Split (1)

train · 1.05M rows

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
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	I really hate opinion type answers, and indeed many of the more banal answers I post are because I considered an existing answer inadequate and I didn't want the OP to go away with the wrong impression. Since I'm philosophically opposed to downvoting, posting a better answer is usually the only way to show my displeasure with the current answers. So just in case it's not clear, I consider both A2 and A3 wholly unacceptable. People come to us for an authoritative answer from an expert in their field. That it's possible for a young physics nerd, as I was forty (!!!) years ago, to get answers from a working string thorist is frankly astonishing. Indeed, in my days as a teen physics nerd it was utterly inconceivable. Given what a fantastic service we offer I feel we should strongly resist diluting it. But, I would not downvote or otherwise sanction any answer given in good faith, unless it was grossly incorrect in which case I normally vote to delete it. If an answer is unsatisfactory then the very best solution is to post a better answer and show how it should be done. If you do this you are not just educating the OP, but you are also educating the person posting the unsatisfactory answer.	Speaking with my moderator hat on ... ------------------------------------- I have not been acting on examples of A2 or cases that are borderline between A2 and A3: that's up to the community to establish by consensus. Outright example of A3 I delete after they have accumulated a net score of around -4 and no significant upvote contribution. That is, those that the community has shown it's disapproval of. Speaking with my user hat on ... -------------------------------- ### I down-vote A3s. Often mercilessly, though I've been known to hold back if I think the post suggests the users (1) didn't know and better and (2) can be taught. Whether I vote or not I am likely to leave a comment summarizing where the answer goes wrong or to upvote and existing comment of that kind. We want to strongly discourage these kinds of posts. ### I'd like to downvote many A2s, but I don't always. I tend to be lenient if it is the first answer to a question that has gone unanswered for several hours, or if the poster provides a reasonably well reasoned argument for why an analogy with some other physics makes sense. I'd like to discourage these posts if better answers are present, but if no expert answer is available an example of how another kind of physicists would approach the problem is better than letting it languish unattended for days or weeks. Or so it seems to me.
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	I really hate opinion type answers, and indeed many of the more banal answers I post are because I considered an existing answer inadequate and I didn't want the OP to go away with the wrong impression. Since I'm philosophically opposed to downvoting, posting a better answer is usually the only way to show my displeasure with the current answers. So just in case it's not clear, I consider both A2 and A3 wholly unacceptable. People come to us for an authoritative answer from an expert in their field. That it's possible for a young physics nerd, as I was forty (!!!) years ago, to get answers from a working string thorist is frankly astonishing. Indeed, in my days as a teen physics nerd it was utterly inconceivable. Given what a fantastic service we offer I feel we should strongly resist diluting it. But, I would not downvote or otherwise sanction any answer given in good faith, unless it was grossly incorrect in which case I normally vote to delete it. If an answer is unsatisfactory then the very best solution is to post a better answer and show how it should be done. If you do this you are not just educating the OP, but you are also educating the person posting the unsatisfactory answer.	My comment under the original question highlights why A2 answers may be acceptable. I asked OP to classify my answer to the following question: [Time length molecular dynamics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160443/time-length-molecular-dynamics/160449#160449) I would call it an A2 answer. OP ranked it as an A1.5 or A1.8 type answer (in other words, opinion/speculation but fairly strongly supported by evidence from another area). I'm an engineer, and I'm going to say 1.5 and 1.8 have too many significant digits and just call it an A2. I think this exercise serves to illustrate that things aren't always clear cut with that middle classification of answers. Because it's possible something is 100% correct and if you removed the "I am not certain but..." from the start of the answer, one may never know that the author didn't know. I'd argue A2 are still answers, and possibly good ones, but they require close scrutiny from the community. This is where John Rennie's opposition to downvoting I think is flawed. It's precisely answers like this that require up, and down, votes to establish accuracy. In my example answer above, the information is correct and accurate (particularly for a "here's an overview to a topic you don't know must about" level of sophistication). But it could just as easily been inaccurate. And people with domain-specific knowledge need to vote accordingly. The downvotes are particularly important. OP may have upvoted an A2 answer that was not completely accurate because they don't know any better and it sounds close enough. Maybe other people with marginal knowledge of the domain also upvoted for similar reasons. So people with actual, in depth knowledge, must downvote if it is inaccurate. But I will agree with [John Rennie for the rest of his response](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6475/6634) -- A2 answers should be supplanted by A1 answers from domain experts to fill in the real, gritty details that tend to be glossed over in A2 answers. Regarding A3 answers, I would flag as low quality (or not a real answer depending on the specific wording), downvote, and go about my day.
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	I really hate opinion type answers, and indeed many of the more banal answers I post are because I considered an existing answer inadequate and I didn't want the OP to go away with the wrong impression. Since I'm philosophically opposed to downvoting, posting a better answer is usually the only way to show my displeasure with the current answers. So just in case it's not clear, I consider both A2 and A3 wholly unacceptable. People come to us for an authoritative answer from an expert in their field. That it's possible for a young physics nerd, as I was forty (!!!) years ago, to get answers from a working string thorist is frankly astonishing. Indeed, in my days as a teen physics nerd it was utterly inconceivable. Given what a fantastic service we offer I feel we should strongly resist diluting it. But, I would not downvote or otherwise sanction any answer given in good faith, unless it was grossly incorrect in which case I normally vote to delete it. If an answer is unsatisfactory then the very best solution is to post a better answer and show how it should be done. If you do this you are not just educating the OP, but you are also educating the person posting the unsatisfactory answer.	I agree with Kyle Kanos that A2 and A3 are answers, however poor in quality, since they attempt to address the Question. I agree with tpg2114 that A2 Answers require development. This can be done more conveniently if comments are addressed to this Answer, rather than to the Question. I think we would all agree that A3 Answers have no value on this site. However if, as Kyle points out, A3 Answers do not fall within the official criteria for deletion - eg because they are comments - then I think they must be - officially - acceptable. This situation is not ideal. My Suggestion To get round this, I suggest that acceptable Answers on Physics SE should not only address the Question but also use mainstream physics to do so. A3 would then be unacceptable and meet the criteria for deletion. This criterion corresponds with the requirement that Questions must be on topic and can be closed and deleted if off topic. Answers must likewise be on topic in my view. If Questions which ask about Chemistry or Mathematics or Biology or Technology etc can be deemed off topic then Answers which do the same - with no physics content - ought also to be off topic. The difficulty with my suggestion is that fairness probably requires Voting to Close - ie the judgement of one's peers - as with Questions. But there is currently no facility to do so.
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	I think A2 is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of This answer could be better if ..." would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer). I think A3 is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301): * Comments: A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an "attempt" to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong. * Thanks: Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP * New Question: Does not apply * URL only: Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied * No comment necessary: This, to me, is supposed to be used when someone else has already left a delete-comment as above\. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either. So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be "Looks Okay"](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also [What to do with Low Quality posts that you just can't delete](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995), asked here on Physics by [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.) \Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to "get around" the other comments and delete A3 answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.	Speaking with my moderator hat on ... ------------------------------------- I have not been acting on examples of A2 or cases that are borderline between A2 and A3: that's up to the community to establish by consensus. Outright example of A3 I delete after they have accumulated a net score of around -4 and no significant upvote contribution. That is, those that the community has shown it's disapproval of. Speaking with my user hat on ... -------------------------------- ### I down-vote A3s. Often mercilessly, though I've been known to hold back if I think the post suggests the users (1) didn't know and better and (2) can be taught. Whether I vote or not I am likely to leave a comment summarizing where the answer goes wrong or to upvote and existing comment of that kind. We want to strongly discourage these kinds of posts. ### I'd like to downvote many A2s, but I don't always. I tend to be lenient if it is the first answer to a question that has gone unanswered for several hours, or if the poster provides a reasonably well reasoned argument for why an analogy with some other physics makes sense. I'd like to discourage these posts if better answers are present, but if no expert answer is available an example of how another kind of physicists would approach the problem is better than letting it languish unattended for days or weeks. Or so it seems to me.
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	Speaking with my moderator hat on ... ------------------------------------- I have not been acting on examples of A2 or cases that are borderline between A2 and A3: that's up to the community to establish by consensus. Outright example of A3 I delete after they have accumulated a net score of around -4 and no significant upvote contribution. That is, those that the community has shown it's disapproval of. Speaking with my user hat on ... -------------------------------- ### I down-vote A3s. Often mercilessly, though I've been known to hold back if I think the post suggests the users (1) didn't know and better and (2) can be taught. Whether I vote or not I am likely to leave a comment summarizing where the answer goes wrong or to upvote and existing comment of that kind. We want to strongly discourage these kinds of posts. ### I'd like to downvote many A2s, but I don't always. I tend to be lenient if it is the first answer to a question that has gone unanswered for several hours, or if the poster provides a reasonably well reasoned argument for why an analogy with some other physics makes sense. I'd like to discourage these posts if better answers are present, but if no expert answer is available an example of how another kind of physicists would approach the problem is better than letting it languish unattended for days or weeks. Or so it seems to me.	I agree with Kyle Kanos that A2 and A3 are answers, however poor in quality, since they attempt to address the Question. I agree with tpg2114 that A2 Answers require development. This can be done more conveniently if comments are addressed to this Answer, rather than to the Question. I think we would all agree that A3 Answers have no value on this site. However if, as Kyle points out, A3 Answers do not fall within the official criteria for deletion - eg because they are comments - then I think they must be - officially - acceptable. This situation is not ideal. My Suggestion To get round this, I suggest that acceptable Answers on Physics SE should not only address the Question but also use mainstream physics to do so. A3 would then be unacceptable and meet the criteria for deletion. This criterion corresponds with the requirement that Questions must be on topic and can be closed and deleted if off topic. Answers must likewise be on topic in my view. If Questions which ask about Chemistry or Mathematics or Biology or Technology etc can be deemed off topic then Answers which do the same - with no physics content - ought also to be off topic. The difficulty with my suggestion is that fairness probably requires Voting to Close - ie the judgement of one's peers - as with Questions. But there is currently no facility to do so.
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	I think A2 is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of This answer could be better if ..." would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer). I think A3 is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301): * Comments: A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an "attempt" to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong. * Thanks: Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP * New Question: Does not apply * URL only: Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied * No comment necessary: This, to me, is supposed to be used when someone else has already left a delete-comment as above\. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either. So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be "Looks Okay"](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also [What to do with Low Quality posts that you just can't delete](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995), asked here on Physics by [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.) \Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to "get around" the other comments and delete A3 answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.	My comment under the original question highlights why A2 answers may be acceptable. I asked OP to classify my answer to the following question: [Time length molecular dynamics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160443/time-length-molecular-dynamics/160449#160449) I would call it an A2 answer. OP ranked it as an A1.5 or A1.8 type answer (in other words, opinion/speculation but fairly strongly supported by evidence from another area). I'm an engineer, and I'm going to say 1.5 and 1.8 have too many significant digits and just call it an A2. I think this exercise serves to illustrate that things aren't always clear cut with that middle classification of answers. Because it's possible something is 100% correct and if you removed the "I am not certain but..." from the start of the answer, one may never know that the author didn't know. I'd argue A2 are still answers, and possibly good ones, but they require close scrutiny from the community. This is where John Rennie's opposition to downvoting I think is flawed. It's precisely answers like this that require up, and down, votes to establish accuracy. In my example answer above, the information is correct and accurate (particularly for a "here's an overview to a topic you don't know must about" level of sophistication). But it could just as easily been inaccurate. And people with domain-specific knowledge need to vote accordingly. The downvotes are particularly important. OP may have upvoted an A2 answer that was not completely accurate because they don't know any better and it sounds close enough. Maybe other people with marginal knowledge of the domain also upvoted for similar reasons. So people with actual, in depth knowledge, must downvote if it is inaccurate. But I will agree with [John Rennie for the rest of his response](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6475/6634) -- A2 answers should be supplanted by A1 answers from domain experts to fill in the real, gritty details that tend to be glossed over in A2 answers. Regarding A3 answers, I would flag as low quality (or not a real answer depending on the specific wording), downvote, and go about my day.
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	My comment under the original question highlights why A2 answers may be acceptable. I asked OP to classify my answer to the following question: [Time length molecular dynamics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160443/time-length-molecular-dynamics/160449#160449) I would call it an A2 answer. OP ranked it as an A1.5 or A1.8 type answer (in other words, opinion/speculation but fairly strongly supported by evidence from another area). I'm an engineer, and I'm going to say 1.5 and 1.8 have too many significant digits and just call it an A2. I think this exercise serves to illustrate that things aren't always clear cut with that middle classification of answers. Because it's possible something is 100% correct and if you removed the "I am not certain but..." from the start of the answer, one may never know that the author didn't know. I'd argue A2 are still answers, and possibly good ones, but they require close scrutiny from the community. This is where John Rennie's opposition to downvoting I think is flawed. It's precisely answers like this that require up, and down, votes to establish accuracy. In my example answer above, the information is correct and accurate (particularly for a "here's an overview to a topic you don't know must about" level of sophistication). But it could just as easily been inaccurate. And people with domain-specific knowledge need to vote accordingly. The downvotes are particularly important. OP may have upvoted an A2 answer that was not completely accurate because they don't know any better and it sounds close enough. Maybe other people with marginal knowledge of the domain also upvoted for similar reasons. So people with actual, in depth knowledge, must downvote if it is inaccurate. But I will agree with [John Rennie for the rest of his response](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6475/6634) -- A2 answers should be supplanted by A1 answers from domain experts to fill in the real, gritty details that tend to be glossed over in A2 answers. Regarding A3 answers, I would flag as low quality (or not a real answer depending on the specific wording), downvote, and go about my day.	I agree with Kyle Kanos that A2 and A3 are answers, however poor in quality, since they attempt to address the Question. I agree with tpg2114 that A2 Answers require development. This can be done more conveniently if comments are addressed to this Answer, rather than to the Question. I think we would all agree that A3 Answers have no value on this site. However if, as Kyle points out, A3 Answers do not fall within the official criteria for deletion - eg because they are comments - then I think they must be - officially - acceptable. This situation is not ideal. My Suggestion To get round this, I suggest that acceptable Answers on Physics SE should not only address the Question but also use mainstream physics to do so. A3 would then be unacceptable and meet the criteria for deletion. This criterion corresponds with the requirement that Questions must be on topic and can be closed and deleted if off topic. Answers must likewise be on topic in my view. If Questions which ask about Chemistry or Mathematics or Biology or Technology etc can be deemed off topic then Answers which do the same - with no physics content - ought also to be off topic. The difficulty with my suggestion is that fairness probably requires Voting to Close - ie the judgement of one's peers - as with Questions. But there is currently no facility to do so.
6,474	So, I was going through and flagging new answers to old questions (because that's fun) and it dawned on me, are opinions really answers? The obvious answer is "yes" and that wrong opinions should be downvoted. But let me present an example and then I'll open the floor for discussion and laying of guidelines. Here's an example question that I just thought up (no doubt it's been asked before but that isn't the point of this): > > Q: How can two massless photons interact to form a massive particle-antiparticle pair? And where does all that extra energy for the new masses come from? > > > Now, there's three distinct types of answers you can get for this. First, there's the answer based on physics, expertise, and referencing: > > A1: Pair production occurs through multiple processes. The zero-loop Feynman diagrams (shown below) for this process show the most common of them. The energy for the final pair comes from......... (You get the idea) > > > The second type of answer combines knowledge and opinion. It is usually from someone that doesn't know the exact physics, but knows enough to make it up as they go along (although it may not be right): > > A2: I'm not a particle physicist but I think it probably has to do with quantum mechanics and the energy of photons. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen does happen and this is something that can happen with a non-zero probability. The energy for the final pair probably comes from the energy of the photons transferred to mass by E=mc^2. And then the momentum of the new particles must be whatever's left over. > > > The third type of answer is purely opinion and rarely has anything to do with physics: > > A3: I thought about this myself and it's my personal belief, which seems fairly obvious once you think about it, is that God had to make all the particles at some point, so he allowed this to be possible so he could get the energy from somewhere. That's the simplest answer, the physicists just have made it all confused to hide that they can't quite grasp how it really works. > > > Okay, here's my analysis. A1 isn't in question; no opinion, all answer. A2 uses opinion but it also uses physics and intuition to form, what I'd call, a valid if not completely correct answer. A3 is pure opinion. Obviously the thing to do is downvote it and maybe leave a comment to the effect of "this isn't a place for personal opinions". But is it truly an answer? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks on whether things like A3 are really answers (N.B. By "like A3" I'm not referring specifically to religious stuff. Anything that's so obviously pure opinion and no physics). To start off the discussion, I'll provide two points of view, one for and one against. Perhaps we can discuss and, if necessary, amend guidelines. --- Yes, they're answers Perhaps the easiest to argue, A3 attempts to answer the question. It asks how the process can happen and it gives an answer. The answer is admittedly unscientific, wrong, and generally poor, but it presents an idea that, if true, would sate the asker's curiosity. To call it not an answer would mean we could flag it and remove it as such. This opens us up to a wide range of potential abuse. Where do we draw the line between purely opinion and an acceptable mix of opinion and physics? This should be downvoted, but not deleted. --- No, they're not answers An answer to the question must do just that; answer the question. The question is asking "How does this happen?", not "What is your opinion of how this happens?". If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and you responded with "In my opinion, it's blue because it reflects the ocean." I'd say "I didn't ask you what your opinion was, nor do I care what it is. I want to know the accepted explanation, your opinion is irrelevant." (And then I might literally bite your head off too). This is the essence of what I'm saying. If it asks for the physics explanation, does it really count as an answer if someone gives their opinion? Shouldn't A3 be flagged as not an answer? After all, the appropriate comment to be made is "The OP asked for the explanation of this process not your opinion of what it might actually be." If the question were "What is your opinion of X?", it would be closed as primarily opinion-based. Doesn't that suggest the question "How does X work?" is sufficiently different and that a valid answer to the former would be sufficiently different from a valid answer to the latter? --- Okay, there's two points of view. I think both have their strengths. I'm leaning on the side of "Yes", but I wouldn't be making this post if I didn't have strong enough doubts to seriously consider "No". So let's have a fun discussion (no heated debates, please). What do you think? And if you also think A2 shouldn't be considered an answer, I especially want to hear from you.	2015/01/27	[ "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6474", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/" ]	I think A2 is an acceptable answer. The votes (up or down) depend on the accuracy (which probably requires knowledge on the actual answer to the question), but I think leaving comments along the lines of This answer could be better if ..." would be helpful to the OP and to future readers (again, this probably requires knowledge on the actual answer). I think A3 is an unacceptable answer; it should be downvoted to oblivion. I am hesitant to say that it should be deleted because [our LQ deletion reasons are](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5676/25301): * Comments: A3 doesn't quite fit here because it is an "attempt" to answer the question, it's just fundamentally wrong. * Thanks: Also does not apply as the user is not thanking the OP * New Question: Does not apply * URL only: Usually not the case, but can be sometimes applied * No comment necessary: This, to me, is supposed to be used when someone else has already left a delete-comment as above\. So this one too doesn't seem to apply either. So nothing, as far as I can read into it, in the LQ delete reasons can justify deleting the answer. The Official policy is [supposed to be "Looks Okay"](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266428/low-quality-review-queue-meaning-of-looks-ok) when reviewing these (see also [What to do with Low Quality posts that you just can't delete](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5995), asked here on Physics by [Jim](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/23473/jim), and the link before the LQ delete reasons.) \Though I have done it in the past, I think using this as a means to "get around" the other comments and delete A3 answers is a little underhanded--unless the community feels this is an appropriate course of action.	I agree with Kyle Kanos that A2 and A3 are answers, however poor in quality, since they attempt to address the Question. I agree with tpg2114 that A2 Answers require development. This can be done more conveniently if comments are addressed to this Answer, rather than to the Question. I think we would all agree that A3 Answers have no value on this site. However if, as Kyle points out, A3 Answers do not fall within the official criteria for deletion - eg because they are comments - then I think they must be - officially - acceptable. This situation is not ideal. My Suggestion To get round this, I suggest that acceptable Answers on Physics SE should not only address the Question but also use mainstream physics to do so. A3 would then be unacceptable and meet the criteria for deletion. This criterion corresponds with the requirement that Questions must be on topic and can be closed and deleted if off topic. Answers must likewise be on topic in my view. If Questions which ask about Chemistry or Mathematics or Biology or Technology etc can be deemed off topic then Answers which do the same - with no physics content - ought also to be off topic. The difficulty with my suggestion is that fairness probably requires Voting to Close - ie the judgement of one's peers - as with Questions. But there is currently no facility to do so.
2,525	If a player commits a direct free kick offence in their own penalty area, this results in a penalty kick instead of a direct free kick. However, if the offence is an indirect free kick offence, it remains as an indirect free kick [as shown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPx5AUx0zhg). What offences result in an indirect free kick?	2013/04/15	[ "https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2525", "https://sports.stackexchange.com", "https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/1286/" ]	Inside the penalty box, an indirect free kick, instead of a penalty, will be awarded * if the goalkeeper controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds. * if the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player. * if the goalkeeper handles a back pass. * if the goalkeeper handles the ball directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate plays in a dangerous manner. Sources: [This](http://www.seriousgoalkeeping.net/Tactics/FreeKicks/IndirectFreeKickInsideBox.aspx) and [this](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4200994.stm). More details about the procedure, positions and rules about indirect free kicks can be read [here](http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290870.html).	The penalty kick is a kind of penalty used if and only if a team commits an offense warranting a direct free kick inside its own penalty area, in which case, a penalty kick is used instead of the direct free kick. As this does not apply to indirect free kicks, nothing is special there. The only special case here is that there are specific offenses warranting an indirect free kick which apply only inside your own penalty area; those are specific for the goalkeeper. (Not that those offenses would be handled specially inside the penalty area, just that they cannot occur anywhere else by definition/plain logic.) Therefore, an indirect free kick inside the penalty area is awarded to the attacking team if either * the goalkeeper of the defending team commits any of the following four offenses: + controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession + touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player + touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate + touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate * or if any player of the defending team + plays in a dangerous manner + impedes the progress of an opponent + ~~prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands~~ (which is obviously impossible inside your own penalty area) + commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player I believe indirect free kicks for the “generic” offenses are quite rare in penalty area; the offense would usually be either ignored completely, or a “similar” offense warranting a direct free kick and therefore a penalty kick would be ruled instead, etc. However, these do happen. A quick example video found with Google: during the 36th minute of [Real Madrid CF vs Sevilla](http://www.goal.com/en/match/63272/real-madrid-cf-vs-sevilla/play-by-play) on April 29, 2012, Fazio played with a high foot on Ronaldo inside the penalty area, and an indirect free kick against Sevilla for playing in a dangerous manner was awarded. See this YouTube video: [Free kick inside the penalty box ? Real Madrid v Sevilla 29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gnOfzQE8nY). (Please disregard the confused/mistaken title and some comments). And note that there is one specialty regarding the procedure for an indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team: If the indirect free kick was awarded inside the goal area, the kick must be taken on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred.
2,525	If a player commits a direct free kick offence in their own penalty area, this results in a penalty kick instead of a direct free kick. However, if the offence is an indirect free kick offence, it remains as an indirect free kick [as shown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPx5AUx0zhg). What offences result in an indirect free kick?	2013/04/15	[ "https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2525", "https://sports.stackexchange.com", "https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/1286/" ]	Inside the penalty box, an indirect free kick, instead of a penalty, will be awarded * if the goalkeeper controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds. * if the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player. * if the goalkeeper handles a back pass. * if the goalkeeper handles the ball directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate plays in a dangerous manner. Sources: [This](http://www.seriousgoalkeeping.net/Tactics/FreeKicks/IndirectFreeKickInsideBox.aspx) and [this](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4200994.stm). More details about the procedure, positions and rules about indirect free kicks can be read [here](http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290870.html).	Indirect free kicks in the box were quite common at all levels of the game until about 20 years ago. It is nearly always for "obstruction". The problem has been that players now deliberately obstruct, which can be seen as "reckless or excessively forceful", hence a direct free kick/penalty. Referees tend to see all obstructions now as deliberate, leading to far more penalties (or calls for penalties from attackers deliberately barging into defenders to try to "win" a penalty) being given. With more games televised there are more controversies about the awarding of pens, especially in "homer" situations. Unfortunately unless players begin to behave better (and stop cheating,) the obstruction rule will continue to lead to direct free kicks only.
2,525	If a player commits a direct free kick offence in their own penalty area, this results in a penalty kick instead of a direct free kick. However, if the offence is an indirect free kick offence, it remains as an indirect free kick [as shown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPx5AUx0zhg). What offences result in an indirect free kick?	2013/04/15	[ "https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2525", "https://sports.stackexchange.com", "https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/1286/" ]	Inside the penalty box, an indirect free kick, instead of a penalty, will be awarded * if the goalkeeper controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds. * if the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player. * if the goalkeeper handles a back pass. * if the goalkeeper handles the ball directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate plays in a dangerous manner. Sources: [This](http://www.seriousgoalkeeping.net/Tactics/FreeKicks/IndirectFreeKickInsideBox.aspx) and [this](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4200994.stm). More details about the procedure, positions and rules about indirect free kicks can be read [here](http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290870.html).	It may be easier to list only the offences that result in a penalty kick being awarded (ie. direct free kick offences), as there are a lot less of them. The vast majority of possible infringements result in an indirect free kick, in spite of direct free kick offences being far more common. A number of the other answers have focused only on Law 12 offences, however, there are many others that result in an indirect free kick. This answer will endeavour to list them all in light of [recent changes to the Laws](http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/football-to-introduce-widerange-of-new-rules-ahead-of-euro-2016/news-story/8dfead5ba8da52dc776b54a4ecbd068e). Pertinent changes have been emphasised. An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if: * a player, temporarily off the field of play (ie. for treatment, correcting equipment) re-enters the field of play without permission. The indirect free kick is taken from the location of the ball when play was stopped (Laws [3.8](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players/chapters/player-outside-the-field-of-play) and [4.5](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players-equipment/chapters/equipment-infringements-and-sanctions)). If the player committed any other Law 12 offence (ie. a foul or misconduct), play is restarted with the appropriate restart for that offence. * a player commits an offside offence by interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage from being in that position ([Law 11.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/offside/chapters/offside-offence)). The indirect free kick is taken from the location at which the player interfered or gained an advantage (up until recently it was taken from where they were located when the ball was last touched by a team-mate) ([Law 11.4](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/offside/chapters/offside-infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player plays in a dangerous manner. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player played in a dangerous manner ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player impedes the progress of an opponent without making contact. The indirect free kick is taken from where the opponent was impeded ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it. The indirect free kick is taken from where the attempted release occurred ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player commits misconduct (ie. a cautionable or sending-off offence) without the restart being listed elsewhere in the Laws. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player committed the misconduct ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a goalkeeper controls the ball with the hands for more than six seconds without releasing the ball. The indirect free kick is taken from where the goalkeeper was handling the ball when the six seconds expired ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands after releasing it and before it has touched another player, after it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate, or after receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate. The indirect free kick is taken from where the goalkeeper handles the ball ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player standing inside the field of play throws an object at any person outside the field of play, or a substitute or substituted player throws an object at an opponent standing inside the field of play ([Law 12.4](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/restart-of-play-after-fouls-and-misconduct)). The indirect free kick is taken from where the ball was located when play was stopped ([Law 3.5](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players/chapters/infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player touches the ball a second time once it is in play, before it touches another player, after taking a free kick, penalty kick, throw-in, goal kick or corner kick. The indirect free kick is taken from where the ball was touched for the second time (Laws [13.3](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/free-kicks/chapters/free-kick-infringements-and-sanctions), [14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions), [15.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-throw-in/chapters/the-throw-in-infringements-and-sanctions), [16.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-goal-kick/chapters/the-goal-kick-infringements-and-sanctions) and [17.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-corner-kick/chapters/the-corner-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). (If the second touch was a deliberate handling by a player other than the goalkeeper within their own penalty area, the deliberate handling offence takes precedence and the restart is a direct free kick or penalty kick accordingly.) * after the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, but before it is taken, a player taking a penalty kick or a team-mate of the player taking a penalty kick commits any infringement listed in the Laws and the subsequent kick does not enter the goal. The indirect free kick is taken from where the infringement occurred ([Law 14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). (If both teams infringe the Laws between the signal and kick, the penalty kick is retaken instead). * after the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, the penalty kick is kicked backwards by the kicker, the kicker feints once their run-up is completed, or a team-mate of the designated kicker takes the kick instead (up until recently, if the ball entered the goal, the penalty kick was taken again). The indirect free kick is taken from the penalty mark (ie. where offence occurred) ([Law 14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player unfairly distract or impedes an opponent taking a throw-in, or stands closer than 2m to an opponent taking a throw-in and the throw-in ends up being taken correctly. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player committing the offence was located ([Law 15.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-throw-in/chapters/the-throw-in-infringements-and-sanctions)). If the location of the indirect free kick ends up being in the goal area, to be taken by: * the attacking team, it is instead taken from the nearest point on the goal area line that runs parallel to the goal line. * the defending team, it is taken from any point within the goal area. ([Law 13.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/free-kicks/chapters/procedure))
2,525	If a player commits a direct free kick offence in their own penalty area, this results in a penalty kick instead of a direct free kick. However, if the offence is an indirect free kick offence, it remains as an indirect free kick [as shown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPx5AUx0zhg). What offences result in an indirect free kick?	2013/04/15	[ "https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2525", "https://sports.stackexchange.com", "https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/1286/" ]	The penalty kick is a kind of penalty used if and only if a team commits an offense warranting a direct free kick inside its own penalty area, in which case, a penalty kick is used instead of the direct free kick. As this does not apply to indirect free kicks, nothing is special there. The only special case here is that there are specific offenses warranting an indirect free kick which apply only inside your own penalty area; those are specific for the goalkeeper. (Not that those offenses would be handled specially inside the penalty area, just that they cannot occur anywhere else by definition/plain logic.) Therefore, an indirect free kick inside the penalty area is awarded to the attacking team if either * the goalkeeper of the defending team commits any of the following four offenses: + controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession + touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player + touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate + touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate * or if any player of the defending team + plays in a dangerous manner + impedes the progress of an opponent + ~~prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands~~ (which is obviously impossible inside your own penalty area) + commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player I believe indirect free kicks for the “generic” offenses are quite rare in penalty area; the offense would usually be either ignored completely, or a “similar” offense warranting a direct free kick and therefore a penalty kick would be ruled instead, etc. However, these do happen. A quick example video found with Google: during the 36th minute of [Real Madrid CF vs Sevilla](http://www.goal.com/en/match/63272/real-madrid-cf-vs-sevilla/play-by-play) on April 29, 2012, Fazio played with a high foot on Ronaldo inside the penalty area, and an indirect free kick against Sevilla for playing in a dangerous manner was awarded. See this YouTube video: [Free kick inside the penalty box ? Real Madrid v Sevilla 29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gnOfzQE8nY). (Please disregard the confused/mistaken title and some comments). And note that there is one specialty regarding the procedure for an indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team: If the indirect free kick was awarded inside the goal area, the kick must be taken on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred.	Indirect free kicks in the box were quite common at all levels of the game until about 20 years ago. It is nearly always for "obstruction". The problem has been that players now deliberately obstruct, which can be seen as "reckless or excessively forceful", hence a direct free kick/penalty. Referees tend to see all obstructions now as deliberate, leading to far more penalties (or calls for penalties from attackers deliberately barging into defenders to try to "win" a penalty) being given. With more games televised there are more controversies about the awarding of pens, especially in "homer" situations. Unfortunately unless players begin to behave better (and stop cheating,) the obstruction rule will continue to lead to direct free kicks only.
2,525	If a player commits a direct free kick offence in their own penalty area, this results in a penalty kick instead of a direct free kick. However, if the offence is an indirect free kick offence, it remains as an indirect free kick [as shown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPx5AUx0zhg). What offences result in an indirect free kick?	2013/04/15	[ "https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2525", "https://sports.stackexchange.com", "https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/1286/" ]	The penalty kick is a kind of penalty used if and only if a team commits an offense warranting a direct free kick inside its own penalty area, in which case, a penalty kick is used instead of the direct free kick. As this does not apply to indirect free kicks, nothing is special there. The only special case here is that there are specific offenses warranting an indirect free kick which apply only inside your own penalty area; those are specific for the goalkeeper. (Not that those offenses would be handled specially inside the penalty area, just that they cannot occur anywhere else by definition/plain logic.) Therefore, an indirect free kick inside the penalty area is awarded to the attacking team if either * the goalkeeper of the defending team commits any of the following four offenses: + controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession + touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player + touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate + touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate * or if any player of the defending team + plays in a dangerous manner + impedes the progress of an opponent + ~~prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands~~ (which is obviously impossible inside your own penalty area) + commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player I believe indirect free kicks for the “generic” offenses are quite rare in penalty area; the offense would usually be either ignored completely, or a “similar” offense warranting a direct free kick and therefore a penalty kick would be ruled instead, etc. However, these do happen. A quick example video found with Google: during the 36th minute of [Real Madrid CF vs Sevilla](http://www.goal.com/en/match/63272/real-madrid-cf-vs-sevilla/play-by-play) on April 29, 2012, Fazio played with a high foot on Ronaldo inside the penalty area, and an indirect free kick against Sevilla for playing in a dangerous manner was awarded. See this YouTube video: [Free kick inside the penalty box ? Real Madrid v Sevilla 29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gnOfzQE8nY). (Please disregard the confused/mistaken title and some comments). And note that there is one specialty regarding the procedure for an indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team: If the indirect free kick was awarded inside the goal area, the kick must be taken on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred.	It may be easier to list only the offences that result in a penalty kick being awarded (ie. direct free kick offences), as there are a lot less of them. The vast majority of possible infringements result in an indirect free kick, in spite of direct free kick offences being far more common. A number of the other answers have focused only on Law 12 offences, however, there are many others that result in an indirect free kick. This answer will endeavour to list them all in light of [recent changes to the Laws](http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/football-to-introduce-widerange-of-new-rules-ahead-of-euro-2016/news-story/8dfead5ba8da52dc776b54a4ecbd068e). Pertinent changes have been emphasised. An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if: * a player, temporarily off the field of play (ie. for treatment, correcting equipment) re-enters the field of play without permission. The indirect free kick is taken from the location of the ball when play was stopped (Laws [3.8](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players/chapters/player-outside-the-field-of-play) and [4.5](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players-equipment/chapters/equipment-infringements-and-sanctions)). If the player committed any other Law 12 offence (ie. a foul or misconduct), play is restarted with the appropriate restart for that offence. * a player commits an offside offence by interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage from being in that position ([Law 11.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/offside/chapters/offside-offence)). The indirect free kick is taken from the location at which the player interfered or gained an advantage (up until recently it was taken from where they were located when the ball was last touched by a team-mate) ([Law 11.4](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/offside/chapters/offside-infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player plays in a dangerous manner. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player played in a dangerous manner ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player impedes the progress of an opponent without making contact. The indirect free kick is taken from where the opponent was impeded ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it. The indirect free kick is taken from where the attempted release occurred ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player commits misconduct (ie. a cautionable or sending-off offence) without the restart being listed elsewhere in the Laws. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player committed the misconduct ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a goalkeeper controls the ball with the hands for more than six seconds without releasing the ball. The indirect free kick is taken from where the goalkeeper was handling the ball when the six seconds expired ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands after releasing it and before it has touched another player, after it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate, or after receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate. The indirect free kick is taken from where the goalkeeper handles the ball ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player standing inside the field of play throws an object at any person outside the field of play, or a substitute or substituted player throws an object at an opponent standing inside the field of play ([Law 12.4](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/restart-of-play-after-fouls-and-misconduct)). The indirect free kick is taken from where the ball was located when play was stopped ([Law 3.5](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players/chapters/infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player touches the ball a second time once it is in play, before it touches another player, after taking a free kick, penalty kick, throw-in, goal kick or corner kick. The indirect free kick is taken from where the ball was touched for the second time (Laws [13.3](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/free-kicks/chapters/free-kick-infringements-and-sanctions), [14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions), [15.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-throw-in/chapters/the-throw-in-infringements-and-sanctions), [16.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-goal-kick/chapters/the-goal-kick-infringements-and-sanctions) and [17.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-corner-kick/chapters/the-corner-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). (If the second touch was a deliberate handling by a player other than the goalkeeper within their own penalty area, the deliberate handling offence takes precedence and the restart is a direct free kick or penalty kick accordingly.) * after the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, but before it is taken, a player taking a penalty kick or a team-mate of the player taking a penalty kick commits any infringement listed in the Laws and the subsequent kick does not enter the goal. The indirect free kick is taken from where the infringement occurred ([Law 14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). (If both teams infringe the Laws between the signal and kick, the penalty kick is retaken instead). * after the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, the penalty kick is kicked backwards by the kicker, the kicker feints once their run-up is completed, or a team-mate of the designated kicker takes the kick instead (up until recently, if the ball entered the goal, the penalty kick was taken again). The indirect free kick is taken from the penalty mark (ie. where offence occurred) ([Law 14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player unfairly distract or impedes an opponent taking a throw-in, or stands closer than 2m to an opponent taking a throw-in and the throw-in ends up being taken correctly. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player committing the offence was located ([Law 15.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-throw-in/chapters/the-throw-in-infringements-and-sanctions)). If the location of the indirect free kick ends up being in the goal area, to be taken by: * the attacking team, it is instead taken from the nearest point on the goal area line that runs parallel to the goal line. * the defending team, it is taken from any point within the goal area. ([Law 13.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/free-kicks/chapters/procedure))
2,525	If a player commits a direct free kick offence in their own penalty area, this results in a penalty kick instead of a direct free kick. However, if the offence is an indirect free kick offence, it remains as an indirect free kick [as shown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPx5AUx0zhg). What offences result in an indirect free kick?	2013/04/15	[ "https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2525", "https://sports.stackexchange.com", "https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/1286/" ]	Indirect free kicks in the box were quite common at all levels of the game until about 20 years ago. It is nearly always for "obstruction". The problem has been that players now deliberately obstruct, which can be seen as "reckless or excessively forceful", hence a direct free kick/penalty. Referees tend to see all obstructions now as deliberate, leading to far more penalties (or calls for penalties from attackers deliberately barging into defenders to try to "win" a penalty) being given. With more games televised there are more controversies about the awarding of pens, especially in "homer" situations. Unfortunately unless players begin to behave better (and stop cheating,) the obstruction rule will continue to lead to direct free kicks only.	It may be easier to list only the offences that result in a penalty kick being awarded (ie. direct free kick offences), as there are a lot less of them. The vast majority of possible infringements result in an indirect free kick, in spite of direct free kick offences being far more common. A number of the other answers have focused only on Law 12 offences, however, there are many others that result in an indirect free kick. This answer will endeavour to list them all in light of [recent changes to the Laws](http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/football-to-introduce-widerange-of-new-rules-ahead-of-euro-2016/news-story/8dfead5ba8da52dc776b54a4ecbd068e). Pertinent changes have been emphasised. An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if: * a player, temporarily off the field of play (ie. for treatment, correcting equipment) re-enters the field of play without permission. The indirect free kick is taken from the location of the ball when play was stopped (Laws [3.8](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players/chapters/player-outside-the-field-of-play) and [4.5](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players-equipment/chapters/equipment-infringements-and-sanctions)). If the player committed any other Law 12 offence (ie. a foul or misconduct), play is restarted with the appropriate restart for that offence. * a player commits an offside offence by interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage from being in that position ([Law 11.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/offside/chapters/offside-offence)). The indirect free kick is taken from the location at which the player interfered or gained an advantage (up until recently it was taken from where they were located when the ball was last touched by a team-mate) ([Law 11.4](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/offside/chapters/offside-infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player plays in a dangerous manner. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player played in a dangerous manner ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player impedes the progress of an opponent without making contact. The indirect free kick is taken from where the opponent was impeded ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it. The indirect free kick is taken from where the attempted release occurred ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player commits misconduct (ie. a cautionable or sending-off offence) without the restart being listed elsewhere in the Laws. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player committed the misconduct ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a goalkeeper controls the ball with the hands for more than six seconds without releasing the ball. The indirect free kick is taken from where the goalkeeper was handling the ball when the six seconds expired ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands after releasing it and before it has touched another player, after it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate, or after receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate. The indirect free kick is taken from where the goalkeeper handles the ball ([Law 12.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/indirect-free-kick)). * a player standing inside the field of play throws an object at any person outside the field of play, or a substitute or substituted player throws an object at an opponent standing inside the field of play ([Law 12.4](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/restart-of-play-after-fouls-and-misconduct)). The indirect free kick is taken from where the ball was located when play was stopped ([Law 3.5](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-players/chapters/infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player touches the ball a second time once it is in play, before it touches another player, after taking a free kick, penalty kick, throw-in, goal kick or corner kick. The indirect free kick is taken from where the ball was touched for the second time (Laws [13.3](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/free-kicks/chapters/free-kick-infringements-and-sanctions), [14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions), [15.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-throw-in/chapters/the-throw-in-infringements-and-sanctions), [16.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-goal-kick/chapters/the-goal-kick-infringements-and-sanctions) and [17.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-corner-kick/chapters/the-corner-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). (If the second touch was a deliberate handling by a player other than the goalkeeper within their own penalty area, the deliberate handling offence takes precedence and the restart is a direct free kick or penalty kick accordingly.) * after the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, but before it is taken, a player taking a penalty kick or a team-mate of the player taking a penalty kick commits any infringement listed in the Laws and the subsequent kick does not enter the goal. The indirect free kick is taken from where the infringement occurred ([Law 14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). (If both teams infringe the Laws between the signal and kick, the penalty kick is retaken instead). * after the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, the penalty kick is kicked backwards by the kicker, the kicker feints once their run-up is completed, or a team-mate of the designated kicker takes the kick instead (up until recently, if the ball entered the goal, the penalty kick was taken again). The indirect free kick is taken from the penalty mark (ie. where offence occurred) ([Law 14.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-penalty-kick/chapters/penalty-kick-infringements-and-sanctions)). * a player unfairly distract or impedes an opponent taking a throw-in, or stands closer than 2m to an opponent taking a throw-in and the throw-in ends up being taken correctly. The indirect free kick is taken from where the player committing the offence was located ([Law 15.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/the-throw-in/chapters/the-throw-in-infringements-and-sanctions)). If the location of the indirect free kick ends up being in the goal area, to be taken by: * the attacking team, it is instead taken from the nearest point on the goal area line that runs parallel to the goal line. * the defending team, it is taken from any point within the goal area. ([Law 13.2](http://theifab.com/#!/laws/free-kicks/chapters/procedure))
44,898,431	I want to create a backup of one of my Git repositories and save it to AWS CodeCommit. I don't want to include the use of my local machine. Can anyone tell me how can I do it directly or through AWS Lambda?	2017/07/04	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/44898431", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8101473/" ]	I just started searching for the answer to this very question. Before I post some of my preliminary data have you found a solution to this? Here is what I have found so far: * BitBucket <https://github.com/ef-labs/stash-hook-mirror> * GitHub <https://github.com/gitbucket/gitbucket/issues/833> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-webhooks/> * JGit <https://fancybeans.com/2012/08/24/how-to-use-s3-as-a-private-git-repository/> * Gitlab [How to create a Gitlab webhook to update a mirror repo on Github?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21962872/how-to-create-a-gitlab-webhook-to-update-a-mirror-repo-on-github) especially the part [here](https://stackoverflow.com/a/38302815/3155343) I successfully used the mirror feature to automatically pull a GitHub Repository into GitLab using the mirror feature offered by GitLab.com. I also found <https://github.com/lambci/lambci> which is serverless CI and looks promising. I believe the answer lies in a combination of AWS SNS Topic monitoring of Webhooks (GitLab and others) and pass the response to Lambda which spins up an instance which has either git or `jgit` to run the command, look through the LambCI Repository for details. The only problem with this solution is that the AWS Lambda instance will clone the mirrored repository to its local storage and then push to AWS Code Commit and this will be repeated each time an instance gets started so for LARGE repositories or VERY ACTIVE repositories this may not be a good idea and you would be better off spinning up a nano EC2 instance with a CRON job to mirror the repository to AWS Code Commit.	It seems migrating directly from Github to AWS Code-commit is not available in the AWS documentation. The following links have some scripts that can do the migration using a local machine. Please check: <http://www.paul-kearney.com/2015/09/migrating-from-github-to-aws-codecommit.html> <https://gist.github.com/paulkearney/6042561c56654a15af3c>
44,898,431	I want to create a backup of one of my Git repositories and save it to AWS CodeCommit. I don't want to include the use of my local machine. Can anyone tell me how can I do it directly or through AWS Lambda?	2017/07/04	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/44898431", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8101473/" ]	AWS Quickstart provide a [solution](https://github.com/aws-quickstart/quickstart-git2s3) that copies your repo to s3 using lambda and webhooks. This solution could quite easily be modified to copy to CodeCommit rather than s3. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tqmbz.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tqmbz.png)	It seems migrating directly from Github to AWS Code-commit is not available in the AWS documentation. The following links have some scripts that can do the migration using a local machine. Please check: <http://www.paul-kearney.com/2015/09/migrating-from-github-to-aws-codecommit.html> <https://gist.github.com/paulkearney/6042561c56654a15af3c>
44,898,431	I want to create a backup of one of my Git repositories and save it to AWS CodeCommit. I don't want to include the use of my local machine. Can anyone tell me how can I do it directly or through AWS Lambda?	2017/07/04	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/44898431", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8101473/" ]	I just started searching for the answer to this very question. Before I post some of my preliminary data have you found a solution to this? Here is what I have found so far: * BitBucket <https://github.com/ef-labs/stash-hook-mirror> * GitHub <https://github.com/gitbucket/gitbucket/issues/833> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-webhooks/> * JGit <https://fancybeans.com/2012/08/24/how-to-use-s3-as-a-private-git-repository/> * Gitlab [How to create a Gitlab webhook to update a mirror repo on Github?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21962872/how-to-create-a-gitlab-webhook-to-update-a-mirror-repo-on-github) especially the part [here](https://stackoverflow.com/a/38302815/3155343) I successfully used the mirror feature to automatically pull a GitHub Repository into GitLab using the mirror feature offered by GitLab.com. I also found <https://github.com/lambci/lambci> which is serverless CI and looks promising. I believe the answer lies in a combination of AWS SNS Topic monitoring of Webhooks (GitLab and others) and pass the response to Lambda which spins up an instance which has either git or `jgit` to run the command, look through the LambCI Repository for details. The only problem with this solution is that the AWS Lambda instance will clone the mirrored repository to its local storage and then push to AWS Code Commit and this will be repeated each time an instance gets started so for LARGE repositories or VERY ACTIVE repositories this may not be a good idea and you would be better off spinning up a nano EC2 instance with a CRON job to mirror the repository to AWS Code Commit.	AWS Quickstart provide a [solution](https://github.com/aws-quickstart/quickstart-git2s3) that copies your repo to s3 using lambda and webhooks. This solution could quite easily be modified to copy to CodeCommit rather than s3. [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tqmbz.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tqmbz.png)
7,045,087	Please keep in mind that I know nothing about Matlab. Matlab Builder JA lets developer build Matlab applications and export them into Java jars. That's great, I just have to produce a jar and I can then use it from other java code. Does anyone know how much the single jar packaging module cost? Is there any free version or similar freeware product? Is there any other way to achieve the same thing -Using Java to pass inputs to Matlab and getting an output back without worrying about anything else- with standard Matlab/Java?	2011/08/12	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7045087", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/807231/" ]	MATLAB Builder JA for Java is currently £3,150 for an individual commercial license, and requires MATLAB Compiler, which is currently £3,850 for an individual commercial license. I'm in the UK so can't get pricing in other currencies, but you can get your local prices from the following links. [Pricing for MATLAB Builder JA](http://www.mathworks.com/products/javabuilder/pricing_licensing.html) [Pricing for MATLAB Compiler](http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/pricing_licensing.html) Contrary to Birdasaur's answer, the products (and the deployed components) are not supported on Solaris - MATLAB itself has not been supported on Solaris [since R2010a](http://www.mathworks.com/support/sysreq/roadmap.html). You can also deploy the generated .jar files to as many sites as you like. Individual licenses can be either assigned to a named individual, in which case only that developer can use the product; or to a specific machine, in which case any developer can use it as long as they are at the console of the machine (not remotely logged in). MATLAB also has an undocumented interface called JMI (Java MATLAB interface) that you can use to call MATLAB directly from Java. Take a look at [matlabcontrol](http://code.google.com/p/matlabcontrol/). However, this requires a live copy of MATLAB for the deployed application.	You should probably contact MathWorks about licensing. As this is fairly high end functionality I would speculate that it is quite expensive. You should probably take a look at [Octave](http://www.octave.org) which is licensed under GNU GPL. Also, there are also a wide variety of wrappers around Matlab, such as [MLabWrap](http://mlabwrap.sourceforge.net/), however they require a Matlab version installed, so it would not work for redistribution or anything.
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	Sorry, but you will never find a real comparison with respect to accuracy. I am searching for three months now for my master thesis and have not found it. So I started to do the comparison on my own but it's still a long way to go. I'm testing with 3d engines and even 2d engines and for now Chipmunk is the one with the highest accuracy so far. So if you have no need for 3d I would reccomend it. However if you have an urgent need for 3d and your problem is as simple as you described it (don't want to expand it in the future?) Bullet and ODE will do it. I would prefer Bullet because it is much more up-to-date and is still actively maintained. At least there is Newton, with which I am fighting right now. Therefore I can't give you pros and cons except that it is a bit more work to get familiar with the (crucial) bad documentation. Hope that helps. Best regards.	One thing I found really valuable in ODE is the ability to change pretty much every single parameter 'on the fly'. As an example, the engine doesn't seem to complain if you modify the inertia or even the shape of a body. You could replace a sphere with a box and everything would just keep working, or change the size of the sphere. Other engines are not as flexible usually, because they do a lot of work internally for optimization purposes. As for accuracy, as far as I know, ODE still supports a very accurate (but slow) solver which is obviously not very popular in the games industry because you can't play around with more than 25-30 objects in real time. Hope this helps.
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	There is a nice comparison of ODE and Bullet here: <http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/03/Comparing-ODE-and-Bullet> Hope it can be useful in making a choice.	One thing I found really valuable in ODE is the ability to change pretty much every single parameter 'on the fly'. As an example, the engine doesn't seem to complain if you modify the inertia or even the shape of a body. You could replace a sphere with a box and everything would just keep working, or change the size of the sphere. Other engines are not as flexible usually, because they do a lot of work internally for optimization purposes. As for accuracy, as far as I know, ODE still supports a very accurate (but slow) solver which is obviously not very popular in the games industry because you can't play around with more than 25-30 objects in real time. Hope this helps.
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	Although it is a bit dated, there is a comprehensive comparison of (in alphabetical order) Bullet, JigLib, Newton, ODE, PhysX, and others available here: * <http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf> The comparison considers integrators, friction models, constraint solvers, collision detection, stacking, and computational performance.	A physics abstraction layer supports a large number of physics engines via a unified API, making it easy to compare engines for your situation. [PAL](http://pal.sourceforge.net/) provides a unique interface for these physics engines: 1. Box2D (experimental) 2. Bullet 3. Dynamechs(deprecated) 4. Havok (experimental) 5. IBDS (experimental) 6. JigLib 7. Meqon(deprecated) 8. Newton 9. ODE 10. OpenTissue (experimental) 11. PhysX (a.k.a Novodex, Ageia PhysX, nVidia PhysX) 12. Simple Physics Engine (experimental) 13. Tokamak 14. TrueAxis According to the [December 2007 paper](http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf) linked in [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/13513801/819417): > > Of the open source engines the Bullet engine provided the best results > overall, outperforming even some of the commercial engines. Tokamak > was the most computationally efficient, making it a good choice for > game development, however TrueAxis and Newton performed well at low > update rates. For simulation systems the most important property of > the simulation should be determined in order to select the best > engine. > > > Here is a September 2007 demo by the same author: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOKGBd-7iw>
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	There is a nice comparison of ODE and Bullet here: <http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/03/Comparing-ODE-and-Bullet> Hope it can be useful in making a choice.	A physics abstraction layer supports a large number of physics engines via a unified API, making it easy to compare engines for your situation. [PAL](http://pal.sourceforge.net/) provides a unique interface for these physics engines: 1. Box2D (experimental) 2. Bullet 3. Dynamechs(deprecated) 4. Havok (experimental) 5. IBDS (experimental) 6. JigLib 7. Meqon(deprecated) 8. Newton 9. ODE 10. OpenTissue (experimental) 11. PhysX (a.k.a Novodex, Ageia PhysX, nVidia PhysX) 12. Simple Physics Engine (experimental) 13. Tokamak 14. TrueAxis According to the [December 2007 paper](http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf) linked in [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/13513801/819417): > > Of the open source engines the Bullet engine provided the best results > overall, outperforming even some of the commercial engines. Tokamak > was the most computationally efficient, making it a good choice for > game development, however TrueAxis and Newton performed well at low > update rates. For simulation systems the most important property of > the simulation should be determined in order to select the best > engine. > > > Here is a September 2007 demo by the same author: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOKGBd-7iw>
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	Sorry, but you will never find a real comparison with respect to accuracy. I am searching for three months now for my master thesis and have not found it. So I started to do the comparison on my own but it's still a long way to go. I'm testing with 3d engines and even 2d engines and for now Chipmunk is the one with the highest accuracy so far. So if you have no need for 3d I would reccomend it. However if you have an urgent need for 3d and your problem is as simple as you described it (don't want to expand it in the future?) Bullet and ODE will do it. I would prefer Bullet because it is much more up-to-date and is still actively maintained. At least there is Newton, with which I am fighting right now. Therefore I can't give you pros and cons except that it is a bit more work to get familiar with the (crucial) bad documentation. Hope that helps. Best regards.	A physics abstraction layer supports a large number of physics engines via a unified API, making it easy to compare engines for your situation. [PAL](http://pal.sourceforge.net/) provides a unique interface for these physics engines: 1. Box2D (experimental) 2. Bullet 3. Dynamechs(deprecated) 4. Havok (experimental) 5. IBDS (experimental) 6. JigLib 7. Meqon(deprecated) 8. Newton 9. ODE 10. OpenTissue (experimental) 11. PhysX (a.k.a Novodex, Ageia PhysX, nVidia PhysX) 12. Simple Physics Engine (experimental) 13. Tokamak 14. TrueAxis According to the [December 2007 paper](http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf) linked in [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/13513801/819417): > > Of the open source engines the Bullet engine provided the best results > overall, outperforming even some of the commercial engines. Tokamak > was the most computationally efficient, making it a good choice for > game development, however TrueAxis and Newton performed well at low > update rates. For simulation systems the most important property of > the simulation should be determined in order to select the best > engine. > > > Here is a September 2007 demo by the same author: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOKGBd-7iw>
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	There is a nice comparison of ODE and Bullet here: <http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/03/Comparing-ODE-and-Bullet> Hope it can be useful in making a choice.	Although it is a bit dated, there is a comprehensive comparison of (in alphabetical order) Bullet, JigLib, Newton, ODE, PhysX, and others available here: * <http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf> The comparison considers integrators, friction models, constraint solvers, collision detection, stacking, and computational performance.
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	There is a nice comparison of ODE and Bullet here: <http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/03/Comparing-ODE-and-Bullet> Hope it can be useful in making a choice.	Check out Simbody, which is used in engineering. It's particularly good for simulating articulated bodies. It has been used for more than 5 years to simulate human musculoskeletal dynamics. It's also one of the physics engines used in Gazebo, a robot simulation environment. <https://github.com/simbody/simbody> <http://nmbl.stanford.edu/publications/pdf/Sherm2011.pdf>
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	Although it is a bit dated, there is a comprehensive comparison of (in alphabetical order) Bullet, JigLib, Newton, ODE, PhysX, and others available here: * <http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf> The comparison considers integrators, friction models, constraint solvers, collision detection, stacking, and computational performance.	One thing I found really valuable in ODE is the ability to change pretty much every single parameter 'on the fly'. As an example, the engine doesn't seem to complain if you modify the inertia or even the shape of a body. You could replace a sphere with a box and everything would just keep working, or change the size of the sphere. Other engines are not as flexible usually, because they do a lot of work internally for optimization purposes. As for accuracy, as far as I know, ODE still supports a very accurate (but slow) solver which is obviously not very popular in the games industry because you can't play around with more than 25-30 objects in real time. Hope this helps.
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	Although it is a bit dated, there is a comprehensive comparison of (in alphabetical order) Bullet, JigLib, Newton, ODE, PhysX, and others available here: * <http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf> The comparison considers integrators, friction models, constraint solvers, collision detection, stacking, and computational performance.	Check out Simbody, which is used in engineering. It's particularly good for simulating articulated bodies. It has been used for more than 5 years to simulate human musculoskeletal dynamics. It's also one of the physics engines used in Gazebo, a robot simulation environment. <https://github.com/simbody/simbody> <http://nmbl.stanford.edu/publications/pdf/Sherm2011.pdf>
6,408,198	I am trying to pick a physics engine for a simple software application. It would be to simulate a rather small number of objects so performance isn't a huge concern. I am mostly concerned with the accuracy of the motion involved. I would also like the engine to be cross-platform between windows/linux/mac and usable with c++ code. I was looking at Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics, and ODE because they are open source. However, if Havok/PhysX are significantly more accurate I would consider those too. All I seem to find are opinions on the engines, are there any thorough comparisons between the options? Or does anyone have experience trying the various engines out. Since what I'm trying to do is relatively simple there probably isn't a huge difference between them, but I'd like to hear what people have to say about the options? Thanks!	2011/06/20	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6408198", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/131383/" ]	There is a nice comparison of ODE and Bullet here: <http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/03/Comparing-ODE-and-Bullet> Hope it can be useful in making a choice.	Sorry, but you will never find a real comparison with respect to accuracy. I am searching for three months now for my master thesis and have not found it. So I started to do the comparison on my own but it's still a long way to go. I'm testing with 3d engines and even 2d engines and for now Chipmunk is the one with the highest accuracy so far. So if you have no need for 3d I would reccomend it. However if you have an urgent need for 3d and your problem is as simple as you described it (don't want to expand it in the future?) Bullet and ODE will do it. I would prefer Bullet because it is much more up-to-date and is still actively maintained. At least there is Newton, with which I am fighting right now. Therefore I can't give you pros and cons except that it is a bit more work to get familiar with the (crucial) bad documentation. Hope that helps. Best regards.
183,005	Part of a laboratory experiment question set. Why is it that the known temperature of the boiling bath can be accurately determined from the days atmospheric pressure but the atmospheric pressure is not considered when determining the temperature of the ice bath for the calibration of thermometer?	2015/05/09	[ "https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183005", "https://physics.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/80824/" ]	The required change in pressure for a change in melting point can be found from the phase diagram of water. The typical variations in atmospheric pressure are negligible, just as you neglect the additional water pressure experienced in the lower parts of the ice bath. I will leave it up to you to find the factor involved - it is the slope of the water/ice boundary in the phase diagram.	In order for water to boil, it must become a vapor. Bubbles rising from boiling water contain water molecules that have enough kinetic energy to separate themselves from the less-energetic liquid molecules that remain in the liquid state. It's easier for vapor to form in a low pressure environment because there is less total kinetic energy outside the liquid in a low pressure environment. Therefore, the temperature required to impart kinetic energy to water molecules sufficient to differentiate themselves from liquid under low pressure is less than required under high pressure. Look at this phase diagram of water: <http://schools.birdville.k12.tx.us/cms/lib2/TX01000797/Centricity/Domain/912/ChemLessons/Lessons/Phases%20and%20Changes/image022.jpg> You will notice that the "triple point" at which ice, liquid, and gaseous water are in thermodynamic equilibrium is 100 degreesC away from the boiling point of water, but only 0.01 degreesC away from the freezing point of water at normal atmospheric pressure. A given increase or decrease in atmospheric pressure has a much greater effect on the boiling temperature of water than on its melting temperature. This is reflected in the steepness of the boundary line between the liquid and ice phases of water, compared to the more gradual slope of the liquid/gas boundary, as Floris pointed out in his succinct answer. Therefore, it's easier accurately to determine the temperature of boiling water from the pressure than it is accurately to determine the temperature of ice from the pressure. The difference in pressure required to produce a given effect on melting temperature is too small to be easily measured.
2,838,812	I know it might sound weird, but I wrote a web server without knowing how to deploy it and run it, so how do I do it in eclipse? (and please specify the eclipse version) thanks	2010/05/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2838812", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/246980/" ]	The webserver is implemented in java? Then to run it just launch it as any other java program (right click on main class, 'Run As'->'Java Application'). You can deploy it as runnable jar. Right click on the project, 'Export As...'. Choose 'Java'->'Runnable JAR file'. Follow the wizard instructions. If you have exported properly everyone can launch your webserver by an double click on the jar (as long as java is installed). My Eclipse-Version is 3.5, but that should not matter. This functionality is implemented since ... don't know. Long ;).	You need to write an [Eclipse plugin](http://www.eclipsepluginsite.com/) as well. [Some](http://www.eclipsetotale.com/tomcatPlugin.html#A3) of [them](https://glassfishplugins.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfishplugins/) are open source, you may want to take a look.
844,788	I want to install ubuntu alongside Windows 10 (which is already installed in my pc) in my pc, i was trying to shrink volume of C:\ drive by disk management but my C:\ drive don't have enough space . Will it work if i shrink my D:\ or E:\ drive in stead of C:\? I also tried using USB drive by downloading unetbootin but found no result. Please give a detailed explanation if possible.	2016/11/02	[ "https://askubuntu.com/questions/844788", "https://askubuntu.com", "https://askubuntu.com/users/614443/" ]	You can use the utility [gparted within a live USB or CD install to resize your disk](https://i.imgur.com/o9qud7x.png) offline. It should come preinstalled however if it is not you can run 'sudo apt-get install gparted' to install it. I happen to find the ['Universal USB Installer'](https://www.pendrivelinux.com/universal-usb-installer-easy-as-1-2-3/) the easiest to use on Windows whenever I try to make a bootable USB key.	Yes, shrinking the D or E drive can work. Look at [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOfnvbdWhrs). For USB bootable OS, do this : 1. Download ISO file of ubuntu (any version) 2. Download Universal USB Installer (UUI) from [here](https://www.pendrivelinux.com/universal-usb-installer-easy-as-1-2-3/) 3. Connect your USB drive and run UUI and follow the process. 4. After 10-20 minutes it will create a bootable USB. 5. Restart your system and boot from the USB drive. 6. Install it and enjoy Ubuntu on your system.
749	Are there free (or low cost) sources for nursery pots? Presumably nurseries reuse them. I'd like to get a few dozen in varying sizes for starting vegetables.	2011/06/20	[ "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/749", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/101/" ]	I've always had the opposite problem. After a few years of trips to the nursery, combined with the fact that the pots are not recyclable (at least they haven't been in the past -- not sure if this has or will change soon), I've had more of those things than I can ever reuse. There are enough gardeners in my neighborhood that we started an informal exchange. I would give my extras to a neighbor who gave them to a friend who needed a few. So, I would start by keeping what you get from the nursery and talking to your neighbors to see if they have extras that would otherwise wind up in the trash. I'd also recommend you look into (non-petroleum) alternatives. I've tended to use peat pots more often than the plastics, and they have the advantage that you can just plant the whole thing in the ground where it degrades. Another thing I have read about quite often, but haven't tried is using newspaper. Again, it is something that will biodegrade around the plant. Here are a few links on how to do this: * <http://smallmeadowfarm.blogspot.com/2007/01/newspaper-pots.html> * <http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-organic-planting-pots-using-old-newspa/> I have to admit that I've always kept a number of gallon pots for plants that I have to keep indoors until later in the spring (such as tomatoes), plants that would be too big for either peat pots or newspaper pots. Check with your local nursery too. I've heard of some nurseries that take back pots for reuse and to keep people from just throwing them away.	Ask friends Like rsgoheen I have too many. So I would suggest that the average gardener is in the same boat as us two. If you have any gardening friends or friends of friends then just ask them. It's likely they'll be all too pleased to get rid of some of their build up. or ask a Nursery I wanted a few free polystyrene trays at the start of spring, so I asked my local nursery if I could have some of their old ones. It helped that I was buying some stuff there too. They let me have half a dozen.
749	Are there free (or low cost) sources for nursery pots? Presumably nurseries reuse them. I'd like to get a few dozen in varying sizes for starting vegetables.	2011/06/20	[ "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/749", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/101/" ]	Be Creative =========== Be creative -- my two favorite free pots for transplanting up (i.e. repotting tomato/pepper/broccoli/etc seedlings into a larger container) are milk cartons and yogurt tubs. Half gallon cardboard milk cartons are the perfect size for tomatoes. I rinse them well, cut off the top, leaving 4-5" on the bottom. Drill a few holes in the bottom for drainage and you're ready to go. The only problem I have is that they don't "nest" -- storing a bunch of these takes up a fair amount of space. These are very durable; you must take the plant out of the box when transplanting, and the box can be reused for at least a couple of years. 2 lb yogurt tubs are about the same size. These just need drainage holes drilled in the bottom. These are easier to store: they nest, so you store a lot in a small space. These are durable as well; the only problem I've had is with cracking. When they crack or break, you can recycle them (assuming your local place takes #5). [Toilet paper rolls](http://www.simplyforties.com/2009/02/making-toilet-paper-roll-seed-starter.html) are an interesting idea; I haven't tried this. I've seen several slightly different sets of instructions on making [newspaper pots](http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-organic-planting-pots-using-old-newspa/). As another answer notes, make sure your ink is soy based -- some inks are toxic. Not as Good =========== The smaller single serving milk or yogurt containers are ok, but a bit small for transplants. Don't try to use metal cans (e.g. soup cans) -- these are ok containers for growing, but it's impossible to get a plant out when it's time to transplant. Egg cartons seem like a good idea, but they are just too shallow. Ask === As other answers noted, ask at the nursery, ask your friends. Ask at the local deli, they may have tubs that they discard when empty. Keep your eyes open for containers that would be good for growing. The downside to this approach (see below) is that you end up with a varied collection of containers and your plants are harder to manage. Up Front Investment =================== You can have a never-ending supply of pots by simply not needing pots. If you don't mind a one-time expense, check out soil block makers. These are a little hand-powered device that you use to compress potting soil into a cube. The cubes hold their shape surprisingly well and are a nice way to start plants. You can get small, medium, and large block makers, along with an indent attachment so that the small blocks fit into the next size up. This way you can "pot up" your tiny seedlings as they grow. I've used the 2" block maker (makes 4 at a time) with good results. A friend borrowed my block maker this spring for use in his new greenhouse and started several hundred vegetable and flower plants successfully on his first attempt using this strategy. I've also used the 3/4" block maker (makes 20 at a time) with good results. You can fit about 300 blocks on a cookie sheet -- that's a lot of spinach! Then, by changing out the insert on the 2" block maker, you can make 2" blocks that you can drop the 3/4" blocks directly into for another couple of weeks of growth before transplanting out to the garden. Trays ===== Another way to go is to sidestep the individual pot and use trays (flats). Again this requires a bit of an up-front investment in time and/or money. You may have or be able to find scrap wood that is the right dimension to use for this project; just be careful to avoid wood that has been treated/preserved (pallets are sometimes chemically treated so they last longer). In "How to Grow More Vegetables", John Jeavons describes how to use flats that you can build yourself. Make shallow trays for starting seeds and deeper trays for pricking out when the plants are ready to be potted up. I should confess that I haven't built the trays as described, but they don't seem to require much building skill. I instead used some containers (old window boxes) that I had around the house that matched the depth specifications from the flats in the book. I followed the recommended spacing from the book for plants in flats, and everything transplanted into the garden easily. Also take note of his cautions and consider building the smaller size flats: an 11x22x6" box full of moist soil will be deceptively heavy! The big advantage of trays over something like milk cartons or a collection of individual containers that you've scavenged is uniformity. They're: * easier to move in/out of the house when hardening off * easier/faster to water * faster to set up -- fill and plant * more flexible -- tomatoes need more room than basil, you don't need to "waste" a 4" milk carton and all that space/soil on a single basil plant * easier to plan around -- you can set up your shelves and lighting based on the size of the trays (e.g. four trays to a shelf/light) or if you're building trays and already have shelves, you can adjust the size of the trays to what you have for shelves so that you can fit an even number into a shelf with no wasted space The only disadvantage that I've found is that if you're starting multiple varieties (e.g. I don't want 50 of the same kind of tomato, I want 30 paste, 6 of two different kinds of cherry, and 14 beefsteaks) it's challenging to keep the varieties separate within a single tray -- you should definitely have a separate planting container!	I've always had the opposite problem. After a few years of trips to the nursery, combined with the fact that the pots are not recyclable (at least they haven't been in the past -- not sure if this has or will change soon), I've had more of those things than I can ever reuse. There are enough gardeners in my neighborhood that we started an informal exchange. I would give my extras to a neighbor who gave them to a friend who needed a few. So, I would start by keeping what you get from the nursery and talking to your neighbors to see if they have extras that would otherwise wind up in the trash. I'd also recommend you look into (non-petroleum) alternatives. I've tended to use peat pots more often than the plastics, and they have the advantage that you can just plant the whole thing in the ground where it degrades. Another thing I have read about quite often, but haven't tried is using newspaper. Again, it is something that will biodegrade around the plant. Here are a few links on how to do this: * <http://smallmeadowfarm.blogspot.com/2007/01/newspaper-pots.html> * <http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-organic-planting-pots-using-old-newspa/> I have to admit that I've always kept a number of gallon pots for plants that I have to keep indoors until later in the spring (such as tomatoes), plants that would be too big for either peat pots or newspaper pots. Check with your local nursery too. I've heard of some nurseries that take back pots for reuse and to keep people from just throwing them away.
749	Are there free (or low cost) sources for nursery pots? Presumably nurseries reuse them. I'd like to get a few dozen in varying sizes for starting vegetables.	2011/06/20	[ "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/749", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/101/" ]	I've always had the opposite problem. After a few years of trips to the nursery, combined with the fact that the pots are not recyclable (at least they haven't been in the past -- not sure if this has or will change soon), I've had more of those things than I can ever reuse. There are enough gardeners in my neighborhood that we started an informal exchange. I would give my extras to a neighbor who gave them to a friend who needed a few. So, I would start by keeping what you get from the nursery and talking to your neighbors to see if they have extras that would otherwise wind up in the trash. I'd also recommend you look into (non-petroleum) alternatives. I've tended to use peat pots more often than the plastics, and they have the advantage that you can just plant the whole thing in the ground where it degrades. Another thing I have read about quite often, but haven't tried is using newspaper. Again, it is something that will biodegrade around the plant. Here are a few links on how to do this: * <http://smallmeadowfarm.blogspot.com/2007/01/newspaper-pots.html> * <http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-organic-planting-pots-using-old-newspa/> I have to admit that I've always kept a number of gallon pots for plants that I have to keep indoors until later in the spring (such as tomatoes), plants that would be too big for either peat pots or newspaper pots. Check with your local nursery too. I've heard of some nurseries that take back pots for reuse and to keep people from just throwing them away.	You could use moso bamboo nodes, but if you live in an area where these aren't hardy, you might have to get them online. You can make bamboo cups, bowls, or nursery pots!
749	Are there free (or low cost) sources for nursery pots? Presumably nurseries reuse them. I'd like to get a few dozen in varying sizes for starting vegetables.	2011/06/20	[ "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/749", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/101/" ]	Be Creative =========== Be creative -- my two favorite free pots for transplanting up (i.e. repotting tomato/pepper/broccoli/etc seedlings into a larger container) are milk cartons and yogurt tubs. Half gallon cardboard milk cartons are the perfect size for tomatoes. I rinse them well, cut off the top, leaving 4-5" on the bottom. Drill a few holes in the bottom for drainage and you're ready to go. The only problem I have is that they don't "nest" -- storing a bunch of these takes up a fair amount of space. These are very durable; you must take the plant out of the box when transplanting, and the box can be reused for at least a couple of years. 2 lb yogurt tubs are about the same size. These just need drainage holes drilled in the bottom. These are easier to store: they nest, so you store a lot in a small space. These are durable as well; the only problem I've had is with cracking. When they crack or break, you can recycle them (assuming your local place takes #5). [Toilet paper rolls](http://www.simplyforties.com/2009/02/making-toilet-paper-roll-seed-starter.html) are an interesting idea; I haven't tried this. I've seen several slightly different sets of instructions on making [newspaper pots](http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-organic-planting-pots-using-old-newspa/). As another answer notes, make sure your ink is soy based -- some inks are toxic. Not as Good =========== The smaller single serving milk or yogurt containers are ok, but a bit small for transplants. Don't try to use metal cans (e.g. soup cans) -- these are ok containers for growing, but it's impossible to get a plant out when it's time to transplant. Egg cartons seem like a good idea, but they are just too shallow. Ask === As other answers noted, ask at the nursery, ask your friends. Ask at the local deli, they may have tubs that they discard when empty. Keep your eyes open for containers that would be good for growing. The downside to this approach (see below) is that you end up with a varied collection of containers and your plants are harder to manage. Up Front Investment =================== You can have a never-ending supply of pots by simply not needing pots. If you don't mind a one-time expense, check out soil block makers. These are a little hand-powered device that you use to compress potting soil into a cube. The cubes hold their shape surprisingly well and are a nice way to start plants. You can get small, medium, and large block makers, along with an indent attachment so that the small blocks fit into the next size up. This way you can "pot up" your tiny seedlings as they grow. I've used the 2" block maker (makes 4 at a time) with good results. A friend borrowed my block maker this spring for use in his new greenhouse and started several hundred vegetable and flower plants successfully on his first attempt using this strategy. I've also used the 3/4" block maker (makes 20 at a time) with good results. You can fit about 300 blocks on a cookie sheet -- that's a lot of spinach! Then, by changing out the insert on the 2" block maker, you can make 2" blocks that you can drop the 3/4" blocks directly into for another couple of weeks of growth before transplanting out to the garden. Trays ===== Another way to go is to sidestep the individual pot and use trays (flats). Again this requires a bit of an up-front investment in time and/or money. You may have or be able to find scrap wood that is the right dimension to use for this project; just be careful to avoid wood that has been treated/preserved (pallets are sometimes chemically treated so they last longer). In "How to Grow More Vegetables", John Jeavons describes how to use flats that you can build yourself. Make shallow trays for starting seeds and deeper trays for pricking out when the plants are ready to be potted up. I should confess that I haven't built the trays as described, but they don't seem to require much building skill. I instead used some containers (old window boxes) that I had around the house that matched the depth specifications from the flats in the book. I followed the recommended spacing from the book for plants in flats, and everything transplanted into the garden easily. Also take note of his cautions and consider building the smaller size flats: an 11x22x6" box full of moist soil will be deceptively heavy! The big advantage of trays over something like milk cartons or a collection of individual containers that you've scavenged is uniformity. They're: * easier to move in/out of the house when hardening off * easier/faster to water * faster to set up -- fill and plant * more flexible -- tomatoes need more room than basil, you don't need to "waste" a 4" milk carton and all that space/soil on a single basil plant * easier to plan around -- you can set up your shelves and lighting based on the size of the trays (e.g. four trays to a shelf/light) or if you're building trays and already have shelves, you can adjust the size of the trays to what you have for shelves so that you can fit an even number into a shelf with no wasted space The only disadvantage that I've found is that if you're starting multiple varieties (e.g. I don't want 50 of the same kind of tomato, I want 30 paste, 6 of two different kinds of cherry, and 14 beefsteaks) it's challenging to keep the varieties separate within a single tray -- you should definitely have a separate planting container!	Ask friends Like rsgoheen I have too many. So I would suggest that the average gardener is in the same boat as us two. If you have any gardening friends or friends of friends then just ask them. It's likely they'll be all too pleased to get rid of some of their build up. or ask a Nursery I wanted a few free polystyrene trays at the start of spring, so I asked my local nursery if I could have some of their old ones. It helped that I was buying some stuff there too. They let me have half a dozen.
749	Are there free (or low cost) sources for nursery pots? Presumably nurseries reuse them. I'd like to get a few dozen in varying sizes for starting vegetables.	2011/06/20	[ "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/749", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com", "https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/101/" ]	Be Creative =========== Be creative -- my two favorite free pots for transplanting up (i.e. repotting tomato/pepper/broccoli/etc seedlings into a larger container) are milk cartons and yogurt tubs. Half gallon cardboard milk cartons are the perfect size for tomatoes. I rinse them well, cut off the top, leaving 4-5" on the bottom. Drill a few holes in the bottom for drainage and you're ready to go. The only problem I have is that they don't "nest" -- storing a bunch of these takes up a fair amount of space. These are very durable; you must take the plant out of the box when transplanting, and the box can be reused for at least a couple of years. 2 lb yogurt tubs are about the same size. These just need drainage holes drilled in the bottom. These are easier to store: they nest, so you store a lot in a small space. These are durable as well; the only problem I've had is with cracking. When they crack or break, you can recycle them (assuming your local place takes #5). [Toilet paper rolls](http://www.simplyforties.com/2009/02/making-toilet-paper-roll-seed-starter.html) are an interesting idea; I haven't tried this. I've seen several slightly different sets of instructions on making [newspaper pots](http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-organic-planting-pots-using-old-newspa/). As another answer notes, make sure your ink is soy based -- some inks are toxic. Not as Good =========== The smaller single serving milk or yogurt containers are ok, but a bit small for transplants. Don't try to use metal cans (e.g. soup cans) -- these are ok containers for growing, but it's impossible to get a plant out when it's time to transplant. Egg cartons seem like a good idea, but they are just too shallow. Ask === As other answers noted, ask at the nursery, ask your friends. Ask at the local deli, they may have tubs that they discard when empty. Keep your eyes open for containers that would be good for growing. The downside to this approach (see below) is that you end up with a varied collection of containers and your plants are harder to manage. Up Front Investment =================== You can have a never-ending supply of pots by simply not needing pots. If you don't mind a one-time expense, check out soil block makers. These are a little hand-powered device that you use to compress potting soil into a cube. The cubes hold their shape surprisingly well and are a nice way to start plants. You can get small, medium, and large block makers, along with an indent attachment so that the small blocks fit into the next size up. This way you can "pot up" your tiny seedlings as they grow. I've used the 2" block maker (makes 4 at a time) with good results. A friend borrowed my block maker this spring for use in his new greenhouse and started several hundred vegetable and flower plants successfully on his first attempt using this strategy. I've also used the 3/4" block maker (makes 20 at a time) with good results. You can fit about 300 blocks on a cookie sheet -- that's a lot of spinach! Then, by changing out the insert on the 2" block maker, you can make 2" blocks that you can drop the 3/4" blocks directly into for another couple of weeks of growth before transplanting out to the garden. Trays ===== Another way to go is to sidestep the individual pot and use trays (flats). Again this requires a bit of an up-front investment in time and/or money. You may have or be able to find scrap wood that is the right dimension to use for this project; just be careful to avoid wood that has been treated/preserved (pallets are sometimes chemically treated so they last longer). In "How to Grow More Vegetables", John Jeavons describes how to use flats that you can build yourself. Make shallow trays for starting seeds and deeper trays for pricking out when the plants are ready to be potted up. I should confess that I haven't built the trays as described, but they don't seem to require much building skill. I instead used some containers (old window boxes) that I had around the house that matched the depth specifications from the flats in the book. I followed the recommended spacing from the book for plants in flats, and everything transplanted into the garden easily. Also take note of his cautions and consider building the smaller size flats: an 11x22x6" box full of moist soil will be deceptively heavy! The big advantage of trays over something like milk cartons or a collection of individual containers that you've scavenged is uniformity. They're: * easier to move in/out of the house when hardening off * easier/faster to water * faster to set up -- fill and plant * more flexible -- tomatoes need more room than basil, you don't need to "waste" a 4" milk carton and all that space/soil on a single basil plant * easier to plan around -- you can set up your shelves and lighting based on the size of the trays (e.g. four trays to a shelf/light) or if you're building trays and already have shelves, you can adjust the size of the trays to what you have for shelves so that you can fit an even number into a shelf with no wasted space The only disadvantage that I've found is that if you're starting multiple varieties (e.g. I don't want 50 of the same kind of tomato, I want 30 paste, 6 of two different kinds of cherry, and 14 beefsteaks) it's challenging to keep the varieties separate within a single tray -- you should definitely have a separate planting container!	You could use moso bamboo nodes, but if you live in an area where these aren't hardy, you might have to get them online. You can make bamboo cups, bowls, or nursery pots!
1,129,564	we have a COM add-in that we use in MS Office application like Word and Excel. That COM add-in has exposed few APIs to use, which we use for customization. Problem is - Any user can access the APIs and that is causing security problems. we dont want that to happen, we want to give access to VBA editor to only few peoples. Is there any way - to disable VBA editor, without disabling VBA, because we want to use other Macros and Add-ins. Thanks in advance! PS - I tried hiding 'Developer' tab from toolbar but anyone who knows shortcut (ALT-F11), can still use it.	2009/07/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1129564", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/112501/" ]	If one of the requirements of the COM Add-In is restricted access, the solution shouldn't be to disable anything than can access it. The answer should be to fix the add-in itself. An easy way to do it would be to define a user group that can use the add-in, and then just make the add-in check to verify the user is a member of that group. That should be simple to implement and simple to maintain.	Can't you add a password to view/edit code? then at least they can't see your api and should prevent them from opening the editor. Right click the project in the VBA project window and select 'properties' to add a password to that project in the Protection tab.
1,129,564	we have a COM add-in that we use in MS Office application like Word and Excel. That COM add-in has exposed few APIs to use, which we use for customization. Problem is - Any user can access the APIs and that is causing security problems. we dont want that to happen, we want to give access to VBA editor to only few peoples. Is there any way - to disable VBA editor, without disabling VBA, because we want to use other Macros and Add-ins. Thanks in advance! PS - I tried hiding 'Developer' tab from toolbar but anyone who knows shortcut (ALT-F11), can still use it.	2009/07/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1129564", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/112501/" ]	The VBA Password Protection does not actually protect you from people reading the file. It's incredibly simple to remove the protection. One alternative is to obfuscate the COM API as well as the VBA (so that, even if people can read the code, it would be difficult to figure out what's going on). Apple has done this in the past (e.g. isYoMamaWearsCombatBootsSupported -- <https://github.com/JaviSoto/iOS7-Runtime-Headers/commit/6ccf9c4526992fec0dc414d48e4a3f7446e9822f#L10R61>)	Can't you add a password to view/edit code? then at least they can't see your api and should prevent them from opening the editor. Right click the project in the VBA project window and select 'properties' to add a password to that project in the Protection tab.
1,129,564	we have a COM add-in that we use in MS Office application like Word and Excel. That COM add-in has exposed few APIs to use, which we use for customization. Problem is - Any user can access the APIs and that is causing security problems. we dont want that to happen, we want to give access to VBA editor to only few peoples. Is there any way - to disable VBA editor, without disabling VBA, because we want to use other Macros and Add-ins. Thanks in advance! PS - I tried hiding 'Developer' tab from toolbar but anyone who knows shortcut (ALT-F11), can still use it.	2009/07/15	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1129564", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/112501/" ]	If one of the requirements of the COM Add-In is restricted access, the solution shouldn't be to disable anything than can access it. The answer should be to fix the add-in itself. An easy way to do it would be to define a user group that can use the add-in, and then just make the add-in check to verify the user is a member of that group. That should be simple to implement and simple to maintain.	The VBA Password Protection does not actually protect you from people reading the file. It's incredibly simple to remove the protection. One alternative is to obfuscate the COM API as well as the VBA (so that, even if people can read the code, it would be difficult to figure out what's going on). Apple has done this in the past (e.g. isYoMamaWearsCombatBootsSupported -- <https://github.com/JaviSoto/iOS7-Runtime-Headers/commit/6ccf9c4526992fec0dc414d48e4a3f7446e9822f#L10R61>)
88,525	This probably has an obvious answer I'm missing. To make a long story short, my mother helped us out with an event several months back involving having to serve breakfast to a large number of people including breakfast sausage, a mix of links and patties. Afterwards, as is her habit, she packaged up the leftovers in a plastic bag and handed them over to us. We set them in the chest freezer and frankly forgot about them for some time. We now have about 3-4 lbs of precooked sausage in a single frozen lump. I've tried breaking them off and cooking then in my cast-iron skillet in the mornings, but the patties break apart more than break off of the main mass, and when the patties are just about to turn into hockey pucks, the links are still frozen on the inside. I'm a bit hesitant to thaw the mass because we'd just be refreezing it again, and my understanding is that it's a bad idea to repeatedly thaw and freeze meat. Is there a better way to handle this that doesn't involve us trying to eat a few pounds of processed meat at once or risk wasting it?	2018/03/22	[ "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88525", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978/" ]	One option: reheat slowly in the microwave and until it is barely unfrozen enough to break apart. Then break it down into meal-sized portions, take the part you want for now and wrap the remaining bits in cellophane so they don't freeze together again. (My advice as a self-judged microwave expert is to heat it up at low power in 3 minute increments at first, then 2 minute increments. Fairly early, you will find that some parts thaw faster than others. Once this temperature difference becomes apparent, you can wait like 5 minutes in between bouts of heating it up to allow the heat to even out over the lump.) Given that the freezing and thawing will probably not do anything good for the texture, you might consider breaking the sausage up and adding it to something like sawmill gravy or strata (or just scrambled eggs) where you won't be eating it in large chunks.	I would do my best to break off a good-sized lump, and defrost that in the fridge (which might take a couple of days but the outer parts should be usable before that). Then plan on eating that over a few days. If you pick a time when you've got more mouths to feed for at least one meal, that will alleviate the boredom. Chunks of cooked sausage can be used up in a casserole with lots of veg, where they won't be so similar to eating sausages. I wouldn't mess about with microwaving as that seems like a recipe for getting some parts warm while the rest is still frozen, and sitting warm isn't good (that's when the bad things breed). It would probably be better to defrost the whole lot in the fridge and refreeze some, rather than warming. The texture of sausage shouldn't suffer too much, unlike pieces of meat. You've learnt a lesson by the sound of things: freeze in manageable portions.
88,525	This probably has an obvious answer I'm missing. To make a long story short, my mother helped us out with an event several months back involving having to serve breakfast to a large number of people including breakfast sausage, a mix of links and patties. Afterwards, as is her habit, she packaged up the leftovers in a plastic bag and handed them over to us. We set them in the chest freezer and frankly forgot about them for some time. We now have about 3-4 lbs of precooked sausage in a single frozen lump. I've tried breaking them off and cooking then in my cast-iron skillet in the mornings, but the patties break apart more than break off of the main mass, and when the patties are just about to turn into hockey pucks, the links are still frozen on the inside. I'm a bit hesitant to thaw the mass because we'd just be refreezing it again, and my understanding is that it's a bad idea to repeatedly thaw and freeze meat. Is there a better way to handle this that doesn't involve us trying to eat a few pounds of processed meat at once or risk wasting it?	2018/03/22	[ "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88525", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978/" ]	One option: reheat slowly in the microwave and until it is barely unfrozen enough to break apart. Then break it down into meal-sized portions, take the part you want for now and wrap the remaining bits in cellophane so they don't freeze together again. (My advice as a self-judged microwave expert is to heat it up at low power in 3 minute increments at first, then 2 minute increments. Fairly early, you will find that some parts thaw faster than others. Once this temperature difference becomes apparent, you can wait like 5 minutes in between bouts of heating it up to allow the heat to even out over the lump.) Given that the freezing and thawing will probably not do anything good for the texture, you might consider breaking the sausage up and adding it to something like sawmill gravy or strata (or just scrambled eggs) where you won't be eating it in large chunks.	Despite what you may have heard, multiple thawings and refreezings are safe, as long as the cumulative time spent at over 4 Celsius stays within the 2 hour limit. Also, the quality loss in thawing ground and cooked meat is much less pronounced than the quality loss in refreezing something like a steak. So, I would defrost the whole lump in a bowl in the fridge (to avoid entering the danger zone at 4 C). Then repackage in single portions and freeze again. Then defrost single pieces as needed. It's not as great as it would have been if single-frozen from the beginning, but it is the best you can do now, and will still be quite good in quality.
88,525	This probably has an obvious answer I'm missing. To make a long story short, my mother helped us out with an event several months back involving having to serve breakfast to a large number of people including breakfast sausage, a mix of links and patties. Afterwards, as is her habit, she packaged up the leftovers in a plastic bag and handed them over to us. We set them in the chest freezer and frankly forgot about them for some time. We now have about 3-4 lbs of precooked sausage in a single frozen lump. I've tried breaking them off and cooking then in my cast-iron skillet in the mornings, but the patties break apart more than break off of the main mass, and when the patties are just about to turn into hockey pucks, the links are still frozen on the inside. I'm a bit hesitant to thaw the mass because we'd just be refreezing it again, and my understanding is that it's a bad idea to repeatedly thaw and freeze meat. Is there a better way to handle this that doesn't involve us trying to eat a few pounds of processed meat at once or risk wasting it?	2018/03/22	[ "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88525", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978/" ]	I would do my best to break off a good-sized lump, and defrost that in the fridge (which might take a couple of days but the outer parts should be usable before that). Then plan on eating that over a few days. If you pick a time when you've got more mouths to feed for at least one meal, that will alleviate the boredom. Chunks of cooked sausage can be used up in a casserole with lots of veg, where they won't be so similar to eating sausages. I wouldn't mess about with microwaving as that seems like a recipe for getting some parts warm while the rest is still frozen, and sitting warm isn't good (that's when the bad things breed). It would probably be better to defrost the whole lot in the fridge and refreeze some, rather than warming. The texture of sausage shouldn't suffer too much, unlike pieces of meat. You've learnt a lesson by the sound of things: freeze in manageable portions.	Despite what you may have heard, multiple thawings and refreezings are safe, as long as the cumulative time spent at over 4 Celsius stays within the 2 hour limit. Also, the quality loss in thawing ground and cooked meat is much less pronounced than the quality loss in refreezing something like a steak. So, I would defrost the whole lump in a bowl in the fridge (to avoid entering the danger zone at 4 C). Then repackage in single portions and freeze again. Then defrost single pieces as needed. It's not as great as it would have been if single-frozen from the beginning, but it is the best you can do now, and will still be quite good in quality.
623,748	In the Standard Model of QM, all forces are mediated or carried by particles (for want of a better word) called bosons. The photon is an example of a force-carrying gauge boson, and mediates the electromagnetic force. The electrostatic and magnetostatic forces are not mediated by real photons, and [the answer here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/196774/how-is-the-em-force-exchanged-over-long-distances) explains that they are not mediated by virtual photons either, while [the answer here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142159/deriving-the-coulomb-force-equation-from-the-idea-of-photon-exchange) goes way over my head. Put simply, what particles are these forces carried by - or aren't they after all? As an example, consider a charged fragment of paper levitated above a charged metal plate. Nothing appears to be moving or changing its momentum or anything; no work is being done, no energy is going anywhere. The electrostatic levitating force is counterbalanced not by another electromagnetic force but by gravity. How does that work, then?	2021/03/25	[ "https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/623748", "https://physics.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/219654/" ]	I have never liked the "virtual particles" concept; they're the result of taking Feynman diagrams a tad bit too literally. Feynman diagrams are nice little pictorial representations of terms in a perturbation series designed to calculate scattering elements between two particles; there's one in anna v's answer. However, these should not be taken as literal pictures of what is going on. Scattering in quantum mechanics is due to interactions between fields. Two particles (which are derivative from a field, see [this answer](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/163705/115161)) in approximate momentum states interact for some finite time and then asymptotically go to some other particle states in the far future (where interactions become negligible). This process is encoded in the LSZ reduction formula, and is our current understanding of how things go about; fields interact with each other. For example, the electron field might interact with the photon field, and this produces scattering. In the non-relativistic limit, when scattering is not very large, we can neglect all but the leading order term in the perturbation series (encoded in the diagram in anna v's answer). Now, because we are in the non-relativistic limit, we can assume the Bohr approximation from regular QM holds. Thus, we can pretend the scattering is actually due to some potential, which comes out to be the Coulomb potential. However, in the end, it is (to the best of our knowledge) just fields interacting with other fields.	At the quantum framework, everything in the world is made up by the particles in the [standard model of particle physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) and their interactions. All other theories can be shown mathematically to be emergent from this level. The macroscopic electric and magnetic fields are the result of the addition of a high number of charged quantum particles, what is a "force" at the quantum level is built up to "force" of classical level electric and magnetic fields. What is the electric "force" at the quantum level? It is the exchange of dp/dt, (p a momentum vector) between two interacting charged particles, for [example two electrons](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/expar.html), a first order term in the expansion in series for the solution : [![e-e-](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TtPVn.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TtPVn.png) The diagram is a recipe for writing the integrals necessary for a calculation of the probability of interaction between two electrons. The dp/dt is assigned to the virtual photon connecting the two vertices. Virtual particles are a mnemonic to help in conserving the quantum numbers characterising the interaction. In principle, no matter how far away are two electrons , they will be interacting with such a virtual photon. In order to detect an electric field there must be an interaction at the quantum level. When distances are large, the classical "force" can be defined within classical electrodynamics. So in a nonmathematical description one can say that a static field is built up by virtual photons. A test charge measuring classically the static electric field reacts with F=ma , and F is the sum of the dp/dt for each individual quantum interaction . Considering that the number of fundamental charges are of the order of ~ $10^{23}$ (avogadro number) it is better to use classical electrodynamics.
63,034	I have a dell latitude 820. The fan was blocked for a while, after removing the crap (hair, etc.) the fan didn't work anymore. I tested the fan, but that part was OK. So I think the fan controller is broken. Which component is the fan controller?	2009/10/30	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/63034", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/-1/" ]	If you are sure the fan is working then there isn't much that you can service. Not sure about your specific laptop but most have the fan controllers built into the motherboard so there isn't much to fix (beyond replacing the motherboard). Are you sure the fan just isn't turning on because it doesn't need too? The d820 we have here doesn't run the fan very much and it is fine. I did find this utility which claims you can control your fan by software, this may help in troubleshooting if the fan is truly broken or if it just isn't turning on because the temperature is low. [Dell Fan Control Software](http://www.iterasi.net/openviewer.aspx?sqrlitid=hzoigkl74kqrmccelopr-w)	If you enter the BIOS on most Dell Latitudes you can run a diagnostic on the system and determine what may be wrong. It will test the fan and controller. As others have mentioned, they don't seem to run all that much normally
63,034	I have a dell latitude 820. The fan was blocked for a while, after removing the crap (hair, etc.) the fan didn't work anymore. I tested the fan, but that part was OK. So I think the fan controller is broken. Which component is the fan controller?	2009/10/30	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/63034", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/-1/" ]	If you are sure the fan is working then there isn't much that you can service. Not sure about your specific laptop but most have the fan controllers built into the motherboard so there isn't much to fix (beyond replacing the motherboard). Are you sure the fan just isn't turning on because it doesn't need too? The d820 we have here doesn't run the fan very much and it is fine. I did find this utility which claims you can control your fan by software, this may help in troubleshooting if the fan is truly broken or if it just isn't turning on because the temperature is low. [Dell Fan Control Software](http://www.iterasi.net/openviewer.aspx?sqrlitid=hzoigkl74kqrmccelopr-w)	I'm not familiar with the lattitude series, but as long as the fan is not the processor fan, you should be ok. You can get a lapcooler to place underneath the laptop for cooling if you are worried that it's gonna get hot. This is a fairly cheap (~$20-$50) solution that won't give you a headache with the anti-static straps and voiding warrenty by opening the case.
63,034	I have a dell latitude 820. The fan was blocked for a while, after removing the crap (hair, etc.) the fan didn't work anymore. I tested the fan, but that part was OK. So I think the fan controller is broken. Which component is the fan controller?	2009/10/30	[ "https://superuser.com/questions/63034", "https://superuser.com", "https://superuser.com/users/-1/" ]	If you are sure the fan is working then there isn't much that you can service. Not sure about your specific laptop but most have the fan controllers built into the motherboard so there isn't much to fix (beyond replacing the motherboard). Are you sure the fan just isn't turning on because it doesn't need too? The d820 we have here doesn't run the fan very much and it is fine. I did find this utility which claims you can control your fan by software, this may help in troubleshooting if the fan is truly broken or if it just isn't turning on because the temperature is low. [Dell Fan Control Software](http://www.iterasi.net/openviewer.aspx?sqrlitid=hzoigkl74kqrmccelopr-w)	If you or a friend have a multimeter, you can actually test the voltages going to the fan. If voltage is being applied, but it's not turning, it's the fan. If there are no voltages when the temp is high, then it's in all likelihood the motherboard.
2,210,623	I want to write a script to log in and interact with a web page, and a bit at a loss as to where to start. I can probably figure out the html parsing, but how do I handle the login part? I was planning on using bash, since that is what I know best, but am open to any other suggestions. I'm just looking for some reference materials or links to help me get started. I'm not really sure if the password is then stored in a cookie or whatnot, so how do I assess the situation as well? Thanks, Dan	2010/02/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2210623", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/110797/" ]	Take a look a [cURL](http://curl.haxx.se/), which is generally available in a Linux/Unix environment, and which lets you script a call to a web page, including POST parameters (say a username and password), and lets you manage the cookie store, so that a subsequent call (to get a different page within the site) can use the same cookie (so your login will persist across calls).	Search this site for [screen scraping](https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=screen+scraping). It can get hairy since you will need to deal with cookies, javascript and hidden fields (viewstate!). Usually you will need to scrape the login page to get the hidden fields and then post to the login page. Have fun :D
2,210,623	I want to write a script to log in and interact with a web page, and a bit at a loss as to where to start. I can probably figure out the html parsing, but how do I handle the login part? I was planning on using bash, since that is what I know best, but am open to any other suggestions. I'm just looking for some reference materials or links to help me get started. I'm not really sure if the password is then stored in a cookie or whatnot, so how do I assess the situation as well? Thanks, Dan	2010/02/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2210623", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/110797/" ]	Take a look a [cURL](http://curl.haxx.se/), which is generally available in a Linux/Unix environment, and which lets you script a call to a web page, including POST parameters (say a username and password), and lets you manage the cookie store, so that a subsequent call (to get a different page within the site) can use the same cookie (so your login will persist across calls).	I did something like that at work some time ago, I had to login in a page and post the same data over and over... Take a look at [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1232867/login-to-a-site-and-then-post-to-a-page-in-it). I used wget because I did not get it working with curl.
2,210,623	I want to write a script to log in and interact with a web page, and a bit at a loss as to where to start. I can probably figure out the html parsing, but how do I handle the login part? I was planning on using bash, since that is what I know best, but am open to any other suggestions. I'm just looking for some reference materials or links to help me get started. I'm not really sure if the password is then stored in a cookie or whatnot, so how do I assess the situation as well? Thanks, Dan	2010/02/05	[ "https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2210623", "https://Stackoverflow.com", "https://Stackoverflow.com/users/110797/" ]	I did something like that at work some time ago, I had to login in a page and post the same data over and over... Take a look at [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1232867/login-to-a-site-and-then-post-to-a-page-in-it). I used wget because I did not get it working with curl.	Search this site for [screen scraping](https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=screen+scraping). It can get hairy since you will need to deal with cookies, javascript and hidden fields (viewstate!). Usually you will need to scrape the login page to get the hidden fields and then post to the login page. Have fun :D
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	Yes it is an appropriate use of the term. It is more often used to refer specific damage output per second in the literal sense. But classes that are known for specifically dealing damage can be referred to as DPS. It can be used similarly to how a class would be known as a healer or tank class. Most classes in most games deal damage and would have a DPS but as you used the term, most games have classes that are specifically used to deal significantly more damage than others. Those can be referred to as DPS classes in many circles.	Damage Per Second Yes, you are using it correctly.
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	Yes it is an appropriate use of the term. It is more often used to refer specific damage output per second in the literal sense. But classes that are known for specifically dealing damage can be referred to as DPS. It can be used similarly to how a class would be known as a healer or tank class. Most classes in most games deal damage and would have a DPS but as you used the term, most games have classes that are specifically used to deal significantly more damage than others. Those can be referred to as DPS classes in many circles.	"Damage Per Second". DPS refers to heroes whose main purpose is dealing damage. This (generally) means offense characters. Alternatively, it is the ability to put a lot of damage on a single target, allowing for quick picks. (Example) In Overwatch, a pharah can dish out insane DPS due to splash damage, no fall off on her rockets and her ability to focus on targets other team members can't. Meanwhile, a hero like Mei does significantly less DPS.
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	Yes it is an appropriate use of the term. It is more often used to refer specific damage output per second in the literal sense. But classes that are known for specifically dealing damage can be referred to as DPS. It can be used similarly to how a class would be known as a healer or tank class. Most classes in most games deal damage and would have a DPS but as you used the term, most games have classes that are specifically used to deal significantly more damage than others. Those can be referred to as DPS classes in many circles.	DPS as a person: A dedicated damage dealer class and specialization, such as an Arms Warrior or Shadow Priest. DPS as a measurement: The amount of damage done every second over a period of time (5 seconds, 1 minute, an entire boss fight). Typically seen in damage meters like Details. Examples of usage: LF3DPS: Looking for 3 damage dealers/ Need 3 dedicated damage dealers. Your DPS is low: The rate of damage you're outputting is low
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	DPS means, simply, Damage Per Second. It is a numerical value that represents the amount of damage one player can inflict onto another or the environment. DPS is not dependent on class as much as it is loadout and abilities/skill - it can change drastically based on what weaponry you use. It can be calculated by attacking a mob or similar non-stop for five seconds, and dividing the total HP lost by 5. Typically, the DPS stats you see in game are "optimal", meaning assuming you attack perfectly for one second.	Damage Per Second Yes, you are using it correctly.
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	DPS means, simply, Damage Per Second. It is a numerical value that represents the amount of damage one player can inflict onto another or the environment. DPS is not dependent on class as much as it is loadout and abilities/skill - it can change drastically based on what weaponry you use. It can be calculated by attacking a mob or similar non-stop for five seconds, and dividing the total HP lost by 5. Typically, the DPS stats you see in game are "optimal", meaning assuming you attack perfectly for one second.	"Damage Per Second". DPS refers to heroes whose main purpose is dealing damage. This (generally) means offense characters. Alternatively, it is the ability to put a lot of damage on a single target, allowing for quick picks. (Example) In Overwatch, a pharah can dish out insane DPS due to splash damage, no fall off on her rockets and her ability to focus on targets other team members can't. Meanwhile, a hero like Mei does significantly less DPS.
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	DPS means, simply, Damage Per Second. It is a numerical value that represents the amount of damage one player can inflict onto another or the environment. DPS is not dependent on class as much as it is loadout and abilities/skill - it can change drastically based on what weaponry you use. It can be calculated by attacking a mob or similar non-stop for five seconds, and dividing the total HP lost by 5. Typically, the DPS stats you see in game are "optimal", meaning assuming you attack perfectly for one second.	DPS as a person: A dedicated damage dealer class and specialization, such as an Arms Warrior or Shadow Priest. DPS as a measurement: The amount of damage done every second over a period of time (5 seconds, 1 minute, an entire boss fight). Typically seen in damage meters like Details. Examples of usage: LF3DPS: Looking for 3 damage dealers/ Need 3 dedicated damage dealers. Your DPS is low: The rate of damage you're outputting is low
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	"Damage Per Second". DPS refers to heroes whose main purpose is dealing damage. This (generally) means offense characters. Alternatively, it is the ability to put a lot of damage on a single target, allowing for quick picks. (Example) In Overwatch, a pharah can dish out insane DPS due to splash damage, no fall off on her rockets and her ability to focus on targets other team members can't. Meanwhile, a hero like Mei does significantly less DPS.	Damage Per Second Yes, you are using it correctly.
281,090	I think it originates from MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft. I think it refers to more than one thing. Did it really originate from MMORPGs? Does it mean one thing exclusively, or can it mean something else ina different context? What does the term DPS mean?	2016/08/10	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/281090", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/46216/" ]	DPS as a person: A dedicated damage dealer class and specialization, such as an Arms Warrior or Shadow Priest. DPS as a measurement: The amount of damage done every second over a period of time (5 seconds, 1 minute, an entire boss fight). Typically seen in damage meters like Details. Examples of usage: LF3DPS: Looking for 3 damage dealers/ Need 3 dedicated damage dealers. Your DPS is low: The rate of damage you're outputting is low	Damage Per Second Yes, you are using it correctly.
78,827	What are those characteristics by which every sound can identified uniquely? For example, pitch is one of the characteristics of sound, but let’s say a note C# can also be played on a guitar and piano with same pitch but the resulting sound that we hear is different so what are those characteristics which defines every sound.	2013/09/28	[ "https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78827", "https://physics.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30237/" ]	The entirety of the wave train is involved in the perception of [timbre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre) and it is not reducable to a few easily measurable features. There are entire books, including one by Helmholtz, investigating the characteristics of sound and how it relates to perception. I like Music, Physics and Engineering by H. Olson. Often the power spectrum of a given sound is used to help analyze the timbre of notes; the relative magnitudes of the different harmonics, and the degree to which their frequencies differ from the theoretical ideal are a good starting point. However, these Fourier transform based approaches are not complete in that they typically do not address the perceptually salient features such as note attack and decay. Another approach to take is to examine how synthesizers generate sounds; for this I recommend checking out the Sound on Sound article series [Synth Secrets](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/allsynthsecrets.htm).	Two waves never mix up together. They just add up when they meet while travelling along the same medium. This phenomenon is called interference. But they still retain their own properties and shapes, and return to their individual shapes when they divide. May be, brain uses this property to recognize individual sounds. Look at [these](http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/u11l3a.cfm) animations for better understanding.
78,827	What are those characteristics by which every sound can identified uniquely? For example, pitch is one of the characteristics of sound, but let’s say a note C# can also be played on a guitar and piano with same pitch but the resulting sound that we hear is different so what are those characteristics which defines every sound.	2013/09/28	[ "https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78827", "https://physics.stackexchange.com", "https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/30237/" ]	What makes a violin sound like a violin and not a trumpet, even though they are both sounding a note in the same pitch? The answer is harmonic content. A pure tone of a single frequency is essentially a sinusoidal vibration... repeated displacement back and forth which, if plotted against time, will appear as a "sine wave". When you drop a stone into water, and waves ripple out, the pattern of wave crest and trough is a reasonable approximation. When a violin sounds a note, it is not producing a pure (sinusoidal) tone. Neither is any other musical instrument. There is a "fundamental", which is a pure sine wave at the frequency corresponding to the "pitch" of the note, accompanied by a set of "overtones" of other frequencies. These overtones occur at frequencies which are specific whole number multiples of the fundamental. The presence of an overtone at a given frequency, and its relative amplitude creates the harmonic structure of a given sound, and creates the sound you recognize as a violin vs a trumpet, or whatever.	Two waves never mix up together. They just add up when they meet while travelling along the same medium. This phenomenon is called interference. But they still retain their own properties and shapes, and return to their individual shapes when they divide. May be, brain uses this property to recognize individual sounds. Look at [these](http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/u11l3a.cfm) animations for better understanding.
39,600	I'm stuck with these rulings in [Sunbird's Invocation](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSunbird%27s%5d%2b%5bInvocation%5d): * For spells with {X} in their mana costs, use the value chosen for X to determine the spell's converted mana cost. * If a revealed card in your library has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost. Does it mean spells with {X} sometimes have CMC 0 and sometimes X? Additionnaly, can I play a land from the revealed cards?	2017/12/28	[ "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/39600", "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com", "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/2532/" ]	> > Does it mean spells with {X} sometimes have CMC 0 and sometimes X? > > > Yes, but thankfully it's simple: * If a spell is on the stack, {X} is treated as the value the caster chose for it. * Anywhere else, {X} is 0. This comes from comprehensive rule 202: > > 202.3d When calculating the converted mana cost of an object with an {X} in its mana cost, X is treated as 0 while the object is not on the stack, and X is treated as the number chosen for it while the object is on the stack. > > > However, the second ruling is referencing something else entirely: if you cast a card "without paying its mana cost", you always have to choose 0 for the value of {X}. You're not paying its mana, so you don't get to pick some other arbitrarily value. This means, more often than not, it is not worthwhile casting an {X} spell for free. > > Additionnaly, can I play a land from the revealed cards? > > > No. Sunbird's Invocation says you cast the card. Lands can't be cast, only played. See [Stromkirk Occultist](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bStromkirk%20Occultist%5d) for an example of a card that lets you play lands.	Yes, CMC only includes X when the spell is on the stack: > > 202.3d When calculating the converted mana cost of an object with an {X} in its mana cost, X is treated as 0 while the object is not on the stack, and X is treated as the number chosen for it while the object is on the stack. > > > This explains your first quoted ruling - the CMC of the spell triggering your Sunbird's Invocation includes X because it's on the stack. The second one is actually subtly different. It's not just about the CMC of the revealed card (which does treat X as 0) but also about what happens when you cast the spell without paying its mana cost: > > 107.3b If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. > > > So for example, if you cast a [Sanguine Sacrament](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSanguine%20Sacrament%5d) (mana cost {X}{W}{W}) with X=5, its CMC is 7, so Sunbird's Invocation will reveal 7 cards and let you cast something with CMC up to 7. However, if you find another [Sanguine Sacrament](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSanguine%20Sacrament%5d) among those revealed cards, you would only be able to cast it with X=0, even though you're allowed to cast spells with higher CMC. --- You can't cast lands, so you can't play lands from the revealed cards: > > You may cast a card revealed this way... > > > If a card lets you play lands, it needs to say that you can "play" the card, not "cast" it.
39,600	I'm stuck with these rulings in [Sunbird's Invocation](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSunbird%27s%5d%2b%5bInvocation%5d): * For spells with {X} in their mana costs, use the value chosen for X to determine the spell's converted mana cost. * If a revealed card in your library has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost. Does it mean spells with {X} sometimes have CMC 0 and sometimes X? Additionnaly, can I play a land from the revealed cards?	2017/12/28	[ "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/39600", "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com", "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/2532/" ]	Yes, CMC only includes X when the spell is on the stack: > > 202.3d When calculating the converted mana cost of an object with an {X} in its mana cost, X is treated as 0 while the object is not on the stack, and X is treated as the number chosen for it while the object is on the stack. > > > This explains your first quoted ruling - the CMC of the spell triggering your Sunbird's Invocation includes X because it's on the stack. The second one is actually subtly different. It's not just about the CMC of the revealed card (which does treat X as 0) but also about what happens when you cast the spell without paying its mana cost: > > 107.3b If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. > > > So for example, if you cast a [Sanguine Sacrament](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSanguine%20Sacrament%5d) (mana cost {X}{W}{W}) with X=5, its CMC is 7, so Sunbird's Invocation will reveal 7 cards and let you cast something with CMC up to 7. However, if you find another [Sanguine Sacrament](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSanguine%20Sacrament%5d) among those revealed cards, you would only be able to cast it with X=0, even though you're allowed to cast spells with higher CMC. --- You can't cast lands, so you can't play lands from the revealed cards: > > You may cast a card revealed this way... > > > If a card lets you play lands, it needs to say that you can "play" the card, not "cast" it.	> > Does it mean spells with {X} sometimes have CMC 0 and sometimes X? > > > No, an X for a spell is whatever was chosen. An X for a card is 0. > > 111.1. A spell is a card on the stack. > > > For something to be a spell, it has to be put on the stack, and to put it on the stack, you have to pay its cost. Whenever you put a spell with X in its cost on the stack, you have to choose what X is. Whatever you choose for X, that's what's used for Sunbird's Invocation. When you reveal cards, those aren't spells yet, because they haven't been put on the stack. Since no X has been chosen, X is 0. > > [Additionally], can I play a land from the revealed cards? > > > No, it says that you can "cast" a card, and lands aren't cast. > > 305.1. A player who has priority may play a land card from their hand during a main phase of their turn when the stack is empty. Playing a land is a special action; it doesn't use the stack (see rule 115). Rather, the player simply puts the land onto the battlefield. Since the land doesn't go on the stack, it is never a spell, and players can't respond to it with instants or activated abilities. > > >
39,600	I'm stuck with these rulings in [Sunbird's Invocation](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSunbird%27s%5d%2b%5bInvocation%5d): * For spells with {X} in their mana costs, use the value chosen for X to determine the spell's converted mana cost. * If a revealed card in your library has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost. Does it mean spells with {X} sometimes have CMC 0 and sometimes X? Additionnaly, can I play a land from the revealed cards?	2017/12/28	[ "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/39600", "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com", "https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/2532/" ]	> > Does it mean spells with {X} sometimes have CMC 0 and sometimes X? > > > Yes, but thankfully it's simple: * If a spell is on the stack, {X} is treated as the value the caster chose for it. * Anywhere else, {X} is 0. This comes from comprehensive rule 202: > > 202.3d When calculating the converted mana cost of an object with an {X} in its mana cost, X is treated as 0 while the object is not on the stack, and X is treated as the number chosen for it while the object is on the stack. > > > However, the second ruling is referencing something else entirely: if you cast a card "without paying its mana cost", you always have to choose 0 for the value of {X}. You're not paying its mana, so you don't get to pick some other arbitrarily value. This means, more often than not, it is not worthwhile casting an {X} spell for free. > > Additionnaly, can I play a land from the revealed cards? > > > No. Sunbird's Invocation says you cast the card. Lands can't be cast, only played. See [Stromkirk Occultist](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bStromkirk%20Occultist%5d) for an example of a card that lets you play lands.	> > Does it mean spells with {X} sometimes have CMC 0 and sometimes X? > > > No, an X for a spell is whatever was chosen. An X for a card is 0. > > 111.1. A spell is a card on the stack. > > > For something to be a spell, it has to be put on the stack, and to put it on the stack, you have to pay its cost. Whenever you put a spell with X in its cost on the stack, you have to choose what X is. Whatever you choose for X, that's what's used for Sunbird's Invocation. When you reveal cards, those aren't spells yet, because they haven't been put on the stack. Since no X has been chosen, X is 0. > > [Additionally], can I play a land from the revealed cards? > > > No, it says that you can "cast" a card, and lands aren't cast. > > 305.1. A player who has priority may play a land card from their hand during a main phase of their turn when the stack is empty. Playing a land is a special action; it doesn't use the stack (see rule 115). Rather, the player simply puts the land onto the battlefield. Since the land doesn't go on the stack, it is never a spell, and players can't respond to it with instants or activated abilities. > > >
9,482	The system bus of the IBM PC had 8 data lines and 20 address lines, in a logical correspondence to the 8088 CPU. The AT added a second inline edge connector to expand this to 16 data lines and 24 address lines, again in a logical correspondence to the new 286 CPU. And certainly the wider data bus made the system run faster. But I'm wondering were the extra address lines really used? Of course there was the infamous problem with the 1-megabyte address space limit being baked into the API by the time the AT came on the scene, but it seems to me there is another issue. Most of the address space in an 8088 machine would naturally enough tend to be used for RAM. An IBM PC could take up to 64K on the motherboard, but you could stuff it with memory cards to bring it up to 256K, run Lotus 1-2-3 and turn your spreadsheets into graphs that made you look good in presentations, and that was the combination that made the IBM PC decisively superior to the Apple II in terms of what you could do with it, never mind the IBM nameplate. But the SIMM was invented in 1982, two years before the AT came out. So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. It was still used for lots of other things, of course. But none of them consumed address space wholesale the way RAM did. So: did anything ever actually use the extra address space of the 16-bit ISA bus?	2019/03/30	[ "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9482", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/" ]	Yes, there were 16-bit ISA cards which used the extra address lines; for example IBM’s various [memory expansion options](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/5170/cards/5170_cards.htm), most of which could be configured to provide extended memory beyond 1MiB. You can see the address lines referenced in the corresponding schematics, e.g. for [the 512KiB/2MiB expansion board](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/oa/OA%20-%20IBM%20PC%20AT%20512KB_2MB%20Memory%20Expansion%20Option.pdf). (The PC AT didn’t have SIMM sockets on the motherboard; only the larger memory expansion options used SIMMs.)	Yes, especially for VGA Graphics cards, which also have a large address space requirement. As motherboards included more memory, it became necessary to have the BIOS and motherboard leave a hole in the address space for the graphics card. On motherboards I used, there was a VGA hole at megabyte 0xE (I think, it may bave been lower). I designed some non-graphics interface cards that depended on this VGA-hole. Without it, the entire 16 MByte address space could be consumed by RAM. In some motherboards, the VGA-hole was optional in the BIOS, perhaps also where the hole was located. When the bus structure evolved from ISA to VL-bus and then PCI, the addressable range increased, the bus structure became configurable, and the VGA-hole was eliminated.
9,482	The system bus of the IBM PC had 8 data lines and 20 address lines, in a logical correspondence to the 8088 CPU. The AT added a second inline edge connector to expand this to 16 data lines and 24 address lines, again in a logical correspondence to the new 286 CPU. And certainly the wider data bus made the system run faster. But I'm wondering were the extra address lines really used? Of course there was the infamous problem with the 1-megabyte address space limit being baked into the API by the time the AT came on the scene, but it seems to me there is another issue. Most of the address space in an 8088 machine would naturally enough tend to be used for RAM. An IBM PC could take up to 64K on the motherboard, but you could stuff it with memory cards to bring it up to 256K, run Lotus 1-2-3 and turn your spreadsheets into graphs that made you look good in presentations, and that was the combination that made the IBM PC decisively superior to the Apple II in terms of what you could do with it, never mind the IBM nameplate. But the SIMM was invented in 1982, two years before the AT came out. So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. It was still used for lots of other things, of course. But none of them consumed address space wholesale the way RAM did. So: did anything ever actually use the extra address space of the 16-bit ISA bus?	2019/03/30	[ "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9482", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/" ]	Yes, there were 16-bit ISA cards which used the extra address lines; for example IBM’s various [memory expansion options](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/5170/cards/5170_cards.htm), most of which could be configured to provide extended memory beyond 1MiB. You can see the address lines referenced in the corresponding schematics, e.g. for [the 512KiB/2MiB expansion board](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/oa/OA%20-%20IBM%20PC%20AT%20512KB_2MB%20Memory%20Expansion%20Option.pdf). (The PC AT didn’t have SIMM sockets on the motherboard; only the larger memory expansion options used SIMMs.)	> > So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. > > > There were a number of driving factors that decoupled memory expansion from the ISA expansion bus, but early 286 machines did allow for it. The CPU bus, at CPU speed, was directly exposed on the slot edge connector, so memory on a card was the same as memory on the motherboard. With respect to how that memory was used, keep in mind that the (by far) dominant OS on these machines was real-mode DOS, with its 20-bit address space. While there were ways to use more of the address space through protected mode, the 286 itself had its issues switching from protected mode to real, so there was a strong incentive to keep things accessible with 20-bits. (Hence EMS's paging, etc.) So I'd be surprised if, in the early days, there was much beyond memory boards for OS/2 and Xenix that used the extra address bits. The rest of the story relates to the fact that it also became advantageous to run ISA slots for compatibility reasons at 8MHz. Running them faster could and would cause problems for some expansion boards. So, as PC's accelerated past 8MHz and ISA became more of a standard, the industry rather quickly decoupled CPU speed from bus speed. By the time the 486 rolled around, it wasn't uncommon for a CPU to have something like a 32-bit/33MHz connection to main storage and 16-bit/8MHz to I/O. (And maybe some kind of memory slot for adding extra memory.) Okay for CPU bound workloads, but not much else, and particularly video. 1024x768x8bpp is 768K, and that's a lot of data to stream over an ISA slot. Hence the initial push for VLB, and later AGP. What started making higher address bits more useful was the more widespread emergence of 24 and 32-bit addressing in software. Windows 3.0 and Windows 95 did most of the the heavy lifting in the PC world in that regard.
9,482	The system bus of the IBM PC had 8 data lines and 20 address lines, in a logical correspondence to the 8088 CPU. The AT added a second inline edge connector to expand this to 16 data lines and 24 address lines, again in a logical correspondence to the new 286 CPU. And certainly the wider data bus made the system run faster. But I'm wondering were the extra address lines really used? Of course there was the infamous problem with the 1-megabyte address space limit being baked into the API by the time the AT came on the scene, but it seems to me there is another issue. Most of the address space in an 8088 machine would naturally enough tend to be used for RAM. An IBM PC could take up to 64K on the motherboard, but you could stuff it with memory cards to bring it up to 256K, run Lotus 1-2-3 and turn your spreadsheets into graphs that made you look good in presentations, and that was the combination that made the IBM PC decisively superior to the Apple II in terms of what you could do with it, never mind the IBM nameplate. But the SIMM was invented in 1982, two years before the AT came out. So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. It was still used for lots of other things, of course. But none of them consumed address space wholesale the way RAM did. So: did anything ever actually use the extra address space of the 16-bit ISA bus?	2019/03/30	[ "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9482", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/" ]	Yes, there were 16-bit ISA cards which used the extra address lines; for example IBM’s various [memory expansion options](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/5170/cards/5170_cards.htm), most of which could be configured to provide extended memory beyond 1MiB. You can see the address lines referenced in the corresponding schematics, e.g. for [the 512KiB/2MiB expansion board](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/oa/OA%20-%20IBM%20PC%20AT%20512KB_2MB%20Memory%20Expansion%20Option.pdf). (The PC AT didn’t have SIMM sockets on the motherboard; only the larger memory expansion options used SIMMs.)	Back with the 8088 I used a MDA which mapped into 4KB of video memory 0B0000h. The address decode did not even resolve it properly so it was copied over 32KB of address space. I used one of them with my old IBM PC. The PC AT with the 80286 had new slots. In DOS however the same world as before. You needed a different operating system to use protected mode to recognize 16MB of address space and use the 16-bit slots more effectively. The 80386 was more DOS address space. Again a different operating system was needed to use the features. I had BSD on a 386 and that actually could use all the memory natively. Had to use different commands but it worked OK. DOS was still limited.
9,482	The system bus of the IBM PC had 8 data lines and 20 address lines, in a logical correspondence to the 8088 CPU. The AT added a second inline edge connector to expand this to 16 data lines and 24 address lines, again in a logical correspondence to the new 286 CPU. And certainly the wider data bus made the system run faster. But I'm wondering were the extra address lines really used? Of course there was the infamous problem with the 1-megabyte address space limit being baked into the API by the time the AT came on the scene, but it seems to me there is another issue. Most of the address space in an 8088 machine would naturally enough tend to be used for RAM. An IBM PC could take up to 64K on the motherboard, but you could stuff it with memory cards to bring it up to 256K, run Lotus 1-2-3 and turn your spreadsheets into graphs that made you look good in presentations, and that was the combination that made the IBM PC decisively superior to the Apple II in terms of what you could do with it, never mind the IBM nameplate. But the SIMM was invented in 1982, two years before the AT came out. So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. It was still used for lots of other things, of course. But none of them consumed address space wholesale the way RAM did. So: did anything ever actually use the extra address space of the 16-bit ISA bus?	2019/03/30	[ "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9482", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/" ]	Yes, there were 16-bit ISA cards which used the extra address lines; for example IBM’s various [memory expansion options](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/5170/cards/5170_cards.htm), most of which could be configured to provide extended memory beyond 1MiB. You can see the address lines referenced in the corresponding schematics, e.g. for [the 512KiB/2MiB expansion board](http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/oa/OA%20-%20IBM%20PC%20AT%20512KB_2MB%20Memory%20Expansion%20Option.pdf). (The PC AT didn’t have SIMM sockets on the motherboard; only the larger memory expansion options used SIMMs.)	Multi-megabyte memory expansion cards for ATs absolutely WERE a thing, including more than a few sold by IBM themselves. I recommend having a scoot around the various document archives of the interwebs such as Bitsavers, Google Books' back catalogue of Byte / Infoworld / Computer Shopper etc, and various others whose names/URLs I forget but that frequently feature any time I do an arbitrary google search for information on some old bit of hardware. Simply dropping "PC-AT memory expansion card" into the search bar will probably get you endless hits, if you bother to do it. SIMMs may have been invented in 1982, but that doesn't mean they were immediately adopted in any great way. The Atari STe was one of the first mainstream proponents of the idea that I'm aware of, and that dates to 1989. I've a slightly earlier (1987/88, I think?) AT-clone in my collection, that a family friend gave me wayback, and it has a grand total of ... two. Just 2x 30-pin SIMM slots, and they don't support any module size other than 256KByte; having filled them, and expanded its onboard memory from 640 to 1152KB, it'll just about boot Windows, but what you can do with the system once you've loaded it is pretty limited ("Write" will run, "Word" and "Works" won't), and it's a damn good thing that the video adapter has its own memory instead of having to share it with the rest of the machine. If you wanted to use any more sophisticated software with the machine, then your only recourse would be to add memory cards. Motherboards sporting a meaningful rack of SIMM slots, and that supported the larger capacity (and, at the time, still deadly expensive, especially compared to SIPPs, or the lower-frequency DIPs used on the expansion cards) 1MB and 4MB modules, were rather more a 386-era thing, or at least later-286. Compare it to the 3.5" diskette drive. That was already a thing since, what, 1983, 1984? It also pre-dated the PC-AT. IBM, and PC clone manufacturers in general, didn't adopt it as a format, outside of portable machines, until the debut of the PS/2, many years later. It might have been there as an option, and even used (alongside other competing compact formats like the 3" flippy-disk cartridge as beloved of Sinclair and Amstrad) by a good number of rivals from 84/85 onwards, but it doesn't mean the 5.25" format was immediately obsoleted by it. Indeed, 5.25 was the first to get HD, and remained the larger-but-higher-capacity option (at 1200KB vs 720 or 800KB) until the even higher tech 3.5" HD floppies came along nearer to the turn of the 90s. Or indeed... CDRs and other removable media didn't disappear when DVDR came along. USB didn't immediately displace all other interconnects (THAT took ages). Integrated graphics and sound, or indeed floppy/hard drive controllers, serial/parallel ports, etc, didn't completely do away with discrete add-on cards. Often, much like those two lonely low-capacity SIMM sockets, the early examples of the form were rather limited compared to what could be achieved with a dedicated, if rather costly and bulky, optional upgrade card, and were only really meant as a low cost, get-you-started convenience option. A lot of people don't need anything better than integrated graphics, but there's still the option for installing a dedicated GPU if you want it. Or a RAID card to expand your storage options beyond what the built in controller can do. At the time "my" 286 was made, Windows was still a novelty and even competing somewhat with lower-requirement things like GEM and DesqView; most of what the machine ran (indeed, all that it originally came with) were DOS apps, which for the most part worked just fine with the original 640KB. Adding the extra half meg unlocked a few nice additional features, like using WYSIWYG fonts in Lotus Symphony, but I never really got the impression that the computer was crying out for anything additional to that until I tried it with Windows. There aren't really any games which demand greater amounts of memory that don't also want a better processor (and, until I added the SVGA, a better graphics card). Most home or office buyers of the system would have been satisfied with what it offered, and if they found it still limited - say, they actually wanted to use it for some kind of heavier business or scientific analysis or industrial purpose - could have just used one of the several open slots to add a memory card, and been able to make a business-case justification for the expense. And, as we were speaking of video cards... that aforementioned 286 clone came with a Hercules Mono card installed; before I added the SIMMs, its total memory complement between system board and video was only about 704KB. It didn't have much advantage over an XT other than a good extra turn of speed (having the 12MHz option), a larger hard drive (40MB), and better compatibility with later software (how much of what was installed on it wasn't still XT compatible though, I wouldn't want to guess). After some dumpster diving salvage runs at my old school, it gained an arguably over-the-top half-meg Trident SVGA card, as well as a Soundblaster Pro (sadly, no Gravis Ultrasounds or AWE32s to be had). AGP and its addressing "window" being more than a decade away, that memory is directly mapped into the machine's architecture, and I expect the SIMMs probably sat above the 1MB boundary too; I dunno if the soundcard has any usable RAM to speak of, but even so the computer likely has RAM mapped to at least 1.75MB logical, maybe even blocked out to 2MB to simplify addressing. On top of which, the 640 to 1024KB "hole" is typically joined by another at ... either 14 to 15, or 15 to 16MB on typical ATs (I forget which), allowing a wider range of extended BIOS ROM and memory-mapped IO on expansion cards, alleviating some of the pressure and conflict that could be experienced with everything vying for shared use of that 384KB block (and allowing things like the mapping of the "high memory" area out to 768KB or more of usable sub-1MB RAM in later versions of DOS). Using a VGA card on an XT class machine can be quite tricky (and likely one reason for IBM creating the weird, crippled MCGA... its lack of EGA compatibility is inexplicable, but its limited memory is likely so it would fit within the 8088 address space on the lowest-end PS/2s without having to resort to complicated memory paging routines such as were needed for operation of over-1MB XT memory cards), and a lot of the other stuff above, probably including use of any kind of SVGA (or at least, anything over 800x600 16-colour - which just skims inside of 240KB), would be entirely impossible due to the more limited addressing range for both RAM, ROM, and mapped IO.
9,482	The system bus of the IBM PC had 8 data lines and 20 address lines, in a logical correspondence to the 8088 CPU. The AT added a second inline edge connector to expand this to 16 data lines and 24 address lines, again in a logical correspondence to the new 286 CPU. And certainly the wider data bus made the system run faster. But I'm wondering were the extra address lines really used? Of course there was the infamous problem with the 1-megabyte address space limit being baked into the API by the time the AT came on the scene, but it seems to me there is another issue. Most of the address space in an 8088 machine would naturally enough tend to be used for RAM. An IBM PC could take up to 64K on the motherboard, but you could stuff it with memory cards to bring it up to 256K, run Lotus 1-2-3 and turn your spreadsheets into graphs that made you look good in presentations, and that was the combination that made the IBM PC decisively superior to the Apple II in terms of what you could do with it, never mind the IBM nameplate. But the SIMM was invented in 1982, two years before the AT came out. So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. It was still used for lots of other things, of course. But none of them consumed address space wholesale the way RAM did. So: did anything ever actually use the extra address space of the 16-bit ISA bus?	2019/03/30	[ "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9482", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/" ]	Yes, especially for VGA Graphics cards, which also have a large address space requirement. As motherboards included more memory, it became necessary to have the BIOS and motherboard leave a hole in the address space for the graphics card. On motherboards I used, there was a VGA hole at megabyte 0xE (I think, it may bave been lower). I designed some non-graphics interface cards that depended on this VGA-hole. Without it, the entire 16 MByte address space could be consumed by RAM. In some motherboards, the VGA-hole was optional in the BIOS, perhaps also where the hole was located. When the bus structure evolved from ISA to VL-bus and then PCI, the addressable range increased, the bus structure became configurable, and the VGA-hole was eliminated.	Multi-megabyte memory expansion cards for ATs absolutely WERE a thing, including more than a few sold by IBM themselves. I recommend having a scoot around the various document archives of the interwebs such as Bitsavers, Google Books' back catalogue of Byte / Infoworld / Computer Shopper etc, and various others whose names/URLs I forget but that frequently feature any time I do an arbitrary google search for information on some old bit of hardware. Simply dropping "PC-AT memory expansion card" into the search bar will probably get you endless hits, if you bother to do it. SIMMs may have been invented in 1982, but that doesn't mean they were immediately adopted in any great way. The Atari STe was one of the first mainstream proponents of the idea that I'm aware of, and that dates to 1989. I've a slightly earlier (1987/88, I think?) AT-clone in my collection, that a family friend gave me wayback, and it has a grand total of ... two. Just 2x 30-pin SIMM slots, and they don't support any module size other than 256KByte; having filled them, and expanded its onboard memory from 640 to 1152KB, it'll just about boot Windows, but what you can do with the system once you've loaded it is pretty limited ("Write" will run, "Word" and "Works" won't), and it's a damn good thing that the video adapter has its own memory instead of having to share it with the rest of the machine. If you wanted to use any more sophisticated software with the machine, then your only recourse would be to add memory cards. Motherboards sporting a meaningful rack of SIMM slots, and that supported the larger capacity (and, at the time, still deadly expensive, especially compared to SIPPs, or the lower-frequency DIPs used on the expansion cards) 1MB and 4MB modules, were rather more a 386-era thing, or at least later-286. Compare it to the 3.5" diskette drive. That was already a thing since, what, 1983, 1984? It also pre-dated the PC-AT. IBM, and PC clone manufacturers in general, didn't adopt it as a format, outside of portable machines, until the debut of the PS/2, many years later. It might have been there as an option, and even used (alongside other competing compact formats like the 3" flippy-disk cartridge as beloved of Sinclair and Amstrad) by a good number of rivals from 84/85 onwards, but it doesn't mean the 5.25" format was immediately obsoleted by it. Indeed, 5.25 was the first to get HD, and remained the larger-but-higher-capacity option (at 1200KB vs 720 or 800KB) until the even higher tech 3.5" HD floppies came along nearer to the turn of the 90s. Or indeed... CDRs and other removable media didn't disappear when DVDR came along. USB didn't immediately displace all other interconnects (THAT took ages). Integrated graphics and sound, or indeed floppy/hard drive controllers, serial/parallel ports, etc, didn't completely do away with discrete add-on cards. Often, much like those two lonely low-capacity SIMM sockets, the early examples of the form were rather limited compared to what could be achieved with a dedicated, if rather costly and bulky, optional upgrade card, and were only really meant as a low cost, get-you-started convenience option. A lot of people don't need anything better than integrated graphics, but there's still the option for installing a dedicated GPU if you want it. Or a RAID card to expand your storage options beyond what the built in controller can do. At the time "my" 286 was made, Windows was still a novelty and even competing somewhat with lower-requirement things like GEM and DesqView; most of what the machine ran (indeed, all that it originally came with) were DOS apps, which for the most part worked just fine with the original 640KB. Adding the extra half meg unlocked a few nice additional features, like using WYSIWYG fonts in Lotus Symphony, but I never really got the impression that the computer was crying out for anything additional to that until I tried it with Windows. There aren't really any games which demand greater amounts of memory that don't also want a better processor (and, until I added the SVGA, a better graphics card). Most home or office buyers of the system would have been satisfied with what it offered, and if they found it still limited - say, they actually wanted to use it for some kind of heavier business or scientific analysis or industrial purpose - could have just used one of the several open slots to add a memory card, and been able to make a business-case justification for the expense. And, as we were speaking of video cards... that aforementioned 286 clone came with a Hercules Mono card installed; before I added the SIMMs, its total memory complement between system board and video was only about 704KB. It didn't have much advantage over an XT other than a good extra turn of speed (having the 12MHz option), a larger hard drive (40MB), and better compatibility with later software (how much of what was installed on it wasn't still XT compatible though, I wouldn't want to guess). After some dumpster diving salvage runs at my old school, it gained an arguably over-the-top half-meg Trident SVGA card, as well as a Soundblaster Pro (sadly, no Gravis Ultrasounds or AWE32s to be had). AGP and its addressing "window" being more than a decade away, that memory is directly mapped into the machine's architecture, and I expect the SIMMs probably sat above the 1MB boundary too; I dunno if the soundcard has any usable RAM to speak of, but even so the computer likely has RAM mapped to at least 1.75MB logical, maybe even blocked out to 2MB to simplify addressing. On top of which, the 640 to 1024KB "hole" is typically joined by another at ... either 14 to 15, or 15 to 16MB on typical ATs (I forget which), allowing a wider range of extended BIOS ROM and memory-mapped IO on expansion cards, alleviating some of the pressure and conflict that could be experienced with everything vying for shared use of that 384KB block (and allowing things like the mapping of the "high memory" area out to 768KB or more of usable sub-1MB RAM in later versions of DOS). Using a VGA card on an XT class machine can be quite tricky (and likely one reason for IBM creating the weird, crippled MCGA... its lack of EGA compatibility is inexplicable, but its limited memory is likely so it would fit within the 8088 address space on the lowest-end PS/2s without having to resort to complicated memory paging routines such as were needed for operation of over-1MB XT memory cards), and a lot of the other stuff above, probably including use of any kind of SVGA (or at least, anything over 800x600 16-colour - which just skims inside of 240KB), would be entirely impossible due to the more limited addressing range for both RAM, ROM, and mapped IO.
9,482	The system bus of the IBM PC had 8 data lines and 20 address lines, in a logical correspondence to the 8088 CPU. The AT added a second inline edge connector to expand this to 16 data lines and 24 address lines, again in a logical correspondence to the new 286 CPU. And certainly the wider data bus made the system run faster. But I'm wondering were the extra address lines really used? Of course there was the infamous problem with the 1-megabyte address space limit being baked into the API by the time the AT came on the scene, but it seems to me there is another issue. Most of the address space in an 8088 machine would naturally enough tend to be used for RAM. An IBM PC could take up to 64K on the motherboard, but you could stuff it with memory cards to bring it up to 256K, run Lotus 1-2-3 and turn your spreadsheets into graphs that made you look good in presentations, and that was the combination that made the IBM PC decisively superior to the Apple II in terms of what you could do with it, never mind the IBM nameplate. But the SIMM was invented in 1982, two years before the AT came out. So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. It was still used for lots of other things, of course. But none of them consumed address space wholesale the way RAM did. So: did anything ever actually use the extra address space of the 16-bit ISA bus?	2019/03/30	[ "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9482", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/" ]	> > So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. > > > There were a number of driving factors that decoupled memory expansion from the ISA expansion bus, but early 286 machines did allow for it. The CPU bus, at CPU speed, was directly exposed on the slot edge connector, so memory on a card was the same as memory on the motherboard. With respect to how that memory was used, keep in mind that the (by far) dominant OS on these machines was real-mode DOS, with its 20-bit address space. While there were ways to use more of the address space through protected mode, the 286 itself had its issues switching from protected mode to real, so there was a strong incentive to keep things accessible with 20-bits. (Hence EMS's paging, etc.) So I'd be surprised if, in the early days, there was much beyond memory boards for OS/2 and Xenix that used the extra address bits. The rest of the story relates to the fact that it also became advantageous to run ISA slots for compatibility reasons at 8MHz. Running them faster could and would cause problems for some expansion boards. So, as PC's accelerated past 8MHz and ISA became more of a standard, the industry rather quickly decoupled CPU speed from bus speed. By the time the 486 rolled around, it wasn't uncommon for a CPU to have something like a 32-bit/33MHz connection to main storage and 16-bit/8MHz to I/O. (And maybe some kind of memory slot for adding extra memory.) Okay for CPU bound workloads, but not much else, and particularly video. 1024x768x8bpp is 768K, and that's a lot of data to stream over an ISA slot. Hence the initial push for VLB, and later AGP. What started making higher address bits more useful was the more widespread emergence of 24 and 32-bit addressing in software. Windows 3.0 and Windows 95 did most of the the heavy lifting in the PC world in that regard.	Multi-megabyte memory expansion cards for ATs absolutely WERE a thing, including more than a few sold by IBM themselves. I recommend having a scoot around the various document archives of the interwebs such as Bitsavers, Google Books' back catalogue of Byte / Infoworld / Computer Shopper etc, and various others whose names/URLs I forget but that frequently feature any time I do an arbitrary google search for information on some old bit of hardware. Simply dropping "PC-AT memory expansion card" into the search bar will probably get you endless hits, if you bother to do it. SIMMs may have been invented in 1982, but that doesn't mean they were immediately adopted in any great way. The Atari STe was one of the first mainstream proponents of the idea that I'm aware of, and that dates to 1989. I've a slightly earlier (1987/88, I think?) AT-clone in my collection, that a family friend gave me wayback, and it has a grand total of ... two. Just 2x 30-pin SIMM slots, and they don't support any module size other than 256KByte; having filled them, and expanded its onboard memory from 640 to 1152KB, it'll just about boot Windows, but what you can do with the system once you've loaded it is pretty limited ("Write" will run, "Word" and "Works" won't), and it's a damn good thing that the video adapter has its own memory instead of having to share it with the rest of the machine. If you wanted to use any more sophisticated software with the machine, then your only recourse would be to add memory cards. Motherboards sporting a meaningful rack of SIMM slots, and that supported the larger capacity (and, at the time, still deadly expensive, especially compared to SIPPs, or the lower-frequency DIPs used on the expansion cards) 1MB and 4MB modules, were rather more a 386-era thing, or at least later-286. Compare it to the 3.5" diskette drive. That was already a thing since, what, 1983, 1984? It also pre-dated the PC-AT. IBM, and PC clone manufacturers in general, didn't adopt it as a format, outside of portable machines, until the debut of the PS/2, many years later. It might have been there as an option, and even used (alongside other competing compact formats like the 3" flippy-disk cartridge as beloved of Sinclair and Amstrad) by a good number of rivals from 84/85 onwards, but it doesn't mean the 5.25" format was immediately obsoleted by it. Indeed, 5.25 was the first to get HD, and remained the larger-but-higher-capacity option (at 1200KB vs 720 or 800KB) until the even higher tech 3.5" HD floppies came along nearer to the turn of the 90s. Or indeed... CDRs and other removable media didn't disappear when DVDR came along. USB didn't immediately displace all other interconnects (THAT took ages). Integrated graphics and sound, or indeed floppy/hard drive controllers, serial/parallel ports, etc, didn't completely do away with discrete add-on cards. Often, much like those two lonely low-capacity SIMM sockets, the early examples of the form were rather limited compared to what could be achieved with a dedicated, if rather costly and bulky, optional upgrade card, and were only really meant as a low cost, get-you-started convenience option. A lot of people don't need anything better than integrated graphics, but there's still the option for installing a dedicated GPU if you want it. Or a RAID card to expand your storage options beyond what the built in controller can do. At the time "my" 286 was made, Windows was still a novelty and even competing somewhat with lower-requirement things like GEM and DesqView; most of what the machine ran (indeed, all that it originally came with) were DOS apps, which for the most part worked just fine with the original 640KB. Adding the extra half meg unlocked a few nice additional features, like using WYSIWYG fonts in Lotus Symphony, but I never really got the impression that the computer was crying out for anything additional to that until I tried it with Windows. There aren't really any games which demand greater amounts of memory that don't also want a better processor (and, until I added the SVGA, a better graphics card). Most home or office buyers of the system would have been satisfied with what it offered, and if they found it still limited - say, they actually wanted to use it for some kind of heavier business or scientific analysis or industrial purpose - could have just used one of the several open slots to add a memory card, and been able to make a business-case justification for the expense. And, as we were speaking of video cards... that aforementioned 286 clone came with a Hercules Mono card installed; before I added the SIMMs, its total memory complement between system board and video was only about 704KB. It didn't have much advantage over an XT other than a good extra turn of speed (having the 12MHz option), a larger hard drive (40MB), and better compatibility with later software (how much of what was installed on it wasn't still XT compatible though, I wouldn't want to guess). After some dumpster diving salvage runs at my old school, it gained an arguably over-the-top half-meg Trident SVGA card, as well as a Soundblaster Pro (sadly, no Gravis Ultrasounds or AWE32s to be had). AGP and its addressing "window" being more than a decade away, that memory is directly mapped into the machine's architecture, and I expect the SIMMs probably sat above the 1MB boundary too; I dunno if the soundcard has any usable RAM to speak of, but even so the computer likely has RAM mapped to at least 1.75MB logical, maybe even blocked out to 2MB to simplify addressing. On top of which, the 640 to 1024KB "hole" is typically joined by another at ... either 14 to 15, or 15 to 16MB on typical ATs (I forget which), allowing a wider range of extended BIOS ROM and memory-mapped IO on expansion cards, alleviating some of the pressure and conflict that could be experienced with everything vying for shared use of that 384KB block (and allowing things like the mapping of the "high memory" area out to 768KB or more of usable sub-1MB RAM in later versions of DOS). Using a VGA card on an XT class machine can be quite tricky (and likely one reason for IBM creating the weird, crippled MCGA... its lack of EGA compatibility is inexplicable, but its limited memory is likely so it would fit within the 8088 address space on the lowest-end PS/2s without having to resort to complicated memory paging routines such as were needed for operation of over-1MB XT memory cards), and a lot of the other stuff above, probably including use of any kind of SVGA (or at least, anything over 800x600 16-colour - which just skims inside of 240KB), would be entirely impossible due to the more limited addressing range for both RAM, ROM, and mapped IO.
9,482	The system bus of the IBM PC had 8 data lines and 20 address lines, in a logical correspondence to the 8088 CPU. The AT added a second inline edge connector to expand this to 16 data lines and 24 address lines, again in a logical correspondence to the new 286 CPU. And certainly the wider data bus made the system run faster. But I'm wondering were the extra address lines really used? Of course there was the infamous problem with the 1-megabyte address space limit being baked into the API by the time the AT came on the scene, but it seems to me there is another issue. Most of the address space in an 8088 machine would naturally enough tend to be used for RAM. An IBM PC could take up to 64K on the motherboard, but you could stuff it with memory cards to bring it up to 256K, run Lotus 1-2-3 and turn your spreadsheets into graphs that made you look good in presentations, and that was the combination that made the IBM PC decisively superior to the Apple II in terms of what you could do with it, never mind the IBM nameplate. But the SIMM was invented in 1982, two years before the AT came out. So in the 286 era, you didn't need to put memory cards on the system bus anymore. It was still used for lots of other things, of course. But none of them consumed address space wholesale the way RAM did. So: did anything ever actually use the extra address space of the 16-bit ISA bus?	2019/03/30	[ "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/9482", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com", "https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4274/" ]	Back with the 8088 I used a MDA which mapped into 4KB of video memory 0B0000h. The address decode did not even resolve it properly so it was copied over 32KB of address space. I used one of them with my old IBM PC. The PC AT with the 80286 had new slots. In DOS however the same world as before. You needed a different operating system to use protected mode to recognize 16MB of address space and use the 16-bit slots more effectively. The 80386 was more DOS address space. Again a different operating system was needed to use the features. I had BSD on a 386 and that actually could use all the memory natively. Had to use different commands but it worked OK. DOS was still limited.	Multi-megabyte memory expansion cards for ATs absolutely WERE a thing, including more than a few sold by IBM themselves. I recommend having a scoot around the various document archives of the interwebs such as Bitsavers, Google Books' back catalogue of Byte / Infoworld / Computer Shopper etc, and various others whose names/URLs I forget but that frequently feature any time I do an arbitrary google search for information on some old bit of hardware. Simply dropping "PC-AT memory expansion card" into the search bar will probably get you endless hits, if you bother to do it. SIMMs may have been invented in 1982, but that doesn't mean they were immediately adopted in any great way. The Atari STe was one of the first mainstream proponents of the idea that I'm aware of, and that dates to 1989. I've a slightly earlier (1987/88, I think?) AT-clone in my collection, that a family friend gave me wayback, and it has a grand total of ... two. Just 2x 30-pin SIMM slots, and they don't support any module size other than 256KByte; having filled them, and expanded its onboard memory from 640 to 1152KB, it'll just about boot Windows, but what you can do with the system once you've loaded it is pretty limited ("Write" will run, "Word" and "Works" won't), and it's a damn good thing that the video adapter has its own memory instead of having to share it with the rest of the machine. If you wanted to use any more sophisticated software with the machine, then your only recourse would be to add memory cards. Motherboards sporting a meaningful rack of SIMM slots, and that supported the larger capacity (and, at the time, still deadly expensive, especially compared to SIPPs, or the lower-frequency DIPs used on the expansion cards) 1MB and 4MB modules, were rather more a 386-era thing, or at least later-286. Compare it to the 3.5" diskette drive. That was already a thing since, what, 1983, 1984? It also pre-dated the PC-AT. IBM, and PC clone manufacturers in general, didn't adopt it as a format, outside of portable machines, until the debut of the PS/2, many years later. It might have been there as an option, and even used (alongside other competing compact formats like the 3" flippy-disk cartridge as beloved of Sinclair and Amstrad) by a good number of rivals from 84/85 onwards, but it doesn't mean the 5.25" format was immediately obsoleted by it. Indeed, 5.25 was the first to get HD, and remained the larger-but-higher-capacity option (at 1200KB vs 720 or 800KB) until the even higher tech 3.5" HD floppies came along nearer to the turn of the 90s. Or indeed... CDRs and other removable media didn't disappear when DVDR came along. USB didn't immediately displace all other interconnects (THAT took ages). Integrated graphics and sound, or indeed floppy/hard drive controllers, serial/parallel ports, etc, didn't completely do away with discrete add-on cards. Often, much like those two lonely low-capacity SIMM sockets, the early examples of the form were rather limited compared to what could be achieved with a dedicated, if rather costly and bulky, optional upgrade card, and were only really meant as a low cost, get-you-started convenience option. A lot of people don't need anything better than integrated graphics, but there's still the option for installing a dedicated GPU if you want it. Or a RAID card to expand your storage options beyond what the built in controller can do. At the time "my" 286 was made, Windows was still a novelty and even competing somewhat with lower-requirement things like GEM and DesqView; most of what the machine ran (indeed, all that it originally came with) were DOS apps, which for the most part worked just fine with the original 640KB. Adding the extra half meg unlocked a few nice additional features, like using WYSIWYG fonts in Lotus Symphony, but I never really got the impression that the computer was crying out for anything additional to that until I tried it with Windows. There aren't really any games which demand greater amounts of memory that don't also want a better processor (and, until I added the SVGA, a better graphics card). Most home or office buyers of the system would have been satisfied with what it offered, and if they found it still limited - say, they actually wanted to use it for some kind of heavier business or scientific analysis or industrial purpose - could have just used one of the several open slots to add a memory card, and been able to make a business-case justification for the expense. And, as we were speaking of video cards... that aforementioned 286 clone came with a Hercules Mono card installed; before I added the SIMMs, its total memory complement between system board and video was only about 704KB. It didn't have much advantage over an XT other than a good extra turn of speed (having the 12MHz option), a larger hard drive (40MB), and better compatibility with later software (how much of what was installed on it wasn't still XT compatible though, I wouldn't want to guess). After some dumpster diving salvage runs at my old school, it gained an arguably over-the-top half-meg Trident SVGA card, as well as a Soundblaster Pro (sadly, no Gravis Ultrasounds or AWE32s to be had). AGP and its addressing "window" being more than a decade away, that memory is directly mapped into the machine's architecture, and I expect the SIMMs probably sat above the 1MB boundary too; I dunno if the soundcard has any usable RAM to speak of, but even so the computer likely has RAM mapped to at least 1.75MB logical, maybe even blocked out to 2MB to simplify addressing. On top of which, the 640 to 1024KB "hole" is typically joined by another at ... either 14 to 15, or 15 to 16MB on typical ATs (I forget which), allowing a wider range of extended BIOS ROM and memory-mapped IO on expansion cards, alleviating some of the pressure and conflict that could be experienced with everything vying for shared use of that 384KB block (and allowing things like the mapping of the "high memory" area out to 768KB or more of usable sub-1MB RAM in later versions of DOS). Using a VGA card on an XT class machine can be quite tricky (and likely one reason for IBM creating the weird, crippled MCGA... its lack of EGA compatibility is inexplicable, but its limited memory is likely so it would fit within the 8088 address space on the lowest-end PS/2s without having to resort to complicated memory paging routines such as were needed for operation of over-1MB XT memory cards), and a lot of the other stuff above, probably including use of any kind of SVGA (or at least, anything over 800x600 16-colour - which just skims inside of 240KB), would be entirely impossible due to the more limited addressing range for both RAM, ROM, and mapped IO.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	[Munin](http://munin.projects.linpro.no/) is what you need for Unix-like operating systems. Actually, Munin is great for graphing anything for which you can collect numbers. If you could get one to run a TCP server, it could graph the temperature in your refrigerator.	Using Process Explorer, right-click a process and use the "Properties..." menu. In the "Performance Graph" tab you can see the memory, io and cpu usage of an individual process.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	I use [VMMAP](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/dd535533.aspx "VMMap (Systernals)") for this very purpose. It's a recent tool made by the Sysinternals team that brought us [ProcessExplorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) that was suggested in a precedent post.	Using Process Explorer, right-click a process and use the "Properties..." menu. In the "Performance Graph" tab you can see the memory, io and cpu usage of an individual process.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	Check out [Perfmon](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490957.aspx). It's a great performance monitoring tool that lets you graphically monitor nearly any aspect of a running program.	Using Process Explorer, right-click a process and use the "Properties..." menu. In the "Performance Graph" tab you can see the memory, io and cpu usage of an individual process.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	You can try: * [Process Explorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) * [Process Hacker](http://processhacker.sourceforge.net/) * [Red-Gate Memory Tracker](http://labs.red-gate.com/index.php/Red_Gate_Memory_Tracker#Download) (this is currently experimental) You'll likely need to get the [Windows debugging tools](http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/default.mspx) in order for your tool of choice to hook into your process.	Using Process Explorer, right-click a process and use the "Properties..." menu. In the "Performance Graph" tab you can see the memory, io and cpu usage of an individual process.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	[Process Explorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) has several visualization options for both individual processes and the system as a whole.	Using Process Explorer, right-click a process and use the "Properties..." menu. In the "Performance Graph" tab you can see the memory, io and cpu usage of an individual process.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	[Process Explorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) has several visualization options for both individual processes and the system as a whole.	I use [VMMAP](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/dd535533.aspx "VMMap (Systernals)") for this very purpose. It's a recent tool made by the Sysinternals team that brought us [ProcessExplorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) that was suggested in a precedent post.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	[Process Explorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) has several visualization options for both individual processes and the system as a whole.	[Munin](http://munin.projects.linpro.no/) is what you need for Unix-like operating systems. Actually, Munin is great for graphing anything for which you can collect numbers. If you could get one to run a TCP server, it could graph the temperature in your refrigerator.
31,034	Is there any tool that draws a graphic visualization of a process' memory? I'd like a graph showing the percentage of pages in physical memory and in the page file.	2009/06/24	[ "https://serverfault.com/questions/31034", "https://serverfault.com", "https://serverfault.com/users/10565/" ]	[Process Explorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) has several visualization options for both individual processes and the system as a whole.	You can try: * [Process Explorer](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) * [Process Hacker](http://processhacker.sourceforge.net/) * [Red-Gate Memory Tracker](http://labs.red-gate.com/index.php/Red_Gate_Memory_Tracker#Download) (this is currently experimental) You'll likely need to get the [Windows debugging tools](http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/default.mspx) in order for your tool of choice to hook into your process.
8,253	In my experience, the default sitecore\_master\_index and sitecore\_web\_index work pretty fast with Solr. We have around 1 million documents in the index and it returns a result in between 0 to 10ms. I can also rebuild part of the index using Rebuild Tree button on developer tab, so I don't have to worry that if some part of the index is broken I have to do a full rebuild (which takes a lot of time). When and why is recommended to create a custom index? What are the best practices here?	2017/11/02	[ "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/8253", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/35/" ]	I don't think it takes 10 ms when you have complex query with facets. The most important reasons for creating a separate index are the following: 1. you can index only the items you need, speeding up (re-)indexation 2. you can index only the fields you really need, speeding up (re-)indexation 3. your index will only contain what you need, making it faster to search what you need 4. you can control when the index gets updated	Next to the reasons already mentioned by our Climber, I would add: * possibility to tweak the index in all ways possible - you can go really far in this tweaking your fields in the index, or even using custom document options etc * when in need of (several) ComputedFields, I normally start considering a custom index (so I don't need to include these in the full index) but as your question already indicated: if you don't need them, don't use them (although I rather like them..)
8,253	In my experience, the default sitecore\_master\_index and sitecore\_web\_index work pretty fast with Solr. We have around 1 million documents in the index and it returns a result in between 0 to 10ms. I can also rebuild part of the index using Rebuild Tree button on developer tab, so I don't have to worry that if some part of the index is broken I have to do a full rebuild (which takes a lot of time). When and why is recommended to create a custom index? What are the best practices here?	2017/11/02	[ "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/8253", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/35/" ]	I don't think it takes 10 ms when you have complex query with facets. The most important reasons for creating a separate index are the following: 1. you can index only the items you need, speeding up (re-)indexation 2. you can index only the fields you really need, speeding up (re-)indexation 3. your index will only contain what you need, making it faster to search what you need 4. you can control when the index gets updated	An additional minor benefit is that it makes it easier to debug the index using a tool like Luke (<http://www.getopt.org/luke/>). For example, if you were developing a blog, you might have 100 documents in a custom index as opposed to a million in the Sitecore indexes. The custom index will be much easier to browse and debug (as it would have far fewer documents and potentially fewer fields) than the monstrous Sitecore indexes.
8,253	In my experience, the default sitecore\_master\_index and sitecore\_web\_index work pretty fast with Solr. We have around 1 million documents in the index and it returns a result in between 0 to 10ms. I can also rebuild part of the index using Rebuild Tree button on developer tab, so I don't have to worry that if some part of the index is broken I have to do a full rebuild (which takes a lot of time). When and why is recommended to create a custom index? What are the best practices here?	2017/11/02	[ "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/8253", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/35/" ]	I don't think it takes 10 ms when you have complex query with facets. The most important reasons for creating a separate index are the following: 1. you can index only the items you need, speeding up (re-)indexation 2. you can index only the fields you really need, speeding up (re-)indexation 3. your index will only contain what you need, making it faster to search what you need 4. you can control when the index gets updated	Here are some pretty good posts on God index vs Domain indexes. <https://soen.ghost.io/tackling-the-challenges-of-architecting-a-search-indexing-infrastructure-in-sitecore-part-2/> <http://jockstothecore.com/indexing-patterns-in-sitecore/> As can see even sitecore has been adding domain indexes as versions of sitecore has progressed. As mentioned when you start having computed fields, if you add these to the default indexes you'll slow down index rebuilds. As master index already indexes all the items/versions in the master database, this is normally the slowest index to rebuild. So you might end up making your overall rebuild time slower. Having smaller domain indexes means quicker overall rebuild time, assuming you can scale up/have enough cpu cores free, and configured sitecore indexing max threads to utilise them to rebuild indexes in parallel. Using Solr also helps with rebuild speed. For us as well we have customised our domain indexes search to not swallow errors (and not return empty list) if SOLR is down, as well as add add a reduced connection time out on queries, and a circuit breaker on queries. Something we couldn't do with the default sitecore indexes, due to the way they are expected to behave.
8,253	In my experience, the default sitecore\_master\_index and sitecore\_web\_index work pretty fast with Solr. We have around 1 million documents in the index and it returns a result in between 0 to 10ms. I can also rebuild part of the index using Rebuild Tree button on developer tab, so I don't have to worry that if some part of the index is broken I have to do a full rebuild (which takes a lot of time). When and why is recommended to create a custom index? What are the best practices here?	2017/11/02	[ "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/8253", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/35/" ]	Next to the reasons already mentioned by our Climber, I would add: * possibility to tweak the index in all ways possible - you can go really far in this tweaking your fields in the index, or even using custom document options etc * when in need of (several) ComputedFields, I normally start considering a custom index (so I don't need to include these in the full index) but as your question already indicated: if you don't need them, don't use them (although I rather like them..)	An additional minor benefit is that it makes it easier to debug the index using a tool like Luke (<http://www.getopt.org/luke/>). For example, if you were developing a blog, you might have 100 documents in a custom index as opposed to a million in the Sitecore indexes. The custom index will be much easier to browse and debug (as it would have far fewer documents and potentially fewer fields) than the monstrous Sitecore indexes.
8,253	In my experience, the default sitecore\_master\_index and sitecore\_web\_index work pretty fast with Solr. We have around 1 million documents in the index and it returns a result in between 0 to 10ms. I can also rebuild part of the index using Rebuild Tree button on developer tab, so I don't have to worry that if some part of the index is broken I have to do a full rebuild (which takes a lot of time). When and why is recommended to create a custom index? What are the best practices here?	2017/11/02	[ "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/8253", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/35/" ]	Next to the reasons already mentioned by our Climber, I would add: * possibility to tweak the index in all ways possible - you can go really far in this tweaking your fields in the index, or even using custom document options etc * when in need of (several) ComputedFields, I normally start considering a custom index (so I don't need to include these in the full index) but as your question already indicated: if you don't need them, don't use them (although I rather like them..)	Here are some pretty good posts on God index vs Domain indexes. <https://soen.ghost.io/tackling-the-challenges-of-architecting-a-search-indexing-infrastructure-in-sitecore-part-2/> <http://jockstothecore.com/indexing-patterns-in-sitecore/> As can see even sitecore has been adding domain indexes as versions of sitecore has progressed. As mentioned when you start having computed fields, if you add these to the default indexes you'll slow down index rebuilds. As master index already indexes all the items/versions in the master database, this is normally the slowest index to rebuild. So you might end up making your overall rebuild time slower. Having smaller domain indexes means quicker overall rebuild time, assuming you can scale up/have enough cpu cores free, and configured sitecore indexing max threads to utilise them to rebuild indexes in parallel. Using Solr also helps with rebuild speed. For us as well we have customised our domain indexes search to not swallow errors (and not return empty list) if SOLR is down, as well as add add a reduced connection time out on queries, and a circuit breaker on queries. Something we couldn't do with the default sitecore indexes, due to the way they are expected to behave.
8,253	In my experience, the default sitecore\_master\_index and sitecore\_web\_index work pretty fast with Solr. We have around 1 million documents in the index and it returns a result in between 0 to 10ms. I can also rebuild part of the index using Rebuild Tree button on developer tab, so I don't have to worry that if some part of the index is broken I have to do a full rebuild (which takes a lot of time). When and why is recommended to create a custom index? What are the best practices here?	2017/11/02	[ "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/8253", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com", "https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/35/" ]	Here are some pretty good posts on God index vs Domain indexes. <https://soen.ghost.io/tackling-the-challenges-of-architecting-a-search-indexing-infrastructure-in-sitecore-part-2/> <http://jockstothecore.com/indexing-patterns-in-sitecore/> As can see even sitecore has been adding domain indexes as versions of sitecore has progressed. As mentioned when you start having computed fields, if you add these to the default indexes you'll slow down index rebuilds. As master index already indexes all the items/versions in the master database, this is normally the slowest index to rebuild. So you might end up making your overall rebuild time slower. Having smaller domain indexes means quicker overall rebuild time, assuming you can scale up/have enough cpu cores free, and configured sitecore indexing max threads to utilise them to rebuild indexes in parallel. Using Solr also helps with rebuild speed. For us as well we have customised our domain indexes search to not swallow errors (and not return empty list) if SOLR is down, as well as add add a reduced connection time out on queries, and a circuit breaker on queries. Something we couldn't do with the default sitecore indexes, due to the way they are expected to behave.	An additional minor benefit is that it makes it easier to debug the index using a tool like Luke (<http://www.getopt.org/luke/>). For example, if you were developing a blog, you might have 100 documents in a custom index as opposed to a million in the Sitecore indexes. The custom index will be much easier to browse and debug (as it would have far fewer documents and potentially fewer fields) than the monstrous Sitecore indexes.
42,909	As I understand it, mic level input and line level input are two different things, with line level input having a much higher power level. In my case, I'm dealing with an old minidisc recorder that only has a line level input on it. This is using a regular 3.5mm jack. I see plenty of attenuators/converters around for going from Line -> Mic, but what I am not finding is the reverse - an amplifier that would boost the mic level to line level, and simultaneously be portable for field recording. This is not a product recommendation post, I just need to know if the thing I'm looking for even exists, is reasonable, and if a "3.5mm mic amp" is the right terminology for it.	2018/02/23	[ "https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/42909", "https://sound.stackexchange.com", "https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/24206/" ]	Most microphones output about 0.0006 volts while line level is about 1 volt or 1.23 The device you want is a microphone preamp to bring the microphone signal up to Line level. If you get one with 1/4" out then it's not hard to go from 1/4 to 3.5mm. But I don't know of a battery powered one. You might need to buy a new recorder that has a mic input.	Are you sure about that line level input? The portable minidisc recorders (rather than mere players) I am familiar with have a 3.5mm input suitable for electret condenser microphones with plugin power. There are actual stereo lapel microphones for those recorders that were popular for bootleg recordings in olden times. Now that may not help a lot depending on which kind of microphone you are actually planning to use. Note that in a pinch, an old USB audio interface with mic inputs/phantom power and failing driver support will tend to serve as a cheap stereo mic preamp that can be powered from a number of USB-style power supplies (including car battery use). They also make for reasonable headphone/line amps fed by the balanced return connections of a stagebox.
42,909	As I understand it, mic level input and line level input are two different things, with line level input having a much higher power level. In my case, I'm dealing with an old minidisc recorder that only has a line level input on it. This is using a regular 3.5mm jack. I see plenty of attenuators/converters around for going from Line -> Mic, but what I am not finding is the reverse - an amplifier that would boost the mic level to line level, and simultaneously be portable for field recording. This is not a product recommendation post, I just need to know if the thing I'm looking for even exists, is reasonable, and if a "3.5mm mic amp" is the right terminology for it.	2018/02/23	[ "https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/42909", "https://sound.stackexchange.com", "https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/24206/" ]	Most microphones output about 0.0006 volts while line level is about 1 volt or 1.23 The device you want is a microphone preamp to bring the microphone signal up to Line level. If you get one with 1/4" out then it's not hard to go from 1/4 to 3.5mm. But I don't know of a battery powered one. You might need to buy a new recorder that has a mic input.	Yes, you can buy or easily make a battery powered preamp to insert in between a mic and the Line In input. I made one many years ago to do exactly this - total cost was about £3
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	The pros have 4gate pretty much figured out. The tell is, if you scout at the ~14 food mark: * one gas * one gateway * one cybernetics core and * lots of energy in the Nexus. * (the last three gateways will most often be placed down all at once) As holycow has mentioned, each race has its own reactions to it, but I'd list different reactions: * Zerg has a queen that tanks a lot of damage, one or two spine crawlers deal a lot of damage, and speed-upgraded zerglings make everything just fall apart for the Protoss. * Terran only needs to make two bunkers filled with a mix of marines and marauders on top of your ramp, and Protoss simply can't make it up the top. The concussive shell upgrade makes the defense absolute. * Protoss' counter, unfortunately, seems to be a defensive 4-gate. This is very tricky and micromanagement heavy, but it's doable. Another defense would be a 3-gate robo with immortals tearing through stalkers, which will also make you ahead in tech. But this is very hard to do, and very prone to mistakes. The point is: 4-gate is a very formulaic attack - you can analyze one 4-gate, and you've analyzed them all. You can practice against it, and once you figure it out, there's practically no 4 gate that can kill you anymore. And, this is probably going to deaf ears, but while 4-gating might give you oodles and oodles of wins, they're empty wins. If you get into diamond simply by 4-gating, you will hit a brick wall: 4-gate is all you have, and it won't work anymore. So you'll start to lose lots of games, while you try to actually learn the game. BTW: the next patch (1.3.3) will make 4-gate a very different beast, since the build times are juggled around a ton. The lesson in this: don't rely on a single all-in build, if it gets changed, you're screwed.	Good scouting against ANY rush is the exact way to counter it. What boggles the mind is that a 4 gate rush is still consistently winning in Gold and Platinum, for the simple fact that it is nearly completely counterable by good scouting, and any player worth their salt by that level of play sound be scouting more than say your average "medium" level AI.
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	What people often forget about the 4 Warp Gate strategy is that it's an all-in strategy. If your rush fails, your opponent has a better economy than yours and will crush you in mid-game. If a 4 Gate is scouted and reacted to in the appropriate way, it's 70/30 in favor of the defender, and professional players recognize a 4 Gate when they see one.	See this build a lot on gomtv by protoss, anyway to be able to counter you can; Terran- Bunker up with marauders + a few marines use 1 base + 1 gass and use 3 rax then siege expand. Zerg- use 2/3 spine crawlers and roaches they take a lot of hits and try to get burrow tech also spread creep to help surround + transfuse. protoss- um 4 gate them back lol, saw TT1 do a 3 gate and held it off with mainly zealots and blocking the stalkers from running with probes. but otherwise use sentries to forcefield your ramp and tech to collosi I guess. hope this helps main thing is don't fast expand and only move out when you macro up a bigger army cos for the 4 gate push they cut probes so if you hold your ahead in economy and are able to safely expand then win.
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	What people often forget about the 4 Warp Gate strategy is that it's an all-in strategy. If your rush fails, your opponent has a better economy than yours and will crush you in mid-game. If a 4 Gate is scouted and reacted to in the appropriate way, it's 70/30 in favor of the defender, and professional players recognize a 4 Gate when they see one.	Well, quite frankly it does dominate professional play kinda. Scouting the 4 gates is crucial when playing vs toss, and like Ivo said, the thing with the four gates is that you can continually warp from all 4 off one base. It uses all resources almost perfectly leaving no resources for anything else (unless you stop warping in of course) and makes for a steady stream of units at the front door of the opponent and when combined with chrono boost, it makes for unmatched unit production off one base. Its weakness? Hmmm, good question...in mirror match I know a toss can try 3 gate+ robo and forcefield their ramp giving them time to pump immortals. Terran can try same thing kinda, using extra bunkers to bide time to pump tanks. And zerg I suppose would need to throw down lots of extra spine crawlers to protect their xpo and just pump a mix of roaches and lings...basically if you see it coming you just do what you can to get ready to fight like...NOW! And also I guess you can say that tactically, one of the weakness in the strategy would be the forward pylon...if for some reason you could take that out during the push it would help. This is just my thoughts on the situation. I'm no master leaguer though, so I hope I'm not too far off from actually viable information here! I'm just tryin to help from the little that I know :-/
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	What people often forget about the 4 Warp Gate strategy is that it's an all-in strategy. If your rush fails, your opponent has a better economy than yours and will crush you in mid-game. If a 4 Gate is scouted and reacted to in the appropriate way, it's 70/30 in favor of the defender, and professional players recognize a 4 Gate when they see one.	The pros have 4gate pretty much figured out. The tell is, if you scout at the ~14 food mark: * one gas * one gateway * one cybernetics core and * lots of energy in the Nexus. * (the last three gateways will most often be placed down all at once) As holycow has mentioned, each race has its own reactions to it, but I'd list different reactions: * Zerg has a queen that tanks a lot of damage, one or two spine crawlers deal a lot of damage, and speed-upgraded zerglings make everything just fall apart for the Protoss. * Terran only needs to make two bunkers filled with a mix of marines and marauders on top of your ramp, and Protoss simply can't make it up the top. The concussive shell upgrade makes the defense absolute. * Protoss' counter, unfortunately, seems to be a defensive 4-gate. This is very tricky and micromanagement heavy, but it's doable. Another defense would be a 3-gate robo with immortals tearing through stalkers, which will also make you ahead in tech. But this is very hard to do, and very prone to mistakes. The point is: 4-gate is a very formulaic attack - you can analyze one 4-gate, and you've analyzed them all. You can practice against it, and once you figure it out, there's practically no 4 gate that can kill you anymore. And, this is probably going to deaf ears, but while 4-gating might give you oodles and oodles of wins, they're empty wins. If you get into diamond simply by 4-gating, you will hit a brick wall: 4-gate is all you have, and it won't work anymore. So you'll start to lose lots of games, while you try to actually learn the game. BTW: the next patch (1.3.3) will make 4-gate a very different beast, since the build times are juggled around a ton. The lesson in this: don't rely on a single all-in build, if it gets changed, you're screwed.
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	Well, quite frankly it does dominate professional play kinda. Scouting the 4 gates is crucial when playing vs toss, and like Ivo said, the thing with the four gates is that you can continually warp from all 4 off one base. It uses all resources almost perfectly leaving no resources for anything else (unless you stop warping in of course) and makes for a steady stream of units at the front door of the opponent and when combined with chrono boost, it makes for unmatched unit production off one base. Its weakness? Hmmm, good question...in mirror match I know a toss can try 3 gate+ robo and forcefield their ramp giving them time to pump immortals. Terran can try same thing kinda, using extra bunkers to bide time to pump tanks. And zerg I suppose would need to throw down lots of extra spine crawlers to protect their xpo and just pump a mix of roaches and lings...basically if you see it coming you just do what you can to get ready to fight like...NOW! And also I guess you can say that tactically, one of the weakness in the strategy would be the forward pylon...if for some reason you could take that out during the push it would help. This is just my thoughts on the situation. I'm no master leaguer though, so I hope I'm not too far off from actually viable information here! I'm just tryin to help from the little that I know :-/	Good scouting against ANY rush is the exact way to counter it. What boggles the mind is that a 4 gate rush is still consistently winning in Gold and Platinum, for the simple fact that it is nearly completely counterable by good scouting, and any player worth their salt by that level of play sound be scouting more than say your average "medium" level AI.
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	The pros have 4gate pretty much figured out. The tell is, if you scout at the ~14 food mark: * one gas * one gateway * one cybernetics core and * lots of energy in the Nexus. * (the last three gateways will most often be placed down all at once) As holycow has mentioned, each race has its own reactions to it, but I'd list different reactions: * Zerg has a queen that tanks a lot of damage, one or two spine crawlers deal a lot of damage, and speed-upgraded zerglings make everything just fall apart for the Protoss. * Terran only needs to make two bunkers filled with a mix of marines and marauders on top of your ramp, and Protoss simply can't make it up the top. The concussive shell upgrade makes the defense absolute. * Protoss' counter, unfortunately, seems to be a defensive 4-gate. This is very tricky and micromanagement heavy, but it's doable. Another defense would be a 3-gate robo with immortals tearing through stalkers, which will also make you ahead in tech. But this is very hard to do, and very prone to mistakes. The point is: 4-gate is a very formulaic attack - you can analyze one 4-gate, and you've analyzed them all. You can practice against it, and once you figure it out, there's practically no 4 gate that can kill you anymore. And, this is probably going to deaf ears, but while 4-gating might give you oodles and oodles of wins, they're empty wins. If you get into diamond simply by 4-gating, you will hit a brick wall: 4-gate is all you have, and it won't work anymore. So you'll start to lose lots of games, while you try to actually learn the game. BTW: the next patch (1.3.3) will make 4-gate a very different beast, since the build times are juggled around a ton. The lesson in this: don't rely on a single all-in build, if it gets changed, you're screwed.	Well, quite frankly it does dominate professional play kinda. Scouting the 4 gates is crucial when playing vs toss, and like Ivo said, the thing with the four gates is that you can continually warp from all 4 off one base. It uses all resources almost perfectly leaving no resources for anything else (unless you stop warping in of course) and makes for a steady stream of units at the front door of the opponent and when combined with chrono boost, it makes for unmatched unit production off one base. Its weakness? Hmmm, good question...in mirror match I know a toss can try 3 gate+ robo and forcefield their ramp giving them time to pump immortals. Terran can try same thing kinda, using extra bunkers to bide time to pump tanks. And zerg I suppose would need to throw down lots of extra spine crawlers to protect their xpo and just pump a mix of roaches and lings...basically if you see it coming you just do what you can to get ready to fight like...NOW! And also I guess you can say that tactically, one of the weakness in the strategy would be the forward pylon...if for some reason you could take that out during the push it would help. This is just my thoughts on the situation. I'm no master leaguer though, so I hope I'm not too far off from actually viable information here! I'm just tryin to help from the little that I know :-/
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	Defensive play is always more efficient than offensive play. The static defence advantages, especially of forcefield on the ramp in PvP, is extremely strong. 3gate for toss or equivalent for other races are good enough to hold 4gate when prepared correctly; if you know the 4gate is coming you can easily efficiently defend it and come out ahead.	Good scouting against ANY rush is the exact way to counter it. What boggles the mind is that a 4 gate rush is still consistently winning in Gold and Platinum, for the simple fact that it is nearly completely counterable by good scouting, and any player worth their salt by that level of play sound be scouting more than say your average "medium" level AI.
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	What people often forget about the 4 Warp Gate strategy is that it's an all-in strategy. If your rush fails, your opponent has a better economy than yours and will crush you in mid-game. If a 4 Gate is scouted and reacted to in the appropriate way, it's 70/30 in favor of the defender, and professional players recognize a 4 Gate when they see one.	Good scouting against ANY rush is the exact way to counter it. What boggles the mind is that a 4 gate rush is still consistently winning in Gold and Platinum, for the simple fact that it is nearly completely counterable by good scouting, and any player worth their salt by that level of play sound be scouting more than say your average "medium" level AI.
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	Well, quite frankly it does dominate professional play kinda. Scouting the 4 gates is crucial when playing vs toss, and like Ivo said, the thing with the four gates is that you can continually warp from all 4 off one base. It uses all resources almost perfectly leaving no resources for anything else (unless you stop warping in of course) and makes for a steady stream of units at the front door of the opponent and when combined with chrono boost, it makes for unmatched unit production off one base. Its weakness? Hmmm, good question...in mirror match I know a toss can try 3 gate+ robo and forcefield their ramp giving them time to pump immortals. Terran can try same thing kinda, using extra bunkers to bide time to pump tanks. And zerg I suppose would need to throw down lots of extra spine crawlers to protect their xpo and just pump a mix of roaches and lings...basically if you see it coming you just do what you can to get ready to fight like...NOW! And also I guess you can say that tactically, one of the weakness in the strategy would be the forward pylon...if for some reason you could take that out during the push it would help. This is just my thoughts on the situation. I'm no master leaguer though, so I hope I'm not too far off from actually viable information here! I'm just tryin to help from the little that I know :-/	See this build a lot on gomtv by protoss, anyway to be able to counter you can; Terran- Bunker up with marauders + a few marines use 1 base + 1 gass and use 3 rax then siege expand. Zerg- use 2/3 spine crawlers and roaches they take a lot of hits and try to get burrow tech also spread creep to help surround + transfuse. protoss- um 4 gate them back lol, saw TT1 do a 3 gate and held it off with mainly zealots and blocking the stalkers from running with probes. but otherwise use sentries to forcefield your ramp and tech to collosi I guess. hope this helps main thing is don't fast expand and only move out when you macro up a bigger army cos for the 4 gate push they cut probes so if you hold your ahead in economy and are able to safely expand then win.
18,743	This might be a dumb question; I actually don't own SC2, so what experience I have is playing friends' accounts. But my friend has been playing on Diamond + Platinum, and so far he seems to be unopposed by 4 warp gate rush. Which is basically 4 warp gates + proxy pylon within 6 minutes, and sending in 3 zealots 3 stalkers. Anyone who tries to tech up simply gets destroyed, because he has no units by the time the warp gets there. Is it because he hasn't been encountering anyone who is actually good? And what are good counters to this, if I ever end up buying SC2 and playing against him? I feel like this can't actually be a competitive build, because it doesn't seem to be the win-every-time strategy in professional games. edit: I guess the more specific question I am asking is, "What are essential/crucial weaknesses in this build? (in general) In particular, the weaknesses that prevent it from being the end-all build"	2011/03/22	[ "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/18743", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com", "https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/424/" ]	What people often forget about the 4 Warp Gate strategy is that it's an all-in strategy. If your rush fails, your opponent has a better economy than yours and will crush you in mid-game. If a 4 Gate is scouted and reacted to in the appropriate way, it's 70/30 in favor of the defender, and professional players recognize a 4 Gate when they see one.	Defensive play is always more efficient than offensive play. The static defence advantages, especially of forcefield on the ramp in PvP, is extremely strong. 3gate for toss or equivalent for other races are good enough to hold 4gate when prepared correctly; if you know the 4gate is coming you can easily efficiently defend it and come out ahead.
85,881	Can an EPS-file with text contain non-vectorized fonts? (meaning that the receiver needs to have the fonts in question installed) or are fonts always vectorized when I save a file as EPS?	2017/02/27	[ "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/85881", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com", "https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/49353/" ]	An EPS is merely a file wrapper. What's in that wrapper can be a mix of either raster or vector. It's also possible that an EPS contains 100% raster data and no vector data at all... or that it contains 100% vector data and no raster data at all. Fonts, typically are vector, and when contained in a file which is then saved to a format that supports vector data (EPS, PDF, PSD, AI, etc) they are: * either embedded as live vector type (you can't extract the actual fonts from an EPS, or any file really. The data is embedded, not the actual operating system fonts.) * outlined, creating vector paths (but without live type hinting and other features) * possibly rasterized due to file appearances Any one of those three is entirely possible with an EPS. The only way to know is to open the EPS after it's been saved to find out what things look like.	Yes an EPS can contain live, editable text and therefore this would necessitate the correct font being available to successfully edit it and maintain the intended appearance. No, fonts are not vectorised by default in an EPS file.
28,612	I want to know about Prophet Muhammad's life. Please tell me about the last Salat performed by the Prophet and the Surah which He recited in it.	2015/11/12	[ "https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/28612", "https://islam.stackexchange.com", "https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/14712/" ]	As Medi Saif pointed out, Prophet (peace be upon him) did not pray in the mosque for some time and he appointed Abu-Baker Assidiq to lead the prayer, a total of 17 prayers. Which suggests that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not go to the mosque for at least 3 days. According to the Muslim historians and hadith scholars, As-sayuti, An-nassaiy and Ibn-Katheer, Mohammed (peace be upon him) went to the mosque on Monday, the day he died, and prayed Morning prayer (sitting) behind Abu-Baker Assidiq. This was his last prayer. There was no mention of the suras which Abu-Bakir read.	The prophets last prayer that he led in the mosque was Maghrib and the Surah that he read was surah Mursalat and then when he woke up he read fajr and then passed away
16,649	I have my print settings dialed into a real good spot, but there's one obstacle that's preventing them from coming out flawless; somehow, my print has "fuzz" everywhere. Not traditional stringing like you get from filament oozing while travelling from section to section, nor do I mean over-extrusion that causes the outer walls to sag or bubble out. The final shape/texture of my models are perfect - there's just wispy little hairs sticking out all over the model. They are not even really visible unless you hold it up to the light, or against a dark background. Here's an image of the wing from a dragon I printed. Notice the top edge of the part and how it looks like it's made of cotton or something? That's how it looks everywhere. [![Close up of dragon wing showing cotton effect](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tkQPc.jpg "Close up of dragon wing showing cotton effect")](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tkQPc.jpg "Close up of dragon wing showing cotton effect")	2021/06/28	[ "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/16649", "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com", "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/29132/" ]	That is the print stringing still. Even thought that you have your printer dialed in, the plastic that is still in the nozzle is still grabbing onto your print and pulling out the nozzle just a tad. This, as far as I know, is unavoidable. The best solution that I could think of fixing this (as far as having your print come perfect off of the bed) would if a company designed the tips, printer, and filament to perfectly match each other, but until that happens, you are gonna be stuck with a lighter balling up the strings and picking them off.	These stringers are common with PETG. You can reduce them by: 1. Increasing retraction reduces the stringers, but too much retraction can cause the filament to jam and stop extruding. 2. Lowering the extruder temperature will reduce the stringers, but also reduce adhesion between layers. Stringers usually aren't an issue on the 1st layer, so you can keep the necessary extrusion temperature for the 1st layer to keep adhesion to the bed. Your stringers are very short thus difficult to reduce. One method to get rid of stringers is to expose the print very quickly with the flame of a blow torch. Important is you don't want to melt the strings. You want them to burn, so that they are ash and easily removed. Melting the stringers will distort your print.
5,291	Everyone knows there are 16 Sanskar in Hinduism. In this 16 Sanskar, Antyesthi (Cremation) is the final Sanskar performed after death (of a person) by his or her descendents.But I came to know that the person (who wants to take Sanyasa from Vanaprastha) before taking Sanyasa have to perform his own Antyesthi (Cremation). If it is true,then * What is the Purpose of Own Antyesthi (Cremation) before taking Sanyasa? And I came across that respective Guru gives a different(new) name to Sanyasi or Shishya (Disciple). Like: Swami Vivekananda (Narendra Nath Datta) name has given by his Guru Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. * On which Basis(Spiritual Qualities) does Guru gives a new name to Sanyasi or Shishya(Disciple)? * Is there any Co-relation of above two questions?(Own Cremation and a New name)	2015/01/29	[ "https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/5291", "https://hinduism.stackexchange.com", "https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/2310/" ]	What is the Purpose of Own Antyesthi (Cremation) before taking Sanyasa? ======================================================================= It is because the rites are performed when the body dies. Similarly when one takes up Sannyasa, it is symbolic that His body attachment is now dead. That is one has cut off all ties with His physical body. Therefore the cremation rites are performed. Paramahansa Yogananda describes this in Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 24: > > The bibidisa or elaborate initiation into swamiship includes a fire ceremony, during which symbolical funeral rites are performed. The physical body of the disciple is represented as dead, cremated in the flame of wisdom. The newly-made swami is then given a chant, such as: "This atma is Brahma" or "Thou art That" or "I am He." > > > However some saints do not perform such initiation. For example, Paramahansa Yogananda did not do this ceremony, because Sri Yukteshwarji (His Guru) decided that is was not needed. Paramahansa Yogananda describes this in Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 24: > > Sri Yukteswar, however, with his love of simplicity, dispensed with all formal rites and merely asked me to select a new name. > > > Note: This DOES NOT implies that these rituals are NOT NECESSARY AT ALL. This is just example to show that not all saints need to follow these rituals. User moonstar2001 brought the issue in comments below, thus I am clarifying it here. I think that also would answer your other question: On which Basis(Spiritual Qualities) does Guru gives a new name to Sanyasi or Shishya(Disciple)? =============================================================================================== There is a general guideline for this based on Dashanami tradition for monks of Shankara's order of swami's. Paramhansa Yogananda describes this in Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 24: > > In addition to his new name, usually ending in ananda, the swami takes a title which indicates his formal connection with one of the ten subdivisions of the Swami Order. These dasanamis or ten agnomens include the Giri (mountain), to which Sri Yukteswar, and hence myself, belong. Among the other branches are the Sagar (sea), Bharati (land), Aranya (forest), Puri (tract), Tirtha (place of pilgrimage), and Saraswati (wisdom of nature). > > > But I think you mean to ask for: based on these guidelines, how exactly the name is chosen? For example, how did Sri Yuktheswarji choose 'Yogananda' as the title? How did Sri Ramakrishna choose 'Vivekananda' as the title? How did 'Chandrasekharendra Saraswati' get his title? There is no rule for this. The Guru simply follows His Intuition or inner Guidance or Dharma. Whatever you call it. Usually Guru gives the name to His disciples, but sometimes the Guru also asks the disciple to choose it Himself! For example, Paramhansa Yogananda was asked to choose His own spiritual Title: Paramahansa Yogananda describes this in Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 24: > > "I will give you the privilege of choosing it yourself," he said, smiling. > "Yogananda," I replied, after a moment's thought. The name literally means "Bliss (ananda) through divine union (yoga)." > "Be it so. Forsaking your family name of Mukunda Lal Ghosh, henceforth you shall be called Yogananda of the Giri branch of the Swami Order." > > > Is there any Co-relation of above two: ====================================== The only correlation is that only the One who has give up all ties to body and physical differences can take up the name of Swami. Thus the two are actually correlated in the sense one is a pre-requisite for the other. Paramhansa Yogananda describes the qualities of Sannyasis in Autobiography of a Yogi Chapter 24: > > The ideal of selfless service to all mankind, and of renunciation of personal ties and ambitions, leads the majority of swamis to engage actively in humanitarian and educational work in India, or occasionally in foreign lands. > > > Imbuing his waking and sleeping consciousness with the thought, "I am He," he roams contentedly, in the world but not of it. Thus only may he justify his title of swami one who seeks to achieve union with the Swa or Self. > > > It is needless to add that not all formally titled swamis are equally successful in reaching their high goal. > > > How about Swami Vivekananda? ============================ Swami Vivekananda, after Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's Mahasamadhi, took up Sannyaas with eight other disciples, and thus took the title of Sri Swami Vivekananda which means the Bliss of Viveka (or Discrimination).[ [Reference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBhuyan200310-63): Wikipedia (Not sure how accurate this is though)]	Having received sannyas and being of Vivekananda's lineage, let me clarify a few points. Sai's answer is good and mostly true. Vivekananda and the direct disciples of Ramakrishna received their sannyas robes from Ramakrishna, they did not receive their names from him. Vivekananda actually used several names before deciding himself to take the name of Vivekananda. While wandering through India he used several names including Sachchidananda and Vividishananda (source: Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda). The direct disciples of Ramakrishna choose their own names. Ramakrishna received his sannyas from Tota Puri, so all sannyas descendants of Ramakrishna are Govardhana math lineage (one of the 4 established by Shankaracharya). There are several sannyas lineages from different direct disciples of Ramakrishna. Traditionally, the sannyas name is supposed to start with the same vowel as one's birth name, but this practice is not followed much of the time anymore. Most of the time the name is given by the sadhu initiating one into sannyas (one's sannyas guru), but it is not a hard and fast rule. It is not uncommon for some to receive their sannyas from one guru and their name from another. I have also heard of others that have picked their names also. Names are supposed to represent a special aspect of the individual receiving it. As you may be aware, however, a Sanskrit word can have multiple meanings (depending on the context) or sound similar to another word with a not so good meaning. So names can sometimes point out both a divine or sattvic element as well as a worldly or tamasic element of the individual receiving it. This is often a source of laughter and jokes between sadhus. When one receives sannyas, one becomes dead to the world (hence the wearing of orange robes). As you are becoming dead to the world, you do your own death rites, relieving others from having to do yours later. At the same time, you do the death rites for your parents if they are still living, relieving you of having to do the rites later as you are becoming dead to the world and are not supposed to do any more obligatory rites. These are done by a brahmin priest with your participation. After the rites are completed, one then does the rites of sannyas (again by a brahmin priest). After that one puts on the robes and receives the sannyas mantras from the sannyas guru. There are small unimportant variations depending upon whether you are alone or together with others receiving sannyas. There are a few mantras that are given at that time. There is some variation depending on which math your lineage belongs to (giri, puri, etc.) Swami Sivananda of Divine Life also had a 'multi-step' sannyas. I don't remember the details, but I think they are on the Divine Life website. I have met sadhus that went through no ceremonies, only walked away from the world and put the gerua cloth on themselves and gave themselves their own name. Others that received their robes from a sadhu but never did the ceremonies. Others who had no name until they were given it by followers. The circumstances and events surrounding each person's sannyas are very personal and different. When looking back, everyone feels they have been personally touched by the Divine Mother Herself in a different and personal way.
112,349	What is a good attitude from developers when discussing new features, and namely, non critical/questionable features? Say you are developing some sort of Java like language, and the boss says: "We need pointers so that developers could fiddle with object memory directly!" Should the developer shoot down the idea because it adds unimaginable complexity and security vulnerabilities, or should he do what's asked? This may not be a good example, but what about things that are more in a gray area, like adding buttons that break workflow, or goes against internal structure of the program, etc.? What is the optimal "can do" vs. "can't do" distribution for a regular programmer? EDIT: The question is not about a bad boss :D I was more interested how do people approach new problems that add a noticeable amount of problems while maybe being marginally useful. Should the general attitude be: 1. yes we'll do it, screw the complexity 2. maybe 3. no, the general rework, and implications don't justify the change What should be the reaction of a good developer?	2011/10/04	[ "https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/112349", "https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com", "https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/8029/" ]	From the perspective of a developer: NEVER tell anybody paying the bills that they can't have what they want. Instead, you may tell them they can't have it for that price, or that they can't have it exactly the way they originally conceived it. To your "pointer" example; .NET, a managed-code environment, has pointers. They are critically necessary for a lot of interoperability with unmanaged code. However, "safe" use of them is tightly regulated, and if used in "unsafe" code, that code requires higher security permissions in the runtime. If you were developing a managed language that also required direct memory access via pointers, you could come up with a similar scheme of marshalling behind the scenes where you could, using read-only managed pointers where you couldn't automatically marshal, and allowing "true" pointers only in the most trusted areas of the codebase. To your GUI examples: if you know that a new feature will "break" the current flow of code, then you can test for that and develop it more robustly to roll back any previous work done by the workflow. Your clients, and sometimes even your manager, usually have no clue or interest in the structure of the program; if something they want is difficult because of the way you structured the program, then by definition the structure is wrong because it does not allow you to do what the client wants. In all cases, this new feature may increase the scope of work required beyond what the client had thought it would be. That will in turn require either an extension to the schedule, more money, and/or a reduction of other planned work. However, if you know a way to achieve the same basic result in an easier or more logical way, then that can be suggested to the client. Although they definitely do exist, I fortunately have yet to see a client that refused categorically to listen to input from developers, especially in an Agile environment where there's a "product owner" whose sole job is to liase with development on various needed details such as these.	Excuse me, but this question sounds like a minor asking for fatherly advice. If this is the case, the good developer will need to embrace these commandments: * Remain faithful to yourself. If your gut feels uneasy about a feature, voice your concerns audibly. Chances are good that the team is just awaiting an opening. * Do not try to substitute experience with the rules of thumb of the experienced. To you, every situation is different, every feature is new. This is a plus your seniors don't have. * Software development isn't exact science, it will never be. Therefore, accumulate wisdom, not behaviour. * Accept defeat. If the team agrees otherwise, do not repeat your concerns ad nauseam. * Think positive. If the idea is really begging for 'shooting it down', try to find and name positive aspects to it before you list its deficiencies. * Learn how to interact with people. We developers often place technical knowledge over social competence. The technical abilities peak early in life, but the social competence can keep growing until retirement.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.