://indiarailinfo.com/train/1532/664/456) and [New Delhi-Dheradun Jan Shatabdi Express](http://indiarailinfo.com/train/392/664/456) that will get you there much faster. Tourist quota ticket also available. | Taking a train to Haridwar is surely the best option. The road to it, NH 58, is still being worked on and some kilometres of it are in a complete mess. So the best you can do is avoid it altogether.
There are many trains to Haridwar, almost all of these taking around 7 hours. One of the best trains to the place is Shatabdi and Jan Shatabdi, which leaves New Delhi Railway Station at around 3 in the afternoon and reaches Haridwar by 7.30 in the evening. You can take this one and rest for the night before hitting it off the next day. Mussoorie Express is another good option, taking which you'll reach Haridwar at around 6 am. Though there's an airport at Dehradun, it does not see many flights.
There are a number of temples in the city, which are considerably revered by the Hindus. Especially the hilltop temples of Mansa Devi and Chandi Devi, for which which you can take a ropeway. You can also visit the main market and watch the Ganga Arti that takes places every evening at Hari Ki Paudi.
Some other places near Haridwar are Rajaji Nationa Park, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Mussoorie and Lansdowne. |
7,492 | I want to go to Haridwar from Delhi. Which is the fastest and cheapest way to reach there? Also I want to know which are the must visit places there and nearby to it? | 2012/06/05 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/7492",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/2321/"
] | The best way to get there is an overnight train ride by [Mussoorie Express](http://indiarailinfo.com/train/1126/349/456) which is fully booked at this time for general class but you can get a foreign quota ticket for any day since there are four tickets available daily. BTW, this train doesn't depart from New Delhi station but from Delhi Sarai Rohilla.
You can also get a bus for 300 rupees but I would definitely advise against it as it was horrible for me in a non-AC bus (maybe AC one is better). Also, you will probably get charged 350 to 400 rupees for that aforementioned ticket.
Nearby places that you should visit are Rishikesh, famous for temples and adventure activities such as rafting, kayaking, bungee etc. and [Rajaji National Park](http://www.rajajinationalpark.co.in/) that is pretty close to Haridwar but it gets expensive if you want a safari trip there.
EDIT:
There are also fast Shatabdi trains such as [New Delhi-Dehradun Shatabdi](http://indiarailinfo.com/train/1532/664/456) and [New Delhi-Dheradun Jan Shatabdi Express](http://indiarailinfo.com/train/392/664/456) that will get you there much faster. Tourist quota ticket also available. | You can go Haridwar From Kashmiri Gate(ISBT) Delhi via AC Bus. It will be the best and the fair is the nearest Rs.400 to Rs.450. |
7,492 | I want to go to Haridwar from Delhi. Which is the fastest and cheapest way to reach there? Also I want to know which are the must visit places there and nearby to it? | 2012/06/05 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/7492",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/2321/"
] | Taking a train to Haridwar is surely the best option. The road to it, NH 58, is still being worked on and some kilometres of it are in a complete mess. So the best you can do is avoid it altogether.
There are many trains to Haridwar, almost all of these taking around 7 hours. One of the best trains to the place is Shatabdi and Jan Shatabdi, which leaves New Delhi Railway Station at around 3 in the afternoon and reaches Haridwar by 7.30 in the evening. You can take this one and rest for the night before hitting it off the next day. Mussoorie Express is another good option, taking which you'll reach Haridwar at around 6 am. Though there's an airport at Dehradun, it does not see many flights.
There are a number of temples in the city, which are considerably revered by the Hindus. Especially the hilltop temples of Mansa Devi and Chandi Devi, for which which you can take a ropeway. You can also visit the main market and watch the Ganga Arti that takes places every evening at Hari Ki Paudi.
Some other places near Haridwar are Rajaji Nationa Park, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Mussoorie and Lansdowne. | You can go Haridwar From Kashmiri Gate(ISBT) Delhi via AC Bus. It will be the best and the fair is the nearest Rs.400 to Rs.450. |
320,296 | My question might sound stupid, but is there any way that i could connect my desktop PC with my laptop without setting up any router-LAN or without any USB/Ext.HDD. | 2011/08/08 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/320296",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/23211/"
] | Find yourself a [crossover Ethernet cable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_crossover_cable) (they are usually red or are terminated in red connectors) and you connect the PC's directly to each other.
This will have the same effect as being on the same network/LAN without the need for a router/switch/other intermediate device. | You could use firewire if you have the ports, or you can try something like an HDMI to firewire converter.
Using crossover ethernet cables is probably the easiest way. |
320,296 | My question might sound stupid, but is there any way that i could connect my desktop PC with my laptop without setting up any router-LAN or without any USB/Ext.HDD. | 2011/08/08 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/320296",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/23211/"
] | Find yourself a [crossover Ethernet cable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_crossover_cable) (they are usually red or are terminated in red connectors) and you connect the PC's directly to each other.
This will have the same effect as being on the same network/LAN without the need for a router/switch/other intermediate device. | **Option 1:**
You should be able to run a normal ethernet cable between the two machines. Once upon a time this required a crossover cable, but just about any network card made in the last 10 years has a feature called "[auto mdix](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_dependent_interface#Auto-MDIX)" that will handle this for you.
Additionally, you will need to manually assign a static IP address to both machines, and may also wish to create corresponding entries in the [hosts files](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_%28file%29) so they can talk to each other by name, rather than IP.
**Option 2:**
If either machine is running Windows 7 and both machines have wireless network cards, there is a new feature in Windows 7 called a "[Microsoft Virtual Wifi Miniport Adapter](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd815243%28VS.85%29.aspx)". You can use this feature to set up the windows 7 and a wireless access point host for the other. |
150,089 | I have a schottky diode in a sot23 package that is composed by 2 schottky diodes with a common catode connection. I need to use one of them.
Should I let the second floating with unconnected pin or should I connect it to ground? | 2015/01/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/150089",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/59850/"
] | Yes, you can leave the anode of the second diode unconnected.
But, why use a dual diode package in the first place? There are plenty of single Shottky diodes available in small packages. Unless you are using the dual diodes elsewhere in the same design, just use the right part. | If it is literally just a 2 diode package the extra diode can float with no ill effects. Any other connection may cause problems. |
150,089 | I have a schottky diode in a sot23 package that is composed by 2 schottky diodes with a common catode connection. I need to use one of them.
Should I let the second floating with unconnected pin or should I connect it to ground? | 2015/01/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/150089",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/59850/"
] | If the common is connected to a low-impedance node you can leave it floating. If not, I'd short it out lest it act as an accidental antenna/detector.
I'd also suggest using the single out of the pair that would be present if you bought the one-diode version of the 3-pin package (if possible), just for future compatibility. IOW if you're using the [BAT54C](http://www.mccsemi.com/up_pdf/BAT54-BAT54S(SOT-23).pdf) or BAT54S, use pins 1 and 3 and either leave 2 open or short it to 3. If you're using the BAT54A you can't do this.
 | If it is literally just a 2 diode package the extra diode can float with no ill effects. Any other connection may cause problems. |
150,089 | I have a schottky diode in a sot23 package that is composed by 2 schottky diodes with a common catode connection. I need to use one of them.
Should I let the second floating with unconnected pin or should I connect it to ground? | 2015/01/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/150089",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/59850/"
] | If the common is connected to a low-impedance node you can leave it floating. If not, I'd short it out lest it act as an accidental antenna/detector.
I'd also suggest using the single out of the pair that would be present if you bought the one-diode version of the 3-pin package (if possible), just for future compatibility. IOW if you're using the [BAT54C](http://www.mccsemi.com/up_pdf/BAT54-BAT54S(SOT-23).pdf) or BAT54S, use pins 1 and 3 and either leave 2 open or short it to 3. If you're using the BAT54A you can't do this.
 | Yes, you can leave the anode of the second diode unconnected.
But, why use a dual diode package in the first place? There are plenty of single Shottky diodes available in small packages. Unless you are using the dual diodes elsewhere in the same design, just use the right part. |
150,089 | I have a schottky diode in a sot23 package that is composed by 2 schottky diodes with a common catode connection. I need to use one of them.
Should I let the second floating with unconnected pin or should I connect it to ground? | 2015/01/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/150089",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/59850/"
] | Yes, you can leave the anode of the second diode unconnected.
But, why use a dual diode package in the first place? There are plenty of single Shottky diodes available in small packages. Unless you are using the dual diodes elsewhere in the same design, just use the right part. | Seems like there is a third option besides floating or grounded, shorted? i.e. connect the anode to the cathode. |
150,089 | I have a schottky diode in a sot23 package that is composed by 2 schottky diodes with a common catode connection. I need to use one of them.
Should I let the second floating with unconnected pin or should I connect it to ground? | 2015/01/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/150089",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/59850/"
] | If the common is connected to a low-impedance node you can leave it floating. If not, I'd short it out lest it act as an accidental antenna/detector.
I'd also suggest using the single out of the pair that would be present if you bought the one-diode version of the 3-pin package (if possible), just for future compatibility. IOW if you're using the [BAT54C](http://www.mccsemi.com/up_pdf/BAT54-BAT54S(SOT-23).pdf) or BAT54S, use pins 1 and 3 and either leave 2 open or short it to 3. If you're using the BAT54A you can't do this.
 | Seems like there is a third option besides floating or grounded, shorted? i.e. connect the anode to the cathode. |
82,662 | In the *13 Reasons Why* episode where Hannah kills herself, that particular morning she wears a scarf along with a blue jacket. Earlier, when she wore the same jacket, I don't remember her wearing that scarf.
Is the presence of the scarf supposed to mean something? | 2017/11/13 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/82662",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/53624/"
] | After the rape, she must have started to be insecure about her body and chose to cover it as much as she could. So hence, the scarf. | The state of a person's mind also determines his/her choice of clothing. Given the situation Hannah was in, people tend to wear more clothes because they feel comfortable with being more covered (the connection to the mind) and also the fact that the body temperature decreases when you are afraid or are fearful or tensed about what you are going to do (the physical connection). |
138,984 | So we are venturing out into the world of SharePoint and it seems that I have to install SharePoint Server directly on each developer's box. Is this correct? I have SharePoint up and running on a separate sever so it seems redundant to have to install it on each box. Not to mention installing SharePoint on Windows 7 is a pain in the ars. I'm just trying to clarify how to correctly set the environment up. I've been using this link as a guide so far: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee554869(office.14).aspx> Any advice is greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/05 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/138984",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/42344/"
] | No you don't need to install sharepoint on every box, just VS and the SDK. You should have a separate dev instance for them to connect to, but that should be a real server not a win7 desktop.
So you should have
1 Server with sharepoint 2010
N Dev workstations that have VS2010 and the SDK installed. | We've used Microsfoft VPC and installed Server 2008 and Sharepoint on that. Then do dev either on your host PC or the VPC and deploy to the Sharepoint instance on your VPC to test your changes. This way developers are stepping all over each other in a Development environment. |
138,984 | So we are venturing out into the world of SharePoint and it seems that I have to install SharePoint Server directly on each developer's box. Is this correct? I have SharePoint up and running on a separate sever so it seems redundant to have to install it on each box. Not to mention installing SharePoint on Windows 7 is a pain in the ars. I'm just trying to clarify how to correctly set the environment up. I've been using this link as a guide so far: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee554869(office.14).aspx> Any advice is greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/05 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/138984",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/42344/"
] | No you don't need to install sharepoint on every box, just VS and the SDK. You should have a separate dev instance for them to connect to, but that should be a real server not a win7 desktop.
So you should have
1 Server with sharepoint 2010
N Dev workstations that have VS2010 and the SDK installed. | SharePoint 2008 cannot be installed on Microsoft VPC due to the fact that it needs Windows Server 2008 64-bit. Microsoft VPC cannot run a 64-bit Operating System, you'll need a different Virtualization Platform.
This can be confusing due to the fact that you can run a 64-bit version of Microsoft VPC. |
138,984 | So we are venturing out into the world of SharePoint and it seems that I have to install SharePoint Server directly on each developer's box. Is this correct? I have SharePoint up and running on a separate sever so it seems redundant to have to install it on each box. Not to mention installing SharePoint on Windows 7 is a pain in the ars. I'm just trying to clarify how to correctly set the environment up. I've been using this link as a guide so far: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee554869(office.14).aspx> Any advice is greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/05 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/138984",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/42344/"
] | No you don't need to install sharepoint on every box, just VS and the SDK. You should have a separate dev instance for them to connect to, but that should be a real server not a win7 desktop.
So you should have
1 Server with sharepoint 2010
N Dev workstations that have VS2010 and the SDK installed. | Here is couple practical tips for setting up SharePoint 2010 development environment:
[SharePoint 2010 Team Development Environment](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/vesku/sharepoint-2010-team-development-environment) by Vesa Juvonen
[SharePoint 2010 Development Environment Practical Tips](https://web.archive.org/web/20170907142205/http://blah.winsmarts.com/2009-11-SharePoint_2010_Development_Environment_-and-ndash;_Practical_Tips.aspx) by Sahil Malik |
138,984 | So we are venturing out into the world of SharePoint and it seems that I have to install SharePoint Server directly on each developer's box. Is this correct? I have SharePoint up and running on a separate sever so it seems redundant to have to install it on each box. Not to mention installing SharePoint on Windows 7 is a pain in the ars. I'm just trying to clarify how to correctly set the environment up. I've been using this link as a guide so far: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee554869(office.14).aspx> Any advice is greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/05 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/138984",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/42344/"
] | We've used Microsfoft VPC and installed Server 2008 and Sharepoint on that. Then do dev either on your host PC or the VPC and deploy to the Sharepoint instance on your VPC to test your changes. This way developers are stepping all over each other in a Development environment. | SharePoint 2008 cannot be installed on Microsoft VPC due to the fact that it needs Windows Server 2008 64-bit. Microsoft VPC cannot run a 64-bit Operating System, you'll need a different Virtualization Platform.
This can be confusing due to the fact that you can run a 64-bit version of Microsoft VPC. |
138,984 | So we are venturing out into the world of SharePoint and it seems that I have to install SharePoint Server directly on each developer's box. Is this correct? I have SharePoint up and running on a separate sever so it seems redundant to have to install it on each box. Not to mention installing SharePoint on Windows 7 is a pain in the ars. I'm just trying to clarify how to correctly set the environment up. I've been using this link as a guide so far: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee554869(office.14).aspx> Any advice is greatly appreciated! | 2010/05/05 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/138984",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/42344/"
] | We've used Microsfoft VPC and installed Server 2008 and Sharepoint on that. Then do dev either on your host PC or the VPC and deploy to the Sharepoint instance on your VPC to test your changes. This way developers are stepping all over each other in a Development environment. | Here is couple practical tips for setting up SharePoint 2010 development environment:
[SharePoint 2010 Team Development Environment](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/vesku/sharepoint-2010-team-development-environment) by Vesa Juvonen
[SharePoint 2010 Development Environment Practical Tips](https://web.archive.org/web/20170907142205/http://blah.winsmarts.com/2009-11-SharePoint_2010_Development_Environment_-and-ndash;_Practical_Tips.aspx) by Sahil Malik |
79,940 | Fubini's theorem, from 1907, expresses integration with respect to a product measure in terms of iterated integrals. The simpler version of this theorem for multiple Riemann integrals was used long before Fubini was around and of course was not known by his name. Nowadays it is common for the relation between multiple Riemann integrals and iterated integrals to be called Fubini's theorem in books.
A colleague of mine asked me when the label "Fubini's theorem" was first applied to this theorem about multiple Riemann integrals. (He considers it something of a travesty to use Fubini's name for this result in multivariable calculus books, where there is no measure theory content. As an example, in the 4th edition of *Calculus* (1990) by Larson, Hostetler, and Edwards the authors write "The following theorem was proved by the Italian mathematician Guido Fubini" and then they give a theorem on double integrals of continuous functions which certainly was *not* proved by Fubini.) I found this theorem does not have Fubini's name in some calculus and analysis books written decades ago: Whittaker and Watson's Modern Analysis (4th ed., 1927), Volume II of Apostol's Calculus (1962), Rudin's Principle of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed., 1964), Thomas's Calculus and Analytic Geometry (4th ed., 1969), Bers's Calculus (1969), Loomis's Calculus (1974), Sherman Stein's Calculus and Analytic Geometry (2nd ed., 1977), George Simmons's Calculus with Analytic Geometry (1985), Marsden and Weinstein's Calculus III (1985), and Leithold's The Calculus with Analytic Geometry (5th ed., 1986). They all call this result something like "the theorem on iterated integrals".
I found the name "Fubini's theorem" used for multiple Riemann integrals in Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds (1965). Does anyone know of an *earlier* usage of the label "Fubini's theorem" for multiple Riemann integrals? | 2011/11/07 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/79940",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/619/"
] | I used a Google search on ['Fubini 's Theorem' on books from 1947 to 1976](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Fubini%27s%20theorem%22&tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:1947,cd_max:1976&lr=lang_en#lr=lang_en&psj=1&q=%22Fubini%27s%20theorem%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1947,cd_max:1976,lr%3alang_1en,sbd:1) and read the snippets of text that appear. [This is the only text before 1965 that intrigued me.](http://books.google.com/books?id=dDDvAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Fubini%27s%20theorem%22&dq=%22Fubini%27s%20theorem%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6RNDUurrHuaWjALwlYGQAw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBDi0AQ)
The author says 'We establish first a basic theorem, whose title is borrowed from a similar but more elegant theorem in Lebesgue Theory, proved by the Italian mathematician G. Fubini in 1910'.
Checking the library for the book lead me to a free online version. [Here is the page from the Google search snippet](http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049303483;view=1up;seq=466). | Here's what I can verify: Fubini apparently proved the general form of the theorem in 1907 and began dispersing the proof in oral lectures. It did not appear in a fully detailed statement and proof in the literature until 1958. It is sometimes called the Tonnelli theorem because Fubini's result is actually a modified form of the result first proved on product measure spaces by Tonnelli. I cannot trace when the name of the theorem first appears in a calculus text. i do know that in the 8th edition of the famous calculus book by George B Thomas and Finney, it appears,but apparently this was a recent edition by Finney and it was already common in calculus texts by then.
I **can** be certain that it appeared by name in Spivak's *Calculus on Manifolds* (it also appears there on page 59 of the Westview edition; where Spivak says the theorem is "a special case of a theorem proved by Fubini long after [the theorem] was known." (Westview Press edition, page 57-58). It was also called this in James Munkres' *Analysis On Manifolds* and the earlier *Functions Of Several Variables* by Wendell Fleming. Fubini published a detailed proof in the modern language of product measures-building on Tonnelli's improvements-in Fubini, G. "Sugli integrali multipli." Opere scelte, Vol. 2. Cremonese, pp. 243-249, 1958. This seems to be the root point where it became standard practice to call the multiple integral theorem Fubini's theorem. There is oral tradition that in honors advanced calculus lectures at Princeton and Harvard in the early 1960's, it was referred to as Fubini's theorem as well, but I cannot verify this. Also, Loomis and Sternberg do not call it this in their famous text, which is based on those lectures at Harvard. This tradition is usually attributed to Spivak in his remembrances as a graduate student at Princeton, but I cannot verify this. |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | Tools that I would use
[Nmap](http://nmap.org/) Sister Tool [SQLMap](http://sqlmap.sourceforge.net/doc/README.html)
and [Nessus](http://nessus.org/nessus/)
also quick scanning for XSS and HTML Injection <http://www.seoegghead.com/tools/scan-for-html-injection.seo> also <http://www.cirt.net/nikto2>
Make sure you have looked at this during your development [OWASP](http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Main_Page)
You need to also check the Security Guidence from MS
[Windows Server 2008 Security Guide](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fb8b981f-227c-4af6-a44b-b115696a80ac&displaylang=en) | [Nikto](http://www.cirt.net/nikto2 "Nikto") is a nice start to look for well known vulnerabilities. Works on Windows and Linux, etc. Simple enough even for noobs like me :) |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | [McAfee Secure](http://www.mcafeesecure.com/us/) offers a pretty decent scanning service that will look at the web server, network, and the web site itself in an automated, on-demand way. Their scanner is certified for PCI scans, so it's pretty comprehensive. | There is a variety of public license tools out there at your disposal, however, where I operate, we use Firefox and Paros Proxy to manipulate posts and gets, WebInspect for application vulnerablity reporting, and QualysGuard Enterprise for a good old fashioned hosts scan. Depending on what the results are, we make adjustments to the configuration and security posture of the box, create risk acceptance forms for things we cannot change, or engage other tools to decide whether or not a finding is actually something to be worried about. |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | [Nikto](http://www.cirt.net/nikto2 "Nikto") is a nice start to look for well known vulnerabilities. Works on Windows and Linux, etc. Simple enough even for noobs like me :) | [Free Nikto, Nmap, OpenVas vulnerability scans available online from this website](http://www.hackertarget.com) |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | [Nikto](http://www.cirt.net/nikto2 "Nikto") is a nice start to look for well known vulnerabilities. Works on Windows and Linux, etc. Simple enough even for noobs like me :) | Actually i'm the main creator of a new pentest LiveCD Distro, which is a fork of Backtrack 4.
The Distro embbeds everything needed to make good penetration tests ( OpenVAS, Metasploit, fasttrack, milw0rm exploits...). Its name is shadowcircle, and you can check it out @
www.shadowcircle.org.
Hope you'll like it ;) |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | Top l0 list of Vulnerability scanners: http:// sectools.org/vuln-scanners.html
There's also Microsoft's Baseline Security Analyzer which should be part of your base setup if its not already before you deploy a server to prod: http:// www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=F32921AF-9DBE-4DCE-889E-ECF997EB18E9&displaylang=en | Regardless of the technology you need to know the threats. You need to know what is the data that you are trying to protect? You need to know how your website works. Do a threat model first forgetting about these magical security bullet technology methods. You need to figure out where you are at before you spend wasteless money on a penetration test.
Matt Parsons
CISSP
mparsons1980 [at] gmail.com |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | The first thing would be a **network scan**. Since you're on the windows stack, use [zenmap](http://nmap.org/zenmap/) and scan the webserver and both sql servers. This will tell you about open ports and services running. Run zenmap on the comprehensive test. I would use this info to tweak your firewall to block ports that are exposed.
Another thing you would want to do is look for **SQL Injection vulnerabilities**.
>
> [Scrawlr](http://www.communities.hp.com/securitysoftware/blogs/spilabs/archive/2008/06/23/finding-sql-injection-with-scrawlr.aspx) is a free software for
> scanning SQL injection vulnerabilities
> on your web applications.
>
>
> It is developed by HP Web Security
> Research Group in coordination with
> Microsoft Security Response Center.
>
>
>
Check out this [ScreenToaster video](http://www.screentoaster.com/watch/stUE9XS0RIR11eSFxVX1peVlZR) that I created. It demonstrates a simple network scan for sql server, port 1433, and a basic SQL Injection. | Actually i'm the main creator of a new pentest LiveCD Distro, which is a fork of Backtrack 4.
The Distro embbeds everything needed to make good penetration tests ( OpenVAS, Metasploit, fasttrack, milw0rm exploits...). Its name is shadowcircle, and you can check it out @
www.shadowcircle.org.
Hope you'll like it ;) |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | the whitehat consultants i've seen come in & use [this tool](http://nessus.org/) then send you a massive bill.
Take a look at [OWASP](http://owasp.org) (Open Web Application Security Project) they're very informative & free! they have a very detailed [pen-testing guide](http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Testing_Project#OWASP_Testing_Guide_v3) that you must look at. | [Nikto](http://www.cirt.net/nikto2 "Nikto") is a nice start to look for well known vulnerabilities. Works on Windows and Linux, etc. Simple enough even for noobs like me :) |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | Tools that I would use
[Nmap](http://nmap.org/) Sister Tool [SQLMap](http://sqlmap.sourceforge.net/doc/README.html)
and [Nessus](http://nessus.org/nessus/)
also quick scanning for XSS and HTML Injection <http://www.seoegghead.com/tools/scan-for-html-injection.seo> also <http://www.cirt.net/nikto2>
Make sure you have looked at this during your development [OWASP](http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Main_Page)
You need to also check the Security Guidence from MS
[Windows Server 2008 Security Guide](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fb8b981f-227c-4af6-a44b-b115696a80ac&displaylang=en) | Actually i'm the main creator of a new pentest LiveCD Distro, which is a fork of Backtrack 4.
The Distro embbeds everything needed to make good penetration tests ( OpenVAS, Metasploit, fasttrack, milw0rm exploits...). Its name is shadowcircle, and you can check it out @
www.shadowcircle.org.
Hope you'll like it ;) |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | [McAfee Secure](http://www.mcafeesecure.com/us/) offers a pretty decent scanning service that will look at the web server, network, and the web site itself in an automated, on-demand way. Their scanner is certified for PCI scans, so it's pretty comprehensive. | Regardless of the technology you need to know the threats. You need to know what is the data that you are trying to protect? You need to know how your website works. Do a threat model first forgetting about these magical security bullet technology methods. You need to figure out where you are at before you spend wasteless money on a penetration test.
Matt Parsons
CISSP
mparsons1980 [at] gmail.com |
12,847 | We're deploying a new website, hosted ourselves. Short of getting in white hats how would you go about penetration testing from outside the network? | 2009/05/27 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/12847",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2277/"
] | [McAfee Secure](http://www.mcafeesecure.com/us/) offers a pretty decent scanning service that will look at the web server, network, and the web site itself in an automated, on-demand way. Their scanner is certified for PCI scans, so it's pretty comprehensive. | [Nikto](http://www.cirt.net/nikto2 "Nikto") is a nice start to look for well known vulnerabilities. Works on Windows and Linux, etc. Simple enough even for noobs like me :) |
80,159 | We were debating on Psalm 150:6 help me what does the Bible means when it says "let everything that has BREATH praise the LORD | 2022/12/05 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/80159",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/53015/"
] | Not so fast - we need to keep in mind that the Bible, especially Hebrew, is extremely rich in metaphors. For example:
* Job 12:8 - Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you; let the fish of the sea inform you.
* Job 38:7 - while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
* Isa 55:12 - You will indeed go out with joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
* Ps 19:1-4 - The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. Without speech or language, without a sound to be heard, their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.
* Ps 150:6 - Let everything that has breath praise the LORD!
Presumably, what the psalmist and other Bible writers are saying is: is saying amounts to the idea expressed by Paul in Rom 1:20 -
>
> For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine
> nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the
> world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
>
>
>
That is, for those who care to notice, God's "fingerprints" are all over His creation and all these things show how great He is!! | Psalm 150:
>
> 5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
> praise him with resounding cymbals.
> 6 Let **everything** that has breath praise the LORD. Praise the LORD.
>
>
>
From the immediate context, "everything" refers to humans.
In the broader context, 5 chapters earlier, Psalm 145:
>
> 21 My mouth will speak in praise of the LORD. Let **every creature** praise his holy name for ever and ever.
>
>
>
Metaphorically, every living creature that breathes praises the Lord. |
43,884 | Browsing through a previous [question](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/11165/studies-showing-significant-usability-differences-between-windows-and-mac-os-x?rq=1) on the usability between Windows and Mac OS, I thought an interesting question would be to see if there were any studies done on the impact of changing operation systems within an organization. I think the true test of usability between the two different offerings would be to see if there was a greater impact to change from Windows to Mac compared to changing from Mac to Windows. If this is not something that organizations would typically do, I would also consider any academic papers or hypothetical situations discussed of interest. | 2013/08/19 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/43884",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/27659/"
] | I don't know and cannot find evidence of entire companies making such a switch. I tend to see a couple of scenarios:
1. Totally invested in a Windows or Linux based platform with a bunch
of proprietary software and unable to make the switch even if they
wanted to.
2. Having to support numerous novices with everything and therefore stuck on
Windows for support solutions and having at least *some* level of
familiarity for their users. Or IT departments scared of having non-Windows systems on the network.
3. Not caring IT wise and therefore having a mix of
everything, with people using whatever they're comfortable and
productive with.
Apple doesn't have the ecosystem and solutions for corporate level support. I'm on a Mac here, but with the understanding I'm on my own if something doesn't work. Colleagues on Windows can get remote support (mostly to install anti-virus updates...). You can't just call someone to rig up an maintain a Mac environment. Therefore I can't see entire companies making the switch from Windows to Mac. Obviously there is no sane reason to switch from Mac to Windows ;)
This also makes it virtually impossible to compare. It's not simply an OS switch, it's an ecosystem switch. | As I used to work as a user researcher on Office:Mac, I can tell you that there has been plenty of research on this very topic. However, I can't share specific results, since that research is proprietary to Microsoft. With that in mind, I can share some things about conducting this sort of research in general.
The first is that the environment of the organization matters a great deal. Off the top of my head, here are some examples of barriers to change in the organization's environment:
* the organization relies on a lot of applications that aren't available on the new platform
* the organization uses a lot of websites that won't work in the browsers available for the new platform
* IT for the organization isn't educated on and prepared to support the new platform
If there are barriers like this exist in the organization, then converting to the new platform will be somewhere between difficult and impossible. If the environment is more open and amenable to supporting multiple platforms, which we're seeing more and more with the rise of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and now BYOL (Bring Your Own Laptop), such a conversion has lower barriers.
The second is that this isn't so much a question of usability (which is about being able to complete tasks the first time you encounter the new product), but rather of usage (which includes usability, learnability, and other factors). No matter how well-designed a product is, if someone is used to using something else, switching to a new product is going to incur a cost because the user has a lot of expectations and habits that were formed using the previous product. These expectations and habits are likely to be broken, and cause initial pain as a result, in making this switch. The true test of the success of such a switch is measured a few months after the switch occurs. Back when I was working for Microsoft, I wrote a [blog post about usability versus usage, considering the then-new iPhone](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/nadyne/usability-versus-usage-an-iphone-example), which has more details about the difference between them.
Overall, I don't think that it's possible to make a general statement about whether an operating system is better than another at the level of an organization. Different organizations have different needs, different tools, different goals, and different users with different behaviors, habits, and expectations. It's a varied world out there, and there's lots of great and valid reasons for that variability. |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery seems to be nicely backward compatible. I have been using it for more than a couple of years now through several versions of the core and have not had issues when upgrading except a few minor ones with some plugins. I would say that the core seems to be fine but if you're using a lot of plugins you might run into some problems (but these are usually easy to fix, or the new core has that functionality built in anyway so you can just drop them). | jQuery is so serious about backwards compatibility that they produce a "backwards compatibility" plugin for each release: <http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.2#jQuery_1.1_Compatibility_Plugin>. It let people who don't need backwards compatibility save on page weight. |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery seems to be nicely backward compatible. I have been using it for more than a couple of years now through several versions of the core and have not had issues when upgrading except a few minor ones with some plugins. I would say that the core seems to be fine but if you're using a lot of plugins you might run into some problems (but these are usually easy to fix, or the new core has that functionality built in anyway so you can just drop them). | *My experience* is that when upgrading, I sometimes find that stuff that used to work breaks. For instance, when upgrading from 1.7.2 to 1.8.3 I found some drag-and-drop features stopped working. Some problems may be due to deprecated jQuery functions being dropped, still in use by incompatible versions of [jQuery UI](http://jqueryui.com/).
Here is a [quote from another user](http://sympmarc.com/2011/06/27/jquery-and-backward-compatibility):
>
> Backward compatibility may not be the jQuery team’s strong suit, but
> as with most things, it’s a work in progress. I’m not meaning to
> disparage the great work they do, but it points out the fact that you
> simply *must* always test your scripts with new versions of jQuery.
>
>
> |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery seems to be nicely backward compatible. I have been using it for more than a couple of years now through several versions of the core and have not had issues when upgrading except a few minor ones with some plugins. I would say that the core seems to be fine but if you're using a lot of plugins you might run into some problems (but these are usually easy to fix, or the new core has that functionality built in anyway so you can just drop them). | In my experience, jQuery 1.x has been very backwards-compatible until version 1.9.
>
> The jQuery 1.x line had major changes as of jQuery 1.9.0. We strongly recommend that you also use the jQuery Migrate plugin if you are upgrading from pre-1.9 versions of jQuery or need to use plugins that haven't yet been updated. Read the [jQuery 1.9 Upgrade Guide](http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/1.9/) and the [jQuery 1.9 release blog post](http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/15/jquery-1-9-final-jquery-2-0-beta-migrate-final-released/) for more information.
>
>
>
And don't upgrade to 2.0 until you're sure that this isn't an issue for you:
>
> jQuery 2.x has the same API as jQuery 1.x, but *does not support Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8.*
>
>
> |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery seems to be nicely backward compatible. I have been using it for more than a couple of years now through several versions of the core and have not had issues when upgrading except a few minor ones with some plugins. I would say that the core seems to be fine but if you're using a lot of plugins you might run into some problems (but these are usually easy to fix, or the new core has that functionality built in anyway so you can just drop them). | jQuery has produced backwards compatibility plugins since version 1.0.
>
> Web development has changed a lot over the years, and jQuery has changed along with it. Through all of this time, the team has tried to walk the line between maintaining compatibility with code from the past versus supporting the best web development practices of the present.
>
>
>
The project has the following backwards compatibility repos:
* [jquery-compat-1.0(Compatibility plugin for those upgrading to jQuery 1.1+ from jQuery 1.0)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.0)
* [jquery-compat-1.1(Compatibility plugin for those upgrading to jQuery 1.2+ from jQuery 1.1)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.1)
* [jquery-xpath(Implement XPath functionality for those upgrading to jQuery 1.2 from jQuery 1.1)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-xpath)
* [jquery-compat-1.3(Backwards compatibility plugin for jQuery 1.3 (to be used with jQuery 1.4))](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.3)
* [jquery-migrate-1.x-stable(Migrate older jQuery code to jQuery 1.9+)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/tree/1.x-stable)
* [jquery-migrate(Migrate older jQuery code to jQuery 3.0+)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate)
**References**
* [jQuery Blog](http://blog.jquery.com/category/jquery/)
* [jQuery Wiki: Won't Fix](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/wiki/Won't-Fix)
* [jQuery Core Upgrade Guides](http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/)
* [jQuery Migrate Plugin - Warning Messages (2.0)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/blob/1.x-stable/warnings.md)
* [jQuery Migrate Plugin - Warning Messages (3.0)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/blob/master/warnings.md)
* [jqLint](https://github.com/jokeyrhyme/jqlint) |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery is so serious about backwards compatibility that they produce a "backwards compatibility" plugin for each release: <http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.2#jQuery_1.1_Compatibility_Plugin>. It let people who don't need backwards compatibility save on page weight. | *My experience* is that when upgrading, I sometimes find that stuff that used to work breaks. For instance, when upgrading from 1.7.2 to 1.8.3 I found some drag-and-drop features stopped working. Some problems may be due to deprecated jQuery functions being dropped, still in use by incompatible versions of [jQuery UI](http://jqueryui.com/).
Here is a [quote from another user](http://sympmarc.com/2011/06/27/jquery-and-backward-compatibility):
>
> Backward compatibility may not be the jQuery team’s strong suit, but
> as with most things, it’s a work in progress. I’m not meaning to
> disparage the great work they do, but it points out the fact that you
> simply *must* always test your scripts with new versions of jQuery.
>
>
> |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery is so serious about backwards compatibility that they produce a "backwards compatibility" plugin for each release: <http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.2#jQuery_1.1_Compatibility_Plugin>. It let people who don't need backwards compatibility save on page weight. | In my experience, jQuery 1.x has been very backwards-compatible until version 1.9.
>
> The jQuery 1.x line had major changes as of jQuery 1.9.0. We strongly recommend that you also use the jQuery Migrate plugin if you are upgrading from pre-1.9 versions of jQuery or need to use plugins that haven't yet been updated. Read the [jQuery 1.9 Upgrade Guide](http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/1.9/) and the [jQuery 1.9 release blog post](http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/15/jquery-1-9-final-jquery-2-0-beta-migrate-final-released/) for more information.
>
>
>
And don't upgrade to 2.0 until you're sure that this isn't an issue for you:
>
> jQuery 2.x has the same API as jQuery 1.x, but *does not support Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8.*
>
>
> |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery is so serious about backwards compatibility that they produce a "backwards compatibility" plugin for each release: <http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.2#jQuery_1.1_Compatibility_Plugin>. It let people who don't need backwards compatibility save on page weight. | jQuery has produced backwards compatibility plugins since version 1.0.
>
> Web development has changed a lot over the years, and jQuery has changed along with it. Through all of this time, the team has tried to walk the line between maintaining compatibility with code from the past versus supporting the best web development practices of the present.
>
>
>
The project has the following backwards compatibility repos:
* [jquery-compat-1.0(Compatibility plugin for those upgrading to jQuery 1.1+ from jQuery 1.0)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.0)
* [jquery-compat-1.1(Compatibility plugin for those upgrading to jQuery 1.2+ from jQuery 1.1)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.1)
* [jquery-xpath(Implement XPath functionality for those upgrading to jQuery 1.2 from jQuery 1.1)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-xpath)
* [jquery-compat-1.3(Backwards compatibility plugin for jQuery 1.3 (to be used with jQuery 1.4))](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.3)
* [jquery-migrate-1.x-stable(Migrate older jQuery code to jQuery 1.9+)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/tree/1.x-stable)
* [jquery-migrate(Migrate older jQuery code to jQuery 3.0+)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate)
**References**
* [jQuery Blog](http://blog.jquery.com/category/jquery/)
* [jQuery Wiki: Won't Fix](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/wiki/Won't-Fix)
* [jQuery Core Upgrade Guides](http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/)
* [jQuery Migrate Plugin - Warning Messages (2.0)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/blob/1.x-stable/warnings.md)
* [jQuery Migrate Plugin - Warning Messages (3.0)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/blob/master/warnings.md)
* [jqLint](https://github.com/jokeyrhyme/jqlint) |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | *My experience* is that when upgrading, I sometimes find that stuff that used to work breaks. For instance, when upgrading from 1.7.2 to 1.8.3 I found some drag-and-drop features stopped working. Some problems may be due to deprecated jQuery functions being dropped, still in use by incompatible versions of [jQuery UI](http://jqueryui.com/).
Here is a [quote from another user](http://sympmarc.com/2011/06/27/jquery-and-backward-compatibility):
>
> Backward compatibility may not be the jQuery team’s strong suit, but
> as with most things, it’s a work in progress. I’m not meaning to
> disparage the great work they do, but it points out the fact that you
> simply *must* always test your scripts with new versions of jQuery.
>
>
> | In my experience, jQuery 1.x has been very backwards-compatible until version 1.9.
>
> The jQuery 1.x line had major changes as of jQuery 1.9.0. We strongly recommend that you also use the jQuery Migrate plugin if you are upgrading from pre-1.9 versions of jQuery or need to use plugins that haven't yet been updated. Read the [jQuery 1.9 Upgrade Guide](http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/1.9/) and the [jQuery 1.9 release blog post](http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/15/jquery-1-9-final-jquery-2-0-beta-migrate-final-released/) for more information.
>
>
>
And don't upgrade to 2.0 until you're sure that this isn't an issue for you:
>
> jQuery 2.x has the same API as jQuery 1.x, but *does not support Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8.*
>
>
> |
281,438 | We have had issues with Mootools not being very backward compatible specifically in the area of drag and drop functionality. I was wondering if anyone has had any similar problems with jQuery not being backward compatible. We are starting to use it quite heavily and are thinking about upgrading to a newer version to start using several plugins that require it. Will we have any issues if we get rid of the older version? | 2008/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/281438",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2486/"
] | jQuery has produced backwards compatibility plugins since version 1.0.
>
> Web development has changed a lot over the years, and jQuery has changed along with it. Through all of this time, the team has tried to walk the line between maintaining compatibility with code from the past versus supporting the best web development practices of the present.
>
>
>
The project has the following backwards compatibility repos:
* [jquery-compat-1.0(Compatibility plugin for those upgrading to jQuery 1.1+ from jQuery 1.0)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.0)
* [jquery-compat-1.1(Compatibility plugin for those upgrading to jQuery 1.2+ from jQuery 1.1)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.1)
* [jquery-xpath(Implement XPath functionality for those upgrading to jQuery 1.2 from jQuery 1.1)](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-xpath)
* [jquery-compat-1.3(Backwards compatibility plugin for jQuery 1.3 (to be used with jQuery 1.4))](https://github.com/jquery-archive/jquery-compat-1.3)
* [jquery-migrate-1.x-stable(Migrate older jQuery code to jQuery 1.9+)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/tree/1.x-stable)
* [jquery-migrate(Migrate older jQuery code to jQuery 3.0+)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate)
**References**
* [jQuery Blog](http://blog.jquery.com/category/jquery/)
* [jQuery Wiki: Won't Fix](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/wiki/Won't-Fix)
* [jQuery Core Upgrade Guides](http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/)
* [jQuery Migrate Plugin - Warning Messages (2.0)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/blob/1.x-stable/warnings.md)
* [jQuery Migrate Plugin - Warning Messages (3.0)](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate/blob/master/warnings.md)
* [jqLint](https://github.com/jokeyrhyme/jqlint) | In my experience, jQuery 1.x has been very backwards-compatible until version 1.9.
>
> The jQuery 1.x line had major changes as of jQuery 1.9.0. We strongly recommend that you also use the jQuery Migrate plugin if you are upgrading from pre-1.9 versions of jQuery or need to use plugins that haven't yet been updated. Read the [jQuery 1.9 Upgrade Guide](http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/1.9/) and the [jQuery 1.9 release blog post](http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/15/jquery-1-9-final-jquery-2-0-beta-migrate-final-released/) for more information.
>
>
>
And don't upgrade to 2.0 until you're sure that this isn't an issue for you:
>
> jQuery 2.x has the same API as jQuery 1.x, but *does not support Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8.*
>
>
> |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | **Make her as powerful as you imagine she is.**
Because that is where the awesome is! You worry your character will be overpowered which means you can imagine her doing overpowered stuff. You worry she will be able to do stuff no-one can counter. And I think you like it. **Have her do that stuff!** Please! Have her totally thrash her opponents with her overpowered skills! That is what I want to read.
But then how to beat her? That will be more fun to figure out than how to limit her. You do not need to figure out how to limit the character you can imagine. You need to imagine other characters on her level. Figure out how her opponents can best her or at least equal her. Or team up with her? Woo! Yeah! | One of the easy ways to eliminate the more extreme abuses is a line-of-sight limitation. You can only teleport to a location if you can currently see it. That puts a hard cap on the range of the effect, and introduces opportunities for opponents to disrupt it (fight indoors, obscure their vision, etc). Teleporting somewhere you can't see isn't a really good idea anyway, because you have no idea if the laws of physics will even permit you to exist in that space (ending up inside a solid object would be game over for you).
For an extra twist, you can limit how close you arrive to your target point to be dependent on how clearly you can see that point. For example, stick out your thumb and hold it at arm's length, covering up your target. The area of your thumbnail represents the size of the area in which you might end up. When teleporting across the room, that area is only a few square inches so accuracy isn't really an issue. Teleporting to that hill far in the distance could be a problem, though. That same thumbnail-sized area is bigger than the apparent size of the hill, so you might miss your target completely and end up somewhere undesirable.
Any sort of teleportation is going to be rather overpowered in combat, simply because it lets you evade attacks nearly perfectly. The most straightforward way to reign in the usefulness would be to make teleportation not an instantaneous process. The caster has to focus/concentrate/channel for a period of time before teleporting. This prevents it from being used *reactively*, which is where most of its overpowered nature comes from. It also leaves your caster vulnerable just before they teleport, which means it has to be used much more strategically. Great for sneak attacks or initiating fights but once the fight starts, you can't fight invincibly like Nightcrawler in X-Men United.
You can even incorporate this into the lore if you want. Teleportation is a form of shadow magic. The caster channels their magic to send their shadow to a distant target location. Once the shadow reaches the destination, the caster will suddenly find themselves there as well (like how you can travel to the other room and turn on the light to make your shadow appear at *your* location, only it works the other way around). The shadow travels at a certain speed, say, 10x the speed of the caster. The caster would then have to channel for some brief minimum length of time *plus* however long it takes for the shadow to travel from A to B. That won't completely preclude its use as a combat escape mechanism, but will require your character to earn themselves enough breathing room to complete the cast. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | Do a little twist on some old thaumaturgy tropes.
You want it to be contiguous floor or some such, so make it where a change in flooring would be a block. Tile floor acts as one piece, wood another. This sets up people who are aware of the ability to build in some limitations. If you can teleport, it's less effective if you can only do it in a two foot square because of the decorative pattern of wood, saltillo and wood tile. This is because there is no connection between the kinds of floor, so the thaumaturgical connection wouldn't work.
Another limitation could be with the cool down and cast times. If your guy has to wait 10 seconds to teleport, or it takes 10 seconds to cast and requires focus to do so, then that makes it less effective combat tool. 10 seconds is a very long time in a fight. | ### "Electrical magic"-based teleportation: requires a conductive path.
Suppose your teleportation magic makes your teleporting person act as a self-propelled surge of electrons. As long as they are in physical contact with a conductive surface or conduit, they can teleport to any other point on it with enough space for them to materialize at the other side.
This would impose pretty strong limitations on general use.
* Most dirt/rock/concrete and other surfaces one could stand on would not be immediately usable.
* Bodies of water and wet surfaces (eg. during/after rain) would be easily traversable.
* In urban settings, perhaps a likely use would be teleporting around the electrical grid between points of exposed wiring.
* To use it in non-conducting settings, the teleporter would probably carry coils of wire with throwable weights or a grapnel gun, or perhaps something that splashes water, to deploy in the field.
If you want to impose limitations based on frequency, you can consider heat generated by the teleporter's passage through the medium. If they teleport across a thin film of water on pavement, perhaps the heat of their passage would evaporate too much water for them to take the same path back. If they teleport through a normal circuit in a suburban home, perhaps they'd set off the breaker and not be able to go back through that line.
Related to this, you could add a limitation that they must know, ahead of time, where they are going to rematerialize. Perhaps in electron-surge form, they cannot perceive the world outside of their conductive conduit--at risk of death or severe injury, they must be certain they are re-materializing in a place with sufficient room for their body. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | **Make her as powerful as you imagine she is.**
Because that is where the awesome is! You worry your character will be overpowered which means you can imagine her doing overpowered stuff. You worry she will be able to do stuff no-one can counter. And I think you like it. **Have her do that stuff!** Please! Have her totally thrash her opponents with her overpowered skills! That is what I want to read.
But then how to beat her? That will be more fun to figure out than how to limit her. You do not need to figure out how to limit the character you can imagine. You need to imagine other characters on her level. Figure out how her opponents can best her or at least equal her. Or team up with her? Woo! Yeah! | Please be much more imaginative. Either explain or drop any difference between “using magic” and how else they might "teleport”.
Explain how a “hand” matters, rather than a foot or shoulder, knee or elbow.
A “circular arena…” is one thing. A “circular area…”; even “a circle…” very different. You might not care.
Your “floating” might have a use, or not.
If it is written that limitations should be set to avoid anything being too powerful, you might be able to Post where or when.
To disregard earth magic/manipulation when your Question is solely about “contact-based teleportation”, as explained by you as being in contact with the earth, seems like a contradiction in terms.
Limit what you want to 75-100m, usable only every second or two and with wind magic mainly.
Specify whether you’re writing about one second or two.
Name anyone who in a crisis, didn’t see all the difference in the world between one second and two. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | ### "Electrical magic"-based teleportation: requires a conductive path.
Suppose your teleportation magic makes your teleporting person act as a self-propelled surge of electrons. As long as they are in physical contact with a conductive surface or conduit, they can teleport to any other point on it with enough space for them to materialize at the other side.
This would impose pretty strong limitations on general use.
* Most dirt/rock/concrete and other surfaces one could stand on would not be immediately usable.
* Bodies of water and wet surfaces (eg. during/after rain) would be easily traversable.
* In urban settings, perhaps a likely use would be teleporting around the electrical grid between points of exposed wiring.
* To use it in non-conducting settings, the teleporter would probably carry coils of wire with throwable weights or a grapnel gun, or perhaps something that splashes water, to deploy in the field.
If you want to impose limitations based on frequency, you can consider heat generated by the teleporter's passage through the medium. If they teleport across a thin film of water on pavement, perhaps the heat of their passage would evaporate too much water for them to take the same path back. If they teleport through a normal circuit in a suburban home, perhaps they'd set off the breaker and not be able to go back through that line.
Related to this, you could add a limitation that they must know, ahead of time, where they are going to rematerialize. Perhaps in electron-surge form, they cannot perceive the world outside of their conductive conduit--at risk of death or severe injury, they must be certain they are re-materializing in a place with sufficient room for their body. | Please be much more imaginative. Either explain or drop any difference between “using magic” and how else they might "teleport”.
Explain how a “hand” matters, rather than a foot or shoulder, knee or elbow.
A “circular arena…” is one thing. A “circular area…”; even “a circle…” very different. You might not care.
Your “floating” might have a use, or not.
If it is written that limitations should be set to avoid anything being too powerful, you might be able to Post where or when.
To disregard earth magic/manipulation when your Question is solely about “contact-based teleportation”, as explained by you as being in contact with the earth, seems like a contradiction in terms.
Limit what you want to 75-100m, usable only every second or two and with wind magic mainly.
Specify whether you’re writing about one second or two.
Name anyone who in a crisis, didn’t see all the difference in the world between one second and two. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | **Make her as powerful as you imagine she is.**
Because that is where the awesome is! You worry your character will be overpowered which means you can imagine her doing overpowered stuff. You worry she will be able to do stuff no-one can counter. And I think you like it. **Have her do that stuff!** Please! Have her totally thrash her opponents with her overpowered skills! That is what I want to read.
But then how to beat her? That will be more fun to figure out than how to limit her. You do not need to figure out how to limit the character you can imagine. You need to imagine other characters on her level. Figure out how her opponents can best her or at least equal her. Or team up with her? Woo! Yeah! | ### "Electrical magic"-based teleportation: requires a conductive path.
Suppose your teleportation magic makes your teleporting person act as a self-propelled surge of electrons. As long as they are in physical contact with a conductive surface or conduit, they can teleport to any other point on it with enough space for them to materialize at the other side.
This would impose pretty strong limitations on general use.
* Most dirt/rock/concrete and other surfaces one could stand on would not be immediately usable.
* Bodies of water and wet surfaces (eg. during/after rain) would be easily traversable.
* In urban settings, perhaps a likely use would be teleporting around the electrical grid between points of exposed wiring.
* To use it in non-conducting settings, the teleporter would probably carry coils of wire with throwable weights or a grapnel gun, or perhaps something that splashes water, to deploy in the field.
If you want to impose limitations based on frequency, you can consider heat generated by the teleporter's passage through the medium. If they teleport across a thin film of water on pavement, perhaps the heat of their passage would evaporate too much water for them to take the same path back. If they teleport through a normal circuit in a suburban home, perhaps they'd set off the breaker and not be able to go back through that line.
Related to this, you could add a limitation that they must know, ahead of time, where they are going to rematerialize. Perhaps in electron-surge form, they cannot perceive the world outside of their conductive conduit--at risk of death or severe injury, they must be certain they are re-materializing in a place with sufficient room for their body. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | Do a little twist on some old thaumaturgy tropes.
You want it to be contiguous floor or some such, so make it where a change in flooring would be a block. Tile floor acts as one piece, wood another. This sets up people who are aware of the ability to build in some limitations. If you can teleport, it's less effective if you can only do it in a two foot square because of the decorative pattern of wood, saltillo and wood tile. This is because there is no connection between the kinds of floor, so the thaumaturgical connection wouldn't work.
Another limitation could be with the cool down and cast times. If your guy has to wait 10 seconds to teleport, or it takes 10 seconds to cast and requires focus to do so, then that makes it less effective combat tool. 10 seconds is a very long time in a fight. | First, you already limited the most unfair application by limiting it to ground use :
The dropping someone off in space and coming back.
This was also only usable if you allow forced teleportation of others. Which you can limit (maximum weight, maximum volume or needing the consent of other living beings to move them)
What you were going for in your thoughts as limitations are frequency and range. And those can be linked to have an adaptive cost:
* Teleportation can take time to prepare and the longer you prepare the farther you can go. For example, by preparing 1 second you can just teleport 1m away but if you prepare 1 minute you can move 100m in one go.
* If you need reflex teleportation, you can reverse the relation to time and instead of preparing you have a cooldown during which it is impossible to teleport after teleporting.
You can also make a limitation on precision. The farther you go, the less precise the teleportation is, which could be dangerous depending on how teleporting in a wall is handled.
As for what magic to use in addition to it, I don't see why that'll be necessary, adding anything in addition to teleportation is already overkill.
You thought of Earth Magic manipulating the ground and changing what's accessible, but that's true for any magic creating/manipulating solids (Ice at least and Plants if you allow teleporting through living beings). Now if you really want to add magic, there are a few kinds that works well with it:
* Any Illusion Magic that makes it seem you didn't move yet
* Any Stealth Magic that allows to teleport undetected
* Any long range Magic that allows Hit&Run tactics
If you want another magic, that seems to combo well but still have limitations, any other contact-based magic will work well. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | **Make her as powerful as you imagine she is.**
Because that is where the awesome is! You worry your character will be overpowered which means you can imagine her doing overpowered stuff. You worry she will be able to do stuff no-one can counter. And I think you like it. **Have her do that stuff!** Please! Have her totally thrash her opponents with her overpowered skills! That is what I want to read.
But then how to beat her? That will be more fun to figure out than how to limit her. You do not need to figure out how to limit the character you can imagine. You need to imagine other characters on her level. Figure out how her opponents can best her or at least equal her. Or team up with her? Woo! Yeah! | First, you already limited the most unfair application by limiting it to ground use :
The dropping someone off in space and coming back.
This was also only usable if you allow forced teleportation of others. Which you can limit (maximum weight, maximum volume or needing the consent of other living beings to move them)
What you were going for in your thoughts as limitations are frequency and range. And those can be linked to have an adaptive cost:
* Teleportation can take time to prepare and the longer you prepare the farther you can go. For example, by preparing 1 second you can just teleport 1m away but if you prepare 1 minute you can move 100m in one go.
* If you need reflex teleportation, you can reverse the relation to time and instead of preparing you have a cooldown during which it is impossible to teleport after teleporting.
You can also make a limitation on precision. The farther you go, the less precise the teleportation is, which could be dangerous depending on how teleporting in a wall is handled.
As for what magic to use in addition to it, I don't see why that'll be necessary, adding anything in addition to teleportation is already overkill.
You thought of Earth Magic manipulating the ground and changing what's accessible, but that's true for any magic creating/manipulating solids (Ice at least and Plants if you allow teleporting through living beings). Now if you really want to add magic, there are a few kinds that works well with it:
* Any Illusion Magic that makes it seem you didn't move yet
* Any Stealth Magic that allows to teleport undetected
* Any long range Magic that allows Hit&Run tactics
If you want another magic, that seems to combo well but still have limitations, any other contact-based magic will work well. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | **Limitations in other places**
Positioning is powerful. Incredibly, insanely powerful. In any engagement this is more important that the weapon your holding, as the position in regards to your opponents dictate what is effective.
If you let someone teleport at will with some items every few seconds as long as they have contact with solid ground in even just a 50m distance, they are very hard to stop. They can move out of range, get a knife, gun or crossbow and teleport closeby to fire at the target. Before they can react effectively you're gone. You can get behind them with a knife or club and the target has so little time to react. In the movies they often teleport about with high predictability for the audience. Your teleporting person won't do that. She/he can just teleport away so the target doesn't know when you'll teleport back with whatever assortment of weapons they deem most appropriate.
Now imagine teleporting only the person. All clothes and weapons left behind. It might be more fair, but thus person is still Incredibly dangerous. Teleporting to weapons and firing/throwing them from a distance is still very powerful. Even at unarmed combat they'll be dangerous, lije a boxer that always can start behind the opponent. Medieval armour? Push them over or hit the knee from the back. Then attack at leasure with close combat for armoured and immobilised prey. More modern armour? They are still very vulnerable to many unarmed attacks.
Don't get me wrong. Being naked drastically decreases your chances. Still it has such great potential for someone learning to use this telepotation in fighting. It can even be a last resort. Fighting normally until *surprise* all clothes and weapons fall empty on the ground. While the target is confused about what just happened, the neck is twisted or a rock is banged to the head.
To decrease the effectiveness of teleportation you can do many things. A few here:
* Naked.
* Costs physical energy.
* Costs mental energy.
* Causes temporary disorientation, as the mind isn't where it expects to be.
* Telegraphing the teleport on both starting and ending locations.
* Damages the teleporter.
* Requires immense concentration.
* Can be dangerous and possibly end up inside the solid stuff that's being touched, so to reduve this chance teleportation is done sparingly.
* Decrease frequency.
* Decrease area.
* More limitations in general for teleportation. | One of the easy ways to eliminate the more extreme abuses is a line-of-sight limitation. You can only teleport to a location if you can currently see it. That puts a hard cap on the range of the effect, and introduces opportunities for opponents to disrupt it (fight indoors, obscure their vision, etc). Teleporting somewhere you can't see isn't a really good idea anyway, because you have no idea if the laws of physics will even permit you to exist in that space (ending up inside a solid object would be game over for you).
For an extra twist, you can limit how close you arrive to your target point to be dependent on how clearly you can see that point. For example, stick out your thumb and hold it at arm's length, covering up your target. The area of your thumbnail represents the size of the area in which you might end up. When teleporting across the room, that area is only a few square inches so accuracy isn't really an issue. Teleporting to that hill far in the distance could be a problem, though. That same thumbnail-sized area is bigger than the apparent size of the hill, so you might miss your target completely and end up somewhere undesirable.
Any sort of teleportation is going to be rather overpowered in combat, simply because it lets you evade attacks nearly perfectly. The most straightforward way to reign in the usefulness would be to make teleportation not an instantaneous process. The caster has to focus/concentrate/channel for a period of time before teleporting. This prevents it from being used *reactively*, which is where most of its overpowered nature comes from. It also leaves your caster vulnerable just before they teleport, which means it has to be used much more strategically. Great for sneak attacks or initiating fights but once the fight starts, you can't fight invincibly like Nightcrawler in X-Men United.
You can even incorporate this into the lore if you want. Teleportation is a form of shadow magic. The caster channels their magic to send their shadow to a distant target location. Once the shadow reaches the destination, the caster will suddenly find themselves there as well (like how you can travel to the other room and turn on the light to make your shadow appear at *your* location, only it works the other way around). The shadow travels at a certain speed, say, 10x the speed of the caster. The caster would then have to channel for some brief minimum length of time *plus* however long it takes for the shadow to travel from A to B. That won't completely preclude its use as a combat escape mechanism, but will require your character to earn themselves enough breathing room to complete the cast. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | ### "Electrical magic"-based teleportation: requires a conductive path.
Suppose your teleportation magic makes your teleporting person act as a self-propelled surge of electrons. As long as they are in physical contact with a conductive surface or conduit, they can teleport to any other point on it with enough space for them to materialize at the other side.
This would impose pretty strong limitations on general use.
* Most dirt/rock/concrete and other surfaces one could stand on would not be immediately usable.
* Bodies of water and wet surfaces (eg. during/after rain) would be easily traversable.
* In urban settings, perhaps a likely use would be teleporting around the electrical grid between points of exposed wiring.
* To use it in non-conducting settings, the teleporter would probably carry coils of wire with throwable weights or a grapnel gun, or perhaps something that splashes water, to deploy in the field.
If you want to impose limitations based on frequency, you can consider heat generated by the teleporter's passage through the medium. If they teleport across a thin film of water on pavement, perhaps the heat of their passage would evaporate too much water for them to take the same path back. If they teleport through a normal circuit in a suburban home, perhaps they'd set off the breaker and not be able to go back through that line.
Related to this, you could add a limitation that they must know, ahead of time, where they are going to rematerialize. Perhaps in electron-surge form, they cannot perceive the world outside of their conductive conduit--at risk of death or severe injury, they must be certain they are re-materializing in a place with sufficient room for their body. | First, you already limited the most unfair application by limiting it to ground use :
The dropping someone off in space and coming back.
This was also only usable if you allow forced teleportation of others. Which you can limit (maximum weight, maximum volume or needing the consent of other living beings to move them)
What you were going for in your thoughts as limitations are frequency and range. And those can be linked to have an adaptive cost:
* Teleportation can take time to prepare and the longer you prepare the farther you can go. For example, by preparing 1 second you can just teleport 1m away but if you prepare 1 minute you can move 100m in one go.
* If you need reflex teleportation, you can reverse the relation to time and instead of preparing you have a cooldown during which it is impossible to teleport after teleporting.
You can also make a limitation on precision. The farther you go, the less precise the teleportation is, which could be dangerous depending on how teleporting in a wall is handled.
As for what magic to use in addition to it, I don't see why that'll be necessary, adding anything in addition to teleportation is already overkill.
You thought of Earth Magic manipulating the ground and changing what's accessible, but that's true for any magic creating/manipulating solids (Ice at least and Plants if you allow teleporting through living beings). Now if you really want to add magic, there are a few kinds that works well with it:
* Any Illusion Magic that makes it seem you didn't move yet
* Any Stealth Magic that allows to teleport undetected
* Any long range Magic that allows Hit&Run tactics
If you want another magic, that seems to combo well but still have limitations, any other contact-based magic will work well. |
198,077 | In my story, there is a character that is capable of using magic or an ability that allows them to "teleport" as long as they are in contact with the ground or the area that they want to use it on with at least one hand.
For example, in the middle of a circular arena 100m in diameter, as long as they are touching the floor (with a hand), they can teleport anywhere as long as it is "connected" or still physically part of the arena (which means that any floating rocks won't count, and they wouldn't be able to use it to get away from the arena in the case that it is floating).
What limitations can be set on it to avoid being too powerful, and with limitations in mind (or not), what would be the best type of magic/ability to use with it? (disregarding earth magic/manipulation)
My thoughts were to limit it to 75-100m and only usable every second or two, and to be used with wind magic mainly (if mist or fog can be made using wind magic). | 2021/03/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198077",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83344/"
] | Instead of true teleportation, have them move within the ground as if it were not solid. They can "merge" with it and move around really fast - maybe so fast that for practical purposes, it is much the same as teleporting.
The advantage of this is that it prevents the user from abusing this power. For example, in the teleportation model you propose, one could teleport from an arena to a floating island if a rope connects those. The user could throw a rope with a hook on a floating island, and then they could teleport at will. But if they have to physically move through the ground, this prevents them from moving through ropes, chains, or other narrow passages because their body will not fit through the passage.
An example of such "teleportation" is the [Inkling in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate](https://www.ssbwiki.com/Inkling_(SSBU)). She is able to become a puddle of splashing ink and move around the scenario. In this manner she can avoid most attacks because they will pass over her, and she can move extremely fast from one point to another, but this does not allow her to move from one floating island to another.
Another example is Zetsu, from the animé Naruto. This guy is able to practically "fly" inside rock and earth. This allows him to disappear from one place and appear in other really fast, but also does not allow him to move from the ground to a floating place (and there have been floating places in the animé).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iXmBK.gif)
And finally there is King Bumi in Avatar: the last Airbender. This technique shows in the few first and few last seconds of [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTu5t2nhOrw). | One of the easy ways to eliminate the more extreme abuses is a line-of-sight limitation. You can only teleport to a location if you can currently see it. That puts a hard cap on the range of the effect, and introduces opportunities for opponents to disrupt it (fight indoors, obscure their vision, etc). Teleporting somewhere you can't see isn't a really good idea anyway, because you have no idea if the laws of physics will even permit you to exist in that space (ending up inside a solid object would be game over for you).
For an extra twist, you can limit how close you arrive to your target point to be dependent on how clearly you can see that point. For example, stick out your thumb and hold it at arm's length, covering up your target. The area of your thumbnail represents the size of the area in which you might end up. When teleporting across the room, that area is only a few square inches so accuracy isn't really an issue. Teleporting to that hill far in the distance could be a problem, though. That same thumbnail-sized area is bigger than the apparent size of the hill, so you might miss your target completely and end up somewhere undesirable.
Any sort of teleportation is going to be rather overpowered in combat, simply because it lets you evade attacks nearly perfectly. The most straightforward way to reign in the usefulness would be to make teleportation not an instantaneous process. The caster has to focus/concentrate/channel for a period of time before teleporting. This prevents it from being used *reactively*, which is where most of its overpowered nature comes from. It also leaves your caster vulnerable just before they teleport, which means it has to be used much more strategically. Great for sneak attacks or initiating fights but once the fight starts, you can't fight invincibly like Nightcrawler in X-Men United.
You can even incorporate this into the lore if you want. Teleportation is a form of shadow magic. The caster channels their magic to send their shadow to a distant target location. Once the shadow reaches the destination, the caster will suddenly find themselves there as well (like how you can travel to the other room and turn on the light to make your shadow appear at *your* location, only it works the other way around). The shadow travels at a certain speed, say, 10x the speed of the caster. The caster would then have to channel for some brief minimum length of time *plus* however long it takes for the shadow to travel from A to B. That won't completely preclude its use as a combat escape mechanism, but will require your character to earn themselves enough breathing room to complete the cast. |
15,646,834 | I'm working on small WPF desktop app to track a robot. I have a Kinect for Windows on my desk and I was able to do the basic features and run the Depth camera stream and the RGB camera stream.
What I need is to track a robot on the floor but I have no idea where to start. I found out that I should use EMGU (OpenCV wrapper)
What I want to do is track a robot and find it's location using the depth camera. Basically, it's for localization of the robot using Stereo Triangulation. Then using TCP and Wifi to send the robot some commands to move him from one place to an other using both the RGB and Depth camera. The RGB camera will also be used to map the object in the area so that the robot can take the best path and avoid the objects.
The problem is that I have never worked with Computer Vision before and it's actually my first, I'm not stuck to a deadline and I'm more than willing to learn all the related stuff to finish this project.
I'm looking for details, explanation, hints, links or tutorials to achieve my need.
Thanks. | 2013/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/15646834",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Robot localization is a very tricky problem and I myself have been struggling for months now, I can tell you what I have achieved But you have a number of options:
* **Optical Flow Based Odometery**: (Also known as visual odometry):
1. Extract keypoints from one image or features (I used Shi-Tomashi, or cvGoodFeaturesToTrack)
2. Do the same for a consecutive image
3. Match these features (I used Lucas-Kanade)
4. Extract depth information from Kinect
5. Calculate transformation between two 3D point clouds.
What the above algorithm is doing is it is trying to estimate the camera motion between two frames, which will tell you the position of the robot.
* **Monte Carlo Localization**: This is rather simpler, but you should also use wheel odometery with it.
Check [this paper](http://old.ee.duke.edu/files/ece/GWDD2012_Marron.pdf) out for a c# based approach.
The method above uses probabalistic models to determine the robot's location.
The sad part is even though libraries exist in C++ to do what you need very easily, wrapping them for C# is a herculean task. If you however can code a wrapper, then 90% of your work is done, the key libraries to use are [PCL](http://pointclouds.org) and [MRPT](http://mrpt.org).
The last option (Which by far is the easiest, but the most inaccurate) is to use KinectFusion built in to the Kinect SDK 1.7. But my experiences with it for robot localization have been very bad.
You must read [Slam for Dummies](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-412j-cognitive-robotics-spring-2005/projects/1aslam_blas_repo.pdf), it will make things about Monte Carlo Localization very clear.
The hard reality is, that this is very tricky and you will most probably end up doing it yourself. I hope you dive into this vast topic, and would learn awesome stuff.
For further information, or wrappers that I have written. Just comment below... :-)
Best | Not sure if is would help you or not...but I put together a Python module that might help.
<http://letsmakerobots.com/node/38883#comments> |
5,139,253 | Example Page: <http://kian02.comlu.com/kian3.html>
I want the Navi in the example page to have mouseover and also be a link.
It's been going crazy as a result of me trying as you can see lol. | 2011/02/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5139253",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/637303/"
] | You may want to have a look at the [PDF Converter for SharePoint](http://www.muhimbi.com/Products/PDF-Converter-for-SharePoint/summary.aspx). It supports all the formats you are interested in and more. In addition to a SharePoint GUI it has full support for workflows and comes with watermarking, PDF Security and a friendly web services interface as well.
No support for printing yet, but that is planned for a future (free) upgrade.
Please note that this is a product I have worked on, so consider me biased. Having said that, it is a great product, actively developed, with many happy customers | Have you considered using [Google Docs Viewer](http://docs.google.com/viewer)? It may not cover all of your requirements but might still be an alternative. |
557,442 | I would like to get better control over my deployment environments, but I share the system administration responsibility with an IT department that has their own (not fully automated) processes for bootstrapping VM-instances, managing organization users and performing security updates.
Can I still benefit from using Chef (probably Chef-Solo), even though the systems will have an initial state that is outside my control, and will periodically change due to security updates outside of Chef (and possibly also other manual intervention)? *I'm not in a position to introduce a different workflow at the IT department.*
Their responsibilities:
* Provide the hardware and VM
* Install an OS with a "basic set of features" (currently SLES 11)
* Applying security updates from the same SLES-release
* Manage access for any organization users
* Backups
My responsibilities:
* Install and manage application dependencies (with a policy to prefer packages from the SLES distribution)
* Applying security updates to anything installed that are not part of the SLES distribution
* Configure needed services
* Deploying applications
As far as I can tell this goes against the idea of a fully controlled environment that is behind tools like Chef, and it will leave room for divergences between production environments and between them and my staging environment (a local VM that IT never touches).
Is using a tool like Chef still worth the "bother"? How would my workflow need to differ from that of a fully controlled environment? | 2013/11/26 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/557442",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/24289/"
] | I'd say you have even more use for Chef than in the case where you control everything. I think you have the wrong idea about what Chef is there to do for
you.
Chef isn't about controlling the entire environment. In fact there are things that you probably shouldn't attempt to provide with Chef. Provisioning ( which is largely what your IT department is providing ) is a problem that Chef and other CM systems don't really address. Chef takes over after the OS is installed and the basic network connectivity is setup. Really there isn't a whole lot of
difference between what your IT department is providing and what you'd get from
AWS.
Chef (and other good cm's) are about ensuring that the configuration is both stable and reproducible. In your case it seems ideal as if something steps on your configuration, you want it restored ASAP. You can use Chef to control as much or as little of the configuration as you want.
If you have a production application that requires configuration, you need a configuration management system for that application. Chef may or may not be the right tool for you, but you need something. Your CM can be as simple as keeping the config files in version control and using a makefile to install them. ( Fine
for a single service on a single machine, but not much else. )
The question you need to ask is what scale do you work at and how many services do you need to manage? Chef is a power multiplier, but it amplifies both the good and the bad. If you make a mistake, you make it EVERYWHERE. So this requires some means of testing and a fair amount of initial work. But this power enables you to work at a much larger scale.
If you've got more machines or more services to manage than you have fingers on one hand, then I'd at least try using Chef and see if it works for you. | Besides it not being "best practice" i would say that there could be some benefit with using chef(-solo).
Given you really "own" the application-stack that you would like manage you could manage it with chef. Security-updates should - AFAIK - not interfere with that since they are usually updates of the application(-binary) and not the configuration that you would like to manage. But if the other team would change the directory/file permissions of your application stack there would be a problem since they would probably not understand why that changes every hour.
Another possibility would be that you use the backups which chef does of every file it touches and diff them to the expected state - after that you could merge possible configuration changes of the team, but there would be some inconsistent state for the time you need to merge
so my conclusion would be: if you just want to manage - say - apache on some server i guess you could do that with any configuration management - if the other team is not trying to change the same configuration |
373,084 | To be clear I'm not looking for any myself, but I had thought there were no PS4 cheats and yesterday a friend and I were playing, and a player was griefing us. We shot him endlessly with rockets, grenades, mines, you name it... no effect. I even hit his avatar directly (so not in a vehicle) with an RPG and he went flying, then simply stood up and killed me. Seems like this had to be a cheat... no?
I would like to actually be linked to an authoritative source stating that PS4 cheats (serious cheats, not just silly cosmetic mods or whatever) do in fact exist currently in GTA Online for PS4. I haven't been able to find any information that wasn't either really old, or for Story Mode. | 2020/07/29 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/373084",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/184913/"
] | Yes, it was a cheat. More specifically it was a cheat as a result of a mod, there are normally no cheats in the game. No secret passwords or konami-code type sequence of button presses that will enable god-mode.
Modding on consoles is more uncommon than PC, because it usually requires altering the console's hardware in order to run otherwise unauthorized programs or altered versions of the game software. This tends to get more common as the console ages, as new quicker/easier methods of modding are developed, and as games stop getting updates to combat the cheaters. The XB360/PS3 versions of GTA Online tend to have more people cheating than the XBOne/PS4.
If you encounter a player like this, your best option is to report them, and then switch to a different lobby. | If you are on the PS4, it was most likely a godmode exploit, as modding was made incredibly difficult on this generation of consoles, as compared to the Ps3/Xbox360. An example of an exploit that worked on patch 1.50 is [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjKRYO50Wfo). |
901,251 | I am using AES/CBC/PKCS5Padding cipher instance for AES encryption and decryption in java
How can I decrypt the data using blackberry encrypted by above in java.
decrypting data with AES/CBC/PKCS5Padding using blackberry
Thanks
Bapi | 2009/05/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/901251",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | I think the [Bouncy Castle Library](http://www.bouncycastle.org/java.html) supports that. They provide some short tutorials too. | Bouncy castle has a fantastic library for doing this. The main problem will be how to get the key there in a secure way. I found that .NET and Java serialize the keys in incompatible ways, so I ended up using Bouncy Castle on both sides in order to facilitate key transfer, as it was transferred using RSA, for security sake. |
10,468 | I've just pulled some beetroot out of my garden.
I've never cooked beetroot before so would love a few suggestions. | 2010/12/24 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1410/"
] | Basically you boil them or roast them until tender, then let them cool and peel them. It is better not to cut or peel them before cooking, they will bleed lots of color and flavor. Some classic things to do with them: puree into a soup called borscht, slice them in a salad (particularly nice with goat cheese), serve as a roasted vegetable like you would a potato or turnip. They especially love dairy products with a little tang such as sour cream, feta cheese, yogurt and so forth. | I like them steamed: Steam , unpeeled, for around 35 minutes depending on size. Use paper towel to rub off the peel after it's cooked, and then slice.
They're very likely to stain your nice towels, clothing, and counter-tops .... a cutting board is recommended. |
10,468 | I've just pulled some beetroot out of my garden.
I've never cooked beetroot before so would love a few suggestions. | 2010/12/24 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1410/"
] | I like them steamed: Steam , unpeeled, for around 35 minutes depending on size. Use paper towel to rub off the peel after it's cooked, and then slice.
They're very likely to stain your nice towels, clothing, and counter-tops .... a cutting board is recommended. | The only way i have beets is roasted with a little olive oil, salt and pepper(fresh cracked of course). I find that if steamed or boiled, the beet flavor gets watered down. Sometimes i make a relish like dish with with the baked beets sliced along with parsely, garlic,onions, and a light drizzle of white vinegar, letting it macerate for a few hours before eating. |
10,468 | I've just pulled some beetroot out of my garden.
I've never cooked beetroot before so would love a few suggestions. | 2010/12/24 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1410/"
] | Basically you boil them or roast them until tender, then let them cool and peel them. It is better not to cut or peel them before cooking, they will bleed lots of color and flavor. Some classic things to do with them: puree into a soup called borscht, slice them in a salad (particularly nice with goat cheese), serve as a roasted vegetable like you would a potato or turnip. They especially love dairy products with a little tang such as sour cream, feta cheese, yogurt and so forth. | The only way i have beets is roasted with a little olive oil, salt and pepper(fresh cracked of course). I find that if steamed or boiled, the beet flavor gets watered down. Sometimes i make a relish like dish with with the baked beets sliced along with parsely, garlic,onions, and a light drizzle of white vinegar, letting it macerate for a few hours before eating. |
10,468 | I've just pulled some beetroot out of my garden.
I've never cooked beetroot before so would love a few suggestions. | 2010/12/24 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1410/"
] | Basically you boil them or roast them until tender, then let them cool and peel them. It is better not to cut or peel them before cooking, they will bleed lots of color and flavor. Some classic things to do with them: puree into a soup called borscht, slice them in a salad (particularly nice with goat cheese), serve as a roasted vegetable like you would a potato or turnip. They especially love dairy products with a little tang such as sour cream, feta cheese, yogurt and so forth. | My Russian Flatmate inspired me to try 'beetroot chocolate cake'. The beetroot keeps the cake really moist but without the need to use much butter/oil. It's really healthy and tastes very rich and moist, almost similar to chocolate browny. I made two of them in the last couple of weeks and will make another one tomorrow.
As per recipe, I tend to change mine over time, but as a rough guideline, you can use a carrot cake recipe and replace the carrots with beetroot. And of course add some chocolate :). My cakes both had about 1/2 kg of beetroot in it. |
10,468 | I've just pulled some beetroot out of my garden.
I've never cooked beetroot before so would love a few suggestions. | 2010/12/24 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1410/"
] | My Russian Flatmate inspired me to try 'beetroot chocolate cake'. The beetroot keeps the cake really moist but without the need to use much butter/oil. It's really healthy and tastes very rich and moist, almost similar to chocolate browny. I made two of them in the last couple of weeks and will make another one tomorrow.
As per recipe, I tend to change mine over time, but as a rough guideline, you can use a carrot cake recipe and replace the carrots with beetroot. And of course add some chocolate :). My cakes both had about 1/2 kg of beetroot in it. | The only way i have beets is roasted with a little olive oil, salt and pepper(fresh cracked of course). I find that if steamed or boiled, the beet flavor gets watered down. Sometimes i make a relish like dish with with the baked beets sliced along with parsely, garlic,onions, and a light drizzle of white vinegar, letting it macerate for a few hours before eating. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | Users aren't stupid. They approach the application in different ways and with different expectations. One of the beautiful thing about the web is that one can get to the same information in different ways - one way is not necessarily better than another.
I'm pretty much an "expert" user by every standard one can give and yet, just a few months ago, while trying to fill out a task on a timesheet that I had never used before I was lost. I was given a direction to "select x" after entering my day's hours. For the life of me I couldn't find it. I resorted to CTR-F to find it -- and there it was - a fraction of an inch outside my field of focus.
Was my lack of ability to find "X" an example of my stupidity? No. I don't think so. I was one more user who, while new to an application and under time pressure, missed the obvious.
Now the "avg user" probably won't think to do a CTR-F but that's not necessarily a sign of "stupidity." | Following the "users aren't stupid" crowd, I'll add this "but very many UX coders are quite stupid".
Programmers write interfaces they are comfortable with because they often have little evidence to the contrary. This implies "If they are too busy to understand the entire system as well as I do, they're ignorable insignificants". I've actually entered a group which actively held that belief "What do you mean a customer can't understand what 'Manifold Reset Override' is for? Why not?" After beating such folks about the facce and neck, there is *some* hope of reforming them. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | Users aren't stupid, they just have more important things to do than focus on the interface you're designing.
=============================================================================================================
For you, the interface represents a lot of thought and work, and you care about getting it right. But the user **doesn't care** about the interface; at most, they care about whether it's getting in the way of what they actually want to be doing right now. They don't *want* to take the time to appreciate the interface or figure it out, and **they shouldn't have to.** That's your job: to do the thinking for them, creating the easiest, most straightforward path through the work you can.
I highly recommend Squareweave's video ["The User is Drunk"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk) on this topic. As the video puts it, *"The user is fine, but with the amount of attention they have to spare for your UI, they might as well be plastered."* | I upvoted Peter's and Mayo's answers and would like to add this:
There are different groups of users. **One interface can't possibly satisfy everyone** or be optimally easy for everyone to use. **Do user research** and determine what the common shared qualities are within each user group. That will result in *data-driven personas*.
When you have personas, you can compare their main points, goals, frustrations, and scenarios to determine what the primary persona is. The primary persona represents the user group who won't have their needs met by an interface built for any of the other personas.
To use an example: what end user would want to try to read a WordPress blog through the site's *admin dashboard* every time they visited the site? Most users who are not technical or unfamiliar with WordPress would feel lost seeing this, and they probably wouldn't get any value from the site. That doesn't make them stupid. The site they are viewing just is not built to meet their needs. They just need to see the site from the perspective of an end user, not from the perspective of someone who works for the site they are trying to view.
Similarly, a WordPress developer who wants to be able to control the PHP code behind a page wouldn't be able to do that as easily from looking at the site from an end user's perspective as they would if there were (or were also) a text editor in which they could easily make their changes.
So in that example, I identified **two personas**: an **end user** and an **admin with development skills**. These are both examples of primary personas. **They need different interfaces** (a publicly viewable site and an admin dashboard, in this case) to be able to get value from the site and to do their work effectively (which are different goals).
However, **you can't put all end users in the same category.** I've never seen user research tend toward that.
There are other categories of personas too, adapted from [this summary](http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Persona+Categories).
A *secondary persona* would have most, but not all, of their needs fulfilled by an interface built for the primary persona. The primary persona's interface could be modified to also meet their needs. A separate interface would not be required.
*Supplemental personas* are other personas whose needs are met by an interface built for a primary persona.
*Customer personas* aren't the end user but are responsible for buying the product. The interface should be built for the end user instead of them, but it is still important to consider their needs. For example, if our WordPress site is a game for kids, their parents would be the customers who buy products related to that game which would be offered on that site.
*Served personas* are affected by your interface even though they don't use the product you are designing. For example, for designers of software used in commercial settings, the managers of people using that software might not actually be using that software. But since that software will still affect the quality of work that their employees do and the amount of time it takes them to do it, their managers are served personas.
*Negative personas* are who you are *not* designing an interface for. For example, if you are designing an IDE for software developers, you are not designing it for non-tech-savvy people who are not interested in programming.
So no, it's not user stupidity. It's **poor design**, probably resulting from *a poor design approach*.
Further reading:
1. [Are your users S.T.U.P.I.D.?](http://boxesandarrows.com/are-your-users-s-t-u-p-i-d/) from Boxes & Arrows.
2. [Stop calling your users stupid](http://everydayix.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/stop-calling-your-users-stupid/) from Everyday IX.
From there, it's a good segue into Peter's answer. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | One can be a trained musician, artist or a doctor but may not be trained to use computers. Not knowing to use a computer interface does not mean one is stupid.
>
> They want to get in, get out, and move on with their own tasks
>
>
>
<http://www.nngroup.com/articles/are-users-stupid/> | Is there any reason for doing bad job which results in *bad* UX? No. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | Users aren't stupid, they just have more important things to do than focus on the interface you're designing.
=============================================================================================================
For you, the interface represents a lot of thought and work, and you care about getting it right. But the user **doesn't care** about the interface; at most, they care about whether it's getting in the way of what they actually want to be doing right now. They don't *want* to take the time to appreciate the interface or figure it out, and **they shouldn't have to.** That's your job: to do the thinking for them, creating the easiest, most straightforward path through the work you can.
I highly recommend Squareweave's video ["The User is Drunk"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk) on this topic. As the video puts it, *"The user is fine, but with the amount of attention they have to spare for your UI, they might as well be plastered."* | One can be a trained musician, artist or a doctor but may not be trained to use computers. Not knowing to use a computer interface does not mean one is stupid.
>
> They want to get in, get out, and move on with their own tasks
>
>
>
<http://www.nngroup.com/articles/are-users-stupid/> |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | Users aren't stupid, they just have more important things to do than focus on the interface you're designing.
=============================================================================================================
For you, the interface represents a lot of thought and work, and you care about getting it right. But the user **doesn't care** about the interface; at most, they care about whether it's getting in the way of what they actually want to be doing right now. They don't *want* to take the time to appreciate the interface or figure it out, and **they shouldn't have to.** That's your job: to do the thinking for them, creating the easiest, most straightforward path through the work you can.
I highly recommend Squareweave's video ["The User is Drunk"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk) on this topic. As the video puts it, *"The user is fine, but with the amount of attention they have to spare for your UI, they might as well be plastered."* | Following the "users aren't stupid" crowd, I'll add this "but very many UX coders are quite stupid".
Programmers write interfaces they are comfortable with because they often have little evidence to the contrary. This implies "If they are too busy to understand the entire system as well as I do, they're ignorable insignificants". I've actually entered a group which actively held that belief "What do you mean a customer can't understand what 'Manifold Reset Override' is for? Why not?" After beating such folks about the facce and neck, there is *some* hope of reforming them. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | One can be a trained musician, artist or a doctor but may not be trained to use computers. Not knowing to use a computer interface does not mean one is stupid.
>
> They want to get in, get out, and move on with their own tasks
>
>
>
<http://www.nngroup.com/articles/are-users-stupid/> | Following the "users aren't stupid" crowd, I'll add this "but very many UX coders are quite stupid".
Programmers write interfaces they are comfortable with because they often have little evidence to the contrary. This implies "If they are too busy to understand the entire system as well as I do, they're ignorable insignificants". I've actually entered a group which actively held that belief "What do you mean a customer can't understand what 'Manifold Reset Override' is for? Why not?" After beating such folks about the facce and neck, there is *some* hope of reforming them. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | Users aren't stupid, they just have more important things to do than focus on the interface you're designing.
=============================================================================================================
For you, the interface represents a lot of thought and work, and you care about getting it right. But the user **doesn't care** about the interface; at most, they care about whether it's getting in the way of what they actually want to be doing right now. They don't *want* to take the time to appreciate the interface or figure it out, and **they shouldn't have to.** That's your job: to do the thinking for them, creating the easiest, most straightforward path through the work you can.
I highly recommend Squareweave's video ["The User is Drunk"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk) on this topic. As the video puts it, *"The user is fine, but with the amount of attention they have to spare for your UI, they might as well be plastered."* | Is there any reason for doing bad job which results in *bad* UX? No. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | "Users are stupid" is a programmer's mantra. I think it has persisted because it inspires [defensive programming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming) and defensive design, which is usually a good route to take. However, **it's not true**, and it's a little bit harmful. I think the sentiment should be broken up into the following better notions:
* **Always *assume* that users won't understand.** This inspires interfaces that are safe, and cannot be used to break stuff accidentally. Don't call them stupid, though, that's just unpleasant.
* **Things that are simple to you aren't simple to your user.** This doesn't mean the user is stupid, they may just have a different zone of comfort. I know of a physics Nobel prize winner who needed help to turn on his MacBook's "find my mac" feature. And even if they aren't smart, that's no reason to look down on them.
It can be really harmful to disrespect your users. It may stay hidden if you're a backend programmer, but if you design the frontend, that stuff has a way of coming out.
A good interface does the following:
* Make correct use easy
* Make incorrect use hard
* Make common use-cases simple
* Make less common use-cases possible
The last point is where modern UX design often falls down, and what your question is really about, I think. We strive for simplicity only, when we should be striving for a good power-to-weight ratio. It's nothing to do with smart or stupid. Some users are willing to invest time in your app in order to get more out of it. They should be catered for, but not at the expense of users that want to do simple things. Just like the users with common use cases should not become aware of the complexity until they need it. | I upvoted Peter's and Mayo's answers and would like to add this:
There are different groups of users. **One interface can't possibly satisfy everyone** or be optimally easy for everyone to use. **Do user research** and determine what the common shared qualities are within each user group. That will result in *data-driven personas*.
When you have personas, you can compare their main points, goals, frustrations, and scenarios to determine what the primary persona is. The primary persona represents the user group who won't have their needs met by an interface built for any of the other personas.
To use an example: what end user would want to try to read a WordPress blog through the site's *admin dashboard* every time they visited the site? Most users who are not technical or unfamiliar with WordPress would feel lost seeing this, and they probably wouldn't get any value from the site. That doesn't make them stupid. The site they are viewing just is not built to meet their needs. They just need to see the site from the perspective of an end user, not from the perspective of someone who works for the site they are trying to view.
Similarly, a WordPress developer who wants to be able to control the PHP code behind a page wouldn't be able to do that as easily from looking at the site from an end user's perspective as they would if there were (or were also) a text editor in which they could easily make their changes.
So in that example, I identified **two personas**: an **end user** and an **admin with development skills**. These are both examples of primary personas. **They need different interfaces** (a publicly viewable site and an admin dashboard, in this case) to be able to get value from the site and to do their work effectively (which are different goals).
However, **you can't put all end users in the same category.** I've never seen user research tend toward that.
There are other categories of personas too, adapted from [this summary](http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Persona+Categories).
A *secondary persona* would have most, but not all, of their needs fulfilled by an interface built for the primary persona. The primary persona's interface could be modified to also meet their needs. A separate interface would not be required.
*Supplemental personas* are other personas whose needs are met by an interface built for a primary persona.
*Customer personas* aren't the end user but are responsible for buying the product. The interface should be built for the end user instead of them, but it is still important to consider their needs. For example, if our WordPress site is a game for kids, their parents would be the customers who buy products related to that game which would be offered on that site.
*Served personas* are affected by your interface even though they don't use the product you are designing. For example, for designers of software used in commercial settings, the managers of people using that software might not actually be using that software. But since that software will still affect the quality of work that their employees do and the amount of time it takes them to do it, their managers are served personas.
*Negative personas* are who you are *not* designing an interface for. For example, if you are designing an IDE for software developers, you are not designing it for non-tech-savvy people who are not interested in programming.
So no, it's not user stupidity. It's **poor design**, probably resulting from *a poor design approach*.
Further reading:
1. [Are your users S.T.U.P.I.D.?](http://boxesandarrows.com/are-your-users-s-t-u-p-i-d/) from Boxes & Arrows.
2. [Stop calling your users stupid](http://everydayix.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/stop-calling-your-users-stupid/) from Everyday IX.
From there, it's a good segue into Peter's answer. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | "Users are stupid" is a programmer's mantra. I think it has persisted because it inspires [defensive programming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming) and defensive design, which is usually a good route to take. However, **it's not true**, and it's a little bit harmful. I think the sentiment should be broken up into the following better notions:
* **Always *assume* that users won't understand.** This inspires interfaces that are safe, and cannot be used to break stuff accidentally. Don't call them stupid, though, that's just unpleasant.
* **Things that are simple to you aren't simple to your user.** This doesn't mean the user is stupid, they may just have a different zone of comfort. I know of a physics Nobel prize winner who needed help to turn on his MacBook's "find my mac" feature. And even if they aren't smart, that's no reason to look down on them.
It can be really harmful to disrespect your users. It may stay hidden if you're a backend programmer, but if you design the frontend, that stuff has a way of coming out.
A good interface does the following:
* Make correct use easy
* Make incorrect use hard
* Make common use-cases simple
* Make less common use-cases possible
The last point is where modern UX design often falls down, and what your question is really about, I think. We strive for simplicity only, when we should be striving for a good power-to-weight ratio. It's nothing to do with smart or stupid. Some users are willing to invest time in your app in order to get more out of it. They should be catered for, but not at the expense of users that want to do simple things. Just like the users with common use cases should not become aware of the complexity until they need it. | Following the "users aren't stupid" crowd, I'll add this "but very many UX coders are quite stupid".
Programmers write interfaces they are comfortable with because they often have little evidence to the contrary. This implies "If they are too busy to understand the entire system as well as I do, they're ignorable insignificants". I've actually entered a group which actively held that belief "What do you mean a customer can't understand what 'Manifold Reset Override' is for? Why not?" After beating such folks about the facce and neck, there is *some* hope of reforming them. |
64,273 | I keep hearing that **users are stupid idiots** alot, and that being said it is also used as a reason to have everyone's experience crap now and in the future.
For example: not enough options for things that would enhance the overall user experience, because it might allow stupid users to do stupid things.
**Is user stupidity a reason for bad UX?**
*(Tried not to influence this question with my own thoughts too much, but: I've seen usability testing results in my days, and must say that sometimes the "stupid users" seem pretty damn smart when they nail/fail using a piece of software that's been designed by morons... ;)* | 2014/09/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/64273",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/16138/"
] | Users aren't stupid, they just have more important things to do than focus on the interface you're designing.
=============================================================================================================
For you, the interface represents a lot of thought and work, and you care about getting it right. But the user **doesn't care** about the interface; at most, they care about whether it's getting in the way of what they actually want to be doing right now. They don't *want* to take the time to appreciate the interface or figure it out, and **they shouldn't have to.** That's your job: to do the thinking for them, creating the easiest, most straightforward path through the work you can.
I highly recommend Squareweave's video ["The User is Drunk"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk) on this topic. As the video puts it, *"The user is fine, but with the amount of attention they have to spare for your UI, they might as well be plastered."* | Users aren't stupid. They approach the application in different ways and with different expectations. One of the beautiful thing about the web is that one can get to the same information in different ways - one way is not necessarily better than another.
I'm pretty much an "expert" user by every standard one can give and yet, just a few months ago, while trying to fill out a task on a timesheet that I had never used before I was lost. I was given a direction to "select x" after entering my day's hours. For the life of me I couldn't find it. I resorted to CTR-F to find it -- and there it was - a fraction of an inch outside my field of focus.
Was my lack of ability to find "X" an example of my stupidity? No. I don't think so. I was one more user who, while new to an application and under time pressure, missed the obvious.
Now the "avg user" probably won't think to do a CTR-F but that's not necessarily a sign of "stupidity." |
949,471 | Can I authenticate credentials with Office365 based on NTLMv2.
Microsoft describes on [*Authentication and EWS in Exchange*](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/client-developer/exchange-web-services/authentication-and-ews-in-exchange) that clients can authenticate with Exchange based on NTLM, but My program connects to outlook.office365.com to authenticate based on NTLM Office365 replies Basic-Authentication.
Does anyone know what's the problem? Or how can authenticate Office365 with NTLM authentication technique? | 2019/01/17 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/949471",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/505689/"
] | No, you cannot. O365 uses modern claims based auth, so WS\* and SAML. Possibly OAUTH or OPENID too.
If you have on-prem AD, ADFS, you can probably auth to that, and get a token to pass to O365. | According the article you provided, it seems NTLM authentication is only available for Exchange on-premises servers. |
21,684 | I'm wondering if there is any research about if there are better, or at least "not so bad" times of a child's development for a father to less available. (Not completely absent, but time would be limited to weekends and a bit most/some evenings on weekdays.)
Situation is a two-parent household with one 3 year old daughter. I have the option for a rather high-paying job, but it would require excessive (to me) commuting, like 2 hours each way. If it were temporary with the goal to move closer, it would be fine, but in this case it would be at least 6 months, likely a year. | 2015/08/17 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/21684",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/17604/"
] | Based on my experience as a military kid, my husband's experience as a military dad, and my experience as a foster parent, the biggest factor is how the limited schedule is presented to the kids. For smaller children, like your daughter, they tend to quickly adapt to the new normal, as long as the parents are satisfied with the way things are, and are available to the kids when they are present. If the parents tend to view the schedule as something negative that they need to apologize to the kids for, or make up for by going overboard in the time they are together, then the kids will cue off that.
As a side note, the schedule you describe (weekends and a little on weeknights) is fairly common with small kids and working parents. My husband and I both work, and I get weekends and a few hours on weeknights between picking the kids up at daycare and bedtime. My husband gets even less, as he works later, and the kids are well attached to both of us. | Well, I can talk to you from my experience with my oldest child. I got pregnant at the university, and her father was 400 km away because he was at university too. Her first three year she only saw him like two times a month, two days each.
She is now almost 6 years old, and love him so much. But the relationship with me it's better, because we spend a lot of time alone, the two of us.
So, there's a bond between them...but sometimes it's hard for both to have a relationship.
IMHO, it's better to be absent when the kid it's very little, and doesn't miss anyone, except for the provider of primary necessities (AKA mom), but I don't have a source of that, only, like I said, my experience. |
21,684 | I'm wondering if there is any research about if there are better, or at least "not so bad" times of a child's development for a father to less available. (Not completely absent, but time would be limited to weekends and a bit most/some evenings on weekdays.)
Situation is a two-parent household with one 3 year old daughter. I have the option for a rather high-paying job, but it would require excessive (to me) commuting, like 2 hours each way. If it were temporary with the goal to move closer, it would be fine, but in this case it would be at least 6 months, likely a year. | 2015/08/17 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/21684",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/17604/"
] | Simple answer, no there isn't a better or worse time in general. Each child is different and is going to need different amounts of time. But if you think about it, a great many children don't see one of their parents during the week very much. I work a typical office job (8-5) but if there's a late night, which happens in the professional world, I don't get to see my kids that night. I don't let it bother me: they're in the very capable hands of my wife, and they know I love them very, very much.
What I would recommend is trying to shift your schedule. Your 3 year old daughter probably has a bedtime of around 7pm, right? If you were to go to work for your 8-5 job you're going to get home just as she's going to bed. This job is going to be *very* taxing on you. A typical 9 hour job is going to consume 13 hours of your daytime. Count half an hour at morning and night and you're only looking at 2 hours of leisure time per day for those six months. That's demanding!
If you could shift your schedule to be 7:30-4:30, you'll at least get half an hour with your Daughter. You also could try to work out one night a week taking off a bit early, or working from home that day, to get a little extra time with her. And don't forget, Mom will want a break too, and she'll want you too! You'll also need lots of dedicated time with Mom to talk about how Daughter is doing and what she's up to. And don't forget this schedule means you're *leaving for work* at 5:30am. Yikes! Get that move done as soon as possible!
All this means you're going to be very tired come the weekend. But the reality is that's going to be your only time with Mom and Daughter, so you have to make the most of it!
If I had to wager, I'd say that in terms of development and building that lasting relationship, a child realistically isn't going to see a difference between half an hour with you on the weekday and an hour with you on the weekday. Especially being three already, chances are she has such a strong bond with you that even going for a few days at a time isn't going to have a major long term impact.
tl;dr
* Don't worry too much about it. You'll just pass that worry on to Mom and Daughter.
* Take steps to work schedule so there's at home time with Daughter.
* Get a hands free setup for your car - CALL HER multiple times a week on lunch breaks or on the trip home. If you can skype or facetime, that's even better. (Doesn't have to be every day, but a call from Daddy twice a week will go a long way!)
* Stay up to date on her development and be involved with the time you have.
* Don't overwork yourself - it will make what little free time you get suck. | Well, I can talk to you from my experience with my oldest child. I got pregnant at the university, and her father was 400 km away because he was at university too. Her first three year she only saw him like two times a month, two days each.
She is now almost 6 years old, and love him so much. But the relationship with me it's better, because we spend a lot of time alone, the two of us.
So, there's a bond between them...but sometimes it's hard for both to have a relationship.
IMHO, it's better to be absent when the kid it's very little, and doesn't miss anyone, except for the provider of primary necessities (AKA mom), but I don't have a source of that, only, like I said, my experience. |
21,684 | I'm wondering if there is any research about if there are better, or at least "not so bad" times of a child's development for a father to less available. (Not completely absent, but time would be limited to weekends and a bit most/some evenings on weekdays.)
Situation is a two-parent household with one 3 year old daughter. I have the option for a rather high-paying job, but it would require excessive (to me) commuting, like 2 hours each way. If it were temporary with the goal to move closer, it would be fine, but in this case it would be at least 6 months, likely a year. | 2015/08/17 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/21684",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/17604/"
] | Based on my experience as a military kid, my husband's experience as a military dad, and my experience as a foster parent, the biggest factor is how the limited schedule is presented to the kids. For smaller children, like your daughter, they tend to quickly adapt to the new normal, as long as the parents are satisfied with the way things are, and are available to the kids when they are present. If the parents tend to view the schedule as something negative that they need to apologize to the kids for, or make up for by going overboard in the time they are together, then the kids will cue off that.
As a side note, the schedule you describe (weekends and a little on weeknights) is fairly common with small kids and working parents. My husband and I both work, and I get weekends and a few hours on weeknights between picking the kids up at daycare and bedtime. My husband gets even less, as he works later, and the kids are well attached to both of us. | Simple answer, no there isn't a better or worse time in general. Each child is different and is going to need different amounts of time. But if you think about it, a great many children don't see one of their parents during the week very much. I work a typical office job (8-5) but if there's a late night, which happens in the professional world, I don't get to see my kids that night. I don't let it bother me: they're in the very capable hands of my wife, and they know I love them very, very much.
What I would recommend is trying to shift your schedule. Your 3 year old daughter probably has a bedtime of around 7pm, right? If you were to go to work for your 8-5 job you're going to get home just as she's going to bed. This job is going to be *very* taxing on you. A typical 9 hour job is going to consume 13 hours of your daytime. Count half an hour at morning and night and you're only looking at 2 hours of leisure time per day for those six months. That's demanding!
If you could shift your schedule to be 7:30-4:30, you'll at least get half an hour with your Daughter. You also could try to work out one night a week taking off a bit early, or working from home that day, to get a little extra time with her. And don't forget, Mom will want a break too, and she'll want you too! You'll also need lots of dedicated time with Mom to talk about how Daughter is doing and what she's up to. And don't forget this schedule means you're *leaving for work* at 5:30am. Yikes! Get that move done as soon as possible!
All this means you're going to be very tired come the weekend. But the reality is that's going to be your only time with Mom and Daughter, so you have to make the most of it!
If I had to wager, I'd say that in terms of development and building that lasting relationship, a child realistically isn't going to see a difference between half an hour with you on the weekday and an hour with you on the weekday. Especially being three already, chances are she has such a strong bond with you that even going for a few days at a time isn't going to have a major long term impact.
tl;dr
* Don't worry too much about it. You'll just pass that worry on to Mom and Daughter.
* Take steps to work schedule so there's at home time with Daughter.
* Get a hands free setup for your car - CALL HER multiple times a week on lunch breaks or on the trip home. If you can skype or facetime, that's even better. (Doesn't have to be every day, but a call from Daddy twice a week will go a long way!)
* Stay up to date on her development and be involved with the time you have.
* Don't overwork yourself - it will make what little free time you get suck. |
59,528 | I heard this sentence in an American film a while ago as I was watching it on DVD (the part after **but** is verbatim):
*"I'm doing my best but **I mustn't be doing it right**."*
This is something I occasionally hear in American films: phrases like *"he mustn't have done it"* or *"she mustn't be studying now"*, where a logical conclusion is expressed. So far I've thought that the normal thing to say is *"he can't have done it"* or *"she can't be studying now"*.
My question is: Can **mustn't** be used to express a logical conclusion when the speaker is certain that something didn't happen or isn't happening, at least in informal speech? Is this an American usage? (I've never heard this usage in British English, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Is there a change going on in the usage of the particular modal verb?
Note: All the references I've checked don't even mention this use of **mustn't**. Google books aren't of help either.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking this question because if I wanted to express that I'm certain I'm not doing something right (as in the sentence quoted from the film) I'd say *"I'm doing my best but I **can't** be doing it right"*. I would think that the use of **mustn't/must not** wouldn't be standard usage (although the meaning is perfectly clear to me; I never mistook it for an injuction). | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13799/"
] | Per my comment, I'd avoid it because it sounds rather dated and "upper class" to me.
Semantically, the reason for avoiding this construction is simply that it takes the focus off the critical word **not**. Since the "conclusion" clause is intended to convey something along the lines of *"I am failing"*, this negating word is vital to the sense.
In "injunctive" forms, such as *"You must/mustn't do that!"*, the word *must* is invariably stressed, to emphasise the intended meaning. In OP's usage, the word *must* wouldn't normally be stressed, because there's no sense of injunction or stricture (except loosely, in the sense that there's a logically enforced conclusion). It's *"not doing it right"* that counts, which requires **not** to be vocalised.
To confirm this particular contraction is nonstandard, note [just 3 instances](http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I%20wish%20you%20would%20learn%20to%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22I%20mustn%27t%20be%20doing%22&psj=1&oq=%22I%20mustn%27t%20be%20doing%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=0l0l12l46097l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4bf8a124cfb51bcc&biw=1359&bih=885) of *"I mustn't be doing"* in Google Books, but [3830](http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I%20wish%20you%20would%20learn%20to%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22I%20must%20not%20be%20doing%22&psj=1&oq=%22I%20must%20not%20be%20doing%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=155979l157689l13l158354l7l7l1l0l0l0l72l325l6l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4bf8a124cfb51bcc&biw=1359&bih=885) for *"I must not be doing"* (almost all for the sense relevant here). | I personally find the use of the contraction "mustn't" to be a bit off-putting in this case, but I certainly would have no problem expressing an argument this way:
>
> If John had stolen the money, he would have gotten ink on his fingers when the dye-pack exploded.
>
>
> John doesn't have ink on his fingers.
>
>
> Therefore, John **must not** have stolen the money.
>
>
>
Substituting "can't" for "must not" is valid here, but wouldn't be my natural formulation.
(Generally in this situation, the word *not* has the same stress as the word *must*, which is why using a contraction there would sound strange to me.)
The same holds true for situations like this:
>
> "It's supposed to work when I do this!"
>
>
> "You **must not** be doing it right".
>
>
>
In that case, saying "You can't be doing it right" would sound very unnatural to me. Or, at the very least, like a Briticism.
I tend to think of "mustn't" as a single lexical unit meaning "must avoid", so if someone said "You mustn't be doing it right", I would first think that they were trying to prevent me from doing it the "right" way. |
59,528 | I heard this sentence in an American film a while ago as I was watching it on DVD (the part after **but** is verbatim):
*"I'm doing my best but **I mustn't be doing it right**."*
This is something I occasionally hear in American films: phrases like *"he mustn't have done it"* or *"she mustn't be studying now"*, where a logical conclusion is expressed. So far I've thought that the normal thing to say is *"he can't have done it"* or *"she can't be studying now"*.
My question is: Can **mustn't** be used to express a logical conclusion when the speaker is certain that something didn't happen or isn't happening, at least in informal speech? Is this an American usage? (I've never heard this usage in British English, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Is there a change going on in the usage of the particular modal verb?
Note: All the references I've checked don't even mention this use of **mustn't**. Google books aren't of help either.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking this question because if I wanted to express that I'm certain I'm not doing something right (as in the sentence quoted from the film) I'd say *"I'm doing my best but I **can't** be doing it right"*. I would think that the use of **mustn't/must not** wouldn't be standard usage (although the meaning is perfectly clear to me; I never mistook it for an injuction). | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13799/"
] | I personally find the use of the contraction "mustn't" to be a bit off-putting in this case, but I certainly would have no problem expressing an argument this way:
>
> If John had stolen the money, he would have gotten ink on his fingers when the dye-pack exploded.
>
>
> John doesn't have ink on his fingers.
>
>
> Therefore, John **must not** have stolen the money.
>
>
>
Substituting "can't" for "must not" is valid here, but wouldn't be my natural formulation.
(Generally in this situation, the word *not* has the same stress as the word *must*, which is why using a contraction there would sound strange to me.)
The same holds true for situations like this:
>
> "It's supposed to work when I do this!"
>
>
> "You **must not** be doing it right".
>
>
>
In that case, saying "You can't be doing it right" would sound very unnatural to me. Or, at the very least, like a Briticism.
I tend to think of "mustn't" as a single lexical unit meaning "must avoid", so if someone said "You mustn't be doing it right", I would first think that they were trying to prevent me from doing it the "right" way. | When considered deductions, **can’t be** or **can’t/couldn’t have been** is negative of **must be**.
**Mustn't be** is also negative of **must be** meaning that there is no possible way that it could be otherwise. It implies the certainty of the speaker's own claim.
Please compare:
>
> a) ... but I must be doing it **wrong**.
>
> b) ... but I can't be doing it **right**.
>
>
> a) ... but I must be doing it **wrong**.
>
> b) ... but I must't be doing it **right**.
>
>
>
**Edit 1**
Irene, with reference to your sentence
>
> ... I'd say "I'm doing my best but I can't be doing it right".
>
>
>
To construct the sentence in this way, the sentence in question should have been "I'm doing my best but I **must be** doing it **wrong**.
Think about how the words "right" and "wrong" contribute to "deduction" together with "must be", "mustn't be", "can't be". |
59,528 | I heard this sentence in an American film a while ago as I was watching it on DVD (the part after **but** is verbatim):
*"I'm doing my best but **I mustn't be doing it right**."*
This is something I occasionally hear in American films: phrases like *"he mustn't have done it"* or *"she mustn't be studying now"*, where a logical conclusion is expressed. So far I've thought that the normal thing to say is *"he can't have done it"* or *"she can't be studying now"*.
My question is: Can **mustn't** be used to express a logical conclusion when the speaker is certain that something didn't happen or isn't happening, at least in informal speech? Is this an American usage? (I've never heard this usage in British English, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Is there a change going on in the usage of the particular modal verb?
Note: All the references I've checked don't even mention this use of **mustn't**. Google books aren't of help either.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking this question because if I wanted to express that I'm certain I'm not doing something right (as in the sentence quoted from the film) I'd say *"I'm doing my best but I **can't** be doing it right"*. I would think that the use of **mustn't/must not** wouldn't be standard usage (although the meaning is perfectly clear to me; I never mistook it for an injuction). | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13799/"
] | I personally find the use of the contraction "mustn't" to be a bit off-putting in this case, but I certainly would have no problem expressing an argument this way:
>
> If John had stolen the money, he would have gotten ink on his fingers when the dye-pack exploded.
>
>
> John doesn't have ink on his fingers.
>
>
> Therefore, John **must not** have stolen the money.
>
>
>
Substituting "can't" for "must not" is valid here, but wouldn't be my natural formulation.
(Generally in this situation, the word *not* has the same stress as the word *must*, which is why using a contraction there would sound strange to me.)
The same holds true for situations like this:
>
> "It's supposed to work when I do this!"
>
>
> "You **must not** be doing it right".
>
>
>
In that case, saying "You can't be doing it right" would sound very unnatural to me. Or, at the very least, like a Briticism.
I tend to think of "mustn't" as a single lexical unit meaning "must avoid", so if someone said "You mustn't be doing it right", I would first think that they were trying to prevent me from doing it the "right" way. | Several replies here address whether it is appropriate to use the contraction "mustn't" rather than writing out "must not" in such an example. Is this your question, or are you asking about the definition of the word "must"? Assuming the latter ...
"Must" can mean "obligated, required", as in, "You must pay your taxes by April 15", or "You must be quiet while the teacher speaks." That definition doesn't make sense in this context. But "must" can also mean "compelled by necessity, inevitable", as in, "If you hold a rock in the air and release it, it must fall to the ground". The rock is not compelled to fall by the laws of the state legislature, but by the laws of physics.
That's the sense in which "must" is used in contexts like your example. "If A is true, then B must be true" means that B follows inevitably from A because of laws of nature or mathematics or logic. "If the engine is getting fuel, then the problem must be in the electrical system." "Must" here doesn't mean that the problem had better start being in the electrical system or we will subject it to public ridicule or have it arrested. It means that it is (or at least, the writer believes it to be) a logical inevitability. |
59,528 | I heard this sentence in an American film a while ago as I was watching it on DVD (the part after **but** is verbatim):
*"I'm doing my best but **I mustn't be doing it right**."*
This is something I occasionally hear in American films: phrases like *"he mustn't have done it"* or *"she mustn't be studying now"*, where a logical conclusion is expressed. So far I've thought that the normal thing to say is *"he can't have done it"* or *"she can't be studying now"*.
My question is: Can **mustn't** be used to express a logical conclusion when the speaker is certain that something didn't happen or isn't happening, at least in informal speech? Is this an American usage? (I've never heard this usage in British English, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Is there a change going on in the usage of the particular modal verb?
Note: All the references I've checked don't even mention this use of **mustn't**. Google books aren't of help either.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking this question because if I wanted to express that I'm certain I'm not doing something right (as in the sentence quoted from the film) I'd say *"I'm doing my best but I **can't** be doing it right"*. I would think that the use of **mustn't/must not** wouldn't be standard usage (although the meaning is perfectly clear to me; I never mistook it for an injuction). | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13799/"
] | Per my comment, I'd avoid it because it sounds rather dated and "upper class" to me.
Semantically, the reason for avoiding this construction is simply that it takes the focus off the critical word **not**. Since the "conclusion" clause is intended to convey something along the lines of *"I am failing"*, this negating word is vital to the sense.
In "injunctive" forms, such as *"You must/mustn't do that!"*, the word *must* is invariably stressed, to emphasise the intended meaning. In OP's usage, the word *must* wouldn't normally be stressed, because there's no sense of injunction or stricture (except loosely, in the sense that there's a logically enforced conclusion). It's *"not doing it right"* that counts, which requires **not** to be vocalised.
To confirm this particular contraction is nonstandard, note [just 3 instances](http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I%20wish%20you%20would%20learn%20to%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22I%20mustn%27t%20be%20doing%22&psj=1&oq=%22I%20mustn%27t%20be%20doing%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=0l0l12l46097l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4bf8a124cfb51bcc&biw=1359&bih=885) of *"I mustn't be doing"* in Google Books, but [3830](http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I%20wish%20you%20would%20learn%20to%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22I%20must%20not%20be%20doing%22&psj=1&oq=%22I%20must%20not%20be%20doing%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=155979l157689l13l158354l7l7l1l0l0l0l72l325l6l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4bf8a124cfb51bcc&biw=1359&bih=885) for *"I must not be doing"* (almost all for the sense relevant here). | When considered deductions, **can’t be** or **can’t/couldn’t have been** is negative of **must be**.
**Mustn't be** is also negative of **must be** meaning that there is no possible way that it could be otherwise. It implies the certainty of the speaker's own claim.
Please compare:
>
> a) ... but I must be doing it **wrong**.
>
> b) ... but I can't be doing it **right**.
>
>
> a) ... but I must be doing it **wrong**.
>
> b) ... but I must't be doing it **right**.
>
>
>
**Edit 1**
Irene, with reference to your sentence
>
> ... I'd say "I'm doing my best but I can't be doing it right".
>
>
>
To construct the sentence in this way, the sentence in question should have been "I'm doing my best but I **must be** doing it **wrong**.
Think about how the words "right" and "wrong" contribute to "deduction" together with "must be", "mustn't be", "can't be". |
59,528 | I heard this sentence in an American film a while ago as I was watching it on DVD (the part after **but** is verbatim):
*"I'm doing my best but **I mustn't be doing it right**."*
This is something I occasionally hear in American films: phrases like *"he mustn't have done it"* or *"she mustn't be studying now"*, where a logical conclusion is expressed. So far I've thought that the normal thing to say is *"he can't have done it"* or *"she can't be studying now"*.
My question is: Can **mustn't** be used to express a logical conclusion when the speaker is certain that something didn't happen or isn't happening, at least in informal speech? Is this an American usage? (I've never heard this usage in British English, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Is there a change going on in the usage of the particular modal verb?
Note: All the references I've checked don't even mention this use of **mustn't**. Google books aren't of help either.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking this question because if I wanted to express that I'm certain I'm not doing something right (as in the sentence quoted from the film) I'd say *"I'm doing my best but I **can't** be doing it right"*. I would think that the use of **mustn't/must not** wouldn't be standard usage (although the meaning is perfectly clear to me; I never mistook it for an injuction). | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13799/"
] | Per my comment, I'd avoid it because it sounds rather dated and "upper class" to me.
Semantically, the reason for avoiding this construction is simply that it takes the focus off the critical word **not**. Since the "conclusion" clause is intended to convey something along the lines of *"I am failing"*, this negating word is vital to the sense.
In "injunctive" forms, such as *"You must/mustn't do that!"*, the word *must* is invariably stressed, to emphasise the intended meaning. In OP's usage, the word *must* wouldn't normally be stressed, because there's no sense of injunction or stricture (except loosely, in the sense that there's a logically enforced conclusion). It's *"not doing it right"* that counts, which requires **not** to be vocalised.
To confirm this particular contraction is nonstandard, note [just 3 instances](http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I%20wish%20you%20would%20learn%20to%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22I%20mustn%27t%20be%20doing%22&psj=1&oq=%22I%20mustn%27t%20be%20doing%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=0l0l12l46097l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4bf8a124cfb51bcc&biw=1359&bih=885) of *"I mustn't be doing"* in Google Books, but [3830](http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I%20wish%20you%20would%20learn%20to%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22I%20must%20not%20be%20doing%22&psj=1&oq=%22I%20must%20not%20be%20doing%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=155979l157689l13l158354l7l7l1l0l0l0l72l325l6l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4bf8a124cfb51bcc&biw=1359&bih=885) for *"I must not be doing"* (almost all for the sense relevant here). | Several replies here address whether it is appropriate to use the contraction "mustn't" rather than writing out "must not" in such an example. Is this your question, or are you asking about the definition of the word "must"? Assuming the latter ...
"Must" can mean "obligated, required", as in, "You must pay your taxes by April 15", or "You must be quiet while the teacher speaks." That definition doesn't make sense in this context. But "must" can also mean "compelled by necessity, inevitable", as in, "If you hold a rock in the air and release it, it must fall to the ground". The rock is not compelled to fall by the laws of the state legislature, but by the laws of physics.
That's the sense in which "must" is used in contexts like your example. "If A is true, then B must be true" means that B follows inevitably from A because of laws of nature or mathematics or logic. "If the engine is getting fuel, then the problem must be in the electrical system." "Must" here doesn't mean that the problem had better start being in the electrical system or we will subject it to public ridicule or have it arrested. It means that it is (or at least, the writer believes it to be) a logical inevitability. |
59,528 | I heard this sentence in an American film a while ago as I was watching it on DVD (the part after **but** is verbatim):
*"I'm doing my best but **I mustn't be doing it right**."*
This is something I occasionally hear in American films: phrases like *"he mustn't have done it"* or *"she mustn't be studying now"*, where a logical conclusion is expressed. So far I've thought that the normal thing to say is *"he can't have done it"* or *"she can't be studying now"*.
My question is: Can **mustn't** be used to express a logical conclusion when the speaker is certain that something didn't happen or isn't happening, at least in informal speech? Is this an American usage? (I've never heard this usage in British English, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Is there a change going on in the usage of the particular modal verb?
Note: All the references I've checked don't even mention this use of **mustn't**. Google books aren't of help either.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking this question because if I wanted to express that I'm certain I'm not doing something right (as in the sentence quoted from the film) I'd say *"I'm doing my best but I **can't** be doing it right"*. I would think that the use of **mustn't/must not** wouldn't be standard usage (although the meaning is perfectly clear to me; I never mistook it for an injuction). | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59528",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13799/"
] | Several replies here address whether it is appropriate to use the contraction "mustn't" rather than writing out "must not" in such an example. Is this your question, or are you asking about the definition of the word "must"? Assuming the latter ...
"Must" can mean "obligated, required", as in, "You must pay your taxes by April 15", or "You must be quiet while the teacher speaks." That definition doesn't make sense in this context. But "must" can also mean "compelled by necessity, inevitable", as in, "If you hold a rock in the air and release it, it must fall to the ground". The rock is not compelled to fall by the laws of the state legislature, but by the laws of physics.
That's the sense in which "must" is used in contexts like your example. "If A is true, then B must be true" means that B follows inevitably from A because of laws of nature or mathematics or logic. "If the engine is getting fuel, then the problem must be in the electrical system." "Must" here doesn't mean that the problem had better start being in the electrical system or we will subject it to public ridicule or have it arrested. It means that it is (or at least, the writer believes it to be) a logical inevitability. | When considered deductions, **can’t be** or **can’t/couldn’t have been** is negative of **must be**.
**Mustn't be** is also negative of **must be** meaning that there is no possible way that it could be otherwise. It implies the certainty of the speaker's own claim.
Please compare:
>
> a) ... but I must be doing it **wrong**.
>
> b) ... but I can't be doing it **right**.
>
>
> a) ... but I must be doing it **wrong**.
>
> b) ... but I must't be doing it **right**.
>
>
>
**Edit 1**
Irene, with reference to your sentence
>
> ... I'd say "I'm doing my best but I can't be doing it right".
>
>
>
To construct the sentence in this way, the sentence in question should have been "I'm doing my best but I **must be** doing it **wrong**.
Think about how the words "right" and "wrong" contribute to "deduction" together with "must be", "mustn't be", "can't be". |
93,951 | The link between brain activity and qualia is unexplained. But most people think the former causes the latter.
What if its the other way, that our mind creates the external universe?
This does not necessarily mean that all other people are without a mind.
They also could have their own consciousness, but when they pass through this reality, we all create a 'Graphical Use Interface' which constructs a mental model. Our brain is part of this model, so when we die there is a possibility that our model of the world has died, but we have not.
Is there a way to eliminate this possibility?
(because this thought is unsettling; that I have to live through possible eternity) | 2022/10/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/93951",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/56355/"
] | Yes. You can eliminate that possibility.
First of all, what you are aware of as being "you" is the experience of being you. This is clearly separate from what you experience as external to yourself, because you aren't aware of creating things that you perceive as external to yourself. Could this generation of things be coming from some part of "yourself" that you are unaware of? Sure, in fact, let's assume that this is the case. We have at least two parts of you: the *experiencer* and the *generator*.
So you're asking about whether it is possible that this part of "you", the generator, will shut down, but the part of you that is the experiencer will keep on going? This doesn't make much sense. It seems far more likely that the generator (which may also create other experiencers like me for you to interact with) will keep going. After all, the evidence suggests that it was already here before you became aware of your experience.
But let's say it does happen, the experiencer continues and the generator shuts down. Well, now the experiencer has nothing to experience. Time is generated, so there's no time, space is generated, so there's no space. The experiencer won't even be able to think thoughts because there will be no experience of time to think them in. So there's no sense in which the experiencer will continue forever, because there's no longer a forever to continue into.
You could argue that there's some sort of external time that isn't being generated by the generator, but now you've broken the central premise that our minds generate external reality. | Assuming [mind-body connection as holding true](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/93309/14508) (mind and body are connected, regardless if "mind" is an epiphenomenon of matter or a separate thing in itself) and assuming matter-energy to be conserved, we can infer mind, in some sense similar to matter-energy, cannot be lost as well.
But this does not necessarily mean that a mind is conserved in its initial configuration, similarly to how matter-energy is conserved but not in the same form and configuration.
So what happens to mind after death? Noone knows! No matter how one argues for something or its opposite, etc.., a degree of speculation cannot be avoided anyway. But if above reasoning can be true, mind is not lost, although it is possible mind does not retain its original configuration either (eg identity). So in this sense, "I" that we know during life is not necessarily there after death, although "mind" as a substance may be conserved and not lost after death (in the same manner as matter-energy).
A somewhat similar perspective is phrased in the Buddhist *Tibetan Book of the Dead* in that it describes how mind changes and disintegrates into other states (along with similar changes in the body) and how one may choose which path to follow, but this "one" (according to this answer) is not necessarily the same or comparable as the one's "I" during life. |
93,951 | The link between brain activity and qualia is unexplained. But most people think the former causes the latter.
What if its the other way, that our mind creates the external universe?
This does not necessarily mean that all other people are without a mind.
They also could have their own consciousness, but when they pass through this reality, we all create a 'Graphical Use Interface' which constructs a mental model. Our brain is part of this model, so when we die there is a possibility that our model of the world has died, but we have not.
Is there a way to eliminate this possibility?
(because this thought is unsettling; that I have to live through possible eternity) | 2022/10/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/93951",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/56355/"
] | Yes. You can eliminate that possibility.
First of all, what you are aware of as being "you" is the experience of being you. This is clearly separate from what you experience as external to yourself, because you aren't aware of creating things that you perceive as external to yourself. Could this generation of things be coming from some part of "yourself" that you are unaware of? Sure, in fact, let's assume that this is the case. We have at least two parts of you: the *experiencer* and the *generator*.
So you're asking about whether it is possible that this part of "you", the generator, will shut down, but the part of you that is the experiencer will keep on going? This doesn't make much sense. It seems far more likely that the generator (which may also create other experiencers like me for you to interact with) will keep going. After all, the evidence suggests that it was already here before you became aware of your experience.
But let's say it does happen, the experiencer continues and the generator shuts down. Well, now the experiencer has nothing to experience. Time is generated, so there's no time, space is generated, so there's no space. The experiencer won't even be able to think thoughts because there will be no experience of time to think them in. So there's no sense in which the experiencer will continue forever, because there's no longer a forever to continue into.
You could argue that there's some sort of external time that isn't being generated by the generator, but now you've broken the central premise that our minds generate external reality. | We first need to clear the widespread confusion between consciousness and mind.
It is the fact that the word "consciousness" is terminally ambiguous which led some philosophers to come up with the notion of subjective experience and qualia. We will follow this welcome innovation here.
We can define the mind as a sort of subjective representation of the world. Our mind is essentially qualia we take to be things in the so-called real world. Thus, we should distinguish the qualia from what qualia represent. We can see qualia as information, so that the mind has an information content. This information can concern anything, from memories of past events, to current percepts, thoughts, sensations, intuitions etc.
The most plausible and therefore reasonable assumption is that this information is somehow codified and stored by the brain, presumably through neuronal connections.
The crucial consequence of this is that the whole information content of our mind is stored in the brain, which also means that this information is quickly and irremediably destroyed when the person dies.
What might not disappear upon death is subjectivity itself, although this is totally speculative. Further, even if this is true, without the brain, there is nothing left to experience for subjectivity, at least nothing remotely similar to experiencing what it is to be a living human being.
It might also be that subjectivity is somewhat like space, ready to experience the information content of any living brain. This, however, is also totally speculative. Further, the information content associated with brains would still disappear with them, so that we would be unable to remember past subjective experiences.
These last two suggestions are possibilities in the sense that current science is not in a position to disprove them, but that does not prove that they are true. We just don't know. Further, even if they are true, they wouldn't amount to anything comparable to any of the various religious ideas about life after death.
The idea is that we can easily distinguish two things: the quality of our subjective experience and the information content of what we experience. The information content is really what specifies who we are at every instant of and throughout our lives. This is what most plausibly totally disappear upon death. The rest, subjective experience, or "consciousness" properly understood, would remain, but as a sort of blank screen. Not much to look forward to. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.