qid
int64 1
74.7M
| question
stringlengths 12
33.8k
| date
stringlengths 10
10
| metadata
sequence | response_j
stringlengths 0
115k
| response_k
stringlengths 2
98.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26,351 | I was studying for icing and a tailplane stall. I have looked up some internet pages and instrument flying handbook, and found the procedure below.
1. raise flaps to the previous setting. (To reduce down wash from the main wing so that reducing negative angle of attack of the tail and break the stall)
2. apply nose up elevator pressure (I don't get it. The nose up pressure will make the elevator to go up and wouldn't this increase the negative angle of attack and worsen the stall?)
3. do not increase airspeed unless it is necessary to avoid a wing stall. (Why shouldn't we increase airspeed?)
So now I'm trying to understand the reason why should a pilot do such actions. Can you help me out? | 2016/03/23 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26351",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/6831/"
] | Lets start with the very basic concepts....
In most aircraft, the Centre of Gravity (cg) is somewhat forward of the wing or mainplane Centre of Pressure. The exact distance between the cg and the Centre of pressure will depend on aircraft loading, configuration, thrust setting and drag. However, cg forward of the Centre of Pressure produces a nose-down pitching moment. The horizontal stabilizer, or tailplane, then provides a downward force to overcome this normal, nose-down, pitching moment.
The tailplane behaves as an ‘upside down’ wing and operates with negative Angle of Attack (AOA) as shown in Figure 1
***Positive and Negative Angle of Attack***
Figure 1 - Positive and Negative Angle of Attack
If the horizontal stabiliser becomes contaminated with ice, airflow separation from the surface can prevent it from providing sufficient downward force or negative lift to balance the aircraft and a nose-down pitch upset can occur.
When compared to an aircraft's mainplane, the horizontal stabiliser normally has a thinner aerofoil with a sharper leading edge. Differences in the ice collection efficiency or catch rate between the two surfaces means ice accumulates faster on the horizontal stabiliser and may form before any ice is present on the aircraft's mainplane.
Tailplane stall can occur at relatively high speeds, well above the normal 1G stall speed of the mainplane. Typically, tailplane stall induced by icing is most likely to occur near the flap limit speed when the flaps are extended to the landing position, especially when extension is combined with a nose down pitching manoeuvre, airspeed change, power change or flight through turbulence. Aircraft stall warning systems provide warnings based on an uncontaminated mainplane stall so during a tailplane stall induced upset there will be NO artificial stall warning indications, such as a stick shaker, warning horn or the mainplane or flap buffeting normally associated with a mainplane stall.
**Tailplane Stall Aerodynamics**
1. The horizontal stabiliser, or tailplane, of an aircraft is an aerofoil that provides a downward force to overcome the aircraft's normal nose-down pitching moment. The further forward the Centre of Gravity is from the Center of Pressure, the greater the nose down moment and, thus, the greater the amount of down-force that must be generated by the tailplane. This, in turn, requires a greater negative tailplane angle of attack (AOA). angle of attack (AOA).
[As shown in Figure 1, The tailplane is effectively an upside down aerofoil so an increase in negative tailplane AOA occurs with UP elevator movement or when the aircraft is pitching nose down.]
2. Accumulation of ice on the tailplane will result in disruption of the normal airflow around that surface and will reduce the critical (or stalling) negative AOA of the horizontal stabiliser.
3. Ice can accumulate on the tailplane before it begins to accumulate on the mainplane or other parts of the aircraft.
4. Flaps extension usually moves the mainplane Centre of Pressure aft, lengthening the arm between the Centre of Pressure and the cg and increasing the mainplane nose down moment. More down force is required from the tailplane to counter this moment, necessitating a higher negative tailplane AOA.
5. Flap extension, especially near the maximum extension speed, increases the negative tailplane AOA due to the increase in downwash, as shown in Figure 2
6. Increasing the power setting on a propeller driven aircraft may, depending on aircraft configuration and flap settings, increase the downwash and negative tailplane AOA.
7. When the critical negative AOA of the horizontal stabiliser is exceeded causing it to stall.
8. Tailplane stall drastically reduces the downward force it produces, creating a rapid aircraft nose-down pitching moment.
**Effect of mainplane flap on downwash**
Figure 2 - Effect of mainplane flap on downwash
On aircraft with reversible (unpowered) elevator, tailplane airflow changes caused by ice accretion may lead to an aerodynamic overbalance driving the elevator trailing edge down and pitching the aircraft nose down. This can occur separately from or in combination with the nose down pitching moment caused by tailplane stall. The yoke may be snatched forward out of the pilot’s hands and the control force required for the pilot to return the elevator to neutral or to a nose-up deflection can be significant and potentially greater than the pilot can exert.
**now match with your recovery actions**
1. You have no doubt with your 1st point.
2. The second point: You have to resist the nose down elevator movement. Once the tailplane is already stalled then you have to assume the elevator has already gone in down position to make your ac nose down. So you have to apply nose up elevator pressure.
3. You should not increase the airspeed cause it might make the situation worse. Cause in dive with increased airspeed is always difficult to maintain the aircraft control. And you might end up with overstressing the elevator which is not good at all in such condition. | For those recommended actions to be effective, two preconditions have been quietly assumed:
1. The tail surface produces downward lift and
2. The wing has positive camber.
Both can be assumed to be correct in almost any case. Now let’s look at the three recommendations in detail:
>
> raise flaps to the previous setting.
>
>
>
Flaps increase camber and shift the center of pressure backwards. In order to balance the aircraft with the same center of gravity location, the tail needs to produce [more downward force](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13855/why-cant-planes-use-only-flaps-in-the-tail-section-instead-of-stabilizers/13861#13861) with lowered flaps. Retracting flaps will unload the horizontal tail and reduce the stall condition.
>
> apply nose up elevator pressure.
>
>
>
This [adds tail camber](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/44338/is-it-correct-to-say-the-up-elevator-position-decreases-the-camber-of-the-eleva) and helps to produce the same downward force at a less negative local angle of attack of the stabilizer. The induced angle of attack of the added tail camber will increase the local angle of attack at the stabilizer. This can only help momentarily, though, because it will make the aircraft pitch up and lose speed - unless you have a movable stabilizer which is used for trim. Re-trim with the new elevator setting and the change becomes permanent.
>
> do not increase airspeed unless it is necessary to avoid a wing stall.
>
>
>
When the main wing has positive camber, a lower wing angle of attack [shifts its center of pressure backwards](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47306/does-static-longitudinal-stability-require-download-on-the-tail/47308#47308). Therefore, the tail load and lift coefficient are lowest at low speed, and flying slowly will unload the tail. With rear center of gravity, tail load normally can even become slightly positive at low speed.
So in all cases the recommendations help to unload the tail and reduce the condition that let the iced tail stall. |
26,351 | I was studying for icing and a tailplane stall. I have looked up some internet pages and instrument flying handbook, and found the procedure below.
1. raise flaps to the previous setting. (To reduce down wash from the main wing so that reducing negative angle of attack of the tail and break the stall)
2. apply nose up elevator pressure (I don't get it. The nose up pressure will make the elevator to go up and wouldn't this increase the negative angle of attack and worsen the stall?)
3. do not increase airspeed unless it is necessary to avoid a wing stall. (Why shouldn't we increase airspeed?)
So now I'm trying to understand the reason why should a pilot do such actions. Can you help me out? | 2016/03/23 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26351",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/6831/"
] | Lets start with the very basic concepts....
In most aircraft, the Centre of Gravity (cg) is somewhat forward of the wing or mainplane Centre of Pressure. The exact distance between the cg and the Centre of pressure will depend on aircraft loading, configuration, thrust setting and drag. However, cg forward of the Centre of Pressure produces a nose-down pitching moment. The horizontal stabilizer, or tailplane, then provides a downward force to overcome this normal, nose-down, pitching moment.
The tailplane behaves as an ‘upside down’ wing and operates with negative Angle of Attack (AOA) as shown in Figure 1
***Positive and Negative Angle of Attack***
Figure 1 - Positive and Negative Angle of Attack
If the horizontal stabiliser becomes contaminated with ice, airflow separation from the surface can prevent it from providing sufficient downward force or negative lift to balance the aircraft and a nose-down pitch upset can occur.
When compared to an aircraft's mainplane, the horizontal stabiliser normally has a thinner aerofoil with a sharper leading edge. Differences in the ice collection efficiency or catch rate between the two surfaces means ice accumulates faster on the horizontal stabiliser and may form before any ice is present on the aircraft's mainplane.
Tailplane stall can occur at relatively high speeds, well above the normal 1G stall speed of the mainplane. Typically, tailplane stall induced by icing is most likely to occur near the flap limit speed when the flaps are extended to the landing position, especially when extension is combined with a nose down pitching manoeuvre, airspeed change, power change or flight through turbulence. Aircraft stall warning systems provide warnings based on an uncontaminated mainplane stall so during a tailplane stall induced upset there will be NO artificial stall warning indications, such as a stick shaker, warning horn or the mainplane or flap buffeting normally associated with a mainplane stall.
**Tailplane Stall Aerodynamics**
1. The horizontal stabiliser, or tailplane, of an aircraft is an aerofoil that provides a downward force to overcome the aircraft's normal nose-down pitching moment. The further forward the Centre of Gravity is from the Center of Pressure, the greater the nose down moment and, thus, the greater the amount of down-force that must be generated by the tailplane. This, in turn, requires a greater negative tailplane angle of attack (AOA). angle of attack (AOA).
[As shown in Figure 1, The tailplane is effectively an upside down aerofoil so an increase in negative tailplane AOA occurs with UP elevator movement or when the aircraft is pitching nose down.]
2. Accumulation of ice on the tailplane will result in disruption of the normal airflow around that surface and will reduce the critical (or stalling) negative AOA of the horizontal stabiliser.
3. Ice can accumulate on the tailplane before it begins to accumulate on the mainplane or other parts of the aircraft.
4. Flaps extension usually moves the mainplane Centre of Pressure aft, lengthening the arm between the Centre of Pressure and the cg and increasing the mainplane nose down moment. More down force is required from the tailplane to counter this moment, necessitating a higher negative tailplane AOA.
5. Flap extension, especially near the maximum extension speed, increases the negative tailplane AOA due to the increase in downwash, as shown in Figure 2
6. Increasing the power setting on a propeller driven aircraft may, depending on aircraft configuration and flap settings, increase the downwash and negative tailplane AOA.
7. When the critical negative AOA of the horizontal stabiliser is exceeded causing it to stall.
8. Tailplane stall drastically reduces the downward force it produces, creating a rapid aircraft nose-down pitching moment.
**Effect of mainplane flap on downwash**
Figure 2 - Effect of mainplane flap on downwash
On aircraft with reversible (unpowered) elevator, tailplane airflow changes caused by ice accretion may lead to an aerodynamic overbalance driving the elevator trailing edge down and pitching the aircraft nose down. This can occur separately from or in combination with the nose down pitching moment caused by tailplane stall. The yoke may be snatched forward out of the pilot’s hands and the control force required for the pilot to return the elevator to neutral or to a nose-up deflection can be significant and potentially greater than the pilot can exert.
**now match with your recovery actions**
1. You have no doubt with your 1st point.
2. The second point: You have to resist the nose down elevator movement. Once the tailplane is already stalled then you have to assume the elevator has already gone in down position to make your ac nose down. So you have to apply nose up elevator pressure.
3. You should not increase the airspeed cause it might make the situation worse. Cause in dive with increased airspeed is always difficult to maintain the aircraft control. And you might end up with overstressing the elevator which is not good at all in such condition. | I have a theory on applying the backstick on a tail stall induced while lowering the flaps. OP’s comment:
>
> apply nose up elevator pressure (I don't get it. The nose up pressure will make the elevator to go up and wouldn't this increase the negative angle of attack and worsen the stall?)
>
>
>
If the tail stalls, then the nose pitches forward. The center of rotation is about somewhere near the wing and CG, well forward of the tail. So the tail instantly sees a step increase in AOA, to well beyond the stall AOA. Probably really high AOA. The aircraft develops inertia in pitch too.
At this point, you are doing triage while you lower the flaps and undo what you did. While you’re not getting much lift (downward) from the tail, it is resisting the forward pitch with drag. Letting the stick or yoke come forward would dump this pitch resisting force, and the aircraft would go right over its nose before the flaps could raise.
There’s my theory. |
77,133 | There seems to be a lot of software to control (or emulate) mouse input through the keyboard, but what about the opposite?
Basically I'm looking for a way to emulate up/down/left/right clicks with mouse movement, at a fast rate (i.e. lots of very short and quick right clicks while I move the mouse to the right)
If I have to learn some scripting language to do it, ok, but I don't know if it would even be possible.
Note: This is meant to work on fullscreen, and having a way to turn it on/off with an F# key would be awesome!
Thanks for your time :) | 2009/11/30 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/77133",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/19668/"
] | OK, hopefully supplying a *useful* answer this time, instead of the inverse of the actual answer you wanted...
How about an AutoHotkey script for [mouse gestures](http://www.autohotkey.com/docs/scripts/MouseGestures.htm)? You haven't indicated what sort of control you require, so perhaps a set of gestures is adequate. If, however, you're looking to essentially replace the whole keyboard with one mouse, well, this may not be the answer you need. Or, good luck memorizing all those gestures. :-D
---
As is so often the case, [AutoHotkey](http://www.autohotkey.com) is your tool. I won't bore you with extensive review or details, as Google (and even SuperUser) are loaded with info about it.
EDIT: In fact, here's a [ready-made script](http://www.autohotkey.com/docs/scripts/NumpadMouse.htm) that'll enable you to use your numeric keypad as a mouse, with several customizations. | If you want something where you can type with your mouse, then I suggest you take a look at [Dasher](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/).
That is, if I take your question title as the question. As I really don't quite understand your question. |
77,133 | There seems to be a lot of software to control (or emulate) mouse input through the keyboard, but what about the opposite?
Basically I'm looking for a way to emulate up/down/left/right clicks with mouse movement, at a fast rate (i.e. lots of very short and quick right clicks while I move the mouse to the right)
If I have to learn some scripting language to do it, ok, but I don't know if it would even be possible.
Note: This is meant to work on fullscreen, and having a way to turn it on/off with an F# key would be awesome!
Thanks for your time :) | 2009/11/30 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/77133",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/19668/"
] | If you're on Windows, what about the On-Screen Keyboard?
It's found under **All Programs -> Accessories -> Accessibility** on XP (similar for Vista+)
 | If you want something where you can type with your mouse, then I suggest you take a look at [Dasher](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/).
That is, if I take your question title as the question. As I really don't quite understand your question. |
77,133 | There seems to be a lot of software to control (or emulate) mouse input through the keyboard, but what about the opposite?
Basically I'm looking for a way to emulate up/down/left/right clicks with mouse movement, at a fast rate (i.e. lots of very short and quick right clicks while I move the mouse to the right)
If I have to learn some scripting language to do it, ok, but I don't know if it would even be possible.
Note: This is meant to work on fullscreen, and having a way to turn it on/off with an F# key would be awesome!
Thanks for your time :) | 2009/11/30 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/77133",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/19668/"
] | OK, hopefully supplying a *useful* answer this time, instead of the inverse of the actual answer you wanted...
How about an AutoHotkey script for [mouse gestures](http://www.autohotkey.com/docs/scripts/MouseGestures.htm)? You haven't indicated what sort of control you require, so perhaps a set of gestures is adequate. If, however, you're looking to essentially replace the whole keyboard with one mouse, well, this may not be the answer you need. Or, good luck memorizing all those gestures. :-D
---
As is so often the case, [AutoHotkey](http://www.autohotkey.com) is your tool. I won't bore you with extensive review or details, as Google (and even SuperUser) are loaded with info about it.
EDIT: In fact, here's a [ready-made script](http://www.autohotkey.com/docs/scripts/NumpadMouse.htm) that'll enable you to use your numeric keypad as a mouse, with several customizations. | If you're on Windows, what about the On-Screen Keyboard?
It's found under **All Programs -> Accessories -> Accessibility** on XP (similar for Vista+)
 |
8,499 | I am writing an application, running on a server, where multiple users access data from a database which is AES encrypted with a master secret. The master secret itself is initially randomly generated, and then AES encrypted with a user-secret to yield a 'user-hash'. The master secret is never stored, but the user-hash is stored in a database.
When a user enters his user-secret, the user-hash is decrypted to temporarily (on the fly) yield the master-secret which is used to decrypt the data. The data is then send to the user.
If a user is deleted, the user-hash is deleted. He may have saved decrypted data, but cannot decrypt further data.
The question is: How safe is the master-secret in this constellation? If the database is compromised, an attacker has access to the user-hash and the encrypted data. If the attacker was a user, he may also have decrypted data. Will he then be able to break the master-secret? | 2013/05/30 | [
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/8499",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/users/7065/"
] | If a user has a copy of both the encrypted and decrypted data, he is in a position to perform at least a [known-plaintext attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known-plaintext_attack). If users can submit arbitrary plaintexts for encryption, they can conduct a [chosen-plaintext attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen-plaintext_attack), which is stronger. In a chosen-plaintext attack, the attacker can submit any number of plaintexts and can retrieve the corresponding ciphertext.
All reasonable encryption algorithms are resistant to chosen-plaintext attacks, and AES is considered a reasonable encryption algorithm. Someone in possession of some (plaintext, ciphertext) pairs cannot encrypt or decrypt other messages (except sometimes messages derived from the known messages if a bad mode is used). In particular, no matter how many known plaintexts and ciphertexts the attacker is, he has no method to obtain the key that is better than brute force (trying all possible $2^{128}$ keys).
Do note that deleting the private secret does not delete the master secret. The master secret can still be recovered from backup copies of the private secret that weren't deleted, from other users' private secret, or from extant copies of the master secret. | Your master secret is **never** secure, at least not as you have described it. As a user, I know my private secret. When I use your application, my private secret decrypts the master secret right there in the application. With modest technical skills, I can examine the memory of the process or machine and read the master secret in plaintext any time I wish. I can retain that master secret forever, and the administrator will never know.
To solve this, I expect you are relying on the master secret being secured on a different platform than the one the users are logged into. Your problem has now expanded and shifted to securely communicating the users' secrets to the secure platform. To accomplish that, you need an authentication mechanism. Once you have solved that, there becomes less need for the double encryption as you have defined it - simply authenticate user access to the platform, and revoke it as needed. The platform can own the master secret if on-disk encryption is desired. The user never has to access it directly.
A different approach is that you can allow users to encrypt data locally (using public key cryptography to encrypt a random AES key) but they can never decrypt it themselves. That job is performed only on the server. |
2,055,713 | In his book "Men of Mathematics", Eric Temple Bell repeatedly makes the point that a student of mathematics must read the classics.
My question is what are some classic books in mathematics ( Dictionary definition : judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.) that can be used by a high school/undergraduate student to start the study of higher mathematics?
Some subjects I would like reference in particular, otherwise state any book you consider a classic, are:
1) Analysis
2) Abstract algebra
3) Linear Algebra
4) Number theory
5) Combinatorics and Graph theory, etc. | 2016/12/12 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2055713",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | 1. Feller's first volume for Probability Theory.
2. Arnold's ODE for differential equations.
3. Cartan's Elementary Theory of Analytic Functions of One or Several Complex Variables for Complex Analysis | It's a bit more advanced than the topics you asked about, but Milnor's *Morse Theory* and Milnor and Stasheff's *Characteristic Classes* are astoundingly good. (There's a pattern here: Milnor's *Lectures on the h-Cobordism Theorem* is pretty good too!)
At a somewhat lower level, I find Spivak's *Calculus* (which many might argue is an introductory analysis book) pretty darned wonderful. |
2,055,713 | In his book "Men of Mathematics", Eric Temple Bell repeatedly makes the point that a student of mathematics must read the classics.
My question is what are some classic books in mathematics ( Dictionary definition : judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.) that can be used by a high school/undergraduate student to start the study of higher mathematics?
Some subjects I would like reference in particular, otherwise state any book you consider a classic, are:
1) Analysis
2) Abstract algebra
3) Linear Algebra
4) Number theory
5) Combinatorics and Graph theory, etc. | 2016/12/12 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2055713",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I don’t agree with Bell on this point: one may well learn better and more easily from a book that is *not* generally considered a classic. For example, most people have never even heard of John Greever’s modified Moore method textbook *Theory and Examples of Point-Set Topology*, but for me it was the ideal introduction to the field. That said, I can nevertheless name a few examples.
For someone of my generation I.N. Herstein’s *Topics in Algebra* is a classic introduction to abstract algebra. The first volume of William J. LeVeque’s two-volume *Topics in Number Theory* is a classic at the higher end of the undergraduate level; Underwood Dudley’s *Elementary Number Theory* is a classic at the lower end. | It's a bit more advanced than the topics you asked about, but Milnor's *Morse Theory* and Milnor and Stasheff's *Characteristic Classes* are astoundingly good. (There's a pattern here: Milnor's *Lectures on the h-Cobordism Theorem* is pretty good too!)
At a somewhat lower level, I find Spivak's *Calculus* (which many might argue is an introductory analysis book) pretty darned wonderful. |
2,055,713 | In his book "Men of Mathematics", Eric Temple Bell repeatedly makes the point that a student of mathematics must read the classics.
My question is what are some classic books in mathematics ( Dictionary definition : judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.) that can be used by a high school/undergraduate student to start the study of higher mathematics?
Some subjects I would like reference in particular, otherwise state any book you consider a classic, are:
1) Analysis
2) Abstract algebra
3) Linear Algebra
4) Number theory
5) Combinatorics and Graph theory, etc. | 2016/12/12 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2055713",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | 1. Feller's first volume for Probability Theory.
2. Arnold's ODE for differential equations.
3. Cartan's Elementary Theory of Analytic Functions of One or Several Complex Variables for Complex Analysis | In the early '70s, I used two teaching books that I consider ''classic'':
*Foundations of modern analysis* of J. Dieudonné (at least in Europe).
*Algebra* of S. Mac Lane and G. Birkoff
At a different level, I think that an ''evergreen'' is:
*Methods of Mathematical physics* of R. Courant and D. Hilbert. |
2,055,713 | In his book "Men of Mathematics", Eric Temple Bell repeatedly makes the point that a student of mathematics must read the classics.
My question is what are some classic books in mathematics ( Dictionary definition : judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.) that can be used by a high school/undergraduate student to start the study of higher mathematics?
Some subjects I would like reference in particular, otherwise state any book you consider a classic, are:
1) Analysis
2) Abstract algebra
3) Linear Algebra
4) Number theory
5) Combinatorics and Graph theory, etc. | 2016/12/12 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2055713",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I don’t agree with Bell on this point: one may well learn better and more easily from a book that is *not* generally considered a classic. For example, most people have never even heard of John Greever’s modified Moore method textbook *Theory and Examples of Point-Set Topology*, but for me it was the ideal introduction to the field. That said, I can nevertheless name a few examples.
For someone of my generation I.N. Herstein’s *Topics in Algebra* is a classic introduction to abstract algebra. The first volume of William J. LeVeque’s two-volume *Topics in Number Theory* is a classic at the higher end of the undergraduate level; Underwood Dudley’s *Elementary Number Theory* is a classic at the lower end. | 1. Feller's first volume for Probability Theory.
2. Arnold's ODE for differential equations.
3. Cartan's Elementary Theory of Analytic Functions of One or Several Complex Variables for Complex Analysis |
2,055,713 | In his book "Men of Mathematics", Eric Temple Bell repeatedly makes the point that a student of mathematics must read the classics.
My question is what are some classic books in mathematics ( Dictionary definition : judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.) that can be used by a high school/undergraduate student to start the study of higher mathematics?
Some subjects I would like reference in particular, otherwise state any book you consider a classic, are:
1) Analysis
2) Abstract algebra
3) Linear Algebra
4) Number theory
5) Combinatorics and Graph theory, etc. | 2016/12/12 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2055713",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I don’t agree with Bell on this point: one may well learn better and more easily from a book that is *not* generally considered a classic. For example, most people have never even heard of John Greever’s modified Moore method textbook *Theory and Examples of Point-Set Topology*, but for me it was the ideal introduction to the field. That said, I can nevertheless name a few examples.
For someone of my generation I.N. Herstein’s *Topics in Algebra* is a classic introduction to abstract algebra. The first volume of William J. LeVeque’s two-volume *Topics in Number Theory* is a classic at the higher end of the undergraduate level; Underwood Dudley’s *Elementary Number Theory* is a classic at the lower end. | In the early '70s, I used two teaching books that I consider ''classic'':
*Foundations of modern analysis* of J. Dieudonné (at least in Europe).
*Algebra* of S. Mac Lane and G. Birkoff
At a different level, I think that an ''evergreen'' is:
*Methods of Mathematical physics* of R. Courant and D. Hilbert. |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | Writing to a file is not possible, you'd have to write a server-side script and make a request to that script. Reading is possible if you use an iframe with the text file's location as source, and reading the iframe contents. | Javascript in browsers doesn't allow you to write local files, for **security reasons**. This **may change with time**, but as for now you have to **deal with it**. |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | Writing to a file is not possible, you'd have to write a server-side script and make a request to that script. Reading is possible if you use an iframe with the text file's location as source, and reading the iframe contents. | Only with a server side javascript interpreter, but that isn't the typical environment you run javascript in. |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | Writing to a file is not possible, you'd have to write a server-side script and make a request to that script. Reading is possible if you use an iframe with the text file's location as source, and reading the iframe contents. | What about cookies? It is accessible via javascript, it is on your client and it is a plain text file. Only issue is the size of it (4k max if I remember well).
What you can do as well is use your browser localStorage / userData / globalStorage (depending on your browser version). It acts like cookies (new webStorage / HTML5 specs) but can handle bigger amounts of data. Then, using some add ons (firebug on firefox for instance) you can easily read / copy / past the value and do whatever you have to do with it! |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | **It *is* possible to read/write to a local file via JavaScript**: take a look at [TiddlyWIki](http://www.tiddlywiki.com/). *(Caveat: only works for local documents.)*
I have actually written a [Single Page Application](http://softwareas.com/towards-a-single-page-application-framework) (SPA) using [twFile](http://jquery.tiddlywiki.org/twFile.html), a part of the TiddlyWiki codebase:
1. Works in different browsers: (IE, Firefox, Chrome)
2. This code is a little old now. TiddlyWiki abandoned the jQuery plugin design a while ago. (Look at the [current TiddlyWiki filesystem.js](http://dev.tiddlywiki.org/browser/Trunk/core/js/FileSystem.js) for more a more recent implementation. It's not isolated for you like the twFile plug-in, though).
3. Although written as a jQuery plug-in, I've studied the code and it is almost completely decoupled from jQuery.
**Update:**
I have uploaded a [proof-of-concept](http://coolcases.com/jeopardy/) that accesses a local file via JavaScript.
* Modifying this application to write to a file is trivial.
* I have not tried to get this to work as a file served from a web server, but it should be possible since there are [server-side implementations of TiddlyWiki](http://tiddlywiki.org/wiki/Can_I_use_TiddlyWiki_as_a_multi-user/collaborative/server_based_wiki%3F)<>.
**Update:**
So it looks like the server side implementations of TiddlyWiki use a server "adapter" to modify a file stored on the server, similar to [Peter's description](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720/write-a-file-with-prototype-or-plain-javascript/3195752#3195752). The pure JavaScript method will probably not work if the page is served from a web server due to cross-domain security limitations. | Javascript in browsers doesn't allow you to write local files, for **security reasons**. This **may change with time**, but as for now you have to **deal with it**. |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | Javascript in browsers doesn't allow you to write local files, for **security reasons**. This **may change with time**, but as for now you have to **deal with it**. | What about cookies? It is accessible via javascript, it is on your client and it is a plain text file. Only issue is the size of it (4k max if I remember well).
What you can do as well is use your browser localStorage / userData / globalStorage (depending on your browser version). It acts like cookies (new webStorage / HTML5 specs) but can handle bigger amounts of data. Then, using some add ons (firebug on firefox for instance) you can easily read / copy / past the value and do whatever you have to do with it! |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | **It *is* possible to read/write to a local file via JavaScript**: take a look at [TiddlyWIki](http://www.tiddlywiki.com/). *(Caveat: only works for local documents.)*
I have actually written a [Single Page Application](http://softwareas.com/towards-a-single-page-application-framework) (SPA) using [twFile](http://jquery.tiddlywiki.org/twFile.html), a part of the TiddlyWiki codebase:
1. Works in different browsers: (IE, Firefox, Chrome)
2. This code is a little old now. TiddlyWiki abandoned the jQuery plugin design a while ago. (Look at the [current TiddlyWiki filesystem.js](http://dev.tiddlywiki.org/browser/Trunk/core/js/FileSystem.js) for more a more recent implementation. It's not isolated for you like the twFile plug-in, though).
3. Although written as a jQuery plug-in, I've studied the code and it is almost completely decoupled from jQuery.
**Update:**
I have uploaded a [proof-of-concept](http://coolcases.com/jeopardy/) that accesses a local file via JavaScript.
* Modifying this application to write to a file is trivial.
* I have not tried to get this to work as a file served from a web server, but it should be possible since there are [server-side implementations of TiddlyWiki](http://tiddlywiki.org/wiki/Can_I_use_TiddlyWiki_as_a_multi-user/collaborative/server_based_wiki%3F)<>.
**Update:**
So it looks like the server side implementations of TiddlyWiki use a server "adapter" to modify a file stored on the server, similar to [Peter's description](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720/write-a-file-with-prototype-or-plain-javascript/3195752#3195752). The pure JavaScript method will probably not work if the page is served from a web server due to cross-domain security limitations. | Only with a server side javascript interpreter, but that isn't the typical environment you run javascript in. |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | Only with a server side javascript interpreter, but that isn't the typical environment you run javascript in. | What about cookies? It is accessible via javascript, it is on your client and it is a plain text file. Only issue is the size of it (4k max if I remember well).
What you can do as well is use your browser localStorage / userData / globalStorage (depending on your browser version). It acts like cookies (new webStorage / HTML5 specs) but can handle bigger amounts of data. Then, using some add ons (firebug on firefox for instance) you can easily read / copy / past the value and do whatever you have to do with it! |
3,195,720 | I know the question has been asked thousands of times, but I'll ask it again: is there a way (even patchy) to write/read a dumb text file with Javascript or Protoype ?
This is only for debug purposes, and is not designed for production. The thing is I need it to work with (at least) both Firefox and IE (preferably under Windows).
Thanks in advance ! | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277128/"
] | **It *is* possible to read/write to a local file via JavaScript**: take a look at [TiddlyWIki](http://www.tiddlywiki.com/). *(Caveat: only works for local documents.)*
I have actually written a [Single Page Application](http://softwareas.com/towards-a-single-page-application-framework) (SPA) using [twFile](http://jquery.tiddlywiki.org/twFile.html), a part of the TiddlyWiki codebase:
1. Works in different browsers: (IE, Firefox, Chrome)
2. This code is a little old now. TiddlyWiki abandoned the jQuery plugin design a while ago. (Look at the [current TiddlyWiki filesystem.js](http://dev.tiddlywiki.org/browser/Trunk/core/js/FileSystem.js) for more a more recent implementation. It's not isolated for you like the twFile plug-in, though).
3. Although written as a jQuery plug-in, I've studied the code and it is almost completely decoupled from jQuery.
**Update:**
I have uploaded a [proof-of-concept](http://coolcases.com/jeopardy/) that accesses a local file via JavaScript.
* Modifying this application to write to a file is trivial.
* I have not tried to get this to work as a file served from a web server, but it should be possible since there are [server-side implementations of TiddlyWiki](http://tiddlywiki.org/wiki/Can_I_use_TiddlyWiki_as_a_multi-user/collaborative/server_based_wiki%3F)<>.
**Update:**
So it looks like the server side implementations of TiddlyWiki use a server "adapter" to modify a file stored on the server, similar to [Peter's description](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3195720/write-a-file-with-prototype-or-plain-javascript/3195752#3195752). The pure JavaScript method will probably not work if the page is served from a web server due to cross-domain security limitations. | What about cookies? It is accessible via javascript, it is on your client and it is a plain text file. Only issue is the size of it (4k max if I remember well).
What you can do as well is use your browser localStorage / userData / globalStorage (depending on your browser version). It acts like cookies (new webStorage / HTML5 specs) but can handle bigger amounts of data. Then, using some add ons (firebug on firefox for instance) you can easily read / copy / past the value and do whatever you have to do with it! |
223,590 | Where does this meme come from (as in a *trip down memory lane*) ?
Is it from a book ? | 2015/01/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/223590",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/64820/"
] | Christine Ammer, *The Facts on File Dictionary of Clichés*, second edition (2006) has this entry for the phrase "down memory lane":
>
> **down memory lane** Looking back on the past. Often put in a nostalgic way, this term may have originated as the title of a popular song of 1924, "Memory Lane," words by Bud de Sylva, and music by Larry Spier and Con Conrad. It was revived in the film *In Society* (1944), starring [Bud] Abbott and [Lou] Costello. That is where former movie actor President Ronald Reagan may have picked it up; he then used it in his 1984 speech accepting the Republican nomination, "Well, let's take them [his opponents] on a little stroll down memory lane."
>
>
>
Ammer's chronology notwithstanding, "memory lane" was a familiar turn of phrase back in 1972, when Loudon Wainright III turned it on itself in his 1972 song "Old Friend," from his third album:
>
> It's been so long, things are so different.
>
>
> Memory lane's a one-way street.
>
>
>
Although Ammer may be correct that "memory lane" owes its first surge of popularity to a song from 1924, the phrase was certainly used before that time. A Google Books search finds this instance from B. M. Balch, "[Memory Lane](https://books.google.com/books?id=syATAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA101&dq=%22memory+lane%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7cvEVOf9KsT6oQS0xIHgCw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22memory%20lane%22&f=false)," in *Hamilton Literary Magazine* (December 1894):
>
> On the shore of vast gray sea lies an old town; so old that no records of its founding have ever been discovered, though its archives cover centuries of existence. Every wall is crumbling away. Every gable is lichen-grown and covered with moss. In the whole great city there is nothing new. Thro the centre of the town a quaint old street, paved with square blocks of various hues from a somber gray to a bright crimson, runs down to the sea. This is Memory Lane—lonely and drear to some, pleasant and gay to others.
>
>
>
Older still is this instance of "memory's lane," from William Bowen, "[That Frozen Pipe](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpcVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA79&dq=%22down+memory+lane%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BtDEVNiZKYj7yASty4GgBA&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=%22down%20memory%20lane%22&f=false)," in *Chained Lightning, a Book of Fun* (1883):
>
> When you have come as near as may be to the frozen spot, hold the flat-iron on the pipe and settle down for ten minutes of meditation. You won't have traveled down memory's lane over half a mile before something will happen. The pipe will burst exactly on a line with your eyes, and you will have cause to wonder all the rest of your life how a gallon of water could have collected at that one point for your benefit.
>
>
>
A search of the Library of Congress's Chronicling America database of U.S. newspapers finds the same "That Frozen Pipe" story in the [*[Rayville, Louisiana] Richland Beacon*](http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86079088/1881-04-23/ed-1/seq-4/#date1=1836&index=0&rows=20&words=down+lane+memory+traveled&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1882&proxtext=%22traveled+down+memory%27s+lane%22&y=12&x=16&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1) (April 23, 1881), which gives its source as the *Detroit Free Press* (undated). I couldn't find the *Detroit Free Press* version of the story in the Library of Congress database.
Also of possible interest, another song called "[Memory Lane](https://books.google.com/books?id=ff43AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA585&dq=%22memory+lane%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kc7EVJTuJomqogSbpIHgDw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBjhk#v=onepage&q=%22memory%20lane%22&f=false)"—this one by R.H. Elkin and A. L. Liebmann—was catalogued in London on January 19, 1903.
---
Almost certainly unrelated, but an amusing coincidence, is this item from the [*[Washington, D.C.] Evening Star*](http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1879-01-06/ed-1/seq-3/#date1=1836&index=5&rows=20&words=Lane+memory+recitation&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=memory.+Lane%27s+recitation&y=10&x=15&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1) (January 6, 1879):
>
> A story of a wonderful memory comes from Sydney, Australia. A prisoner set up in his defense an alibi, claiming that, at the time of the robbery, he was at home listening to the recital of a novel, "The Old Baron," by a man named Lane, who had committed it, with other works, to memory. Lane's recitation, he said, took two hours and a half. The Attorney General holding this to be incredible, Lane began: ... After the witness had recited several pages, the Attorney General told him to stop, as he was satisfied. But the defense insisted that, as the veracity of the witness had been questioned, he should be allowed to go on. Finally a compromise was effected, Lane gave a chapter from the middle of the story and its conclusion, and the accused was found not guilty.
>
>
>
The story reappeared in newspapers from Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington Territory over the next five months. It also appeared, in a slightly more detailed form, in [*Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper*](https://books.google.com/books?id=ZUJaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA365&dq=%22Lane%27s+recitation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AKPGVNvbIMm6ogSxyICQCw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Lane%27s%20recitation%22&f=false) (January 18, 1879), with such additional details as the name of the author of *The Old Baron* (Horace Walpole) and the fact that the episode occurred in January 1847.
Was "memory lane" influenced by the stir made in 1879 by the account of the remarkable memory of Mr. Lane of Sydney, Australia? I don't think so, but it makes a good apocryphal story. | Merriam-Webster claims it was first used in 1903. There are mentions here:
[memory lane](https://www.google.it/search?lr=lang_en&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22memory%20lane%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan%201_2%201903,cd_max:Jan%2031_2%201906&num=10&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=-czEVLWpEZPZaseYgZAB),
that go back almost that far. Many of them render it as "memory's lane". There is a book of that era, "Queen Mary of Memory Lane", which may have helped to popularize the phrase. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | There are many fundamental errors in your question itself. I really suggest you go back and read the books because your understanding of both the Hallows and Harry's resurrection is wrong.
Firstly, Harry was the owner of Elder Wand having won it from Draco Malfoy when he escaped from Malfoy Manor. Draco became the owner of Elder wand when he disarmed Dumbledore at the end of Half-blood Prince. Both these points are explained in the book.
Next, Dumbledore never owned the invisibility cloak, it belonged to James Potter. Dumbledore merely borrowed it to examine suspecting that it was one of the Hallows. After the death of the Potters he simply kept it till the time Harry came to Hogwarts and then passed it to Harry during his first year telling him that the cloak had once belonged to his father.
And most important, Harry did not come back from the dead because he was able to unite the Hallows. He came back from the dead because when Voldemort cast the killing curse on Harry, he killed a part of his own soul which was living inside Harry (as Harry was the Horcrux which he never intended to make).
Even if a person can unite all the Hallows I don't think they gain the ability to come back from the dead. As it is explained in the books, Hallows were just very powerful magical objects created by Wizards and the whole lore about possessor of Hallows being "Master of Death" was just a fairytale which was based on these powerful magical objects.
>
> “So it’s true?” asked Harry. “All of it? The Peverell brothers—”
>
>
> “—were the three brothers of the tale,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Oh
> yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road . . . I think
> it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted,
> dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects.
> The story of them being Death’s own Hallows seems to me the sort of
> legend that might have sprung up around such creations.
>
>
> “You. You have guessed, I know, why the Cloak was in my possession on
> the night your parents died. James had showed it to me just a few days
> previously. It explained so much of his undetected wrong-doing at
> school! I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I asked to borrow
> it, to examine it.”
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
>
The reason why Harry didn't die was also explained by Dumbledore. The reason for it wasn't the Hallows, even though Harry was the owner of all three Hallows by the time he went to the forest to face Voldemort.
>
> “But you’re dead.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Oh yes,” said Dumbledore matter-of-factly.
>
>
> “Then . . . I’m dead too?”
>
>
> “Ah,” said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. “That is the question,
> isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.”
>
>
> “But . . . ” Harry raised his hand
> instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there.
> “But I should have died—I didn’t defend myself! I meant to let him
> kill me!”
>
>
> “And that,” said Dumbledore, “will, I think, have made all
> the difference.”
>
>
> “I let him kill me,” said Harry. “Didn’t I?”
>
>
> “You did,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Go on!”
>
>
> “So the part of his soul that
> was in me . . . ”
>
>
> Dumbledore nodded still more enthusiastically,
> urging Harry onward, a broad smile of encouragement on his face.
>
>
> “. . . has it gone?”
>
>
> “Oh yes!” said Dumbledore. “Yes, he destroyed it. Your
> soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry.”
>
>
> “But if Voldemort used
> the Killing Curse,” Harry started again “and nobody died for me this
> time—how can I be alive?”
>
>
> “I think you know,” said Dumbledore. “Think
> back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his
> cruelty.”
>
>
> “He took my blood.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Precisely!” said
> Dumbledore. “He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it!
> Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily’s protection inside both of you!
> He tethered you to life while he lives!”
>
>
> “I live . . . while he lives!
> But I thought . . . I thought it was the other way round! I thought we
> both had to die? Or is it the same thing?”
>
>
> “You were the seventh
> Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make. He had rendered
> his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parents, the at- tempted killing of a child. But what escaped from that room was even less than he knew. He left more than his body behind.
> He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived.
>
>
> “He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into
> his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when
> she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that
> enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort’s one last hope
> for himself.”
>
>
> “Without meaning to, as you now know, Lord Voldemort
> doubled the bond between you when he returned to a human form. A part
> of his soul was still attached to yours, and, thinking to strengthen
> himself, he took a part of your mother’s sacrifice into himself.”
>
>
> Harry sat in thought for a long time, or perhaps seconds. It was very hard
> to be sure of things like time, here.
>
>
> “He killed me with your wand.”
>
>
> “He *failed* to kill you with my wand,” Dumbledore corrected Harry. “I
> think we can agree you are not dead.
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
> | >
> he passes the cloak to harry but he still own it
>
>
>
No, Dumbledore never **owned** it. Harry's father owned it, and and passed it along with everything else to Harry. Dumbledore was simply in possession of it because he had **borrowed** it before Harry's parents were killed.
I don't have the exact quote, but in another part of the book Dumbledore mentioned that the cloak would never have worked as well for Dumbledore as it did for Harry/James, because the cloak belonged to Potters.
>
> he is the master of death but he is never have the elder wand.
>
>
>
He wasn't in direct possession of it, but via some convoluted stuff Harry was the 'owner/master' of the wand since Draco defeated Dumbledore, and Harry defeated Draco.
There is also the bit in the Platform 9 3/4 where Dumbledore mentioned that a big part of Harry's ability to not die from the curse was related to Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself for others. Harry chose to walk out to the forest, knowing that he would probably be killed. Dumbledore was never in a position where he **owned** all three items at the same time and had that choice to make. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | >
> he passes the cloak to harry but he still own it
>
>
>
No, Dumbledore never **owned** it. Harry's father owned it, and and passed it along with everything else to Harry. Dumbledore was simply in possession of it because he had **borrowed** it before Harry's parents were killed.
I don't have the exact quote, but in another part of the book Dumbledore mentioned that the cloak would never have worked as well for Dumbledore as it did for Harry/James, because the cloak belonged to Potters.
>
> he is the master of death but he is never have the elder wand.
>
>
>
He wasn't in direct possession of it, but via some convoluted stuff Harry was the 'owner/master' of the wand since Draco defeated Dumbledore, and Harry defeated Draco.
There is also the bit in the Platform 9 3/4 where Dumbledore mentioned that a big part of Harry's ability to not die from the curse was related to Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself for others. Harry chose to walk out to the forest, knowing that he would probably be killed. Dumbledore was never in a position where he **owned** all three items at the same time and had that choice to make. | Dumbledore was never the master of death.
At the time he was in possession of the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone, Harry was in possession of the Cloak of Invisibility.
Harry was not the master of death when he 'died', as he did not possess the Elder Wand. There is no concrete answer as to why Harry survived. Most theories center around either the Horcrux inside Harry being killed instead of him, or Harry having the *allegiance* of the Elder Wand when it struck him down. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | >
> he passes the cloak to harry but he still own it
>
>
>
No, Dumbledore never **owned** it. Harry's father owned it, and and passed it along with everything else to Harry. Dumbledore was simply in possession of it because he had **borrowed** it before Harry's parents were killed.
I don't have the exact quote, but in another part of the book Dumbledore mentioned that the cloak would never have worked as well for Dumbledore as it did for Harry/James, because the cloak belonged to Potters.
>
> he is the master of death but he is never have the elder wand.
>
>
>
He wasn't in direct possession of it, but via some convoluted stuff Harry was the 'owner/master' of the wand since Draco defeated Dumbledore, and Harry defeated Draco.
There is also the bit in the Platform 9 3/4 where Dumbledore mentioned that a big part of Harry's ability to not die from the curse was related to Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself for others. Harry chose to walk out to the forest, knowing that he would probably be killed. Dumbledore was never in a position where he **owned** all three items at the same time and had that choice to make. | Dumbledore *was* dead. Harry wasn't. That's established by the text itself:
>
> “But you’re dead.” said Harry. “Oh yes,” said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. “Then . . . I’m dead too?” “Ah,” said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. “That is the question, isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.”
>
>
>
Harry came back from "King's Cross", not the dead. Dumbledore, who was, in fact, dead could not return from "King's Cross" because he was only present in Harry's mind's version of King's Cross.
The book is also clear that it's all going on in Harry's head.
>
> Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?
>
>
>
Like so many other times in the books Dumbledore was clever and made very well educated guesses. He was pretty sure that Harry was a horcrux that would have to be destroyed. He also knew Harry would chose death over allowing his friends to be hurt. When he said that the experience was "real" but still all in his head I always assumed he meant that Dumbledore was present in some real, but magical way.
He was after all the most powerful wizard in the world and spells *can* behave and converse like real humans (see Tom Riddle's horcrux/memory in CoS, the portraits around Hogwarts, howlers etc.). While 100% theoretical I see two possibilities:
1. It's not at all unreasonable to guess that he cast a spell to cause Harry's experience 'upon destruction'.
2. Memories are powerful in real life and especially in the HP series. Memories of the most powerful wizard in the world occurring during a near-death experience where your soul/body is being separated from the *second-most-powerful* wizard the world might have side effects like we see in the book.
Basically: Dumbledore can't come back because he's present, but not really there. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | >
> he passes the cloak to harry but he still own it
>
>
>
No, Dumbledore never **owned** it. Harry's father owned it, and and passed it along with everything else to Harry. Dumbledore was simply in possession of it because he had **borrowed** it before Harry's parents were killed.
I don't have the exact quote, but in another part of the book Dumbledore mentioned that the cloak would never have worked as well for Dumbledore as it did for Harry/James, because the cloak belonged to Potters.
>
> he is the master of death but he is never have the elder wand.
>
>
>
He wasn't in direct possession of it, but via some convoluted stuff Harry was the 'owner/master' of the wand since Draco defeated Dumbledore, and Harry defeated Draco.
There is also the bit in the Platform 9 3/4 where Dumbledore mentioned that a big part of Harry's ability to not die from the curse was related to Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself for others. Harry chose to walk out to the forest, knowing that he would probably be killed. Dumbledore was never in a position where he **owned** all three items at the same time and had that choice to make. | Even if Dumbledore would be able to come back, he wouldn't. This is one of the primary points of the books.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I agree with the other answers that the questioner seems to have misunderstood the Hallows, I want to point out that even if Dumbledore would have been able to come back, he wouldn't.
The primary theme of Harry Potter is about overcoming the fear of death:
>
> Death is an extremely important theme throughout all seven books. **I would say possibly the most important theme.** ([Accio-quote](http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm))
>
>
>
Voldemort's main personality trait, and the one that defines him the most, is his fear of death.
>
> Voldemort's fear is death, ignominious death. I mean, he regards death itself as ignominious. He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness, as you know. His worst fear is death, but how would a boggart show that? I'm not too sure. I did think about that because I knew you were going to ask me that.
>
>
> “There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” snarled
> Voldemort.
>
>
>
This is also his greatest weakness:
>
> “Your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness—”
>
>
>
In fact all the bad guys primary traits seem to be based on fear of death
>
> Death Eaters
>
>
>
And
>
> Only innocent lives, Peter!”
> “You don’t understand!” whined Pettigrew. “He would have
> killed me, Sirius!”
>
>
>
However, the defining characteristic of the good guys is their willingness to embrace death. This is evident from the first book:
>
> "To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems incredible, but to Nicolas
> and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed after a very, very long
> day. **After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great
> adventure**. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As
> much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings
> would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans do have a knack of
> choosing precisely those things that are worst for them."
>
>
>
This is expressed in many other places in the books as well, but here's one of my favorite quotes:
>
> “THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!” roared Black. “DIED
> RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD
> HAVE DONE FOR YOU!”
>
>
>
And Snape becomes good only when he seems to embrace death:
>
> “DON’T!” bellowed Snape. “Gone . . . dead . . .”
> “Is this remorse, Severus?”
> “I wish . . . I wish I were dead. . . .”
>
>
>
Dumbledore, although never clearly seeming to have fear of death, definitely viewed himself as selfish and wanted to overcome death, and believes that his selfishness may caused him caused him to avoid sacrificing himself to Ariana (in his view):
>
> “I know how you are feeling, Harry,” said Dumbledore very
> quietly.
>
>
>
That in my mind, is one of the most important overlooked quotes in the book (and
one that will be of utmost importance in the Fantastic Beasts movies.)
That quote comes right after Harry blames himself for Sirius's death:
>
> It was his fault Sirius had died; it was all his fault.
>
>
>
This means that, Like Harry, Dumbledore as well blamed himself for someone's death, and in the later books, we find out it was Arianna.
>
> “Don’t hurt them,
> don’t hurt them, please, please, it’s my fault, hurt me instead . . .”
>
>
> “He thought he was back there with you and Grindelwald, I
> know he did,” said Harry, remembering Dumbledore whimpering,
> pleading. “He thought he was watching Grindelwald hurting you
> and Ariana. . . . It was torture to him, if you’d seen him then, you
> wouldn’t say he was free.”
>
>
> All those closest to Albus — and I count myself
> one of that lucky number — agree that Ariana’s
> death, and Albus’s feeling of personal responsibility
> for it (though, of course, he was guiltless), left their
> mark upon him forevermore.
>
>
>
And we know we why he felt guilty - because he ignored his sister while he tried to overcome death:
>
> “And at the heart of our schemes, the Deathly Hallows! How
> they fascinated him, how they fascinated both of us! The unbeatable
> wand, the weapon that would lead us to power! The Resurrection
> Stone — to him, though I pretended not to know it, it meant an
> army of Inferi! To me, I confess, it meant the return of my parents,
> and the lifting of all responsibility from my shoulders.
> “And the Cloak . . . somehow, we never discussed the Cloak much,
> Harry. Both of us could conceal ourselves well enough without the
> Cloak, the true magic of which, of course, is that it can be used to
> protect and shield others as well as its owner. I thought that, if we
> ever found it, it might be useful in hiding Ariana, but our interest
> in the Cloak was mainly that it completed the trio, for the legend
> said that the man who united all three objects would then be truly
> master of death, which we took to mean ‘invincible.’
> “Invincible masters of death, Grindelwald and Dumbledore!
> Two months of insanity, of cruel dreams, and neglect of the only
> two members of my family left to me.
> “And then . . . you know what happened. Reality returned in
> the form of my rough, unlettered, and infinitely more admirable
> brother. I did not want to hear the truths he shouted at me. I did
> not want to hear that I could not set forth to seek Hallows with a
> fragile and unstable sister in tow.
> “The argument became a fight. Grindelwald lost control. That
> which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now
> sprang into terrible being. And Ariana . . . after all my mother’s care
> and caution . . . lay dead upon the floor.”
>
>
>
Harry on the other hand, is always portrayed as selfless:
>
> “Do not misunderstand me,” he said, and pain crossed the face
> so that he looked ancient again. “I loved them. I loved my parents,
> I loved my brother and my sister, but I was selfish, Harry, more
> selfish than you, who are a remarkably selfless person, could possibly
> imagine.
>
>
>
Thus, only Harry, who is selfless and pure and has zero fear of death, was able to choose selflessly to live.
But Dumbledore, even if his possession of the Hallows allowed him to choose life, would not have, because he knew inherently that his choice would include some selfishness and desire to live, and thus was not purely selfless. He would have feared making this choice, as he knew himself to be undeserving. Thus he went to the opposite extreme and chose death - by his own hand - through a hallow, to overcome his selfishness.
This is also implied in the tale of Beatle the Bard, that only the brother who made the selfless choice (the cloak) was allowed to survie death, or more so, embrace him like a brother. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | There are many fundamental errors in your question itself. I really suggest you go back and read the books because your understanding of both the Hallows and Harry's resurrection is wrong.
Firstly, Harry was the owner of Elder Wand having won it from Draco Malfoy when he escaped from Malfoy Manor. Draco became the owner of Elder wand when he disarmed Dumbledore at the end of Half-blood Prince. Both these points are explained in the book.
Next, Dumbledore never owned the invisibility cloak, it belonged to James Potter. Dumbledore merely borrowed it to examine suspecting that it was one of the Hallows. After the death of the Potters he simply kept it till the time Harry came to Hogwarts and then passed it to Harry during his first year telling him that the cloak had once belonged to his father.
And most important, Harry did not come back from the dead because he was able to unite the Hallows. He came back from the dead because when Voldemort cast the killing curse on Harry, he killed a part of his own soul which was living inside Harry (as Harry was the Horcrux which he never intended to make).
Even if a person can unite all the Hallows I don't think they gain the ability to come back from the dead. As it is explained in the books, Hallows were just very powerful magical objects created by Wizards and the whole lore about possessor of Hallows being "Master of Death" was just a fairytale which was based on these powerful magical objects.
>
> “So it’s true?” asked Harry. “All of it? The Peverell brothers—”
>
>
> “—were the three brothers of the tale,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Oh
> yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road . . . I think
> it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted,
> dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects.
> The story of them being Death’s own Hallows seems to me the sort of
> legend that might have sprung up around such creations.
>
>
> “You. You have guessed, I know, why the Cloak was in my possession on
> the night your parents died. James had showed it to me just a few days
> previously. It explained so much of his undetected wrong-doing at
> school! I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I asked to borrow
> it, to examine it.”
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
>
The reason why Harry didn't die was also explained by Dumbledore. The reason for it wasn't the Hallows, even though Harry was the owner of all three Hallows by the time he went to the forest to face Voldemort.
>
> “But you’re dead.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Oh yes,” said Dumbledore matter-of-factly.
>
>
> “Then . . . I’m dead too?”
>
>
> “Ah,” said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. “That is the question,
> isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.”
>
>
> “But . . . ” Harry raised his hand
> instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there.
> “But I should have died—I didn’t defend myself! I meant to let him
> kill me!”
>
>
> “And that,” said Dumbledore, “will, I think, have made all
> the difference.”
>
>
> “I let him kill me,” said Harry. “Didn’t I?”
>
>
> “You did,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Go on!”
>
>
> “So the part of his soul that
> was in me . . . ”
>
>
> Dumbledore nodded still more enthusiastically,
> urging Harry onward, a broad smile of encouragement on his face.
>
>
> “. . . has it gone?”
>
>
> “Oh yes!” said Dumbledore. “Yes, he destroyed it. Your
> soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry.”
>
>
> “But if Voldemort used
> the Killing Curse,” Harry started again “and nobody died for me this
> time—how can I be alive?”
>
>
> “I think you know,” said Dumbledore. “Think
> back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his
> cruelty.”
>
>
> “He took my blood.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Precisely!” said
> Dumbledore. “He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it!
> Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily’s protection inside both of you!
> He tethered you to life while he lives!”
>
>
> “I live . . . while he lives!
> But I thought . . . I thought it was the other way round! I thought we
> both had to die? Or is it the same thing?”
>
>
> “You were the seventh
> Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make. He had rendered
> his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parents, the at- tempted killing of a child. But what escaped from that room was even less than he knew. He left more than his body behind.
> He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived.
>
>
> “He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into
> his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when
> she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that
> enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort’s one last hope
> for himself.”
>
>
> “Without meaning to, as you now know, Lord Voldemort
> doubled the bond between you when he returned to a human form. A part
> of his soul was still attached to yours, and, thinking to strengthen
> himself, he took a part of your mother’s sacrifice into himself.”
>
>
> Harry sat in thought for a long time, or perhaps seconds. It was very hard
> to be sure of things like time, here.
>
>
> “He killed me with your wand.”
>
>
> “He *failed* to kill you with my wand,” Dumbledore corrected Harry. “I
> think we can agree you are not dead.
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
> | Dumbledore was never the master of death.
At the time he was in possession of the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone, Harry was in possession of the Cloak of Invisibility.
Harry was not the master of death when he 'died', as he did not possess the Elder Wand. There is no concrete answer as to why Harry survived. Most theories center around either the Horcrux inside Harry being killed instead of him, or Harry having the *allegiance* of the Elder Wand when it struck him down. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | There are many fundamental errors in your question itself. I really suggest you go back and read the books because your understanding of both the Hallows and Harry's resurrection is wrong.
Firstly, Harry was the owner of Elder Wand having won it from Draco Malfoy when he escaped from Malfoy Manor. Draco became the owner of Elder wand when he disarmed Dumbledore at the end of Half-blood Prince. Both these points are explained in the book.
Next, Dumbledore never owned the invisibility cloak, it belonged to James Potter. Dumbledore merely borrowed it to examine suspecting that it was one of the Hallows. After the death of the Potters he simply kept it till the time Harry came to Hogwarts and then passed it to Harry during his first year telling him that the cloak had once belonged to his father.
And most important, Harry did not come back from the dead because he was able to unite the Hallows. He came back from the dead because when Voldemort cast the killing curse on Harry, he killed a part of his own soul which was living inside Harry (as Harry was the Horcrux which he never intended to make).
Even if a person can unite all the Hallows I don't think they gain the ability to come back from the dead. As it is explained in the books, Hallows were just very powerful magical objects created by Wizards and the whole lore about possessor of Hallows being "Master of Death" was just a fairytale which was based on these powerful magical objects.
>
> “So it’s true?” asked Harry. “All of it? The Peverell brothers—”
>
>
> “—were the three brothers of the tale,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Oh
> yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road . . . I think
> it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted,
> dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects.
> The story of them being Death’s own Hallows seems to me the sort of
> legend that might have sprung up around such creations.
>
>
> “You. You have guessed, I know, why the Cloak was in my possession on
> the night your parents died. James had showed it to me just a few days
> previously. It explained so much of his undetected wrong-doing at
> school! I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I asked to borrow
> it, to examine it.”
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
>
The reason why Harry didn't die was also explained by Dumbledore. The reason for it wasn't the Hallows, even though Harry was the owner of all three Hallows by the time he went to the forest to face Voldemort.
>
> “But you’re dead.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Oh yes,” said Dumbledore matter-of-factly.
>
>
> “Then . . . I’m dead too?”
>
>
> “Ah,” said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. “That is the question,
> isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.”
>
>
> “But . . . ” Harry raised his hand
> instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there.
> “But I should have died—I didn’t defend myself! I meant to let him
> kill me!”
>
>
> “And that,” said Dumbledore, “will, I think, have made all
> the difference.”
>
>
> “I let him kill me,” said Harry. “Didn’t I?”
>
>
> “You did,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Go on!”
>
>
> “So the part of his soul that
> was in me . . . ”
>
>
> Dumbledore nodded still more enthusiastically,
> urging Harry onward, a broad smile of encouragement on his face.
>
>
> “. . . has it gone?”
>
>
> “Oh yes!” said Dumbledore. “Yes, he destroyed it. Your
> soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry.”
>
>
> “But if Voldemort used
> the Killing Curse,” Harry started again “and nobody died for me this
> time—how can I be alive?”
>
>
> “I think you know,” said Dumbledore. “Think
> back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his
> cruelty.”
>
>
> “He took my blood.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Precisely!” said
> Dumbledore. “He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it!
> Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily’s protection inside both of you!
> He tethered you to life while he lives!”
>
>
> “I live . . . while he lives!
> But I thought . . . I thought it was the other way round! I thought we
> both had to die? Or is it the same thing?”
>
>
> “You were the seventh
> Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make. He had rendered
> his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parents, the at- tempted killing of a child. But what escaped from that room was even less than he knew. He left more than his body behind.
> He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived.
>
>
> “He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into
> his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when
> she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that
> enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort’s one last hope
> for himself.”
>
>
> “Without meaning to, as you now know, Lord Voldemort
> doubled the bond between you when he returned to a human form. A part
> of his soul was still attached to yours, and, thinking to strengthen
> himself, he took a part of your mother’s sacrifice into himself.”
>
>
> Harry sat in thought for a long time, or perhaps seconds. It was very hard
> to be sure of things like time, here.
>
>
> “He killed me with your wand.”
>
>
> “He *failed* to kill you with my wand,” Dumbledore corrected Harry. “I
> think we can agree you are not dead.
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
> | Dumbledore *was* dead. Harry wasn't. That's established by the text itself:
>
> “But you’re dead.” said Harry. “Oh yes,” said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. “Then . . . I’m dead too?” “Ah,” said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. “That is the question, isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.”
>
>
>
Harry came back from "King's Cross", not the dead. Dumbledore, who was, in fact, dead could not return from "King's Cross" because he was only present in Harry's mind's version of King's Cross.
The book is also clear that it's all going on in Harry's head.
>
> Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?
>
>
>
Like so many other times in the books Dumbledore was clever and made very well educated guesses. He was pretty sure that Harry was a horcrux that would have to be destroyed. He also knew Harry would chose death over allowing his friends to be hurt. When he said that the experience was "real" but still all in his head I always assumed he meant that Dumbledore was present in some real, but magical way.
He was after all the most powerful wizard in the world and spells *can* behave and converse like real humans (see Tom Riddle's horcrux/memory in CoS, the portraits around Hogwarts, howlers etc.). While 100% theoretical I see two possibilities:
1. It's not at all unreasonable to guess that he cast a spell to cause Harry's experience 'upon destruction'.
2. Memories are powerful in real life and especially in the HP series. Memories of the most powerful wizard in the world occurring during a near-death experience where your soul/body is being separated from the *second-most-powerful* wizard the world might have side effects like we see in the book.
Basically: Dumbledore can't come back because he's present, but not really there. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | There are many fundamental errors in your question itself. I really suggest you go back and read the books because your understanding of both the Hallows and Harry's resurrection is wrong.
Firstly, Harry was the owner of Elder Wand having won it from Draco Malfoy when he escaped from Malfoy Manor. Draco became the owner of Elder wand when he disarmed Dumbledore at the end of Half-blood Prince. Both these points are explained in the book.
Next, Dumbledore never owned the invisibility cloak, it belonged to James Potter. Dumbledore merely borrowed it to examine suspecting that it was one of the Hallows. After the death of the Potters he simply kept it till the time Harry came to Hogwarts and then passed it to Harry during his first year telling him that the cloak had once belonged to his father.
And most important, Harry did not come back from the dead because he was able to unite the Hallows. He came back from the dead because when Voldemort cast the killing curse on Harry, he killed a part of his own soul which was living inside Harry (as Harry was the Horcrux which he never intended to make).
Even if a person can unite all the Hallows I don't think they gain the ability to come back from the dead. As it is explained in the books, Hallows were just very powerful magical objects created by Wizards and the whole lore about possessor of Hallows being "Master of Death" was just a fairytale which was based on these powerful magical objects.
>
> “So it’s true?” asked Harry. “All of it? The Peverell brothers—”
>
>
> “—were the three brothers of the tale,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Oh
> yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road . . . I think
> it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted,
> dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects.
> The story of them being Death’s own Hallows seems to me the sort of
> legend that might have sprung up around such creations.
>
>
> “You. You have guessed, I know, why the Cloak was in my possession on
> the night your parents died. James had showed it to me just a few days
> previously. It explained so much of his undetected wrong-doing at
> school! I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I asked to borrow
> it, to examine it.”
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
>
The reason why Harry didn't die was also explained by Dumbledore. The reason for it wasn't the Hallows, even though Harry was the owner of all three Hallows by the time he went to the forest to face Voldemort.
>
> “But you’re dead.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Oh yes,” said Dumbledore matter-of-factly.
>
>
> “Then . . . I’m dead too?”
>
>
> “Ah,” said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. “That is the question,
> isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.”
>
>
> “But . . . ” Harry raised his hand
> instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there.
> “But I should have died—I didn’t defend myself! I meant to let him
> kill me!”
>
>
> “And that,” said Dumbledore, “will, I think, have made all
> the difference.”
>
>
> “I let him kill me,” said Harry. “Didn’t I?”
>
>
> “You did,” said Dumbledore, nodding. “Go on!”
>
>
> “So the part of his soul that
> was in me . . . ”
>
>
> Dumbledore nodded still more enthusiastically,
> urging Harry onward, a broad smile of encouragement on his face.
>
>
> “. . . has it gone?”
>
>
> “Oh yes!” said Dumbledore. “Yes, he destroyed it. Your
> soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry.”
>
>
> “But if Voldemort used
> the Killing Curse,” Harry started again “and nobody died for me this
> time—how can I be alive?”
>
>
> “I think you know,” said Dumbledore. “Think
> back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his
> cruelty.”
>
>
> “He took my blood.” said Harry.
>
>
> “Precisely!” said
> Dumbledore. “He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it!
> Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily’s protection inside both of you!
> He tethered you to life while he lives!”
>
>
> “I live . . . while he lives!
> But I thought . . . I thought it was the other way round! I thought we
> both had to die? Or is it the same thing?”
>
>
> “You were the seventh
> Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make. He had rendered
> his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parents, the at- tempted killing of a child. But what escaped from that room was even less than he knew. He left more than his body behind.
> He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived.
>
>
> “He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into
> his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when
> she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that
> enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort’s one last hope
> for himself.”
>
>
> “Without meaning to, as you now know, Lord Voldemort
> doubled the bond between you when he returned to a human form. A part
> of his soul was still attached to yours, and, thinking to strengthen
> himself, he took a part of your mother’s sacrifice into himself.”
>
>
> Harry sat in thought for a long time, or perhaps seconds. It was very hard
> to be sure of things like time, here.
>
>
> “He killed me with your wand.”
>
>
> “He *failed* to kill you with my wand,” Dumbledore corrected Harry. “I
> think we can agree you are not dead.
>
>
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Ch 35: King's Cross*
>
>
> | Even if Dumbledore would be able to come back, he wouldn't. This is one of the primary points of the books.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I agree with the other answers that the questioner seems to have misunderstood the Hallows, I want to point out that even if Dumbledore would have been able to come back, he wouldn't.
The primary theme of Harry Potter is about overcoming the fear of death:
>
> Death is an extremely important theme throughout all seven books. **I would say possibly the most important theme.** ([Accio-quote](http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm))
>
>
>
Voldemort's main personality trait, and the one that defines him the most, is his fear of death.
>
> Voldemort's fear is death, ignominious death. I mean, he regards death itself as ignominious. He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness, as you know. His worst fear is death, but how would a boggart show that? I'm not too sure. I did think about that because I knew you were going to ask me that.
>
>
> “There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” snarled
> Voldemort.
>
>
>
This is also his greatest weakness:
>
> “Your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness—”
>
>
>
In fact all the bad guys primary traits seem to be based on fear of death
>
> Death Eaters
>
>
>
And
>
> Only innocent lives, Peter!”
> “You don’t understand!” whined Pettigrew. “He would have
> killed me, Sirius!”
>
>
>
However, the defining characteristic of the good guys is their willingness to embrace death. This is evident from the first book:
>
> "To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems incredible, but to Nicolas
> and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed after a very, very long
> day. **After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great
> adventure**. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As
> much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings
> would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans do have a knack of
> choosing precisely those things that are worst for them."
>
>
>
This is expressed in many other places in the books as well, but here's one of my favorite quotes:
>
> “THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!” roared Black. “DIED
> RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD
> HAVE DONE FOR YOU!”
>
>
>
And Snape becomes good only when he seems to embrace death:
>
> “DON’T!” bellowed Snape. “Gone . . . dead . . .”
> “Is this remorse, Severus?”
> “I wish . . . I wish I were dead. . . .”
>
>
>
Dumbledore, although never clearly seeming to have fear of death, definitely viewed himself as selfish and wanted to overcome death, and believes that his selfishness may caused him caused him to avoid sacrificing himself to Ariana (in his view):
>
> “I know how you are feeling, Harry,” said Dumbledore very
> quietly.
>
>
>
That in my mind, is one of the most important overlooked quotes in the book (and
one that will be of utmost importance in the Fantastic Beasts movies.)
That quote comes right after Harry blames himself for Sirius's death:
>
> It was his fault Sirius had died; it was all his fault.
>
>
>
This means that, Like Harry, Dumbledore as well blamed himself for someone's death, and in the later books, we find out it was Arianna.
>
> “Don’t hurt them,
> don’t hurt them, please, please, it’s my fault, hurt me instead . . .”
>
>
> “He thought he was back there with you and Grindelwald, I
> know he did,” said Harry, remembering Dumbledore whimpering,
> pleading. “He thought he was watching Grindelwald hurting you
> and Ariana. . . . It was torture to him, if you’d seen him then, you
> wouldn’t say he was free.”
>
>
> All those closest to Albus — and I count myself
> one of that lucky number — agree that Ariana’s
> death, and Albus’s feeling of personal responsibility
> for it (though, of course, he was guiltless), left their
> mark upon him forevermore.
>
>
>
And we know we why he felt guilty - because he ignored his sister while he tried to overcome death:
>
> “And at the heart of our schemes, the Deathly Hallows! How
> they fascinated him, how they fascinated both of us! The unbeatable
> wand, the weapon that would lead us to power! The Resurrection
> Stone — to him, though I pretended not to know it, it meant an
> army of Inferi! To me, I confess, it meant the return of my parents,
> and the lifting of all responsibility from my shoulders.
> “And the Cloak . . . somehow, we never discussed the Cloak much,
> Harry. Both of us could conceal ourselves well enough without the
> Cloak, the true magic of which, of course, is that it can be used to
> protect and shield others as well as its owner. I thought that, if we
> ever found it, it might be useful in hiding Ariana, but our interest
> in the Cloak was mainly that it completed the trio, for the legend
> said that the man who united all three objects would then be truly
> master of death, which we took to mean ‘invincible.’
> “Invincible masters of death, Grindelwald and Dumbledore!
> Two months of insanity, of cruel dreams, and neglect of the only
> two members of my family left to me.
> “And then . . . you know what happened. Reality returned in
> the form of my rough, unlettered, and infinitely more admirable
> brother. I did not want to hear the truths he shouted at me. I did
> not want to hear that I could not set forth to seek Hallows with a
> fragile and unstable sister in tow.
> “The argument became a fight. Grindelwald lost control. That
> which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now
> sprang into terrible being. And Ariana . . . after all my mother’s care
> and caution . . . lay dead upon the floor.”
>
>
>
Harry on the other hand, is always portrayed as selfless:
>
> “Do not misunderstand me,” he said, and pain crossed the face
> so that he looked ancient again. “I loved them. I loved my parents,
> I loved my brother and my sister, but I was selfish, Harry, more
> selfish than you, who are a remarkably selfless person, could possibly
> imagine.
>
>
>
Thus, only Harry, who is selfless and pure and has zero fear of death, was able to choose selflessly to live.
But Dumbledore, even if his possession of the Hallows allowed him to choose life, would not have, because he knew inherently that his choice would include some selfishness and desire to live, and thus was not purely selfless. He would have feared making this choice, as he knew himself to be undeserving. Thus he went to the opposite extreme and chose death - by his own hand - through a hallow, to overcome his selfishness.
This is also implied in the tale of Beatle the Bard, that only the brother who made the selfless choice (the cloak) was allowed to survie death, or more so, embrace him like a brother. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | Dumbledore was never the master of death.
At the time he was in possession of the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone, Harry was in possession of the Cloak of Invisibility.
Harry was not the master of death when he 'died', as he did not possess the Elder Wand. There is no concrete answer as to why Harry survived. Most theories center around either the Horcrux inside Harry being killed instead of him, or Harry having the *allegiance* of the Elder Wand when it struck him down. | Even if Dumbledore would be able to come back, he wouldn't. This is one of the primary points of the books.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I agree with the other answers that the questioner seems to have misunderstood the Hallows, I want to point out that even if Dumbledore would have been able to come back, he wouldn't.
The primary theme of Harry Potter is about overcoming the fear of death:
>
> Death is an extremely important theme throughout all seven books. **I would say possibly the most important theme.** ([Accio-quote](http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm))
>
>
>
Voldemort's main personality trait, and the one that defines him the most, is his fear of death.
>
> Voldemort's fear is death, ignominious death. I mean, he regards death itself as ignominious. He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness, as you know. His worst fear is death, but how would a boggart show that? I'm not too sure. I did think about that because I knew you were going to ask me that.
>
>
> “There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” snarled
> Voldemort.
>
>
>
This is also his greatest weakness:
>
> “Your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness—”
>
>
>
In fact all the bad guys primary traits seem to be based on fear of death
>
> Death Eaters
>
>
>
And
>
> Only innocent lives, Peter!”
> “You don’t understand!” whined Pettigrew. “He would have
> killed me, Sirius!”
>
>
>
However, the defining characteristic of the good guys is their willingness to embrace death. This is evident from the first book:
>
> "To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems incredible, but to Nicolas
> and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed after a very, very long
> day. **After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great
> adventure**. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As
> much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings
> would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans do have a knack of
> choosing precisely those things that are worst for them."
>
>
>
This is expressed in many other places in the books as well, but here's one of my favorite quotes:
>
> “THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!” roared Black. “DIED
> RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD
> HAVE DONE FOR YOU!”
>
>
>
And Snape becomes good only when he seems to embrace death:
>
> “DON’T!” bellowed Snape. “Gone . . . dead . . .”
> “Is this remorse, Severus?”
> “I wish . . . I wish I were dead. . . .”
>
>
>
Dumbledore, although never clearly seeming to have fear of death, definitely viewed himself as selfish and wanted to overcome death, and believes that his selfishness may caused him caused him to avoid sacrificing himself to Ariana (in his view):
>
> “I know how you are feeling, Harry,” said Dumbledore very
> quietly.
>
>
>
That in my mind, is one of the most important overlooked quotes in the book (and
one that will be of utmost importance in the Fantastic Beasts movies.)
That quote comes right after Harry blames himself for Sirius's death:
>
> It was his fault Sirius had died; it was all his fault.
>
>
>
This means that, Like Harry, Dumbledore as well blamed himself for someone's death, and in the later books, we find out it was Arianna.
>
> “Don’t hurt them,
> don’t hurt them, please, please, it’s my fault, hurt me instead . . .”
>
>
> “He thought he was back there with you and Grindelwald, I
> know he did,” said Harry, remembering Dumbledore whimpering,
> pleading. “He thought he was watching Grindelwald hurting you
> and Ariana. . . . It was torture to him, if you’d seen him then, you
> wouldn’t say he was free.”
>
>
> All those closest to Albus — and I count myself
> one of that lucky number — agree that Ariana’s
> death, and Albus’s feeling of personal responsibility
> for it (though, of course, he was guiltless), left their
> mark upon him forevermore.
>
>
>
And we know we why he felt guilty - because he ignored his sister while he tried to overcome death:
>
> “And at the heart of our schemes, the Deathly Hallows! How
> they fascinated him, how they fascinated both of us! The unbeatable
> wand, the weapon that would lead us to power! The Resurrection
> Stone — to him, though I pretended not to know it, it meant an
> army of Inferi! To me, I confess, it meant the return of my parents,
> and the lifting of all responsibility from my shoulders.
> “And the Cloak . . . somehow, we never discussed the Cloak much,
> Harry. Both of us could conceal ourselves well enough without the
> Cloak, the true magic of which, of course, is that it can be used to
> protect and shield others as well as its owner. I thought that, if we
> ever found it, it might be useful in hiding Ariana, but our interest
> in the Cloak was mainly that it completed the trio, for the legend
> said that the man who united all three objects would then be truly
> master of death, which we took to mean ‘invincible.’
> “Invincible masters of death, Grindelwald and Dumbledore!
> Two months of insanity, of cruel dreams, and neglect of the only
> two members of my family left to me.
> “And then . . . you know what happened. Reality returned in
> the form of my rough, unlettered, and infinitely more admirable
> brother. I did not want to hear the truths he shouted at me. I did
> not want to hear that I could not set forth to seek Hallows with a
> fragile and unstable sister in tow.
> “The argument became a fight. Grindelwald lost control. That
> which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now
> sprang into terrible being. And Ariana . . . after all my mother’s care
> and caution . . . lay dead upon the floor.”
>
>
>
Harry on the other hand, is always portrayed as selfless:
>
> “Do not misunderstand me,” he said, and pain crossed the face
> so that he looked ancient again. “I loved them. I loved my parents,
> I loved my brother and my sister, but I was selfish, Harry, more
> selfish than you, who are a remarkably selfless person, could possibly
> imagine.
>
>
>
Thus, only Harry, who is selfless and pure and has zero fear of death, was able to choose selflessly to live.
But Dumbledore, even if his possession of the Hallows allowed him to choose life, would not have, because he knew inherently that his choice would include some selfishness and desire to live, and thus was not purely selfless. He would have feared making this choice, as he knew himself to be undeserving. Thus he went to the opposite extreme and chose death - by his own hand - through a hallow, to overcome his selfishness.
This is also implied in the tale of Beatle the Bard, that only the brother who made the selfless choice (the cloak) was allowed to survie death, or more so, embrace him like a brother. |
177,933 | Harry Potter chose to come back from the dead because he was the master of death. But how could he be the master of death as he never had the Elder Wand?
If Harry could come back does that mean that Dumbledore could come back from the dead too? Why/why not?
After all, Dumbledore did have the three Deathly Hallows. He owned the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility. He passes the Cloak to Harry, but he still owned it: you can give something to someone but you are still the owner of it.
So when you die as the master of death you have a choice to come back. Dumbledore died as master of death but he never came back.
Does that means that Dumbledore did not choose to come back or that he cannot and the Deathly Hallows don't work like this? | 2018/01/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177933",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93971/"
] | Dumbledore *was* dead. Harry wasn't. That's established by the text itself:
>
> “But you’re dead.” said Harry. “Oh yes,” said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. “Then . . . I’m dead too?” “Ah,” said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. “That is the question, isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.”
>
>
>
Harry came back from "King's Cross", not the dead. Dumbledore, who was, in fact, dead could not return from "King's Cross" because he was only present in Harry's mind's version of King's Cross.
The book is also clear that it's all going on in Harry's head.
>
> Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?
>
>
>
Like so many other times in the books Dumbledore was clever and made very well educated guesses. He was pretty sure that Harry was a horcrux that would have to be destroyed. He also knew Harry would chose death over allowing his friends to be hurt. When he said that the experience was "real" but still all in his head I always assumed he meant that Dumbledore was present in some real, but magical way.
He was after all the most powerful wizard in the world and spells *can* behave and converse like real humans (see Tom Riddle's horcrux/memory in CoS, the portraits around Hogwarts, howlers etc.). While 100% theoretical I see two possibilities:
1. It's not at all unreasonable to guess that he cast a spell to cause Harry's experience 'upon destruction'.
2. Memories are powerful in real life and especially in the HP series. Memories of the most powerful wizard in the world occurring during a near-death experience where your soul/body is being separated from the *second-most-powerful* wizard the world might have side effects like we see in the book.
Basically: Dumbledore can't come back because he's present, but not really there. | Even if Dumbledore would be able to come back, he wouldn't. This is one of the primary points of the books.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I agree with the other answers that the questioner seems to have misunderstood the Hallows, I want to point out that even if Dumbledore would have been able to come back, he wouldn't.
The primary theme of Harry Potter is about overcoming the fear of death:
>
> Death is an extremely important theme throughout all seven books. **I would say possibly the most important theme.** ([Accio-quote](http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm))
>
>
>
Voldemort's main personality trait, and the one that defines him the most, is his fear of death.
>
> Voldemort's fear is death, ignominious death. I mean, he regards death itself as ignominious. He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness, as you know. His worst fear is death, but how would a boggart show that? I'm not too sure. I did think about that because I knew you were going to ask me that.
>
>
> “There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” snarled
> Voldemort.
>
>
>
This is also his greatest weakness:
>
> “Your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness—”
>
>
>
In fact all the bad guys primary traits seem to be based on fear of death
>
> Death Eaters
>
>
>
And
>
> Only innocent lives, Peter!”
> “You don’t understand!” whined Pettigrew. “He would have
> killed me, Sirius!”
>
>
>
However, the defining characteristic of the good guys is their willingness to embrace death. This is evident from the first book:
>
> "To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems incredible, but to Nicolas
> and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed after a very, very long
> day. **After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great
> adventure**. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As
> much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings
> would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans do have a knack of
> choosing precisely those things that are worst for them."
>
>
>
This is expressed in many other places in the books as well, but here's one of my favorite quotes:
>
> “THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!” roared Black. “DIED
> RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD
> HAVE DONE FOR YOU!”
>
>
>
And Snape becomes good only when he seems to embrace death:
>
> “DON’T!” bellowed Snape. “Gone . . . dead . . .”
> “Is this remorse, Severus?”
> “I wish . . . I wish I were dead. . . .”
>
>
>
Dumbledore, although never clearly seeming to have fear of death, definitely viewed himself as selfish and wanted to overcome death, and believes that his selfishness may caused him caused him to avoid sacrificing himself to Ariana (in his view):
>
> “I know how you are feeling, Harry,” said Dumbledore very
> quietly.
>
>
>
That in my mind, is one of the most important overlooked quotes in the book (and
one that will be of utmost importance in the Fantastic Beasts movies.)
That quote comes right after Harry blames himself for Sirius's death:
>
> It was his fault Sirius had died; it was all his fault.
>
>
>
This means that, Like Harry, Dumbledore as well blamed himself for someone's death, and in the later books, we find out it was Arianna.
>
> “Don’t hurt them,
> don’t hurt them, please, please, it’s my fault, hurt me instead . . .”
>
>
> “He thought he was back there with you and Grindelwald, I
> know he did,” said Harry, remembering Dumbledore whimpering,
> pleading. “He thought he was watching Grindelwald hurting you
> and Ariana. . . . It was torture to him, if you’d seen him then, you
> wouldn’t say he was free.”
>
>
> All those closest to Albus — and I count myself
> one of that lucky number — agree that Ariana’s
> death, and Albus’s feeling of personal responsibility
> for it (though, of course, he was guiltless), left their
> mark upon him forevermore.
>
>
>
And we know we why he felt guilty - because he ignored his sister while he tried to overcome death:
>
> “And at the heart of our schemes, the Deathly Hallows! How
> they fascinated him, how they fascinated both of us! The unbeatable
> wand, the weapon that would lead us to power! The Resurrection
> Stone — to him, though I pretended not to know it, it meant an
> army of Inferi! To me, I confess, it meant the return of my parents,
> and the lifting of all responsibility from my shoulders.
> “And the Cloak . . . somehow, we never discussed the Cloak much,
> Harry. Both of us could conceal ourselves well enough without the
> Cloak, the true magic of which, of course, is that it can be used to
> protect and shield others as well as its owner. I thought that, if we
> ever found it, it might be useful in hiding Ariana, but our interest
> in the Cloak was mainly that it completed the trio, for the legend
> said that the man who united all three objects would then be truly
> master of death, which we took to mean ‘invincible.’
> “Invincible masters of death, Grindelwald and Dumbledore!
> Two months of insanity, of cruel dreams, and neglect of the only
> two members of my family left to me.
> “And then . . . you know what happened. Reality returned in
> the form of my rough, unlettered, and infinitely more admirable
> brother. I did not want to hear the truths he shouted at me. I did
> not want to hear that I could not set forth to seek Hallows with a
> fragile and unstable sister in tow.
> “The argument became a fight. Grindelwald lost control. That
> which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now
> sprang into terrible being. And Ariana . . . after all my mother’s care
> and caution . . . lay dead upon the floor.”
>
>
>
Harry on the other hand, is always portrayed as selfless:
>
> “Do not misunderstand me,” he said, and pain crossed the face
> so that he looked ancient again. “I loved them. I loved my parents,
> I loved my brother and my sister, but I was selfish, Harry, more
> selfish than you, who are a remarkably selfless person, could possibly
> imagine.
>
>
>
Thus, only Harry, who is selfless and pure and has zero fear of death, was able to choose selflessly to live.
But Dumbledore, even if his possession of the Hallows allowed him to choose life, would not have, because he knew inherently that his choice would include some selfishness and desire to live, and thus was not purely selfless. He would have feared making this choice, as he knew himself to be undeserving. Thus he went to the opposite extreme and chose death - by his own hand - through a hallow, to overcome his selfishness.
This is also implied in the tale of Beatle the Bard, that only the brother who made the selfless choice (the cloak) was allowed to survie death, or more so, embrace him like a brother. |
95,207 | How does a Stack Overflow moderator know about sock puppet accounts?
How do they trap the user? | 2011/06/15 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95207",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/161645/"
] | I am not going to answer this directly, for reasons that should be obvious.
However; this isn't a "trap" - it is our attempt at *enforcing reasonable behaviour*; using a sock-puppet for *any purpose* (most commonly, but not exclusively: upvoting yourself) is unacceptable.
If you want the vote of the masses; write good questions and answers. | They have ways of finding pretty much any kind of sock puppets using their sites...
 |
95,207 | How does a Stack Overflow moderator know about sock puppet accounts?
How do they trap the user? | 2011/06/15 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95207",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/161645/"
] | I am not going to answer this directly, for reasons that should be obvious.
However; this isn't a "trap" - it is our attempt at *enforcing reasonable behaviour*; using a sock-puppet for *any purpose* (most commonly, but not exclusively: upvoting yourself) is unacceptable.
If you want the vote of the masses; write good questions and answers. | Actions speak louder than IP address… Possibly even a “view” of a question is an action. |
95,207 | How does a Stack Overflow moderator know about sock puppet accounts?
How do they trap the user? | 2011/06/15 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95207",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/161645/"
] | I am not going to answer this directly, for reasons that should be obvious.
However; this isn't a "trap" - it is our attempt at *enforcing reasonable behaviour*; using a sock-puppet for *any purpose* (most commonly, but not exclusively: upvoting yourself) is unacceptable.
If you want the vote of the masses; write good questions and answers. | You know, throughout your posts here, you keep referring to this as a "bug" or a "trap". It's not a bug at all; it's a *feature* designed to prevent people from abusing the site. **Which is exactly what you were doing.**
In your comments on Marc's answer, you complain that your friend "Nahid" got her account merged due to suspicious behavior. If that's true, and Nahid actually exists and was playing by the rules, then what happened to her was because *your behavior* made her look like another one of your sock puppets.
Why did this happen? Not because of "bugs" in Stack Overflow, or the malice of the evil moderators. It happened because you abused this site *so badly* that everyone around you was thrown into suspicion. If you hadn't tried so hard to make your fake accounts look like real ones, your friend's real account wouldn't have looked like another of your fakes. If "Nahid" is upset that her account got merged, she should be blaming you for that. If you're upset that you lost reputation, you should blame yourself. **You cheated. You got caught cheating. That's your fault, not Stack Overflow's.**
You've suggested that SO might lose users due to features like this, but I think it'll *gain* users when they see that their reputation means something. People don't like being taken advantage of by others who don't play by the rules, and they don't like cheaters filling up their community space with garbage. Even in your imaginary "99 lost professional users" scenario, I suspect the number we'll gain far outweighs the number we'll lose due to accidental merges.
To sum up, the solution isn't to ask how to cheat more effectively, and it's also not to blame others for noticing. The solution is to improve your behavior, start playing by the rules, and try to be valuable to the rest of this community. |
95,207 | How does a Stack Overflow moderator know about sock puppet accounts?
How do they trap the user? | 2011/06/15 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95207",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/161645/"
] | They have ways of finding pretty much any kind of sock puppets using their sites...
 | Actions speak louder than IP address… Possibly even a “view” of a question is an action. |
95,207 | How does a Stack Overflow moderator know about sock puppet accounts?
How do they trap the user? | 2011/06/15 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95207",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/161645/"
] | You know, throughout your posts here, you keep referring to this as a "bug" or a "trap". It's not a bug at all; it's a *feature* designed to prevent people from abusing the site. **Which is exactly what you were doing.**
In your comments on Marc's answer, you complain that your friend "Nahid" got her account merged due to suspicious behavior. If that's true, and Nahid actually exists and was playing by the rules, then what happened to her was because *your behavior* made her look like another one of your sock puppets.
Why did this happen? Not because of "bugs" in Stack Overflow, or the malice of the evil moderators. It happened because you abused this site *so badly* that everyone around you was thrown into suspicion. If you hadn't tried so hard to make your fake accounts look like real ones, your friend's real account wouldn't have looked like another of your fakes. If "Nahid" is upset that her account got merged, she should be blaming you for that. If you're upset that you lost reputation, you should blame yourself. **You cheated. You got caught cheating. That's your fault, not Stack Overflow's.**
You've suggested that SO might lose users due to features like this, but I think it'll *gain* users when they see that their reputation means something. People don't like being taken advantage of by others who don't play by the rules, and they don't like cheaters filling up their community space with garbage. Even in your imaginary "99 lost professional users" scenario, I suspect the number we'll gain far outweighs the number we'll lose due to accidental merges.
To sum up, the solution isn't to ask how to cheat more effectively, and it's also not to blame others for noticing. The solution is to improve your behavior, start playing by the rules, and try to be valuable to the rest of this community. | Actions speak louder than IP address… Possibly even a “view” of a question is an action. |
1,336,337 | I've got my first RoR app deployed to Dreamhost and it's using Passenger. The one note on Dreamhost's wiki about slow response mentioned changing a RewriteRules line in the public/.htaccess file to use FastCGI. But I assume this will have no effect if I'm using Passenger, is that right?
I've looked at the logs and compared them to my local logs, and it looks like there is a wider range on Dreamhost. Some responses are comparable to the quick local ones, others can take a few seconds.
I'm using a Flex front end with HTTPServices to the rails backend, and I think I also need to add logging around my services to see what kind of network delay I'm getting and try to isolate where the delays are.
I should also add that there is probably plenty of room for improvement in the area of eager loading associations. I think I did that a little early on, but haven't done it thoroughly through all the associations. I have the local logs set to the default where I can see all the queries, and there are a lot of them. | 2009/08/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1336337",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/26270/"
] | You must be running in Development mode. Try running in Production mode to see if it is still slow.
Post below may help:
[Ruby On Rails is slow...?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/566401/ruby-on-rails-is-slow) | [New Relic](http://www.newrelic.com/) is a Rails performance monitoring app. I haven't personally used it, but I hear their name a lot and it looks like they have a free lite version that you could try. From my experience profiling other applications, a tool like this is worth using because the slow parts of your application are often in areas where you didn't expect. |
2,855 | Consider an application that currently uses a combination of license file and/or subscription to verify which features to activate. I can use a smart contract instead of the license file, and potentially the subscription. But today, the subscription check requires an online validation and associated credential check.
With the Ethereum blockchain, is it possible to check state while offline? I'd like to implement a system where people are not required to be online to use the software. I can imagine having contracts that return themselves as valid while offline, but will nodes provide access to data if they are not sync'd up? I'd be ok using out of date data for up to a month or more, but I'd need the local client to respond.
Alternatively, I could create local license files from the node when the node is online, but I could almost as easily email license files. But by using the blockchain, the licenses and other assets could be traded and available should the company fold. | 2016/04/10 | [
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2855",
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com",
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/users/1161/"
] | When your app is able to sync with the blockchain (network connection available), the check the blockchain and update your app settings file to allow use for up to e.g. 1 week after the blockchain subscription check. Just tell the user that they have to sync before the period is up.
One extra feature you can add:
* Your app has a unique public and private Ethereum key embedded in it and has to send a small amount of ethers back to your account on a periodic basis.
* If you get sent more ether transactions from your app than expected, your customer is running more than one copy of your app. | If you want to get up-to-date information from the Ethereum blockchain then you'll need a node somewhere that's synced up. However, in theory you could do this with either a trusted server or a more lightweight proof so you wouldn't necessarily need the whole chain to be downloaded to the client.
If you can tolerate partially out-of-date licensing information then you could certainly cache it locally as you suggest.
>
> Alternatively, I could create local license files from the node when the node is online, but I could almost as easily email license files.
>
>
>
Right, if the goal is just that you want to be able to issue license files based on some information you already have then the Ethereum blockchain probably isn't suitable. Just issue that information on a server of your own and have the client software contact that server.
However, there are a couple of interesting things you get from using Ethereum for something like this. For example, you can make software licenses tradeable by arbitrary exchanges that you don't have to create yourself, and licenses bought in this way will work even if you go out of business. |
4,605,482 | I want my marker to appear not in the center of the screen, but 25% of the way up to give extra room for the popup box. Although sticking an offset in is easy, the offset depends on the zoom level as if you're zoomed far out, you'll want to center the map quite far up (such as 50km). If you're really zoomed in, then you'll want to center it just a tiny amount like 10 meters.
I'm not sure how to accomplish this. Any ideas? | 2011/01/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4605482",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/174375/"
] | Try this:
Take the height of the plugin and get 25% of that.
Then you need to multiply that by the degrees or kilometres per pixel scale at that height (if you can't get it straight from the plugin then I guess do the math), then centre the screen at that point on the globe. | I am not sure as it has been a while since I messed around with the API, but I think you can create a custom marker object with its own pixel based offset, and display that instead of the default marker.
EDIT: Whoops read it again and realized you probably just wanted to move the whole map and not the marker. |
325,415 | (<https://webapps.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/111499> shows action by both.) [Edit: At first glance they both looked like special users. Not so.] | 2019/03/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/325415",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/218120/"
] | Community♦ is [a special user](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user). Community is credited for reviews when they are:
* Done by deleted users
* Improved, in which case Community is shown as having approved the edit
* Rejected and edited, in which case Community is shown as having rejected the edit
[user0](https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/186471/user0) is a normal user who just happens to have "0" in the username. user0 approved the edit before it was improved by a different user. | A key difference is that their real user numbers, respectively, are -1 for Community♦ and 186471 for user0 (on webapps, and thus *not* 0), as can be seen in the URL (classically displayed in a browser's status bar when mousing over the usernames) that clicking on the name opens.
[Community♦](https://stackexchange.com/users/-1) (/community is tacked on the end of the canonical URL) is [a special user](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19738/who-is-the-community-user).
But [user0](https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/186471) (/user0 is tacked on the end of the canonical URL) is a normal user who just happens to have "0" in the username. user0 approved the edit before it was improved by a different user.
[I found no true user 0 - no user with ID 0](https://stackexchange.com/users/0/anything) on any SE sites.
[There is also no user with ID 1](https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/1) on some SE sites, but
[there IS a user with ID 1](https://stackexchange.com/users/1) on other SE sites. |
83,635 | I'm a complete cooking newb. I saw on youtube the other day that you should cook steak in an oven before frying it. I think it makes it softer (not sure, please let me know).
But anyway, I never used an oven in my entire life. And I looked inside the oven and there are no trays in there. So I went to the store and the only trays I saw in the cooking section were meant for "cookies" that you cook in the oven, and other things like that, muffins etc. But they never mentioned steak.
So can I cook my steak on trays meant for deserts, or do I need to look for a tray meant for steaks? and should I even cook my steak in the oven in the first place? | 2017/08/10 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60749/"
] | To answer your question directly, if the method of cooking is what I think it is, the pan you use should be fine, even if it has a nonstick coating on it. You can read the second section to see if my assumption about your cooking method is correct.
It's important that you don't use nonstick cookware for extremely high heat cooking. If the nonstick coating gets to the smoking point, it releases gases that are toxic enough (as a friend tragically learned) to kill pets. This includes pans that go in the oven, and on the stovetop.
Since the temperature at which you're cooking the steak isn't that much hotter than you'd use baking cookies, it should be fine. If it does have a nonstick coating, you should not use it under a broiler, which is much hotter than just sitting in the oven while it bakes.
---
Even though it's not exactly what you asked, since you don't seem to be super confident in what you're doing, I'll give you a little more info on what I believe is the technique you're trying to pull off.
I think what you're referring to is the method of cooking where you cook a steak slowly in the oven until the internal doneness (rare, medium rare, etc.) is just how you like it, and then you give it a good hot sear in a pan so you form a flavorful crust on the outside. It's pretty intuitive when you consider the following:
* Making sure steak (or chicken, or pork chops, or other quick-cooking cuts of meat) is cooked through simply involves getting it to the desired internal temperature. The more consistent the internal temperature throughout the meat, the more consistent the texture and juiciness.
+ The best way to control the overall internal temperature of the meat is to use gentler lower temperature methods of cooking so the inside has time to warm up before the outside gets overcooked.
* Getting optimum flavor in a steak requires a nice sear/crust on the meat.
+ The best way to get a nice crust on your steak is to add a decent amount of salt, and use a high-heat cooking method to trigger the Maillard reaction (what's happening chemically when browning occurs) and perhaps some charring.
You can see where the conflict lies between these two needs.
Using the method you read about, you can use the oven to gently bring it up to temperature so it's consistently cooked inside, and then you can use a pan (which does not have a nonstick coating) to give it a nice hot sear after it comes out of the oven.
It is easy to overcook steak if you're not particularly experienced, especially using more complicated dual-cook methods. Nobody wants to eat a tough, dry mess. Though it's tempting to rely on cooking times you find on the internet, **time is usually the least precise method to determine how cooked something is.** I highly recommend using an instant-read thermometer to check the actual temperature inside. | The method I think you are referring to is called "reverse sear". When I do a reverse sear, I use a standard [wire rack](http://dailydecor.foodiefriendsfridaydailydish.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/30b0052baa76.jpg) on top of a foil covered baking sheet. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by a dessert tray - but you probably want something (like a wire rack) that allows airflow on all sides, including the bottom.
IMO the [Serious Eats guide](https://www.seriouseats.com/2017/03/how-to-reverse-sear-best-way-to-cook-steak.html) is great, it got me started using this method.
Edit(3) to add: the big advantage of the reverse sear is that you can control the cooking process more precisely and get a steak that's seared on the outside, but not overcooked on the inside. Similar to Cooking Sous Vide then searing, but without the expense/clutter of a SV cooker.
As SomeInterwebDev points out, you definitely want to be cooking to an internal temp, not by time to get a good result here. |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | I've certainly done my bit to try and get rid of that question, as well as similar ones, but the system is against us. If Jeff brought it back from the dead I'd love to hear his reasoning for doing so. The only reasoning I can think of is that it brings traffic due to Google and traffic translates to revenue and revenue is the reason Stack Exchange exists.
That question is part of the history of SF only in the sense of being a great example of what NOT to post. Rather than adding value it merely detracts from SF and on at least one occasion I've seen it referenced as an excuse to post an off-topic question ("if they can do it why can't I?"). | Send it back from whence it came. |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye,
--------------------------
Three days have passed. Since then:
* 30% of our >10K users have voted to delete that question, independent of the vote going on here.
* 22 upvotes for sun-based disposal
* 4 upvotes for 'send it back from whence it came'
* Showers of hate upon 'Leave it'.
Based upon this, the question will be ritually tossed into the sun. Which is cranky today, so it is fitting.
It is gone.
 | Leave it, just keep it locked down. |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | Throw this question into the sun. | Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye,
--------------------------
Three days have passed. Since then:
* 30% of our >10K users have voted to delete that question, independent of the vote going on here.
* 22 upvotes for sun-based disposal
* 4 upvotes for 'send it back from whence it came'
* Showers of hate upon 'Leave it'.
Based upon this, the question will be ritually tossed into the sun. Which is cranky today, so it is fitting.
It is gone.
 |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | It needs to be burniated.
It adds nothing to the site. It was a "fun" question once upon a time *maybe* but we've moved on from that.
Perhaps it should be locked while its fate is being debated? | Send it back from whence it came. |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | Throw this question into the sun. | If it were my choice, I'd just hit the delete button on it here and be done with it.
Yes, by today's rules it is off topic both here and on Stack Overflow. I don't feel it adds *any* useful information to this site, or any on the Stack Exchange network. It goes no way towards the Stack Exchange mission of "make the internet better" and as such should simply be obliterated.
I'd like to think we've all become much less tolerant of crap since December '10 when it was resurrected, and I'd hope everyone else would also agree. There has been a very visible onslaught against bad questions that don't add value to the internet, and to me this is one of them. Hey, it was practically Christmas - maybe Jeff had a few drinks and was feeling generous? :-) |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | Throw this question into the sun. | I've certainly done my bit to try and get rid of that question, as well as similar ones, but the system is against us. If Jeff brought it back from the dead I'd love to hear his reasoning for doing so. The only reasoning I can think of is that it brings traffic due to Google and traffic translates to revenue and revenue is the reason Stack Exchange exists.
That question is part of the history of SF only in the sense of being a great example of what NOT to post. Rather than adding value it merely detracts from SF and on at least one occasion I've seen it referenced as an excuse to post an off-topic question ("if they can do it why can't I?"). |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | Send it back from whence it came. | Leave it, just keep it locked down. |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye,
--------------------------
Three days have passed. Since then:
* 30% of our >10K users have voted to delete that question, independent of the vote going on here.
* 22 upvotes for sun-based disposal
* 4 upvotes for 'send it back from whence it came'
* Showers of hate upon 'Leave it'.
Based upon this, the question will be ritually tossed into the sun. Which is cranky today, so it is fitting.
It is gone.
 | It needs to be burniated.
It adds nothing to the site. It was a "fun" question once upon a time *maybe* but we've moved on from that.
Perhaps it should be locked while its fate is being debated? |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye,
--------------------------
Three days have passed. Since then:
* 30% of our >10K users have voted to delete that question, independent of the vote going on here.
* 22 upvotes for sun-based disposal
* 4 upvotes for 'send it back from whence it came'
* Showers of hate upon 'Leave it'.
Based upon this, the question will be ritually tossed into the sun. Which is cranky today, so it is fitting.
It is gone.
 | I've certainly done my bit to try and get rid of that question, as well as similar ones, but the system is against us. If Jeff brought it back from the dead I'd love to hear his reasoning for doing so. The only reasoning I can think of is that it brings traffic due to Google and traffic translates to revenue and revenue is the reason Stack Exchange exists.
That question is part of the history of SF only in the sense of being a great example of what NOT to post. Rather than adding value it merely detracts from SF and on at least one occasion I've seen it referenced as an excuse to post an off-topic question ("if they can do it why can't I?"). |
2,015 | So this question... <https://serverfault.com/questions/45734/the-coolest-server-names>
It's horribly off topic. It's got a few votes to delete it right now because the community does not want it here (it's already been deleted once by the community).
I understand that it's being kept around for its historical significance, but it's not this site's history.
It's a question which came from SO, had many answers given by SO, and was migrated here. So can we send it back to SO? It's off topic there, yes, but it's also off topic here. At least at SO it would be back to its historical roots.
Or we could just delete it. That's happened once already, but Jeff brought it back. I don't want to start a "community vs. the mods (or SO leadership)" battle. At what point does "We don’t run Server Fault. The community does." begin or end?
The other option is we could just leave it. But it's not on topic. I don't fully understand why we would leave this off topic question here when we delete others that are similarly off topic. | 2011/09/04 | [
"https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/2015",
"https://meta.serverfault.com",
"https://meta.serverfault.com/users/33118/"
] | It needs to be burniated.
It adds nothing to the site. It was a "fun" question once upon a time *maybe* but we've moved on from that.
Perhaps it should be locked while its fate is being debated? | Leave it, just keep it locked down. |
115,769 | I have a 40 gallon (bladdered) pressure tank in the basement which keeps pressure to my office building, and a 2-inch 2 horsepower submersible pump in a dug well 450 feet away.
The pump is cycling waaay too fast, and the tank will hold pressure at 41 pounds to 43 pounds but not at 60 pounds at shut-off pressure. (The pump comes on at 40 and shuts off at 60). It only takes 6 seconds for the pump to come on and shut off and I fear I will cook the pump if this keeps up.
I have recently tested the pressure in the tank and it is 50 pounds. Does this mean the bladder leaked and caused pressure to increase in the tank? I know the tank pressure should be set at around 39, or a little below the 'turn-on' pressure. Could this be the cause of the short cycle? | 2017/06/02 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/115769",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/70373/"
] | The bladder is there to flatten the pressure/volume curve so pressure doesn't change rapidly as water is pumped.
This allows for a longer duty cycle.
The expected symptom of a burst bladder is just as you describe. | It needs air.
Get hold of an air compressor and give it a charge. Be sure to be running water while charging, and the pump is off. Easy.
If you need to do this more than once a year there might be a problem with the bladder. |
334,167 | I am late game Alien Crossfire, attacking with gravitons aremed with [string disruptor](https://strategywiki.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Alpha_Centauri/Weapon#String_Disruptor).
Unfortunately, the others have gotten wise and are building everything [AAA](https://strategywiki.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Alpha_Centauri/Special_Ability#AAA_Tracking). In a way, that's good, as it is expensive, and diverts their resources.
However, I can no longer "one hit kill", and am losing gravitons.
Should I replace the weapons with [Psi attack](https://strategywiki.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Alpha_Centauri/Weapon#Psi_Attack)? | 2018/06/24 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/334167",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/92813/"
] | Psi attack/defense is orthogonal to conventional weapons. Its result depends on *Morale* levels of attacking/defending units.
If an attacker/defender is a *Mind Worm*, they have their own class, plus both faction's *Planet (Green)* scores/attitudes largely affect the outcome of the fight.
**Answer:** see what's your faction's Morale and/or Green score.
You may also trick the system by changing your *Government/Economy* type before the attack. Say, if you possess some *Mind Worms* and you are planning to give them a victorious ride, switch to *Green* several turns before the planned invasion. Or to *Fundamentalist + Power* if you are planning Psi attacks with conventional units.
---
Personally, I *love* Green because if you are lucky enough, you can capture native life forms, making a considerable amount of your units Mind Worms **(Independent)** which means it requires no support from a home base, still performing as police in "at least one unit defending each Base" paradigm. | If you have dominant weapons, mixing in hovertanks and even air-dropped infantry will let you continue leveraging those dominant weapons.
Psi-combat is mostly useful when facing technologically superior enemies that your weapons cannot defeat. Switching from overwhelming firepower to psi-attack will make you lose as many (if not more) units, since psi-combat is less lopsided in general.
I'd say consider changing your gravs to transports and using their mobility to deploy slower, ground-based units that ignore AAA. At least until your opponents stop putting all of their eggs in one basket. |
9,458,253 | Perhaps I am worrying over nothing. I desire for data members to closely follow the RAII idiom. How can I initialise a protected pointer member in an abstract base class to null?
I know it should be null, but wouldn't it be nicer to ensure that is universally understood?
Putting initialization code outside of the initializer list has the potential to not be run. Thinking in terms of the assembly operations to allocate this pointer onto the stack, couldn't they be interrupted in much the same way (as the c'tor body) in multithreading environments or is stack expansion guaranteed to be atomic? If the destructor is guaranteed to run then might not the stack expansion have such a guarantee even if the processor doesn't perform it atomically?
How did such a simple question get so expansive? Thanks.
If I could avoid the std:: library that would be great, I am in a minimilist environment. | 2012/02/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9458253",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/866333/"
] | I have had this problem in the past - and fixed it.
The images you're displaying are much too large. I love using html or css to resize my images (because who wants to do it manually), but the fact remains that most browsers will hiccup when moving them around. I'm not sure why.
With the exception of Opera, which usually sacrifices resolution and turns websites into garbage.
Resize the largest images, and see if that helps. | Performance in JavaScript is slow, as you're going through many layers of abstraction to get any work done, and many manipulations with objects on the screen are happening in the background. Performance cannot be guaranteed from system to system.
You'll find that with all jQuery animation, you will get a higher "frame rate" (not the right term here, but I can't think of a better one) on faster machines and better-performing browsers (such as Chrome) than you will on slower machines.
If you are curious what all happens in the background when you set a scroll position, or other property, use one of the many tools for profiling your code. Google Chrome comes with one built-in, and for Firefox, you can use Firebug to give you some insight. See also this question: [What is the best way to profile javascript execution?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/855126/what-is-the-best-way-to-profile-javascript-execution) |
24,220,365 | I have this SQL server instance which is shared by several client-processes. I want queries to finish taking as little time as possible.
Say a call needs to read 1k to 10k records from this shared Sql Server. My natural choice would be to use ExecuteReaderAsync to take advantage of async benefits such as reusing threads.
I started wondering whether async will pose some overhead since execution might stop and resume for every call to ExecuteReaderAsync. That being true, seems that overall time for query to complete would be longer if compared to a implementation that uses ExecuteReader. Does that make (any) sense? | 2014/06/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24220365",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/298622/"
] | Whether you use sync or async to call SQL Server makes no difference for the work that SQL Server does and for the CPU-bound work that ADO.NET does to serialize and deserialize request and response. So no matter what you chose the difference will be small.
Using async is not about saving CPU time. It is about saving memory (less thread stacks) and about having a nice programming model in UI apps.
In fact async never saves CPU time as far as I'm aware. It adds overhead. If you want to save CPU time use a synchronous approach.
On the server using async in low-concurrency workloads adds no value whatsoever. It adds development time and CPU cost. | The difference between the async approach and the sync approach is that the async call will cause the compiler to generate a state machine, whereas the sync call will simply block while the work agains't the database is being done.
IRL, the best way to choose is to benchmark both approaches. As usr said, usually those differrences are neglectable compared to the time the query takes to execute. Async will shine brighter in places where it may save resources such as allocating a new thread
There are many posts about async performance:
1. [*Async await performance*](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23871806/async-await-performance)
2. [*The zen of async: best practices for best performance*](http://channel9.msdn.com/events/BUILD/BUILD2011/TOOL-829T)
3. [*Async Performance: Understanding the Costs of Async and Await*](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/hh456402.aspx) |
37,455,599 | When I run my project on my iphone or in the simulator it works fine.
When I try to run it on an ipad I get the below error:
*file was built for arm64 which is not the architecture being linked (armv7)*
The devices it set to Universal.
Does anybody have an idea about what else I should check? | 2016/05/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37455599",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5367540/"
] | Just in case somebody has the same problem as me. Some of my target projects had different iOS Deployment target and that is why the linking failed. After moving them all to the same the problem was solved. | I should have added armv6 for iPad 2. Done that and it works now |
24,010 | UPDATE
Have included an image. As you can see, LED is ON when base is floating. This is a 2N222A transistor.
---
Playing with an NPN bipolar transistor. The Collector is connected to the positive terminal of a 9V battery through a 1k Ohm resistor, and the Emitter is connected to the ground through an LED. The Base is not connected to anything.
The LED seems to be dim in the above case. When I connect the Base to the positive terminal, the LED is much brighter. That makes sense as current through the base Base amplifies the current.
My questions is: **should any current flow through the emitter if the base is not connected to anything? I.e. Shouldn't the LED be completely off?**
I have a similar question for NPN Unijunction transistors (understand that nomenclature changes from CBE to AGC)? | 2011/12/21 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/24010",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/4336/"
] | Okay, looking at the picture I think you may have the transistor the wrong way round.
Try turning it round.
See this picture for reference:
As you can see the collector is on the right with the flat part facing you, so you have the collector connected to the LED in your circuit (if the 2N2222A part you are using has the same pinout)
I got the picture from [here](http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/PN/PN2222A.pdf).
**EDIT** - It's actually a 2N222A, but the above advice still goes as the pinout appears to be the same from the picture posted.
As Russell mentions the more standard way is to connect the LED to the collector, but your circuit should work if set up correctly. | Please answer:
* What colour LED are you using?
* What is your transistor type. ?
---
You should look at some of the 10's of thousands of diagrams available on the net before connecting a transistor to try to do this job and/or look at the transistor's data sheet.
All transistors have a maximum Vbe rating and you have probably exceeded yours quite substantially. You transistor MAY be OK but may be damaged.
You MAY have been saved by your interesting emitter follower style circuit.
As a starting point always drive the base through a resistor of from 1k to 10k.
1K for low voltages (2-5) and 10k or so for larger voltages (5-30).
None of that is ideal but it will keep your transistor alive and your LED lit in most cases.
Connect a 100k from base to emitter. This passes the small CB leakage current that exists when the base is open and stops it driving the transistor on partially and dimly lighting your LED.
Your circuit with the LED in the emitter has its uses, but more usual and useful is the circuit below.
R1 is not needed if you are driving R2 with a source that always has a low impedance, such as a microcontroller pin in normal output mode (active high and active low drive.
Transistor type is your choice.
LED current is ~~~= (Vsupply - VLED\_on)/ R4.
VLDon from data sheet or elseweher.
For red LEDs ~= 2V.
White and blue LEDS typically 3V - 3.5V
So here with Vsupply = 5V
* LED current is ~~~= (Vsupply - VLED\_on)/ R4
~~= (5 - 3.3) / 1000 = 0.017 = 17 mA
This is shown being driven by a relay (high on / low off) but any voltage that switches between low ~=0V and 2V <= high <= ~= 12v is OK.
For Vin high > 12 V increase R2.
---
Suggestion:
Experiment with vakues of R2 all else being the same, and see what happens. .
Never have R2 < about 500 ohms.
R2 can be as large as you like but the LED will stop working when R2 is above **about** 470k to 1 megohm.
---
Recommendation:
The BC337-40 is my favorite leaded "jellybean" bipolar NPN transistor.
If you can ever buy some of these at a good price, do.
Digikey has them at 58 cents in 1.s, 40c/10, 18c/100, 7c/1000, 4.5 cents/ 10k.
---
This is a BAD circuit BUT if you add 100K as shown the LED should turn off.
NOW connect 10k from base to V+ and see what happens.
NEVER connect the base directly to V+ or to any "stiff' voltage source that may cause very high base currents to flow.
What is your transistor type. ?
 |
4,882,465 | I am quite a noob when it comes to deploying a Django project. I'd like to know what are the various methods to deploy Django project and which one is the most preferred. | 2011/02/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4882465",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/277848/"
] | Use the Nginx/Apache/mod-wsgi and you can't go wrong.
If you prefer a simple alternative, just use Apache.
There is a very good deployment document: <http://lethain.com/entry/2009/feb/13/the-django-and-ubuntu-intrepid-almanac/> | I myself have faced a lot of problems in deploying Django Projects and automating the deployment process. Apache and mod\_wsgi were like curse for Django Deployment. There are several tools like [Nginx](http://wiki.nginx.org/Main), [Gunicorn](http://gunicorn.org/), [SupervisorD](http://supervisord.org/) and Fabric which are trending for Django deployment. At first I used/configured them individually without Deployment automation which took a lot of time(I had to maintain testing as well as production servers for my client and had to update them as soon as a new feature was tested and approved.) but then I stumbled upon django-fagungis, which totally automates my Django Deployment from cloning my project from bitbucket to deploying on my remote server (it uses Nginx, Gunicorn, SupervisorD, Fabtic and virtualenv and also installs all the dependencies on the fly), all with just three commands :) You can find more about it in my blog post [**here**](http://alirazabhayani.blogspot.com/2013/02/easy-django-deployment-tools-tutorial-fabric-gunicorn-nginx-supervisor.html). Now I even don't have to get involved in this process(which used to take a lot of my time) and one of my junior developers runs those three commands of django-fagungis [mentioned here](http://alirazabhayani.blogspot.com/2013/02/easy-django-deployment-tools-tutorial-fabric-gunicorn-nginx-supervisor.html) on his local machine and we get a crisp new copy of our project deployed in minutes without any hassle:) |
3,551 | I have a chunk of text I need to paste into Illustrator. No matter what I do, I can't resize the text area without scaling the text. I want to resize the area and have the text wrap (font size to remain the same).
How can I do this? I'm using CS5.1 | 2011/09/06 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/3551",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/2357/"
] | Select your `Type` tool. Instead of clicking on your canvas, click and drag to draw a box. Put whatever copy you want inside the type box and when you resize the box it will reflow the text instead of changing the font.
You can also link multiple type boxes together to flow text across multiple points on your artboard. Create type objects wherever you want text to be. Add all your copy to the first box. Assuming it overflows, there will be a  symbol in the bottom-right corner of the type box. Click this  symbol and then click the next type box where you want text to flow. Illustrator will flow text through as many type boxes as you link together. | Here's a great article, **["Make Illustrator behave!"](http://www.creativepro.com/article/make-illustrator-behave-)** that explains it all in in full.
Figuring out under what circumstances Illustrator scales the many types of text object and when it scales the bounding box, wrapping the text, is a common frustration.
The differences between the different types of text object in Illustrator are brilliant once you've mastered and made sense of them, but massively frustrating until you do so...
I really recommend taking some time out to go through that article in full. |
11,240,180 | I want to run a .exe file (or) any application from pen drive on insert in to pc. I dont want to use Autorun.inf file, as all anti virus software's blocks it. I have used portable application launcher also, that also using autorun only. so once again anti virus software blocks it. Is there any alternative option, such that .exe file from pen drive should start automatically on pen drive insert? | 2012/06/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11240180",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1487797/"
] | Anti-virus programs block autorun.inf on the solely purpose not to allow some .exe-s to start automatically on pen drive insert. So, basically, what you're asking is impossible. | I havent used Windows in a long time, but I am fairly sure there is a setting in Windows to enable/disable autorunning executeables on mounted drives. That and changing such setting in your antivirus application (or get a new, saner one) would be my best guess.
Good luck! |
151,322 | Recently, I read a lot of good articles about how to do good encapsulation. And when I say "good encapsulation", I am not talking about hiding private fields with public properties; I am talking about preventing users of your API from doing wrong things.
Here are two good articles about this subject:
<http://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/05/24/PokayokeDesignFromSmellToFragrance.aspx>
<http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/03/28/encapsulation-youre-doing-it-wrong/>
At my job, the majority of our applications are not destined for other programmers but rather for the customers.
About 80% of the application code is at the top of the structure (Not used by other code). For this reason, there is probably no chance ever that this code will be used by other application.
An example of encapsulation that prevents users from doing wrong things with your API is returning an IEnumerable instead of IList when you don't want to give the ability to the user to add or remove items in the list.
My question is: When can encapsulation be considered simply OOP purism, keeping in mind that each hour of programming is charged to the customer?
I want to create code that is maintainable and easy to read and use, but when I am not building a public API (to be used by other programmers), where can we draw the line between perfect code and not so perfect code? | 2012/06/02 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/151322",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/44035/"
] | Answer: When you have your interface complete, then automatically you are done with encapsulation. It does not matter if implemenation or consumption part is incomplete, you are done since interface is accepted as final.
**Proper development tools should reduce cost more than tools cost themself.**
You suggest that if encapsulation or whatever property is not relevant to market offer, if customer does not care then the property has no value. Correct. And customer cares nearly about no internal property of code.
So why this and other measurable properties of code exist ? Why deveoper should care ? I think the reason is money as well: any labor intensive and costly work in software development will call for a cure. Encapsulation is targeted not at the customer but at user of library. You saying you do not have external users, but for your own code you yourself are the user number 1.
* If you introduce risk of errors into daily use, then you **increase the cost of development**.
* If you spend on reducing the risk, you will **increase the cost of development**.
Market and evolution keep forcing this choice. Choose the least increase.
This is all understood well. But you are asking about this particular feature. It is not the hardest one to maintain. It is definitely cost effective. But be aware about laws of human nature and economy. Tools have their own market. The labeled cost for some can be $0, but there is always hidden cost in terms of time spent on adoption. And this market is flooded with methodologies and practices with negative value. | Encapsulation exists to protect your class invariants. This is the primary measure for 'how much is enough'. Any way to break invariants breaks class semantics and is bad (tm).
A secondary concern is limiting visibility and as such the number of places that can/will access data and thus increase coupling and/or number of dependencies. This needs to be done with care though. As requirements change, often times that decision to limit what the class exposes leads to awkward hacks to deal with the new requirement.
This though is one of those design concerns that comes with experience. In doubt, favor encapsulation. The concerns are regardless of 'public' API or not. Even for internal code, new or forgetful or sleepy programmers *will* write bad code. If your class needs to be resistant to bad code, then do so. |
151,322 | Recently, I read a lot of good articles about how to do good encapsulation. And when I say "good encapsulation", I am not talking about hiding private fields with public properties; I am talking about preventing users of your API from doing wrong things.
Here are two good articles about this subject:
<http://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/05/24/PokayokeDesignFromSmellToFragrance.aspx>
<http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/03/28/encapsulation-youre-doing-it-wrong/>
At my job, the majority of our applications are not destined for other programmers but rather for the customers.
About 80% of the application code is at the top of the structure (Not used by other code). For this reason, there is probably no chance ever that this code will be used by other application.
An example of encapsulation that prevents users from doing wrong things with your API is returning an IEnumerable instead of IList when you don't want to give the ability to the user to add or remove items in the list.
My question is: When can encapsulation be considered simply OOP purism, keeping in mind that each hour of programming is charged to the customer?
I want to create code that is maintainable and easy to read and use, but when I am not building a public API (to be used by other programmers), where can we draw the line between perfect code and not so perfect code? | 2012/06/02 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/151322",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/44035/"
] | The fact that your code is not being written as a public API is not really the point--the maintainability you mention is.
Yes, application development is a cost center, and the customer does not want to pay for unnecessary work. However, a badly designed or implemented application is going to cost the customer a lot more money when they decide that it needs another feature, or (as will certainly happen) the business rules change. Good OO principles are there because they help make it safer to modify and append the code base.
So, the customer may not directly care what your code looks like, but the next guy who has to modify it certainly will. If the encapsulation (as you're defining it) is not there, it's going to take him a lot longer and be much riskier for him to do what he needs to do to serve the customer's needs. | Encapsulation exists to protect your class invariants. This is the primary measure for 'how much is enough'. Any way to break invariants breaks class semantics and is bad (tm).
A secondary concern is limiting visibility and as such the number of places that can/will access data and thus increase coupling and/or number of dependencies. This needs to be done with care though. As requirements change, often times that decision to limit what the class exposes leads to awkward hacks to deal with the new requirement.
This though is one of those design concerns that comes with experience. In doubt, favor encapsulation. The concerns are regardless of 'public' API or not. Even for internal code, new or forgetful or sleepy programmers *will* write bad code. If your class needs to be resistant to bad code, then do so. |
230,264 | I was reading about CMS and ERP. And got confused at this point that whether a system can both be an ERP and a CMS? is it possible? | 2014/02/25 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/230264",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/121236/"
] | Sure - you can program whatever you like. Whether it makes any sense is a different question.
As for whether having an ERP/CMS hybrid makes sense or already exists - I don't think so. There are some vague similarities and overlaps in that both will typically allow you to define your own entities with fields ("document types" in a CMS, "business objects" in an ERP) and present a web interface for data entry and publishing, but at heart they have completely different purposes. | An example, though maybe a contrived one but one I encounterd in the wild a long time ago:
An application was built that would store incoming documents pertaining to required reports sent in by customers of a financial services company.
The same application also served to automatically send out reminder letters to customers who were late sending in those documents, and as an entry point for the telephone support people in the company to look up customer information if customer called (or had to be called).
In that case both functionalities were closely intertwined. In other systems both functionalities might exist but not be as tightly linked (think something like SAP or Lotus Notes). |
230,264 | I was reading about CMS and ERP. And got confused at this point that whether a system can both be an ERP and a CMS? is it possible? | 2014/02/25 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/230264",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/121236/"
] | In a very theoretical sense yes. But in most cases this would not make very much sense. The basic functionality of an ERP system is business management. The data produced here may become part of the data displayed on a web site. But normally the data here is pure text and numbers, like definitions of products, orders, invoices and some statistical information.
An CMS main task is to provide information in a way that not only the content as such can be edited but often enough the representation and styling too. Its functionality is much more limited and the amount of data normally far less than in an ERP system.
In our company for example all our product and customer data is kept in an ERP system. Customers can login and search products, order them and see shipment and invoice data. All this they get directly from the ERP system. Some information in the ERP is specifically there for the web site (for example our product categories for the web site are slightly different from those used internally for statistical purposes). But this data is purely information. In theory this ERP system would have a lot of options to store even more information, even combined with some styling information. We don't use this.
Information that we do not actually need for business purposes is edited in a small CMS system for the web site. This includes things like a news section, some pages with company information and similar more text/style oriented data. We could store this in the ERP too, there are tables for such things, but it is more effort to code in the ERP area and then we would have more effort to display on the web. | An example, though maybe a contrived one but one I encounterd in the wild a long time ago:
An application was built that would store incoming documents pertaining to required reports sent in by customers of a financial services company.
The same application also served to automatically send out reminder letters to customers who were late sending in those documents, and as an entry point for the telephone support people in the company to look up customer information if customer called (or had to be called).
In that case both functionalities were closely intertwined. In other systems both functionalities might exist but not be as tightly linked (think something like SAP or Lotus Notes). |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 0