Datasets:

IndonesiaAI

/

cleaned-data-split-0

like 1

I'm working with a site with member accounts. Those accounts can have credits attached (say from a referral incentive, a voucher, or a prize). The credits can then be spent in the site's shop - they're a dollar value in the same currency the site uses. I am wondering how to handle a user closing their account while it is still in credit - what will users expect to happen? I can think of two possible solutions: 1. **Warn the user that closing their account will forfeit their credit** (throw their credit away) *Obviously the simplest, but I wonder if it's too unfriendly.* 2. **Don't allow the user to close their account while it has a credit balance** (make them spend it). *I think this is a non-starter because the balance may be too low to actually buy anything outright, which would mean that they'd need to spend their own money to close their account.* Am I missing anything? What would you expect to happen in this situation? **There are a lot of great responses to this question below.** I've accepted one that suits my situation, but others would be very viable on different sites/services.

2018/06/27

While the existing thoughts here are well, there are legal dimensions that may redefine everything you're thinking about — and complicating #1 Credits, in some states, are like gift cards. The value cannot expire and you cannot just drop it without giving the person a way to transfer it into a 'movable' form - like a physical card, voucher, etc. If you are operating with exposure to states that have this legislation, then you will need to solve that (as a business) and work it into the information in your account-close UX. You may be able to tell the user it will be (e)mailed to them, if your business can secure a relationship with a gift card and coupon provider that includes this physical card / e-card service. (obviously that service cost may make the value of the credit to be cancelled insofar as your profit margins, but that is the cost of doing business, in states with such laws, and given you grant the user these small forms of credit)

Why not throw in a third choice: *#3* - Close the account and generate a one-time use coupon code with the credit balance value (and e-mail it to the user). If the user decides to come back he/she can top his/her account up with the coupon code.

I'm working with a site with member accounts. Those accounts can have credits attached (say from a referral incentive, a voucher, or a prize). The credits can then be spent in the site's shop - they're a dollar value in the same currency the site uses. I am wondering how to handle a user closing their account while it is still in credit - what will users expect to happen? I can think of two possible solutions: 1. **Warn the user that closing their account will forfeit their credit** (throw their credit away) *Obviously the simplest, but I wonder if it's too unfriendly.* 2. **Don't allow the user to close their account while it has a credit balance** (make them spend it). *I think this is a non-starter because the balance may be too low to actually buy anything outright, which would mean that they'd need to spend their own money to close their account.* Am I missing anything? What would you expect to happen in this situation? **There are a lot of great responses to this question below.** I've accepted one that suits my situation, but others would be very viable on different sites/services.

2018/06/27

I'll offer another option that hasn't been suggested. If a user wishes to close their account, just *disable* it rather than deleting it. The account and all of its credits remain intact, but it is locked away somewhere where it is not used or accessed. If the user chooses to come back to the site, they can reactivate the account and regain all of their credits. If someone really wishes to have all of their information deleted, that's when you go with Option #1, and make them confirm that that's what they really want to do. As for retaining the information in the disabled user accounts, you may have to consider data privacy and GDPR (which I honestly don't understand well enough to know if they would even apply). One option is to tell users that a disabled account will be deleted after X amount of time.

If a user wants to close their account, assign the credit to the e-mail address. Whenever they decide to sign up again (same e-mail address), assign this credit back to their account. Notify them before closing their account.

I'm working with a site with member accounts. Those accounts can have credits attached (say from a referral incentive, a voucher, or a prize). The credits can then be spent in the site's shop - they're a dollar value in the same currency the site uses. I am wondering how to handle a user closing their account while it is still in credit - what will users expect to happen? I can think of two possible solutions: 1. **Warn the user that closing their account will forfeit their credit** (throw their credit away) *Obviously the simplest, but I wonder if it's too unfriendly.* 2. **Don't allow the user to close their account while it has a credit balance** (make them spend it). *I think this is a non-starter because the balance may be too low to actually buy anything outright, which would mean that they'd need to spend their own money to close their account.* Am I missing anything? What would you expect to happen in this situation? **There are a lot of great responses to this question below.** I've accepted one that suits my situation, but others would be very viable on different sites/services.

2018/06/27

Why not throw in a third choice: *#3* - Close the account and generate a one-time use coupon code with the credit balance value (and e-mail it to the user). If the user decides to come back he/she can top his/her account up with the coupon code.

First, you have State laws. In some cases you are not allowed to extinguish (read: pocket) stored value, nor are you allowed to have the same effect by "nibbling it down" with monthly, storage or inactivity fees. For instance that applies to pretty much every retail gift card (McDonalds, Target, AMC theaters, etc. Because they have presence in at least one State with those laws. Your customer could move to such a State, and now you are up the creek. For instance his IP is now coming from Poland, and now he's under EU laws. You must comply with the most restrictive laws of any State in which you hope to draw customers. After that, listen to Customer Service -------------------------------------- They've dealt with customers in the past, and they know which method is going to cause the minimum friction, user rage, and social media blowback. Those things are important. But still, have "delete" functionally be a "suspend" ---------------------------------------------------- I certainly recommend that when someone "deletes" their account, that you simply flag it deleted. This is normal; even MS-DOS didn't eradicate a deleted file, they simply marked it deleted and otherwise left the file there. **This protects YOU** from the consequences of a prank or malicious account deletion. It also protects the user from an emotional "ragequit" that he later regrets. For instance, in Blizzard games, you can delete your account all day, but the hewn-over-years progression of your characters is not deleted, and you can "undelete" your account almost as easily as logging in again. To truly obliterate the account, you need to delete, wait out a 30-day cooling-off period, then send CS a bunch of documentation to prove who you are. It's too much trouble; if they get 10 of those a month, I would be shocked. *And even then* I bet if someone made a good case to CS that their PvP enemy had forged all that, there's a backup tape somewhere they could fish the data back out of. Mind you, retaining your account's *in-game data* is not the same as retaining the customer's PII. Here's what is not PII: the fact that you have 6 of 8 pieces of the Legionkiller armor, 40 stacks of Mithril ore in your bags, or 1.2 million gold in your bank. (In at least some Blizzard games, it's difficult and extremely circuitous to convert cash to game gold.) Even if you needed their PII to reinstate their account, nothing says you can't take the PII you already have, normalise it, take salted MD5s of it (in several slice directions) and store that. Now to reclaim their account they need to be able to repeat back the PII they gave you before and one of the sliced MD5s has to match up. Suspension is incentive to return --------------------------------- Why does Blizzard and other MMO platforms go to all the trouble of disabling, not deleting? Because they know your progression is an incentive to return -- just knowing that you can pick up where you left off, rather than starting from scratch in another game.

I'm working with a site with member accounts. Those accounts can have credits attached (say from a referral incentive, a voucher, or a prize). The credits can then be spent in the site's shop - they're a dollar value in the same currency the site uses. I am wondering how to handle a user closing their account while it is still in credit - what will users expect to happen? I can think of two possible solutions: 1. **Warn the user that closing their account will forfeit their credit** (throw their credit away) *Obviously the simplest, but I wonder if it's too unfriendly.* 2. **Don't allow the user to close their account while it has a credit balance** (make them spend it). *I think this is a non-starter because the balance may be too low to actually buy anything outright, which would mean that they'd need to spend their own money to close their account.* Am I missing anything? What would you expect to happen in this situation? **There are a lot of great responses to this question below.** I've accepted one that suits my situation, but others would be very viable on different sites/services.

2018/06/27

I would go with the first Option "Warn the user that closing their account will forfeit their credit" but as you mentioned this might create frustration when it comes to real money, even its only cents. You can reduce this frustration by donating the money to a charity, therefore you can reinforce your brand image also users don't feel like they are throwing away their money, so you convert a negative action to a positive one.

I'll offer another option that hasn't been suggested. If a user wishes to close their account, just *disable* it rather than deleting it. The account and all of its credits remain intact, but it is locked away somewhere where it is not used or accessed. If the user chooses to come back to the site, they can reactivate the account and regain all of their credits. If someone really wishes to have all of their information deleted, that's when you go with Option #1, and make them confirm that that's what they really want to do. As for retaining the information in the disabled user accounts, you may have to consider data privacy and GDPR (which I honestly don't understand well enough to know if they would even apply). One option is to tell users that a disabled account will be deleted after X amount of time.

Plants turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen, that is not a greenhouse gas. But Carbon Dioxide is. Therefore, wouldn't plants cool the area?

2018/05/29

Both mega-annum(Ma) and mega-year(Myr) designate one million years. The distinction is that Ma is used to designate the time before present or geohistoric dates and Myr to designate a duration or span of time. So if you want to say a rock is dated to 10 million years before the present you would use 10 Ma, and if you want to say that a rock is 10 million years old you would use 10 Myr. There has been debate among scientific disciplines to simply adopt Ma as the standard unit. However, the distinction that geologists have been using to distinguish between dates and durations for decades can best be illustrated as such: > > No one objects to the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 (a > date) or to the construction of Stonehenge from 2600–1600 BC (an > interval specified by two dates). In the case of the latter, we say > that the job took 1000 years, not 1000 BC. The distinction between > geohistorical dates and spans of geological time is conceptually > analogous. There is no internal inconsistency, and the International > System of Units (SI) rules don’t apply to dates in either case because > points in time are not units, even if they are specified in years > (Aubry et al., 2009). The year, moreover, is not a part of the SI. It > cannot be a “derived unit of time,” the designation proposed by the > task group, because under SI conventions “derived units are products > of powers of base units” (BIPM, 2006). The base unit for time is the > second. The task group is thus intent on fixing a problem that doesn’t > exist and in a manner that is at odds with their stated goal of > “adherence to SI rules.” > > > The above quote is from the [Geological Time Conventions and Symbols manuscript](http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/2/article/i1052-5173-22-2-28.htm) from 2011. More detailed discussion can be found at this source. This [Science Blogs article](http://scienceblogs.com/stressrelated/2009/09/21/how-should-geologists-abbrevia/) from 2009 has some interesting discussions regarding this issue.

Annum and year are not the exact same thing. The exact length of a year depends on what exactly you are measuring, whether distance between perihelions, distance between solstices, etc. It also varies because of the gravitation of other planets. These effects are minor, but enough that measuring units of years is tricky. So an annum is defined as 31,557,600 seconds exactly.

Plants turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen, that is not a greenhouse gas. But Carbon Dioxide is. Therefore, wouldn't plants cool the area?

2018/05/29

**annum (ka, Ma, Ga)** Time before present. A point of time in the geological past, measured backwards from now. Often, “now” is defined as the year 1950. **year (kyr, Myr, Gyr)** A measure of duration, not necessarily age and not necessarily measured from the present time. **examples** 1. The fossil is dated to 110±2 Ma. 2. According to zircon dating, the granite crystallised at ~30 Ma. 3. The volcano was erupting intermittently for 10 kyr. 4. The Jurassic period lasted for 56 Myr, starting at 201 Ma and 145 Ma. 5. The Jurassic period lasted for 56 Myr, starting 201 Myr ago and ending 145 Myr ago.

Annum and year are not the exact same thing. The exact length of a year depends on what exactly you are measuring, whether distance between perihelions, distance between solstices, etc. It also varies because of the gravitation of other planets. These effects are minor, but enough that measuring units of years is tricky. So an annum is defined as 31,557,600 seconds exactly.

How can I remove pimples on my face? Sometimes these pimples clearly appear on my face.So I can't makeup on any event. You can tell me how can remove it.

2018/11/27

It would be nice to have more information about your problem. Do you have them how often? They're inflamed bumps or white heads? Either way, I suggest you to find a dermatologist. It's the only way you can discover the source of your skin condition. Until then I can give you some advice on skin care: > > Previous Care: You need to care for your skin even if it's not affected by acne on that moment. > > > HYDRATE YOUR SKIN: Even if you have oily skin, it's important to moisturizer your skin. You need to choose the best product for your skin type and sometimes you'll need even more than one. For example: you can have oily skin on your forehead and dry skin on your cheeks, in that case, you need to use two different moisturizer to get a better result. Hydrating your skin will improve skin elasticity, prevent lesions and improve appearance. Drinking water is also a great factor and will help your skin clear out if you're already experiencing pimples and acne. SUN PROTECTION: Use sunscreen even if you're not going to leave the house. The sun is a good helper to kill bacteria that are on top of your skin but long time exposure can cause damage and will make your skin more prone to inflamed acne. Choose your sunscreen according with your skin type and try to apply it everyday. DON'T TOUCH: I don't know if this is your situation, but picking at a pimple does not go well with healing it. Try to not touch your face with your fingers during the day and try to keep your hands as clean as possible. Don't pop your pimples! If you have hair touching your face, like bangs or so, try to use them tied with a hairgrip away from your skin. If you have pimples near your hair roots maybe you should increase the number of hair washes per week. MAKEUP: If you use makeup on a daily basis, it's essential to wash it all off on the end of the day. Use a face-only soap and cloth. It's hard to accept it but you shouldn't use makeup on top of your acne or inflamed pimples. There's makeup made for this purpose, but cream-based makeup should be away from pimples. > > Breakout: When the pimples are red and inflamed. Don't pop them! Bacteria from your fingernails and even the ones that live on top of your skin may enter your organism when you squeeze pimples. Try to not touch them and use some anti-acne gel to dry the pimple. These kind of products can be recommended by a dermatologist. If the area is too painful and inflamed, you can apply a cold compress directly on the affected area. > > > Aftermath: To decrease scarring, don't pick the scars or the affected area. Protect the skin from the sun so It doesn't get darker. Get in touch with a dermatologist to see what you can do about acne scars. > > > Skin conditions as health indicators: Sometimes pimples can mean other health issues so it's important that you seek medical advice. Acne can be caused by hormonal changes, skin conditions, food intolerance, etc. > > >

Take one piece of garlic and rub it on pimples for two minutes then you will see the 50 % result in just two minutes.

I am trying to understand in a rigorous way why an object falls over when its COM falls outside its base of support. The following picture illustrates in crude terms why the center-of-mass causes an object to topple. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pe49E.png) From what I can tell, an essential aspect of this seems to be the ease with which a given physical system acquires potential energy in such a way that it will change states. For instance, consider this example with a refrigerator [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7Uc1T.png) Notice, in Case A, the normal force and the force of gravity offset each other and consequently, the refrigerator remains at rest. In Case B, the refrigerator does have potential energy but it will likely fall back into its original position. By contrast, in case C, the refrigerator is tilted enough it will likely fall over and lay on its side and will not return to its original position. These examples can also be seen in the following YouTube Video: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ISKx0.png) Source: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rG9u478X1Q> Now, my issue is, I want an example that's a bit more rigorous. In particular, I would like an example of a system like the cars above but that is describable using dynamical systems terminology. One simple example of a dynamical system I am familiar with is a pendulum. The phase space diagram for a dampened pendulum is as follows: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PLv8a.png) Can someone provide me with an example of a system like the refrigerator or the cars above that is describable using dynamical systems terminology?

2022/03/24

First of all electrons have negative charge while positrons have a positive charge so from the start they both have a fixed quantum number attached to them that differentiates them. Second they never occupy a single state in that process, they literally cease to exist while becoming photons (radiation). In the process certain quantum numbers are *conserved* but that does not imply by any means that the original particles are sharing a quantum state.

The answer is that they do not occupy the same state. The state would be defined by them having exactly the same quantum numbers but trivially one of the quantum numbers for these two particles is different: Charge. Another way to see thins is two phrase the pauli exclusion principle: Two **identical** Fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state at the same time. But here this is not the case, by for example applying an electric field you can easily differentiate between the two fermions and so they are not identical so the pauli exclusion principle does not hold. On a separate note you might have gotten the electron falling into the nucleus argument mixed up with something. As far as I am aware there is no link between that and the pauli exclusion principle at all as the particles making up the core are definitely not identical to electrons. Instead the normal argument for this is given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, telling you that you can not measure both the momentum and position of a particle at the same time with arbitrary precission. As such if the electron where to fall into the core it's position would be "measured" very precisely and thus the uncertainty in momentum explodes, such that the electron "flies" out of the core. The stable orbit of the electron is where this effect exactly balances the electromagnetic force between core and electron. Now note that this is wildly simplified as Quantmmechanics have all sorts of subtelties but this still gives an intuitive explanation.

I have a dataset of 30 social variables such as Facebook Likes, Posts, Comments, etc. I would like to see if these variables predict Website Views. MY problem is I only have 3 months of data- or 3 data points. Thus I have a 3 by 30 dataset. My question is, how do I model with such few data points but lots of variables? In addition, I would love a resource that walks through regression in R. My data does not even remotely look linear, so I don't know what to do next. Suggestions?

2016/04/21

You have insufficient data. Start with the [Rules of thumb for minimum sample size for multiple regression](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/10079/rules-of-thumb-for-minimum-sample-size-for-multiple-regression) thread, with thirty variables you would need at least a few hundred samples. With three samples, you could try fitting a model with one parameter, intercept-only model, i.e. calculate the mean of the dependent variable, but still, three samples would be very little for this as well.

Yes, as Nick mentions, it is definitely a stretch for using models with assumptions. If you just want to predict, I would suggest that you use nearest neighbor method as a non-parametric method for prediction. If you have little more points, you can use partial least squares (PLS) if more variables than data points. As pointed out by others, three data points is too few for developing a regression model. I would suggest to collect at least 20 data points to run a regression model.

What happens when I play Procession and use Throne Room as an action card affected by Procession? Let me give you an example. I have a hand of: * Procession * Throne room * Bridge * Village * Silver I play Throne room within Procession and then: 1. Do I play only one action card in Throne room, e.g. Bridge, and it is played 4 times (Throne room played twice, both with Bridge inside) or 2. Do I play two action cards in Throne room, e.g. I use Bridge in first play of Throne room and then Bridge is used and when I play Throne room for the second time I have to use Village (my only action card left)? In other words: does Procession treat an action card in Throne room as one card (as we usually do when we play Throne room) or not?

2013/01/24

The Procession rules state: > > If you Procession a Procession, you will play one Action twice, trash > it, gain an Action card costing more, then play another Action twice, > trash it, gain an Action card costing more, then trash the Procession > and gain an Action costing more than it. > > > There is no reason to assume that Throne Rooming a Procession would behave any differently: they both allow you to "play an Action card from your hand twice". So your second scenario is correct: you would play two different action cards twice, not one action card four times over.

Regardless of whether you throne room your procession, or procession your throne room, you'll play the bridge and village twice if you play them. Some key things to note: * If you Throne Room first you will play Procession twice, trashing both the village (getting a 4 cost) and bridge ( getting a printed 5 cost card, see below.) * If you Procession the throne room, you will play the village and bridge twice, and then trash the throne room (getting a printed 5 cost card, see below.) * Bridge's effect will go off twice, reducing the cost of all cards by two, but this is largely irrelevant, unless you play a BUNCH of bridges, or procession something really cheap like Poor House (cost 1). If you do manage to play enough bridges, to reduce the processioned card to cost 0 you'll then trash it for something costing 1, which can get wacky if you play enough bridges. * You do not have to reveal your hand but only procession includes a "you may" clause. If you Throne room your procession you don't have to play the bridge or village if you don't want to. You could throne room your procession, playing procession twice for no effect if you wanted. However if you Procession your throne room, you would have to play 2 action cards twice for throne rooms effect.

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

After some more researching, I found an interesting post on [GameFAQs](http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/699808-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/71828230?page=3#35), namely: > > I spent a while on this. I searched everything and even fought it once. I had to reread my bestiary to trigger the body burning interaction. > > > And sure enough, after reading the bestiary entry for the Devil by the Well (again), a cutscene was triggered and now I can burn the skeleton instead of just examining it. --- ### TL;DR Read the bestiary ***after*** reading the diary, finding the bracelet, and pulling out the skeleton.

I just completed this quest last night. It sounds like you did some stuff out of order and maybe that's gummed up the works. When I arrived at the village I had already spoken to the quest giver and then I used witcher senses to discover the diary and pull up the skeleton before entering the well. You're prompted to jump into the well at that point. I'm thinking that now that you've recovered the skeleton you need to go back into the well to advance things properly so you can have the cutscene where Geralt lights the remains and bracelet on fire.

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

I too got bugged up on this quest as I stumbled on the village just exploring. I looted all the buildings and without much thought tried to jump in the well and subsequently found the bracelet. Then spent hours running around in circles trying to find evidence of the wraith after I went and talk to the guy. Turns out I needed to go back and encounter the wraith at Noon for our first confrontation. which I did. Then the entries showed up in my bestiary and I could read them and everything worked from there as advertised. Thanks for the lead!

I just completed this quest last night. It sounds like you did some stuff out of order and maybe that's gummed up the works. When I arrived at the village I had already spoken to the quest giver and then I used witcher senses to discover the diary and pull up the skeleton before entering the well. You're prompted to jump into the well at that point. I'm thinking that now that you've recovered the skeleton you need to go back into the well to advance things properly so you can have the cutscene where Geralt lights the remains and bracelet on fire.

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

After some more researching, I found an interesting post on [GameFAQs](http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/699808-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/71828230?page=3#35), namely: > > I spent a while on this. I searched everything and even fought it once. I had to reread my bestiary to trigger the body burning interaction. > > > And sure enough, after reading the bestiary entry for the Devil by the Well (again), a cutscene was triggered and now I can burn the skeleton instead of just examining it. --- ### TL;DR Read the bestiary ***after*** reading the diary, finding the bracelet, and pulling out the skeleton.

Hm. I summoned the Noonwraith by burning the corpse, not by returning at noon - seems like your quest might be bugged. From my journal, it seems that the steps to completion are as follows: * Ask Odolan about the contract. * Find the spirit that haunts the well. * Use your Witcher Senses to examine the well. * Find evidence of the spirit's presence using your Witcher Senses. * Read the entry about noonwraiths in the Bestiary. * Find out what binds the noonwraith to the ruined village. * Go down the well and look for something that belonged to the dead woman using your Witcher Senses. * Find a way out of the cave. * Leave the cave. * Prepare to fight the noonwraith and light a fire near the well. * Light a fire to destroy the noonwraith's bones and bracelet. * Defeat the noonwraith. * Take a trophy from the noonwraith. * Return to Odolan for a reward. Sounds like you're bugged (as you say) at finding the bracelet. What does your journal currently say you've completed?

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

I too got bugged up on this quest as I stumbled on the village just exploring. I looted all the buildings and without much thought tried to jump in the well and subsequently found the bracelet. Then spent hours running around in circles trying to find evidence of the wraith after I went and talk to the guy. Turns out I needed to go back and encounter the wraith at Noon for our first confrontation. which I did. Then the entries showed up in my bestiary and I could read them and everything worked from there as advertised. Thanks for the lead!

Hm. I summoned the Noonwraith by burning the corpse, not by returning at noon - seems like your quest might be bugged. From my journal, it seems that the steps to completion are as follows: * Ask Odolan about the contract. * Find the spirit that haunts the well. * Use your Witcher Senses to examine the well. * Find evidence of the spirit's presence using your Witcher Senses. * Read the entry about noonwraiths in the Bestiary. * Find out what binds the noonwraith to the ruined village. * Go down the well and look for something that belonged to the dead woman using your Witcher Senses. * Find a way out of the cave. * Leave the cave. * Prepare to fight the noonwraith and light a fire near the well. * Light a fire to destroy the noonwraith's bones and bracelet. * Defeat the noonwraith. * Take a trophy from the noonwraith. * Return to Odolan for a reward. Sounds like you're bugged (as you say) at finding the bracelet. What does your journal currently say you've completed?

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

After some more researching, I found an interesting post on [GameFAQs](http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/699808-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/71828230?page=3#35), namely: > > I spent a while on this. I searched everything and even fought it once. I had to reread my bestiary to trigger the body burning interaction. > > > And sure enough, after reading the bestiary entry for the Devil by the Well (again), a cutscene was triggered and now I can burn the skeleton instead of just examining it. --- ### TL;DR Read the bestiary ***after*** reading the diary, finding the bracelet, and pulling out the skeleton.

I too got bugged up on this quest as I stumbled on the village just exploring. I looted all the buildings and without much thought tried to jump in the well and subsequently found the bracelet. Then spent hours running around in circles trying to find evidence of the wraith after I went and talk to the guy. Turns out I needed to go back and encounter the wraith at Noon for our first confrontation. which I did. Then the entries showed up in my bestiary and I could read them and everything worked from there as advertised. Thanks for the lead!

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

After some more researching, I found an interesting post on [GameFAQs](http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/699808-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/71828230?page=3#35), namely: > > I spent a while on this. I searched everything and even fought it once. I had to reread my bestiary to trigger the body burning interaction. > > > And sure enough, after reading the bestiary entry for the Devil by the Well (again), a cutscene was triggered and now I can burn the skeleton instead of just examining it. --- ### TL;DR Read the bestiary ***after*** reading the diary, finding the bracelet, and pulling out the skeleton.

You have to enter the well to retrieve the bracelet. It's almost right where you land after jumping down. Use your Witcher sense - the red object is likely to be the whole left arm, climb up some where cross over the other pond and swim all the way the other end to surface up. Swim quickly as you'll run out of breathe and die. I had the problem of noonwraith disappearing, so I ran away far enough that the game prompted me to go back to the well and dotted line on the mini map to guide me back, wraith reappeared and killed it.

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

After some more researching, I found an interesting post on [GameFAQs](http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/699808-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/71828230?page=3#35), namely: > > I spent a while on this. I searched everything and even fought it once. I had to reread my bestiary to trigger the body burning interaction. > > > And sure enough, after reading the bestiary entry for the Devil by the Well (again), a cutscene was triggered and now I can burn the skeleton instead of just examining it. --- ### TL;DR Read the bestiary ***after*** reading the diary, finding the bracelet, and pulling out the skeleton.

to stop the disappearing use the sign that sets the trap. the wraith will turn to human form. read this in the diary, found after looting the near by houses. I cannot find the ingredient for the potion that should be taking before fighting the wraith.In the bestiary, when clicking on the wraith, there's a drop down that shows the 3 items to make it easier to beat the wraith.

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

I too got bugged up on this quest as I stumbled on the village just exploring. I looted all the buildings and without much thought tried to jump in the well and subsequently found the bracelet. Then spent hours running around in circles trying to find evidence of the wraith after I went and talk to the guy. Turns out I needed to go back and encounter the wraith at Noon for our first confrontation. which I did. Then the entries showed up in my bestiary and I could read them and everything worked from there as advertised. Thanks for the lead!

You have to enter the well to retrieve the bracelet. It's almost right where you land after jumping down. Use your Witcher sense - the red object is likely to be the whole left arm, climb up some where cross over the other pond and swim all the way the other end to surface up. Swim quickly as you'll run out of breathe and die. I had the problem of noonwraith disappearing, so I ran away far enough that the game prompted me to go back to the well and dotted line on the mini map to guide me back, wraith reappeared and killed it.

When I'm riding the horse in Witcher 3, the camera keeps sliding up so that I'm eventually facing downwards, and can barely see what's in front of me. I'm playing the game on PC but with an Xbox 360 controller. Anyone know why it's doing this, and how I can fix it? Something I noticed. Normally, on PC, you can switch between keyboard and controller very easily. If you are using the controller and you hit a key on the keyboard, the icons will change to keyboard icons. But once the aforementioned bug happens (it doesn't happen immediately when loading a save), then the icons no longer switch between controller and keyboard. So it seems like that is related. So loading a save seems to fix it, at least temporarily.

2015/05/24

I too got bugged up on this quest as I stumbled on the village just exploring. I looted all the buildings and without much thought tried to jump in the well and subsequently found the bracelet. Then spent hours running around in circles trying to find evidence of the wraith after I went and talk to the guy. Turns out I needed to go back and encounter the wraith at Noon for our first confrontation. which I did. Then the entries showed up in my bestiary and I could read them and everything worked from there as advertised. Thanks for the lead!

to stop the disappearing use the sign that sets the trap. the wraith will turn to human form. read this in the diary, found after looting the near by houses. I cannot find the ingredient for the potion that should be taking before fighting the wraith.In the bestiary, when clicking on the wraith, there's a drop down that shows the 3 items to make it easier to beat the wraith.

I am planning to buy a bench drill (something like [that one](http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?sku=1075578)) to make small hole, 0.5-1.0 mm. I recently used a Bosh drill and 1mm steel drill bit to make a hole on a FP4 fiberglass board, but the drill bit broke on the second hole drilling process. Now, I will buy 0.6 mm drill bit but I am not sure what material it needs to be. Could anyone who knows these equipment tell me what material the drill bit should be made of, so that I can use the same drill bit for long? and what do you think about "Tungsten Carbide"?

2013/06/23

Whatever size drill press you use, from a small Dremel press mount to a floor-standing shop drill press, you want to make sure that the chuck does not wobble. I originally used a cheap benchtop drill press, but the chuck wobbles about 1/64" (.4 mm), which is inadequate for most PCB drilling.  You should look for **carbide** bits instead of high speed steel (HSS). Tungsten carbide is great for PCB, but they are brittle. They won't become dull as quickly when drilling FR4 PCB material. Having a good press that doesn't wobble helps a lot in avoiding broken bits. For holes < 1mm, sometimes even the Dremel can be too unsteady, and break bits. You might want to look for a "jewelers drill press" which is designed for small precision work. One example is the [Microlux mini drill press that Micro Mark sells](http://www.micromark.com/microlux-3-speed-mini-drill-press,7797.html), though you can find similar ones for sale on eBay. 

I have exactly same PROXXON bench drill at home. Most of the times I drill with [0.65mm HAM 380](http://www.ham-tools.com/fileadmin/templates_ham/Download/HAM_Prima.pdf) (cost about 5 EUR). It feels like it can stay sharp forever. In my experience it was like new with over 500 holes. I have broke few drill bits as well, but it was just my fault. Also I have found that it's quite uncomfortable to use [collet set](http://uk.farnell.com/proxxon/28940/collet-set-steel-1-3-2mm-6pc/dp/1075634), so you may want to consider buying [Proxxon Drill Chuck (28122)](https://www.proxxon.com/en/micromot/28128.php?search#28122) as well.

I am planning to buy a bench drill (something like [that one](http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?sku=1075578)) to make small hole, 0.5-1.0 mm. I recently used a Bosh drill and 1mm steel drill bit to make a hole on a FP4 fiberglass board, but the drill bit broke on the second hole drilling process. Now, I will buy 0.6 mm drill bit but I am not sure what material it needs to be. Could anyone who knows these equipment tell me what material the drill bit should be made of, so that I can use the same drill bit for long? and what do you think about "Tungsten Carbide"?

2013/06/23

Whatever size drill press you use, from a small Dremel press mount to a floor-standing shop drill press, you want to make sure that the chuck does not wobble. I originally used a cheap benchtop drill press, but the chuck wobbles about 1/64" (.4 mm), which is inadequate for most PCB drilling.  You should look for **carbide** bits instead of high speed steel (HSS). Tungsten carbide is great for PCB, but they are brittle. They won't become dull as quickly when drilling FR4 PCB material. Having a good press that doesn't wobble helps a lot in avoiding broken bits. For holes < 1mm, sometimes even the Dremel can be too unsteady, and break bits. You might want to look for a "jewelers drill press" which is designed for small precision work. One example is the [Microlux mini drill press that Micro Mark sells](http://www.micromark.com/microlux-3-speed-mini-drill-press,7797.html), though you can find similar ones for sale on eBay. 

Whatever the material, make sure you use a drill press to make the holes. Without a drill press, the slightest bump will break the drill. That is probably what happened in your case. That is specially true for carbide drill bits, that are really brittle. As a hobbist, I use a Dremel Workstation 220 (drill press adapter for Dremels) with 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0mm high speed steel (HSS) for drilling holes on phenolic boards and I'm yet to break a drill while drilling boards (have drilled several thousand of holes). I have, however, broke one HSS drill bit in my fingernail when I touched it while trying to clean the board. That was a vivid lesson not to submit drill bits to any lateral forces while the drill is on. Also a lesson to take more care while operating power tools. HSS are only good for phenolic boards, though. They aren't good for fiberglass boards at all. They loose the cutting edge after a handful of holes. Use carbide drill bits for fiberglass boards.

I am planning to buy a bench drill (something like [that one](http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?sku=1075578)) to make small hole, 0.5-1.0 mm. I recently used a Bosh drill and 1mm steel drill bit to make a hole on a FP4 fiberglass board, but the drill bit broke on the second hole drilling process. Now, I will buy 0.6 mm drill bit but I am not sure what material it needs to be. Could anyone who knows these equipment tell me what material the drill bit should be made of, so that I can use the same drill bit for long? and what do you think about "Tungsten Carbide"?

2013/06/23

I have exactly same PROXXON bench drill at home. Most of the times I drill with [0.65mm HAM 380](http://www.ham-tools.com/fileadmin/templates_ham/Download/HAM_Prima.pdf) (cost about 5 EUR). It feels like it can stay sharp forever. In my experience it was like new with over 500 holes. I have broke few drill bits as well, but it was just my fault. Also I have found that it's quite uncomfortable to use [collet set](http://uk.farnell.com/proxxon/28940/collet-set-steel-1-3-2mm-6pc/dp/1075634), so you may want to consider buying [Proxxon Drill Chuck (28122)](https://www.proxxon.com/en/micromot/28128.php?search#28122) as well.

Whatever the material, make sure you use a drill press to make the holes. Without a drill press, the slightest bump will break the drill. That is probably what happened in your case. That is specially true for carbide drill bits, that are really brittle. As a hobbist, I use a Dremel Workstation 220 (drill press adapter for Dremels) with 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0mm high speed steel (HSS) for drilling holes on phenolic boards and I'm yet to break a drill while drilling boards (have drilled several thousand of holes). I have, however, broke one HSS drill bit in my fingernail when I touched it while trying to clean the board. That was a vivid lesson not to submit drill bits to any lateral forces while the drill is on. Also a lesson to take more care while operating power tools. HSS are only good for phenolic boards, though. They aren't good for fiberglass boards at all. They loose the cutting edge after a handful of holes. Use carbide drill bits for fiberglass boards.

I remember reading that Jacobi once said: > > If Cauchy says he proved something, you can be 50% sure that he actually did. If Gauss says he proved something, you can be mostly sure that he actually did. But if (insert name) says he proved something, then you can be 100% sure that he actually did. > > > Does someone remember the exact names and the exact quote? Thanks!

2020/01/12

I suppose that you have [this quotation](http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Quotations/Jacobi.html) in mind: > > “Dirichlet alone, not I, nor Cauchy, nor Gauss knows what a completely rigorous mathematical proof is. Rather we learn it first from him. When Gauss says that he has proved something, it is very clear; when Cauchy says it, one can wager as much pro as con; when Dirichlet says it, it is certain…” > > >

The original is in a letter from Jacobi to Alexander von Humboldt dated December 21, 1846: > > Dirichlet allein, nicht ich, nicht Cauchy, nicht Gauß, weiß, was ein > vollkommen strenger Beweis ist, sondern wir lernen es erst von ihm. > Wenn Gauß sagt, er habe etwas bewiesen, so ist es mir sehr > wahrscheinlich, wenn Cauchy es sagt, ist ebensoviel pro als contra zu > wetten, wenn Dirichlet es sagt, ist es *gewiß*; ich lasse mich auf > diese Delikatessen lieber gar nicht ein. > > > (Source: [Laugwitz's book about Riemann](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0817647767), p. 63.)

I'm a bit annoyed by this. Someone has decided to start a vote-to-close as duplicate on a canonical Q&A that I created: [What does "possible lossy conversion" mean and how do I fix it?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51632152/what-does-possible-lossy-conversion-mean-and-how-do-i-fix-it) Not only that, but they appear to have chosen a rather "mediocre" question as the dup target ... as indicated by the respective votes. As someone with a gold badge for Java questions, I could reopen the question if it closes. But I can't do that until it closes. I could also dup-close it myself and then immediately reopen it, but that is liable to create a storm, and accusations of "abuse". What should I do? Is this something that moderators would intervene in?

2019/06/12

Just wait for the close vote to expire. It's a single user and a single vote. If the question actually got closed, then we'd have to discuss if that's appropriate and if you should reopen yourself. But since it's only one vote, we can ignore it, and hope the vote expires, which probably will happen (most votes on old questions expire since the queue is not really functional, unless backed by a chat room or meta). After the vote expired, you can decide to flag the comment as no longer needed if you feel the need to.

Since the question you asked is in fact a duplicate of the question it is proposed as a duplicate as, you should confirm the closure of the question, and not vote to reopen a question that is in fact a duplicate. That you "wanted to create a canonical" doesn't make your question not a duplicate. That your question was duplicating an already answered question when you posted it means it *wasn't* the canonical version of that question when you posted it, regardless of your meta commentary in the question attempting to state otherwise. If you feel that your answer is better than the answer on the original, feel free to post your answer on the original question instead of the duplicate.

I'm a bit annoyed by this. Someone has decided to start a vote-to-close as duplicate on a canonical Q&A that I created: [What does "possible lossy conversion" mean and how do I fix it?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51632152/what-does-possible-lossy-conversion-mean-and-how-do-i-fix-it) Not only that, but they appear to have chosen a rather "mediocre" question as the dup target ... as indicated by the respective votes. As someone with a gold badge for Java questions, I could reopen the question if it closes. But I can't do that until it closes. I could also dup-close it myself and then immediately reopen it, but that is liable to create a storm, and accusations of "abuse". What should I do? Is this something that moderators would intervene in?

2019/06/12

It was a valid duplicate suggestion. However, the question that you created as a canonical is a better question with a better answer, and it is long-standing convention that the *best* question be kept as the “main” question. Duplicate closure need not take the age of the question into account. Therefore, I have closed the suggested question as a duplicate of your canonical. This action was suggested in the comments, and you replied that you were reluctant to use your gold badge to do so, as it might be a conflict of interest. That is a valid concern; you taking this action may certainly have been perceived this way. In this particular case, I would have supported and defended the decision, but in the general case, it is probably best to leave the decision to a third party. I have also removed the meta-commentary that you edited into the question. That does not belong. If the question can’t stand on its own merits, then it is not a valid question for this site. Your intention in creating it (e.g., to serve as a canonical) is not relevant.

Just wait for the close vote to expire. It's a single user and a single vote. If the question actually got closed, then we'd have to discuss if that's appropriate and if you should reopen yourself. But since it's only one vote, we can ignore it, and hope the vote expires, which probably will happen (most votes on old questions expire since the queue is not really functional, unless backed by a chat room or meta). After the vote expired, you can decide to flag the comment as no longer needed if you feel the need to.

I'm a bit annoyed by this. Someone has decided to start a vote-to-close as duplicate on a canonical Q&A that I created: [What does "possible lossy conversion" mean and how do I fix it?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51632152/what-does-possible-lossy-conversion-mean-and-how-do-i-fix-it) Not only that, but they appear to have chosen a rather "mediocre" question as the dup target ... as indicated by the respective votes. As someone with a gold badge for Java questions, I could reopen the question if it closes. But I can't do that until it closes. I could also dup-close it myself and then immediately reopen it, but that is liable to create a storm, and accusations of "abuse". What should I do? Is this something that moderators would intervene in?

2019/06/12

It was a valid duplicate suggestion. However, the question that you created as a canonical is a better question with a better answer, and it is long-standing convention that the *best* question be kept as the “main” question. Duplicate closure need not take the age of the question into account. Therefore, I have closed the suggested question as a duplicate of your canonical. This action was suggested in the comments, and you replied that you were reluctant to use your gold badge to do so, as it might be a conflict of interest. That is a valid concern; you taking this action may certainly have been perceived this way. In this particular case, I would have supported and defended the decision, but in the general case, it is probably best to leave the decision to a third party. I have also removed the meta-commentary that you edited into the question. That does not belong. If the question can’t stand on its own merits, then it is not a valid question for this site. Your intention in creating it (e.g., to serve as a canonical) is not relevant.

Since the question you asked is in fact a duplicate of the question it is proposed as a duplicate as, you should confirm the closure of the question, and not vote to reopen a question that is in fact a duplicate. That you "wanted to create a canonical" doesn't make your question not a duplicate. That your question was duplicating an already answered question when you posted it means it *wasn't* the canonical version of that question when you posted it, regardless of your meta commentary in the question attempting to state otherwise. If you feel that your answer is better than the answer on the original, feel free to post your answer on the original question instead of the duplicate.

I want to photograph some local gigs to build up a portfolio. Has anyone any tips on what kit, and techniques would give the best results? The gigs would be mostly rock bands. Here's my kit: * Nikon D70S * AFS Nikkor DX 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 * Tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 Any help most appreciated, Jonesy

2010/12/28

Given the equipment you have listed, I would say an entire kit replacement might be in order. The Nikon D70s looks like a decent DSLR, however it does not have the greatest high-ISO performance. Higher ISO capability with low noise would be a huge boon for photographing concerts (which tend to be quite dark.) Something that can handle ISO 1600, possibly even ISO 3200, without a lot of noise would be a LOT better for photographing dark scenes like concerts. Neither of your lenses are very fast, with the fastest aperture being f/3.5 on the 18-70mm. I would highly recommend f/2.8 at at the very least, with f/1.8 or f/1.4 being far preferable. A 50mm, 35mm, or 24mm lens at f/1.8 at least, or f/1.4 if possible, would be fast enough for you to capture some decent concert shots. If you keep your existing camera body, I would say shoot for f/1.4 or f/1.2 if you can, as that should allow you to use ISO 400-800 (however, your shots are still going to be pretty dark.) If you intend to photograph concert musicians up close, 24mm, 35mm, or 50mm lenses should suffice. If you think you might be photographing from farther away, or want to get closer shots with decent bokeh, 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm lenses would be better. Again, the fastest lens you can get would be ideal. At 85mm you should be able to get as wide as f/1.2, for 100mm anr 135mm you might be able to find lenses as fast as f/2, however f/2.8 should work. Lenses with wider apertures tend to have thinner DOF, which might pose a small challenge for getting perfect focus. A camera body with better ISO performance, up to ISO 3200, would greatly help in this area, as you could stop down the lens to increase your DOF. On the flip side, thinner DOF results in smoother background blur (bokeh). Not sure that bokeh will really be an issue for concerts...backgrounds will probably be all dark or black anyway.

You're not going to have much fun with those variable aperture lenses unless you're in really well lit venues. Wide apertures rule in gig photography. For smaller venues, a 50mm f/1.8 will get you started for about £100. Next step would be a 24-70mm f/2.8 to give you a bit more flexibility (doesn't have to be Nikon - Sigma do a screw focus one for about £450), then you can add a wide angle and a longer tele for a bit of variety when you're ready. For bigger venues, you'll need a 70-200mm f/2.8. And a mortgage. Then again, the D70S tops out at ISO 1600, and I'm not sure what sort of noise levels you get there. You might be struggling with that. On a good day, I work ISO 800 - 1600, but I'd be nervous about shooting a gig without having the option of going up to at least ISO 2500. Did I mention that gig photography is *really* expensive? Oh, and [How do I get a photographer pass for gigs and concerts?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/125/how-do-i-get-a-photographer-pass-for-gigs-and-concerts/) Edit: Kelby Training have a training video on gig photography. It's not mind-blowing if you've been shooting gigs for a while, but it'll get you up to speed fast. Might be worth signing up for a month to watch it: [Kelby Training](http://www.kelbytraining.com/)

I want to photograph some local gigs to build up a portfolio. Has anyone any tips on what kit, and techniques would give the best results? The gigs would be mostly rock bands. Here's my kit: * Nikon D70S * AFS Nikkor DX 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 * Tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 Any help most appreciated, Jonesy

2010/12/28

Given the equipment you have listed, I would say an entire kit replacement might be in order. The Nikon D70s looks like a decent DSLR, however it does not have the greatest high-ISO performance. Higher ISO capability with low noise would be a huge boon for photographing concerts (which tend to be quite dark.) Something that can handle ISO 1600, possibly even ISO 3200, without a lot of noise would be a LOT better for photographing dark scenes like concerts. Neither of your lenses are very fast, with the fastest aperture being f/3.5 on the 18-70mm. I would highly recommend f/2.8 at at the very least, with f/1.8 or f/1.4 being far preferable. A 50mm, 35mm, or 24mm lens at f/1.8 at least, or f/1.4 if possible, would be fast enough for you to capture some decent concert shots. If you keep your existing camera body, I would say shoot for f/1.4 or f/1.2 if you can, as that should allow you to use ISO 400-800 (however, your shots are still going to be pretty dark.) If you intend to photograph concert musicians up close, 24mm, 35mm, or 50mm lenses should suffice. If you think you might be photographing from farther away, or want to get closer shots with decent bokeh, 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm lenses would be better. Again, the fastest lens you can get would be ideal. At 85mm you should be able to get as wide as f/1.2, for 100mm anr 135mm you might be able to find lenses as fast as f/2, however f/2.8 should work. Lenses with wider apertures tend to have thinner DOF, which might pose a small challenge for getting perfect focus. A camera body with better ISO performance, up to ISO 3200, would greatly help in this area, as you could stop down the lens to increase your DOF. On the flip side, thinner DOF results in smoother background blur (bokeh). Not sure that bokeh will really be an issue for concerts...backgrounds will probably be all dark or black anyway.

I have a Canon 50D and at ISO 1600 with my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens I can barely push it beyond 1/80th to get enough light in for most of the venues I shoot at (most aren't amazingly well lit, that's for sure). The unfortunate problem I face is that ISO 1600 is really as far as I'm aesthetically allowing myself to go. If I pushed it to ISO 3200 on f/2.8 with IS (which doesn't help subject motion blur), I might be able to achieve 1/125th or something but then the noise in the photo would start to ruin the benefit of a faster shutter speed. The noise would start to seriously degrade the detail in the photo. Unfortunately for you, I don't believe your gear is anywhere near even that which I have, which is probably the bare minimum to shoot low light venues anyway. Your variable aperture lenses mean your shutter speed will have to slow down when zoomed in, something you want to do the opposite with. Those lenses are also considerably slower than even an f/2.8. At f/4.5, the 18-70mm is 1.6 stops slower than my lens at 55mm, meaning you shutter speed must be around 1/3rd the speed or your ISO 3 times higher. Rough calculations. I hate the stops math :P I fear you would likely get rather frustrated with the difficulty exposing the scene with your current kit. Now if you had a full frame sensor you'd be able to push your ISO far beyond 1600 and be able to achieve a shutter speed within 1/250th if you wanted.

I want to photograph some local gigs to build up a portfolio. Has anyone any tips on what kit, and techniques would give the best results? The gigs would be mostly rock bands. Here's my kit: * Nikon D70S * AFS Nikkor DX 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 * Tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 Any help most appreciated, Jonesy

2010/12/28

You're not going to have much fun with those variable aperture lenses unless you're in really well lit venues. Wide apertures rule in gig photography. For smaller venues, a 50mm f/1.8 will get you started for about £100. Next step would be a 24-70mm f/2.8 to give you a bit more flexibility (doesn't have to be Nikon - Sigma do a screw focus one for about £450), then you can add a wide angle and a longer tele for a bit of variety when you're ready. For bigger venues, you'll need a 70-200mm f/2.8. And a mortgage. Then again, the D70S tops out at ISO 1600, and I'm not sure what sort of noise levels you get there. You might be struggling with that. On a good day, I work ISO 800 - 1600, but I'd be nervous about shooting a gig without having the option of going up to at least ISO 2500. Did I mention that gig photography is *really* expensive? Oh, and [How do I get a photographer pass for gigs and concerts?](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/125/how-do-i-get-a-photographer-pass-for-gigs-and-concerts/) Edit: Kelby Training have a training video on gig photography. It's not mind-blowing if you've been shooting gigs for a while, but it'll get you up to speed fast. Might be worth signing up for a month to watch it: [Kelby Training](http://www.kelbytraining.com/)

I have a Canon 50D and at ISO 1600 with my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens I can barely push it beyond 1/80th to get enough light in for most of the venues I shoot at (most aren't amazingly well lit, that's for sure). The unfortunate problem I face is that ISO 1600 is really as far as I'm aesthetically allowing myself to go. If I pushed it to ISO 3200 on f/2.8 with IS (which doesn't help subject motion blur), I might be able to achieve 1/125th or something but then the noise in the photo would start to ruin the benefit of a faster shutter speed. The noise would start to seriously degrade the detail in the photo. Unfortunately for you, I don't believe your gear is anywhere near even that which I have, which is probably the bare minimum to shoot low light venues anyway. Your variable aperture lenses mean your shutter speed will have to slow down when zoomed in, something you want to do the opposite with. Those lenses are also considerably slower than even an f/2.8. At f/4.5, the 18-70mm is 1.6 stops slower than my lens at 55mm, meaning you shutter speed must be around 1/3rd the speed or your ISO 3 times higher. Rough calculations. I hate the stops math :P I fear you would likely get rather frustrated with the difficulty exposing the scene with your current kit. Now if you had a full frame sensor you'd be able to push your ISO far beyond 1600 and be able to achieve a shutter speed within 1/250th if you wanted.

### Duplicate > > [C# && SMS Tags](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/c%23%20sms) > > > I am working in the .net framework 1.1 .. from my application i need to send a SMS to a mobile. Is it possible?

2009/04/04

There are alot of SMS-gateway services for bulk-sms senders. All of them provide a (custom) API. Ususaly you just craft a special HTTP request. These API's can be used in any language, so .net as well. Each carrier has its own rates, so do some price comparison. I don't know in which country you are (something Scandinavian?) so I cannot recommend anyone.

If you need to send a SMS to a phone, you'll probably need the services of a [SMS gateway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_gateway). However, if the volume of messages you need to send is not that high and you can foot the cost per SMS yourself, you could look at how to use your phone as a modem over USB or COM and send it the message that way.

### Duplicate > > [C# && SMS Tags](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/c%23%20sms) > > > I am working in the .net framework 1.1 .. from my application i need to send a SMS to a mobile. Is it possible?

2009/04/04

There are alot of SMS-gateway services for bulk-sms senders. All of them provide a (custom) API. Ususaly you just craft a special HTTP request. These API's can be used in any language, so .net as well. Each carrier has its own rates, so do some price comparison. I don't know in which country you are (something Scandinavian?) so I cannot recommend anyone.

You will need to use an HTTP API that will enable you to send sms from your application. Something like <http://sms.yuboto.com/http-api>

The last couple of wheels I've built have been all from reused parts. One was to convert my unicycle from 24" to 20" largely as an experiment, and the one that I'm currently working on is for the junk bike I keep near work. For the unicycle wheel, I found my spokes were about 1mm too long nominal, plus measuring error, and ordered a bag of (round) nipple washers. They were 0.5mm thick, and I'm not sure if the were strictly needed in the end. For the 26" wheel, the spokes are more like 2mm too long, so I reckon I'll run out of thread before the wheel is fully tensioned. I'd like it built quickly. Ordinary M4 washers are dirt cheap and available same-day. New spokes are probably more than the bike is worth (even cheap ones) but what really puts me off is the several days delivery time. So I'm considering using 1 (or even 2 on the drive side) M4 washers (0.8mm thick) under each nipple. They seem to be a good size for both nipples and rim. The extra thickness is good but obviously adds weight - not an issue on a bike made of gas pipe. Am I missing something? Are round nipple washers just thinner and harder to obtain than normal washers (I know there are other shapes for narrow rims). Is it just about weight?

2022/11/28

The washers need to fit the rim. If the part of your rim where the spoke holes are, i.e. where the washers will sit, is not flat, your washers will sit on two points rather than on a flat face. As a result, the forces from the spokes are entering the rim via these points. This will either deform your rim, or your washers, but my guess is you will deform the rim. That does not sound like a good idea to me. I would expect early failure of the rim. You might want to bend the washers, ideally to the same shape as the rim inside, or bent somewhat more, which would mean the force is distributed over a line rather than over two points. Keep in mind that the topmost spoke at any given position carries most of the combined weight of bike and driver for that wheel (~70% on the back, ~30% on the front wheel) plus any impulse from bumpy roads, so the forces are by no means negligible, and if the rim breaks, it will be while you are driving, so you risk injury. Also, depending on your rim, your nipples might protrude too far inwards, making damages to the inner tube quite likely. You may want to shop for a cheap wheel, which might actually be cheaper than a set of new spokes, or search for cheap spokes on ebay.

The best way is not to use washers at all, save your money for a threading tool, it's about the same price. Perhaps from an online hobby shop where they make very small bolts. [It may be difficult to find a 1.7mm one](https://www.google.com/search?q=spoke%20threading%20die&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjQ2efzw9H7AhVDnRoKHcaEBjUQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=spoke%20threading%20die&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIHCAAQgAQQGDoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAUQHjoGCAAQCBAeOgQIABAeUKsJWLIbYLgcaABwAHgBgAGiAYgB1xKSAQQ1LjE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=QgGFY9CwIsO6asaJmqgD&bih=646&biw=1366#imgrc=UA4xQ7sEux1gVM), perhaps post a thread to ask where to source them. If you spin the threading tool onto the ready-made spoke thread, it will glide on easily, and when it gets to the end you can turn another 5 times for an extra mm of thread, maybe just jam the elbow of the spoke very loosely in a vice. and then cut of 1mm at the top with a sharp pliers before unscrewing the threading tool through the new cut. Chances are you wouldn't even need to rethread them if it's just 1mm, they may have 2mm extra thread to start with.

The last couple of wheels I've built have been all from reused parts. One was to convert my unicycle from 24" to 20" largely as an experiment, and the one that I'm currently working on is for the junk bike I keep near work. For the unicycle wheel, I found my spokes were about 1mm too long nominal, plus measuring error, and ordered a bag of (round) nipple washers. They were 0.5mm thick, and I'm not sure if the were strictly needed in the end. For the 26" wheel, the spokes are more like 2mm too long, so I reckon I'll run out of thread before the wheel is fully tensioned. I'd like it built quickly. Ordinary M4 washers are dirt cheap and available same-day. New spokes are probably more than the bike is worth (even cheap ones) but what really puts me off is the several days delivery time. So I'm considering using 1 (or even 2 on the drive side) M4 washers (0.8mm thick) under each nipple. They seem to be a good size for both nipples and rim. The extra thickness is good but obviously adds weight - not an issue on a bike made of gas pipe. Am I missing something? Are round nipple washers just thinner and harder to obtain than normal washers (I know there are other shapes for narrow rims). Is it just about weight?

2022/11/28

The washers need to fit the rim. If the part of your rim where the spoke holes are, i.e. where the washers will sit, is not flat, your washers will sit on two points rather than on a flat face. As a result, the forces from the spokes are entering the rim via these points. This will either deform your rim, or your washers, but my guess is you will deform the rim. That does not sound like a good idea to me. I would expect early failure of the rim. You might want to bend the washers, ideally to the same shape as the rim inside, or bent somewhat more, which would mean the force is distributed over a line rather than over two points. Keep in mind that the topmost spoke at any given position carries most of the combined weight of bike and driver for that wheel (~70% on the back, ~30% on the front wheel) plus any impulse from bumpy roads, so the forces are by no means negligible, and if the rim breaks, it will be while you are driving, so you risk injury. Also, depending on your rim, your nipples might protrude too far inwards, making damages to the inner tube quite likely. You may want to shop for a cheap wheel, which might actually be cheaper than a set of new spokes, or search for cheap spokes on ebay.

#1: Do not use a die on spokes. They are rolled...Spoke rollers are not cheap, but it's the only way to make spokes that last. #2: Washers, especially varying amounts of washers between spokes is not a good idea. You'll have wheel wobble when you go past ~30 km/h. #3: Using washers is legit in some cases. In fact, sometimes better - provided that you have washers made from softer material then the rim, and equal amounts of them across each spoke. #4: Wheelbuilding is the most serious thing about bikes - do not do it in a rush, you'll regret it later. Take time to buy properly sized spokes. You don't need to go fancy like Sapim or DT Swiss. I used fancy spokes. I used dirt cheap, simple spokes. Not a huge difference if you have correct length, proper tension and great wheel truing. Happy riding!

The last couple of wheels I've built have been all from reused parts. One was to convert my unicycle from 24" to 20" largely as an experiment, and the one that I'm currently working on is for the junk bike I keep near work. For the unicycle wheel, I found my spokes were about 1mm too long nominal, plus measuring error, and ordered a bag of (round) nipple washers. They were 0.5mm thick, and I'm not sure if the were strictly needed in the end. For the 26" wheel, the spokes are more like 2mm too long, so I reckon I'll run out of thread before the wheel is fully tensioned. I'd like it built quickly. Ordinary M4 washers are dirt cheap and available same-day. New spokes are probably more than the bike is worth (even cheap ones) but what really puts me off is the several days delivery time. So I'm considering using 1 (or even 2 on the drive side) M4 washers (0.8mm thick) under each nipple. They seem to be a good size for both nipples and rim. The extra thickness is good but obviously adds weight - not an issue on a bike made of gas pipe. Am I missing something? Are round nipple washers just thinner and harder to obtain than normal washers (I know there are other shapes for narrow rims). Is it just about weight?

2022/11/28

This is a really short answer: I use brass washers in this type of scenario which deform to the rim shape and the nipple. This was the recommended type of washer in one of the books I read when learning the subject, possibly Brandt's book or another similar. The wheels where I have had to do this have built up nicely. Using washers is good anyway as the nipple turns more easily under high tension than it would against the plain rim surface.

The best way is not to use washers at all, save your money for a threading tool, it's about the same price. Perhaps from an online hobby shop where they make very small bolts. [It may be difficult to find a 1.7mm one](https://www.google.com/search?q=spoke%20threading%20die&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjQ2efzw9H7AhVDnRoKHcaEBjUQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=spoke%20threading%20die&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIHCAAQgAQQGDoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAUQHjoGCAAQCBAeOgQIABAeUKsJWLIbYLgcaABwAHgBgAGiAYgB1xKSAQQ1LjE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=QgGFY9CwIsO6asaJmqgD&bih=646&biw=1366#imgrc=UA4xQ7sEux1gVM), perhaps post a thread to ask where to source them. If you spin the threading tool onto the ready-made spoke thread, it will glide on easily, and when it gets to the end you can turn another 5 times for an extra mm of thread, maybe just jam the elbow of the spoke very loosely in a vice. and then cut of 1mm at the top with a sharp pliers before unscrewing the threading tool through the new cut. Chances are you wouldn't even need to rethread them if it's just 1mm, they may have 2mm extra thread to start with.

The last couple of wheels I've built have been all from reused parts. One was to convert my unicycle from 24" to 20" largely as an experiment, and the one that I'm currently working on is for the junk bike I keep near work. For the unicycle wheel, I found my spokes were about 1mm too long nominal, plus measuring error, and ordered a bag of (round) nipple washers. They were 0.5mm thick, and I'm not sure if the were strictly needed in the end. For the 26" wheel, the spokes are more like 2mm too long, so I reckon I'll run out of thread before the wheel is fully tensioned. I'd like it built quickly. Ordinary M4 washers are dirt cheap and available same-day. New spokes are probably more than the bike is worth (even cheap ones) but what really puts me off is the several days delivery time. So I'm considering using 1 (or even 2 on the drive side) M4 washers (0.8mm thick) under each nipple. They seem to be a good size for both nipples and rim. The extra thickness is good but obviously adds weight - not an issue on a bike made of gas pipe. Am I missing something? Are round nipple washers just thinner and harder to obtain than normal washers (I know there are other shapes for narrow rims). Is it just about weight?

2022/11/28

This is a really short answer: I use brass washers in this type of scenario which deform to the rim shape and the nipple. This was the recommended type of washer in one of the books I read when learning the subject, possibly Brandt's book or another similar. The wheels where I have had to do this have built up nicely. Using washers is good anyway as the nipple turns more easily under high tension than it would against the plain rim surface.

#1: Do not use a die on spokes. They are rolled...Spoke rollers are not cheap, but it's the only way to make spokes that last. #2: Washers, especially varying amounts of washers between spokes is not a good idea. You'll have wheel wobble when you go past ~30 km/h. #3: Using washers is legit in some cases. In fact, sometimes better - provided that you have washers made from softer material then the rim, and equal amounts of them across each spoke. #4: Wheelbuilding is the most serious thing about bikes - do not do it in a rush, you'll regret it later. Take time to buy properly sized spokes. You don't need to go fancy like Sapim or DT Swiss. I used fancy spokes. I used dirt cheap, simple spokes. Not a huge difference if you have correct length, proper tension and great wheel truing. Happy riding!

The last couple of wheels I've built have been all from reused parts. One was to convert my unicycle from 24" to 20" largely as an experiment, and the one that I'm currently working on is for the junk bike I keep near work. For the unicycle wheel, I found my spokes were about 1mm too long nominal, plus measuring error, and ordered a bag of (round) nipple washers. They were 0.5mm thick, and I'm not sure if the were strictly needed in the end. For the 26" wheel, the spokes are more like 2mm too long, so I reckon I'll run out of thread before the wheel is fully tensioned. I'd like it built quickly. Ordinary M4 washers are dirt cheap and available same-day. New spokes are probably more than the bike is worth (even cheap ones) but what really puts me off is the several days delivery time. So I'm considering using 1 (or even 2 on the drive side) M4 washers (0.8mm thick) under each nipple. They seem to be a good size for both nipples and rim. The extra thickness is good but obviously adds weight - not an issue on a bike made of gas pipe. Am I missing something? Are round nipple washers just thinner and harder to obtain than normal washers (I know there are other shapes for narrow rims). Is it just about weight?

2022/11/28

The best way is not to use washers at all, save your money for a threading tool, it's about the same price. Perhaps from an online hobby shop where they make very small bolts. [It may be difficult to find a 1.7mm one](https://www.google.com/search?q=spoke%20threading%20die&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjQ2efzw9H7AhVDnRoKHcaEBjUQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=spoke%20threading%20die&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIHCAAQgAQQGDoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAUQHjoGCAAQCBAeOgQIABAeUKsJWLIbYLgcaABwAHgBgAGiAYgB1xKSAQQ1LjE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=QgGFY9CwIsO6asaJmqgD&bih=646&biw=1366#imgrc=UA4xQ7sEux1gVM), perhaps post a thread to ask where to source them. If you spin the threading tool onto the ready-made spoke thread, it will glide on easily, and when it gets to the end you can turn another 5 times for an extra mm of thread, maybe just jam the elbow of the spoke very loosely in a vice. and then cut of 1mm at the top with a sharp pliers before unscrewing the threading tool through the new cut. Chances are you wouldn't even need to rethread them if it's just 1mm, they may have 2mm extra thread to start with.

#1: Do not use a die on spokes. They are rolled...Spoke rollers are not cheap, but it's the only way to make spokes that last. #2: Washers, especially varying amounts of washers between spokes is not a good idea. You'll have wheel wobble when you go past ~30 km/h. #3: Using washers is legit in some cases. In fact, sometimes better - provided that you have washers made from softer material then the rim, and equal amounts of them across each spoke. #4: Wheelbuilding is the most serious thing about bikes - do not do it in a rush, you'll regret it later. Take time to buy properly sized spokes. You don't need to go fancy like Sapim or DT Swiss. I used fancy spokes. I used dirt cheap, simple spokes. Not a huge difference if you have correct length, proper tension and great wheel truing. Happy riding!

How exactly do you pronounce "Asshai" from A Song of Ice and Fire? I always pronounced it "ash-shy" but one of my friends says that it's "ass-high". Can anyone tell me the correct pronunciation?

2017/05/07

In audiobooks, *Asshai* is pronounced as **ASH-eye** or **a-SHY**, depending on the narrator's accent. In the HBO's show *Game of Thrones*, it is pronounced as **uh-SHY**. For your reference, you may check these pronunciation guides: * [A Wiki of Ice and Fire (Pronunciation Guide)](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Pronunciation_guide) * [Official Pronunciation Guide of Game of Thrones](https://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/2/11/official-pronunciation-guide-for-game-of-thrones.html)

Characters in the TV show pronounce it *ass-shy* or *ah-shy*.

How exactly do you pronounce "Asshai" from A Song of Ice and Fire? I always pronounced it "ash-shy" but one of my friends says that it's "ass-high". Can anyone tell me the correct pronunciation?

2017/05/07

Consult with the following table: | Source | IPA | Pronunciation | | --- | --- | --- | | HBO | [ə'ʃaɪ] | ə-shy | | Roy Dotrice (Audio books narrator) | [a'ʃaɪ] | a-shy | | John Lee (Audio book narrator for AFFC) | ['aʃaɪ] | ash-eye | You can refer to [this answer](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9261/is-there-an-online-tool-to-convert-ipa-symbols-into-audio-sound) to see how can you convert IPA to voice. The table was generated as per [AWOIAF Pronunciation guide](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Pronunciation_guide). I will add GRRM's version once I can find a video of him saying that word.

Characters in the TV show pronounce it *ass-shy* or *ah-shy*.

How exactly do you pronounce "Asshai" from A Song of Ice and Fire? I always pronounced it "ash-shy" but one of my friends says that it's "ass-high". Can anyone tell me the correct pronunciation?

2017/05/07

However you like ================ George R. R. Martin has never been one for pronunciations and has said a few times that you can pronounce anything however you like. > > *Favorite character?* > > > GRRM : Tyrion in Ice and Fire. Abner Marsh in Fevre Dream. > > > *Glad to hear you pronounce the names* > > > GRRM: In my youth I had a strong NJ accent, only reader in family, knew a lot of words that I had never heard spoken aloud. When I went away to college I found I was pronouncing a lot of these words wrong. **I came to not care much about pronunciation. Pronounce the names of my characters however you like.** > > > There are dangers in being a gardener, the story can run away from you - Shakespeare had to kill Mercutio because he was taking over play. > > > [So Spake Martin, ODYSSEY CON 2008 (MADISON, WI; APRIL 4-6 2008)](https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Odyssey_Con_2008_Madison_WI_April_4_6_20081) > > >

Characters in the TV show pronounce it *ass-shy* or *ah-shy*.

How exactly do you pronounce "Asshai" from A Song of Ice and Fire? I always pronounced it "ash-shy" but one of my friends says that it's "ass-high". Can anyone tell me the correct pronunciation?

2017/05/07

In audiobooks, *Asshai* is pronounced as **ASH-eye** or **a-SHY**, depending on the narrator's accent. In the HBO's show *Game of Thrones*, it is pronounced as **uh-SHY**. For your reference, you may check these pronunciation guides: * [A Wiki of Ice and Fire (Pronunciation Guide)](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Pronunciation_guide) * [Official Pronunciation Guide of Game of Thrones](https://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/2/11/official-pronunciation-guide-for-game-of-thrones.html)

However you like ================ George R. R. Martin has never been one for pronunciations and has said a few times that you can pronounce anything however you like. > > *Favorite character?* > > > GRRM : Tyrion in Ice and Fire. Abner Marsh in Fevre Dream. > > > *Glad to hear you pronounce the names* > > > GRRM: In my youth I had a strong NJ accent, only reader in family, knew a lot of words that I had never heard spoken aloud. When I went away to college I found I was pronouncing a lot of these words wrong. **I came to not care much about pronunciation. Pronounce the names of my characters however you like.** > > > There are dangers in being a gardener, the story can run away from you - Shakespeare had to kill Mercutio because he was taking over play. > > > [So Spake Martin, ODYSSEY CON 2008 (MADISON, WI; APRIL 4-6 2008)](https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Odyssey_Con_2008_Madison_WI_April_4_6_20081) > > >

How exactly do you pronounce "Asshai" from A Song of Ice and Fire? I always pronounced it "ash-shy" but one of my friends says that it's "ass-high". Can anyone tell me the correct pronunciation?

2017/05/07

Consult with the following table: | Source | IPA | Pronunciation | | --- | --- | --- | | HBO | [ə'ʃaɪ] | ə-shy | | Roy Dotrice (Audio books narrator) | [a'ʃaɪ] | a-shy | | John Lee (Audio book narrator for AFFC) | ['aʃaɪ] | ash-eye | You can refer to [this answer](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9261/is-there-an-online-tool-to-convert-ipa-symbols-into-audio-sound) to see how can you convert IPA to voice. The table was generated as per [AWOIAF Pronunciation guide](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Pronunciation_guide). I will add GRRM's version once I can find a video of him saying that word.

However you like ================ George R. R. Martin has never been one for pronunciations and has said a few times that you can pronounce anything however you like. > > *Favorite character?* > > > GRRM : Tyrion in Ice and Fire. Abner Marsh in Fevre Dream. > > > *Glad to hear you pronounce the names* > > > GRRM: In my youth I had a strong NJ accent, only reader in family, knew a lot of words that I had never heard spoken aloud. When I went away to college I found I was pronouncing a lot of these words wrong. **I came to not care much about pronunciation. Pronounce the names of my characters however you like.** > > > There are dangers in being a gardener, the story can run away from you - Shakespeare had to kill Mercutio because he was taking over play. > > > [So Spake Martin, ODYSSEY CON 2008 (MADISON, WI; APRIL 4-6 2008)](https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Odyssey_Con_2008_Madison_WI_April_4_6_20081) > > >

This was a question given to me by an English tutor. I was asked to choose between the Present Perfect Simple, or the Present Perfect Continuous for of the verb. -> *"We \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ on the next actions to take before engaging them." (verb: decide)* To me, the past simple was correct because of the time marker at the end of the sentence also being in the past, indicating the action completed: -> *"We **decided** on the next actions to take before engaging them."* Also, present simple *and* continuous would be fine. But the tutor said I must choose a **perfect** tense. I chose the **Present Perfect Continuous**: -> *"We **have been deciding** on the next actions to take before engaging them."* ... but she told me that was wrong and it was the Present Perfect Simple: -> *"We **have decided** on the next actions to take before engaging them."* That seems wrong to me. My tutor was unable to explain. I can understand why almost other tenses could be used here, but not the Present Perfect Simple.

2020/05/29

You use different ways to describe different things. Each of the four ways you said are correct in the right situation. So insisting that only one can be used is daft. Continuous vs simple is about whether the action took place over an extended time (and whether that is important to express). If I ask what you have been doing in the last four hours, you would say @we have been deciding” and not “we decided”. But if I asked “what are your plans now” you would say “we decided to do X” or “we have decided to do X” because I don’t care how long your decision took.

> > We \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ on the next actions to take before engaging them. > > > You indicated that the simple past seems correct to you because the time marker at the end of the model sentence is in the past.  Based on this sentence alone, I have no reason to agree with you.  > > We **will decide** on the next actions to take before engaging them.  > > > The phrase "before engaging them" has no tense.  It has a non-finite verb form.  Even though we traditionally call this form the *present participle*, it doesn't indicate either the present or the past.  It indicates the active voice and the continuous aspect, but it's placement in time could be anywhere in the past, present or future.  The two options under consideration imply that "engaging them" lies in the future:  > > 1)  We **have been deciding** on the next actions to take before engaging them.  > > 2)  We **have decided** on the next actions to take before engaging them.  > > > In the absence of further context, both options are sound and sensible.  The action of deciding began in the past.  In the first option, that action continues.  It began in the past, continues now, and is expected to end in the future.  In the second, it does not continue.  The action began in the past, ended in the past, and its results exist in the present.  One important phrase in the paragraph above is "in the absence of further context".  Chances are very good that both you and your tutor have further context.  It's also likely that you don't have the *same* context, or at least you don't have the same understanding of the context involved.  What you want to know is why your tutor assumes that the action of deciding is complete.  The model sentence on its own doesn't provide that essential context.  You'll need your tutor to explain why she assumes that the decision-making process has ended.  It is possible that your tutor is teaching from incomplete or incorrect materials.  If the publisher of these exercises failed to provide enough context to make its answer key sensible, then there's nothing that you, your tutor, or any of us reading your question can do about that mistake.  If "engaging them" does indeed lie in the past (as you initially suggested) then the most obvious perfect-aspect fit for the blank would be a *past perfect* construction:  > > We **had decided** on the next actions to take before engaging them.  > > >

This was a question given to me by an English tutor. I was asked to choose between the Present Perfect Simple, or the Present Perfect Continuous for of the verb. -> *"We \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ on the next actions to take before engaging them." (verb: decide)* To me, the past simple was correct because of the time marker at the end of the sentence also being in the past, indicating the action completed: -> *"We **decided** on the next actions to take before engaging them."* Also, present simple *and* continuous would be fine. But the tutor said I must choose a **perfect** tense. I chose the **Present Perfect Continuous**: -> *"We **have been deciding** on the next actions to take before engaging them."* ... but she told me that was wrong and it was the Present Perfect Simple: -> *"We **have decided** on the next actions to take before engaging them."* That seems wrong to me. My tutor was unable to explain. I can understand why almost other tenses could be used here, but not the Present Perfect Simple.

2020/05/29

You use different ways to describe different things. Each of the four ways you said are correct in the right situation. So insisting that only one can be used is daft. Continuous vs simple is about whether the action took place over an extended time (and whether that is important to express). If I ask what you have been doing in the last four hours, you would say @we have been deciding” and not “we decided”. But if I asked “what are your plans now” you would say “we decided to do X” or “we have decided to do X” because I don’t care how long your decision took.

You say: > > I was asked to choose between the Present Perfect Simple, or the Present Perfect Continuous for of the verb. > > > Then you say: > > To me, the past simple was correct because of the time marker at the end of the sentence also being in the past, indicating the action completed: > > > Past simple cannot have been correct because *it was not one of the choices in the exercise.* I also note that the phrase "before engaging them" is not necessarily in the past. Because it uses the present participle *engaging,* it could refer to some unspecified future engagement. For example: *tomorrow I will eat lunch before going out.* Frankly, I'm hard pressed to come up with a tense that *can't* be used there. The phrase *before engaging them* is relative to whatever time you establish in the first part of the sentence, not the other way around, as noted in other answers. The correct choice depends on what you're trying to say. If that was given as part of the exercise, you won't get a good answer here unless you include it in the question. I also note that the antecedent of "them" here appears to be "actions," but one doesn't normally "engage" an action, so it's possible that the antecedent is in an earlier sentence. Here are two possible contexts: * Yesterday, we hired a lawyer and an engineer in connection with the planned transaction. We decided on the next actions to take before engaging them. The decision was... * Today, we are thinking about hiring a lawyer and an engineer in connection with the planned transaction. We have been deciding on the next actions to take before engaging them. Once we have reached a decision...

I have a Gmail filter that applies a label ('OTPs') to certain incoming messages. They accumulate and I want to keep most for only a couple of days. I can eliminate them manually by performing a search (e.g. 'older\_than:2d label:OTPs -label:GST') and then deleting the results, but I want to automate this process using a filter. The example below shows a highlighted message thread '**SMS Forwarder**' that totals 21 individual messages of which only 7 would match my criteria for deletion, and the remaining 14 would be kept. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z2uit.png)

2021/09/10

Unfortunately, generally it is not possible to split shapes that way.

I use Inkscape for most custom shapes. I found [this tutorial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG2eqeZp9KU "How to Split Shapes - Inkscape Tutorial") on how to create your shape in Inkscape. Then you can just save it and add it to your diagram. I haven't done anything like that, but here is an example of merging multiple shapes with a svg I made in Inkscape. I highlighted a transparent shape containing text to illustrate that all text is made in draw.io. I made the green shape a container and dragged the rest into it so that folding works normally. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p1ppV.png) I guess you've already found a solution but if not, I hope this helped a bit!

I know how weird this question sounds and how the answer to it is probably **NO** at first glance, but I don't know enough about octaoxygen and oxygen to be 100% sure about the answer being **NO** and honestly, I have some hope (not much) about the answer to this question being **YES** due to the inmense size of the universe and how many planets there is out there. Even if the possibilities for a planet developing such an atmosphere are ridiculously low and crazy like just a 0.0000000000001% chance for a planet developing it, that's enough since that would mean there would be around as much as 700000 of them just in the entire obserbable universe! (700000 because there is an estimate of around 700000000000000000000 planets in the observable universe) Here is the best source of information about this molecule I have found so far, there is not a lot of information about it somewhere else: (Yes, wikipedia lol) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octaoxygen> BTW I would coincidere a **maybe, perhaps, possibly or im not 100% sure** answer as a good answer as far as you give a good explanation or your theory as of why you think it may or may not exist. At the end of the day you can't almost never be sure enough about this stuff for a solid YES or NO since we as species don't know enough about the universe in general. Thanks in advance! *(Also sorry if if I made any grammar mistake, my english is not perfect since it's not my main language)*

2021/07/05

Different fine structure constant --------------------------------- It [has been reported](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm) that the [fine structure constant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant) varies throughout the universe. The fine structure constant affects things like [how many elements can be found in the periodic table](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynmanium). Whether this variation could change the rules of chemistry so much that octaoxygen would work more like our sulfur, be something close to stable, somewhere far beyond the stars we can ever hope to see? You'll need a real physicist for that one!

Octaoxygen forms from oxygen at [a pressure of ten gigapascals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octaoxygen), or a pressure equal to 10,000 standard atmospheres. ~~Since atmospheric pressure is directly related to gravity, you would need an oxygen-rich atmosphere on a planet with gravity 10,000 times stronger than that of the Earth.~~ Edit: Gravity is a significant factor, but it is not the only one. The ideal gas law is written PV = nRT, or pressure = number of mols of gas x constant x temperature ÷ volume, which means that pressure does change with temperature, amount of gas, and the volume the gas is contained in. A planet with higher gravity would effectively reduce the volume, which increases the pressure. However, it is not the only variable. Note that the high proportion of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is due mostly to plant life and other organisms performing photosynthesis. However, photosynthesis requires sunlight which would not be able to penetrate very far through such a dense atmosphere. Therefore, any organisms would have to be buoyant enough to float near the surface of the planet's atmosphere. This is not as difficult as it seems, since the atmosphere will be around ten times denser than water at sea level on earth - most organisms on Earth would float near its surface. Life also usually requires water, but most water on Earth comes from comet trails as they pass nearby. A gas giant might have enough water vapor in the atmosphere to support floating life.

I know how weird this question sounds and how the answer to it is probably **NO** at first glance, but I don't know enough about octaoxygen and oxygen to be 100% sure about the answer being **NO** and honestly, I have some hope (not much) about the answer to this question being **YES** due to the inmense size of the universe and how many planets there is out there. Even if the possibilities for a planet developing such an atmosphere are ridiculously low and crazy like just a 0.0000000000001% chance for a planet developing it, that's enough since that would mean there would be around as much as 700000 of them just in the entire obserbable universe! (700000 because there is an estimate of around 700000000000000000000 planets in the observable universe) Here is the best source of information about this molecule I have found so far, there is not a lot of information about it somewhere else: (Yes, wikipedia lol) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octaoxygen> BTW I would coincidere a **maybe, perhaps, possibly or im not 100% sure** answer as a good answer as far as you give a good explanation or your theory as of why you think it may or may not exist. At the end of the day you can't almost never be sure enough about this stuff for a solid YES or NO since we as species don't know enough about the universe in general. Thanks in advance! *(Also sorry if if I made any grammar mistake, my english is not perfect since it's not my main language)*

2021/07/05

Different fine structure constant --------------------------------- It [has been reported](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm) that the [fine structure constant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant) varies throughout the universe. The fine structure constant affects things like [how many elements can be found in the periodic table](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynmanium). Whether this variation could change the rules of chemistry so much that octaoxygen would work more like our sulfur, be something close to stable, somewhere far beyond the stars we can ever hope to see? You'll need a real physicist for that one!

It won't be a planet. There can be no celestial bodies at 10.000 earth mass, with room temperature at the surface. Jupiter has about 800 Earth masses and an object 3-4 times Jupiter mass would become a dwarf star, burning deuterium. Pressure is in the right order, but the surface is too hot to accommodate the O8. I think you'd be talking a cooled down larger star, in the process of collapse. 10000 times earth mass, say about 1/10th of earth radius.. in this case, any chemical element landing on the surface would get subject to enormous pressure and condensate. A layer of condensated - solid - oxigen *could* be the result, when large amounts of oxigen from a nearby gas cloud would collide with it. However, it will be blue rather than red oxigin: the other requirement for O8 (very low temperature) would never be met near the surface of a collapsing star.

I know how weird this question sounds and how the answer to it is probably **NO** at first glance, but I don't know enough about octaoxygen and oxygen to be 100% sure about the answer being **NO** and honestly, I have some hope (not much) about the answer to this question being **YES** due to the inmense size of the universe and how many planets there is out there. Even if the possibilities for a planet developing such an atmosphere are ridiculously low and crazy like just a 0.0000000000001% chance for a planet developing it, that's enough since that would mean there would be around as much as 700000 of them just in the entire obserbable universe! (700000 because there is an estimate of around 700000000000000000000 planets in the observable universe) Here is the best source of information about this molecule I have found so far, there is not a lot of information about it somewhere else: (Yes, wikipedia lol) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octaoxygen> BTW I would coincidere a **maybe, perhaps, possibly or im not 100% sure** answer as a good answer as far as you give a good explanation or your theory as of why you think it may or may not exist. At the end of the day you can't almost never be sure enough about this stuff for a solid YES or NO since we as species don't know enough about the universe in general. Thanks in advance! *(Also sorry if if I made any grammar mistake, my english is not perfect since it's not my main language)*

2021/07/05

It won't be a planet. There can be no celestial bodies at 10.000 earth mass, with room temperature at the surface. Jupiter has about 800 Earth masses and an object 3-4 times Jupiter mass would become a dwarf star, burning deuterium. Pressure is in the right order, but the surface is too hot to accommodate the O8. I think you'd be talking a cooled down larger star, in the process of collapse. 10000 times earth mass, say about 1/10th of earth radius.. in this case, any chemical element landing on the surface would get subject to enormous pressure and condensate. A layer of condensated - solid - oxigen *could* be the result, when large amounts of oxigen from a nearby gas cloud would collide with it. However, it will be blue rather than red oxigin: the other requirement for O8 (very low temperature) would never be met near the surface of a collapsing star.

Octaoxygen forms from oxygen at [a pressure of ten gigapascals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octaoxygen), or a pressure equal to 10,000 standard atmospheres. ~~Since atmospheric pressure is directly related to gravity, you would need an oxygen-rich atmosphere on a planet with gravity 10,000 times stronger than that of the Earth.~~ Edit: Gravity is a significant factor, but it is not the only one. The ideal gas law is written PV = nRT, or pressure = number of mols of gas x constant x temperature ÷ volume, which means that pressure does change with temperature, amount of gas, and the volume the gas is contained in. A planet with higher gravity would effectively reduce the volume, which increases the pressure. However, it is not the only variable. Note that the high proportion of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is due mostly to plant life and other organisms performing photosynthesis. However, photosynthesis requires sunlight which would not be able to penetrate very far through such a dense atmosphere. Therefore, any organisms would have to be buoyant enough to float near the surface of the planet's atmosphere. This is not as difficult as it seems, since the atmosphere will be around ten times denser than water at sea level on earth - most organisms on Earth would float near its surface. Life also usually requires water, but most water on Earth comes from comet trails as they pass nearby. A gas giant might have enough water vapor in the atmosphere to support floating life.

For example take positive edge triggered D flip flop.If input (D) changes from 1 to 0 at the same time when clock pulse goes from 0 to 1(positive edge of clock pulse), what will be the output (Q).Will it be 1 or 0? [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PyglI.png) Assume setup time and hold time to be zero

2015/08/24

Look in the datasheet for the flipflop, and there will be two specs that address this issue: *Setup time* and *hold time*. The setup time is how long the input data needs to be held fixed before the clock, and hold time is how long it needs to remain fixed after the clock. If either of these specs is violated, then the answer is you don't know what state the output will settle at. Some flipflops have either a 0 setup time or 0 hold time. In that case, the input timing you show would work and be valid. In the case of 0 setup time, the output will take on the input value after the clock, and opposite for 0 hold time. If your data changes within the time window defined by the combination of setup and hold time, then you get garbage out.

Just like @BrianDrummond said. In the datasheet will there be some specifications of how much time the data must be constant before the clock pulse to be accepted as a new value. Here is a video about: Digital Logic - Propagation Delay, Setup, and Hold times <https://youtu.be/g8lRqQ-IfYw>

For example take positive edge triggered D flip flop.If input (D) changes from 1 to 0 at the same time when clock pulse goes from 0 to 1(positive edge of clock pulse), what will be the output (Q).Will it be 1 or 0? [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PyglI.png) Assume setup time and hold time to be zero

2015/08/24

Look in the datasheet for the flipflop, and there will be two specs that address this issue: *Setup time* and *hold time*. The setup time is how long the input data needs to be held fixed before the clock, and hold time is how long it needs to remain fixed after the clock. If either of these specs is violated, then the answer is you don't know what state the output will settle at. Some flipflops have either a 0 setup time or 0 hold time. In that case, the input timing you show would work and be valid. In the case of 0 setup time, the output will take on the input value after the clock, and opposite for 0 hold time. If your data changes within the time window defined by the combination of setup and hold time, then you get garbage out.

If the input to the D-flipflop violates the set-up time and arrives too close to rising edge of the clock, the flip flop will either enter a metastable state (and so the output of flip flip will be at an intermediate level for some indeterminate period time ) or will enter a long delay state where the transition at the output of the flipflop is delayed for some confined period of the time (see figure). [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XUupB.png)

This is really bothering me for a long time, because the math is easy to do, but it's still unintuitive for me. I understand the "law of the lever" and I can do the math and use the torques, or conservation of energy. or whatever... And I can see that a lever can amplify a force you apply to it if you apply a force on the longer side of the beam. If I were to look at the molecular lever and see what actually happens when I push on the lever, and I give acceleration to the molecules, how does it actually happen that more force is transmitted to the other side? Thank you all p.s I'm looking just for an explanation in terms of forces and acceleration, it's clear to me how to do this in terms of energy or torques

2012/03/28

Even though @Noah's answer provides some insight, I would have to disagree with the statement that "the bonds on the short side are distorted more". The "net" distortion is probably the same on each side. I will provide a similar figure to @Noah's. There are two black rectangles, that would represent the two weights, but for now let's assume they are rigid. They are also at the same height with the same dimensions. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0DiMX.png) As you press the rectangles against the beam, the knee (fulcrum) will prevent translation so deformation will occur at the tips. Assuming we keep the same height between the rectangles, the vertical deformation at each of the beam's tips will be the same. However, the force required in the left rectangle for such deformation will be less than the force required by the rectangle on the right. To give some intuition on why this happens I have drawn the scenario where you would have to bend the longer portion of the beam (L1) and the shorter portion (L2): [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UI9CH.png) I believe that by experience you already know that in the second case (shorter beam) it's much harder to bend the beam and a greater force needs to be applied (\*). So if you combine these two cases and return to the original example, you probably understand that indeed a greater force needs to be applied at L2 compared to L1. If we think in terms of weights instead of two black rectangles, you can now see why a small force at the tip of L1, would require a larger force at L2 to balance out the system, deforming the same amount at each end. In a typical real-life situation the lever would not be as deformed. Nevertheless, the bending action and inherent geometry of the lever still explains this phenomenon. * (\*) **Bonus**: If you are wondering why a smaller beam is more difficult to bend compared to a longer one, you can study the beam using a ball-spring model at the atomic level. Thinking of the beam in terms of springs, the longer side has an equivalent axial spring that is much longer than the combined axial springs from shorter side. If you recall from Physics, a shorter spring is much harder to pull than a longer one. You can try it yourself, but the explanation for this is a whole other topic. As you "push" the weight in the longer side of the beam (or black rectangle), inevitably it bends the beam in such a way that "springs" near the top extend and the springs near the bottom compress (see bending moment for more about this). This means there is internal stress, due to axial forces, similar to how you would push a spring. Below you have a rough picture explaining the existence of an axial force (F1). The weight (F) is decomposed into a perpendicular force to the beam (F2) and an axial force (F1). Note that this is an oversimplification, since the internal axial force distribution varies along the cross section. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F3G7s.png) * **Extra**: A recent [discussion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/434778/proof-of-the-law-of-the-lever/514565?noredirect=1#comment1180811_514565) with @DS led me to remember that this is a similar situation to force amplification in fluids: what transfers the force from the smaller piston and amplifies it to the larger piston is the *pressure* and not the actual force. Here it's similar: what amplifies the force is the bending *stress* inside the beam, promoted by the push at the longer side of the lever and transmitted to the shorter side. Regarding **why** pressure/ stress is transmitted and not force that is probably related to the fact that **energy** is what is transmitted and not force. Assuming no losses to heat, there is energy conservation (either in the bending of the lever or in the piston example): even though the force is amplified, the distance (to the weight) is decreased so their product ("energy/ work") is the same at either side of the system. If someone wants to add some comments on this part I would greatly appreciate.

I take dmckee's answer to be flawed because it doesn't mention the earth. At the coarsest level, the earth accelerates down while the large object accelerates up. At the level of Newtonian mechanics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In more detail, the center of mass of the earth, the fulcrum, the lever, the person who pushes, and the large object, taken together as a single composite system, stays motionless (or, rather, at constant velocity), but the positions and velocities of the five internal components relative to each other are changed by the actions of the contact forces (which we can take ultimately to be non-contact gravitational, electromagnetic and nuclear forces, and an understanding of the constitution of matter does ultimately require QM) that act between them. At this level of modeling, the earth's acceleration (in the model) will be slightly different (and the same as the acceleration of the fulcrum), because part of the person who pushes is also accelerating downwards, and the acceleration of the various parts of the lever would have to be taken into account. At increasing levels of detail, each of the five components is also composite. I can bend my arm to exert a downward force because I can adjust the internal geometry of my arm relative to another part using chemical energy (which again we can take to be ultimately electromagnetic and nuclear energy, and QM). Although you tagged this QM, it can be understood moderately well in terms of classical mechanics and EM. The constitution of matter was a concern for late 19C Natural Philosophers, but everything was enough under control that they barely noticed that they were sweeping troubles under the carpet until Planck.

This is really bothering me for a long time, because the math is easy to do, but it's still unintuitive for me. I understand the "law of the lever" and I can do the math and use the torques, or conservation of energy. or whatever... And I can see that a lever can amplify a force you apply to it if you apply a force on the longer side of the beam. If I were to look at the molecular lever and see what actually happens when I push on the lever, and I give acceleration to the molecules, how does it actually happen that more force is transmitted to the other side? Thank you all p.s I'm looking just for an explanation in terms of forces and acceleration, it's clear to me how to do this in terms of energy or torques

2012/03/28

I agree with Benjamin Franz that the ball-and-spring model of a solid is helpful and that when a solid exerts a contact force the bonds between the atoms are distorted in that region. If you take a beam, clamp down its ends, and then apply a force to it off-center, the bonds on the short side are distorted more than the bonds on the long side. Therefore, more force is exerted on the clamp that is closer to the applied force. The diagram below illustrates this: 

Even though @Noah's answer provides some insight, I would have to disagree with the statement that "the bonds on the short side are distorted more". The "net" distortion is probably the same on each side. I will provide a similar figure to @Noah's. There are two black rectangles, that would represent the two weights, but for now let's assume they are rigid. They are also at the same height with the same dimensions. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0DiMX.png) As you press the rectangles against the beam, the knee (fulcrum) will prevent translation so deformation will occur at the tips. Assuming we keep the same height between the rectangles, the vertical deformation at each of the beam's tips will be the same. However, the force required in the left rectangle for such deformation will be less than the force required by the rectangle on the right. To give some intuition on why this happens I have drawn the scenario where you would have to bend the longer portion of the beam (L1) and the shorter portion (L2): [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UI9CH.png) I believe that by experience you already know that in the second case (shorter beam) it's much harder to bend the beam and a greater force needs to be applied (\*). So if you combine these two cases and return to the original example, you probably understand that indeed a greater force needs to be applied at L2 compared to L1. If we think in terms of weights instead of two black rectangles, you can now see why a small force at the tip of L1, would require a larger force at L2 to balance out the system, deforming the same amount at each end. In a typical real-life situation the lever would not be as deformed. Nevertheless, the bending action and inherent geometry of the lever still explains this phenomenon. * (\*) **Bonus**: If you are wondering why a smaller beam is more difficult to bend compared to a longer one, you can study the beam using a ball-spring model at the atomic level. Thinking of the beam in terms of springs, the longer side has an equivalent axial spring that is much longer than the combined axial springs from shorter side. If you recall from Physics, a shorter spring is much harder to pull than a longer one. You can try it yourself, but the explanation for this is a whole other topic. As you "push" the weight in the longer side of the beam (or black rectangle), inevitably it bends the beam in such a way that "springs" near the top extend and the springs near the bottom compress (see bending moment for more about this). This means there is internal stress, due to axial forces, similar to how you would push a spring. Below you have a rough picture explaining the existence of an axial force (F1). The weight (F) is decomposed into a perpendicular force to the beam (F2) and an axial force (F1). Note that this is an oversimplification, since the internal axial force distribution varies along the cross section. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F3G7s.png) * **Extra**: A recent [discussion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/434778/proof-of-the-law-of-the-lever/514565?noredirect=1#comment1180811_514565) with @DS led me to remember that this is a similar situation to force amplification in fluids: what transfers the force from the smaller piston and amplifies it to the larger piston is the *pressure* and not the actual force. Here it's similar: what amplifies the force is the bending *stress* inside the beam, promoted by the push at the longer side of the lever and transmitted to the shorter side. Regarding **why** pressure/ stress is transmitted and not force that is probably related to the fact that **energy** is what is transmitted and not force. Assuming no losses to heat, there is energy conservation (either in the bending of the lever or in the piston example): even though the force is amplified, the distance (to the weight) is decreased so their product ("energy/ work") is the same at either side of the system. If someone wants to add some comments on this part I would greatly appreciate.

This is really bothering me for a long time, because the math is easy to do, but it's still unintuitive for me. I understand the "law of the lever" and I can do the math and use the torques, or conservation of energy. or whatever... And I can see that a lever can amplify a force you apply to it if you apply a force on the longer side of the beam. If I were to look at the molecular lever and see what actually happens when I push on the lever, and I give acceleration to the molecules, how does it actually happen that more force is transmitted to the other side? Thank you all p.s I'm looking just for an explanation in terms of forces and acceleration, it's clear to me how to do this in terms of energy or torques

2012/03/28

I agree with Benjamin Franz that the ball-and-spring model of a solid is helpful and that when a solid exerts a contact force the bonds between the atoms are distorted in that region. If you take a beam, clamp down its ends, and then apply a force to it off-center, the bonds on the short side are distorted more than the bonds on the long side. Therefore, more force is exerted on the clamp that is closer to the applied force. The diagram below illustrates this: 

I take dmckee's answer to be flawed because it doesn't mention the earth. At the coarsest level, the earth accelerates down while the large object accelerates up. At the level of Newtonian mechanics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In more detail, the center of mass of the earth, the fulcrum, the lever, the person who pushes, and the large object, taken together as a single composite system, stays motionless (or, rather, at constant velocity), but the positions and velocities of the five internal components relative to each other are changed by the actions of the contact forces (which we can take ultimately to be non-contact gravitational, electromagnetic and nuclear forces, and an understanding of the constitution of matter does ultimately require QM) that act between them. At this level of modeling, the earth's acceleration (in the model) will be slightly different (and the same as the acceleration of the fulcrum), because part of the person who pushes is also accelerating downwards, and the acceleration of the various parts of the lever would have to be taken into account. At increasing levels of detail, each of the five components is also composite. I can bend my arm to exert a downward force because I can adjust the internal geometry of my arm relative to another part using chemical energy (which again we can take to be ultimately electromagnetic and nuclear energy, and QM). Although you tagged this QM, it can be understood moderately well in terms of classical mechanics and EM. The constitution of matter was a concern for late 19C Natural Philosophers, but everything was enough under control that they barely noticed that they were sweeping troubles under the carpet until Planck.

This is really bothering me for a long time, because the math is easy to do, but it's still unintuitive for me. I understand the "law of the lever" and I can do the math and use the torques, or conservation of energy. or whatever... And I can see that a lever can amplify a force you apply to it if you apply a force on the longer side of the beam. If I were to look at the molecular lever and see what actually happens when I push on the lever, and I give acceleration to the molecules, how does it actually happen that more force is transmitted to the other side? Thank you all p.s I'm looking just for an explanation in terms of forces and acceleration, it's clear to me how to do this in terms of energy or torques

2012/03/28

Even though @Noah's answer provides some insight, I would have to disagree with the statement that "the bonds on the short side are distorted more". The "net" distortion is probably the same on each side. I will provide a similar figure to @Noah's. There are two black rectangles, that would represent the two weights, but for now let's assume they are rigid. They are also at the same height with the same dimensions. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0DiMX.png) As you press the rectangles against the beam, the knee (fulcrum) will prevent translation so deformation will occur at the tips. Assuming we keep the same height between the rectangles, the vertical deformation at each of the beam's tips will be the same. However, the force required in the left rectangle for such deformation will be less than the force required by the rectangle on the right. To give some intuition on why this happens I have drawn the scenario where you would have to bend the longer portion of the beam (L1) and the shorter portion (L2): [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UI9CH.png) I believe that by experience you already know that in the second case (shorter beam) it's much harder to bend the beam and a greater force needs to be applied (\*). So if you combine these two cases and return to the original example, you probably understand that indeed a greater force needs to be applied at L2 compared to L1. If we think in terms of weights instead of two black rectangles, you can now see why a small force at the tip of L1, would require a larger force at L2 to balance out the system, deforming the same amount at each end. In a typical real-life situation the lever would not be as deformed. Nevertheless, the bending action and inherent geometry of the lever still explains this phenomenon. * (\*) **Bonus**: If you are wondering why a smaller beam is more difficult to bend compared to a longer one, you can study the beam using a ball-spring model at the atomic level. Thinking of the beam in terms of springs, the longer side has an equivalent axial spring that is much longer than the combined axial springs from shorter side. If you recall from Physics, a shorter spring is much harder to pull than a longer one. You can try it yourself, but the explanation for this is a whole other topic. As you "push" the weight in the longer side of the beam (or black rectangle), inevitably it bends the beam in such a way that "springs" near the top extend and the springs near the bottom compress (see bending moment for more about this). This means there is internal stress, due to axial forces, similar to how you would push a spring. Below you have a rough picture explaining the existence of an axial force (F1). The weight (F) is decomposed into a perpendicular force to the beam (F2) and an axial force (F1). Note that this is an oversimplification, since the internal axial force distribution varies along the cross section. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F3G7s.png) * **Extra**: A recent [discussion](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/434778/proof-of-the-law-of-the-lever/514565?noredirect=1#comment1180811_514565) with @DS led me to remember that this is a similar situation to force amplification in fluids: what transfers the force from the smaller piston and amplifies it to the larger piston is the *pressure* and not the actual force. Here it's similar: what amplifies the force is the bending *stress* inside the beam, promoted by the push at the longer side of the lever and transmitted to the shorter side. Regarding **why** pressure/ stress is transmitted and not force that is probably related to the fact that **energy** is what is transmitted and not force. Assuming no losses to heat, there is energy conservation (either in the bending of the lever or in the piston example): even though the force is amplified, the distance (to the weight) is decreased so their product ("energy/ work") is the same at either side of the system. If someone wants to add some comments on this part I would greatly appreciate.

It is all relative to the pivot point in the lever, and to energy expended, not the force applied. If the pivot point is one quarter of the levers length, from the bottom of the lever, and you apply a force F, to the top of lever, to move the top through adistance D, the result will be that the bottom of the lever will move through a third of the distance of the top. (IE 3/4 of length divided by 1/4 of length about pivot point). The energy expended at the top of the lever is FxD. Since energy in, equals energy out, and the bottom of the lever moves only 1/3 of D, then the force that is exerted at the bottom of the lever is 3D. (IE 3 times the force applied at the top of the lever) but it has been exerted over a shorter distance. Hope that this is what you are looking for, and hope I have made it clear. It is 60 years since I was taught this.

I am getting these strange white package icons in my testing project. From what I've seen @ <http://jamie.ideasasylum.com/images/icons.pdf>, they signal "empty packages", but I don't know why.  My `src/` folder is set is includedin the build path, so I don't get what the problem might be:  Thanks

2011/08/03

This is most likely because you have chosen hierarchical package views. The hierarchical package view will show empty package icons for packages without any classes.  Switching to flat package views will allow Eclipse to display only packages that have classes in them.

Create at least one class in the 'empty' package 'white package' and refresh the project, the color should change to Golden. When Package does not contain any class, then the color is white.

We are thinking of patching our new network rack using 0,15m cables due to costs and cable management requirements. There will be around 400-500 connections using this cable length and we will be using Dell enterprise equipment (switches). I found a vendor selling certified cables for CAT6a. My question is in regards to [this source](https://www.clnet-solution.com/is-there-a-minimum-length/) from 2015: > > If you are talking specifically about patch cords, then 0.5 m is the implied minimum length in ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.2-1 for a certified patch cord. That’s because the math for the limit lines really does not work below this. Infact, getting a certified patch cord of 0.5 is going to be tricky. Many vendors only offer a certified patch cord of 1.0 m or longer. > > > What problems should we expect / make sure to test for before hand? Note: The patch cables will be used to connect the patch panel with the switch

2022/01/24

**Note:** If the cables goes into a patch panel, the cable length is equal to the sum of the cable lengths on each side of the patch panel.

Most known vendors now have length detection on their switch/router firmware which adjusts signaling power and timing accordingly. Based on years of experience, I believe you'll have little to zero issues working with short cables in compact server rooms. It is still a good policy to stick to ratified cables, anyhow.

I'm using Windows. I have installed Visual C# 2010, mono and MonoDevelop. I know that MonoDevelop can use either Microsoft's compiler or mono's compiler. How do I check which compiler is used by MonoDevelop? And how do I change it to other one?

2012/03/19

You can see and change the active runtime for the current solution using the *Project->Active Runtime* menu, or the active configuration picker in the toolbar. These options will be invisible if you do not have any alternate runtimes installed. Note that these two places to set it are slightly inconsistent - the toolbar differentiates between using the "Default" runtime, and using that same runtime explicitly. You can specify the default runtime in the MonoDevelop global options: *Preferences->.NET Runtimes*. And of course, if you want to double-check, you can just look at the build output section in the Errors Pad and see what compiler it's invoking.

In addition, depending on which .NET frameworks you have installed, you can check the *Runtime* section at *Help -> Info -> Details* to see which version of the .NET framework MonoDevelop is running on. This seems to impact which .NET compiler is used if you select *Microsoft .NET*. I am still figuring out how to change the framework version used, e.g. in order to use features of C# 6 in your project if you have .NET 4.0 installed as well. See [the Xamarin forums](https://forums.xamarin.com/discussion/40776/unable-to-build-under-mono-on-windows) for a discussion on that topic. I will update this answer once the topic is resolved.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

### If you're using dice, this is a roughly 50-50 fight With the same statistics and abilities, and randomness in the form of Dice, cards, or something else, you have a roughly 50% chance of a TPK, and nearly guaranteed at least one player will die. This is probably way above the normal encounter guidelines for any system to consider a "Deadly" encounter. ### If the invoker participates in the fight, it's almost assuredly a TPK If the invoker isn't doing this as a stalling technique to flee, or in hubris because he thinks his clones will win, this encounter will mop the floor with them. Additionally, this raises a verisimilitude concern: if the clones are identical in strength and the Invoker flees, why didn't he simply stay, since he would nearly guarantee he would have the upper hand and be victorious. For these reasons, you should make the clones easier to defeat than the players, whether the Invoker flees or not. ### You will have better macro tactics, they will have better micro tactics You will have full map knowledge, be able to make all the mirror-PCs act in a well orchestrated and coordinated strategy, while knowing all the weaknesses of the players. This will weight things in your favour. They will not immediately know these are 100% identical clones, nor will have the map knowledge.. But they will have much more intimate and familiar knowledge with their own characters and their team. By now they should have developed successful tactics for their characters and team. This might weight things a bit more in favour of the players. If you want for it to be a fight to the death where anyone could win this is fine, but if not... ### Solution 1: The clones are imperfect copies The clones could simply be highly similar based on what the invoker thinks he knows about them. Perhaps remove a few abilities, stat points, or powers, and reduce the HP somewhat to weight things in the players favour. In a similar vein, simply giving the clones half the HP, cutting any daily abilities and having the Invoker also participate in the fight could make for a very challenging encounter. This depends heavily on how difficult the Invoker would be for the party however. This should let the PCs have more options and resources to survive the fight, but it can still be very brutal and challenging mirror match. ### Solution 2: There is a way to short circuit the fight Perhaps attacking the invoker directly will cause him to lose concentration on the clones, making one vanish. Maybe the clones are summoned by various totems or wards that can be destroyed by the players, fizzling a clone. Maybe the players can use a Banishment spell to instantly destroy one of the clones on a failed save. This would allow the players to swing the numbers into their favour without having to fully defeat a summon, swinging the advantage again to the players. Note that, if you do go this route, be sure to [telegraph these mechanics to the players in multiple ways](http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule), because the stakes are very high, and if they don't figure it out they will likely die. ### Solution 3: Break this into multiple encounters Either the players come across a subset of their clones and a few other minions as they approach the Invoker's lair, or the Invoker cannot summon all the Clones at once, but rather over the course of 2-3 rounds. If you have small subset fights, you can theme them strongly to the cloned PC's present. Maybe you have an encounter for each Clone (or a pair), with a group of minions, and a battle arena that fits their play style. This would be great for highlighting each Character as you go as well. If the Invoker must summon them slower, the PCs have a chance to focus fire the clones or Invoker down before the encounter hits critical mass. ### Solution 4: Make the clones *ideals* not *identical* Instead of making them exact clones, make them ideals of the characters. Take their best aspects, and worst aspects, and exaggerate them. A strong melee fighter, who is a bit dumb, might become a ferocious but nearly braindead melee combatant. If doing this, you'll still need to use one of the other solutions in tandem to reduce the danger of the encounter. Making the clones have worse overall stats being one of the best meshing strategies. You make their best and worst aspects be obvious, but everything else disappears. ### No matter what: Playtest the encounter If you don't playtest the encounter, you will have no idea whether the encounter will be too difficult for the players, or whether it will be frustrating or just plain unfair feeling. You can do this solo (playing against yourself) or recruit some other friends not in the campaign to help out to get a good feel of the balance. Make sure you run it at least 2 or 3 times due to the swinginess of the combat.

I see several inherent problems with cloning a party. Don't get me wrong, the *psychological* value would be awesome. And it may create battlefield confusion and force the party to keep their battle line tight. *But:* * As far as game mechanics, you would have 5 independently thinking players, against a DM controlling 5 character sheets. This would be inherently imbalanced, *nevermind* the fact that the DM controls rule interpretations. She would have to be very careful not to "rig the game" to steamroll the players. * If the clones are highly autonomous, problem: Cloning does not necessarily (DM's fiat) clone the training, experience, mutual trust and [CRM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) that they have developed over many adventures and that makes them effective fighters. Can a clone *trust*? * If the clones are *not* highly autonomous, the controlling wizard has some serious problems. + he has no earthly idea how to wield a polearm. + The wizard, especially a loner type, may not have any experience managing a unit of troops effectively, especially with an array of disparate skills. + he will have **very severe [pilot-workload](http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/35_9/features/Why-Smart-Pilots-Crash_11049-1.html) issues** during a fight, simply because there is so much going on in the battle for him to respond to - 5 minds against one. He may arrogantly underestimate this workload, as his practice sessions are staged. If the party were smart, they could "[game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system)" this by surging their activities; everyone make an attack simultaneously and he won't be able to direct his attention to every clone at once, meaning some are fairly nonresponsive and attacks get through. Rinse wash repeat until he's down to 2 clones - he can manage that, but now it's 5 on 2. + his workload issues will become much more severe if you can also attack the wizard himself, because defending attacks against himself must be highest priority, or he auto-loses. So simply put, balance the fight by making the clones kinda suck. You could have a lot of fun with this. For instance, have the fighter try to fight with the polearm, get disgusted and step back from the fight to grab the wizard's dagger. For extra irony and amusement, have them make the newbie mistakes the *players* made early in the campaign.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

I see several inherent problems with cloning a party. Don't get me wrong, the *psychological* value would be awesome. And it may create battlefield confusion and force the party to keep their battle line tight. *But:* * As far as game mechanics, you would have 5 independently thinking players, against a DM controlling 5 character sheets. This would be inherently imbalanced, *nevermind* the fact that the DM controls rule interpretations. She would have to be very careful not to "rig the game" to steamroll the players. * If the clones are highly autonomous, problem: Cloning does not necessarily (DM's fiat) clone the training, experience, mutual trust and [CRM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) that they have developed over many adventures and that makes them effective fighters. Can a clone *trust*? * If the clones are *not* highly autonomous, the controlling wizard has some serious problems. + he has no earthly idea how to wield a polearm. + The wizard, especially a loner type, may not have any experience managing a unit of troops effectively, especially with an array of disparate skills. + he will have **very severe [pilot-workload](http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/35_9/features/Why-Smart-Pilots-Crash_11049-1.html) issues** during a fight, simply because there is so much going on in the battle for him to respond to - 5 minds against one. He may arrogantly underestimate this workload, as his practice sessions are staged. If the party were smart, they could "[game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system)" this by surging their activities; everyone make an attack simultaneously and he won't be able to direct his attention to every clone at once, meaning some are fairly nonresponsive and attacks get through. Rinse wash repeat until he's down to 2 clones - he can manage that, but now it's 5 on 2. + his workload issues will become much more severe if you can also attack the wizard himself, because defending attacks against himself must be highest priority, or he auto-loses. So simply put, balance the fight by making the clones kinda suck. You could have a lot of fun with this. For instance, have the fighter try to fight with the polearm, get disgusted and step back from the fight to grab the wizard's dagger. For extra irony and amusement, have them make the newbie mistakes the *players* made early in the campaign.

I'm looking at this from an old-school wargaming type perspective than an RPG one; there, having the 'generals' being able to co-ordinate actions rather too unrealistically is an old problem. So, what I suggest you do is to make some short tactical rules to cover this encounter. One simple approach would be to have written orders to generate the baseline dumb AI, and to allocate yourself a certain number of command points per round to amend them. If you are going to balance this to be roughly even, I would suggest you have a plan for the PC's losing that doesn't end your campaign prematurely. However, that wasn't really what you were asking.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

The copies have a significant disadvantage ------------------------------------------ This will be dependent on how magic and summoning work in your setting, but since you marked this question as System agnostic I'll be giving some different ways to do this: * **The copies disappear if the summoner dies/loses concentration**: This would be an easy option. Yeah, the copies are strong, but the players don't need to take them head-on, just go for the summoner. * **The copies disappear if dealt enough damage**: This will be system-dependent, but most have a way to keep track of damage and also a way for characters to still survive when dropped under 0 / gone over max. Have your copies not have this last recourse, and there you have a weakness. * **The copies have a twisted personality that hinders their teamwork**: This is in line with the trope: the copies exacerbate the bad qualities of the original. The wizard goes from proud to megalomaniac, the fighter from rash to completely irrational, the thief from independent to backstabber... They have the same skill, but not the same mindset, and as such the group isn't as cohesive as the original or simply cannot work together at all, going as far as to killing each other. * **The copies have a twisted personality that twists their goals** : In line with the previous option, maybe they do work together but act in a way that is tactically disadvantageous. Maybe the copied cleric pacifism makes him unable to deal damage, or the hubris of the fighter makes him want to fight with a hand on their back. Or they simply want to prove how much better than the originals they are that they simply handicap themselves. * **The copies lack an important power**: Maybe the copied priest can't cast divine skills due to no connection to his deity, the copied monk cannot channel her chi since her body is not actually living... This may have the downside of making a specific copy be less relevant than the others, but still accomplishes the goal, and with some careful planning can be spread out so as not to make a copy weaker then the rest. There are many other options, I actually tried out in different games the first three to various degrees of success. Make sure the players have a way to know the weakness, however, be it by virtue of how your setting works or dropping clues. If they have a weakness the characters don't know how to exploit, they don't really have a weakness. --- However, whenever I did or thought about doing this I always had a **goal** in mind. What is it you want this encounter to mean? If it's just a normal combat encounter, with nothing special to be gained, then I wouldn't bother employing such a convoluted and overused trope. Whenever I actually went along with plans similar to this one, it was with an objective. One time, I wanted the characters (not players, that's a completely different subject) to realize that they worked right together. So their copies were them with exaggerated traits of personality, and that prevented them from working together. In the end, the characters realized why pushing aside some personal goals for the sake of the party was important (go ahead, call me cheesy, friendship is power). Another, I just wanted the characters to see how far they've come before the grand finale. They were upset there were many "just born monsters" stronger than them while having overcome no obstacles. So their copies were them minus their experience. They made the mistakes the original characters had made at one point or another throughout the game. They didn't use the well polished tactics they developed throughout the sessions. That let the characters see how their experience set them apart beyond their stats and treasure. I could think of many others objectives you could have for this encounter, like simply showing them how strong their characters could really be or whatever, but you need to have yours clear. If you know what you want your players and their characters to get out of the encounter, it's easier to decide what their copies' shortcomings are.

The way I see it - without knowing details about how your RPG works balancing-wise etc. - you have the following options (I'll be using D&D 5e terms when giving examples - just translate that into your respective game): * make the **clones significantly less powerful than their PC counterparts**: + this should be obvious - if the clones are at the exact same power level as your players, then the clones alone, without the actual boss, would probably wipe the party, since as you said - being a collective, they can act way more strategically. + that being said, how strong the clones are *precisely* depends on what the boss himself can do. Does he summon the clones and then just sit back and relax? Or is he, after summoning the clones, still powerful enough to wipe the floor with 2-3 of the PCs? Depending on what the answer to that question is, you should **scale** the hitpoints accordingly, as well as potentially the AC and attack and damage bonuses of the clones. Limiting access to spells or class features, especially high-level ones, is also viable. * **Don't spawn all the clones at once**: + if the wizard spawns one clone per turn, maybe with the occasional turn in between where he doesn't summon a clone and does something else, then your players have a significantly higher chance of defeating him. Scaling the clones stats should not or only insignificantly necessary. * Give the clones **unique weaknesses** that are based off the PCs flaws. For example, a dumb strength-based berserker could get even dumber so that the PCs can lure him into a trap or something like that. This is particularly interesting because it gives the PCs a chance to reflect their own weaknesses, although you might find it tricky to find appropriate flaws for each character. * Use environmental effects or non-player-characters to aid in the fight - for example, **the spell that cloned the players might have been so powerful that his previous summons suddenly turned against the wizard**. Or a random group of other adventurers coincidentally decided to mess with that particular wizard at the same time that the PCs did. Your imagination is the limit :) At the end, I would highly recommend playing through the encounter once or twice, just to make sure it's roughly balanced.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

The way I see it - without knowing details about how your RPG works balancing-wise etc. - you have the following options (I'll be using D&D 5e terms when giving examples - just translate that into your respective game): * make the **clones significantly less powerful than their PC counterparts**: + this should be obvious - if the clones are at the exact same power level as your players, then the clones alone, without the actual boss, would probably wipe the party, since as you said - being a collective, they can act way more strategically. + that being said, how strong the clones are *precisely* depends on what the boss himself can do. Does he summon the clones and then just sit back and relax? Or is he, after summoning the clones, still powerful enough to wipe the floor with 2-3 of the PCs? Depending on what the answer to that question is, you should **scale** the hitpoints accordingly, as well as potentially the AC and attack and damage bonuses of the clones. Limiting access to spells or class features, especially high-level ones, is also viable. * **Don't spawn all the clones at once**: + if the wizard spawns one clone per turn, maybe with the occasional turn in between where he doesn't summon a clone and does something else, then your players have a significantly higher chance of defeating him. Scaling the clones stats should not or only insignificantly necessary. * Give the clones **unique weaknesses** that are based off the PCs flaws. For example, a dumb strength-based berserker could get even dumber so that the PCs can lure him into a trap or something like that. This is particularly interesting because it gives the PCs a chance to reflect their own weaknesses, although you might find it tricky to find appropriate flaws for each character. * Use environmental effects or non-player-characters to aid in the fight - for example, **the spell that cloned the players might have been so powerful that his previous summons suddenly turned against the wizard**. Or a random group of other adventurers coincidentally decided to mess with that particular wizard at the same time that the PCs did. Your imagination is the limit :) At the end, I would highly recommend playing through the encounter once or twice, just to make sure it's roughly balanced.

I'm looking at this from an old-school wargaming type perspective than an RPG one; there, having the 'generals' being able to co-ordinate actions rather too unrealistically is an old problem. So, what I suggest you do is to make some short tactical rules to cover this encounter. One simple approach would be to have written orders to generate the baseline dumb AI, and to allocate yourself a certain number of command points per round to amend them. If you are going to balance this to be roughly even, I would suggest you have a plan for the PC's losing that doesn't end your campaign prematurely. However, that wasn't really what you were asking.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

[As Randomorph has already noted,](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/114207) a perfectly balanced fight between two parties with the exact same traits and abilities should result in a 50% chance of the PCs losing (and, presumably, being killed). Assuming that's not what you want, you'll need to give the clones some significant weakness, or perhaps several. However, **those weaknesses need not be mechanical.** In particular, you write in your question that: > > I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. > > > That's a known weakness of your players, and you want to highlight it, so **why not give the clones the same weakness**, but in an exaggerated form? Instead of playing the clones as a coordinated team, have each of them completely ignore each other, or even actively try to shove each other aside. If your PCs have any area-of-effect attacks, have the clones use them indiscriminately, even if their supposed allies are also in the target area. And definitely don't have the tougher clone characters do anything to protect squishier members of their not-really-a-team. Indeed, if things start looking risky, some of them might even decide to run away and abandon their supposed teammates. If you wanted, you could even have the clones start actively fighting each other, but that might be taking it a bit too far — at least unless a natural excuse for it presents itself. --- Taking this idea a bit further, you should also consider having the clones be ignorant of the PCs' abilities. Sure, *you* know what the PCs can do, but if they don't immediately recognize the clones as copies of themselves, why should the clones be any wiser? That way, if your players do realize what's going on, that should give them an edge as they'll know exactly what their opponents can do — but to fully exploit it, they'll have to share their knowledge with each other. Basically, my suggestion is that, instead of playing the clones as a *better* team than your players are, **deliberately play them as a *worse* team.** That should provide the same contrast that you're looking for, while giving your PCs a better chance of survival and victory. Even so, just as Randomorph also noted in their answer, you should definitely playtest this scenario in advance and see how it works out. You should also be prepared to think on your feet and adjust the difficulty of the fight on the run if need be. Played straight, this is still an absolutely deadly encounter, and there's no shame in fudging your side's tactics a bit to make it survivable. If your players just happen to be working extraordinarily badly as a team, your clones may just have to find ways to be even worse.

**Do it in stages** Number each player (1-6) and roll a six-sided die. Fist two players rolled are the characters the Wizard will summon. Do this in stage until all copies are defeated. Also, decide before whether the copies can or can't leave behind loot. PS- If you prefer, you can do the copies in sets of three, to make it more challenging.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

I see several inherent problems with cloning a party. Don't get me wrong, the *psychological* value would be awesome. And it may create battlefield confusion and force the party to keep their battle line tight. *But:* * As far as game mechanics, you would have 5 independently thinking players, against a DM controlling 5 character sheets. This would be inherently imbalanced, *nevermind* the fact that the DM controls rule interpretations. She would have to be very careful not to "rig the game" to steamroll the players. * If the clones are highly autonomous, problem: Cloning does not necessarily (DM's fiat) clone the training, experience, mutual trust and [CRM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) that they have developed over many adventures and that makes them effective fighters. Can a clone *trust*? * If the clones are *not* highly autonomous, the controlling wizard has some serious problems. + he has no earthly idea how to wield a polearm. + The wizard, especially a loner type, may not have any experience managing a unit of troops effectively, especially with an array of disparate skills. + he will have **very severe [pilot-workload](http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/35_9/features/Why-Smart-Pilots-Crash_11049-1.html) issues** during a fight, simply because there is so much going on in the battle for him to respond to - 5 minds against one. He may arrogantly underestimate this workload, as his practice sessions are staged. If the party were smart, they could "[game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system)" this by surging their activities; everyone make an attack simultaneously and he won't be able to direct his attention to every clone at once, meaning some are fairly nonresponsive and attacks get through. Rinse wash repeat until he's down to 2 clones - he can manage that, but now it's 5 on 2. + his workload issues will become much more severe if you can also attack the wizard himself, because defending attacks against himself must be highest priority, or he auto-loses. So simply put, balance the fight by making the clones kinda suck. You could have a lot of fun with this. For instance, have the fighter try to fight with the polearm, get disgusted and step back from the fight to grab the wizard's dagger. For extra irony and amusement, have them make the newbie mistakes the *players* made early in the campaign.

I recently did something similar. Instead of full clones they were copies of a fragment of the soul. I gave them the general abilities and had them fight well, but they all had a flat health and no matter what ability they cast, the damage was a flat amount of necrotic. So an exploding fireball was still a low hit. Why? Because the clones hadn't expended spell slots, gotten stacks of exhaustion from raging, etc. The clones used a decent strategy, but also tried to hit their copy. If you were hit by your copy you had to make saving throws or suffer temporary penalties. When rolling dice, you have a 50% chance to beat an evenly matched opponent. The strategy and versatility of the party is what gives them the edge. If you copy that versatility with the goal being to optimize the strategy, the clones will probably win. If this is your goal, however, to show them how well they could work together if they tried, then I would suggest doing it without consequences. Maybe this battle is really a spell that is causing them to fight a projection of themselves, not a clone. The difference? They are really in a trance designed to delay them so that the big baddie can prepare something. Once the party dies, or maybe when they finally kill the first/second/third copy, they break the spell. That way you can show them how good they could be without killing them.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

The copies have a significant disadvantage ------------------------------------------ This will be dependent on how magic and summoning work in your setting, but since you marked this question as System agnostic I'll be giving some different ways to do this: * **The copies disappear if the summoner dies/loses concentration**: This would be an easy option. Yeah, the copies are strong, but the players don't need to take them head-on, just go for the summoner. * **The copies disappear if dealt enough damage**: This will be system-dependent, but most have a way to keep track of damage and also a way for characters to still survive when dropped under 0 / gone over max. Have your copies not have this last recourse, and there you have a weakness. * **The copies have a twisted personality that hinders their teamwork**: This is in line with the trope: the copies exacerbate the bad qualities of the original. The wizard goes from proud to megalomaniac, the fighter from rash to completely irrational, the thief from independent to backstabber... They have the same skill, but not the same mindset, and as such the group isn't as cohesive as the original or simply cannot work together at all, going as far as to killing each other. * **The copies have a twisted personality that twists their goals** : In line with the previous option, maybe they do work together but act in a way that is tactically disadvantageous. Maybe the copied cleric pacifism makes him unable to deal damage, or the hubris of the fighter makes him want to fight with a hand on their back. Or they simply want to prove how much better than the originals they are that they simply handicap themselves. * **The copies lack an important power**: Maybe the copied priest can't cast divine skills due to no connection to his deity, the copied monk cannot channel her chi since her body is not actually living... This may have the downside of making a specific copy be less relevant than the others, but still accomplishes the goal, and with some careful planning can be spread out so as not to make a copy weaker then the rest. There are many other options, I actually tried out in different games the first three to various degrees of success. Make sure the players have a way to know the weakness, however, be it by virtue of how your setting works or dropping clues. If they have a weakness the characters don't know how to exploit, they don't really have a weakness. --- However, whenever I did or thought about doing this I always had a **goal** in mind. What is it you want this encounter to mean? If it's just a normal combat encounter, with nothing special to be gained, then I wouldn't bother employing such a convoluted and overused trope. Whenever I actually went along with plans similar to this one, it was with an objective. One time, I wanted the characters (not players, that's a completely different subject) to realize that they worked right together. So their copies were them with exaggerated traits of personality, and that prevented them from working together. In the end, the characters realized why pushing aside some personal goals for the sake of the party was important (go ahead, call me cheesy, friendship is power). Another, I just wanted the characters to see how far they've come before the grand finale. They were upset there were many "just born monsters" stronger than them while having overcome no obstacles. So their copies were them minus their experience. They made the mistakes the original characters had made at one point or another throughout the game. They didn't use the well polished tactics they developed throughout the sessions. That let the characters see how their experience set them apart beyond their stats and treasure. I could think of many others objectives you could have for this encounter, like simply showing them how strong their characters could really be or whatever, but you need to have yours clear. If you know what you want your players and their characters to get out of the encounter, it's easier to decide what their copies' shortcomings are.

[As Randomorph has already noted,](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/114207) a perfectly balanced fight between two parties with the exact same traits and abilities should result in a 50% chance of the PCs losing (and, presumably, being killed). Assuming that's not what you want, you'll need to give the clones some significant weakness, or perhaps several. However, **those weaknesses need not be mechanical.** In particular, you write in your question that: > > I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. > > > That's a known weakness of your players, and you want to highlight it, so **why not give the clones the same weakness**, but in an exaggerated form? Instead of playing the clones as a coordinated team, have each of them completely ignore each other, or even actively try to shove each other aside. If your PCs have any area-of-effect attacks, have the clones use them indiscriminately, even if their supposed allies are also in the target area. And definitely don't have the tougher clone characters do anything to protect squishier members of their not-really-a-team. Indeed, if things start looking risky, some of them might even decide to run away and abandon their supposed teammates. If you wanted, you could even have the clones start actively fighting each other, but that might be taking it a bit too far — at least unless a natural excuse for it presents itself. --- Taking this idea a bit further, you should also consider having the clones be ignorant of the PCs' abilities. Sure, *you* know what the PCs can do, but if they don't immediately recognize the clones as copies of themselves, why should the clones be any wiser? That way, if your players do realize what's going on, that should give them an edge as they'll know exactly what their opponents can do — but to fully exploit it, they'll have to share their knowledge with each other. Basically, my suggestion is that, instead of playing the clones as a *better* team than your players are, **deliberately play them as a *worse* team.** That should provide the same contrast that you're looking for, while giving your PCs a better chance of survival and victory. Even so, just as Randomorph also noted in their answer, you should definitely playtest this scenario in advance and see how it works out. You should also be prepared to think on your feet and adjust the difficulty of the fight on the run if need be. Played straight, this is still an absolutely deadly encounter, and there's no shame in fudging your side's tactics a bit to make it survivable. If your players just happen to be working extraordinarily badly as a team, your clones may just have to find ways to be even worse.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

I see several inherent problems with cloning a party. Don't get me wrong, the *psychological* value would be awesome. And it may create battlefield confusion and force the party to keep their battle line tight. *But:* * As far as game mechanics, you would have 5 independently thinking players, against a DM controlling 5 character sheets. This would be inherently imbalanced, *nevermind* the fact that the DM controls rule interpretations. She would have to be very careful not to "rig the game" to steamroll the players. * If the clones are highly autonomous, problem: Cloning does not necessarily (DM's fiat) clone the training, experience, mutual trust and [CRM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) that they have developed over many adventures and that makes them effective fighters. Can a clone *trust*? * If the clones are *not* highly autonomous, the controlling wizard has some serious problems. + he has no earthly idea how to wield a polearm. + The wizard, especially a loner type, may not have any experience managing a unit of troops effectively, especially with an array of disparate skills. + he will have **very severe [pilot-workload](http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/35_9/features/Why-Smart-Pilots-Crash_11049-1.html) issues** during a fight, simply because there is so much going on in the battle for him to respond to - 5 minds against one. He may arrogantly underestimate this workload, as his practice sessions are staged. If the party were smart, they could "[game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system)" this by surging their activities; everyone make an attack simultaneously and he won't be able to direct his attention to every clone at once, meaning some are fairly nonresponsive and attacks get through. Rinse wash repeat until he's down to 2 clones - he can manage that, but now it's 5 on 2. + his workload issues will become much more severe if you can also attack the wizard himself, because defending attacks against himself must be highest priority, or he auto-loses. So simply put, balance the fight by making the clones kinda suck. You could have a lot of fun with this. For instance, have the fighter try to fight with the polearm, get disgusted and step back from the fight to grab the wizard's dagger. For extra irony and amusement, have them make the newbie mistakes the *players* made early in the campaign.

**Do it in stages** Number each player (1-6) and roll a six-sided die. Fist two players rolled are the characters the Wizard will summon. Do this in stage until all copies are defeated. Also, decide before whether the copies can or can't leave behind loot. PS- If you prefer, you can do the copies in sets of three, to make it more challenging.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

### If you're using dice, this is a roughly 50-50 fight With the same statistics and abilities, and randomness in the form of Dice, cards, or something else, you have a roughly 50% chance of a TPK, and nearly guaranteed at least one player will die. This is probably way above the normal encounter guidelines for any system to consider a "Deadly" encounter. ### If the invoker participates in the fight, it's almost assuredly a TPK If the invoker isn't doing this as a stalling technique to flee, or in hubris because he thinks his clones will win, this encounter will mop the floor with them. Additionally, this raises a verisimilitude concern: if the clones are identical in strength and the Invoker flees, why didn't he simply stay, since he would nearly guarantee he would have the upper hand and be victorious. For these reasons, you should make the clones easier to defeat than the players, whether the Invoker flees or not. ### You will have better macro tactics, they will have better micro tactics You will have full map knowledge, be able to make all the mirror-PCs act in a well orchestrated and coordinated strategy, while knowing all the weaknesses of the players. This will weight things in your favour. They will not immediately know these are 100% identical clones, nor will have the map knowledge.. But they will have much more intimate and familiar knowledge with their own characters and their team. By now they should have developed successful tactics for their characters and team. This might weight things a bit more in favour of the players. If you want for it to be a fight to the death where anyone could win this is fine, but if not... ### Solution 1: The clones are imperfect copies The clones could simply be highly similar based on what the invoker thinks he knows about them. Perhaps remove a few abilities, stat points, or powers, and reduce the HP somewhat to weight things in the players favour. In a similar vein, simply giving the clones half the HP, cutting any daily abilities and having the Invoker also participate in the fight could make for a very challenging encounter. This depends heavily on how difficult the Invoker would be for the party however. This should let the PCs have more options and resources to survive the fight, but it can still be very brutal and challenging mirror match. ### Solution 2: There is a way to short circuit the fight Perhaps attacking the invoker directly will cause him to lose concentration on the clones, making one vanish. Maybe the clones are summoned by various totems or wards that can be destroyed by the players, fizzling a clone. Maybe the players can use a Banishment spell to instantly destroy one of the clones on a failed save. This would allow the players to swing the numbers into their favour without having to fully defeat a summon, swinging the advantage again to the players. Note that, if you do go this route, be sure to [telegraph these mechanics to the players in multiple ways](http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule), because the stakes are very high, and if they don't figure it out they will likely die. ### Solution 3: Break this into multiple encounters Either the players come across a subset of their clones and a few other minions as they approach the Invoker's lair, or the Invoker cannot summon all the Clones at once, but rather over the course of 2-3 rounds. If you have small subset fights, you can theme them strongly to the cloned PC's present. Maybe you have an encounter for each Clone (or a pair), with a group of minions, and a battle arena that fits their play style. This would be great for highlighting each Character as you go as well. If the Invoker must summon them slower, the PCs have a chance to focus fire the clones or Invoker down before the encounter hits critical mass. ### Solution 4: Make the clones *ideals* not *identical* Instead of making them exact clones, make them ideals of the characters. Take their best aspects, and worst aspects, and exaggerate them. A strong melee fighter, who is a bit dumb, might become a ferocious but nearly braindead melee combatant. If doing this, you'll still need to use one of the other solutions in tandem to reduce the danger of the encounter. Making the clones have worse overall stats being one of the best meshing strategies. You make their best and worst aspects be obvious, but everything else disappears. ### No matter what: Playtest the encounter If you don't playtest the encounter, you will have no idea whether the encounter will be too difficult for the players, or whether it will be frustrating or just plain unfair feeling. You can do this solo (playing against yourself) or recruit some other friends not in the campaign to help out to get a good feel of the balance. Make sure you run it at least 2 or 3 times due to the swinginess of the combat.

I'm looking at this from an old-school wargaming type perspective than an RPG one; there, having the 'generals' being able to co-ordinate actions rather too unrealistically is an old problem. So, what I suggest you do is to make some short tactical rules to cover this encounter. One simple approach would be to have written orders to generate the baseline dumb AI, and to allocate yourself a certain number of command points per round to amend them. If you are going to balance this to be roughly even, I would suggest you have a plan for the PC's losing that doesn't end your campaign prematurely. However, that wasn't really what you were asking.

I'm running a **custom RPG** (based on the universe of Boktai, an old GBA game) with a group of six players. We are pretty far into the campaign and the players are getting pretty close to face the final boss, who is an invoker-type wizard. He previously unleashed ghouls and cockatrixes, and I thought about him summoning **copies of the player characters as foes**. The problem is, if I am the one in control of the six copies, I think I can easily defeat my players as I can coordinate more complex strategies than six independent players can on their own. Conversely, I don't want the clones to have a "dumb AI" and be too easy to beat. ### Details about these clones and the fight 1. I have created the clones with the exact same characteristics, hit points etc... (death at 0 hit points) 2. I want the players to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each other, as they don't communicate, and even hide part of their spell/techniques roster to the other players. 3. The game uses standard d100 rolls, and 6 characteristics: Melee, Aim, Parry, Dodge, Magic, Perception) 4. Each player has a different stronger characteristic. **How do I balance the fight?** My criteria for balancing are: 1. Make it thrilling for my players, so that they feel the danger. 2. Not give the impression that the game is rigged in their favor.

2018/01/26

I recently did something similar. Instead of full clones they were copies of a fragment of the soul. I gave them the general abilities and had them fight well, but they all had a flat health and no matter what ability they cast, the damage was a flat amount of necrotic. So an exploding fireball was still a low hit. Why? Because the clones hadn't expended spell slots, gotten stacks of exhaustion from raging, etc. The clones used a decent strategy, but also tried to hit their copy. If you were hit by your copy you had to make saving throws or suffer temporary penalties. When rolling dice, you have a 50% chance to beat an evenly matched opponent. The strategy and versatility of the party is what gives them the edge. If you copy that versatility with the goal being to optimize the strategy, the clones will probably win. If this is your goal, however, to show them how well they could work together if they tried, then I would suggest doing it without consequences. Maybe this battle is really a spell that is causing them to fight a projection of themselves, not a clone. The difference? They are really in a trance designed to delay them so that the big baddie can prepare something. Once the party dies, or maybe when they finally kill the first/second/third copy, they break the spell. That way you can show them how good they could be without killing them.

I'm looking at this from an old-school wargaming type perspective than an RPG one; there, having the 'generals' being able to co-ordinate actions rather too unrealistically is an old problem. So, what I suggest you do is to make some short tactical rules to cover this encounter. One simple approach would be to have written orders to generate the baseline dumb AI, and to allocate yourself a certain number of command points per round to amend them. If you are going to balance this to be roughly even, I would suggest you have a plan for the PC's losing that doesn't end your campaign prematurely. However, that wasn't really what you were asking.

I'm trying to connect to my Raspberry Pi, which is behind a router and a firewall. My PC (running linux) is also behind a router and firewall. Both firewalls only allow the ports you would need for basic internet surfing (80, 443, ...). I'd even prefer the connection to look like 'normal' packets going through the router, to prevent any problems related to ports being blocked or any other type of restriction. My question: I would like to have an ssh connection to my Raspberry Pi. How can I accomplish this? * Could I use some sort of webservice? like this: Raspi <---> webservice (which has a domain name/static ip) <---> PC. All traffic would then go through the allowed ports, looking like normal webtraffic. * A VNC connection, or any other remote desktop connection would be fine too.

2014/01/17

So eventually I solved it myself. What I used was [yaler.net](http://yaler.net). Their documentation is good enough. They state that their tunnel won't be blocked by (most) firewalls, so it is perfect. Of course, there may be other comparable relay services, but this one works like a charm for me (and it's free). BTW: Although their tutorials suppose you're using Raspbian, it works for Arch Linux ARM too. And even more, the service would work on any Linux computer, not just the raspberry pi.

SSH can be tunneled over plenty of 'basic internet surfing' protocols including * [HTTP(S)](http://dag.wiee.rs/howto/ssh-http-tunneling/) * [DNS](http://aripollak.com/sshoverdns/) Alternatively you could just set your raspberry pi's ssh server to listen on port 80 if your firewalls are port based and basic connectivity is your only concern.

Is there a formula to calculate the dangerousness of amps, and volts? like watts, for example. *Watts = Volts x Amps*. Generally speaking, you could say wattage takes into account volts, and amps. I am working on a robot. And am using high power motors. I don't want to learn the hard way, by getting shocked. I need a formula, or at least a wattage chart, to see, where, on the dangerousness scale my electrical system is. --- If I am touching a 1.2ft wire supplying 12v 80A of electricity, how fatal would that be *(both heat wise, and shock wise)*, or would i be able to feel it at all?

2020/07/15

NEC code puts a voltage limit of exposed conductors at 48 VDC or 34 VAC sinewave. Current is more of a hot-wire issue, not a shock issue. Volts times amps is watts, so if not a shock hazard it could be a burn hazard. A 25 watt solder iron will burn you as it is confined resistive heat. In this case the volts and amps that drive it are not so important. Note that the NEC voltage limits assume worst-case conditions where a persons hands and feet *could* be wet, thus much more current could penetrate the body. The following chart and paragraph are from [wiki/High\_voltage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_voltage) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DiqqN.png) > > The International Electrotechnical Commission and its national > counterparts (IET, IEEE, VDE, etc.) define high voltage as above 1000 > V for alternating current, and at least 1500 V for direct current—and > distinguish it from low voltage (50 to 1000 VAC or 120–1500 VDC) and > extra-low voltage (<50 VAC or <120 VDC) circuits. This is in the > context of building wiring and the safety of electrical apparatus. In > automotive engineering, high voltage is defined as voltage in range 30 > to 1000 VAC or 60 to 1500 VDC. > > > I know someone who grabbed phase A and C of a 600 VAC 3-phase surge suppressor. The image of the copper bus bars are forever burned into the palms of each hand. How he survived we do not know. Because our body acts like a resistor, doubling the voltage puts 4 times the wattage through our body. 480 VAC hits 16 times as hard as 120 VAC.

Dangerous to YOU, and dangerous to circuits. Changes in Magnetic fields---when you or your circuits are near that field. Example: a long straight wire carrying high currents with rapid changes in current, near your PCB. Any "closed path", even if part of path is Ground and part of the path is analog sensor traces or analog amplifier traces or even digital MCU traces, will be a problem. Let us compute how big a problem. V\_induce = [MUo \* MUr \* Area/( 2 \* PI \* Distance ) ] / dI/dT Let Area = 10cm by 10cm PCB (4" by 4") Let Distance from a high-current wire, to yur PCB, also be 10cm Let your dI/dT = 100 amps / 100 nanoseconds = 1 Billion amps/second With MUo = 4 \* pi \* 1e-7 Henry/meter, MUr = 1 (air, copper, aluminum, FR-4) The formula simplifies to V\_induce = (2e-7 \* Area/Distance) \* dI/dT and substituting, we have V\_induce = (2e-7Henry/meter \* (10cm \* 10cm)/10cm) \* 1+9 V\_induce = 2e-7 \* 10cm/1meter \* 1e+9 == 2e-8 \* 1e+9 Vinduce = 20 volts Thus any circuits or sensors or logic signals, nearyour high\_current motor wiring, are at risk of constant spiking at levels far above their rails, or far above their noise immunity. CURE ? Use large diameter TWISTED PAIRS to carry motor currents; the adjacency of HOT and RETURN high current (and high dI/dT currents) will greatly reduce the level of spikes we just computed.

I wonder what is the best way(if possible) to separate app into multiple independent parts. For example if you have 3 separate units that do different stuff, and you may have 2 different apps that combine 2/3 of this parts, how would you do it? I'm coming from windows background, where in Visual Studio, you can have multiple independent projects under one solution, and then you can reuse them where you need it. Can you have this in android? I know I can put things under different packages, but not sure how would do separation of resources. Is there any difference between using Eclipse or Android studio for this purpose? Any guidance or resource would be very helpful :)

2014/11/25

I looked at your site ([sytpp.github.io](http://sytpp.github.io/), right?) and everything seems to be set up correctly. When I look at the Network requests in Chrome dev tools, I can verify that hits are being sent to Google Analytics. If this is a new Google Analytics account, you probably just need to wait 24-48 hours before you'll start seeing data in the Google Analytics website.

I just installed google analytics on my skinny bones jekyll site, and it took two days for it to start working. The confounding part is that Google Analytics has a tracker on their site saying something like "not tracking data". It even gave a time, down to the second, that it claimed it last checked for data. Even though I made no changes, two days later it was tracking data. For others out there who were impatient like me, just give it time.

I am currently looking in various Arduino. I'd like to build a very specific device: I'd like to have a lamp (using a RGB LED (already have one)) that can change the color (or do custom routines like blinking etc...). But these specifications must be met: * Battery powered (so all items must use minimum power) * WiFi enabled It's sufficient if I can change the color (or trigger a routine) from a computer on the same network (via netcat or curl). I looked in the WiFly shield. Is there another shield which is maybe better? What main Arduino main board is best for my purpose? Update: As there are some follow up questions: * The Arduino is not a must. I thought it would be the easiest solution. The raspberry pi didn't come to mind, but is an excellent suggestion. However I'm not sure if it is that easy to hook an LED on to it, also I'm not sure about the Power supply (given that I would be using an USB Wifi Dongle). * I didn't think that the power supply would that big of a deal as the LED would rarely been switched on (once every few days). Is the idling in the WiFi so power intense? * For the background of what I'm trying to build: I want to build an extreme feedback device (a device to indicate the status of the automated tests in a software project) to carry around.

2012/01/05

Based off of your two specifications of > > Battery powered (so all items must use minimum power) > > > WiFi enabled > > > I would recommend not going with an Arduino at all as it will be much more difficult to meet the minimum power requirement. In order to minimize your power you will need to look into spinning your own board with a very low power microcontroller. It seems like almost every microcontroller company sells some version of ultra low power, but the MSP430 seems to be the most widely used line for low power. As far as the WiFi enabled part, this is a little bit more difficult to get to be low powered. If you are fine with having your device waking up to check in to see what it needs to do with the LED then you can get your power even lower. However, my guess is that you are actually wanting to be able to send your device a packet at any time to tell it to do something with the LED. In order to go this path with lowest power you would be best rolling your own WiFi solution, but my guess also is that you do not care to do this. So you will want to look for a module that will do this for you. [Roving Networks](http://www.rovingnetworks.com/products/Wi_Fi_Products) has a few options that support 4uA sleep mode and 38mA active. With all of that said, if you still want to go with an Arduino (even though you didn't say it was a requirement) you will have to settle for very poor battery life. By very poor battery life I mean something less then a day unless you want to lug around a car battery.

The Arduino Uno should meet your needs. You might want to look into the [xbee](http://www.ladyada.net/make/xbee/) shield.

I am currently looking in various Arduino. I'd like to build a very specific device: I'd like to have a lamp (using a RGB LED (already have one)) that can change the color (or do custom routines like blinking etc...). But these specifications must be met: * Battery powered (so all items must use minimum power) * WiFi enabled It's sufficient if I can change the color (or trigger a routine) from a computer on the same network (via netcat or curl). I looked in the WiFly shield. Is there another shield which is maybe better? What main Arduino main board is best for my purpose? Update: As there are some follow up questions: * The Arduino is not a must. I thought it would be the easiest solution. The raspberry pi didn't come to mind, but is an excellent suggestion. However I'm not sure if it is that easy to hook an LED on to it, also I'm not sure about the Power supply (given that I would be using an USB Wifi Dongle). * I didn't think that the power supply would that big of a deal as the LED would rarely been switched on (once every few days). Is the idling in the WiFi so power intense? * For the background of what I'm trying to build: I want to build an extreme feedback device (a device to indicate the status of the automated tests in a software project) to carry around.

2012/01/05

There are some really nice (and $6 cheap) Bluetooth UART modules which might be a much cheaper alternative if you are more interested in being wireless, than specifically using Wi-Fi. I use these (http://www.ebay.com/itm/190433073764) with Arduino and they are very easy to get fired up. As Cornbread Ninja suggests, Xbee was practically invented for your exact need, but it's still more expensive than the BT option. It's also true that there arn't going to be any really low power solutions for you which ever way you go, unless you are really keen on going off piste with some exotic uCs, but I'm guessing if your original plan was an Arduino and Wifly, or a rPi and a wifi dongle, this isn't a huge issue for you. finally, check out the electric Imp too, that could be an option. <http://electricimp.com/>

The Arduino Uno should meet your needs. You might want to look into the [xbee](http://www.ladyada.net/make/xbee/) shield.

**What is this weed and how do I kill it without killing the grass?** I've tried different brands of the usual spectrum herbicide that kills everything but doesn't kill grass, and everything - like clover, dandelions, etc - does die, but not this stuff. And I've tried the herbicide triclopyr, made for chickweed, etc., and I sprayed on a few times over a few weeks. The weed appears to die or die back, and then regrows. I've never seen it bloom, so I don't know if it is the wild violet that others talk about not being able to kill. Glyphosate will kill this, as I used that in areas that were solid weeds without grass; but Glyphosate also kills the grass, so I can't use it in the yard. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kzDtr.jpg)

2017/07/17

It does look like wild violets, and they are difficult to eradicate, but triclopyr, or any other lawn weedkiller that purports to kill these, is much more effective used in autumn, see here <https://www.thespruce.com/get-rid-of-wild-violets-in-the-lawn-2132476> Even so, you may need to be as persistent as the violets by carrying out repeat treatments.

Should have you look at this site I am posting on Henbit to see if you think this is the same plant; look for opposite leaves, two leaves coming from the same joint on the stem... How much of your lawn has this growing in it? Lawn management practices are far superior to pesticides. How low do you cut your grass, how do you water, fertilizers, aeration...we have a ton of stuff on cool season lawns right here on this site. Check them out, please and send a picture of the entire lawn if you can. [henbit](http://www.ediblewildfood.com/henbit.aspx)

Say if I had one GPIO pin. Could I connect it to another pin on a different Pi and have it pick up the first pin's signal as input? Would I need to connect both Pi's ground pins to each other?

2017/12/15

It can be done several ways. You can connect GPIO pins as simple IO, or use the pins with UART capabilities for a serial connection (essentially like using a null modem), or use the pins with I2C capabilities for a master-slave serial bus arrangement. I'm sure there are other methods as well. For a simple GPIO example, you could cable the 2 RPis directly together as you've described, with a pin designated as output on one RPi fed to another pin designated as input on the other RPi. The problem is that this is only unidirectional, so only good for letting one RPi know of a condition, and not any sort of response. Any given pin can be configured as either input or output, and won't have any way of automatically switching between modes without some extra work. If you want bi-directional communications, you'll need a second set of pins for traffic going the other way. Always be aware that the RPi GPIO pins operate at 3.3v. Be careful if introducing other devices that might work at higher voltages. Also be cautious if using long copper cable runs if the RPis are on different grounds. At any sort of distance, a direct copper cable may not be your best option. You might want to use isolators or some circuit protection if doing anything complex. If you need distance between the RPis, network communications might be simpler. tl; dr: Yes, it can be done. It may not be simple, but you need to expand on what you're trying to do to say for sure.

Yes, you can connect a Pi GPIO to another Pi's GPIO. As you say you do also need to connect the grounds (so they both agree about the levels). One GPIO should be set as an output, the other should be set as an input. (If both are incorrectly set as outputs with one high and one low that becomes a possibly damaging short circuit).

The passing of Carrie Fisher has hit a lot of science fiction fans hard; obviously, her character was a significant part of the popularity of one of the best science fiction movie franchises in history. As we are a Q&A site, the best way (IMO) for us to remember Carrie Fisher is to highlight some of those awesome questions and answers that we have thanks to her. So, if you have a favorite answer to a question *about Princess Leia*, post it here and let us know why you like it so much. --- All three of the suggestions were good ones so I have awarded a bounty to all three. Thanks for your participation.

2016/12/29

I pick this question's top answer: [Is there really "No Underwear In Space?"](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/112767/31178) The quote in question is how Carrie came to her famous "drowned in moonlight, strangled by her own bra" obituary line. The current top answer by @CHEESE also features a hand drawn red circle and creeping on Anakin's undies. It's funny. She was funny. I remember watching her roast fellow celebs and killing it.

My previous nomination was intended mainly to draw attention to an interesting *question*. For an excellent *answer* to a question which is surely of interest to many Star Wars fans, how about: [Did Luke or Leia ever feel romantic attraction to each other?](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/120964/31394) Possibly incestuous kisses are one of the biggest controversies in Star Wars, and this answer goes into a great deal of detail, backed up clearly at every stage by canon quotes, about exactly how much incestuous feeling there really was between Luke and Leia. It deserves more recognition than it's had.

The passing of Carrie Fisher has hit a lot of science fiction fans hard; obviously, her character was a significant part of the popularity of one of the best science fiction movie franchises in history. As we are a Q&A site, the best way (IMO) for us to remember Carrie Fisher is to highlight some of those awesome questions and answers that we have thanks to her. So, if you have a favorite answer to a question *about Princess Leia*, post it here and let us know why you like it so much. --- All three of the suggestions were good ones so I have awarded a bounty to all three. Thanks for your participation.

2016/12/29

Despite not being into Star Wars, I enjoyed the answers to this question: [Why does Leia's accent change during A New Hope?](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/2903/31394) I'm nominating it for a memorial bounty because it makes a connection between **Carrie Fisher IRL** (which is who we're commemorating) and **events within the Star Wars universe** (which is what makes it on-topic for this site). It's interesting from both in-universe and out-of-universe points of view. The top three answers are all pretty good, but if I had to choose one for a bounty, it would be [Omegacron's answer](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/103934/31394), because it's been underappreciated so far compared to the other two.

My previous nomination was intended mainly to draw attention to an interesting *question*. For an excellent *answer* to a question which is surely of interest to many Star Wars fans, how about: [Did Luke or Leia ever feel romantic attraction to each other?](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/120964/31394) Possibly incestuous kisses are one of the biggest controversies in Star Wars, and this answer goes into a great deal of detail, backed up clearly at every stage by canon quotes, about exactly how much incestuous feeling there really was between Luke and Leia. It deserves more recognition than it's had.

If I share a calendar with someone else and we end up with clashing events, how can I tell who "got there first"?

2010/11/08

There's no way to do that via the web interface. If you're happy to get down and dirty with the the [Calendar Data API](https://developers.google.com/google-apps/calendar/), then you can get the creation and last-modified timestamps from any event in any of the calendars you're subscribed to.

If you have another email address, add that to the event and send the invite. This will create the .ics file. Open the .ics file on any text editor and search for "CREATED:".

If I share a calendar with someone else and we end up with clashing events, how can I tell who "got there first"?

2010/11/08

There's no way to do that via the web interface. If you're happy to get down and dirty with the the [Calendar Data API](https://developers.google.com/google-apps/calendar/), then you can get the creation and last-modified timestamps from any event in any of the calendars you're subscribed to.

You can now do this without writing any code by using the web version of the calendar API: <https://developers.google.com/apis-explorer/#p/calendar/v3/calendar.events.get> 1. Go to the calendar event in question in "edit" view. 2. Go to "More Actions" and then "Troubleshooting Info". 3. Copy the event ID (eid=...). * Note: for a recurring event, remove the \_[date]Z suffix. 4. Go to <https://developers.google.com/apis-explorer/#p/calendar/v3/calendar.events.get>, enter "primary" calendarId" and use that ID for eventId. The result will include a "created" and "updated" section.

If I share a calendar with someone else and we end up with clashing events, how can I tell who "got there first"?

2010/11/08

You can locate the date created and date modified for an event by examining the .ics file for the calendar with a text editor. Download the .ics file for your calendar from calendar.google.com > Settings > Import & Export> Export

You can now do this without writing any code by using the web version of the calendar API: <https://developers.google.com/apis-explorer/#p/calendar/v3/calendar.events.get> 1. Go to the calendar event in question in "edit" view. 2. Go to "More Actions" and then "Troubleshooting Info". 3. Copy the event ID (eid=...). * Note: for a recurring event, remove the \_[date]Z suffix. 4. Go to <https://developers.google.com/apis-explorer/#p/calendar/v3/calendar.events.get>, enter "primary" calendarId" and use that ID for eventId. The result will include a "created" and "updated" section.

If I share a calendar with someone else and we end up with clashing events, how can I tell who "got there first"?

2010/11/08

You can now do this without writing any code by using the web version of the calendar API: <https://developers.google.com/apis-explorer/#p/calendar/v3/calendar.events.get> 1. Go to the calendar event in question in "edit" view. 2. Go to "More Actions" and then "Troubleshooting Info". 3. Copy the event ID (eid=...). * Note: for a recurring event, remove the \_[date]Z suffix. 4. Go to <https://developers.google.com/apis-explorer/#p/calendar/v3/calendar.events.get>, enter "primary" calendarId" and use that ID for eventId. The result will include a "created" and "updated" section.

If you have another email address, add that to the event and send the invite. This will create the .ics file. Open the .ics file on any text editor and search for "CREATED:".

Most controller/processor come with PWM output and integrated standalone DAC module.... My need is to generate 50/60Hz analog signal for testing purpose! Which would be the good choice PWM DAC or Standalone DAC? Better in terms of: \* Simple electronics \* Simple coding \* Quality signals (lesser distortion) \* Sine wave generation

2019/02/18

Given the MCU\_PWM\_DAC has electro-static-discharge protection diodes on the (inputs and) outputs of the MCU, your signal will always have MCU\_CLOCK and MCU\_program\_related spikes and trash that are non-random. Use this filter on the "DAC"  [simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fATxfI.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)

I'm assuming that a Sinewave output is required here. Any primitive DAC you implement will work fine but will likely be noisy unless a fair bit of design is carried out to filter it etc. All things considered the PWM DAC you implement yourself is likely to be much noisier than a standalone one - purely for the reason that it has been optimized for a particular usage / price point. On the other hand a PWM one will likely be cheaper and easier to get working - because you will not need to figure out the comms and configuration registers of the external DAC. **So for simple I would go with the PWM option - but for better quality I would use the external DAC.** Actually if it's just the signal that is of interest, I would just use a computer with sound card to generate the signals if that is an option. You should get a very clean signal at these frequencies with 16-24bits of resolution.

When the sun is out after a rain, I can see what appears to be steam rising off a wooden bridge nearby. I'm pretty sure this is water turning into a gas. However, I thought water had to reach 100 degrees C to be able to turn into a gas. Is there an edge case, for small amounts of water perhaps, that allows it to evaporate?

2011/05/27

Evaporation is a different process to boiling. The first is a surface effect that can happen at any temperature, while the latter is a bulk transformation that only happens when the conditions are correct. Technically the water is not turning into a gas, but random movement of the surface molecules allows some of them enough energy to escape from the surface into the air. The rate at which they leave the surface depends on a number of factors - for instance the temperature of both air and water, the humidity of the air, and the size of the surface exposed. When the bridge is 'steaming': the wood is marginally warmer than the air (due to the sun shine), the air is very humid (it has just been raining) and the water is spread out to expose a very large surface area. In fact, since the air is cooler and almost saturated with water, the molecules of water are almost immediately condensing into micro-droplets in the air - which is why you can see them. BTW - As water vapour is a gas, it is completely transparent. If you can see it then it is steam, which consists of tiny water droplets (basically water vapour that has condensed). Consider a kettle boiling - the white plume only occurs a short distance above the spout. Below that it is water vapour, above it has cooled into steam. Steam disappears after a while, as it has evaporated once again.

Steam rising from a warm bridge is vaprization of water. Boiling water is vaporization of water. Getting cooled down by a breeze after a sweaty workout is vaporization of water. All result in the same phase change with the same latent heat of vaporization of 540 cal./gram, which is a very powerful cooling effect. Boiling water is a subset of vaporization of water, wherein the heating of the water is fast enough that vaporization is forced to occur very rapidly AND there is enough water such that the vaporization occurs under water.

When the sun is out after a rain, I can see what appears to be steam rising off a wooden bridge nearby. I'm pretty sure this is water turning into a gas. However, I thought water had to reach 100 degrees C to be able to turn into a gas. Is there an edge case, for small amounts of water perhaps, that allows it to evaporate?

2011/05/27

Evaporation is a different process to boiling. The first is a surface effect that can happen at any temperature, while the latter is a bulk transformation that only happens when the conditions are correct. Technically the water is not turning into a gas, but random movement of the surface molecules allows some of them enough energy to escape from the surface into the air. The rate at which they leave the surface depends on a number of factors - for instance the temperature of both air and water, the humidity of the air, and the size of the surface exposed. When the bridge is 'steaming': the wood is marginally warmer than the air (due to the sun shine), the air is very humid (it has just been raining) and the water is spread out to expose a very large surface area. In fact, since the air is cooler and almost saturated with water, the molecules of water are almost immediately condensing into micro-droplets in the air - which is why you can see them. BTW - As water vapour is a gas, it is completely transparent. If you can see it then it is steam, which consists of tiny water droplets (basically water vapour that has condensed). Consider a kettle boiling - the white plume only occurs a short distance above the spout. Below that it is water vapour, above it has cooled into steam. Steam disappears after a while, as it has evaporated once again.

Below "boiling point" (not always 100C), water can exist in both gas and liquid phase, and has a temperature-dependent vapour pressure, which represents a point of equilibrium between liquid water wanting to evaporate and water vapour wanting to condense. When liquid water meets dry air, it is not in equilibrium; water molecules evaporate off the surface until the amount of water in the air creates enough vapour pressure to achieve equilibrium. When water is heated to a temperature of 100C, the vapour pressure equals that of sea-level air pressure. Since the air pressure can no longer overcome the vapour pressure of the water, the water boils. At higher elevations, air pressure is lower; as water is heated, its vapour pressure overcomes ambient air pressure at a lower temperature i.e. the boiling point is lower. Vice-versa for higher pressures. As for the steam rising off the bridge, that is actually water vapor condensing. Very close to the wet surfaces, the air is saturated with water vapor, which is transparent. It is also less dense than dry air, so it rises. As it rises away from what is likely a warm surface, it cools, As it cools, it condenses, but it is also mixing with more drier air, so it evaporates again and disappears.

When the sun is out after a rain, I can see what appears to be steam rising off a wooden bridge nearby. I'm pretty sure this is water turning into a gas. However, I thought water had to reach 100 degrees C to be able to turn into a gas. Is there an edge case, for small amounts of water perhaps, that allows it to evaporate?

2011/05/27

Below "boiling point" (not always 100C), water can exist in both gas and liquid phase, and has a temperature-dependent vapour pressure, which represents a point of equilibrium between liquid water wanting to evaporate and water vapour wanting to condense. When liquid water meets dry air, it is not in equilibrium; water molecules evaporate off the surface until the amount of water in the air creates enough vapour pressure to achieve equilibrium. When water is heated to a temperature of 100C, the vapour pressure equals that of sea-level air pressure. Since the air pressure can no longer overcome the vapour pressure of the water, the water boils. At higher elevations, air pressure is lower; as water is heated, its vapour pressure overcomes ambient air pressure at a lower temperature i.e. the boiling point is lower. Vice-versa for higher pressures. As for the steam rising off the bridge, that is actually water vapor condensing. Very close to the wet surfaces, the air is saturated with water vapor, which is transparent. It is also less dense than dry air, so it rises. As it rises away from what is likely a warm surface, it cools, As it cools, it condenses, but it is also mixing with more drier air, so it evaporates again and disappears.

Steam rising from a warm bridge is vaprization of water. Boiling water is vaporization of water. Getting cooled down by a breeze after a sweaty workout is vaporization of water. All result in the same phase change with the same latent heat of vaporization of 540 cal./gram, which is a very powerful cooling effect. Boiling water is a subset of vaporization of water, wherein the heating of the water is fast enough that vaporization is forced to occur very rapidly AND there is enough water such that the vaporization occurs under water.

Lego says I can I use the new software to program old NXT bricks: > > Q: Is EV3 backwards compatible with NXT hardware? > > > A: Yes. You can program your NXT intelligent brick using the new EV3 software. However not all software features are supported by the NXT intelligent Brick. You cannot program your EV3 programmable brick with the NXT Software.) > > > Are there any known limits programming the NXT bricks? I often had problems with *MINDSTORMS NXT* under Mac OS X and would like to replace it if possible.

2013/08/29

EV3 has no support for the Light Sensor, just the Color sensor. There is a Raw Sensor that can be used to create a Light Sensor MyBlock. That MyBlock can then be used to create the various WaitFor, Loop, and Switch blocks using the Logic form of those blocks. Then there is the calibration problem. The Color Sensor block in calibration mode does not work on the NXT brick. The EV3 can also program around that using file operations. Finally, there is the memory problem. The new firmware leaves a bit less memory available on the NXT. The programs still need to be managed carefully to avoid using up all the memory. Yes, you can use EV3 software on NXT bricks. In general it is very easy. There are some issues.

EV3 software cannot connect to the NXT 2.0 brick through Bluetooth, only by USB. One can only hope that this is a bug and will be fixed.

--- Hi, i am currently working on BLDC motor controller (ESC without Back EMF), i want to know what is the max and the min delay time to switch between the 6 steps to control the speed of the motor . I am using atmega328p (with quartz 16MHZ). Motor : Turnigy 2627 Brushless Outrunner 3800kv ( 12 v and P = 260 w )

2017/11/27

Brushes do wear back and like all conductors are rated in ohms/unit length. However, the resistance of the brushes is trivial compared to the resistance of the coils. Here is an interesting document that lists [typical brushes](http://www.argointl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/necp-How_to_Select_Brushes_for_Motors_and_Generators2.pdf) in the milli-ohms per inch range. Mind you those are for large motors, but it's just a matter of scale. You can get the idea just the same. The document also talks about every other factor you may ever want to know. A bigger issue with brushes is as they wear the graphite dust can accumulate around the commutator causing a significant amount of current leakage. New brushes also need to wear in so the face of the brush matches the curvature of the commutator before they work optimally. Brush life is usually measured in months or years though, not a couple of uses.

In addition to the answer by Trevor, fundamentally it's not the resistance of the carbon brushes that limits the current. It's the resistance of the windings, and then the back EMF created once the motor is spinning. Which means that most of the other questions don't apply. A few small sparks from a motor is normal. Lots of sparks mean that something is worn out, perhaps the carbon brushes have worn down to nothing.

I am looking for an Android app you could use to list sentences like you can in Google Keep and then select any sentence and press a button to have it spoken out. This could also among other things helpful for a deaf or unable to speak person (eg. on a trip who could write but had a really bad accent) convey what they wanted to say to the listener.

2016/02/08

There is an app called [YASFA](https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=com.yasfa.views) on F-Droid that lets you write some predefined words or sentences and upon clicking them it plays them out. The app also comes with some predefined words that are useful for people in their daily life. You can write your own sentences and save them. The app is very light weight around 1.5 MB only.It works only with English language. You can download the apk from their site or install it from [F-Droid](https://f-droid.org/) client for Android Hope this helps your requirement.

[SynWrite](http://uvviewsoft.com/) text editor has plugin "Speech": install it in AddonsManager. Then select any text block and call plugin. And you can put call to "speech" at toolbar. Make toolbar item. It uses Windows API for it.

Do you know any idiom that would be a counterpart of Russian "помер Никодим, ну и х\*й с ним" (Nikodim has died and so be it [and nobody gives a s\*\*t about it])? I came up with a Yoda-like verse "dead and gone cares no one" but I am looking for a real British saying if it exists.

2016/09/03

I think the colloquial expression is ***dead and buried***. It sort of implies *forgotten*. We, perhaps, use it less for people, than in a metaphorical sense for things we are glad to see the back of. *By the time our Prime Minister arrives home from China the Hinckley Point project may be **dead and buried***. This would mean that the speaker did not approve of the scheme and was hoping that the government would ***knock it on the head*** (another similar metaphor). This does not, incidentally necessarily reflect my own view of the *Hinckley Point* project.

Possibly *died in obscurity* is closer to the intended meaning, although it is not exactly the same.

I'm trying to magnetize various objects, such that they take on a strong magnetic field. Theoretically, magnetism is caused by aligning electrons such that they stay more or less in the same place. If i heat the electrons, they're more energetic, and thus likely won't be in the same place. But could i theoretically use the same system that an Air Conditioning unit uses ( compressed air can more readily exchange heat than uncompressed air ), by aligning the electrons when they're more energetic, and cooling them down while still aligning them, could that create a stronger magnet than just aligning them while cold?

2017/08/29

The object is not 0 dimensional. Only a thin line of points lies along the line of 0 incidence angle. The rest of the object is slightly off that line, making the incident angle nonzero. This causes refraction and can make objects appear closer or farther than they are.

Let's say you only have one eye open and you're directly in front of the object. The thing is, your pupil has some size to it. Rays that enter are not only leaving the medium surrounding the object at 0 degrees. Your lens must change shape for the rays entering the edges of the pupil to form an image on your retina, and the particular shape you force your lens into provides feedback on the distance. Less eye-centric: An observer will see an image located at the place where diverging rays appear to diverge from. It is common to think of the image existing without the observer, but in the end some type of optical device is needed if one wants to measure the location of an image. An object embedded in a medium will emit rays in all directions. Even if you imagine an observer or other device directly in front of the object, the apparent location can be determined by back tracing two or more diverging rays, because the observer or optical device isn't sampling just a single ray that's at 0 incidence. Lenses have size. It's not just a single ray, as you seem to be assuming. Take all the rays entering the optical device, trace them back, and you'll see the image and object are at different locations.

I've designed and implemented a neural network in Java and need to test it with large amounts of data that I have. My laptop is unfortunately too weak for that. Is there a way to run this task online somewhere for free or a small fee?

2012/03/16

You could try [Ubuntu in the cloud](https://try.cloud.ubuntu.com/) - if you like it and need more than one hour, you can rent instances on Amazon EC2.

Well, there are some sites offering "**cloud computing**". Sounds like you'd want to rent yourself some CPU time on a cloud. Or you could do some benchmarking on your code and see if you can get it fast enough to run on your PC.

The idea of automatic memory management has gained big support with new programming languages. I'm interested if concepts exists for automatic management of other resources like files, network-sockets etc.?

2009/01/29

For single threaded applications, the pattern of a resource being available for the extent of a block of code, with clean-up at the end, exists in several languages. Examples are the use of [RAII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_acquisition_is_initialization) in C++, or [with-open-file](http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_w_open.htm) in Common Lisp (and equivalent in newer Lisp-influenced languages - the same in Dylan, [C#](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yh598w02(VS.80).aspx), [Python](http://docs.python.org/reference/compound_stmts.html#the-with-statement) and in Ruby you can pass a block to a file object). I'm not aware of anything better suited for the multithreaded environments where modern garbage collection shines, short of combining RAII and reference counting or auto\_ptr in C++, which isn't always a trivial combination. One important distinction between automatic management of resources and automatic memory management is that memory management can often afford to be non-deterministic and only reclaimed when the process requires it, whereas often a resource is limited at an OS level, so should be reclaimed as soon as it is no longer used. Hence the choice of smart pointers rather than garbage collection as the management implementation. There's an intermediate level of resource - GDI objects, temporary file handles, threads - where an application wants to limit the total it uses, but doesn't care so much about releasing them to other processes - these are often pooled, which gets you some way towards automatic management.

One of the reasons we can automatically manage memory allocation now is we have so much of it. Back in the days when memory was tight you had to squeeze the most out of every bite the system had. Other resouces such as file handles and sockets are far fewer, and still need to be handled by hand (pun intended). Consider also the .net compact framework, it’s not uncommon for windows mobile devices to have 32mb or 64mb of volatile memory to play with which - when you think about it - is still “lots”. I wondering what the footprint of the .net compact framework is, and how would it perform on a Nokia phone with 4mb of volatile memory. Anyone any ideas? (This is a wiki answer, feel free to correct or add more detail) So, IMHIO we can afford to be slow reclaiming memory, because we're not going to run out of it in a hurry, which isn't the case with other resources.

The idea of automatic memory management has gained big support with new programming languages. I'm interested if concepts exists for automatic management of other resources like files, network-sockets etc.?

2009/01/29

For single threaded applications, the pattern of a resource being available for the extent of a block of code, with clean-up at the end, exists in several languages. Examples are the use of [RAII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_acquisition_is_initialization) in C++, or [with-open-file](http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_w_open.htm) in Common Lisp (and equivalent in newer Lisp-influenced languages - the same in Dylan, [C#](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yh598w02(VS.80).aspx), [Python](http://docs.python.org/reference/compound_stmts.html#the-with-statement) and in Ruby you can pass a block to a file object). I'm not aware of anything better suited for the multithreaded environments where modern garbage collection shines, short of combining RAII and reference counting or auto\_ptr in C++, which isn't always a trivial combination. One important distinction between automatic management of resources and automatic memory management is that memory management can often afford to be non-deterministic and only reclaimed when the process requires it, whereas often a resource is limited at an OS level, so should be reclaimed as soon as it is no longer used. Hence the choice of smart pointers rather than garbage collection as the management implementation. There's an intermediate level of resource - GDI objects, temporary file handles, threads - where an application wants to limit the total it uses, but doesn't care so much about releasing them to other processes - these are often pooled, which gets you some way towards automatic management.

Object persistence and caching subsystems can be considered an automatic allocation of files and resources. If you apply a caching subsystem to a network connection you don't have to care about file opening, file deleting, and so on. A way to manage automatically network connection could be done in parallel computing environment (i.e MPI), you can set programmatically the shape of the processors interconnections. Than you just send a message from a process to another, almost ignoring the way it's implemented. Sometimes those messages are translated in sockets. If you have a function that let you get a page from its Url, would you consider it a sort of Automatic socket management?

I'm working on a bike where the right shifter was not working and I replaced it. it's a 7 gear cassette and the problem now is that the rear derailleur would not shift down past 3. When I manually I moved it down it stays there. It does shift back up all the way to 7. Shift down and it stops a 3 even though the shifter keeps clicking couple more times. Any ideas what is going on?

2016/04/03

Detach the cable at the derailleur and see where the derailleur sits. If its not in line with the lowest cog you need to adjust the lower limit screw. This is usually marked with an L. Screw it out until the top jockey wheel of the derialleur is precisely in line with the smallest cog. Reattach the cable with shifter on gear 1. Then click up one gear. Adjust the tensioner on shifter and/or derailleur until jockey wheel is precisely in line with second cog. Finally shift all the way to the top cog and screw the high limit screw until you just feel resistance. This stops the chain going too far and dropping into your wheel.

It may be that the there is either grit in the derailleur, a burr in the metal, or maybe the spring has been over stretched. If it is the last it may be from a time when something was pressing on the mech that stretched the spring out too far. It wouldn't mean that the spring wouldn't pull all the way back to its normal position, but it may not have the same force to do so as it did. I would try to take the chain and cable off and move the derailleur manually and see if you have less resistance at the the lower(smaller) gears then that may indicate this. If it is just harder to move in this range then it may be grit/rust. May have to lubricate it with grease or something else that is appropriate for derailleurs.

I'm working on a bike where the right shifter was not working and I replaced it. it's a 7 gear cassette and the problem now is that the rear derailleur would not shift down past 3. When I manually I moved it down it stays there. It does shift back up all the way to 7. Shift down and it stops a 3 even though the shifter keeps clicking couple more times. Any ideas what is going on?

2016/04/03

Detach the cable at the derailleur and see where the derailleur sits. If its not in line with the lowest cog you need to adjust the lower limit screw. This is usually marked with an L. Screw it out until the top jockey wheel of the derialleur is precisely in line with the smallest cog. Reattach the cable with shifter on gear 1. Then click up one gear. Adjust the tensioner on shifter and/or derailleur until jockey wheel is precisely in line with second cog. Finally shift all the way to the top cog and screw the high limit screw until you just feel resistance. This stops the chain going too far and dropping into your wheel.

**Check if your B-tension screw should be screwed in further (clockwise)** If you can shift up (to slower gears) fine then it is likely that cable tension is OK. Then, if you have already checked that there is no unreasonable friction in the system: * detach cable outer casing and move it around manually to feel if the inner cable glides smoothly * make sure the chain is cleaned and lubed then the next thing you should look at is the B-tension screw. This screw adjusts the rotation of the derailleur, and therefore the separation between the jockey wheel and the cogs: * if they are too close (too screwed in), the larger cog would jam the chain with the jockey wheel * if they are too far (too screwed out), downshift suffers So you should try to keep it as screwed in as possible to have the best shifting possible, that does jam the chain. In my case, I had installed my derailleur myself for the first time, so I was a bit clueless about this. Then, because I would miss downshifts, when I stopped and started pedalling hard the chain would jump uncontrollably, and leave me in the middle of the crossroad without traction. Once I screwed it in, the downshift improved remarkably. This is mentioned on several YouTube guides such as:

I'm working on a bike where the right shifter was not working and I replaced it. it's a 7 gear cassette and the problem now is that the rear derailleur would not shift down past 3. When I manually I moved it down it stays there. It does shift back up all the way to 7. Shift down and it stops a 3 even though the shifter keeps clicking couple more times. Any ideas what is going on?

2016/04/03

It may be that the there is either grit in the derailleur, a burr in the metal, or maybe the spring has been over stretched. If it is the last it may be from a time when something was pressing on the mech that stretched the spring out too far. It wouldn't mean that the spring wouldn't pull all the way back to its normal position, but it may not have the same force to do so as it did. I would try to take the chain and cable off and move the derailleur manually and see if you have less resistance at the the lower(smaller) gears then that may indicate this. If it is just harder to move in this range then it may be grit/rust. May have to lubricate it with grease or something else that is appropriate for derailleurs.

**Check if your B-tension screw should be screwed in further (clockwise)** If you can shift up (to slower gears) fine then it is likely that cable tension is OK. Then, if you have already checked that there is no unreasonable friction in the system: * detach cable outer casing and move it around manually to feel if the inner cable glides smoothly * make sure the chain is cleaned and lubed then the next thing you should look at is the B-tension screw. This screw adjusts the rotation of the derailleur, and therefore the separation between the jockey wheel and the cogs: * if they are too close (too screwed in), the larger cog would jam the chain with the jockey wheel * if they are too far (too screwed out), downshift suffers So you should try to keep it as screwed in as possible to have the best shifting possible, that does jam the chain. In my case, I had installed my derailleur myself for the first time, so I was a bit clueless about this. Then, because I would miss downshifts, when I stopped and started pedalling hard the chain would jump uncontrollably, and leave me in the middle of the crossroad without traction. Once I screwed it in, the downshift improved remarkably. This is mentioned on several YouTube guides such as:

I've always read that the great benefit of 401k's and IRA's are the compounding of interest. My entire 401k invests in a S&P index fund and I make semi-monthly contributions and there is one annual profit sharing deposit from my employer. So, how exactly is my 401k compounding if it doesn't earn interest?

2014/10/21

During the course of the year, the S&P individual stocks will have some dividends. Not every last stock but a good number of them. Enough that the average dividend for the S&P has been about 2% recently. So if the S&P index goes up, say 10%, an S&P fund should go up closer to 12%. For a fund holder, you'd normally see a declared dividend and cap gain distribution toward the end of each year. When you hold shares in a 401(k), dividends are reinvested into the fund, usually with no involvement from the members.

You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of *returns*. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years.

I am familiar with SSIS for basic tasks, but in this case I am looking for some guidance around calling a web service in multiple threads. I have a large record set coming through my data flow, and for each record I need to call out to a web service and retrieve a value based on existing data in the row. The value returned from the web service is then stored in the row and sent to output. I have this working fine now, but it performs the operation row-by-agonizing-row, which takes far to long. I would like to have my script component that calls the web service called in a multi-threaded manner so I am making dozens of web service calls simultaneously - which the web service can handle. Any pointers to the correct approach greatly appreciated.

2016/04/20

You are looking for the [Balanced Data Distributor](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj191628.aspx). It is designed for situations like this. Similar in concept to Tab's suggestion of a Conditional Split but instead of you guessing at how to equally distribute the load, the BDD will detect backpressure in outputs 1 and 2 and throttle the rows sent to it until the jamb clears or until output 3 becomes equally clogged * [BDD video](https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/dn912438) * [BDD for SQL Server 2008/2008 R2](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4123) * [BDD for SQL Server 2012](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30147)

You could use a conditional split to separate your data into multiple dataflow threads and put a call to the webservice on each of the threads. You can't do it internally in a single script component. A script component receives one row at a time, and can't hold a row in memory and get the next row. EDIT: I have verified Bill's comment, that a script component can be asynchronous. Here is the MSDN link describing this process for SSIS 2008R2: <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms136133(v=sql.105).aspx>

I wrote [this question](https://serverfault.com/questions/801017/how-can-i-point-my-businesss-domain-name-to-my-businesss-facebook-page) 24 hours ago and amazingly, no less than FIVE of the mods put it "on hold." Apparently I wasn't specific enough in pointing out that this was a BUSINESS QUESTION. I appropriately added the word "business" 20 times in the post and twice in the title to make it clear that this is a business question about a business web site appearing on a Stack Exchange site that specifically states that it is about Business questions for business technology in a business. There, is everyone happy now? Can my business-related question be un-held now?

2016/09/05

I think most of the regulars contributing on Meta can see the [revision history of your question](https://serverfault.com/posts/801017/revisions) but for completeness sake the original question I cast the fifth and final close vote on: > > *I own a domain and have a web hosting package at Network Solutions. I'd like to point the domain to my Facebook page, which would be simple if my page had a static IP. Unfortunately it does not. > > Currently I'm doing this with a Javascript redirect in my hosted site's index.html page, but that means I'm paying $150 a year for one line of Javascript. I'd like to know if there's a more elegant (not to say cheaper) solution.* > > > Your first sentence *"I own a domain and have a web hosting package"* is what primarily disqualifies your situation for ServerFault. You're an end-user and not a system or network administrator. The remainder of your question is, paraphrased, "*find me something cheaper*" which is of another class of questions that is not [on topic](https://serverfault.com/help/on-topic) either, that of product and service recommendations. That is also the reason I did not migrate your question to <https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/> Lastly your problem is far from unique and not very interesting to our community either, a tiny bit of research would have shown you that many domain registrars offer to redirect/forward your domain to another URL either for free or for a nominal amount, where the implementation determines if your domain remains visible in the address bar or not.

> > I thought the reaction to my question was a little over-the-top (a simple comment requesting clarification would have sufficed), so my reaction to the reaction was likewise. > > > Questions are easily closed and easily reopened. If a question has problems, putting it on hold until these problems are resolved is intended behaviour. (Some problems cannot be resolved, in which case questions will remain closed and perhaps eventually be deleted.) There’s a reason why closed questions display “on hold”, not “closed”, for the first five days: it’s to make it obvious that this is not necessarily a permanent state. --- Without saying anything about your specific question, I just want to clear up the misconception that closing a question is an extreme step. It happens all the time, even to very good questions which need a bit of sprucing up before they’re properly answerable.

We're using Infragistics WPF v9.2 and MVVM I'd like to track the currently selected row from the XamDataGrid as a property in the view model but I'm struggling to see how this is done. It looks like ActiveDataItem property would be the way to go but it doesn't appear to be on the WPF v9.2 grid.

2011/05/11

The ActiveDataItem property would allow you to bind what is the active record to a property in your VeiwModel but wouldn't give you the actual selection of the XamDataGrid. For this you would need to use a custom behavior. The following link has examples of this for some of the Infragistics Silverlight controls and you could use a similar approach with the XamDataGrid in WPF: <http://blogs.infragistics.com/blogs/devin_rader/archive/2011/06/01/using-behaviors-to-synchronize-selected-items-of-infragistics-silverlight-controls-to-a-viewmodel.aspx>

if you can, pls upgrade to 10.3. had the same pain of trying to get WPF UltraGrid to work with MVVM with older 9 version. v10.3 version is much easier and better integrated with MVVM. not sure if upgrade costs money, we had sitewide license

I have a very simple program written in 5 min that opens a sever socket and loops through the request and prints to the screen the bytes sent to it. I then tried to benchmark how many connections I can hammer it with to try to find out how many concurrent users I can support with this program. On another machine (where the network between them is not saturated) I created a simple program that goes into a loop and connects to the server machine and send the bytes "hello world". When the loop is 1000-3000 the client finishes with all requests sent. When the loop goes beyond 5000 it starts to have time outs after finish the first X number of requests. Why is this? I have made sure to close my socket in the loop. Can you only create so many connections within a certain period of time? Is this limit only applicable between the same machines and I need not worry about this in production where 5000+ requests are all coming from different machines?

2009/04/17

The quick answer is 2^16 TCP ports, 64K. The issues with system imposed limits is a configuration issue, already touched upon in previous comments. The internal implications to TCP is not so clear (to me). Each port requires memory for it's instantiation, goes onto a list and needs network buffers for data in transit. Given 64K TCP sessions the overhead for instances of the ports might be an issue on a 32-bit kernel, but not a 64-bit kernel (correction here gladly accepted). The lookup process with 64K sessions can slow things a bit and every packet hits the timer queues, which can also be problematic. Storage for in transit data can theoretically swell to the window size times ports (maybe 8 GByte). The issue with connection speed (mentioned above) is probably what you are seeing. TCP generally takes time to do things. However, it is not required. A TCP connect, transact and disconnect can be done very efficiently (check to see how the TCP sessions are created and closed). There are systems that pass tens of gigabits per second, so the packet level scaling should be OK. There are machines with plenty of physical memory, so that looks OK. The performance of the system, if carefully configured should be OK. The server side of things should scale in a similar fashion. I would be concerned about things like memory bandwidth. Consider an experiment where you login to the local host 10,000 times. Then type a character. The entire stack through user space would be engaged on each character. The active footprint would likely exceed the data cache size. Running through lots of memory can stress the VM system. The cost of context switches could approach a second! This is discussed in a variety of other threads: <https://serverfault.com/questions/69524/im-designing-a-system-to-handle-10000-tcp-connections-per-second-what-problems>

You might wanna check out /etc/security/limits.conf

I have a very simple program written in 5 min that opens a sever socket and loops through the request and prints to the screen the bytes sent to it. I then tried to benchmark how many connections I can hammer it with to try to find out how many concurrent users I can support with this program. On another machine (where the network between them is not saturated) I created a simple program that goes into a loop and connects to the server machine and send the bytes "hello world". When the loop is 1000-3000 the client finishes with all requests sent. When the loop goes beyond 5000 it starts to have time outs after finish the first X number of requests. Why is this? I have made sure to close my socket in the loop. Can you only create so many connections within a certain period of time? Is this limit only applicable between the same machines and I need not worry about this in production where 5000+ requests are all coming from different machines?

2009/04/17

Is your server single-threaded? If so, what polling / multiplexing function are you using? Using select() does not work beyond the hard-coded maximum file descriptor limit set at compile-time, which is hopeless (normally 256, or a few more). poll() is better but you will end up with the scalability problem with a large number of FDs repopulating the set each time around the loop. epoll() should work well up to some other limit which you hit. 10k connections should be easy enough to achieve. Use a recent(ish) 2.6 kernel. How many client machines did you use? Are you sure you didn't hit a client-side limit?

You might wanna check out /etc/security/limits.conf