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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
87,320 | I am a developer who is used to being able to test and debug code.
Occasionally I have to make changes to our load balancer configuration. As far as I can see, if I mess this up it could stop the whole site working, but we don't have a way to test it off-line.
How do people test such things? I was hoping there would be some sort of emulator that I could use. Or is it possible to have a second configuration for testing?
I would like to be as confident in the changes I make to the load balancer as I am to the changes I make to my code. Does anyone have a test suite they use for testing their load balancer?
**update**
We are in the process of moving from one back end to another, and we are redirecting users based on the url. | 2009/11/23 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/87320",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/536/"
] | You can get a time (and some functionality) limited virtual edition of LTM that will run in vmware:
<https://www.f5.com/trial/>
Or a test virtual server on the production unit(s) is a good alternative. | I do this by setting up a second virtual (or set of virtuals) that are mapped to the same pools. You can then test the staging VIP by editing your /etc/hosts file (or Windows hosts file).
At this point I'll sing the praises of my outsourced DNS provider, Dynect (<http://dynect.com>). They have a Traffic Management feature that allows you to add both the old and new VIPs to a hostname rotation, but also adjust the weighting - the ratio of how often the old vs new IP is served, and then you can raise the weight to slowly migrate if a hard cutover is too risky.
For internal DNS, I believe that F5's GLB can do the same thing (but don't quote me as I don't have hands-on experience here). |
87,320 | I am a developer who is used to being able to test and debug code.
Occasionally I have to make changes to our load balancer configuration. As far as I can see, if I mess this up it could stop the whole site working, but we don't have a way to test it off-line.
How do people test such things? I was hoping there would be some sort of emulator that I could use. Or is it possible to have a second configuration for testing?
I would like to be as confident in the changes I make to the load balancer as I am to the changes I make to my code. Does anyone have a test suite they use for testing their load balancer?
**update**
We are in the process of moving from one back end to another, and we are redirecting users based on the url. | 2009/11/23 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/87320",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/536/"
] | You can get a time (and some functionality) limited virtual edition of LTM that will run in vmware:
<https://www.f5.com/trial/>
Or a test virtual server on the production unit(s) is a good alternative. | Having a test environment is the first answer.
I recommend to automate testing with any HTTP scenario injection tool.
Then comes the question how to keep your environments in sync, and I recommend to give up manual setup on production environment from admin interface.
Proposals to automate BigIP setup the DevOps way are:
* iApp created by F5 <https://clouddocs.f5.com/api/iapps/>
* Ansible modules <https://www.ansible.com/integrations/networks/f5>
* Terraform ressources <https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/bigip/index.html>
* design your own iApp
Or course applications created from iApp (either from F5 or your own) must be deployed thanks to either Ansible or Terraform.
At the time of writing this, neither Ansible modules nor Terraform ressources cover all BigIP configuration entities yet. |
87,320 | I am a developer who is used to being able to test and debug code.
Occasionally I have to make changes to our load balancer configuration. As far as I can see, if I mess this up it could stop the whole site working, but we don't have a way to test it off-line.
How do people test such things? I was hoping there would be some sort of emulator that I could use. Or is it possible to have a second configuration for testing?
I would like to be as confident in the changes I make to the load balancer as I am to the changes I make to my code. Does anyone have a test suite they use for testing their load balancer?
**update**
We are in the process of moving from one back end to another, and we are redirecting users based on the url. | 2009/11/23 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/87320",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/536/"
] | Other load balancers offer similar functionality to F5, and their vendors provide more useful test and development options.
You can get a development license for Zeus Traffic Manager (full functionality) or a Citrix VPX license (standard edition only), both limited to 1 MBits throughput (which should be adequate for most development purposes), and valid for 1 year.
Zeus will renew development licenses yearly at no charge (don't know what Citrix will do?)
Aaron - under no circumstances is a test virtual server on a production unit a good alternative! | I do this by setting up a second virtual (or set of virtuals) that are mapped to the same pools. You can then test the staging VIP by editing your /etc/hosts file (or Windows hosts file).
At this point I'll sing the praises of my outsourced DNS provider, Dynect (<http://dynect.com>). They have a Traffic Management feature that allows you to add both the old and new VIPs to a hostname rotation, but also adjust the weighting - the ratio of how often the old vs new IP is served, and then you can raise the weight to slowly migrate if a hard cutover is too risky.
For internal DNS, I believe that F5's GLB can do the same thing (but don't quote me as I don't have hands-on experience here). |
87,320 | I am a developer who is used to being able to test and debug code.
Occasionally I have to make changes to our load balancer configuration. As far as I can see, if I mess this up it could stop the whole site working, but we don't have a way to test it off-line.
How do people test such things? I was hoping there would be some sort of emulator that I could use. Or is it possible to have a second configuration for testing?
I would like to be as confident in the changes I make to the load balancer as I am to the changes I make to my code. Does anyone have a test suite they use for testing their load balancer?
**update**
We are in the process of moving from one back end to another, and we are redirecting users based on the url. | 2009/11/23 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/87320",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/536/"
] | Other load balancers offer similar functionality to F5, and their vendors provide more useful test and development options.
You can get a development license for Zeus Traffic Manager (full functionality) or a Citrix VPX license (standard edition only), both limited to 1 MBits throughput (which should be adequate for most development purposes), and valid for 1 year.
Zeus will renew development licenses yearly at no charge (don't know what Citrix will do?)
Aaron - under no circumstances is a test virtual server on a production unit a good alternative! | Having a test environment is the first answer.
I recommend to automate testing with any HTTP scenario injection tool.
Then comes the question how to keep your environments in sync, and I recommend to give up manual setup on production environment from admin interface.
Proposals to automate BigIP setup the DevOps way are:
* iApp created by F5 <https://clouddocs.f5.com/api/iapps/>
* Ansible modules <https://www.ansible.com/integrations/networks/f5>
* Terraform ressources <https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/bigip/index.html>
* design your own iApp
Or course applications created from iApp (either from F5 or your own) must be deployed thanks to either Ansible or Terraform.
At the time of writing this, neither Ansible modules nor Terraform ressources cover all BigIP configuration entities yet. |
3,925 | My daughter set a password on it and now does not remember it, how can I remove/reset the password?
The software version is 3.1.3. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/3925",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1522/"
] | Found it and putting it here for reference, simply hold the home and power button down for 10 seconds (ignoring the power off slider when it comes up) then keep the home button pressed down and release the power button. This needs to be done while connected to iTunes. At that point iTunes will offer to restore it. | I have an iPhone, not the touch, but it is probably similar...
You should be able to restore it to factory settings (including no password, removing all data though) from iTunes.
Plugging the iPhone into my computer and opening up iTunes, if I click on the iPhone in the left column of iTunes, there's a `Restore` button shown in the Summary tab. As far as I'm aware, this will remove your passcode lock when it restores the phone (and wipes all data on it). You could also restore from a specific backup if you know what the passcode was at the time of that specific backup (assuming you've got backups enabled in iTunes). |
3,925 | My daughter set a password on it and now does not remember it, how can I remove/reset the password?
The software version is 3.1.3. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/3925",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1522/"
] | Found it and putting it here for reference, simply hold the home and power button down for 10 seconds (ignoring the power off slider when it comes up) then keep the home button pressed down and release the power button. This needs to be done while connected to iTunes. At that point iTunes will offer to restore it. | If you don't have iTunes on your computer they will do it for you in the apple store. |
3,925 | My daughter set a password on it and now does not remember it, how can I remove/reset the password?
The software version is 3.1.3. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/3925",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/1522/"
] | I have an iPhone, not the touch, but it is probably similar...
You should be able to restore it to factory settings (including no password, removing all data though) from iTunes.
Plugging the iPhone into my computer and opening up iTunes, if I click on the iPhone in the left column of iTunes, there's a `Restore` button shown in the Summary tab. As far as I'm aware, this will remove your passcode lock when it restores the phone (and wipes all data on it). You could also restore from a specific backup if you know what the passcode was at the time of that specific backup (assuming you've got backups enabled in iTunes). | If you don't have iTunes on your computer they will do it for you in the apple store. |
180,929 | So, when designing one of my sentient demihuman species for my fantasy world, I designed them to have greater sexual dimorphism.
**Astriads**, as a species, are artificially [divinely] modified humans, with (red hair, purple eyes, multiple pairs of short horns, but that doesn't really matter, but more importantly:) **naturally large musculature**. While women are less affected, and are only "fit by default", all males, without any training, have by default a physique of a body builder, as well as being taller on average (200 cm average height, whereas women are only ~170 cm average height).
While there is also some self-strengthening temporary buff magic, I'd like to ignore it for a moment(it's only temporary after all), to know how much would the medieval/ancient soldiers benefit from that kind of naturally body physique. I'd also like to know if there also be any drawbacks to have army of sword/spear & shield, taller, Predator's **Arnold** physique, especially if their legs are quite muscled up too, (including that these males would obviously require far more callories to stay fed).
**What I'm trying to ask is what impact would such a change have?**
Edit: This is reality check in more ways than one, because honestly, what I'm describing is very close to an idea of "supersoldier" in many works of fiction. I just think the idea isn't developped well enough and fully thought through to all of its conclusions, so I want to get more complete understanding of drawbacks and advantages of "supersoldiers". | 2020/07/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/180929",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/67499/"
] | It would be neutral at best, a liability at worst.
Ancient (and to a somewhat lesser extent, modern) warfare is mainly a matter of endurance, rather than strength. Classical battles were characterized by blocks of troops undertaking maneuvers, trying to force the opposition into an unfavorable position before driving home their advantage. Once battle was joined, it was in intense bursts of activity that would quickly tire out any soldier (the Romans had a special formation, the *triarii*, with troops in staggered lines so that they could swap out for allies when they tired). But often there was a clear advantage gained or denied during maneuvers that came down to the troops' ability to reposition quickly, accurately, and without wearing themselves out.
Under those circumstances, the bulk of your extra muscle would be a formidable disadvantage: it might be useful in a sprint, but overall, it's just more weight for you to carry around until the relatively brief part of the battle where you're actually fighting.
Your second concern is how much it would actually help. If your troops are strong enough to break through your enemy's shields with their blows, that's great, but it's no substitute for striking faster and more accurately than the foe. They will still need to practice and train just as rigorously as their opponents if they want to put their strength to good use. One thing it probably would not help with is the weight of their gear; as mentioned above, that's less about what they can deadlift and more about how much they can carry while marching for hours.
Last, but certainly not least, is the matter of diet. Not only do these muscles take a lot more food than your average ancient diet, they require specific foods, ones high in protein - which, in a world without powdered protein supplements, basically means meat. That's a very serious demand on your farms even in peacetime, let alone when moving supplies up to troops on campaign. (Remember, this is before any widespread method of preservation except for salt, which is expensive.) It also limits how much you can scavenge from enemy territory.
Where these troops would be extremely ferocious is on the defensive. Fighting from fixed positions means your own maneuvers are much less important, and you can stockpile heavier weapons ahead of time without wearing yourself out on the march. And being located in the heart of friendly territory, it would be much easier to locate suitable supplies and make sure they're stockpiled before meeting the enemy's attack. | No real impact.
Physique is pretty much irrelevant beside discipline, organisation, morale, training, leadership and logistics.
“The moral is to the physical as three to one.” |
180,929 | So, when designing one of my sentient demihuman species for my fantasy world, I designed them to have greater sexual dimorphism.
**Astriads**, as a species, are artificially [divinely] modified humans, with (red hair, purple eyes, multiple pairs of short horns, but that doesn't really matter, but more importantly:) **naturally large musculature**. While women are less affected, and are only "fit by default", all males, without any training, have by default a physique of a body builder, as well as being taller on average (200 cm average height, whereas women are only ~170 cm average height).
While there is also some self-strengthening temporary buff magic, I'd like to ignore it for a moment(it's only temporary after all), to know how much would the medieval/ancient soldiers benefit from that kind of naturally body physique. I'd also like to know if there also be any drawbacks to have army of sword/spear & shield, taller, Predator's **Arnold** physique, especially if their legs are quite muscled up too, (including that these males would obviously require far more callories to stay fed).
**What I'm trying to ask is what impact would such a change have?**
Edit: This is reality check in more ways than one, because honestly, what I'm describing is very close to an idea of "supersoldier" in many works of fiction. I just think the idea isn't developped well enough and fully thought through to all of its conclusions, so I want to get more complete understanding of drawbacks and advantages of "supersoldiers". | 2020/07/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/180929",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/67499/"
] | **For truly ancient warfare these would be formidable champions.**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dzRLI.jpg)
Depicted: Sreng, champion of the Fir Bolg as depicted by Jim Fitzpatrick. Book of Conquests is so great!
Bronze Age battles were, according to the tales, sometimes decided by single combat between champions. Hector vs Achilles is one that comes to mind, but Irish myths are full of these. It is sort of interesting since some of the Irish groups of this era were supposedly refugees from Greece and so might have been contemporaries of the characters from the Iliad.
It is a sensible way to sort out differences - send your two biggest baddest dudes. That way the many mediocre dudes are not too messed up from fighting and can still come home and take in the harvest. Your divinely augmented folks have the sound of champions and in a ancient world scenario where battles were decided by single combat, they would be a valuable asset.
Unless it so happens that your champion's small and unremarkable sling-toting opponent is also divinely augmented in a very much more direct way. | No real impact.
Physique is pretty much irrelevant beside discipline, organisation, morale, training, leadership and logistics.
“The moral is to the physical as three to one.” |
180,929 | So, when designing one of my sentient demihuman species for my fantasy world, I designed them to have greater sexual dimorphism.
**Astriads**, as a species, are artificially [divinely] modified humans, with (red hair, purple eyes, multiple pairs of short horns, but that doesn't really matter, but more importantly:) **naturally large musculature**. While women are less affected, and are only "fit by default", all males, without any training, have by default a physique of a body builder, as well as being taller on average (200 cm average height, whereas women are only ~170 cm average height).
While there is also some self-strengthening temporary buff magic, I'd like to ignore it for a moment(it's only temporary after all), to know how much would the medieval/ancient soldiers benefit from that kind of naturally body physique. I'd also like to know if there also be any drawbacks to have army of sword/spear & shield, taller, Predator's **Arnold** physique, especially if their legs are quite muscled up too, (including that these males would obviously require far more callories to stay fed).
**What I'm trying to ask is what impact would such a change have?**
Edit: This is reality check in more ways than one, because honestly, what I'm describing is very close to an idea of "supersoldier" in many works of fiction. I just think the idea isn't developped well enough and fully thought through to all of its conclusions, so I want to get more complete understanding of drawbacks and advantages of "supersoldiers". | 2020/07/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/180929",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/67499/"
] | **Bow Range**
During the several centuries where England was at war with France, the English longbowman was an important staple of the army. The English longbow has great range and power but needs a lot of muscle training to use.
The longbow was so important and required so much training that in the 16th century [every able-bodied man was legally required to practice archery.](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Act_concerning_shooting_in_long_bows)
Obviously time spend practicing archery is time that cannot be spent practicing anything else. So you get more better bowmen but fewer cavalry for example.
On the other hand your ~~Beefcakes~~ Astriads get this training for free. That means their army has immediate access to long-range archers. Then they can spent time training horsemanship for example.
So the Astriad army has elite cavalry and elite archers. Every human army they come up against has at best elite cavalry OR elite archers. | No real impact.
Physique is pretty much irrelevant beside discipline, organisation, morale, training, leadership and logistics.
“The moral is to the physical as three to one.” |
180,929 | So, when designing one of my sentient demihuman species for my fantasy world, I designed them to have greater sexual dimorphism.
**Astriads**, as a species, are artificially [divinely] modified humans, with (red hair, purple eyes, multiple pairs of short horns, but that doesn't really matter, but more importantly:) **naturally large musculature**. While women are less affected, and are only "fit by default", all males, without any training, have by default a physique of a body builder, as well as being taller on average (200 cm average height, whereas women are only ~170 cm average height).
While there is also some self-strengthening temporary buff magic, I'd like to ignore it for a moment(it's only temporary after all), to know how much would the medieval/ancient soldiers benefit from that kind of naturally body physique. I'd also like to know if there also be any drawbacks to have army of sword/spear & shield, taller, Predator's **Arnold** physique, especially if their legs are quite muscled up too, (including that these males would obviously require far more callories to stay fed).
**What I'm trying to ask is what impact would such a change have?**
Edit: This is reality check in more ways than one, because honestly, what I'm describing is very close to an idea of "supersoldier" in many works of fiction. I just think the idea isn't developped well enough and fully thought through to all of its conclusions, so I want to get more complete understanding of drawbacks and advantages of "supersoldiers". | 2020/07/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/180929",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/67499/"
] | It would be neutral at best, a liability at worst.
Ancient (and to a somewhat lesser extent, modern) warfare is mainly a matter of endurance, rather than strength. Classical battles were characterized by blocks of troops undertaking maneuvers, trying to force the opposition into an unfavorable position before driving home their advantage. Once battle was joined, it was in intense bursts of activity that would quickly tire out any soldier (the Romans had a special formation, the *triarii*, with troops in staggered lines so that they could swap out for allies when they tired). But often there was a clear advantage gained or denied during maneuvers that came down to the troops' ability to reposition quickly, accurately, and without wearing themselves out.
Under those circumstances, the bulk of your extra muscle would be a formidable disadvantage: it might be useful in a sprint, but overall, it's just more weight for you to carry around until the relatively brief part of the battle where you're actually fighting.
Your second concern is how much it would actually help. If your troops are strong enough to break through your enemy's shields with their blows, that's great, but it's no substitute for striking faster and more accurately than the foe. They will still need to practice and train just as rigorously as their opponents if they want to put their strength to good use. One thing it probably would not help with is the weight of their gear; as mentioned above, that's less about what they can deadlift and more about how much they can carry while marching for hours.
Last, but certainly not least, is the matter of diet. Not only do these muscles take a lot more food than your average ancient diet, they require specific foods, ones high in protein - which, in a world without powdered protein supplements, basically means meat. That's a very serious demand on your farms even in peacetime, let alone when moving supplies up to troops on campaign. (Remember, this is before any widespread method of preservation except for salt, which is expensive.) It also limits how much you can scavenge from enemy territory.
Where these troops would be extremely ferocious is on the defensive. Fighting from fixed positions means your own maneuvers are much less important, and you can stockpile heavier weapons ahead of time without wearing yourself out on the march. And being located in the heart of friendly territory, it would be much easier to locate suitable supplies and make sure they're stockpiled before meeting the enemy's attack. | **For truly ancient warfare these would be formidable champions.**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dzRLI.jpg)
Depicted: Sreng, champion of the Fir Bolg as depicted by Jim Fitzpatrick. Book of Conquests is so great!
Bronze Age battles were, according to the tales, sometimes decided by single combat between champions. Hector vs Achilles is one that comes to mind, but Irish myths are full of these. It is sort of interesting since some of the Irish groups of this era were supposedly refugees from Greece and so might have been contemporaries of the characters from the Iliad.
It is a sensible way to sort out differences - send your two biggest baddest dudes. That way the many mediocre dudes are not too messed up from fighting and can still come home and take in the harvest. Your divinely augmented folks have the sound of champions and in a ancient world scenario where battles were decided by single combat, they would be a valuable asset.
Unless it so happens that your champion's small and unremarkable sling-toting opponent is also divinely augmented in a very much more direct way. |
180,929 | So, when designing one of my sentient demihuman species for my fantasy world, I designed them to have greater sexual dimorphism.
**Astriads**, as a species, are artificially [divinely] modified humans, with (red hair, purple eyes, multiple pairs of short horns, but that doesn't really matter, but more importantly:) **naturally large musculature**. While women are less affected, and are only "fit by default", all males, without any training, have by default a physique of a body builder, as well as being taller on average (200 cm average height, whereas women are only ~170 cm average height).
While there is also some self-strengthening temporary buff magic, I'd like to ignore it for a moment(it's only temporary after all), to know how much would the medieval/ancient soldiers benefit from that kind of naturally body physique. I'd also like to know if there also be any drawbacks to have army of sword/spear & shield, taller, Predator's **Arnold** physique, especially if their legs are quite muscled up too, (including that these males would obviously require far more callories to stay fed).
**What I'm trying to ask is what impact would such a change have?**
Edit: This is reality check in more ways than one, because honestly, what I'm describing is very close to an idea of "supersoldier" in many works of fiction. I just think the idea isn't developped well enough and fully thought through to all of its conclusions, so I want to get more complete understanding of drawbacks and advantages of "supersoldiers". | 2020/07/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/180929",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/67499/"
] | It would be neutral at best, a liability at worst.
Ancient (and to a somewhat lesser extent, modern) warfare is mainly a matter of endurance, rather than strength. Classical battles were characterized by blocks of troops undertaking maneuvers, trying to force the opposition into an unfavorable position before driving home their advantage. Once battle was joined, it was in intense bursts of activity that would quickly tire out any soldier (the Romans had a special formation, the *triarii*, with troops in staggered lines so that they could swap out for allies when they tired). But often there was a clear advantage gained or denied during maneuvers that came down to the troops' ability to reposition quickly, accurately, and without wearing themselves out.
Under those circumstances, the bulk of your extra muscle would be a formidable disadvantage: it might be useful in a sprint, but overall, it's just more weight for you to carry around until the relatively brief part of the battle where you're actually fighting.
Your second concern is how much it would actually help. If your troops are strong enough to break through your enemy's shields with their blows, that's great, but it's no substitute for striking faster and more accurately than the foe. They will still need to practice and train just as rigorously as their opponents if they want to put their strength to good use. One thing it probably would not help with is the weight of their gear; as mentioned above, that's less about what they can deadlift and more about how much they can carry while marching for hours.
Last, but certainly not least, is the matter of diet. Not only do these muscles take a lot more food than your average ancient diet, they require specific foods, ones high in protein - which, in a world without powdered protein supplements, basically means meat. That's a very serious demand on your farms even in peacetime, let alone when moving supplies up to troops on campaign. (Remember, this is before any widespread method of preservation except for salt, which is expensive.) It also limits how much you can scavenge from enemy territory.
Where these troops would be extremely ferocious is on the defensive. Fighting from fixed positions means your own maneuvers are much less important, and you can stockpile heavier weapons ahead of time without wearing yourself out on the march. And being located in the heart of friendly territory, it would be much easier to locate suitable supplies and make sure they're stockpiled before meeting the enemy's attack. | **Bow Range**
During the several centuries where England was at war with France, the English longbowman was an important staple of the army. The English longbow has great range and power but needs a lot of muscle training to use.
The longbow was so important and required so much training that in the 16th century [every able-bodied man was legally required to practice archery.](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Act_concerning_shooting_in_long_bows)
Obviously time spend practicing archery is time that cannot be spent practicing anything else. So you get more better bowmen but fewer cavalry for example.
On the other hand your ~~Beefcakes~~ Astriads get this training for free. That means their army has immediate access to long-range archers. Then they can spent time training horsemanship for example.
So the Astriad army has elite cavalry and elite archers. Every human army they come up against has at best elite cavalry OR elite archers. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | Check your contract. As a fellow Canadian, usually when I've seen probation contracts, the probation period is set by a specified number of days, not by an evaluation procedure. If that's what your contract looks like, then congratulations, you passed!
I have never had a formal meeting in any job to discuss passing probation; I have only had such a meeting when I failed it. If you are confused, you should ask your manager, but your manager will probably think you're being silly (not in a bad way, just in a "isn't it obvious?" way). | Judging by the fact that you haven't been let go, I'd say you pretty much have but I'd wait for an official word from your manager or someone higher up. Usually you should be invited to a meeting to discuss your performance. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | Judging by the fact that you haven't been let go, I'd say you pretty much have but I'd wait for an official word from your manager or someone higher up. Usually you should be invited to a meeting to discuss your performance. | I can't see why they would have that conversation with you *now*. They're doing an evaluation next week, and that is the ideal place for that conversation.
I would expect them to tell you then. In the meantime, bring your A-game. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | Never make any assumptions. Talk to your manager, mention that the period ended, and ask if you need to fill out any paperwork, or if there is an official review involved. | You should wait until any official confirmation.
I had a similar situation 4 months back, the confirmation meeting was delayed because of too much work.
Since you know your meeting is next week, you should wait until then.
In the meantime, you can take feedback from other colleagues about your performance to ease the pressure. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | No you should not assume that you have passed probation. You will likely be informed of the results of your probationary period during your evaluation. | Never make any assumptions. Talk to your manager, mention that the period ended, and ask if you need to fill out any paperwork, or if there is an official review involved. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | No you should not assume that you have passed probation. You will likely be informed of the results of your probationary period during your evaluation. | You should wait until any official confirmation.
I had a similar situation 4 months back, the confirmation meeting was delayed because of too much work.
Since you know your meeting is next week, you should wait until then.
In the meantime, you can take feedback from other colleagues about your performance to ease the pressure. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | Check your contract. As a fellow Canadian, usually when I've seen probation contracts, the probation period is set by a specified number of days, not by an evaluation procedure. If that's what your contract looks like, then congratulations, you passed!
I have never had a formal meeting in any job to discuss passing probation; I have only had such a meeting when I failed it. If you are confused, you should ask your manager, but your manager will probably think you're being silly (not in a bad way, just in a "isn't it obvious?" way). | You should wait until any official confirmation.
I had a similar situation 4 months back, the confirmation meeting was delayed because of too much work.
Since you know your meeting is next week, you should wait until then.
In the meantime, you can take feedback from other colleagues about your performance to ease the pressure. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | It depends where you are and the applicable laws, as well as what may (or not) be stated in your employment contract. In some places, you will likely need some confirmation that your probation period has been completed, in others it is the law that after a set number of days your probation has been completed by default.
In the latter case, you would now be a permanent employee and the termination process can become quite different. If the company wanted to let you go but missed the deadline, too bad for them, they need to comply with the laws that apply to an employee who is not on probation. This doesn't mean that they can't make your work life difficult, but the legal situation changes. In most cases, it is clear long before the end of a probation period whether a person is a good fit to the position/company.
Sometimes companies try to exploit the probationary period as a short-term employment position by terminating on, or just before, the last day, because the requirements and remuneration are different (more favourable to the company) than employing a contractor.
In the former case, it would be usual to have the meeting/conversation some days prior to the end of the probation period, otherwise it is possibly *"within some reasonable period of time"*, and then your best option is probably to say something like, \*"hey boss, my probation was up last week," either before or at the evaluation meeting. | You should wait until any official confirmation.
I had a similar situation 4 months back, the confirmation meeting was delayed because of too much work.
Since you know your meeting is next week, you should wait until then.
In the meantime, you can take feedback from other colleagues about your performance to ease the pressure. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | >
> I have not been told if i passed it and have my evaluation early next
> week should I assume that i have passed probation?
>
>
>
No.
Your evaluation will tell you whether you have passed probation or not. Be patient. | No you should not assume that you have passed probation. You will likely be informed of the results of your probationary period during your evaluation. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | Check your contract. As a fellow Canadian, usually when I've seen probation contracts, the probation period is set by a specified number of days, not by an evaluation procedure. If that's what your contract looks like, then congratulations, you passed!
I have never had a formal meeting in any job to discuss passing probation; I have only had such a meeting when I failed it. If you are confused, you should ask your manager, but your manager will probably think you're being silly (not in a bad way, just in a "isn't it obvious?" way). | >
> I have not been told if i passed it and have my evaluation early next
> week should I assume that i have passed probation?
>
>
>
No.
Your evaluation will tell you whether you have passed probation or not. Be patient. |
132,087 | My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation? | 2019/03/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/132087",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/101617/"
] | Check your contract. As a fellow Canadian, usually when I've seen probation contracts, the probation period is set by a specified number of days, not by an evaluation procedure. If that's what your contract looks like, then congratulations, you passed!
I have never had a formal meeting in any job to discuss passing probation; I have only had such a meeting when I failed it. If you are confused, you should ask your manager, but your manager will probably think you're being silly (not in a bad way, just in a "isn't it obvious?" way). | It depends where you are and the applicable laws, as well as what may (or not) be stated in your employment contract. In some places, you will likely need some confirmation that your probation period has been completed, in others it is the law that after a set number of days your probation has been completed by default.
In the latter case, you would now be a permanent employee and the termination process can become quite different. If the company wanted to let you go but missed the deadline, too bad for them, they need to comply with the laws that apply to an employee who is not on probation. This doesn't mean that they can't make your work life difficult, but the legal situation changes. In most cases, it is clear long before the end of a probation period whether a person is a good fit to the position/company.
Sometimes companies try to exploit the probationary period as a short-term employment position by terminating on, or just before, the last day, because the requirements and remuneration are different (more favourable to the company) than employing a contractor.
In the former case, it would be usual to have the meeting/conversation some days prior to the end of the probation period, otherwise it is possibly *"within some reasonable period of time"*, and then your best option is probably to say something like, \*"hey boss, my probation was up last week," either before or at the evaluation meeting. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | **Technology has potentially impacted this answer within the last 10 years.** It's possible now to film a feature-quality film [on a smartphone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine_(film)), which dramatically lowers the costs of making an indie film. Even so, making a movie is inevitably an expensive, time-consuming process involving multiple collaborators, and a host of uncontrollable variables.
You were given good general advice. That's not to say it couldn't have worked out to start with a screenplay. But your friend was correct that you have a LOT more command of the final product with a novel. **The missing information here is what kind of writing do you most enjoy doing?** And/or what are you good at writing? Screenwriting and novel writing are very different. If you enjoy writing novels, and are good at it, then your friend did you a huge favor. If your true love is writing for the screen, however, then it might not make as much sense to go the long way around. For instance, I've come to realize that, while writing books makes "more sense," in a general way, my own existing strengths (plot, dialogue, characters) and weaknesses (descriptive passages) match up better with screenplays.
**It's inevitably a long, tough, journeyman's journey to become a successful writer**, no matter which path you choose, so you may want to orient yourself towards your final goal, no matter what that is. But there's nothing that says you can't work on your novel and your screenplay simultaneously. Just remember they are different forms, and the same concept might be very different depending on the medium in which it's realized. The best adaptations have the flavor of the original, not the specifics. | ### Star Wars
The [novelization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_From_the_Adventures_of_Luke_Skywalker) of the first (released) [film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope) was actually released before the movie. Others have already discussed the theory behind why this worked. But the point that I wanted to make was that this is a proven path. *Star Wars* was one of the [most popular movies of all time](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm). And what's first on that particular list? *[Gone with the Wind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(film))* -- another [novel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(novel)) turned movie.
Were *Star Wars* and *Gone with the Wind* flukes? Another example would be [Stephen King](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=stephenking.htm) who has forty-two movies made from his work. Almost entirely book then movie. Part of this is of course that King paints intense visuals with words.
If you are already more comfortable writing in prose than the screenplay format, then that just strengthens this argument. Write the novelization of the movie in your head, as George Lucas had Alan Dean Foster do. Then use that to get whatever help you need writing the screenplay. The story can still be a movie. Just write the book of the movie.
**TL;DR**: Write the book first because that is a proven way of getting a movie made. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | ### Star Wars
The [novelization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_From_the_Adventures_of_Luke_Skywalker) of the first (released) [film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope) was actually released before the movie. Others have already discussed the theory behind why this worked. But the point that I wanted to make was that this is a proven path. *Star Wars* was one of the [most popular movies of all time](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm). And what's first on that particular list? *[Gone with the Wind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(film))* -- another [novel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(novel)) turned movie.
Were *Star Wars* and *Gone with the Wind* flukes? Another example would be [Stephen King](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=stephenking.htm) who has forty-two movies made from his work. Almost entirely book then movie. Part of this is of course that King paints intense visuals with words.
If you are already more comfortable writing in prose than the screenplay format, then that just strengthens this argument. Write the novelization of the movie in your head, as George Lucas had Alan Dean Foster do. Then use that to get whatever help you need writing the screenplay. The story can still be a movie. Just write the book of the movie.
**TL;DR**: Write the book first because that is a proven way of getting a movie made. | Do both. First write the script. And then register it with WGA. Then take the script and describe the scenes in words to create the novel. Register both with LOC copyright office.
As a first time writer you will be lucky to get anything for the script. And if you do they will rewrite it with other people. But nobody makes you sell it on their terms. You can be happy with a little bit of money or you can hold out for more involvement and a share of the profits. Or they might say no and you get nothing.
But then you are unlikely to get anything much to write home about for your first novel either.
OTOH you might get hit by lightning, or you might actually have a best seller.
I would write both and then worry about making money from them. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | Screenplays are collaborative, whether you like it or not.
----------------------------------------------------------
Actors will say the lines. Directors will alter the tone. The photographer will create their own vision. And the producers will hire other screenwriters to "fix" your screenplay because they have spent a great deal of money and will hire more experts than they need. The star will have some demands. Characters will be combined or discarded because of shooting schedule. And the year your screenplay goes into production a certain special effect will be trendy and an extra scene is added to showcase it. the studio has decided the film needs a soundtrack album of vintage hits from their back catalog. And the entire story has been transposed to Vancouver for budget reasons.
And then there is editing. And test marketing.
A screenplay is not a stand-alone document. screenplays aren't an "end in themselves" the way a novel is (comment: BruceWayne). A screenplay is really "spec" for more work in the industry, writing and fixing screenplays. As the writer you will not have much control over the final product.
As a novel author you might be asked to make changes in a rewrite, but a screenplay is not realized until long after it leaves your hands and has been reinterpreted in hundreds of ways by everyone involved.
You can pay to self-publish and you have a book. It will cost a lot of money to produce your screenplay. | Do both. First write the script. And then register it with WGA. Then take the script and describe the scenes in words to create the novel. Register both with LOC copyright office.
As a first time writer you will be lucky to get anything for the script. And if you do they will rewrite it with other people. But nobody makes you sell it on their terms. You can be happy with a little bit of money or you can hold out for more involvement and a share of the profits. Or they might say no and you get nothing.
But then you are unlikely to get anything much to write home about for your first novel either.
OTOH you might get hit by lightning, or you might actually have a best seller.
I would write both and then worry about making money from them. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | **Technology has potentially impacted this answer within the last 10 years.** It's possible now to film a feature-quality film [on a smartphone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine_(film)), which dramatically lowers the costs of making an indie film. Even so, making a movie is inevitably an expensive, time-consuming process involving multiple collaborators, and a host of uncontrollable variables.
You were given good general advice. That's not to say it couldn't have worked out to start with a screenplay. But your friend was correct that you have a LOT more command of the final product with a novel. **The missing information here is what kind of writing do you most enjoy doing?** And/or what are you good at writing? Screenwriting and novel writing are very different. If you enjoy writing novels, and are good at it, then your friend did you a huge favor. If your true love is writing for the screen, however, then it might not make as much sense to go the long way around. For instance, I've come to realize that, while writing books makes "more sense," in a general way, my own existing strengths (plot, dialogue, characters) and weaknesses (descriptive passages) match up better with screenplays.
**It's inevitably a long, tough, journeyman's journey to become a successful writer**, no matter which path you choose, so you may want to orient yourself towards your final goal, no matter what that is. But there's nothing that says you can't work on your novel and your screenplay simultaneously. Just remember they are different forms, and the same concept might be very different depending on the medium in which it's realized. The best adaptations have the flavor of the original, not the specifics. | I agree with all the other answers so far, but let me take a different perspective on the whole thing. If you wish, read this answer as a frame challenge.
You say "there's a movie in your head". What do you mean? Is it *really* a movie - does it fit into ~2 hours, do you see each frame and how it's shot, do you see the special effects and how they're done, do you have specific actors in mind?
Or is it just that you see every scene in vivid colour, full surround, like you're standing there?
If the first option is your case, I can see why writing a book rather than a screenplay would feel like you're not doing what you "want" to do, but "translating" your vision to a different medium, as it where. Maybe, if this burns in your bones, you'd want to accept the risks and disadvantages, and do the screenplay anyway. Get to know people in the industry, and follow your dream. (You might want to look at options like indie productions and animated films, as a way to mitigate the complexities of trying to move forwards with a screenplay.)
But if it's just that you see your story with the eyes and ears of your mind, it's not really a movie. It's just how you see the story. (And yes, the way we think of stories, and the way we dream, are both influenced by movies, as a matter of fact. For a while, when TV was black-and-white, people used to dream in black-and-white.) Since what you have in your mind is a story, go ahead and tell it. Tell it however you feel you can best tell it, however you would most enjoy telling it, however would let you tell it in a way that does most justice to the images in your mind. It could be a novel, it could be a graphic novel, it could be an epic poem - whatever medium is "yours", use that. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | **Technology has potentially impacted this answer within the last 10 years.** It's possible now to film a feature-quality film [on a smartphone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine_(film)), which dramatically lowers the costs of making an indie film. Even so, making a movie is inevitably an expensive, time-consuming process involving multiple collaborators, and a host of uncontrollable variables.
You were given good general advice. That's not to say it couldn't have worked out to start with a screenplay. But your friend was correct that you have a LOT more command of the final product with a novel. **The missing information here is what kind of writing do you most enjoy doing?** And/or what are you good at writing? Screenwriting and novel writing are very different. If you enjoy writing novels, and are good at it, then your friend did you a huge favor. If your true love is writing for the screen, however, then it might not make as much sense to go the long way around. For instance, I've come to realize that, while writing books makes "more sense," in a general way, my own existing strengths (plot, dialogue, characters) and weaknesses (descriptive passages) match up better with screenplays.
**It's inevitably a long, tough, journeyman's journey to become a successful writer**, no matter which path you choose, so you may want to orient yourself towards your final goal, no matter what that is. But there's nothing that says you can't work on your novel and your screenplay simultaneously. Just remember they are different forms, and the same concept might be very different depending on the medium in which it's realized. The best adaptations have the flavor of the original, not the specifics. | In another forum I've actually recommended to writers that they write the novel and the screenplay in parallel, even if you only intend to publish the novel. Writing the screen adaptation for a novel can expose weaknesses in the novel.
For instance, writers are constantly told "show, don't tell", because in the novel format it is depressingly easy (and common) to violate this admonition, and the failure to follow it generally results in weak prose. If you have told something to the readers instead of having shown it to them, when you write the screen play you will find it very difficult to depict the events in dialog and action. In such a case, you have to choose some other dialog and action that will advance the story (ie., raise the conflicts or develop the characters) in the way that you had intended in the same section of the novel. You can then turn that into prose and put it in place of the weak section of the novel. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | Don't forget that nobody (except perhaps students on a film-making or screenplay-writing courses) ever reads screenplays, even those of classic famous movies. Write one by all means if you feel compelled to, but most likely the only person who will ever see it is *you* - unless someone else makes it into a movie.
As other answers have said, movies are a collaborative art form. Your screen play will just be the "basic idea" for what emerges at the end of the movie making process.
The same is true for writing stage plays, though maybe not quite to the same extent. But don't forget that even Shakespeare gets rewritten in modern productions. Scenes are cut, the order of other scenes is rearranged, somebody thinks it will be more "relevant for a modern audience" if Ophelia is black and Othello is white, or if Hamlet is female …
If you don't want else anyone to mess with your text, stick to writing books! | Do both. First write the script. And then register it with WGA. Then take the script and describe the scenes in words to create the novel. Register both with LOC copyright office.
As a first time writer you will be lucky to get anything for the script. And if you do they will rewrite it with other people. But nobody makes you sell it on their terms. You can be happy with a little bit of money or you can hold out for more involvement and a share of the profits. Or they might say no and you get nothing.
But then you are unlikely to get anything much to write home about for your first novel either.
OTOH you might get hit by lightning, or you might actually have a best seller.
I would write both and then worry about making money from them. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | Screenplays are also very difficult to sell, for a first-timer. Books are quite a bit easier. Unlike a screenplay, a book is in its final form, and relatively easy to produce, big publishers can do it cheap, in the single-digit thousands, and have the contacts to get it reviewed and advertised.
Screenplays can cost tens of millions to produce, they are a huge investment involving many dozens of creative artists and other story tellers, and they are incomplete. It is difficult to sell screenplays because the investment is so high, and studios can't produce a hundred new films a year, there isn't that much money. They have to be very selective.
Publishers don't. They are selective, but the financial bar is much lower, 90% of the work (writing) is already done, and they really can afford to push out a few hundred new books a year.
Start with the book. If you write "cinematically" (keeping in mind that movie viewers cannot read any text of internal thoughts or description, they can only see and hear), and sell enough copies to prove you have written a good story, then a movie studio might pick it up. **Sell the book through an agent.** If you can't get an agent, your story is not good enough! It has to be a good book before it can be a movie.
An agent is thinking of **all** rights to your story from the start, she will make sure you don't fall into any traps and lose your rights, or your influence, or whatever it is you want to keep. She only gets 15% of what YOU get, so she is focused on making sure you get the most money possible out of your work, and she is a professional negotiator that knows the ropes of the entertainment industry, including movie rights and what all the contract clauses mean. | In another forum I've actually recommended to writers that they write the novel and the screenplay in parallel, even if you only intend to publish the novel. Writing the screen adaptation for a novel can expose weaknesses in the novel.
For instance, writers are constantly told "show, don't tell", because in the novel format it is depressingly easy (and common) to violate this admonition, and the failure to follow it generally results in weak prose. If you have told something to the readers instead of having shown it to them, when you write the screen play you will find it very difficult to depict the events in dialog and action. In such a case, you have to choose some other dialog and action that will advance the story (ie., raise the conflicts or develop the characters) in the way that you had intended in the same section of the novel. You can then turn that into prose and put it in place of the weak section of the novel. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | I'm gonna answer to the question in the title:
Ultimately it's up to you. They are different media.
----------------------------------------------------
Your friend must be right on some level.
I too have the habit to imagine my stories as movies (and I suppose it's not uncommon at all). Sometimes is painstalkingly difficult to portray with words what could be done with a good placed camera shot; writing is not a visual art after all. A good movie or even a good comic can impress the audience in a more immediate way; after all we relay a lot on our sight in our daily lives and as they say, *a picture is worth a thousand words*. Don't take me wrong - the written word still has its own merits and advantages, but this goes a little over the scope of the question.
The point about screenwriting is that, as you noted, it gets the story mostly out of your control. Let's say you write a really good screenplay and a company buys it. Let's say that you get activetly involved on the whole process of movie-making (rather than shoved aside). Even then, you won't be the only one responsible for the final product.
**The screenwriter is not the director**, in most cases; and even if you get to the point of directing your own film - unlikely for the first screenplay - there is a whole deal of people involved in the production and a whole lot of compromises to be made, from casting choices to business-related reasons, from the photography to the acting performance.
So it's true that becoming a skilled writer lets you keep the whole story into your own hands. No one else is involved in your book but you (apart from editors, of course; but I'd argue that a good editor can make your story better without altering your vision). If you get famous, if your book sells, it might one day become a movie; play your cards right and you could be one of the authors actively involved in the production. Of course, the same problems as above will apply, but maybe you'll be able to bargain a better deal if you have the higher ground of a strong sale record.
Then again, you should think about what your goal is.
What's more important? Telling a story, or making a movie? If it's the latter, try to get involved in movie making - it's the fastest route and it makes more sense. No point in taking an huge detour if that's what's your heart aches for. Your first screenplay won't get 100% *right as you wanted it*, and so for your second and third, but that's the same for everyone. And you'd be making movies.
But if you want to tell your story, as close as possible as you imagined it, and the visual representation would just be a nice collateral thing to have, you should write it down. Keep in mind that both ways will require sacrifices and compromises of some sort; it's up to you to choose. | Do both. First write the script. And then register it with WGA. Then take the script and describe the scenes in words to create the novel. Register both with LOC copyright office.
As a first time writer you will be lucky to get anything for the script. And if you do they will rewrite it with other people. But nobody makes you sell it on their terms. You can be happy with a little bit of money or you can hold out for more involvement and a share of the profits. Or they might say no and you get nothing.
But then you are unlikely to get anything much to write home about for your first novel either.
OTOH you might get hit by lightning, or you might actually have a best seller.
I would write both and then worry about making money from them. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | Don't forget that nobody (except perhaps students on a film-making or screenplay-writing courses) ever reads screenplays, even those of classic famous movies. Write one by all means if you feel compelled to, but most likely the only person who will ever see it is *you* - unless someone else makes it into a movie.
As other answers have said, movies are a collaborative art form. Your screen play will just be the "basic idea" for what emerges at the end of the movie making process.
The same is true for writing stage plays, though maybe not quite to the same extent. But don't forget that even Shakespeare gets rewritten in modern productions. Scenes are cut, the order of other scenes is rearranged, somebody thinks it will be more "relevant for a modern audience" if Ophelia is black and Othello is white, or if Hamlet is female …
If you don't want else anyone to mess with your text, stick to writing books! | ### Star Wars
The [novelization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_From_the_Adventures_of_Luke_Skywalker) of the first (released) [film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope) was actually released before the movie. Others have already discussed the theory behind why this worked. But the point that I wanted to make was that this is a proven path. *Star Wars* was one of the [most popular movies of all time](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm). And what's first on that particular list? *[Gone with the Wind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(film))* -- another [novel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(novel)) turned movie.
Were *Star Wars* and *Gone with the Wind* flukes? Another example would be [Stephen King](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=stephenking.htm) who has forty-two movies made from his work. Almost entirely book then movie. Part of this is of course that King paints intense visuals with words.
If you are already more comfortable writing in prose than the screenplay format, then that just strengthens this argument. Write the novelization of the movie in your head, as George Lucas had Alan Dean Foster do. Then use that to get whatever help you need writing the screenplay. The story can still be a movie. Just write the book of the movie.
**TL;DR**: Write the book first because that is a proven way of getting a movie made. |
42,405 | Around a decade ago, I had a dream. An actual middle of the night dream. An entire movie played in my head, all I had to do was write it down. I did a fair bit of research on the topic then I spent the next 10 years working it out in my head but not writing much of anything down.
Last year, I joined a writer's group and began the arduous task of writing a screenplay. I have no idea how to write a screenplay.
One of the other members of the group has actually written screenplays and had them produced. Her advice to me was: don't.
If you write a screenplay, she told me, best case scenario is a production company buys it and makes it into a movie. But when they buy it, the first thing they do is fire the writer. Suddenly, it's not yours anymore. They'll rewrite it and you'll never see a dime (or credit) beyond the initial payment.
But, if you write a book, no one can take that away from you. With luck, it will become a movie, and they will hire someone who knows the form to write the screenplay. You will always have credit and royalties. The story will belong to you forever.
Now I'm more than halfway through a novel and very happy with it. Maybe it will be a published book and then a movie someday.
**My question is: How sound is this advice? Is it folly to write an original screenplay? Is adapting the movie in your head into a book the better choice?**
---
Notes: I am aware of questions similar to mine ([Should I be a Novel Writer or a Screenwriter?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/19046/should-i-be-a-novel-writer-or-a-screenwriter) and [Screenplay vs Novel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33996/screenplay-vs-novel)) but they're more about career paths and how to choose which medium suits the story best. That's why I focused my question on the publishing issues involved in the choice, something the other questions didn't address (even if a few answers spoke of it). | 2019/02/21 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/42405",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32946/"
] | Screenplays are also very difficult to sell, for a first-timer. Books are quite a bit easier. Unlike a screenplay, a book is in its final form, and relatively easy to produce, big publishers can do it cheap, in the single-digit thousands, and have the contacts to get it reviewed and advertised.
Screenplays can cost tens of millions to produce, they are a huge investment involving many dozens of creative artists and other story tellers, and they are incomplete. It is difficult to sell screenplays because the investment is so high, and studios can't produce a hundred new films a year, there isn't that much money. They have to be very selective.
Publishers don't. They are selective, but the financial bar is much lower, 90% of the work (writing) is already done, and they really can afford to push out a few hundred new books a year.
Start with the book. If you write "cinematically" (keeping in mind that movie viewers cannot read any text of internal thoughts or description, they can only see and hear), and sell enough copies to prove you have written a good story, then a movie studio might pick it up. **Sell the book through an agent.** If you can't get an agent, your story is not good enough! It has to be a good book before it can be a movie.
An agent is thinking of **all** rights to your story from the start, she will make sure you don't fall into any traps and lose your rights, or your influence, or whatever it is you want to keep. She only gets 15% of what YOU get, so she is focused on making sure you get the most money possible out of your work, and she is a professional negotiator that knows the ropes of the entertainment industry, including movie rights and what all the contract clauses mean. | Do both. First write the script. And then register it with WGA. Then take the script and describe the scenes in words to create the novel. Register both with LOC copyright office.
As a first time writer you will be lucky to get anything for the script. And if you do they will rewrite it with other people. But nobody makes you sell it on their terms. You can be happy with a little bit of money or you can hold out for more involvement and a share of the profits. Or they might say no and you get nothing.
But then you are unlikely to get anything much to write home about for your first novel either.
OTOH you might get hit by lightning, or you might actually have a best seller.
I would write both and then worry about making money from them. |
410,602 | I recently bought [these](https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/isolated-dc-dc-converters/1616715/?relevancy-data=636F3D3126696E3D4931384E525353746F636B4E756D626572266C753D656E266D6D3D6D61746368616C6C26706D3D5E2828282872737C5253295B205D3F293F285C647B337D5B5C2D5C735D3F5C647B332C347D5B705061415D3F29297C283235285C647B387D7C5C647B317D5C2D5C647B377D2929292426706F3D3126736E3D592673723D2673743D52535F53544F434B5F4E554D4245522677633D4E4F4E45267573743D3136312D36373135267374613D3136313637313526&searchHistory=%7B%22enabled%22%3Atrue%7D) DC-DC converters. But when I apply 12VDC to the input I always observe 7.5V on the scope instead of 5V, I tried with a 680k load still 7.5V. But the datasheet says this is 12 to 5V converter.
What could be the reason?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4q1ob.png) | 2018/12/05 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/410602",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/184379/"
] | Try using a lower value resistor. With this one you get 11uA of current, which is close to open line. Try getting 10-20mA of load with resistor of say a couple of hundred ohms (200-300 should work) . | Since you didn't indicate much details in your analysis of your problem, I might be inclined to suggest ESD damage on the input. Something has attenuated the feedback that so that it overdriving the output.
The design input current is specified for NO LOAD.
Write to info@tracopower-solutions.com and
* 1) request tech support with all the details of your test of output Voltage vs R or I to full load.
* 2) request an RMA for return and FMEA failure report
Was it packaged in an antistatic bag>? |
20,797 | Is there any difference between Arabic and Arabian? It's sound same though for me. Any help will be greatly appreciated. | 2014/04/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/20797",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The area is referred to as **Arabia**. (As in Saudi Arabia)
A person from that area is an **Arab**. (As in the Monty Python's song *Never be rude to an Arab*)
The people there speak **Arabic**. (As in "the word "algebra" comes from Arabic)
Any other stuff coming from Arabia is **Arabian**. (As in the book *Arabian Nights*) | **Arabic** refers to the language of Arab, whereas **Arabian** refers to the people of Arab.
The root word is **"Arab"**, and to form **"Arabic"** and **"Arabian"** two suffixes are used - ***"-ic"*** and ***"-ian"*** respectively.
**-ic :** (suffix) One relating to or characterized by. **Example -** *Academic*
**-ian :** (suffix) One relating to, belonging to, or resembling. **Example -** *Washingtonian*
**N.B** The etymology of the word **"Arabic"** is not derived form just by adding a suffix with the word **"Arab"** |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | >
> ***If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database?***
>
>
>
Reasons are many. Here are a few:
1. People reuse their passwords, so not leaking everybodys real passwords does limit the impact of such attack.
2. Without the real passwords, the hacker will still not be able to log in and, say, post new entries on the hacked system.
3. Who says *all* information is stored in the database? What if the database solely consisted of the user name and hashed/salted passwords? Then, knowing the content doesn't help much. | Salt is used so that identical passwords have different hashes, making an attempt at figuring out the passwords harder.
Hashing makes it so that generating the password via brute force methods take a very long time (especially with SHA2) so that it makes it "unfeasible" to find out the password.
A hash will do you no good if you don't know the password as typing the hash into a password field will not work (obviously).
Usually hackers only find users tables and maybe some basic information but if they want to be able to actually access that users info and change something then they need the actual password (since they don't know the whole DB schema changing something could look very suspicious and is easily traceable unless you legitimately login as the person)
One last thing I forgot about is that people do reuse passwords. So maybe you hacked some random site that has no useful information on it but the person used the same user/password combination on their online banking. This could be very bad as you can see so not being able to easily discern the password is key. |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | >
> ***If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database?***
>
>
>
Reasons are many. Here are a few:
1. People reuse their passwords, so not leaking everybodys real passwords does limit the impact of such attack.
2. Without the real passwords, the hacker will still not be able to log in and, say, post new entries on the hacked system.
3. Who says *all* information is stored in the database? What if the database solely consisted of the user name and hashed/salted passwords? Then, knowing the content doesn't help much. | If you have the cleartext passwords and e-mail addresses from the database, you can wreak havoc! It's not about getting credentials to the site that is already hacked, it's about getting login information to other sites.
Most people don't use one password only for one site, so if you have the password for their primary e-mail address, you probably have access to ALL their accounts on every site (through password resetting). |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | >
> ***If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database?***
>
>
>
Reasons are many. Here are a few:
1. People reuse their passwords, so not leaking everybodys real passwords does limit the impact of such attack.
2. Without the real passwords, the hacker will still not be able to log in and, say, post new entries on the hacked system.
3. Who says *all* information is stored in the database? What if the database solely consisted of the user name and hashed/salted passwords? Then, knowing the content doesn't help much. | To be in possession of the user records from the database does not necessarily mean you have access to the database. Through some leak in the website (hello, SQL injection) you may be able to get access to data you shouldn't have access to without necessarily compromising the whole server. Badly handled backups, shared servers, incompetent or malicious employees may all make that possible.
Also and possibly more importantly, you need to protect your customer's passwords **on other sites**. People unfortunately reuse their passwords all over the place. If your tiny chat room database gets compromised, people's passwords at their banking sites may be compromised with it. |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | >
> ***If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database?***
>
>
>
Reasons are many. Here are a few:
1. People reuse their passwords, so not leaking everybodys real passwords does limit the impact of such attack.
2. Without the real passwords, the hacker will still not be able to log in and, say, post new entries on the hacked system.
3. Who says *all* information is stored in the database? What if the database solely consisted of the user name and hashed/salted passwords? Then, knowing the content doesn't help much. | Suppose an attacker somehow gains access to a backup of the database, containing unrecoverable hashed passwords. Then they have all the data that was in there yesterday, which is quite bad. But at least they don't have access to the data that will be in there tomorrow, and they can't delete anything from the real site, deface it, serve malware via its CMS, etc.
Suppose an attacker gets everyone's plaintext passwords, especially if that includes the administrator. Oops. |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | To be in possession of the user records from the database does not necessarily mean you have access to the database. Through some leak in the website (hello, SQL injection) you may be able to get access to data you shouldn't have access to without necessarily compromising the whole server. Badly handled backups, shared servers, incompetent or malicious employees may all make that possible.
Also and possibly more importantly, you need to protect your customer's passwords **on other sites**. People unfortunately reuse their passwords all over the place. If your tiny chat room database gets compromised, people's passwords at their banking sites may be compromised with it. | Salt is used so that identical passwords have different hashes, making an attempt at figuring out the passwords harder.
Hashing makes it so that generating the password via brute force methods take a very long time (especially with SHA2) so that it makes it "unfeasible" to find out the password.
A hash will do you no good if you don't know the password as typing the hash into a password field will not work (obviously).
Usually hackers only find users tables and maybe some basic information but if they want to be able to actually access that users info and change something then they need the actual password (since they don't know the whole DB schema changing something could look very suspicious and is easily traceable unless you legitimately login as the person)
One last thing I forgot about is that people do reuse passwords. So maybe you hacked some random site that has no useful information on it but the person used the same user/password combination on their online banking. This could be very bad as you can see so not being able to easily discern the password is key. |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | Salt is used so that identical passwords have different hashes, making an attempt at figuring out the passwords harder.
Hashing makes it so that generating the password via brute force methods take a very long time (especially with SHA2) so that it makes it "unfeasible" to find out the password.
A hash will do you no good if you don't know the password as typing the hash into a password field will not work (obviously).
Usually hackers only find users tables and maybe some basic information but if they want to be able to actually access that users info and change something then they need the actual password (since they don't know the whole DB schema changing something could look very suspicious and is easily traceable unless you legitimately login as the person)
One last thing I forgot about is that people do reuse passwords. So maybe you hacked some random site that has no useful information on it but the person used the same user/password combination on their online banking. This could be very bad as you can see so not being able to easily discern the password is key. | Suppose an attacker somehow gains access to a backup of the database, containing unrecoverable hashed passwords. Then they have all the data that was in there yesterday, which is quite bad. But at least they don't have access to the data that will be in there tomorrow, and they can't delete anything from the real site, deface it, serve malware via its CMS, etc.
Suppose an attacker gets everyone's plaintext passwords, especially if that includes the administrator. Oops. |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | To be in possession of the user records from the database does not necessarily mean you have access to the database. Through some leak in the website (hello, SQL injection) you may be able to get access to data you shouldn't have access to without necessarily compromising the whole server. Badly handled backups, shared servers, incompetent or malicious employees may all make that possible.
Also and possibly more importantly, you need to protect your customer's passwords **on other sites**. People unfortunately reuse their passwords all over the place. If your tiny chat room database gets compromised, people's passwords at their banking sites may be compromised with it. | If you have the cleartext passwords and e-mail addresses from the database, you can wreak havoc! It's not about getting credentials to the site that is already hacked, it's about getting login information to other sites.
Most people don't use one password only for one site, so if you have the password for their primary e-mail address, you probably have access to ALL their accounts on every site (through password resetting). |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | If you have the cleartext passwords and e-mail addresses from the database, you can wreak havoc! It's not about getting credentials to the site that is already hacked, it's about getting login information to other sites.
Most people don't use one password only for one site, so if you have the password for their primary e-mail address, you probably have access to ALL their accounts on every site (through password resetting). | Suppose an attacker somehow gains access to a backup of the database, containing unrecoverable hashed passwords. Then they have all the data that was in there yesterday, which is quite bad. But at least they don't have access to the data that will be in there tomorrow, and they can't delete anything from the real site, deface it, serve malware via its CMS, etc.
Suppose an attacker gets everyone's plaintext passwords, especially if that includes the administrator. Oops. |
7,104,060 | I just learned the concept of hashing ("Hey! don't forget the salt!") and using salt to make the password secured.
Hashing it is a one way encryption (actually not encryption but hashing) so it cannot be reversed engineered. Salting is prefixing or appending randomly created values to the password before hashing 'coz the problem in hashing (just hashing) is, some genius has provided a hash table of words from the dictionary so that they'll just compare the hash from that dictionary to the user's table from the database to login - W-wait? did I say table from the database? So it means somebody can access the database so we have to use salt? If that so, then why would the hacker recover the password if he already has access to the database? If I were him, I'll just get all the details I want from the database, why would I use the key I've stolen from a house to open the door if I can access the house already through the window?
So, why hash? why salt? I don't understand. Please, somebody help me.
Thanks in advance.
Important Note: I'm not against hashing or salting, I just want to clarify things. | 2011/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7104060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/724689/"
] | To be in possession of the user records from the database does not necessarily mean you have access to the database. Through some leak in the website (hello, SQL injection) you may be able to get access to data you shouldn't have access to without necessarily compromising the whole server. Badly handled backups, shared servers, incompetent or malicious employees may all make that possible.
Also and possibly more importantly, you need to protect your customer's passwords **on other sites**. People unfortunately reuse their passwords all over the place. If your tiny chat room database gets compromised, people's passwords at their banking sites may be compromised with it. | Suppose an attacker somehow gains access to a backup of the database, containing unrecoverable hashed passwords. Then they have all the data that was in there yesterday, which is quite bad. But at least they don't have access to the data that will be in there tomorrow, and they can't delete anything from the real site, deface it, serve malware via its CMS, etc.
Suppose an attacker gets everyone's plaintext passwords, especially if that includes the administrator. Oops. |
5,237,259 | Is there anyway to randomly place a MovieClip/Sprite on an irregularly shaped object?
For a rectangle, it seems pretty straightforward (i.e. use Math.random with the range being the coordinates of an object)...but what if say, you would like to avoid placing objects in the center? | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5237259",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/147915/"
] | It's less that Ruby on Rails handles the concurrent requests as it is the server that is running Ruby on Rails that handles the concurrent requests. When I say a server that is running Ruby on Rails I am referring to Phusion Passenger, Mongrel or WEBrick in combination with Apache or Nginx for example. In most cases concurrency is achieved by launching multiple Ruby on Rails applications that each handle requests separately. While this may take more memory than a truly threaded approach it does not require that Ruby on Rails developers write thread-safe code. | You need to run a threaded server like Puma on a threaded Ruby like JRuby for that. Otherwise it's just the server creating processes instead of threads, like Pushion Passenger. Of course, you need to write thread safe code for that, which can be very hard to develop and mantain. For this reason most of the people sticks to single threaded solutions, althought Rails 4 is multithread by default and so we might see a trend change in the near future. |
43,589,322 | A client of mine has 2 PLC processors and wants the newer PLC to control a motor that the older one already controls. They are phasing out the older PLC but prefer to add logic to the newer PLC as time goes on (I know this sounds strange). My question is: Can I simply connect the output wire from the newer output signal onto the same terminal screw of the motor starter coil as the existing output signal wire from the older PLC? Both processors are Allen-Bradley ControlLogix5000 processors. | 2017/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/43589322",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7913887/"
] | If the output cards are relay cards, and the common is linked between the two PLC's, then you should be OK.
I would recommend taking both outputs down to a diode terminal, just to be safe | No, to connect both to same motor coil contact is unsafe and would not be best practice. The correct way is to have both old and new ControlLogix 5000 processors on the same Ethernet network. Then on old controller make desired tag global consumable and on the new controller, add an 'OR" branch with old controller tag to rung of new controller rung outputting to motor coil contact. |
22,959 | In [Psalm 74](https://www.esv.org/Psalm+74/):12 (ESV) we read "Yet God my King is from of old, ...".
While I understand that to mean something like "Yet God my King is from ancient times", why would translators use the phrase "is from of old". The more I look at that phrase, the less it seems to make sense. The phrase also appears in [Micah 5](https://www.esv.org/Micah+5/):2. | 2016/06/15 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/22959",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/1991/"
] | Job 29:2
English Standard Version
>
> “Oh, that I were as in the months of **old** [H6924], as in the days when God watched over me,
>
>
>
Psalm 74:12 English Standard Version
>
> Yet God my King is from of **old** [H6924], working salvation in the midst of the earth.
>
>
>
Why would translators use the phrase "is from of old"?
ESV did it to be consistent with the usage in Job 29:2.
NIV's translation philosophy is different.
Job 29:2
New International Version
>
> “How I long for the months **gone by**, for the days when God watched over me,
>
>
>
Psalm 74:12
New International Version
>
> But God is my King **from long ago**; he brings salvation on the earth.
>
>
>
For the same Hebrew word, NIV uses different English phrases for these two passages. In addition to the formal process of translation, they interpreted the contexts of the respective passages.
ESV leans toward formal equivalence. NIV leans toward dynamic equivalence. These are different translation philosophies.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Given any reading difficulties, it is best to consult a variety of versions. | The hebrew word is קדמ and the correct translation is something like 'from the old'. It means more than anicent, this word hints towards creation. The topic of creation is then picked up in V 13-17. Furthermore קדמ is used rather frequently in the psalms of Asaph (Ps 50.73-83), like in Ps 78, where it is mentioned several times. |
25,087 | I notice a lot of sites host their resources on a separate domain from the main site, e.g. StackExchange using sstatic.net, Barnes & Noble using imagesbn.com, etc.
I understand that there are benefits to putting your static resources on a separate host, possibly with an efficient static-file web server like nginx, freeing up the main server to focus on serving dynamic content. Similarly, outsourcing to a shared CDN like cloudfront Akamai is logical.
What is the benefit to using a separate domain otherwise, though? Why sstatic.net instead of static.stackexchange.com?
**Update**: Several answers miss the core question. I understand that there is benefit to splitting between multiple hosts — parallel downloads, slimmer web server, etc. But what is more elusive is why multiple *domains*. Why sstatic.net rather than static.stackexchange.com as the host for shared resources? So far, only one answer has addressed that. | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/25087",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/2139/"
] | Many sites have quite a lot of cookies set, these cookies have the purpose of supporting some kind of state.
By putting the static (stateless) resources on a completely different domain you can reduce the size of the http requests. In some cases there are so many cookie that a single http request takes two TCP packets to be transmitted. So having a separate domain is one of the ways to reduce the number of packets to request the various parts of a page.
Other methods with the same goal are merging a lot of images into a single sprite and merging all Javascript into a single file. | The main reason are cookies. What Niels suggested in his answer is only a minor consequence, and not the real reason. Without cookies, the request size is smaller, so it is saving some bandwidth.
However, the real difference comes from browser cache. Since content is static (i.e. does not change), browsers can cache it on local hard disk and avoid loading the file from Internet each time. Instead of whole file, the web server just sends a 304 reply, meaning that content has not changed.
When site uses cookies, browsers consider that content of the file might be different for different users, so they do not cache those files. Serving the file from cookie-less domain ensures that browser caching works properly.
This is the main reason as it improves loading times and reduces bandwidth significantly. |
25,087 | I notice a lot of sites host their resources on a separate domain from the main site, e.g. StackExchange using sstatic.net, Barnes & Noble using imagesbn.com, etc.
I understand that there are benefits to putting your static resources on a separate host, possibly with an efficient static-file web server like nginx, freeing up the main server to focus on serving dynamic content. Similarly, outsourcing to a shared CDN like cloudfront Akamai is logical.
What is the benefit to using a separate domain otherwise, though? Why sstatic.net instead of static.stackexchange.com?
**Update**: Several answers miss the core question. I understand that there is benefit to splitting between multiple hosts — parallel downloads, slimmer web server, etc. But what is more elusive is why multiple *domains*. Why sstatic.net rather than static.stackexchange.com as the host for shared resources? So far, only one answer has addressed that. | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/25087",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/2139/"
] | Lèse majesté covered the main points, but to expand further I'd add that having a single domain for all the various Stack Exchange sites means that someone browsing them will only download static content such as JavaScripts once. Going to Superuser, for example, a user will use the cached content since it is from the same place.
There's some more useful info on [Yahoo](http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#cdn) and [Google](http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/docs/request.html#ServeFromCookielessDomain) about this. | Older browsers are restricted to just two parallel downloads per hostname.
Splitting a web page's elements across multiple domains is called [domain sharding](http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/05/12/sharding-dominant-domains/). Doing this allows more resources to be downloaded in parallel, reducing the overall page load times.
[The optimal number of domains to shard across is 2-4. After 4 domains, response time degrades](http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/04/11/performance-research-part-4/). |
25,087 | I notice a lot of sites host their resources on a separate domain from the main site, e.g. StackExchange using sstatic.net, Barnes & Noble using imagesbn.com, etc.
I understand that there are benefits to putting your static resources on a separate host, possibly with an efficient static-file web server like nginx, freeing up the main server to focus on serving dynamic content. Similarly, outsourcing to a shared CDN like cloudfront Akamai is logical.
What is the benefit to using a separate domain otherwise, though? Why sstatic.net instead of static.stackexchange.com?
**Update**: Several answers miss the core question. I understand that there is benefit to splitting between multiple hosts — parallel downloads, slimmer web server, etc. But what is more elusive is why multiple *domains*. Why sstatic.net rather than static.stackexchange.com as the host for shared resources? So far, only one answer has addressed that. | 2012/01/26 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/25087",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/2139/"
] | Many sites have quite a lot of cookies set, these cookies have the purpose of supporting some kind of state.
By putting the static (stateless) resources on a completely different domain you can reduce the size of the http requests. In some cases there are so many cookie that a single http request takes two TCP packets to be transmitted. So having a separate domain is one of the ways to reduce the number of packets to request the various parts of a page.
Other methods with the same goal are merging a lot of images into a single sprite and merging all Javascript into a single file. | Lèse majesté covered the main points, but to expand further I'd add that having a single domain for all the various Stack Exchange sites means that someone browsing them will only download static content such as JavaScripts once. Going to Superuser, for example, a user will use the cached content since it is from the same place.
There's some more useful info on [Yahoo](http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#cdn) and [Google](http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/docs/request.html#ServeFromCookielessDomain) about this. |
93,117 | I started a Yahoo! mail account a while ago. This was meant to be just a throwaway/spam email account. However, because it was easy to pass around, I ended up depending on it quite heavily.
Since I didn't pay attention while filling the account creation form I am wondering if it is possible/how to change your Secret Question's answer. | 2016/05/24 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/93117",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/124364/"
] | I no longer see a Secret Question for you to answer in order to get a password changed. They now verify it is you by using a secondary email address to send you a code or they will text you a code to your phone number to verify it is you. Those are both in the upper right of the screen under the gear and then account info. From there you go to account security. From here you can add a phone number to which you can receive text messages. If you chose you can also add a secondary email so you can get verified this way as well. | 1. Go to Yahoo Mail. Visit the Yahoo Mail website using any web browser on your computer.
2. Sign In. Enter your Yahoo ID or username and password in the fields provided. Click the “Sign In” button to access your account.
3. Go to Account Info. Click the gear button on the top right corner of the page to display a menu. Select “Account Info” from here.
4. A new window or tab will open displaying your profile and account page. Your personal information are here, together with the account and security settings for your Yahoo account.
5. Update your password-reset info. Scroll to the “Sign-In and Security” section of the page, and click the “Update password-reset info” link from the options under the section.
6. View your current security questions. Another page will load displaying your current password reset options and info. Scroll down to the “Secret Questions” section to see your current two security questions.
7. You won’t see your answers to your two questions for your own security and privacy.
8. Change your questions and answers. Right under the questions is a “Change questions and answers” link. Click on it, and the two questions above it will change to drop-down lists containing several options for your security questions.
9. Set Secret Question 1. Click the drop-down list for Secret Question 1. Scroll through the list of questions, and click the one you’d like to use. Right under it is a text box. Input your answer to your first question.
10. Set Secret Question 2. Click the dropdown list for Secret Question 2. Scroll through the list of questions, and click the one you’d like to use. Right under it is a text box. Input your answer to your second question.
11. Save. Right under the questions is a “Save” link. Click on it. Your two questions and their corresponding answers will be saved and recorded by Yahoo.
12. You’ve now reset and changed your security questions. You may go back to your main window or tab for Yahoo Mail. |
93,117 | I started a Yahoo! mail account a while ago. This was meant to be just a throwaway/spam email account. However, because it was easy to pass around, I ended up depending on it quite heavily.
Since I didn't pay attention while filling the account creation form I am wondering if it is possible/how to change your Secret Question's answer. | 2016/05/24 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/93117",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/124364/"
] | I no longer see a Secret Question for you to answer in order to get a password changed. They now verify it is you by using a secondary email address to send you a code or they will text you a code to your phone number to verify it is you. Those are both in the upper right of the screen under the gear and then account info. From there you go to account security. From here you can add a phone number to which you can receive text messages. If you chose you can also add a secondary email so you can get verified this way as well. | Yahoo has recently removed the security questions, instead they want your personal phone number. Here's some info [from a Yahoo rep in their Help forum](https://forums.yahoo.net/t5/Account-security/how-do-I-change-my-security-questions/td-p/11483):
>
> The security of your Yahoo account is our top priority. Because of account security advancements, you'll no longer need to protect your account using secret questions. Going forward, you won't be able to edit or add new security questions to your account.
>
>
> Instead of security questions, we recommend updating your account information and adding your alternate email address or mobile number. In the future, you can use your listed alternate email address or mobile number to confirm your identity and receive account recovery steps if you ever lose access to your account.
>
>
> |
93,117 | I started a Yahoo! mail account a while ago. This was meant to be just a throwaway/spam email account. However, because it was easy to pass around, I ended up depending on it quite heavily.
Since I didn't pay attention while filling the account creation form I am wondering if it is possible/how to change your Secret Question's answer. | 2016/05/24 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/93117",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/124364/"
] | 1. Go to Yahoo Mail. Visit the Yahoo Mail website using any web browser on your computer.
2. Sign In. Enter your Yahoo ID or username and password in the fields provided. Click the “Sign In” button to access your account.
3. Go to Account Info. Click the gear button on the top right corner of the page to display a menu. Select “Account Info” from here.
4. A new window or tab will open displaying your profile and account page. Your personal information are here, together with the account and security settings for your Yahoo account.
5. Update your password-reset info. Scroll to the “Sign-In and Security” section of the page, and click the “Update password-reset info” link from the options under the section.
6. View your current security questions. Another page will load displaying your current password reset options and info. Scroll down to the “Secret Questions” section to see your current two security questions.
7. You won’t see your answers to your two questions for your own security and privacy.
8. Change your questions and answers. Right under the questions is a “Change questions and answers” link. Click on it, and the two questions above it will change to drop-down lists containing several options for your security questions.
9. Set Secret Question 1. Click the drop-down list for Secret Question 1. Scroll through the list of questions, and click the one you’d like to use. Right under it is a text box. Input your answer to your first question.
10. Set Secret Question 2. Click the dropdown list for Secret Question 2. Scroll through the list of questions, and click the one you’d like to use. Right under it is a text box. Input your answer to your second question.
11. Save. Right under the questions is a “Save” link. Click on it. Your two questions and their corresponding answers will be saved and recorded by Yahoo.
12. You’ve now reset and changed your security questions. You may go back to your main window or tab for Yahoo Mail. | Yahoo has recently removed the security questions, instead they want your personal phone number. Here's some info [from a Yahoo rep in their Help forum](https://forums.yahoo.net/t5/Account-security/how-do-I-change-my-security-questions/td-p/11483):
>
> The security of your Yahoo account is our top priority. Because of account security advancements, you'll no longer need to protect your account using secret questions. Going forward, you won't be able to edit or add new security questions to your account.
>
>
> Instead of security questions, we recommend updating your account information and adding your alternate email address or mobile number. In the future, you can use your listed alternate email address or mobile number to confirm your identity and receive account recovery steps if you ever lose access to your account.
>
>
> |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | Heads up that [Bugsnag](https://www.bugsnag.com) released [official support for React Native](https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-react-native) to get crash and error data on both the js layer and the underlying OS.
It does handle minified JS using sourcemaps. These can be hosted by you and referenced from Bugsnag or hosted via Bugsnang's API. | Bug snag - <https://docs.bugsnag.com/platforms/react-native/react-native/>
Crashlytics - <https://www.npmjs.com/package/@react-native-firebase/crashlytics>
This are tools used for React native to report bugs. Hope it helps ! Thank you |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | Sentry and BugSnag both have dedicated SDKs for React Native:
<https://github.com/getsentry/react-native-sentry> ([doc](https://docs.sentry.io/clients/react-native/))
<https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-react-native> ([doc](https://docs.bugsnag.com/platforms/react-native/))
They both handle sourcemaps. | I know of two ways this is being done. First, Crashyltics. I use it, but it requires a few tweaks apparently to bubble up the javascript side of the fence. Here's a great article by delivery.com on what's involved with that...
[Add Crashlytics to your React Native iOS app](https://medium.com/delivery-com-engineering/add-crashlytics-to-your-react-native-ios-app-69a983a9062a#.dsnsvhk14)
Second, here's a react native integration with Sentry
[Sentry for React Native](https://docs.getsentry.com/hosted/clients/javascript/integrations/react-native/)
Hope you find these useful. |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | [TL/DR]
We created a react-native-bugsnag lib before the official bugsnag lib was out, but it's now deprecated.
Use the official instead.
[Long version]
~~We were also looking for a way to report errors on react-native and since I was not really happy with the existing solutions I found (Crashlytics, and sentry), me and Joshua Pinter decided to write our own implementation of a react-native module, that works with bugsnag.~~
Here it is: [react-native-bugsnag](https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-native-bugsnag).
It supports both **iOS/Java and Javascript** handled and unhanded crash reporting.
I hope you enjoy! | Bug snag - <https://docs.bugsnag.com/platforms/react-native/react-native/>
Crashlytics - <https://www.npmjs.com/package/@react-native-firebase/crashlytics>
This are tools used for React native to report bugs. Hope it helps ! Thank you |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | Sentry and BugSnag both have dedicated SDKs for React Native:
<https://github.com/getsentry/react-native-sentry> ([doc](https://docs.sentry.io/clients/react-native/))
<https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-react-native> ([doc](https://docs.bugsnag.com/platforms/react-native/))
They both handle sourcemaps. | Bug snag - <https://docs.bugsnag.com/platforms/react-native/react-native/>
Crashlytics - <https://www.npmjs.com/package/@react-native-firebase/crashlytics>
This are tools used for React native to report bugs. Hope it helps ! Thank you |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | [Instabug](https://instabug.com/) and [AppCenter](https://appcenter.ms/apps) now both provide react-native crash reporting tools with js de-obfuscation, but I haven't tested any of the 2 for crash reports. | Bug snag - <https://docs.bugsnag.com/platforms/react-native/react-native/>
Crashlytics - <https://www.npmjs.com/package/@react-native-firebase/crashlytics>
This are tools used for React native to report bugs. Hope it helps ! Thank you |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | Heads up that [Bugsnag](https://www.bugsnag.com) released [official support for React Native](https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-react-native) to get crash and error data on both the js layer and the underlying OS.
It does handle minified JS using sourcemaps. These can be hosted by you and referenced from Bugsnag or hosted via Bugsnang's API. | I know of two ways this is being done. First, Crashyltics. I use it, but it requires a few tweaks apparently to bubble up the javascript side of the fence. Here's a great article by delivery.com on what's involved with that...
[Add Crashlytics to your React Native iOS app](https://medium.com/delivery-com-engineering/add-crashlytics-to-your-react-native-ios-app-69a983a9062a#.dsnsvhk14)
Second, here's a react native integration with Sentry
[Sentry for React Native](https://docs.getsentry.com/hosted/clients/javascript/integrations/react-native/)
Hope you find these useful. |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | Heads up that [Bugsnag](https://www.bugsnag.com) released [official support for React Native](https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-react-native) to get crash and error data on both the js layer and the underlying OS.
It does handle minified JS using sourcemaps. These can be hosted by you and referenced from Bugsnag or hosted via Bugsnang's API. | [TL/DR]
We created a react-native-bugsnag lib before the official bugsnag lib was out, but it's now deprecated.
Use the official instead.
[Long version]
~~We were also looking for a way to report errors on react-native and since I was not really happy with the existing solutions I found (Crashlytics, and sentry), me and Joshua Pinter decided to write our own implementation of a react-native module, that works with bugsnag.~~
Here it is: [react-native-bugsnag](https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-native-bugsnag).
It supports both **iOS/Java and Javascript** handled and unhanded crash reporting.
I hope you enjoy! |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | Heads up that [Bugsnag](https://www.bugsnag.com) released [official support for React Native](https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-react-native) to get crash and error data on both the js layer and the underlying OS.
It does handle minified JS using sourcemaps. These can be hosted by you and referenced from Bugsnag or hosted via Bugsnang's API. | Also now React Native + Code Push + Bugsnag for a really pleasant bug fixing relationship
<https://blog.bugsnag.com/react-native-plus-code-push/> |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | Sentry and BugSnag both have dedicated SDKs for React Native:
<https://github.com/getsentry/react-native-sentry> ([doc](https://docs.sentry.io/clients/react-native/))
<https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-react-native> ([doc](https://docs.bugsnag.com/platforms/react-native/))
They both handle sourcemaps. | [Instabug](https://instabug.com/) and [AppCenter](https://appcenter.ms/apps) now both provide react-native crash reporting tools with js de-obfuscation, but I haven't tested any of the 2 for crash reports. |
35,504,630 | The normal tools we use for error tracking native apps don't really work since the crash reports contain minified js. The tools we use for web apps don't seem to support react native. Are there services that do support react native and if not do we have any other options to get useful crash reports? | 2016/02/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35504630",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/109306/"
] | [TL/DR]
We created a react-native-bugsnag lib before the official bugsnag lib was out, but it's now deprecated.
Use the official instead.
[Long version]
~~We were also looking for a way to report errors on react-native and since I was not really happy with the existing solutions I found (Crashlytics, and sentry), me and Joshua Pinter decided to write our own implementation of a react-native module, that works with bugsnag.~~
Here it is: [react-native-bugsnag](https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-native-bugsnag).
It supports both **iOS/Java and Javascript** handled and unhanded crash reporting.
I hope you enjoy! | Also now React Native + Code Push + Bugsnag for a really pleasant bug fixing relationship
<https://blog.bugsnag.com/react-native-plus-code-push/> |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | Essentially this is about low end carbon versus high end alloy. Carbon is typically lighter and less harsh (more vibration absorption) than alloy, but is not as robust. I doubt that the alloy is much heavier. I think it will come down to the difference in component quality and your budget.
Personally for a training bike I would probably go for the alloy, but that is driven by my financial situation. If the bikes are of similar price and the components are of the same quality, I would consider the carbon. However I would not trade component quality for a carbon frame.
Edit : Seven years after the answer was give.
Many of the techniques learn laying up carbon, and with advances in hydroforming alloy, have lead to allow alloy frames that are significantly cheaper to fabricate yet nearly as light (if not lighter) than low end carbon frames, while having the characteristics of stiffness and compliance where wanted. You can no longer discuss 'Carbon' and 'Non-Carbon' frames as most major manufacturers have 2, 3 or more variations of carbon from 'cheap and cheerful' to 'insanely light and expensive'. The cost saving in Alloy frames put into better components leads to a better bike for the same build cost. As carbon is considered more desirable by many, it fetches a higher price for the bike.
TL;DR when buying a bike, look at the whole bike, not just the frame. | If I were you I would satisfy myself as to the quality of the carbon frame of the bike you're considering, and provided it looks decent, to go down the carbon route.
The reason for this is just upgradeability. It is conceivable that as you become better and stronger on your first road bike, sooner or later you may find yourself asking the question "how can I make my bike faster?".
Now, for most of us the answer to this is to lose 10% in weight and 10% in body fat, but that's a different story ;-)
But when you start to think about upgrading parts, you've got your groupset, wheels etc. These things you can generally upgrade at your own pace, and as your budget allows. And they would apply to any bike, carbon or not.
I think if you have a non-carbon-framed bike, however, one of the big things to think about as regards an upgrade is the frame itself, i.e. basically buying yourself a new bike. And, of course, this will be pretty expensive and not really something you can do piecemeal.
In summary I would probably go for as good a frame as I could afford, and initially sacrifice things like groupset, just on the grounds that I can upgrade this kind of thing later as and when funds allow.
Incidentally I have a Giant TCR Advanced and think it is superb. I have no experience of the Defy but if the workmanship is like the TCR I doubt you'd be disappointed.
One last thing, since you say you're based in London and especially if cost is an issue....you could do a lot worse than looking at the Chris Boardman range out of Halfords. Just look at the awards these bikes win, you really do get a lot of bang for your buck. |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | I was faced with a similar situation about two years ago. I decided to go 2nd hand aluminum. The reason was that I didn't want to spend too much before I really knew what I wanted. There are several different types of road bicycle set-ups.
This is what I didn't know:
Will I want to ride long distances (100+ miles) or sprint races (30-40 miles) or just regular rides with friends (a couple of hours here and there). Each of these bikes would have a different set-up, material and geometry.
Will I ride a lot of hills? Would a compact crank or regular crank be better to my riding style?
Buy a used, but decent condition al bike. After 2000km, you'll have a good idea of what type of bicycle you want to spend real money on, and you'll be able to sell the current one for very little loss. If you don't sell it, then you have a winter trainer for use inside. And in the all too familiar case that you buy the bike and rarely use it, you didn't spend 1500 to 2000 on something that just takes up room in your garage. | Quality-wise bikes are a lot like chains. The total quality of a bike (where with quality I mean stuff like durability, smoothness, ease of use, ease of maintenance, etc.) is very dependent on the weakest link.
An expensive frame with cheap components makes for a worse bike than a mid-range frame with mid-range components. So given the choice I'd go for the (relatively) cheaper frame with the (relatively) more expensive components, all dependend on what I actually wanted to spend on the bike.
There are "ride quality" differences between carbon and aluminium and steel. Carbon is usually less stiff, so the ride is a bit more comfortable. Steel has the same properties as carbon and is more durable, aliminium is usually a lot stiffer and hence the ride is harsher. For that reason you get aluminium frames with carbon fork and stays. The main disadvantage of steel is of course weight, but you have to look at this critically. The 0.5-1 kg weight reduction you get by going from a really good and durable steel to a carbon frame disappears in the 15-20 kg of fat you are lugging around anyway, and unless you plan to go ride a lot of serious races you will never notcie the small gain of the lighter frame.
Where I'm going with this: In the standard bikes you buy the frame is often of higher quality (and price) compared to the other components. You can get a better bike for less money if you pay attention to this when buying your bike. Spending some time talking this over with you friendly LBS owner will help here. |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | Personally id rather have top quality aluminium than cheap entry level carbon.
Whatever you choose, don't go daft with the upgrades-save your money and get a really nice carbon number in a year or two.
Entry level bikes are great when starting out. You can strip them, fit new parts by yourself, which obviously is a great thing to learn, but if you dive right in and buy an expensive bike you would be very hesitant to start working on it yourself.
Also, if you join a club and keep getting dropped then its only to be expected. Turn up with an s-works with di2 dura ace however, then not only would you feel a bit of a plonker getting beat by old guys on old raleighs, but I'm sure they'd also take great pleasure from it!
Whatever you choose/chose, good luck and happy cycling! | Or, as I have done numerous times, buy a good used bike from a Local Bike Shop that has a good frame that you think you will enjoy long term, and reasonable components. Then you can ride, at a good price, with good stuff, and you can decide what to upgrade and when. Last time I bought a complete bike was 1999. I am riding 3 different bikes right now, a 1998 Merlin Ti, a 2004 Merlin Ti/Carbon and a 2008 Merlin Ti, none of which I paid more than $2300 for, and each are now worth a lot more due to upgrades over the years, on my schedule and budget.
All personal choice, but I've been pretty happy... |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | Essentially this is about low end carbon versus high end alloy. Carbon is typically lighter and less harsh (more vibration absorption) than alloy, but is not as robust. I doubt that the alloy is much heavier. I think it will come down to the difference in component quality and your budget.
Personally for a training bike I would probably go for the alloy, but that is driven by my financial situation. If the bikes are of similar price and the components are of the same quality, I would consider the carbon. However I would not trade component quality for a carbon frame.
Edit : Seven years after the answer was give.
Many of the techniques learn laying up carbon, and with advances in hydroforming alloy, have lead to allow alloy frames that are significantly cheaper to fabricate yet nearly as light (if not lighter) than low end carbon frames, while having the characteristics of stiffness and compliance where wanted. You can no longer discuss 'Carbon' and 'Non-Carbon' frames as most major manufacturers have 2, 3 or more variations of carbon from 'cheap and cheerful' to 'insanely light and expensive'. The cost saving in Alloy frames put into better components leads to a better bike for the same build cost. As carbon is considered more desirable by many, it fetches a higher price for the bike.
TL;DR when buying a bike, look at the whole bike, not just the frame. | From <http://www.livestrong.com/article/86919-aluminum-vs.-carbon-bikes/> (I can't testify to the accuracy of this)
>
> Aluminum frames possess the shortest fatigue life of any material used
> to manufacture bicycle frames. The typical aluminum frame possesses a
> life expectancy of five to 10 years. Conversely, carbon possesses the
> longest fatigue life. Most manufacturers provide a lifetime warranty
> on carbon frames. Some manufacturers offer a lifetime warranty on
> their aluminum frames, but most offer five to 10 years.
>
>
> |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | One thing that I have found is you can usually get a lighter weight bike if you go with top-level aluminum over a low-level carbon. The low-level carbon frames tend to have a lot of fiberglass mixed in to keep the cost down and the components are much cheaper too which will weigh a lot more. I think it's kind of funny that everyone looks down on my aluminum bike and yet it weighs less than their carbon bikes that cost twice as much! I have owned carbon, steel and aluminum bikes | Quality-wise bikes are a lot like chains. The total quality of a bike (where with quality I mean stuff like durability, smoothness, ease of use, ease of maintenance, etc.) is very dependent on the weakest link.
An expensive frame with cheap components makes for a worse bike than a mid-range frame with mid-range components. So given the choice I'd go for the (relatively) cheaper frame with the (relatively) more expensive components, all dependend on what I actually wanted to spend on the bike.
There are "ride quality" differences between carbon and aluminium and steel. Carbon is usually less stiff, so the ride is a bit more comfortable. Steel has the same properties as carbon and is more durable, aliminium is usually a lot stiffer and hence the ride is harsher. For that reason you get aluminium frames with carbon fork and stays. The main disadvantage of steel is of course weight, but you have to look at this critically. The 0.5-1 kg weight reduction you get by going from a really good and durable steel to a carbon frame disappears in the 15-20 kg of fat you are lugging around anyway, and unless you plan to go ride a lot of serious races you will never notcie the small gain of the lighter frame.
Where I'm going with this: In the standard bikes you buy the frame is often of higher quality (and price) compared to the other components. You can get a better bike for less money if you pay attention to this when buying your bike. Spending some time talking this over with you friendly LBS owner will help here. |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | Or, as I have done numerous times, buy a good used bike from a Local Bike Shop that has a good frame that you think you will enjoy long term, and reasonable components. Then you can ride, at a good price, with good stuff, and you can decide what to upgrade and when. Last time I bought a complete bike was 1999. I am riding 3 different bikes right now, a 1998 Merlin Ti, a 2004 Merlin Ti/Carbon and a 2008 Merlin Ti, none of which I paid more than $2300 for, and each are now worth a lot more due to upgrades over the years, on my schedule and budget.
All personal choice, but I've been pretty happy... | You are better off buying a Reynolds steel or chromoly steel road bike. Do not believe the hype about carbon fiber. You can buy a steel bicycle just as good or even better than the CF bicycle. |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | One thing that I have found is you can usually get a lighter weight bike if you go with top-level aluminum over a low-level carbon. The low-level carbon frames tend to have a lot of fiberglass mixed in to keep the cost down and the components are much cheaper too which will weigh a lot more. I think it's kind of funny that everyone looks down on my aluminum bike and yet it weighs less than their carbon bikes that cost twice as much! I have owned carbon, steel and aluminum bikes | Or, as I have done numerous times, buy a good used bike from a Local Bike Shop that has a good frame that you think you will enjoy long term, and reasonable components. Then you can ride, at a good price, with good stuff, and you can decide what to upgrade and when. Last time I bought a complete bike was 1999. I am riding 3 different bikes right now, a 1998 Merlin Ti, a 2004 Merlin Ti/Carbon and a 2008 Merlin Ti, none of which I paid more than $2300 for, and each are now worth a lot more due to upgrades over the years, on my schedule and budget.
All personal choice, but I've been pretty happy... |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | Essentially this is about low end carbon versus high end alloy. Carbon is typically lighter and less harsh (more vibration absorption) than alloy, but is not as robust. I doubt that the alloy is much heavier. I think it will come down to the difference in component quality and your budget.
Personally for a training bike I would probably go for the alloy, but that is driven by my financial situation. If the bikes are of similar price and the components are of the same quality, I would consider the carbon. However I would not trade component quality for a carbon frame.
Edit : Seven years after the answer was give.
Many of the techniques learn laying up carbon, and with advances in hydroforming alloy, have lead to allow alloy frames that are significantly cheaper to fabricate yet nearly as light (if not lighter) than low end carbon frames, while having the characteristics of stiffness and compliance where wanted. You can no longer discuss 'Carbon' and 'Non-Carbon' frames as most major manufacturers have 2, 3 or more variations of carbon from 'cheap and cheerful' to 'insanely light and expensive'. The cost saving in Alloy frames put into better components leads to a better bike for the same build cost. As carbon is considered more desirable by many, it fetches a higher price for the bike.
TL;DR when buying a bike, look at the whole bike, not just the frame. | Personally id rather have top quality aluminium than cheap entry level carbon.
Whatever you choose, don't go daft with the upgrades-save your money and get a really nice carbon number in a year or two.
Entry level bikes are great when starting out. You can strip them, fit new parts by yourself, which obviously is a great thing to learn, but if you dive right in and buy an expensive bike you would be very hesitant to start working on it yourself.
Also, if you join a club and keep getting dropped then its only to be expected. Turn up with an s-works with di2 dura ace however, then not only would you feel a bit of a plonker getting beat by old guys on old raleighs, but I'm sure they'd also take great pleasure from it!
Whatever you choose/chose, good luck and happy cycling! |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | From <http://www.livestrong.com/article/86919-aluminum-vs.-carbon-bikes/> (I can't testify to the accuracy of this)
>
> Aluminum frames possess the shortest fatigue life of any material used
> to manufacture bicycle frames. The typical aluminum frame possesses a
> life expectancy of five to 10 years. Conversely, carbon possesses the
> longest fatigue life. Most manufacturers provide a lifetime warranty
> on carbon frames. Some manufacturers offer a lifetime warranty on
> their aluminum frames, but most offer five to 10 years.
>
>
> | This is a very interesting question. Aluminum vs Carbon. Will it be long before the two are in the same price range - on it's way in the very near future. I have an Aluminum and a Carbon frame road bike. The aluminum bike has a longer wheelbase, more relaxed seat angle (72.5 vs 74 degrees) and square formed stays, and deflects most of the bumps and vibration almost as well as the CF frame.
I'd say geometry, and even more, exact fit, within 1cm or less, are slightly more important than material for comfort, efficiency and handling.
Calculate your frame sized based on Steve Potts bike fit theory. If you are 5'5 or shorter, divide your height in cm by 3.3, 5'6 to 5'10 divide by 3.2, and taller, divide by 3.1 to get your correct frame size. It works. |
15,395 | I am going to buy my first proper road bike, and I have been comparing entry-level carbon frames with top-level aluminum frames in the same series (Giant Defy). What are the benefits of carbon vs. aluminum frames? Is it better to get an aluminum bike with higher-end components or a similarly priced carbon bike with lower-end components? | 2013/04/21 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/5953/"
] | Essentially this is about low end carbon versus high end alloy. Carbon is typically lighter and less harsh (more vibration absorption) than alloy, but is not as robust. I doubt that the alloy is much heavier. I think it will come down to the difference in component quality and your budget.
Personally for a training bike I would probably go for the alloy, but that is driven by my financial situation. If the bikes are of similar price and the components are of the same quality, I would consider the carbon. However I would not trade component quality for a carbon frame.
Edit : Seven years after the answer was give.
Many of the techniques learn laying up carbon, and with advances in hydroforming alloy, have lead to allow alloy frames that are significantly cheaper to fabricate yet nearly as light (if not lighter) than low end carbon frames, while having the characteristics of stiffness and compliance where wanted. You can no longer discuss 'Carbon' and 'Non-Carbon' frames as most major manufacturers have 2, 3 or more variations of carbon from 'cheap and cheerful' to 'insanely light and expensive'. The cost saving in Alloy frames put into better components leads to a better bike for the same build cost. As carbon is considered more desirable by many, it fetches a higher price for the bike.
TL;DR when buying a bike, look at the whole bike, not just the frame. | One thing that I have found is you can usually get a lighter weight bike if you go with top-level aluminum over a low-level carbon. The low-level carbon frames tend to have a lot of fiberglass mixed in to keep the cost down and the components are much cheaper too which will weigh a lot more. I think it's kind of funny that everyone looks down on my aluminum bike and yet it weighs less than their carbon bikes that cost twice as much! I have owned carbon, steel and aluminum bikes |
158,501 | I am obliged to hand in an an exposé outlining my PhD project in mathematics, including some kind of working plan. Since it is [answered here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/130253/75016) and since it can be easily found on the internet, I have some understanding about what such a working plan should look like.
However, when it comes to fleshing this out, I have large difficulties. But I am sure that I am not the first would-be mathematician writing a working plan in the world, so how do others do it?
**What I struggle with.** For instance, I have no idea of what I want to achieve within the (expected) three years of my studies, and apparently, since we fixed a very broad working title for my thesis, neither has my supervisor. My Master's was in a different field with only minor connections to the one I am about to start my PhD in.
Therefore, I expect that I spend the first weeks or months getting used to the field, reading literature, working on small problems of which hopefully one turns out to be interesting and fruitful enough to build a theses on.
But I have no idea how to foresee when I will be done with spending most of my time on literature, when I will have solved which problem and finished the proof for what theorem, when I will start compiling my results into a thesis, when to write which chapter of it or when I will hand in a paper with what title to which journal.
**How I've solved the problem in the past.** To my shame, I have to admit that when writing my Master's thesis, I had not made any plan either. I just worked into the day and in the end, there was a thesis. I am aware that this is a very inefficient working style, but apparently, expectations towards my thesis were low enough such that it worked out. I expect that for a PhD, working in such an unstructured fashion does not work out any more; therefore, I am actually motivated to give my work more structure. | 2020/11/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/158501",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75016/"
] | **If you don’t have at least one research problem, you can’t write a plan.**
That’s the core of your difficulty (based on your comment in which you explained that you don’t have a research problem). A plan is the articulation of what your objectives are and how you think you might achieve them. But you don’t actually have any concrete objectives. So the idea of writing a plan is unattainable - you’re not even in a position to get started doing this. It is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
Now, let’s talk about what a research problem actually is in pure mathematics. You mention proving a conjecture, that’s certainly a type of research problem and the most concrete and well-defined one. If someone asks you to come up with a research problem, stating that you want to prove someone’s conjecture is the easiest type of problem to come up with, but on the other hand it’s probably the hardest to actually solve since presumably other people are also trying and have not yet succeeded. So for a PhD project it’s perfectly acceptable (and usually advisable) to be a bit less ambitious and have slightly less concrete goals. Such goals can be along the lines of:
* Improve a known result from the literature, by weakening the hypotheses and/or strengthening the conclusion.
(E.g., if Jones proved that all infinitely differentiable frombloids are magnabulous and you manage to prove that it’s enough to assume only seven times differentiability, you’ve improved on Jones’ result.)
* Prove an analogue of a known result
(E.g., “all p-adic frombloids are semi-magnabulous in the Smith topology”, when you are the first to study p-adic frombloids but are guided by Jones’s ideas in the differentiable case.)
* Prove a variant of a known result with stronger hypotheses and stronger conclusions, or weaker hypotheses and weaker conclusions, or hypotheses that are neither strictly stronger nor strictly weaker than the original.
* Sharpen a numerical constant in a known result
(E.g., “the fractal dimension of a magnabulous frombloid is bounded by 17.781”, when Jones proved the bound 27.13)
* Prove (or disprove) a converse to a known result
* Etc etc.
Now, the point here is that research problems exist on a spectrum of vagueness-concreteness. It’s okay to not have a completely accurate idea of what it is that you want to prove when you get started (as someone said, that’s what makes it research). Very experienced researchers even sometimes start thinking about a research area with a completely vague goal of the type “I want to understand [research area/class of objects/etc] better” (I know that I sometimes do this myself). But there’s a strong caveat here: you are a PhD student. A goal that is suitable for an experienced (not to mention tenured) researcher is not necessarily suitable as one that a PhD student should be given to try and solve with the expectation that there will be a reasonably high likelihood of success. And specifically, for a PhD student I think it’s pretty essential that the goal should be fairly concrete. Just “I want to understand X better” is not a recipe for success at your stage, and in fact even for experienced researchers it often leads nowhere.
So what should you do? **Talk to your advisor.** Explain to them that you think the project should be fleshed out some more before you begin writing your exposé and that you need some actual, specific problems. It is their responsibility to help you find problems that are suitable to work on; ideally you should have not just one but at least three or four fairly concrete goals, of a more or less realistic level of difficulty for your level of training when you start out. If your advisor isn’t able to help you come up with some ideas like that and bring you to a point where you can start putting a plan on paper, sadly they are probably not a very good advisor, and you might have more serious things to worry about for the future of your project than just the current difficulties with writing the plan. Anyway, hope this helps and good luck! | I think the whole concept of planning research is misleading. If you can make a detailed plan, maybe even including the results, then it's craftsmanship and not research. E.g. try to devise a plan for proving the Collatz conjecture.
But as your PhD program seems to have a fixed run time of three years, it's good to create a schedule for yourself, how much time you want to spend for literature survey, for pinning down the exact thesis topic, for research, for writing down the thesis, and so on. You can see this schedule as a friendly reminder before you get into trouble for e.g. spending too much time on preliminaries.
But don't be too surprised if your progress doesn't match your schedule. After all, doing a PhD means researching something that hasn't been done before.
And always keep in contact with your supervisor. |
158,501 | I am obliged to hand in an an exposé outlining my PhD project in mathematics, including some kind of working plan. Since it is [answered here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/130253/75016) and since it can be easily found on the internet, I have some understanding about what such a working plan should look like.
However, when it comes to fleshing this out, I have large difficulties. But I am sure that I am not the first would-be mathematician writing a working plan in the world, so how do others do it?
**What I struggle with.** For instance, I have no idea of what I want to achieve within the (expected) three years of my studies, and apparently, since we fixed a very broad working title for my thesis, neither has my supervisor. My Master's was in a different field with only minor connections to the one I am about to start my PhD in.
Therefore, I expect that I spend the first weeks or months getting used to the field, reading literature, working on small problems of which hopefully one turns out to be interesting and fruitful enough to build a theses on.
But I have no idea how to foresee when I will be done with spending most of my time on literature, when I will have solved which problem and finished the proof for what theorem, when I will start compiling my results into a thesis, when to write which chapter of it or when I will hand in a paper with what title to which journal.
**How I've solved the problem in the past.** To my shame, I have to admit that when writing my Master's thesis, I had not made any plan either. I just worked into the day and in the end, there was a thesis. I am aware that this is a very inefficient working style, but apparently, expectations towards my thesis were low enough such that it worked out. I expect that for a PhD, working in such an unstructured fashion does not work out any more; therefore, I am actually motivated to give my work more structure. | 2020/11/05 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/158501",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75016/"
] | **If you don’t have at least one research problem, you can’t write a plan.**
That’s the core of your difficulty (based on your comment in which you explained that you don’t have a research problem). A plan is the articulation of what your objectives are and how you think you might achieve them. But you don’t actually have any concrete objectives. So the idea of writing a plan is unattainable - you’re not even in a position to get started doing this. It is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
Now, let’s talk about what a research problem actually is in pure mathematics. You mention proving a conjecture, that’s certainly a type of research problem and the most concrete and well-defined one. If someone asks you to come up with a research problem, stating that you want to prove someone’s conjecture is the easiest type of problem to come up with, but on the other hand it’s probably the hardest to actually solve since presumably other people are also trying and have not yet succeeded. So for a PhD project it’s perfectly acceptable (and usually advisable) to be a bit less ambitious and have slightly less concrete goals. Such goals can be along the lines of:
* Improve a known result from the literature, by weakening the hypotheses and/or strengthening the conclusion.
(E.g., if Jones proved that all infinitely differentiable frombloids are magnabulous and you manage to prove that it’s enough to assume only seven times differentiability, you’ve improved on Jones’ result.)
* Prove an analogue of a known result
(E.g., “all p-adic frombloids are semi-magnabulous in the Smith topology”, when you are the first to study p-adic frombloids but are guided by Jones’s ideas in the differentiable case.)
* Prove a variant of a known result with stronger hypotheses and stronger conclusions, or weaker hypotheses and weaker conclusions, or hypotheses that are neither strictly stronger nor strictly weaker than the original.
* Sharpen a numerical constant in a known result
(E.g., “the fractal dimension of a magnabulous frombloid is bounded by 17.781”, when Jones proved the bound 27.13)
* Prove (or disprove) a converse to a known result
* Etc etc.
Now, the point here is that research problems exist on a spectrum of vagueness-concreteness. It’s okay to not have a completely accurate idea of what it is that you want to prove when you get started (as someone said, that’s what makes it research). Very experienced researchers even sometimes start thinking about a research area with a completely vague goal of the type “I want to understand [research area/class of objects/etc] better” (I know that I sometimes do this myself). But there’s a strong caveat here: you are a PhD student. A goal that is suitable for an experienced (not to mention tenured) researcher is not necessarily suitable as one that a PhD student should be given to try and solve with the expectation that there will be a reasonably high likelihood of success. And specifically, for a PhD student I think it’s pretty essential that the goal should be fairly concrete. Just “I want to understand X better” is not a recipe for success at your stage, and in fact even for experienced researchers it often leads nowhere.
So what should you do? **Talk to your advisor.** Explain to them that you think the project should be fleshed out some more before you begin writing your exposé and that you need some actual, specific problems. It is their responsibility to help you find problems that are suitable to work on; ideally you should have not just one but at least three or four fairly concrete goals, of a more or less realistic level of difficulty for your level of training when you start out. If your advisor isn’t able to help you come up with some ideas like that and bring you to a point where you can start putting a plan on paper, sadly they are probably not a very good advisor, and you might have more serious things to worry about for the future of your project than just the current difficulties with writing the plan. Anyway, hope this helps and good luck! | This may seem like a joke, but it isn't intended as such. I'll give you an algorithm.
1. Find a problem that seems suitable.
2. Work like crazy to try to solve that problem, either establishing a proof of correctness or a counterexample. Spend enough time and effort at this to determine whether it should be successful (either way) in a reasonable amount of time.
3. If you succeed at step 2 determine whether the result is significant (again, either way). If it is not significant, go back to step 1.
4. If you don't succeed in a reasonable amount of time, go back to step 1.
5. You were successful in establishing a significant result, either positive or negative. Write it up. End.
Along the way use your advisor as necessary and consult the literature as necessary. This is especially true for step 1. Others can help as well if you have a math seminar available for general discussions on problems and ideas.
My own doctorate in math required three passes through step 1. The first pass resulted in a lot of insignificant theorems. The work was abandoned. The second pass was a total block. Nothing could be learned. Back to step 1. The third pass got me to step 5 and my degree. Quite a nice result if I do say so myself. My advisor was helpful in step 1 (each time) and in validating my judgement about the three attempts.
And note that step 1 can be the hardest step of all, since you take it at the time you know very little. Things that seem to be one thing turn out to be something different.
While I called this an "algorithm" it has some indeterminate parts, especially the time and effort part. No one can schedule "success" in research. It is a dive into the unknown. A voyage where no one has gone before. It might also fail to be an algorithm if you fail at some step, such as 1 or 2. Some people refuse to give up a problem when they should.
To make step 2 reasonable, work on some schedule that is fairly intense but includes breaks so that it doesn't negatively impact your mental or physical health. Or your personal relationships.
---
At step 4 write up what you think you have learned in a notebook that you can return to later if you get some inspiration. |
2,821,878 | Dose nHibernate play well with database level cascading deletions? What I mean is that if I have a constraint set at the RDBMS level to cascade delete all orphans, will nHibernate invoke any custom delete logic at the application level if I were to delete an entity though nHibernate? Or should I remove the cascading deletions from the RDBMS level and just use the cascading delete feature of nHibernate itself by defining that behavior though its configuration?
Thanks | 2010/05/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2821878",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | NHibernate simply treats your RDBMS as a data store. In most cases, this means that you can let NHibernate do the work for you.
**Let NHibernate do the cascading deletes.** That way you can keep your logic and control where it belongs (in your application), rather than in the database where your application has little control or flexibility.
EDIT:
ON DELETE CASCADE does not always exhibit great performance with NHibernate. You have to be very careful what the cascade settings of your collection associations are set to. See this article: <http://eddii.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/hibernate-on-deletecascade-performance/>
Unless performance is a big issue for you, it's generally cleaner and less problematic to let NHibernate do the work. Jamie Ide correctly points out:
>
> As with triggers, NHibernate will not
> know that the database representation
> of an object has changed due to a
> database operation. I would avoid
> using them for this reason in most
> cases.
>
>
> | It depends what you mean by "play well". You can use cascading deletes with NHibernate but you need to be careful to refresh objects that may be affected by cascading deletes. As with triggers, NHibernate will not know that the database representation of an object has changed due to a database operation. I would avoid using them for this reason in most cases. |
321,460 | I have an issue using the following versions
Chrome 65.0.3325.181 (Official Build) (64-bit)
MacOS Sierra 10.12.6
When I open a new tab, sometimes all my bluetooth devices (headphones, mouse, keyboard) become disconnected. They come back in ~5 minutes, resetting devices or the bluetooth module doesn't help | 2018/04/04 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/321460",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/190739/"
] | The issue was in the voice search ("OK Google")
When a user opens a new tab, Chrome sometimes tries to access microphone to use voice search which breaks bluetooth connectivity.
Resolution:
Go to [chrome://flags/](http://chrome://flags/) and disable option **"Enable Voice Search on the local NTP"** | Experience this issue after macOS Ventura update but it could've happened to anyone depending on the Handoff configuration. If you're using an Apple device, try this:
Go to **System Setting** > **General** > **Airdrop & Handoff** and ensure this is all turned off.
If it doesn't work, try other troubleshooting but this did work for me.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8jkF.png "Screenshot of the 'Airdrop & Handoff' settings") |
142,870 | We've got a dispute on the point whether the phrase should be "What you are talking about." or "What are you talking about." in the affirmative sentence.
I was arguing that it should be the former, and the word-order is not so important in that phrase, is it?
Help us solve the dispute, please :) | 2013/12/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/142870",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/60280/"
] | In English, "What you are talking about" is not correct at all unless you were saying:
>
> "What you are talking about is....."
>
>
>
It would always be "What *are* you talking about?" in a question. | In English, an interrogative clause is marked by **subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI)**, a process in which a subject and auxiliary verb switch places. Here, the auxiliary verb is *are*, and the subject is *you*:
1. Declarative clause (subject and auxiliary in basic position):
>
> **You are** talking about *something*.
>
>
>
2. Interrogative clause (subject and auxiliary inverted):
>
> **Are you** talking about *something*?
>
>
>
A typical question takes the form of an interrogative clause. When it contains an interrogative phrase (containing or consisting of a *wh*-word such as *what*) that is not in subject position, that interrogative phrase is typically **fronted**, meaning it's moved to the front of the clause:
>
> 1. **You are** talking about *something*.
>
> 2. **You are** talking about *what*?
>
> 3. *what**i* **you are** talking about \_\_\_\_*i*
>
> 4. *What**i* **are you** talking about \_\_\_\_*i* ?
>
>
>
In 2, *what* is the object of the preposition *about*; when we move it to the front of the clause, it leaves behind a **gap** which cannot be filled. In 3 and 4, the *wh*-word is understood as if it were the object of the preposition *about*, even though it doesn't actually occupy that position. (I've marked both the gap and the *wh*-word with the index *i* to indicate that they refer to the same thing.)
In 3, we have a *wh*-relative clause. It could be used as part of a larger sentence, but it's not a complete sentence itself, so I didn't capitalize it or put punctuation at the end. In 4, because the subject and auxiliary have switched places, we have an interrogative clause--a complete sentence and a question.
Unlike an interrogative clause, a *wh*-relative clause cannot have the subject and auxiliary inverted:
>
> 5. (I have) no idea [ *what**i* **you are** talking about \_\_\_\_*i* ]*wh*-relative .
>
> 6. \*(I have) no idea [ *what**i* **are you** talking about \_\_\_\_*i* ]*wh*-relative .
>
>
>
For this reason, example 5 is grammatical, while example 6 is not. (I've placed the words *I have* in parentheses because they were omitted from your original sentence, but it makes no difference grammatically.) |
72,819 | <https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/us/yale-student-napping-black-trnd/index.html>
From what I've read, Connecticut is not a stop and identify state.
However, I understand that people are required to identify if police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed (but if there is no such suspicion, they are not required to identify even in stop and identify states)
But does it qualify as reasonable suspicion that another student called police and said Siyonbola "appeared they weren’t … where they were supposed to be"?
And if so, what laws might be put into place to protect individuals from situations like this where someone makes a prejudiced police complaint against them? | 2021/09/15 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/72819",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/4773/"
] | Since the incident was on private property (inside a building), a person does not have the same right to be there that you would have on the street outside the building. Yale police therefore can legally make a determination whether a person is trespassing (for example, by asking for identification), especially when there is an allegation that a person is trespassing. A law holding a person criminally or civilly liable for reporting their "suspicions" to the government without e.g. "reasonable suspicion" could easily run afoul of the First Amendment. | Yale University is private property. The Yale Police Department and administrators can ask anyone at anytime to identify themselves.
The police responded to a complaint; they can't evaluate a complaint for "reasonable suspicion" or lack thereof until they investigate and talk to all involved parties. The officers investigated and then "...admonished the student who called police, saying Siyonbola had every right to be present..."
Yale spokeswoman Karen Peart told CNN, “We believe the Yale police who responded followed procedures.”
>
> "what laws might be put into place to protect individuals from
> situations like this..."
>
>
>
Again, Yale is private property. |
14,401,559 | Example:
I have a tab "books" with "id" (int autoincrement) as primary key,
name, author, price etc...(not important). There's 5 books and I delete the book with id=3.
When I add other books the autoincrement value will start from 6 and there's a missed 3 in the id sequence (1 2 4 5 6). So multiple delete/add can create a tab with missing id values if I don't set the autoincrement value or I don't reassign id to books.
Can the situation with missing numbers in id create lowering of performance in queries? | 2013/01/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14401559",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1845162/"
] | You don't need to worry about performance with missing auto-increment values.
Just make sure you choose the proper [data type](http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/numeric-types.html#integer-types) for the auto-increment column so you do not run out of values. | Thats okay with auto-increment. A normal integer field would do the job for a very big amount of data. You could use "unsigned" option to increase this amount. |
137,757 | * I always have doubts about sentences such as:
>
> The subway is not so far **from the restaurant and from the hotel** where I decided to stay for a couple of days.
>
>
>
* Is it feasible to write instead:
>
> The subway is not so far **from the restaurant and the hotel** where I decided to stay for a couple of days.
>
>
>
* What about:
>
> The subway is not so far **from restaurant and hotel** where I decided to stay for a couple of days.
>
>
> | 2013/11/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137757",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Grammatically, you can do this. With one exception: you cannot drop the article "the" from both words. A single "the" will distribute over both:
>
> The subway is not so far from (((*the* (restaurant and hotel)) where I decided to stay) for a couple of days).
>
>
>
Don't put in the parentheses: they are my annotation. Its purpose is to show the semantic problem. The sentence implies that the restaurant and hotel are a unit. There is a single distance from the restaurant-plus-hotel combo to the subway. Moreover, your sentence says that you stayed in the restaurant-plus-hotel combo for a few days.
The original sentence does not imply that the hotel and the restaurant are the same building. Its structure is roughly like this:
>
> The subway is not so far (from the restaurant) and (from the (hotel where I decided to stay for a couple of days)).
>
>
> [ The subway is not so far from the restaurant. It is also not so far from the hotel where I decided to stay for a couple of days. ]
>
>
>
If we distribute the article *the*, it helps to at least clear up that you did not stay in the restaurant and hotel, but just in the hotel. The interpretation also now steers toward that of the original sentence: that the restaurant and hotel are separate.
>
> The subway is not so far from (*the* restaurant) and (((*the* hotel) where I decided to stay) for a couple of days).
>
>
>
This actually illustrates an important syntactic/semantic power of English articles that doesn't seem to receive a lot of attention. | **The subway is not too from either the restaurant or the hotel, that I stayed at for a couple of days.**
Not so sure about brevity, but this makes it a little less ambiguous and better structured. |
6,112,777 | `
Hi,
I have requirement of using my own background and blue light for toggle button.
However, using this i am not able to custom position light of toggle button which is always placed to the bottom of button.
I want to move it above and just below center of button.
I tried with paddingBottom but that did not help. Any help regarding this appreciated.
-Thanks,
Manju | 2011/05/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6112777",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/612465/"
] | That light is part of the nine-patch png. If you create new backgrounds, you need to add your own "on" and "off" circles to the file. You then use the border lines of the nine-patch to prevent stretching of the circle.
<http://developer.android.com/guide/developing/tools/draw9patch.html>
Read also my answer here for another explanation: [How to create android spinner without down triangle on the right side of the widget](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4058360/how-to-create-android-spinner-without-down-triangle-on-the-right-side-of-the-widg/5928041#5928041) | Use a relativeLayout and do android:layout\_Below, if I understand your question correctly |
6,112,777 | `
Hi,
I have requirement of using my own background and blue light for toggle button.
However, using this i am not able to custom position light of toggle button which is always placed to the bottom of button.
I want to move it above and just below center of button.
I tried with paddingBottom but that did not help. Any help regarding this appreciated.
-Thanks,
Manju | 2011/05/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6112777",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/612465/"
] | Use a LayerList and position the graphic on the toggle button by enclosing the drawable in a bitmap tag, and set its gravity to 'center' - see [LayerList here](http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/drawable-resource.html#LayerList) | Use a relativeLayout and do android:layout\_Below, if I understand your question correctly |
58,989,392 | I have a story board file as the launch screen. I have set image in button background Image. In that image, I have an image set for light and dark mode. but when I switch to dark mode, it always shows light mode image. | 2019/11/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/58989392",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | I'm not sure if you still need an answer to this, but I recently had the same issue.
For me, what fixed this was to uncheck the box 'Preserve Vector Data' within the image set properties. This means resizing won't work on the vector image, but you will see the image change with light/dark mode toggled within the storyboard.
Alternatively if I go back and check 'Preserve Vector Data' (back to the original state) the Dark image will display when the app is running if the simulator phone is in Dark mode. | Make sure you have enabled Appearance to Any, Dark. And check that you have added images for dark mode appearance.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/q73Uy.png) |
27,738,407 | I read a good post [here](http://www.binpress.com/tutorial/using-android-media-style-notifications-with-media-session-controls/165) on how to use notification buttons to interact with a mediaplayer service to play, pause, skip etc.
The [android doc](http://developer.android.com/reference/android/media/session/MediaSessionManager.html) says this was introduced in API level 21, does anyone know the alternatives for this for lower API level? How does this work on lower API level devices? | 2015/01/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27738407",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4411645/"
] | This is the best answer I've found so far: <https://stackoverflow.com/a/26474423/785716>
It seems that the two methods aren't really backwards compatible at all. | An updated version of [MediaSessionCompat](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/support/v4/media/session/MediaSessionCompat.html) was recently released that uses RemoteControlClient for APIs levels 14-20. Unfortunately, there is no Compat version of MediaSessionManager at this time. |
8,248 | Hi All,
I have been looking at moving me stereo short doco films with background music to a surround experience. At the moment the design is fairly simple, interview vocals center and music as it comes from the artist (stereo). What can you guys suggest to move the music towards using a full surround experience. I am looking at subtle exposure, not over the top use of the surround stems without compromising the original quality of the music. The sound effects are more natural to mix, so I am not too fussed about them.
I hope that makes sense. | 2011/05/26 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/8248",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/830/"
] | The way I normally start when mixing music for 5.1 (mostly in feature films, but sometimes also in documentaries), is to pull the music slightly towards the center, so that it isn't strictly L-R but more L-R with a little bit of center, so you don't get too much of the "hole in the middle" syndrome. Sometimes I pull it back a little too.
Normally I then apply a hall reverb to the surround speakers, leaving it pretty dry in the front and almost totally wet in the surrounds. This way the music surrounds you without having too much of the direct sound coming from behind you.
I will also send some of the music to the LFE channel.
If I have stereo stems of the music available, I will pan the softer elements more to the back than the percussive elements, and be more selective about which tracks I feed to the LFE channel. If there's no particular bass information in the channel, there is no need to send it to the sub.
The more tracks I have available for mixing, the more specifically I will pan them across the LCR front, for instance narrowing the bass down to the center channel (and LFE of course), or pinpointing the close mics of the orchestra across the screen. I may also use an extra reverb in the front, to give the narrower sounds a bit of spread. I will also narrow the reverb a bit so it isn't strictly LR.
The real advantage when mixing in 5.1 compared to stereo is in my opinion more the enriched clarity and higher fidelity that comes from using more speakers, than it is the fact that you can have sound coming from behind. | The simplest solution is to worldize sections using subtle reverb and send that to the surrounds. You have to be careful what you send to the surrounds and how often as sounds arriving from behind the audience can often make listeners feel uncomfortable.
I would leave the music as left and right and move some of the sound effects into the surrounds especially ambient sounds as this can help the audience have more of a feel for the locations. |
8,248 | Hi All,
I have been looking at moving me stereo short doco films with background music to a surround experience. At the moment the design is fairly simple, interview vocals center and music as it comes from the artist (stereo). What can you guys suggest to move the music towards using a full surround experience. I am looking at subtle exposure, not over the top use of the surround stems without compromising the original quality of the music. The sound effects are more natural to mix, so I am not too fussed about them.
I hope that makes sense. | 2011/05/26 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/8248",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/830/"
] | The simplest solution is to worldize sections using subtle reverb and send that to the surrounds. You have to be careful what you send to the surrounds and how often as sounds arriving from behind the audience can often make listeners feel uncomfortable.
I would leave the music as left and right and move some of the sound effects into the surrounds especially ambient sounds as this can help the audience have more of a feel for the locations. | From everything I've heard, mixing music into the surrounds is supposedly a big no-no. Same goes for mixing dialogue in the surrounds. Personally, I like mixing music in surround, and depending on the context of the dialogue, I'll mix that in surround as well I'm not one for playing inside the rules or playing it safe unless it's a QC or broadcast spec I have to adhere to. With music you gotta show the people in the back a bit of love too imo. It's not like it's a specific sound effect that will really draw the listeners attention away, so it can be done... but simply done carefully and tastefully, same goes for certain types of dialogue as well. Personally I think surround mixing still plays it a bit too safe. We have this awesome technology and a lot of mixers are still afraid to take chances and push the envelope. Some I might add, are quite amazing at this. If you listen to the surround mix for Inception Gary Rizzo mixed A LOT of music into the surrounds... for that matter it was sometimes only in the surrounds.
When mixing music in surround (which I would typically do in Pro Tools), I'll usually have it in the Quads pulled back around 10-20% from the front and I'll set my divergence to 80% all the way around, that way I'm not hitting the LS and RS too hard, it's not too wide and I'm just giving it a bit of surround space to make it a little more immersive. Sometimes I'll send it to the LFE depending on the scene and what the mix needs. I'm extra careful with that though. I don't ever use verb on the music though. If it's incidental music all bets are off and it depends on the source location of the music in the surround field. In that case I would use verb on the music. On top of that, it also helps clean up a bit of headroom in the L+R and leaves a bit more space for SFX and DX. |
8,248 | Hi All,
I have been looking at moving me stereo short doco films with background music to a surround experience. At the moment the design is fairly simple, interview vocals center and music as it comes from the artist (stereo). What can you guys suggest to move the music towards using a full surround experience. I am looking at subtle exposure, not over the top use of the surround stems without compromising the original quality of the music. The sound effects are more natural to mix, so I am not too fussed about them.
I hope that makes sense. | 2011/05/26 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/8248",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/830/"
] | The way I normally start when mixing music for 5.1 (mostly in feature films, but sometimes also in documentaries), is to pull the music slightly towards the center, so that it isn't strictly L-R but more L-R with a little bit of center, so you don't get too much of the "hole in the middle" syndrome. Sometimes I pull it back a little too.
Normally I then apply a hall reverb to the surround speakers, leaving it pretty dry in the front and almost totally wet in the surrounds. This way the music surrounds you without having too much of the direct sound coming from behind you.
I will also send some of the music to the LFE channel.
If I have stereo stems of the music available, I will pan the softer elements more to the back than the percussive elements, and be more selective about which tracks I feed to the LFE channel. If there's no particular bass information in the channel, there is no need to send it to the sub.
The more tracks I have available for mixing, the more specifically I will pan them across the LCR front, for instance narrowing the bass down to the center channel (and LFE of course), or pinpointing the close mics of the orchestra across the screen. I may also use an extra reverb in the front, to give the narrower sounds a bit of spread. I will also narrow the reverb a bit so it isn't strictly LR.
The real advantage when mixing in 5.1 compared to stereo is in my opinion more the enriched clarity and higher fidelity that comes from using more speakers, than it is the fact that you can have sound coming from behind. | It depends what you're mixing in.
Logic is easiest for surround panning as you just change the output to surround and you can use the planner to position your centre point and alter the stereo spread across the 5.1 field. This also works for auxiliary busses for your reverbs.
Protools is a bit more faffy - you cant adjust the centre spread of the audio - only the centre positioning so the easiest way is to create 2 reverb busses for each reverb, Position 1 of them in the front 2 speakers and the other one in the back two. Copy the reverb parameters between both but slightly alter the back reverbs to compensate for HRTF and that kind of thing. Then send each track to both to create an imersive experiance,
This is best for atmos and ambience tracks and music can be altered in the same way.
Hope this helps! |
8,248 | Hi All,
I have been looking at moving me stereo short doco films with background music to a surround experience. At the moment the design is fairly simple, interview vocals center and music as it comes from the artist (stereo). What can you guys suggest to move the music towards using a full surround experience. I am looking at subtle exposure, not over the top use of the surround stems without compromising the original quality of the music. The sound effects are more natural to mix, so I am not too fussed about them.
I hope that makes sense. | 2011/05/26 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/8248",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/830/"
] | It depends what you're mixing in.
Logic is easiest for surround panning as you just change the output to surround and you can use the planner to position your centre point and alter the stereo spread across the 5.1 field. This also works for auxiliary busses for your reverbs.
Protools is a bit more faffy - you cant adjust the centre spread of the audio - only the centre positioning so the easiest way is to create 2 reverb busses for each reverb, Position 1 of them in the front 2 speakers and the other one in the back two. Copy the reverb parameters between both but slightly alter the back reverbs to compensate for HRTF and that kind of thing. Then send each track to both to create an imersive experiance,
This is best for atmos and ambience tracks and music can be altered in the same way.
Hope this helps! | From everything I've heard, mixing music into the surrounds is supposedly a big no-no. Same goes for mixing dialogue in the surrounds. Personally, I like mixing music in surround, and depending on the context of the dialogue, I'll mix that in surround as well I'm not one for playing inside the rules or playing it safe unless it's a QC or broadcast spec I have to adhere to. With music you gotta show the people in the back a bit of love too imo. It's not like it's a specific sound effect that will really draw the listeners attention away, so it can be done... but simply done carefully and tastefully, same goes for certain types of dialogue as well. Personally I think surround mixing still plays it a bit too safe. We have this awesome technology and a lot of mixers are still afraid to take chances and push the envelope. Some I might add, are quite amazing at this. If you listen to the surround mix for Inception Gary Rizzo mixed A LOT of music into the surrounds... for that matter it was sometimes only in the surrounds.
When mixing music in surround (which I would typically do in Pro Tools), I'll usually have it in the Quads pulled back around 10-20% from the front and I'll set my divergence to 80% all the way around, that way I'm not hitting the LS and RS too hard, it's not too wide and I'm just giving it a bit of surround space to make it a little more immersive. Sometimes I'll send it to the LFE depending on the scene and what the mix needs. I'm extra careful with that though. I don't ever use verb on the music though. If it's incidental music all bets are off and it depends on the source location of the music in the surround field. In that case I would use verb on the music. On top of that, it also helps clean up a bit of headroom in the L+R and leaves a bit more space for SFX and DX. |
8,248 | Hi All,
I have been looking at moving me stereo short doco films with background music to a surround experience. At the moment the design is fairly simple, interview vocals center and music as it comes from the artist (stereo). What can you guys suggest to move the music towards using a full surround experience. I am looking at subtle exposure, not over the top use of the surround stems without compromising the original quality of the music. The sound effects are more natural to mix, so I am not too fussed about them.
I hope that makes sense. | 2011/05/26 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/8248",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/830/"
] | The way I normally start when mixing music for 5.1 (mostly in feature films, but sometimes also in documentaries), is to pull the music slightly towards the center, so that it isn't strictly L-R but more L-R with a little bit of center, so you don't get too much of the "hole in the middle" syndrome. Sometimes I pull it back a little too.
Normally I then apply a hall reverb to the surround speakers, leaving it pretty dry in the front and almost totally wet in the surrounds. This way the music surrounds you without having too much of the direct sound coming from behind you.
I will also send some of the music to the LFE channel.
If I have stereo stems of the music available, I will pan the softer elements more to the back than the percussive elements, and be more selective about which tracks I feed to the LFE channel. If there's no particular bass information in the channel, there is no need to send it to the sub.
The more tracks I have available for mixing, the more specifically I will pan them across the LCR front, for instance narrowing the bass down to the center channel (and LFE of course), or pinpointing the close mics of the orchestra across the screen. I may also use an extra reverb in the front, to give the narrower sounds a bit of spread. I will also narrow the reverb a bit so it isn't strictly LR.
The real advantage when mixing in 5.1 compared to stereo is in my opinion more the enriched clarity and higher fidelity that comes from using more speakers, than it is the fact that you can have sound coming from behind. | From everything I've heard, mixing music into the surrounds is supposedly a big no-no. Same goes for mixing dialogue in the surrounds. Personally, I like mixing music in surround, and depending on the context of the dialogue, I'll mix that in surround as well I'm not one for playing inside the rules or playing it safe unless it's a QC or broadcast spec I have to adhere to. With music you gotta show the people in the back a bit of love too imo. It's not like it's a specific sound effect that will really draw the listeners attention away, so it can be done... but simply done carefully and tastefully, same goes for certain types of dialogue as well. Personally I think surround mixing still plays it a bit too safe. We have this awesome technology and a lot of mixers are still afraid to take chances and push the envelope. Some I might add, are quite amazing at this. If you listen to the surround mix for Inception Gary Rizzo mixed A LOT of music into the surrounds... for that matter it was sometimes only in the surrounds.
When mixing music in surround (which I would typically do in Pro Tools), I'll usually have it in the Quads pulled back around 10-20% from the front and I'll set my divergence to 80% all the way around, that way I'm not hitting the LS and RS too hard, it's not too wide and I'm just giving it a bit of surround space to make it a little more immersive. Sometimes I'll send it to the LFE depending on the scene and what the mix needs. I'm extra careful with that though. I don't ever use verb on the music though. If it's incidental music all bets are off and it depends on the source location of the music in the surround field. In that case I would use verb on the music. On top of that, it also helps clean up a bit of headroom in the L+R and leaves a bit more space for SFX and DX. |
239,971 | If I use a transformer to step the voltage down from 220V to around ~30V and I expect the 30V end to draw up to ~30A, what kind of current magnitude will I have to plan for or expect to see on the 220V side?
I am very noob. Please feel free to help make this question better/clearer or give suggestions. | 2016/06/08 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/239971",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/38695/"
] | For a ideal transformer, current scales inversely proportional to voltage. Put another way, current x voltage is constant. That's because current x voltage is power, and for a ideal transformer, power in and power out are the same.
Of course no transformer is ideal. There will always be some loss, so power in will be a bit higher than power out, with the remainder ending up heating the transformer.
The easiest approach is to start with assuming ideal transformer, then derate according to the efficiency you think you will actually attain. 30 A at 30 V out is 900 VA. 900 VA / 220 V = 4.1 A. At 80% efficiency, for example, that would be (4.1 A)/80% = 5.1 A. 5 A would be cutting it close, but possible with a good transformer. Unless it's a hardship, I'd plan for 6 A input capability at least.
Another factor is inrush current. This can be large when the core is not magnetized, or even magnetized in the opposite direction when power is turned on at the peak of the waveform. This is a real issue, especially in toroidal transformers, which are common for these kinds of applications. The inrush only lasts up to 1/2 cycle, but can be several times larger than the normal operating current. I once blew a 15 A breaker with a toroidal transformer that didn't even have a load connected to it. | Power in has to equal power out. V1\*I1 = V2\*I2
Solving the equation (30\*30)/220 = 4 amps.
This is theoretical. In reality there will be losses. Provision for 5 to 6 amps to have enough overhead at the output. |
186,960 | What is a word that can best describe YouTube bad content such as pranking videos, which negatively affect children?
I thought about the word banal but it doesn't seem to fit.
[Edit] As we know that children love to imitate actions they like, I'm implying the fact that this content, which get a lot of views by children, detrimentally affect children's personalities by persuading them to normalize inappropriate actions such as filming people on the street, generally invade other's privacies, bully or being offensive to others. Moreover, I'm comparing this type of content to the informative content on YouTube such educational videos | 2018/11/29 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/186960",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/66374/"
] | "Banal" would mean "dull, uninteresting, and generally pointless". I think you're looking for something more like ["malicious"](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/malicious):
>
> The worst thing about those **malicious** videos of children doing terrible things to strangers, is that their **notoriety** might inspire other children to do the same.
>
>
>
Other possibilities: *nasty, immoral, vicious, mischievous, awful, heinous, ugly, vile, depraved, offensive, disgusting* and various others.
Each of these can have a different nuance, but if you explain *exactly* what you want to say, I might be able to point to one of them as the most appropriate -- for example, do you want to focus more on the *immorality* of the acts show in the videos, or on how they *offend* you personally?
[Edit] As you might expect there is no single word to describe everything you want to say. However you might try some combination of these:
>
> [**irresponsible**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/irresponsible) (adj): not thinking carefully enough or not caring about what might result from actions taken
>
>
> [**frivolous**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/frivolous) (adj): (of people) behaving in a silly and foolish way, or (of activities or objects) silly or unimportant:
>
>
> [**infamous**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/infamous) (adj): well known for something bad; notorious:
>
>
> [**seductive**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/seductive#dataset-cald4) (adj): making you want to do, have, or believe something, because of seeming attractive:
>
>
>
For example:
>
> While these videos might seem like so much harmless **frivolity**, they encourage **irresponsible** behavior among young people who have yet to develop the **moral compass** to distinguish the **malicious** from the benign.
>
>
> | You can use the catch-all phrase:
>
> "Content unsuitable for younger viewers"
>
>
> |
186,960 | What is a word that can best describe YouTube bad content such as pranking videos, which negatively affect children?
I thought about the word banal but it doesn't seem to fit.
[Edit] As we know that children love to imitate actions they like, I'm implying the fact that this content, which get a lot of views by children, detrimentally affect children's personalities by persuading them to normalize inappropriate actions such as filming people on the street, generally invade other's privacies, bully or being offensive to others. Moreover, I'm comparing this type of content to the informative content on YouTube such educational videos | 2018/11/29 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/186960",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/66374/"
] | "Banal" would mean "dull, uninteresting, and generally pointless". I think you're looking for something more like ["malicious"](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/malicious):
>
> The worst thing about those **malicious** videos of children doing terrible things to strangers, is that their **notoriety** might inspire other children to do the same.
>
>
>
Other possibilities: *nasty, immoral, vicious, mischievous, awful, heinous, ugly, vile, depraved, offensive, disgusting* and various others.
Each of these can have a different nuance, but if you explain *exactly* what you want to say, I might be able to point to one of them as the most appropriate -- for example, do you want to focus more on the *immorality* of the acts show in the videos, or on how they *offend* you personally?
[Edit] As you might expect there is no single word to describe everything you want to say. However you might try some combination of these:
>
> [**irresponsible**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/irresponsible) (adj): not thinking carefully enough or not caring about what might result from actions taken
>
>
> [**frivolous**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/frivolous) (adj): (of people) behaving in a silly and foolish way, or (of activities or objects) silly or unimportant:
>
>
> [**infamous**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/infamous) (adj): well known for something bad; notorious:
>
>
> [**seductive**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/seductive#dataset-cald4) (adj): making you want to do, have, or believe something, because of seeming attractive:
>
>
>
For example:
>
> While these videos might seem like so much harmless **frivolity**, they encourage **irresponsible** behavior among young people who have yet to develop the **moral compass** to distinguish the **malicious** from the benign.
>
>
> | You could describe such content as being:
* **damaging**
* **harmful**
* **detrimental**
* **malignant**
* **poisoning**
For example -
>
> Content on YouTube which glorifies jokes at the expense of others has a detrimental effect on the mental health of younger viewers.
>
>
> |
186,960 | What is a word that can best describe YouTube bad content such as pranking videos, which negatively affect children?
I thought about the word banal but it doesn't seem to fit.
[Edit] As we know that children love to imitate actions they like, I'm implying the fact that this content, which get a lot of views by children, detrimentally affect children's personalities by persuading them to normalize inappropriate actions such as filming people on the street, generally invade other's privacies, bully or being offensive to others. Moreover, I'm comparing this type of content to the informative content on YouTube such educational videos | 2018/11/29 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/186960",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/66374/"
] | You could describe such content as being:
* **damaging**
* **harmful**
* **detrimental**
* **malignant**
* **poisoning**
For example -
>
> Content on YouTube which glorifies jokes at the expense of others has a detrimental effect on the mental health of younger viewers.
>
>
> | You can use the catch-all phrase:
>
> "Content unsuitable for younger viewers"
>
>
> |
22,524,363 | I'm trying to write driver for rtl8139 for linux 2.6 from scratch. I've already written TX path, but I have some problems with RX.
I put RX into promiscous mode and receiving RX irqs. I set RBSTART into physical address of allocated memory by kmalloc.
I don't know how to find out how many received packets there are and how long they are.
I thought that ERBCR, CAPR, CBR registers tell it, but they are == 0.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong? How to find out anything about received packets? | 2014/03/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/22524363",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2699113/"
] | I answer to my question myself.
The received packets are located starting at RBSTART. The first two bytes of rx-ed packet are status bytes, and the next 2 are length of the frame + 4 bytes of crc.
Maybye someone find this info helpful. | On receiving a packet, the data received from the line is stored in the receive FIFO. When Early Receive Threshold is met, the data is moved from FIFO to Recieve Buffer.
So, once you get an interrupt. You need to check the Interrupt Status Register for ROK. Then check the Early Rx status register which gives you the status of the packet received. If EROK is set, then check the Receive buffer status for ROK. Check for are any errors in the ISR and ERSR. Also check your Rx Configuration register for the threshold configuration for Rx FIFO, RX buf length. |
12,567,177 | Is there a way to REMOVE a DIV of the master page? not hide, there are some hyperlinks in the div, so I want to remove them from the code as well. thanks | 2012/09/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12567177",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1202242/"
] | Hierarchical model–view–controller (HMVC) is a software architectural pattern, a variation of Model–view–controller (MVC) similar to Presentation-abstraction-control (PAC)，[more info in wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMVC)
I hope you have enjoyed [this tutorial](http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/php/hvmc-an-introduction-and-application/). | I suggest you use links placed in the directory you desire pointing to the folders in the application folder. I wouldn't recommend moving those folders out of the application folder.
Cheers. |
1,116,862 | What is the difference between routed protocol and routing protocol?. Clear answers will be highly appreciated. | 2016/08/23 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1116862",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/633316/"
] | A routed protocol is a protocol that is typically routed or is capable of being routed. IP is a routed protocol.
A routing protocol is a protocol used to maintain routing tables and provide information to support routing. [RIP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Information_Protocol) is a routing protocol. | Routed Protocol
===============
A routed protocol is a protocol by which data can be routed. Routed protocol are IP, AppleTalk, and IPX. In this kind of protocols we require an addressing scheme and subnetting. Addressing scheme will be used to determine the network to which a host belongs and to identifying that host on that particular network. All hosts on an internetwork are using the services of a routed protocol. That means routers, servers, and workstations to. The only two routed protocols that are in use today are IP and IPX but IPX is dropped from Cisco in exams and is not in use much these days. If you are studying routed protocols the best advice is to focus on IP routed protocol.
Routing protocol
================
A routing protocol is different and is only used between routers. It makes possible for routers to build and maintain routing tables. There are three classes of routing protocols- 1)distance vector, 2)link state,3)hybrid
OSPF is one of two link state protocols, the other one is IS-IS. EIGRP is the only hybrid protocol but in normal literature you will see that EIGRP is distance vector routing protocol. |
106,598 | I find it confusing when *tomorrow* is used to speak of a day in the future other than the following day. Is it proper to use it in reference to any specific day in the future?
I am aware that the dictionary defines tomorrow as a time in near future. To me this refers to an ambiguous time and it is not confusing when used as such. But, is it proper to use it of any specific day in the future other than the day after tomorrow.
Ex. "We are going to the park tomorrow." Based on the dictionary definition, a student is using tomorrow to refer to a different day in the coming week. Am I wrong to correct this?
Is there a reputable source that confines the near future use of this word to metaphorical ambiguous future. | 2013/03/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/106598",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/39005/"
] | If you check with [a dictionary](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tomorrow?q=tomorrow) you would realize
>
> **tomorrow** (adverb)
>
>
> on the day after today: *the show opens tomorrow.*
>
>
> in the **future**, esp. the **near future**: *East Germany will not disappear
> tomorrow.*
>
>
> **tomorrow** (noun)
>
>
> the day after today: *tomorrow is going to be a special day.*
>
>
> the **future**, esp. the **near future**: *today's engineers are tomorrow's
> buyers.*
>
>
>
[updates]
@Sarah I don't think so. If tomorrow can be used to specify a particular day in the future besides the day after today, by merely looking at the word "*tomorrow*", it is impossible for one to tell which particular day it refers to in the future. There are infinite possibilities (Let n be the value that represents today's date, x be a positive integer, n+x can represent an infinite set of values) and it makes no sense to me. | Many dictionaries (like [Collins](http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tomorrow) and [Macmillan](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/tomorrow_9)) list a secondary meaning for tomorrow, but that meaning is in an abstract sense, as in:
>
> *Today's graduates are the leaders of tomorrow.*
>
>
>
The word either expresses the day after today, or else a vague sense of sometime in the future. If today was Friday, I would **not** use *tomorrow* to refer to next Tuesday; if today is a day in March, I would not use *tomorrow* to refer to a specific date this summer. I don't think that's the way the word should be used, even when you're using the word as a substitute for *the future*.
If my daughter was already engaged, I would not say "She'll be married tomorrow" – not unless it was the day before her wedding. I suppose, though, if my daughter was in kindergarten, I might say, "She'll be married tomorrow" as a way of saying that she'll only be young for a finite amount of time, but I think even that is a stretch. I'd be better off saying something like, "She'll be married before we know it." |
10,624,760 | I am trying to learn about Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). I have basic knowledge of machine learning and probability theory and based on this blog post <http://goo.gl/ccPvE> I was able to develop the intuition behind LDA. However I still haven't got complete understanding of the various calculations that goes in it. I am wondering can someone show me the calculations using a very small corpus (let say of 3-5 sentences and 2-3 topics). | 2012/05/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10624760",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/737128/"
] | Edwin Chen (who works at Twitter btw) has [an example](http://blog.echen.me/2011/08/22/introduction-to-latent-dirichlet-allocation/) in his blog. 5 sentences, 2 topics:
* I like to eat broccoli and bananas.
* I ate a banana and spinach smoothie for breakfast.
* Chinchillas and kittens are cute.
* My sister adopted a kitten yesterday.
* Look at this cute hamster munching on a piece of broccoli.
Then he does some "calculations"
* Sentences 1 and 2: 100% Topic A
* Sentences 3 and 4: 100% Topic B
* Sentence 5: 60% Topic A, 40% Topic B
And take guesses of the topics:
* Topic A: 30% broccoli, 15% bananas, 10% breakfast, 10% munching, …
+ at which point, you could interpret topic A to be about **food**
* Topic B: 20% chinchillas, 20% kittens, 20% cute, 15% hamster, …
+ at which point, you could interpret topic B to be about **cute animals**
---
Your question is how did he come up with those numbers? Which words in these sentences carry "information":
* broccoli, bananas, smoothie, breakfast, munching, eat
* chinchilla, kitten, cute, adopted, hampster
Now let's go sentence by sentence getting words from each topic:
* food 3, cute 0 --> **food**
* food 5, cute 0 --> **food**
* food 0, cute 3 --> **cute**
* food 0, cute 2 --> **cute**
* food 2, cute 2 --> 50% **food** + 50% **cute**
So my numbers, differ slightly from Chen's. Maybe he includes the word "piece" in "piece of broccoli" as counting towards food.
---
We made two calculations in our heads:
* to look at the sentences and come up with 2 topics in the first place. LDA does this by considering each sentence as a "mixture" of topics and guessing the parameters of each topic.
* to decide which words are important. LDA uses "term-frequency/inverse-document-frequency" to understand this. | LDA Procedure
Step1: Go through each document and randomly assign each word in the document to one of K topics (K is chosen beforehand)
Step2: This random assignment gives topic representations of all documents and word distributions of all the topics, albeit not very good ones
So, to improve upon them:
For each document d, go through each word w and compute:
* p(topic t | document d): proportion of words in document d that are assigned to topic t
* p(word w| topic t): proportion of assignments to topic t, over all documents d, that come from word w
Step3: Reassign word w a new topic t’, where we choose topic t’ with probability
* p(topic t’ | document d) \* p(word w | topic t’)
This generative model predicts the probability that topic t’ generated word w.
we will iterate this last step multiple times for each document in the corpus to get steady-state.
**Solved calculation**
Let's say you have two documents.
Doc i: “T**he bank called about the money.**”
Doc ii: “T**he bank said the money was approved.**”
*After removing the stop words, capitalization, and punctuation.*
Unique words in corpus:
**bank called about money boat approved**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EaBt1.png)
Next then,
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PkrM4.png)
After then, we will randomly select a word from doc i (word **bank** with topic assignment **1**) and we will remove its assigned topic and we will calculate the probability for its new assignment.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mFb6W.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n9vKj.png)
For the topic **k=1**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y1K9i.png)
For the topic **k=2**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/be4Lf.png)
Now we will calculate the product of those two probabilities as given below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ee2rB.png)
Good fit for both **document** and **word** for topic 2 (area is **greater**) than topic 1. So, our new assignment for word **bank** will be topic 2.
Now, we will update the count due to new assignment.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z2val.png)
Now we will repeat the same step of reassignment. and iterate through each word of the whole corpus.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vWfza.png) |
28,797 | I basically jog for 30 minutes just after work at about 9:00 pm, before dinner. I sometimes have a full lunch at about 3:00 pm, but most of the time I have some fruit because I reach the office at about 12:00 pm, having had morning breakfast at 10:00 am.
1) Is it safe to jog if I am feeling my stomach is empty? (sometimes to maintain the routine, I have to go there directly) I'd just be drinking half a glass of water.
2) If I am feeling my stomach is empty, is it OK to take 3 bananas as they provide instant energy?
3) Or it is mandatory to eat some light snack and before going for a jog? | 2016/01/31 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/28797",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/3864/"
] | I think you're over thinking this.
If you personally feel like you need to have something because you feel lightheaded when you've previously jogged on an empty stomach you should definitely have something to eat prior to exercise.
Likewise if you've felt worse eating before a jog, then don't eat.
Any option you choose won't matter for a 30 minute jog. If you feel okay after your jog eat afterwards. | To be completely honest, not eating before a workout or run is actually best. That way you burn fat directly instead of working through what you just ate. However you'll probably feel tired if you've been fasting for a long time (ie: Workout before breakfast). If you do want to eat before a workout I'd give yourself at least an hour before going at it. Don't want to throw up. |
73,518 | I've been reading many opinions from the United State Supreme Court and discovered the phrase "inter alia," meaning "among other things." I have not encountered this phrase outside of these opinions.
Is the phrase "inter alia" primarily localized to legalese? Or would it be acceptable to use it in general writing? | 2012/07/04 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/73518",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6523/"
] | The best course, undoubtedly, is to use "among others", a phrase that can refer to people or things.
It should be noted that "inter alia" is Latin for "among others" when "others" are things. If the others are persons, "alia" must be changed to "alios" (the OED quotes, from 1670, *The lords produce **inter alios** John Duke of Lancaster*); but when persons are meant, it is much better nowadays to use English.
Reference: A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, *B.A. Garner*, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, *H.W. Fowler*. | It is certainly used more widely, but it says nothing that *among other things* doesn't say. The English version will be understood by all readers, and removes the risk that you will be perceived as someone who likes to show you know a bit of Latin. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.