Datasets:

IndonesiaAI

/

cleaned-data-split-0

like 1

I have an automated clicker that's bounded at a click every 10 milliseconds. Is there a limit to how often clicks get processed by the OS? Or if not the OS, is there a hardware dependency?

2009/11/19

It depends on two factors - the polling rate of your mouse and the clicking speed. Polling rate is the frequency at which the mouse pings the computer about its position. In general its around 120 Hz that means every second it can register 125 pings. So, technically the computer can register 125 clicks per second (insane!). BUT.. practically no one can click 125 times in a second. The highest manual value is around 15 CPS; that too when you are a pro gamer! If you literally want to test how much clicks the computer can process, you need to use an [auto clicker](https://www.clickspeedtester.com/auto-clicker). And, keep increasing the amount of clicks untill you reach the max limit.

I'd say that 10ms is quite fast enough already. We've all experienced a computer that's thrashing, paging, or just plain slow. If there is a hardware-imposed limit, or an OS-imposed limit, you'll probably never reach it. The speed at which clicks get processed will vary depending on what else the computer is doing at the time.

I have an automated clicker that's bounded at a click every 10 milliseconds. Is there a limit to how often clicks get processed by the OS? Or if not the OS, is there a hardware dependency?

2009/11/19

The standard polling frequency for USB devices (including mice) is 125hz. However, it is possible to increase this frequency all the way up to 1000hz, so it may be possible to process clicks at that rate (Which would be every 1 ms).

I recollect seeing "polling frequency" in PS/2 mouse driver settings tab a few years ago, and it was 100 per second (i.e. every 10ms). That was related to mouse movement tracking, and not clicks. The highest theoretical limit would be the frequency of the carrier signal - USB or PS/2, or indeed a polling interval "at that end of the wire". However, I do not know what are the exact numbers.

I have an automated clicker that's bounded at a click every 10 milliseconds. Is there a limit to how often clicks get processed by the OS? Or if not the OS, is there a hardware dependency?

2009/11/19

It depends on two factors - the polling rate of your mouse and the clicking speed. Polling rate is the frequency at which the mouse pings the computer about its position. In general its around 120 Hz that means every second it can register 125 pings. So, technically the computer can register 125 clicks per second (insane!). BUT.. practically no one can click 125 times in a second. The highest manual value is around 15 CPS; that too when you are a pro gamer! If you literally want to test how much clicks the computer can process, you need to use an [auto clicker](https://www.clickspeedtester.com/auto-clicker). And, keep increasing the amount of clicks untill you reach the max limit.

I recollect seeing "polling frequency" in PS/2 mouse driver settings tab a few years ago, and it was 100 per second (i.e. every 10ms). That was related to mouse movement tracking, and not clicks. The highest theoretical limit would be the frequency of the carrier signal - USB or PS/2, or indeed a polling interval "at that end of the wire". However, I do not know what are the exact numbers.

I have an automated clicker that's bounded at a click every 10 milliseconds. Is there a limit to how often clicks get processed by the OS? Or if not the OS, is there a hardware dependency?

2009/11/19

The standard polling frequency for USB devices (including mice) is 125hz. However, it is possible to increase this frequency all the way up to 1000hz, so it may be possible to process clicks at that rate (Which would be every 1 ms).

It depends on two factors - the polling rate of your mouse and the clicking speed. Polling rate is the frequency at which the mouse pings the computer about its position. In general its around 120 Hz that means every second it can register 125 pings. So, technically the computer can register 125 clicks per second (insane!). BUT.. practically no one can click 125 times in a second. The highest manual value is around 15 CPS; that too when you are a pro gamer! If you literally want to test how much clicks the computer can process, you need to use an [auto clicker](https://www.clickspeedtester.com/auto-clicker). And, keep increasing the amount of clicks untill you reach the max limit.

We are iterating the components in a folder in Tridion 2011 and creating our custom XML to be used on CDS on the basis of the publishing status of component. I am giving below example to make you understand the problem. 1. Supppose we have 10 components in a folder which are all published and we publish our XML then the XML gets generated for 10 items. 2. Now we make change in one of the component and don't publish it. 3. After modification of component, we publish the XML again. then the XML get updated for the modified component also. So it creates the difference between the published version of that component and the that is in our XML. So I want to publish the custom XML in such a way that it should only contain that data which is in sync with published version of component.

2012/07/23

So you want to: 1. determine the XML of the Component that was last published 2. determine the changes between that XML and the current XML of the Component 3. only publish the changes Tridion doesn't keep track of the version that was published (on the Content Manager at least). So the closest you can do is find out ***when*** the Component was last published and retrieve the XML of that time. [This question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10092156/how-to-get-the-published-timestamp-of-a-page-or-component-using-sdl-tridion-tom) is a great starting point for more information on that approach. Based on that XML you can then do steps 2 and 3 above. Alternatively you can keep a snapshot of the XML that you published "somewhere" (for example in Application Data) when you're rendering the Component. Then when the Component gets published next time, you can retrieve that XML and do steps 2 and 3 above. Note that with any of those solutions you should really wonder if you should be implementing it to begin with. You are overriding some of Tridion's default rendering behavior and circumventing part of its architecture (a clear, explicit disconnect between Content Management and Content Delivery, with the former knowing "nothing" about the latter) and anything you do will come back to haunt you in time. In this use-case you have to wonder what will happen when the CDS and TCM get out of sync. Simply republishing the content suddenly won't be good enough anymore, since your code will be in there deciding that "nothing changed since last publish, so we'll publish nothing".

Then your solution is to 1. Write an event handler on the Publish Transaction Save event 2. Which saves the publish info (version data) to Application Data of the published Component I'm mentioning the Publish Transaction Save event because from there you can ensure that the publish info is only saved when the transaction is successfull. Also be aware that this publish info can go out of sync when the event handler fails to execute, and you might loose all of the application data when moving to another environment. So when this information is absolutely crucial I would save it to a separate database, and not to Application Data.

We are iterating the components in a folder in Tridion 2011 and creating our custom XML to be used on CDS on the basis of the publishing status of component. I am giving below example to make you understand the problem. 1. Supppose we have 10 components in a folder which are all published and we publish our XML then the XML gets generated for 10 items. 2. Now we make change in one of the component and don't publish it. 3. After modification of component, we publish the XML again. then the XML get updated for the modified component also. So it creates the difference between the published version of that component and the that is in our XML. So I want to publish the custom XML in such a way that it should only contain that data which is in sync with published version of component.

2012/07/23

Please forgive me if I jump to conclusions, but I strongly feel this question has arisen from a lack of understanding of Tridion. Publishing in Tridion does more than just raise a flag to indicate the item is 'published', in other words ready to be shown to the outside world. I know this is how some (many) content management systems operate (which may explain why you are asking this question). In Tridion, however, publishing means that the item is actually - physically - transferred from the content management environment to the content delivery environment. This environment always contains versions of your content that represent the state when the item was last published - simply because it was the very act of publishing that created them. In my opinion, what you are really asking is how to rebuild this publishing functionality. This is never a good idea. Instead, you should take Bart's comment seriously and look at one of the content delivery APIs that Tridion has on offer (the broker API or the OData web service). Optionally you might want to look into DD4T, which is built on top of the broker and exposes the full Tridion data model.

Then your solution is to 1. Write an event handler on the Publish Transaction Save event 2. Which saves the publish info (version data) to Application Data of the published Component I'm mentioning the Publish Transaction Save event because from there you can ensure that the publish info is only saved when the transaction is successfull. Also be aware that this publish info can go out of sync when the event handler fails to execute, and you might loose all of the application data when moving to another environment. So when this information is absolutely crucial I would save it to a separate database, and not to Application Data.

One of the traits in Surviving Mars is Vegan. The description just says "don't worry, they'll tell you." All of the food in the game seems to be plant-based so what, if anything, does Veganism do?

2018/03/16

According to the wiki: > > Has decreased Comfort when living near a Ranch and won't work in such > buildings. > > Has increased Comfort when away from Ranches. > > Farm in the Dome +2 Comfort every Sol. > > Ranch in the Dome -2 Comfort every Sol. > > > Source: <https://survivingmars.paradoxwikis.com/Colonists> There is also an achievement called *Dream of a Green Mars* that you get if your colony reaches 200 Vegans.

Gameplay wise: No, they don't. However: There is an achievment -> **Dream of a Green Mars** -> Have 200 vegans in your colony.

One of the traits in Surviving Mars is Vegan. The description just says "don't worry, they'll tell you." All of the food in the game seems to be plant-based so what, if anything, does Veganism do?

2018/03/16

According to the wiki: > > Has decreased Comfort when living near a Ranch and won't work in such > buildings. > > Has increased Comfort when away from Ranches. > > Farm in the Dome +2 Comfort every Sol. > > Ranch in the Dome -2 Comfort every Sol. > > > Source: <https://survivingmars.paradoxwikis.com/Colonists> There is also an achievement called *Dream of a Green Mars* that you get if your colony reaches 200 Vegans.

The Project Laika DLC brought ranches and animals into the mix. Vegans now take a comfort penalty if there is a ranch in their dome.

I would like to know if it is possible to remote monitor the incoming and outcoming network traffic of a specific IP from my network. I need to log the time, ip numbers and port that contact the computer as well the answers. I cannot change any configuration/install of the machine. (so cannot install wireshark or a lower level app like tcpdump) best regards,

2013/05/02

You have three options: * install wireshark or similar on the target * monitor traffic through the network device * add your own network device that is in a position to detect the target traffic From your own comments, options 1 and 2 are ruled out already. It may be, though, that you are precluded from the final option by your contract. In my opinion you would be best served by requesting a monitoring tool from the company that provides the network or owns the contract. If this meets the needs of the company then you may get it agreed.

This is easy to do provided you have administrative access to your network devices, and they support [port mirroring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_mirroring) . What you do is mirror the port of the end point you want to monitor, and then use a sniffing tool like wireshark, tcpdump, or snoop to record the traffic.

I would like to know if it is possible to remote monitor the incoming and outcoming network traffic of a specific IP from my network. I need to log the time, ip numbers and port that contact the computer as well the answers. I cannot change any configuration/install of the machine. (so cannot install wireshark or a lower level app like tcpdump) best regards,

2013/05/02

I'm assuming that what you're doing is related to ethical pen. testing. If you have no legitimate control over your target, you have 3 options 1. [Haxoring](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=haxored) your target: Attempt to gain access to the target machine by exploiting some vulnerabilities in the machine itself, or the operator of the machine. 2. Big [Man in the Middle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack) (Between your target and the servers to which he's connecting): Attempt to gain access to the network device used by your target. For example, find some vulnerabilities or default passwords in the routers or gateways your target uses. 3. Man in the Middle (Between your target and his local network gateway): Attempt to trick your target into sending his traffic through you. By far, the easiest way to achieve this is through [ARP Spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_spoofing). An easy-to-use tool is [Cain and Abel](http://www.oxid.it/cain.html).  *(Cain and Abel)*

This is easy to do provided you have administrative access to your network devices, and they support [port mirroring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_mirroring) . What you do is mirror the port of the end point you want to monitor, and then use a sniffing tool like wireshark, tcpdump, or snoop to record the traffic.

I would like to know if it is possible to remote monitor the incoming and outcoming network traffic of a specific IP from my network. I need to log the time, ip numbers and port that contact the computer as well the answers. I cannot change any configuration/install of the machine. (so cannot install wireshark or a lower level app like tcpdump) best regards,

2013/05/02

This is easy to do provided you have administrative access to your network devices, and they support [port mirroring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_mirroring) . What you do is mirror the port of the end point you want to monitor, and then use a sniffing tool like wireshark, tcpdump, or snoop to record the traffic.

You just need to set up some monitoring software eg Anturis (<http://www.anturis.com>) and use it. It will not only monitor the traffic, but some troubles or malware.

I would like to know if it is possible to remote monitor the incoming and outcoming network traffic of a specific IP from my network. I need to log the time, ip numbers and port that contact the computer as well the answers. I cannot change any configuration/install of the machine. (so cannot install wireshark or a lower level app like tcpdump) best regards,

2013/05/02

I'm assuming that what you're doing is related to ethical pen. testing. If you have no legitimate control over your target, you have 3 options 1. [Haxoring](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=haxored) your target: Attempt to gain access to the target machine by exploiting some vulnerabilities in the machine itself, or the operator of the machine. 2. Big [Man in the Middle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack) (Between your target and the servers to which he's connecting): Attempt to gain access to the network device used by your target. For example, find some vulnerabilities or default passwords in the routers or gateways your target uses. 3. Man in the Middle (Between your target and his local network gateway): Attempt to trick your target into sending his traffic through you. By far, the easiest way to achieve this is through [ARP Spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_spoofing). An easy-to-use tool is [Cain and Abel](http://www.oxid.it/cain.html).  *(Cain and Abel)*

You have three options: * install wireshark or similar on the target * monitor traffic through the network device * add your own network device that is in a position to detect the target traffic From your own comments, options 1 and 2 are ruled out already. It may be, though, that you are precluded from the final option by your contract. In my opinion you would be best served by requesting a monitoring tool from the company that provides the network or owns the contract. If this meets the needs of the company then you may get it agreed.

I would like to know if it is possible to remote monitor the incoming and outcoming network traffic of a specific IP from my network. I need to log the time, ip numbers and port that contact the computer as well the answers. I cannot change any configuration/install of the machine. (so cannot install wireshark or a lower level app like tcpdump) best regards,

2013/05/02

You have three options: * install wireshark or similar on the target * monitor traffic through the network device * add your own network device that is in a position to detect the target traffic From your own comments, options 1 and 2 are ruled out already. It may be, though, that you are precluded from the final option by your contract. In my opinion you would be best served by requesting a monitoring tool from the company that provides the network or owns the contract. If this meets the needs of the company then you may get it agreed.

You just need to set up some monitoring software eg Anturis (<http://www.anturis.com>) and use it. It will not only monitor the traffic, but some troubles or malware.

I would like to know if it is possible to remote monitor the incoming and outcoming network traffic of a specific IP from my network. I need to log the time, ip numbers and port that contact the computer as well the answers. I cannot change any configuration/install of the machine. (so cannot install wireshark or a lower level app like tcpdump) best regards,

2013/05/02

I'm assuming that what you're doing is related to ethical pen. testing. If you have no legitimate control over your target, you have 3 options 1. [Haxoring](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=haxored) your target: Attempt to gain access to the target machine by exploiting some vulnerabilities in the machine itself, or the operator of the machine. 2. Big [Man in the Middle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack) (Between your target and the servers to which he's connecting): Attempt to gain access to the network device used by your target. For example, find some vulnerabilities or default passwords in the routers or gateways your target uses. 3. Man in the Middle (Between your target and his local network gateway): Attempt to trick your target into sending his traffic through you. By far, the easiest way to achieve this is through [ARP Spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_spoofing). An easy-to-use tool is [Cain and Abel](http://www.oxid.it/cain.html).  *(Cain and Abel)*

You just need to set up some monitoring software eg Anturis (<http://www.anturis.com>) and use it. It will not only monitor the traffic, but some troubles or malware.

I'm designing a windowed application. When the application starts up the user needs to be presented with a Login interface. The initial (and minimum) window size is 800x600. A header of height 42 pixels must be displayed. The way I'm presenting the Login interface currently is by displaying a Panel at the center of the Window, however I feel that some users may be discontent with this option. I considered the idea of starting with a small window, displaying the Login interface and expanding the window if the authentication succeeds, however this will pose a problem with the animations that take place and I feel that some users may be uncomfortable with small windows. Any innovative and intuitive ideas to present the Login interface would be appreciated. -Chris Smith

2011/08/16

With regards to websites which match your requirements, I'm a big fan of [Toggl](https://www.toggl.com/)'s *centered* sign in and sign up forms (which by the way, are *equally* simple - both with email + password only). I don't see any reason why users should be discontent with it. In the snapshot below, obviously your header replaces Toggl's... You could *try* positioning it at 61.8% of the way up the screen to see if the golden ratio effect makes it look more attractive, but honestly - center is fine. 

You could try having a bar pop down from underneath the header. Like this: Then when the login has been completed, have the bar disappear.

I'm designing a windowed application. When the application starts up the user needs to be presented with a Login interface. The initial (and minimum) window size is 800x600. A header of height 42 pixels must be displayed. The way I'm presenting the Login interface currently is by displaying a Panel at the center of the Window, however I feel that some users may be discontent with this option. I considered the idea of starting with a small window, displaying the Login interface and expanding the window if the authentication succeeds, however this will pose a problem with the animations that take place and I feel that some users may be uncomfortable with small windows. Any innovative and intuitive ideas to present the Login interface would be appreciated. -Chris Smith

2011/08/16

With regards to websites which match your requirements, I'm a big fan of [Toggl](https://www.toggl.com/)'s *centered* sign in and sign up forms (which by the way, are *equally* simple - both with email + password only). I don't see any reason why users should be discontent with it. In the snapshot below, obviously your header replaces Toggl's... You could *try* positioning it at 61.8% of the way up the screen to see if the golden ratio effect makes it look more attractive, but honestly - center is fine. 

Do you have to present some info about the app to the user or can the screen be completely empty (besides the header)? The toggl-example isnt't that userfriendly for newbies who don't know much about the app.

Many a times I used the word "unaccept". But everytime our system shows redline (spellcheck). I believe it is the opposite of "accept", correct? If its a mistake, what should I use?

2015/12/08

Unaccept is not a word? I find that unacceptable! :P > > 1. (rare) To rescind one's acceptance of - [Wiktionary.org](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unaccept) > > > See? > > The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary - [Merriam-Webster.com](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/unaccept) > > > Oh rats. > > 1. (rare) To rescind one's acceptance of - [YourDictionary.com](http://www.yourdictionary.com/unaccept) > > > Hah! > > `¯\_(ツ)_/¯` > > > There aren't any definitions for unaccept yet. - [UrbanDictionary.com](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unaccept) > > > Dang, not even in there? Wait, the [OED](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XN319iJMz70J:www.oed.com/searchresults:changesize/100%3Bjsessionid%3D1B1EBFB2A6F12673CEAB005E242621C2%3Ff_0%3DFull%2BText%26pageSize%3D20%26q_0%3Dbill%26scope%3DQUOTATION%26type%3Ddictionarysearch%20&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) does cite a usage of it: > > 49. acceptor, n. View full entry 1665 > > > ...uld (if he could) **unaccept** the Bill , or make voyde his Acceptanc... > > > 1665, so it exists, but it's vintage? I guess it depends on who you ask. You shouldn't fault your spell checker for flagging it. No one has any real authority to tell you not to use it but it is certainly not popular enough that you should use it unawares. Unawares is a word right?

With a verb and suffix un, doesn't it need to have already happened and the same forces of physics apply to both in reverse due to it being UNDONE!???? Do and undo, an action that can be reversed. tie and untie If you accept... You can't unaccept unless the person gives you that option. A new verb is required as a new action is in place. Example: me:I accept. you: Thanks, deal! me: Wait, I unaccept you: No, tough shit fuck face me.............. Can we come to a new arrangement? and then another action is required to stop the deal. otherwise it is refuse or undo or get the fuck out of my office... The subject takes a new action. Because the original action required more that 1 human (usually for this verb) and to reverse the action linguistically would also take the same 2 in unison, if only 1 does it, unaccepts it, it is a new action. If they both unaccept it... It is fucking impossible as one is giving and one is receiving, if they both unaccept it, time would stand still and the sun might scorch the earth. Imagine how a woman would unaccept a woody which has already gone inside without a new action happening.................... For the record: Before about 1700 it was a rare use word. PLEASE don't ask me where I learnt/learned this from, I did a BA TESOL and it's in there. It is fair to say that if it hasn't circulated at least semi-commonly via millions of speakers for 400 years we can say it was fucked off and reject or refuse took over as.... Many opposing adjectives use completely different words (Pre-Latin influence I believe, Germanic or Slavic), hot-unhot.... doesn't really cut it right... but could in an alternative universe where a celebrity used it in a sex tape for more fame but.... I digress, unaccept is a verb and not an adj soooooooooooooooo as with some verbs: they either are or they are not. Like run.... we can't say a little bit run or unrun (without a time machine, it's a jog or jogging but the meaning is clear. But you might unagree.

As the title says, is there an SE site for social, non-workplace communication and etiquette? Essentially something like the topics often found on workplace.se (and sometimes academia.se), but outside of the workplace / academics. Questions about (possibly) cultural-specific behavior (but somewhat outside the bounds of travel.se) in social situations, primarily formal but also casual.

2014/11/06

**Update:** since 18 August 2017, [Interpersonal Skills](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92736/interpersonal-skills/visit) has been opened to public. --- ~~As of current, I couldn't find any graduated & public-beta sites about *social, non-workplace communication and etiquette*.~~ However, when I searched for ["social" in Area 51](http://area51.stackexchange.com/search?q=social&page=1&returnTitle=All+Proposals), this is what I got: * [**Interpersonal Skills**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92736/interpersonal-skills) - for the life skills we use every day to communicate and interact with other people. * [**Social Relationships**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77052/social-relationships) (**closed**) - for answers for questions involving spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend, family, friends and relationships. How to handle problems that may occur between friends and family members. Also for relationship advice and motivations. * [**Social Conventions**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75504/social-conventions) (**deleted**) - for people who need help with how to respond in certain situations as well as raising awareness amid people on how to communicate without any issues [Concerning talking to the deaf and blind etc.] * [**Ethics**](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75061/ethics) (**deleted**)- for people interested in the social contract, cultural and commonly accepted rules, and in the roots of ethics.

Great news, the site got created, and generates great content: <https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com> *[Proposal page of the site, including some statistics](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92736/interpersonal-skills)* It is a shame that a lot of great questions get lost every time a proposal is deleted. A fraction of them can be scavenged from the Internet Archive: * <http://web.archive.org/web/20151214031101/http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86480/etiquette> (was viable but got deleted after 7 months) * <http://web.archive.org/web/20150906203854/http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77052/social-relationships> * <http://web.archive.org/web/20150906200914/http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75504/social-conventions> * <http://web.archive.org/web/20150404094820/http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/75061/ethics>

I just realized that my Stack Overflow frontpage is filled with Android & other *Favorite Tags*. I tried to look it up from Chrome's incognito mode and it's quite different than when I'm logged in. Are frontpage questions really different for logged in and non logged in users?

2011/03/14

Yes, it does -- see here for details: <https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/stack-overflow-homepage-changes/> On top of that, we auto-infer favorite tags based on browsing preferences if we reach statistically significant thresholds for a user.

I don't think so. The interesting tab changes a lot well because it is interesting :)

This question is similar to this one: [What unique features has Ubuntu brought to the Linux community?](https://askubuntu.com/questions/46642/what-unique-enhancements-and-features-has-ubuntu-brought-to-the-linux-community) but in this case it is directed towards what has Ubuntu contributed to the official Linux Kernel. Many times I have heared about Intel contributing patches to the Linux Kernel like the RC6 latest patches and many more related to recent support for Sandy/Ivy Bridge. In another group, Android did an upstream patch and a lot of ARM patches have also come to the Linux Kernel. I have seeing a small percent of companies and groups that have contributed to the Linux Kernel (<http://kernel.org>) but what I want to know is, since the beginning of Ubuntu till now, what has Ubuntu contributed to the Linux Kernel in regards to any aspect of the kernel. For Kernel information I typically go to <http://kernelnewbies.org> and <http://kernel.org>

2012/03/31

I'm not sure this is really the best way to measure Ubuntu's contributions to the free software world, but it's easy enough to look: * [List of commits in mainline from @canonical.com addresses.](http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?qt=author&q=@canonical.com) * [List of commits mainline from @ubuntu.com addresses](http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?qt=author&q=@ubuntu.com)

The following adds the perspective of Canonical's motives. Not a direct answer to the original question but IMO a vital piece of information. Let us hear what the main man, Mark Shuttleworth, has to say about this <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2168086/canonical-linux-kernel> "Recently Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth told The INQUIRER that his company has no interest in contributing to the Linux kernel" Rather silly statement considering the fact that the power regressionS (plural!) rendered most linux distros, including Ubuntu, practically unusable on many machines.

I want to build a robot arm that'll be approximately 1.25 meter long and will be able to lift up to 2 kilograms. It'll have 6 dof and it is an expensive project. And most importantly, i am the only programmer in this brand new robotics facility of ours. :) The robot that i want to build will be led by Inverse Kinematics, so with all these parameters and matrices, i think that i'll need a tough processor (Not so sure). Assuming that my robots control interface will be on an Android tablet, i thought that i also could develop my program for Android, and send necessary commands to the control chip via RS-232 interface. So, my question is, are standart 1 GHz Android tablets suitable for these tasks? If not, has anybody got an advice for me?

2012/11/13

This project sounds quite plausible. The question is, where do the servo loops happen? Does it go through the Android Tablet, or just the control chip? What chip is this? If the servo loops go through the tablet, then be warned that the tablet needs to be able to process that servo loop in good time each cycle. No being late, or missing cycles. No sudden waiting for a WiFi connection, or spending too much time doing voice recognition. It doesn't need to be hard real time (ROS isn't for example) but it should be fairly reliable. If the servo loop goes only through the control chip, whatever that is, then that would be much better. The tablet would just send demand values to the control chip, and it wouldn't matter so much if these were a bit late or were skipped. Your robot arm is only 6 degrees of freedom, meaning the Inverse Kinematics function can be solved analytically every control cycle, and will be very fast. 1GHz is actually quite a fast processor. I used to do IK on a [12 DOF simulation](http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/models/m_ik.htm) in QBASIC on an old 486, and could easily get 30 FPS.

It looks like you are implementing Inverse kinematics(IK) control of robot manipulator for first time. I would suggest you to start of inverse kinematics control program in regular computer. Once you have implemented stable IK control program, you can implement the same same for Android tablet. Please don't complicate the task which is already complicated! Best way start is to keep building of arm and developing IK control for the arm as separate modules and integrate them once both modules are working properly. For IK control program you can start off with simulated robot arm. Building reliable 6 DoF arm of reach 1.25 meter is definitely not easy job, especially if you are doing it for first time. It would be good idea to start with smaller prototype and later scale it up required size.

I want to build a robot arm that'll be approximately 1.25 meter long and will be able to lift up to 2 kilograms. It'll have 6 dof and it is an expensive project. And most importantly, i am the only programmer in this brand new robotics facility of ours. :) The robot that i want to build will be led by Inverse Kinematics, so with all these parameters and matrices, i think that i'll need a tough processor (Not so sure). Assuming that my robots control interface will be on an Android tablet, i thought that i also could develop my program for Android, and send necessary commands to the control chip via RS-232 interface. So, my question is, are standart 1 GHz Android tablets suitable for these tasks? If not, has anybody got an advice for me?

2012/11/13

This is a much bigger project than you think, and processing power is the least of your concerns. You may want to skip straight to step #9. Otherwise, here are some questions you need to ask yourself, based on my experience of building something very similar as a hobby project (I used a desktop PC for processing): 1: **Exactly** how far should the robot reach? You say 1.25 meters - but at what height, and in what direction? If it absolutely must reach anything within a 1.25 meter dome around its base, then either it's maximum reach must be longer, or you have a very big engineering challenge. Look at some of the robots from Fanuc or Kuka; their online catalogs have cutout views that show how far the arm will reach in each direction, and those areas are never perfect domes. Also, how close to the base must the robot reach? If the first arm (from the base) is significantly longer than the 2nd arm, then it won't be able to reach anything close to the base. Also, 6 DOF DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN HAVE ANY POSITION WITH ANY MOVEMENT! The shoulder and elbow joints of robot arms are almost always in the same DOF (and sometimes the wrist too). You can move the arm in any direction or hold the grasper in any orientation, but you can't do both at the same time. If you look at the human arm, the shoulder has 3 DOF, the elbow has one, the forearm has one, and the wrist has two. That's 7 in total, and that's what you need for total flexibility. If you search for 7 DOF, you'll see examples showing how they can move in ways that 6 DOF arms can't. This may not be important for your project, but it's important to know because otherwise you may do a lot of needless debugging. 2: Start with the grasper first. There are companies that make these specially, and it's best to look at their work to see what you might need. These can be very expensive parts if they need motors or sensors. This is the most important part of the arm, and fortunately it's the first part you can prototype and test. Figure out what you want, cheaply and quickly fabricate a version yourself, and move it around by hand to ensure it actually does what you want it to do. You may find that it needs to do more or less than you expected. I've seen people learn a lot simply by using a pair of popsickle sticks. 3: **Exactly** how much force should the arm lift? Start with the outermost part, the end effector (aka grasper/gripper/whatever). That needs to have a grip capable of holding 2kg, or roughly 20 newton-meters (you'll be doing all forces in newton-meters now; it's a lot easier than foot-pounds because 1kg is 9.8NM, and it's best to round up). How does it hold it? Does it pinch sideways? If so, it needs to have some amount of grip. If it lifts from the bottom like a fork, it needs to have a certain amount of torque in the last up/down DOF. We'll come back to this. 4: (AKA #3 part 2) Now that you know what the end effector needs to do, you can get a better idea of how it should be shaped and how much it will weigh. And after going through step 1 and lots of graph paper, you may know how long each segment of the arm needs to be. With this knowledge, you can start calculating how much each segment will weigh and therefore how much force each DOF needs to support. It's safest to calculate this with each segment fully outstretched, but for the lowest 2 joints you may be able to estimate that they will always be at an angle and therefore don't need quite as much force. 5: Time to look at motors, the beautiful yet evil Medusa of robotics. Again, what does the robot need to do? Does it need to be fast, or powerful, or precise? If it needs precision but can be slow, you may need geared stepper motors. If it needs to be fast or powerful, you may need geared DC or AC motors. Speaking of which, DC motors will probably be easier to control. But each of these options have problems; stepper motors are quite weak and they don't know their position, while DC and AC motors simply don't know their positions. You'll need rotary encoders for DC/AC motors (incremental encoders at minimum), and may need absolute encoders no matter which motor type you choose. Absolute encoders tell you the exact angle of the arm, incremental ones will only tell you the change in angle. So, absolute encoders are better, but they are also much more expensive. You can avoid this problem by purchasing industrial servo motors (which look a lot like the stepper motors), but those are much more expensive because they have rotary encoders already built in. But those servos may be worth it just for the easier integration, if the maker has a nice software package that you can use. 6: You'll need to power all these motors (probably through drivers, which are another piece of hardware), and also power all the sensors and controllers, and they probably won't require the same voltage. Hopefully your motors can at least share a single voltage. You can buy velcro loops and labels in bulk. 7: Don't forget the weight of the motors in the arm; you'll need to include that when calculating the torque required for the next motor. 8: Make sure you have some arrangement for fast and cheap shipping of new components, and whatever discounts possible. 9: Realize this is way too complicated, and look up a robot refurbisher/supplier in your area. Retired industrial robots are much cheaper than new ones, and they can help you get set up and figure out what adjustments you need.

It looks like you are implementing Inverse kinematics(IK) control of robot manipulator for first time. I would suggest you to start of inverse kinematics control program in regular computer. Once you have implemented stable IK control program, you can implement the same same for Android tablet. Please don't complicate the task which is already complicated! Best way start is to keep building of arm and developing IK control for the arm as separate modules and integrate them once both modules are working properly. For IK control program you can start off with simulated robot arm. Building reliable 6 DoF arm of reach 1.25 meter is definitely not easy job, especially if you are doing it for first time. It would be good idea to start with smaller prototype and later scale it up required size.

I want to build a robot arm that'll be approximately 1.25 meter long and will be able to lift up to 2 kilograms. It'll have 6 dof and it is an expensive project. And most importantly, i am the only programmer in this brand new robotics facility of ours. :) The robot that i want to build will be led by Inverse Kinematics, so with all these parameters and matrices, i think that i'll need a tough processor (Not so sure). Assuming that my robots control interface will be on an Android tablet, i thought that i also could develop my program for Android, and send necessary commands to the control chip via RS-232 interface. So, my question is, are standart 1 GHz Android tablets suitable for these tasks? If not, has anybody got an advice for me?

2012/11/13

This project sounds quite plausible. The question is, where do the servo loops happen? Does it go through the Android Tablet, or just the control chip? What chip is this? If the servo loops go through the tablet, then be warned that the tablet needs to be able to process that servo loop in good time each cycle. No being late, or missing cycles. No sudden waiting for a WiFi connection, or spending too much time doing voice recognition. It doesn't need to be hard real time (ROS isn't for example) but it should be fairly reliable. If the servo loop goes only through the control chip, whatever that is, then that would be much better. The tablet would just send demand values to the control chip, and it wouldn't matter so much if these were a bit late or were skipped. Your robot arm is only 6 degrees of freedom, meaning the Inverse Kinematics function can be solved analytically every control cycle, and will be very fast. 1GHz is actually quite a fast processor. I used to do IK on a [12 DOF simulation](http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/models/m_ik.htm) in QBASIC on an old 486, and could easily get 30 FPS.

How many degrees of freedom do you plan to implement? I use Arduino Mega for my arm with 4 axis and plan to use simple ARM processor instead it.

I want to build a robot arm that'll be approximately 1.25 meter long and will be able to lift up to 2 kilograms. It'll have 6 dof and it is an expensive project. And most importantly, i am the only programmer in this brand new robotics facility of ours. :) The robot that i want to build will be led by Inverse Kinematics, so with all these parameters and matrices, i think that i'll need a tough processor (Not so sure). Assuming that my robots control interface will be on an Android tablet, i thought that i also could develop my program for Android, and send necessary commands to the control chip via RS-232 interface. So, my question is, are standart 1 GHz Android tablets suitable for these tasks? If not, has anybody got an advice for me?

2012/11/13

This is a much bigger project than you think, and processing power is the least of your concerns. You may want to skip straight to step #9. Otherwise, here are some questions you need to ask yourself, based on my experience of building something very similar as a hobby project (I used a desktop PC for processing): 1: **Exactly** how far should the robot reach? You say 1.25 meters - but at what height, and in what direction? If it absolutely must reach anything within a 1.25 meter dome around its base, then either it's maximum reach must be longer, or you have a very big engineering challenge. Look at some of the robots from Fanuc or Kuka; their online catalogs have cutout views that show how far the arm will reach in each direction, and those areas are never perfect domes. Also, how close to the base must the robot reach? If the first arm (from the base) is significantly longer than the 2nd arm, then it won't be able to reach anything close to the base. Also, 6 DOF DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN HAVE ANY POSITION WITH ANY MOVEMENT! The shoulder and elbow joints of robot arms are almost always in the same DOF (and sometimes the wrist too). You can move the arm in any direction or hold the grasper in any orientation, but you can't do both at the same time. If you look at the human arm, the shoulder has 3 DOF, the elbow has one, the forearm has one, and the wrist has two. That's 7 in total, and that's what you need for total flexibility. If you search for 7 DOF, you'll see examples showing how they can move in ways that 6 DOF arms can't. This may not be important for your project, but it's important to know because otherwise you may do a lot of needless debugging. 2: Start with the grasper first. There are companies that make these specially, and it's best to look at their work to see what you might need. These can be very expensive parts if they need motors or sensors. This is the most important part of the arm, and fortunately it's the first part you can prototype and test. Figure out what you want, cheaply and quickly fabricate a version yourself, and move it around by hand to ensure it actually does what you want it to do. You may find that it needs to do more or less than you expected. I've seen people learn a lot simply by using a pair of popsickle sticks. 3: **Exactly** how much force should the arm lift? Start with the outermost part, the end effector (aka grasper/gripper/whatever). That needs to have a grip capable of holding 2kg, or roughly 20 newton-meters (you'll be doing all forces in newton-meters now; it's a lot easier than foot-pounds because 1kg is 9.8NM, and it's best to round up). How does it hold it? Does it pinch sideways? If so, it needs to have some amount of grip. If it lifts from the bottom like a fork, it needs to have a certain amount of torque in the last up/down DOF. We'll come back to this. 4: (AKA #3 part 2) Now that you know what the end effector needs to do, you can get a better idea of how it should be shaped and how much it will weigh. And after going through step 1 and lots of graph paper, you may know how long each segment of the arm needs to be. With this knowledge, you can start calculating how much each segment will weigh and therefore how much force each DOF needs to support. It's safest to calculate this with each segment fully outstretched, but for the lowest 2 joints you may be able to estimate that they will always be at an angle and therefore don't need quite as much force. 5: Time to look at motors, the beautiful yet evil Medusa of robotics. Again, what does the robot need to do? Does it need to be fast, or powerful, or precise? If it needs precision but can be slow, you may need geared stepper motors. If it needs to be fast or powerful, you may need geared DC or AC motors. Speaking of which, DC motors will probably be easier to control. But each of these options have problems; stepper motors are quite weak and they don't know their position, while DC and AC motors simply don't know their positions. You'll need rotary encoders for DC/AC motors (incremental encoders at minimum), and may need absolute encoders no matter which motor type you choose. Absolute encoders tell you the exact angle of the arm, incremental ones will only tell you the change in angle. So, absolute encoders are better, but they are also much more expensive. You can avoid this problem by purchasing industrial servo motors (which look a lot like the stepper motors), but those are much more expensive because they have rotary encoders already built in. But those servos may be worth it just for the easier integration, if the maker has a nice software package that you can use. 6: You'll need to power all these motors (probably through drivers, which are another piece of hardware), and also power all the sensors and controllers, and they probably won't require the same voltage. Hopefully your motors can at least share a single voltage. You can buy velcro loops and labels in bulk. 7: Don't forget the weight of the motors in the arm; you'll need to include that when calculating the torque required for the next motor. 8: Make sure you have some arrangement for fast and cheap shipping of new components, and whatever discounts possible. 9: Realize this is way too complicated, and look up a robot refurbisher/supplier in your area. Retired industrial robots are much cheaper than new ones, and they can help you get set up and figure out what adjustments you need.

How many degrees of freedom do you plan to implement? I use Arduino Mega for my arm with 4 axis and plan to use simple ARM processor instead it.

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

I use the open source [PasswordSafe](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/) application for storing my personal passwords. I keep the database file on a DropBox volume, so it is accessible from anywhere. (hat tip: [Joel](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/11b.html)) There is no reason that the password database file can't be kept on a network share, and there is an option to open the password file in read-only mode.

For single use passwords I set it and forget it. If I have to do something with it I reset it again knowing that it has a single purpose. This also keeps me from using the account for a second purpose. The account name will match the purpose and may be a long long winded name.

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

For single use passwords I set it and forget it. If I have to do something with it I reset it again knowing that it has a single purpose. This also keeps me from using the account for a second purpose. The account name will match the purpose and may be a long long winded name.

I use [KeePass](http://keepass.info/) and the Linux alternative [KeePassX](http://www.keepassx.org/) on a network share. Always open in read only unless I specifically need to make an edit.

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

When i am setting up services that are rarely going to need to be logged into i try to use the most obscure password (start of an md5 hash for instance) and then just store it in an encrypted/password protected spreadsheet. It keeps you from worrying about that if someone somehow got the password for your domain name that he could essentially gain access to the whole system.

You could use a tool like [passwordmaker](http://passwordmaker.org/) to create hashed passwords for you. 

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

I use the open source [PasswordSafe](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/) application for storing my personal passwords. I keep the database file on a DropBox volume, so it is accessible from anywhere. (hat tip: [Joel](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/11b.html)) There is no reason that the password database file can't be kept on a network share, and there is an option to open the password file in read-only mode.

I save passwords in [passwordsafe](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/) (or one of its [variants](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/relatedprojects.shtml)) and keep the passwordsafe database in a folder shared by [dropbox](http://www.getdropbox.com/). (Dropbox syncs files online and across multiple computers). I use Linux, and mostly use the command line [pwsafe](http://nsd.dyndns.org/pwsafe/) and occasionally [MyPasswordSafe](http://www.semanticgap.com/myps/) - both available in the ubuntu repositories. Dropbox works on Windows, Mac and Linux, and there are programs that use the passwordsafe format on all three platforms aswell. The [original](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/) works on Windows, there is a [java version](http://sourceforge.net/projects/jpwsafe) that works on Windows, Mac and Linux. For a fuller list, see the [related projects page](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/relatedprojects.shtml) that shows platform support for Windows, Windows Mobile, Mac, Linux, BSD, Solaris, perl modules, C# support ...

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

When i am setting up services that are rarely going to need to be logged into i try to use the most obscure password (start of an md5 hash for instance) and then just store it in an encrypted/password protected spreadsheet. It keeps you from worrying about that if someone somehow got the password for your domain name that he could essentially gain access to the whole system.

I use [KeePass](http://keepass.info/) and the Linux alternative [KeePassX](http://www.keepassx.org/) on a network share. Always open in read only unless I specifically need to make an edit.

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

I work at a show with several techs. We use Keepass/Keepassx and the files are stored in a subversion repository, that is only accessible via SSH with key-based authentication. Using the VCS allows us to keep a copy of the password vaults offline and up-to-date. If you keep your password file on the server, what happens when that server fails, or if it stored on the internet, what happens when the internet fails.

You could use a tool like [passwordmaker](http://passwordmaker.org/) to create hashed passwords for you. 

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

I use the open source [PasswordSafe](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/) application for storing my personal passwords. I keep the database file on a DropBox volume, so it is accessible from anywhere. (hat tip: [Joel](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/11b.html)) There is no reason that the password database file can't be kept on a network share, and there is an option to open the password file in read-only mode.

You could use a tool like [passwordmaker](http://passwordmaker.org/) to create hashed passwords for you. 

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

I use [KeePass](http://keepass.info/) and the Linux alternative [KeePassX](http://www.keepassx.org/) on a network share. Always open in read only unless I specifically need to make an edit.

You could use a tool like [passwordmaker](http://passwordmaker.org/) to create hashed passwords for you. 

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

I work at a show with several techs. We use Keepass/Keepassx and the files are stored in a subversion repository, that is only accessible via SSH with key-based authentication. Using the VCS allows us to keep a copy of the password vaults offline and up-to-date. If you keep your password file on the server, what happens when that server fails, or if it stored on the internet, what happens when the internet fails.

I use [KeePass](http://keepass.info/) and the Linux alternative [KeePassX](http://www.keepassx.org/) on a network share. Always open in read only unless I specifically need to make an edit.

How do you handle the storage of passwords that, by nature of their usage, you can't expect administrators to memorize? Such as: * Administrator/root password when everyone logs on using their own account with administrator rights * Service account passwords that are only set during configuration, e.g. SqlServerAgent, SharePointSearchService, etc. * Web registrations for an entire company, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools, GoDaddy/VeriSign, MSDN, etc. I certainly don't want to re-use a single password for so many different areas. Options we've considered: * Encrypted file on network share * Shared KeePass database * Password protected Wiki * Single base password with small modification for each area This comes to mind as I try to install a password protected PFX file from home with the one-time use password stored in a notebook in my locked desk at work.

2009/05/03

I work at a show with several techs. We use Keepass/Keepassx and the files are stored in a subversion repository, that is only accessible via SSH with key-based authentication. Using the VCS allows us to keep a copy of the password vaults offline and up-to-date. If you keep your password file on the server, what happens when that server fails, or if it stored on the internet, what happens when the internet fails.

I use the open source [PasswordSafe](http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/) application for storing my personal passwords. I keep the database file on a DropBox volume, so it is accessible from anywhere. (hat tip: [Joel](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/09/11b.html)) There is no reason that the password database file can't be kept on a network share, and there is an option to open the password file in read-only mode.

Lets say it was possible to create as massive traversable wormholes as we want. Say we started from earth and wanted to cross to alpha centauri. How would I create the wormhole so that it leads directly to alpha centauri? So we start from earth and want the wormhole to start from their and end at alpha centauri, how would you extend the wormhole there from your starting point?

2014/04/22

Attach magnets, bring wires close, enjoy while it lasts. The changing magnetic field would induce currents in the wires, hence you could extract out energy from the rotating system.

A little hard to do, but say.. 1. You build a sun room on the surface of the sun. 2. You tether the axle of a bicycle wheel sitting on the surface of the earth to your sun room on the surface of the sun. 3. As the earth turns, the bicycle wheel turns. It stays in place as it is tethered to the sun. Now - you can extract energy from the turning of the bicycle wheel. Must be an easier way?

Lets say it was possible to create as massive traversable wormholes as we want. Say we started from earth and wanted to cross to alpha centauri. How would I create the wormhole so that it leads directly to alpha centauri? So we start from earth and want the wormhole to start from their and end at alpha centauri, how would you extend the wormhole there from your starting point?

2014/04/22

**Caution:** I have not worked this out rigorously, and I'm not entirely convinced that it works (or even that the problem is solvable). Comments appreciated. The answers here all have the disadvantage that they fundamentally require large amounts of mass not in the same non-inertial frame to work properly. But what if there simply *was* no such mass? In other words, what if the entire universe consisted of our rotating orb, and us, on it. How would one extract the energy from the orb? It's pretty obvious you have to do this by exploiting fictitious forces. One way is to coil a string around a wheel, and place a large mass on one end of the string - as the mass flies outward, it will spin the wheel up, giving us energy. The disadvantages are that we lose the mass permanently (it costs the same amount of energy to get it back), and it won't work in the presence of a gravitational field stronger than the fictitious outward force. That's ok though, because there are other fictitious forces. To make this a bit easier to visualize, suppose we were on a merry-go-round, spinning counter-clockwise. Sitting at the center, facing outwards, I push a marble. The coriolis force takes over and the marble veers to the right. Intuitively, this happens because doing otherwise would require *the marble to speed up*. The marble needs to keep the same kinetic energy as it had before *from an intertial reference frame*, so it veers to the right. If we resist that motion, we ought to be able to extract energy, and then bring the marble back down to $r=0$. At this point the details aren't too hard to work out. Launch a bar magnet into the air (the energy for this will be re-gained, in part, when the magnet falls), and induce drag on longitudinal motion with some wires nearby (from which electricity is extracted). Repeat. If you set this up all long the equator, you shouldn't even need to worry about re-positioning the magnet.

A little hard to do, but say.. 1. You build a sun room on the surface of the sun. 2. You tether the axle of a bicycle wheel sitting on the surface of the earth to your sun room on the surface of the sun. 3. As the earth turns, the bicycle wheel turns. It stays in place as it is tethered to the sun. Now - you can extract energy from the turning of the bicycle wheel. Must be an easier way?

I'm trying to find an app (or 2, one for each device) to transfer files between my Android and a desktop running Ubuntu (basically to backup pics, videos or notes from the phone). I'd prefer something that's in the Ubuntu repository and Google Play without ads and for free. And I would like a cli app, so, to automatize copying data from phone into the desktop each x hours. I tried `adb` until my phone decided to block all USB connections from my desktop. I suppose there's a way of troubleshooting this, but so far nothing works, tried changing several setting. I'd prefer something that will just work and won't make me worry that it will stop working. Desktop has no Bluetooth. Right now, I just store information on a microSD card and transfer it through it.

2022/11/04

As you're using Linux on your PC (good choice btw!), you have `rsync` in its repository and maybe even already installed. A pendant on Android could e.g. be **[Syncopoli](https://f-droid.org/packages/org.amoradi.syncopoli/)**: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jws8W.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cf3rl.png) Syncopoli (source: [F-Droid](https://f-droid.org/packages/org.amoradi.syncopoli/); click images for larger variants) This seems to be made for your purpose, as the screenshots show – the example matches your need for photos, but document locations can be added the same way. According to its description it is a one-way sync, but by your question you need it for backup, so it should be fine. Authentication is possible via password or public key, both things you're most likely familiar with as Linux user.

When I want to transfer files from my Android phone and USB is acting up, I use [Cx File Explorer](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cxinventor.file.explorer&hl=de&gl=US&pli=1), which has a feature to open an FTP server which you can then access from your desktop.

I recently tried to make orange chicken and the recipe required the zest of one orange. Well I added too much zest and the orange peel flavor is overpowering. How can I reduce that flavor?

2015/11/18

rackandboneman has excellent suggestions. If I may add one more, I would suggest adding some fairly strong tastes to reduce the prominence of the orange. Some soy, garlic and honey would go a long way toward turning the orange into a passable teriyaki.

jist found this.. as I am working on sams issues. I am using leftover orange marmalade in place of orange juice (nobody liked the marmalade so I needed to use it somehow). It has a very strong tangy zest taste. I have included ginger root and garlic, salt, coconut aminos or soy sauce, rice vinegar, brown sugar and diluted with water. While it still has tang.. I think it is definitely much more palatable and hoping it will be even more so once used with the chicken or veggies added to it.

I am trying to install 11.10 and it keeps getting stuck on the "configuring target system" step. I originally downloaded the program to a USB drive and copied it to the desktop for installation.

2011/12/18

Just to point out: It is possible to install Ubuntu without burning to CD/DVD or via USB drive if you're using a Virtual Machine (eg. VMWare Player/Virtual Box/etc). I had the same issue where installation froze at "configuring target system". In my case, waiting 12 hours did nothing to resolve the issue. My resolution was to ensure my internet connection worked. I'm at work so I had to go through a proxy, set in the VMWare connection options. It would seem that internet connectivity was the issue which, if true, is pretty sad that Ubuntu requires this on installation!

Either enable your internet connection or uncheck the "Enable Networking" checkbox in the network menu (top right) during installation.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

Sorry, but unless the offer letter is signed then you do not have secured employment, period. You are right to be worried because neither company has your best interest in mind. If company B rescinded after you put in a two-week notice then do you personally have enough capital to sue them for damages which arose from an unsigned offer letter? From <https://www.recruiter.com/i/how-to-resign-from-your-job-to-take-up-a-new-post/> > > The golden rule for resigning to take up post in a new job is not to resign until you have a written job offer in your hand, which includes a start date and details the salary and all the pertinent benefits and perks. **IF POSSIBLE, DON'T RESIGN UNTIL YOU HAVE A COMPANY SIGNED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.** A verbal offer is not enough; you want to be totally sure of commitment from the employer – and that all the correct internal hiring approval procedures have been executed. > > > Also see <https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/149409/17532> I am not saying they plan to screw you over nor that they will act upon a chance to screw you over but take this quote to heart: "*The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.*"

**(Update Below: Start Date is everything, do you have one yet? I'd worry more about that than a contract)** To my knowledge, a contract is binding even without a signature if no other contract was offered afterwards, neither party objected, and both parties moved forward as though the contract had been agreed to. If you have (or they have) recording of the agreement verbally on the phone that's all the better. But I wouldn't worry - If they've gone so far as to send you the offer in writing, and you said yes on the phone, I would say you have a strong argument if they later rescinded it.... in that they sent you a contract and you agreed to it. Not to say they couldn't try to get out of it, or that it would be worth disputing if they did, but it's not something I'd worry about. It's likely just a company with a shitty/ignorant policy in that area. Do be suspicious, and be on the lookout for other red flags, but I personally wouldn't raise a stink about this issue to anyone at the company after they said they won't sign until day one.... If you are concerned though, I'd check on their reviews at sites like glass door and see if anyone got ripped off. And then maybe float your resume to some additional places as a hedge just to feel confident, but overall I'm sure it's fine. Most companies, they want to get a position filled quickly and for the best(least) amount of cost for a good candidate. If I make an offer, unless you're my second or third choice and someone that previously backs out becomes available again, it's likely not going to be rescinded (for example.... what kind of liability does that open the company to about potential discrimination if it turns out the candidate was in a protected class?). Even if a better candidate that rejected earlier suddenly becomes available, they're then in doubt as to whether they really would stick out the job at that point. If an offer has been made and you've accepted I would put 90% odds you'll be there on day one Update: As I rethink this, whether you have the contract or not, I would recommend not considering the job firm until you've agreed on a start date. Once you've settled on a start date, I would consider the job 100% sealed unless the job is overall eliminated or some other extranneous issue occurs where they can't hire someone in general anymore.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

I don't see a problem here. It could be as simple as they want to see you actually put your wet signature on the paper. This is why presidents sometimes sign documents in signing ceremonies, and not in the garage of their vacation home. It gives the process an air of gravitas. I personally like the process they've established. They sent you the contract in advance, so that you had time to look over it. You stated that all of the contacts you've had with them have been via email or phone, so it sounds like you haven't met each other yet. They just want a little face to face time before the final "handshake," that's all.

After reading the answers already I'm not sure there's a complete picture here. First, an offer letter is legally binding. If they give you an offer letter and do not present you with a contract to sign or otherwise do not hire you, then you would easily win a claim against them for damages. And if they're a big company, they know this and would not do this, as it's just not in their financial interests to do so. That being said, you WILL be signing this contact at some point. I'm assuming that since you received the employment agreement that you've read it and you would be willing to sign THAT document. You will need to ensure the document they present is the document sent you before. It may, depending on the terms and how well you understand them, worth your while to run it past a lawyer. Now, according to the terms of your agreement, once you sign it, you will probably have a few things you might need to be concerned about. There will be any number of reasons they might let you go and you should be aware of these and make sure you have confidence that they won't do one of those. But there are no guarantees. You could get there and last a week and absolutely hate it. Do you have the funds you need to survive until you get another job? Would your current job take you crawling back? On the surface, however, this is entirely normal. Sending an offer letter is a legally binding commitment from the company and there will be a job for you if you choose to accept it.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

Sorry, but unless the offer letter is signed then you do not have secured employment, period. You are right to be worried because neither company has your best interest in mind. If company B rescinded after you put in a two-week notice then do you personally have enough capital to sue them for damages which arose from an unsigned offer letter? From <https://www.recruiter.com/i/how-to-resign-from-your-job-to-take-up-a-new-post/> > > The golden rule for resigning to take up post in a new job is not to resign until you have a written job offer in your hand, which includes a start date and details the salary and all the pertinent benefits and perks. **IF POSSIBLE, DON'T RESIGN UNTIL YOU HAVE A COMPANY SIGNED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.** A verbal offer is not enough; you want to be totally sure of commitment from the employer – and that all the correct internal hiring approval procedures have been executed. > > > Also see <https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/149409/17532> I am not saying they plan to screw you over nor that they will act upon a chance to screw you over but take this quote to heart: "*The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.*"

It's hard to answer for sure without knowing the industry, as customary practice varies significantly by industry in the U.S., especially if you would be part of a unionized workforce. However, *on average*, U.S. employment situations don't have a signed employment contract at all, either before or after beginning work. There is frequently some kind of agreement regarding intellectual property rights, non-disclosure, not using company resources to your own personal advantage, and that sort of thing, but this does not constitute an employment contract and it has nothing to do with your compensation, work hours, etc. As such, not having a signed employment contract before starting is the default case in the USA and is typically no sort of red flag or cause for concern at all. It is, however, advisable to review any agreements that they may require you to sign as a condition of employment prior to giving notice at your current position to make sure that it's something you can agree to or, if it isn't, to try to work out whether the terms can be changed to acceptable ones. While it's unusual for a company to be willing to change the terms of such an agreement except for the highest-level positions, I've actually had it happen to me personally before (i.e. company changed terms of agreement per my request before starting,) so you never know until you ask.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

It's hard to answer for sure without knowing the industry, as customary practice varies significantly by industry in the U.S., especially if you would be part of a unionized workforce. However, *on average*, U.S. employment situations don't have a signed employment contract at all, either before or after beginning work. There is frequently some kind of agreement regarding intellectual property rights, non-disclosure, not using company resources to your own personal advantage, and that sort of thing, but this does not constitute an employment contract and it has nothing to do with your compensation, work hours, etc. As such, not having a signed employment contract before starting is the default case in the USA and is typically no sort of red flag or cause for concern at all. It is, however, advisable to review any agreements that they may require you to sign as a condition of employment prior to giving notice at your current position to make sure that it's something you can agree to or, if it isn't, to try to work out whether the terms can be changed to acceptable ones. While it's unusual for a company to be willing to change the terms of such an agreement except for the highest-level positions, I've actually had it happen to me personally before (i.e. company changed terms of agreement per my request before starting,) so you never know until you ask.

Not signing a contract before tendering your resignation can actually be advantageous if you're open to counter offers by your current employer. If you are leaving to make more money, your employer may offer more money on the spot to keep you. They may also be amenable to other changes like allowing work from home, or other benefits. And as others have said, in at-will states, an employment contract doesn't mean much. They can change the terms or terminate you from day one.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

Short answer: YES you should be worried and try to secure the contract ASP. Long answer: It is gonna be fine most likely. Most likely there won't be any issue. Just sign on the first day. Not likely but has happened many times too: The company eventually decides not to hire you, even if verbally agreed. Not often but I know some real cases this happened. Bottom line: Try to get a signed contract.

It's hard to answer for sure without knowing the industry, as customary practice varies significantly by industry in the U.S., especially if you would be part of a unionized workforce. However, *on average*, U.S. employment situations don't have a signed employment contract at all, either before or after beginning work. There is frequently some kind of agreement regarding intellectual property rights, non-disclosure, not using company resources to your own personal advantage, and that sort of thing, but this does not constitute an employment contract and it has nothing to do with your compensation, work hours, etc. As such, not having a signed employment contract before starting is the default case in the USA and is typically no sort of red flag or cause for concern at all. It is, however, advisable to review any agreements that they may require you to sign as a condition of employment prior to giving notice at your current position to make sure that it's something you can agree to or, if it isn't, to try to work out whether the terms can be changed to acceptable ones. While it's unusual for a company to be willing to change the terms of such an agreement except for the highest-level positions, I've actually had it happen to me personally before (i.e. company changed terms of agreement per my request before starting,) so you never know until you ask.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

Sorry, but unless the offer letter is signed then you do not have secured employment, period. You are right to be worried because neither company has your best interest in mind. If company B rescinded after you put in a two-week notice then do you personally have enough capital to sue them for damages which arose from an unsigned offer letter? From <https://www.recruiter.com/i/how-to-resign-from-your-job-to-take-up-a-new-post/> > > The golden rule for resigning to take up post in a new job is not to resign until you have a written job offer in your hand, which includes a start date and details the salary and all the pertinent benefits and perks. **IF POSSIBLE, DON'T RESIGN UNTIL YOU HAVE A COMPANY SIGNED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.** A verbal offer is not enough; you want to be totally sure of commitment from the employer – and that all the correct internal hiring approval procedures have been executed. > > > Also see <https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/149409/17532> I am not saying they plan to screw you over nor that they will act upon a chance to screw you over but take this quote to heart: "*The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.*"

Not signing a contract before tendering your resignation can actually be advantageous if you're open to counter offers by your current employer. If you are leaving to make more money, your employer may offer more money on the spot to keep you. They may also be amenable to other changes like allowing work from home, or other benefits. And as others have said, in at-will states, an employment contract doesn't mean much. They can change the terms or terminate you from day one.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

***Update:** Based on all the feedback I've been getting, I've toned down my original answer. See my addendum near the bottom.* This is what I would say (of course, please use your own words): > > I'm sorry. If I was unemployed, I would definitely wait for my first > day to sign this contract. > > > However, since I'm currently gainfully employed and since I am > required to give 2 weeks notice. I just see no reason to commit myself to you without a binding commitment from you as well. If this means that I'm not the right hire for you guys, that's perfectly fine. > > > In other words, point out your situation, show that it doesn't make sense for you, and show that you're willing to walk away from them if your concern is not alleviated. And yes, taking this stance may mean that you lose the job. And be sure to send that email to both the HR recruiter and the hiring manager. The hiring manager is the one who actually wants to hire you. ***Update:*** With that said, you may want to look at the entirety of the situation. If this is really a good company, if the offer is really good, if there are no red flags on Glass Door, if the HR recruiter hasn't tried to unnecessarily delay your recruitment or starting date, if there is no negative news in the financial press, either regarding the company itself or the industry it's in and if by all indication, the company should be doing well even during a pandemic. You may want to avoid giving them any kind of ultimatum, in which case, you should still ask for what you want, but avoid using the last one or two sentences I wrote in the message I suggested.

It's hard to answer for sure without knowing the industry, as customary practice varies significantly by industry in the U.S., especially if you would be part of a unionized workforce. However, *on average*, U.S. employment situations don't have a signed employment contract at all, either before or after beginning work. There is frequently some kind of agreement regarding intellectual property rights, non-disclosure, not using company resources to your own personal advantage, and that sort of thing, but this does not constitute an employment contract and it has nothing to do with your compensation, work hours, etc. As such, not having a signed employment contract before starting is the default case in the USA and is typically no sort of red flag or cause for concern at all. It is, however, advisable to review any agreements that they may require you to sign as a condition of employment prior to giving notice at your current position to make sure that it's something you can agree to or, if it isn't, to try to work out whether the terms can be changed to acceptable ones. While it's unusual for a company to be willing to change the terms of such an agreement except for the highest-level positions, I've actually had it happen to me personally before (i.e. company changed terms of agreement per my request before starting,) so you never know until you ask.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

Sorry, but unless the offer letter is signed then you do not have secured employment, period. You are right to be worried because neither company has your best interest in mind. If company B rescinded after you put in a two-week notice then do you personally have enough capital to sue them for damages which arose from an unsigned offer letter? From <https://www.recruiter.com/i/how-to-resign-from-your-job-to-take-up-a-new-post/> > > The golden rule for resigning to take up post in a new job is not to resign until you have a written job offer in your hand, which includes a start date and details the salary and all the pertinent benefits and perks. **IF POSSIBLE, DON'T RESIGN UNTIL YOU HAVE A COMPANY SIGNED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.** A verbal offer is not enough; you want to be totally sure of commitment from the employer – and that all the correct internal hiring approval procedures have been executed. > > > Also see <https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/149409/17532> I am not saying they plan to screw you over nor that they will act upon a chance to screw you over but take this quote to heart: "*The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.*"

After reading the answers already I'm not sure there's a complete picture here. First, an offer letter is legally binding. If they give you an offer letter and do not present you with a contract to sign or otherwise do not hire you, then you would easily win a claim against them for damages. And if they're a big company, they know this and would not do this, as it's just not in their financial interests to do so. That being said, you WILL be signing this contact at some point. I'm assuming that since you received the employment agreement that you've read it and you would be willing to sign THAT document. You will need to ensure the document they present is the document sent you before. It may, depending on the terms and how well you understand them, worth your while to run it past a lawyer. Now, according to the terms of your agreement, once you sign it, you will probably have a few things you might need to be concerned about. There will be any number of reasons they might let you go and you should be aware of these and make sure you have confidence that they won't do one of those. But there are no guarantees. You could get there and last a week and absolutely hate it. Do you have the funds you need to survive until you get another job? Would your current job take you crawling back? On the surface, however, this is entirely normal. Sending an offer letter is a legally binding commitment from the company and there will be a job for you if you choose to accept it.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

Short answer: YES you should be worried and try to secure the contract ASP. Long answer: It is gonna be fine most likely. Most likely there won't be any issue. Just sign on the first day. Not likely but has happened many times too: The company eventually decides not to hire you, even if verbally agreed. Not often but I know some real cases this happened. Bottom line: Try to get a signed contract.

I don't see a problem here. It could be as simple as they want to see you actually put your wet signature on the paper. This is why presidents sometimes sign documents in signing ceremonies, and not in the garage of their vacation home. It gives the process an air of gravitas. I personally like the process they've established. They sent you the contract in advance, so that you had time to look over it. You stated that all of the contacts you've had with them have been via email or phone, so it sounds like you haven't met each other yet. They just want a little face to face time before the final "handshake," that's all.

I am currently working at company A. I got a job offer from company B after 10+ hours of interviews, references, a thorough background check, many conversations with HR etc. I am planning to give my boss at company A my two-weeks notice, take a couple weeks off and then start at company B. Company B has sent me an offer letter, employment agreement (with comp detailed), benefits package etc. Additionally, they have given me confirmation over the phone and email (when I asked) that we both accepted this offer/agreement. Company B is 1000+ employees, well-known and has an excellent reputation in the industry. However, I'm told it's company policy that the agreement isn't actually signed by either party until my first day. I've never experienced something like this before. Is this a red flag? Should I be pushing back? Does a signature offer any additional protection at all? What possible reasons could they have for this policy? If it helps, I live in the USA and this is a US based company I would be working for. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Edit: As asked in the comments below, all of the above conversation was had via email and phone call with my contact at HR. However, HR and all the other members of the team, future boss, boss' boss etc. have made it very clear they are excited for me to join. I've spent hours chatting specifics with some of these people. I received 15+ pages detailing all the exact contract specifics and this is the one we will sign. Everything but the signature issue is seemly great! However, I just don't see any legitimate reason why they want to wait...

2021/02/11

I don’t think this is a big deal. If you are a permanent full time employee in the US, in my experience it’s pretty usual to get a written job offer, accept it in email, but not actually sign anything until you get a W-9 on day 1. There is basically no legal difference between a signature and the clearly extended and accepted offer you have performed in email. In fact, usually the only company paperwork that gets signed is stuff like IP agreements, direct deposit, and “I have received the employee handbook.”

Not signing a contract before tendering your resignation can actually be advantageous if you're open to counter offers by your current employer. If you are leaving to make more money, your employer may offer more money on the spot to keep you. They may also be amenable to other changes like allowing work from home, or other benefits. And as others have said, in at-will states, an employment contract doesn't mean much. They can change the terms or terminate you from day one.

On July 25th 2016, the US Army Corps of Engineers [found](http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Planning/Project-Reports/Article/633496/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-assessment/) that the Dakota Access Pipeline running under lake Oahe / the Missoury River will have "No Significant Impact" following an environmental impact survey. How is that possible that this was the finding, considering the frequency and occasional severity of oil spills from pipelines (for frequency - see [those by the intended operator of DAPL](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pipeline-nativeamericans-safety-i-idUSKCN11T1UW) although somehow the spill amount figures there are smaller than the actual numbers; for severity, see the [recent 14,000 barrel](http://www.ecowatch.com/texas-oil-spill-dapl-2252577429.html) spill in a pipeline co-owned by a co-owner of DAPL) or the much larger spill)and the expected detrimental effects of an oil spill below a river basin (especially with the river providing drinking water to a large population)? The report summary mentions monitoring systems, valves etc. - but other pipelines also have those (I would think), and still leak and cause significant damage. Also, if these findings were actually sound (content-wise and procedure-wise), how could the USACE be executive-ordered to conduct another impact study? Why would it find anything else?

2017/02/17

The environmental impact report is 1200 pages long and I don't have a plan on reading it, so please take this answer with a grain of salt. That being said, I do want to show that, at least to a layman, when you run the numbers there does not immediately appear to be a huge risk. First lets look at how bad Sunco is comparatively. From your [article](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pipeline-nativeamericans-safety-i-idUSKCN11T1UW): > > Sunoco Logistics ... spills crude more often than any of its > competitors with [203] leaks since 2010 > > > From the top it looks like Sunco is the worst, and that appears to be true, but the next important line is > > ... ahead of at least 190 recorded by Enterprise Products Partners and > 167 by Plains All American Pipeline > > > So even though they are ahead, they aren't ahead by much. They seem to be within a reasonable deviation (again, remember, layman). Second, lets see how bad those leaks actually were > > Sunoco and its units leaked a total of 3,406 net barrels of crude in > all the leaks over the last six years > > > So 3400 barrels over 200 spills is about 17 barrels per spill. Plus take into account that > > In 2015, 71 percent of pipeline incidents were contained within the > operator's facility > > > Assuming that stays reasonably consistent across the 6 years, that means that only ~1000 barrels were spilled in the wild over ~60 spills From [this](http://eastgoshen.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MARINER-FAQS-11062015.pdf) informational about Sunco we learn that > > Sunoco Logistics has approximately 8,000 miles of pipelines throughout > the United States. > > > That means around 1/8th of a barrel of oil per mile. Now I'm not sure how long the protested section of pipeline is, but I doubt its more than a few dozen miles, lets say 50 (please let me know if I'm off). A 50 mile stretch has a ~.0075% chance of having a leak (based on the historical data presented) and would leak an average of 17 barrels of oil. Again, I'm not an expert, but I don't think a 17 barrel oil leak is going to permanently ruin a water supply (obviously still a big problem though if it does happen). Based on these *very rudimentary* calculations I think its reasonable to classify this as "No significant impact". All that being said, I really want to reiterate here that I am not an expert, all of this is not sound statistics or data science, and it should all be taken with a giant grain of salt. On top of that, my numbers are all about averages. But outliers exist. The pipeline is an existential gun to the water supply. If it leaks it will *probably* leak 17ish barrels of oil, but it can leak much much more. It is, to a certain extent, a Pascal's wager. --- As for your last question, an environmental impact assessment is big and complicated (over 1200 pages this time!). Its also unique to each environment. That means there are a lot of details that can't be accounted for in a single run. Adding an additional review can help investigate these. Additional reviews can also help verify previous findings (because the core of science is reproducability, especially through peer review). Bottom line even if the first assessment was done with high quality, the chances of a second high quality report being the exact same are low.

I went ahead and opened up the environmental impact statement to see what they had to say. The things I noticed are summarized below. I'll repeat David Grinberg's disclaimer though: I am no kind of expert in environmental engineering or policy. All page numbers are pages of the PDF, not the printed page numbers. Alternative Plans ----------------- In some cases, the DAPL was found to have no significant environmental impact because without the pipeline, the alternative plans would have equal or greater impact. The point of comparison isn't "having a pipeline or doing nothing", it's more like "do we build a pipeline or do we transport all this stuff by train or truck?" In many cases, the pipeline is expected to have less impact (or the same impact) as the alternative plans. For more information, see the ALTERNATIVES section on page 16. You could also look at the specific risk areas (3.1 is on page 23, 3.2 is on page 46, etc.). Risk Areas ---------- Much of the discussion around the oil pipelines focuses on the possibility of oil spills. The environmental impact statement focuses a lot on risks of construction and maintenance. For example, the economic conditions section (page 3.8) describes the positive impact to the economy for building the pipeline. Safety ------ Their risk management steps are in section 3.11 (page 100). Basically, they are going to construct and test the pipeline in according with industry best practices and federal law. Additionally, they have a mitigation and containment strategy in place in case there is an oil spill. The list out the pieces of the risk mitigation plan on page 120: > >  BMPs designed to minimize the effects of construction on environmental resources; > > >  Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures; > > >  Soil handling procedures designed to preserve the integrity of the soil (e.g., topsoil segregation, > decompaction, etc.); > > >  Wetland and waterbody crossing and stabilization procedures > > >  Wildlife and livestock mitigation measures > > >  Restoration and revegetation procedures > > >  Refueling and waste management procedures > > >  Weed management procedures > > >  Winter construction practices > > >  Stormwater management procedures > > > Past Development ---------------- The DAPL is being built along an already existing natural gas pipeline and an overhead electricity transmission line. These projects have already created some environmental impacts, reducing the marginal impact of the DAPL. Geography --------- There are apparently geographic reasons that the environmental engineering staff thought were important. For example, in the aquatic resources section (page 80) they describe how the physical geography of the area limits possible harm to bodies of water and aquatic life. Some reasons include: the distance between the pipeline and waterways, the existence of sedimentary deposits which can buffer problematic chemicals, and an erosion control plan which will help keep the sediment in place. When the pipeline does come near water, it is to be built deep enough and with thick enough pipes that the risk of spillage is reduced. Business Growth --------------- Finally, the report discusses the possibility that a pipeline could allow for growth in the oil/gas industry, which could create future risks to the environment (page 109). According to the state of North Dakota, the pipeline won't have this effect because it isn't a lack of pipelines slowing development.

Is it possible to create a user in ActiveAdmin that is readonly (they can open all entries, etc but can't make changes to them).

2011/12/28

You should be able to use Ryan Bates Cancan gem for this, see this - [for implementation instructions](https://gist.github.com/1264060) Robbie

[There's an open issue on this](https://github.com/gregbell/active_admin/issues/355). At this point, you'll have to mess with the source code though.

I've been informed by my employer of a new policy where I am not to put my name on maps. I've always put my name on my maps in the past and have never run across this policy. Is it uncommon in the industry to add the map author's name to maps?

2011/12/22

It is not uncommon, as the map can be considered company property (both intellectual and artistic property) as opposed to an individual's work. Some cartographers circumvent this by hiding their name/initials/signature in a feature on the map. This is accomplished by using a slightly different color, and/or stylizing the signature to look like part of the symbology. There are probably other methods as well. It's very easy to do the slightly different color "trick" with GIS.

I just took over as the sole GIS analyst where I work. The GIS guy before me put his name on all the maps he made, but I decided to leave my name off all the maps I design from now on. I think putting your name on a map (if you work for an organization) is a little bit tacky, and cheapens the map for your employer. I think this is especially true if your publishing authoritative data (vs. some unique design). Just my take on it.

I've been informed by my employer of a new policy where I am not to put my name on maps. I've always put my name on my maps in the past and have never run across this policy. Is it uncommon in the industry to add the map author's name to maps?

2011/12/22

It is not uncommon, as the map can be considered company property (both intellectual and artistic property) as opposed to an individual's work. Some cartographers circumvent this by hiding their name/initials/signature in a feature on the map. This is accomplished by using a slightly different color, and/or stylizing the signature to look like part of the symbology. There are probably other methods as well. It's very easy to do the slightly different color "trick" with GIS.

OK, it's a fictional example, but what about [Slartibartfast](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slartibartfast) who had a penchant for signing his name in glaciers?! Seems there are some [hidden signatures](http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2009/01/80_milewide_signature_in_ocean_floo.html) in Google Earth too.

I am trying to install Linux Mint 13 (Maya/Cinnamon) on an Old Dell Latitude D600. I can boot the live CD, but when I try to install, I can't see the windows that are coming up on screen. I can see the outline of the windows that are popping up asking the install questions, but I can't see anything inside the window. I can see the panel fine at the bottom of the screen, but not the the window contents. Any ideas? - I am a new newbie. Haven't used Linux for more than 30 minutes, so take it easy on me.

2012/10/15

I just installed LM(maya - mate) on the very same laptop. You will likely be disappointed by the performance. Mate is not a 3D-acceleration mandatory DE (unlike cinnamon, which is gnome-shell based) and performance is still horrible. In addition 3rd party video support is vaporous, as in hard to get a hold of. If you REALLY wish to try things out: You are going to have to be patient. During install my screen went black for nearly 10 minutes. Reminding myself that this laptop has a junky Celeron and only 1.5G of ram (my system) I had to learn a bit of patience myself. You COULD try to boot into "compatibility mode" => press "tab" key when boot screen says "Autoboot in 9... 8... 7..." and install from there. An extreme additional step would be to strictly define your VGA resolution: press "tab" at "autoboot" to view the list of boot options then select "Compatibility mode" and press again (to enter editing mode). Delete the "--" and replace with "vga=785". This will force 640x480 resolution at 16 bit color depth. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA_BIOS_Extensions> to learn about VESA standards and for more information on where the 785 comes from. The good new is, once the initial install did it's thing, the system was fully operational with no additional tweaking necessary. Of course, even using the latest ISO, there was still close to a GIG of updates that needed to be downloaded and installed. It should be noted that the reason I installed LM was because WinXP performance was intolerable. I did a dual boot WinXP-LM(mate) across a 120GB 5400 RPM HDD (60GB each, expertly partitioned) and both OSes run slowly, though LM is a notable improvement.

I have LM Maya Mate on my D600 with 2gigs ram and it is twice as fast as XP. The thing I like is i can install on 1 machine then pop the hdd into another and it works fine. I do this to speed up the install process. Try the KDE distro. It works well.

I am trying to install Linux Mint 13 (Maya/Cinnamon) on an Old Dell Latitude D600. I can boot the live CD, but when I try to install, I can't see the windows that are coming up on screen. I can see the outline of the windows that are popping up asking the install questions, but I can't see anything inside the window. I can see the panel fine at the bottom of the screen, but not the the window contents. Any ideas? - I am a new newbie. Haven't used Linux for more than 30 minutes, so take it easy on me.

2012/10/15

I just installed LM(maya - mate) on the very same laptop. You will likely be disappointed by the performance. Mate is not a 3D-acceleration mandatory DE (unlike cinnamon, which is gnome-shell based) and performance is still horrible. In addition 3rd party video support is vaporous, as in hard to get a hold of. If you REALLY wish to try things out: You are going to have to be patient. During install my screen went black for nearly 10 minutes. Reminding myself that this laptop has a junky Celeron and only 1.5G of ram (my system) I had to learn a bit of patience myself. You COULD try to boot into "compatibility mode" => press "tab" key when boot screen says "Autoboot in 9... 8... 7..." and install from there. An extreme additional step would be to strictly define your VGA resolution: press "tab" at "autoboot" to view the list of boot options then select "Compatibility mode" and press again (to enter editing mode). Delete the "--" and replace with "vga=785". This will force 640x480 resolution at 16 bit color depth. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA_BIOS_Extensions> to learn about VESA standards and for more information on where the 785 comes from. The good new is, once the initial install did it's thing, the system was fully operational with no additional tweaking necessary. Of course, even using the latest ISO, there was still close to a GIG of updates that needed to be downloaded and installed. It should be noted that the reason I installed LM was because WinXP performance was intolerable. I did a dual boot WinXP-LM(mate) across a 120GB 5400 RPM HDD (60GB each, expertly partitioned) and both OSes run slowly, though LM is a notable improvement.

I had an almost identical experience (display empty windows) as the one described by @Reagan while trying to install linux mint 13 (Maya cinnamon) on a old laptop (Compaq Presario). I wanted to do this for the same reason too - this laptop was running Windows XP, but it cannot support Windows 7. Although @Lindicted seems to have the correct answer, I think others like myself (who have never attempted a linux install previously) would find having the following additional information helpful if they are installing onto old hardware. I determined that my processor does not support Physical Address Extension (PAE) and therefore chose to install mint 13 (32-bit) rather than the latest mint 17. Although I could set the boot order in the BIOS to boot from the USB 2.0 device - in practice, I was unable to get the .iso image (burned using Yumi) on the USB to run live - I eventually had success by burning the .iso obtained from [linuxmint.com](http://www.linuxmint.com/) - and found [Windows Disc Image Burner](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Burn-a-CD-or-DVD-from-an-ISO-file) worked fine for this. Mint ran from the live DVD, but the installed copy had the strange display issue that Regan described. I found this recent post (May 07, 2014) on the linux.mint forums describing the problem, possible causes, and an alternative solution to the one suggested by Lindicted. [Installation works in compatibility mode, but no boot after](http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=166624) So use the work-around described in the post to boot the copy of mint on the HD, connect to the internet and use the updating functionality in mint to update the drivers. An update may fix the problem, unfortunately (dependent upon your computer) the wrong driver might get automatically installed - which can render the installed OS inoperable. In which case you may have to reinstall mint from the dvd. If the correct driver is unavailable, then the solution suggested by Lindicted might be the only alternative.

In my location, there are many small restaurants that each serve only a single type of food, e.g., noodles, noodle soup,... mainly noodles but only 1 single type. It's not a café, not a cafeteria, not a restaurant (many types of foods), not a stall because it's in a house,... Should it be called a "noodle shop"?

2020/12/18

I don't think this precisely hits your definition, but a [hole-in-the-wall restaurant](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hole-in-the-wall) refers to the *size* and inconspicuousness of a restaurant. That's not the same as having a limited menu, but hole-in-the-wall restaurants are often exactly those that have a strong focus on their specialty menus.

You could describe the place as a ***boutique restaurant***. Merriam-Webster's second [definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boutique) of boutique is: > > a small company that offers highly specialized services or products > > > > > > > boutique wineries > > > > > > > > > > > > > an independent investment boutique > > > > > > > > > This word has both the connotation of smallness, as well as the highly specialized product which the single type of food would represent.

Flying out of Porto Saturday at 11am to YUL via Munich on Lufthansa The email I received says the antigen test: Negative antigen test taken **within 1 day before departure**. Can I take a test at around 9am Friday morning? Does that count as « within 1 day » ? Thanks

2022/03/31

According to [the Canadian government's covid-19 testing for travelers page](https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/flying-canada-checklist/covid-19-testing-travellers-coming-into-canada), for a professionally administered or observed negative antigen test, > > * the one day window does not depend on the time of day the test was taken or the time of your flight or entry > * for example, if your flight is scheduled to leave or you enter by land any time on Friday, you could provide proof of a negative result from an antigen test taken any time on Thursday, or on Friday > * it must be administered or observed by a pharmacy, laboratory, healthcare entity or telehealth service > * the test must be authorized for sale or distribution in Canada or in the jurisdiction in which it was obtained > * the test must be performed outside of Canada > > > so a test administered Friday morning is acceptable for a flight anytime on Saturday. Note, however, that the requirements are changing, and starting April 1, fully vaccinated travelers will no longer be required to provide proof of a negative test.

> > Is the pre-flight COVID test really strict on time? > > > To add a more general answer in addition to mlc's answer focusing on Canada, assuming that the covid test is required for your case, that depends on the destination country's policies, the airline's policy and the transit countries' policies. In some situations, the covid test time will matter.

Flying out of Porto Saturday at 11am to YUL via Munich on Lufthansa The email I received says the antigen test: Negative antigen test taken **within 1 day before departure**. Can I take a test at around 9am Friday morning? Does that count as « within 1 day » ? Thanks

2022/03/31

According to [the Canadian government's covid-19 testing for travelers page](https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/flying-canada-checklist/covid-19-testing-travellers-coming-into-canada), for a professionally administered or observed negative antigen test, > > * the one day window does not depend on the time of day the test was taken or the time of your flight or entry > * for example, if your flight is scheduled to leave or you enter by land any time on Friday, you could provide proof of a negative result from an antigen test taken any time on Thursday, or on Friday > * it must be administered or observed by a pharmacy, laboratory, healthcare entity or telehealth service > * the test must be authorized for sale or distribution in Canada or in the jurisdiction in which it was obtained > * the test must be performed outside of Canada > > > so a test administered Friday morning is acceptable for a flight anytime on Saturday. Note, however, that the requirements are changing, and starting April 1, fully vaccinated travelers will no longer be required to provide proof of a negative test.

I received an email from Lufthansa with this : "Passengers on flights to Germany must present a negative Covid-19 test upon entry into Germany. **The test must have been carried out at the earliest 48 hours (antigen) prior to arrival in Germany**, " So it answered my concerns. Still not sure if I stay air-side at the airport it's considered entering Germany. I took my test earlier today and got a negative result. So, no biggie on that front.

Based on a [**tweet from Jon**](http://twitter.com/jonskeet/status/8317560066) Does the automated jerk detector also double as an automated nice-guy detector? I was under the impression it just blew out serial-downvotes. What all is caught by the system?

2010/01/28

It should detect serial upvotes as well, to help prevent sock puppet accounts upvoting each other. Have a look at [Vote Fraud and You](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/12/vote-fraud-and-you/), apparently serial upvoting is actually a bigger problem than serial downvoting.

Yes, it covers most all unusually patterned voting cases.

Based on a [**tweet from Jon**](http://twitter.com/jonskeet/status/8317560066) Does the automated jerk detector also double as an automated nice-guy detector? I was under the impression it just blew out serial-downvotes. What all is caught by the system?

2010/01/28

Yes, it does look for up vote patterns as well. How do I know? It happen to me on Super User once. Over a pattern of a few days, tons of my questions and answers got voted up back to back. Within a few days, all the rep gained from the week disappeared.

Yes, it covers most all unusually patterned voting cases.

Based on a [**tweet from Jon**](http://twitter.com/jonskeet/status/8317560066) Does the automated jerk detector also double as an automated nice-guy detector? I was under the impression it just blew out serial-downvotes. What all is caught by the system?

2010/01/28

It should detect serial upvotes as well, to help prevent sock puppet accounts upvoting each other. Have a look at [Vote Fraud and You](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/12/vote-fraud-and-you/), apparently serial upvoting is actually a bigger problem than serial downvoting.

Yes, it does look for up vote patterns as well. How do I know? It happen to me on Super User once. Over a pattern of a few days, tons of my questions and answers got voted up back to back. Within a few days, all the rep gained from the week disappeared.

I am curiosity about if thought experiments have importance in mathematics. I know about famous thought experiments in physics and also some example in mathematics. Professors who followed that mental image obtained a great theory or theorem, or advance in their research, and seem as direct consequence of such mental image (what they caused) or thought experiment. In physics I believe that these thought experiments are more popular and well known, but what about the importance of thought experiments in mathematics? In mathematics, the more important thing is rigor or examples that you can write on a sheet of paper. But is that all? > > **Question.** What is the importance of thought experiments in research in mathematics? Have these any importance? Refers the literature if you need it, and I try to find and read these information. **Many thanks.** > > > I am asking about the importance of thought experiments that eventually can provide to a professor researching in some field a *great advantage* or *a privileged point of view* in his/her work. I am not asking about ingenious or artificious ideas, just about simple thought experiments that provide to the proffesor the idea for the solution of a remarkable theorem.

2017/12/20

I guess the answer (as everything in math) depends upon definitions of what "thought" and "experiment" is. When you're dealing, for example, with infinity... is that an instance of "thought experiment"? In case it is, the answer is obvious: math is built up from such thought experiments taking their place literally at each and every tiny place. In case it is not, then the essence of "thought experiment" remains to be an open question...

If I understand you correctly, you want to know how thought experiments, i.e. being aware of one's conscious experience, can guide research in mathematics. Interpreted this way, I would refer you to Mach's work, but also Husserl's phenomenology. Before dedicating himself fully to philosophy, Husserl obtained a Ph.D. in mathematics. In his first book, [*The Philosophy of Arithmetic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Arithmetic), he aims to synthesize the psychology of impressions with the concept of number. I don't know whether you'll find an algorithm for designing thought experiments there, but some awareness of what goes on in the mind when we assign numbers to things, or investigate their structure, might inspire you to arrive at your own.

I am curiosity about if thought experiments have importance in mathematics. I know about famous thought experiments in physics and also some example in mathematics. Professors who followed that mental image obtained a great theory or theorem, or advance in their research, and seem as direct consequence of such mental image (what they caused) or thought experiment. In physics I believe that these thought experiments are more popular and well known, but what about the importance of thought experiments in mathematics? In mathematics, the more important thing is rigor or examples that you can write on a sheet of paper. But is that all? > > **Question.** What is the importance of thought experiments in research in mathematics? Have these any importance? Refers the literature if you need it, and I try to find and read these information. **Many thanks.** > > > I am asking about the importance of thought experiments that eventually can provide to a professor researching in some field a *great advantage* or *a privileged point of view* in his/her work. I am not asking about ingenious or artificious ideas, just about simple thought experiments that provide to the proffesor the idea for the solution of a remarkable theorem.

2017/12/20

I'm of the opinion that all of mathematics is a thought experiment. Unlike the empirical sciences which rely on observations mathematics is a creative discipline which only requires your imagination. Axioms are the beginning point of the experiment and theorems the result. For example, proof by contradiction makes this transparent as it uses thought experiment style reasoning to show something is impossible by imagining it was possible and deriving an absurdity.

I guess the answer (as everything in math) depends upon definitions of what "thought" and "experiment" is. When you're dealing, for example, with infinity... is that an instance of "thought experiment"? In case it is, the answer is obvious: math is built up from such thought experiments taking their place literally at each and every tiny place. In case it is not, then the essence of "thought experiment" remains to be an open question...

I am curiosity about if thought experiments have importance in mathematics. I know about famous thought experiments in physics and also some example in mathematics. Professors who followed that mental image obtained a great theory or theorem, or advance in their research, and seem as direct consequence of such mental image (what they caused) or thought experiment. In physics I believe that these thought experiments are more popular and well known, but what about the importance of thought experiments in mathematics? In mathematics, the more important thing is rigor or examples that you can write on a sheet of paper. But is that all? > > **Question.** What is the importance of thought experiments in research in mathematics? Have these any importance? Refers the literature if you need it, and I try to find and read these information. **Many thanks.** > > > I am asking about the importance of thought experiments that eventually can provide to a professor researching in some field a *great advantage* or *a privileged point of view* in his/her work. I am not asking about ingenious or artificious ideas, just about simple thought experiments that provide to the proffesor the idea for the solution of a remarkable theorem.

2017/12/20

I'm of the opinion that all of mathematics is a thought experiment. Unlike the empirical sciences which rely on observations mathematics is a creative discipline which only requires your imagination. Axioms are the beginning point of the experiment and theorems the result. For example, proof by contradiction makes this transparent as it uses thought experiment style reasoning to show something is impossible by imagining it was possible and deriving an absurdity.

If I understand you correctly, you want to know how thought experiments, i.e. being aware of one's conscious experience, can guide research in mathematics. Interpreted this way, I would refer you to Mach's work, but also Husserl's phenomenology. Before dedicating himself fully to philosophy, Husserl obtained a Ph.D. in mathematics. In his first book, [*The Philosophy of Arithmetic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Arithmetic), he aims to synthesize the psychology of impressions with the concept of number. I don't know whether you'll find an algorithm for designing thought experiments there, but some awareness of what goes on in the mind when we assign numbers to things, or investigate their structure, might inspire you to arrive at your own.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

This reminds me of Jacque Fresco's *The Venus Project,* a futuristic city design. You can look it up: <https://www.thevenusproject.com> Some examples:   It may not be exactly what you had in mind for design as not every structure is round, but in terms of viability it may help somewhat.

You might want to check out [Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement), it might not be the best selling point for circular city planning though, no garden cities evolved into cities you'd recognize the name of. However, the main problem with Howard's idea, might not be the circular structure in itself but rather the anti-urban approach. The popular wisdom (at this point in history) is that the main benefit of the city is density, It's a people and talent aggregator. People tended to meet in unexpected ways when they all were cramped in inside the city walls which lead to ideas meeting money (and so forth, you can check out [Jane Jacobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs) for a bit more on urbanist ideas). The exact shape of houses and public space is not extremely important, but there are some factors that you want to keep in mind in designing the city. 1) DENSITY: Stores, restaurants and other businesses all require a certain amount of potential customers to be viable. (This varies of course and factors such as customer segment, employee wage levels and rent levels at the location will guide what is sustainable at any given location.) This means you want not only people living close by but also the next point on the list. 2) COMMUNICATIONS: Urbanist (although not anti-urbanists or modernists) agree that the best locations for businesses are close to communication hubs and along thoroughfares. (Such as the main street.) You want fairly straight streets which cross through more than one neighbourhood. People who pass along from one place to another are the life blood of the city. 3) SECONDARY LOCATIONS: You can't just have major thoroughfares, those locations will quickly be filled with the business owners who can pay the premium prices (like real estate agents in major Swedish cities) and that will stifle creativity in your city. You want smaller streets and alleyways which connects the major streets. The spoked wheel city design suggested by James is a good start but also consider how the Burning Man site is laid out in Len's post. The grid pattern might not be the most practical use of space if all houses and quarters need to be circular, but you might want to give it a thought. How are people flowing in your city? Where do they go? How can their way be effectivized? The shortest path for the most people will be where the prime locations are. Radiating off from the prime locations will be the secondary locations. The reason I bring this up is that we can see how cities who grew organically and gave space for these factors are the most successful cities. Cities planned according to modernist ideals about separation of function and city plans which looked great on a map (most famously Brasilia) tend to be very dependent on political power to stay afloat. Which of course is another idea. A ceremonial political or religious city can be designed along totally different ideals. Maybe there is no need for commerce as we recognize it, the goods needed to sustain the perfect city is brought in and distributed to the elites from the outside. The only thing that matters inside is your social standing which is greater the closer you are to the center of the circle where the seat of power resides.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

Not too many problems when a building stands by itself ------------------------------------------------------ There are many examples (especially in indigenous cultures) with round/circular architecture. Saw this at the Met a while back: <https://mymodernmet.com/round-home-architecture/> The walls of a structure do require a higher technological level, mostly because tree trunks grow straight—ergo, flat, wood walls are easy to build. Problematic with city planning, though -------------------------------------- The difficulty I think you'd get with a city the way that you've shown it is that it's 1) inefficient for ushering trade through the city (I mean, who wants to walk/cart down a street that zigs all over the place and everywhere looks the same?!), and; 2) cities typical grow with different sections or quarters. However, I'm guessing the religious prohibitions maybe cover this. [This article](https://quadralectics.wordpress.com/4-representation/4-1-form/4-1-3-design-in-city-building/4-1-3-1-the-circularradial-model/) is kick ass and I think you'll find it enlightening and good reading over the topic you're covering. Good luck! - DDM

Round buildings are not a problem, and have certain advantages, and have in fact been built even with much less than medieval technology. How to arrange such buildings makes a difference in how well the space around them can be used. Your examples of how to arrange them seem to me to have a lot of open space between clusters of houses that you say is "street" but is more like wide open spaces with little identical clusters of nine buildings. If the people like that specific pattern for religious or other reasons, ok, but it does use a lot of space and would be a unique experience and way to organize places. I can imagine that a people could develop ways to relate to that pattern, if it's important to them, but it seems like a challenge compared to other patterns that might still use circular buildings and have circular layouts. In particular, leaving less space and arranging the groups so that there are more clear boulevards. For circular buildings of the same size. a honeycomb layout would be the most efficient use of space, and also lends itself to organized addresses. But you didn't really spell out what all of the religious rules are. The *size of a settlement* also makes a big difference. Up to about the size of your first image, I could see people knowing where most people live and what most buildings are for, and just pointing and using a few words to tell someone where a particular building is, especially if there are background landmarks or colors or other ways to orient to which group of nine round buildings is which. But your second diagram looks like you're imagining a huge sprawling settlement that goes on and on repeating the same arrangement pattern, which seems to me like it could start to get quite challenging to keep track of (though I suppose if the culture and religion gave it a context that made sense, it might still be possible, perhaps something where there are epic mythological poems which correspond to the layout of the buildings, and could map to ways of getting between them - one could follow from place to place in story-reference order, if everyone knew the stories). I would also consider that settlements don't generally appear all at once, but get built over time, and figure out how a pattern of building locations would grow as buildings are added.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

If you build it the way you have it in your drawings you would have a lot of wide open spaces between the clumps of buildings; plazas. Which is ok if that's what you want. Traffic would be a nightmare. But if you built it more like this... [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eXGc8.jpg) ...you wouldn't get the open spaces (which might be wasteful) and you might get something that is more logical to people trying to find their way around (that's an aerial view of Burning Man by the way, look it up). Most cities are all messed up in their lay out because different neighborhood's were built at different times. NYC's Manhattan is built as a grid because there is a finite space for it, an island. But so long as your entire city was built all at once with a defined plan I don't see why you couldn't build it whichever way you wanted. I just think that any plan would want to take into consideration how logical it would be to its inhabitants. EDIT: Your version could look like this: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fTujp.jpg)

Your city could be planned out like a honey comb, rather than a grid pattern.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

Not too many problems when a building stands by itself ------------------------------------------------------ There are many examples (especially in indigenous cultures) with round/circular architecture. Saw this at the Met a while back: <https://mymodernmet.com/round-home-architecture/> The walls of a structure do require a higher technological level, mostly because tree trunks grow straight—ergo, flat, wood walls are easy to build. Problematic with city planning, though -------------------------------------- The difficulty I think you'd get with a city the way that you've shown it is that it's 1) inefficient for ushering trade through the city (I mean, who wants to walk/cart down a street that zigs all over the place and everywhere looks the same?!), and; 2) cities typical grow with different sections or quarters. However, I'm guessing the religious prohibitions maybe cover this. [This article](https://quadralectics.wordpress.com/4-representation/4-1-form/4-1-3-design-in-city-building/4-1-3-1-the-circularradial-model/) is kick ass and I think you'll find it enlightening and good reading over the topic you're covering. Good luck! - DDM

Circular dwellings might make more efficient use of materials, if those materials are flexible, such as animal skins, thatch, etc. But once you start using timber and brick, it takes much less skill and labor to cut or lay the materials in a straight line, store the materials for later, or provide thoroughfares.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

If you build it the way you have it in your drawings you would have a lot of wide open spaces between the clumps of buildings; plazas. Which is ok if that's what you want. Traffic would be a nightmare. But if you built it more like this... [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eXGc8.jpg) ...you wouldn't get the open spaces (which might be wasteful) and you might get something that is more logical to people trying to find their way around (that's an aerial view of Burning Man by the way, look it up). Most cities are all messed up in their lay out because different neighborhood's were built at different times. NYC's Manhattan is built as a grid because there is a finite space for it, an island. But so long as your entire city was built all at once with a defined plan I don't see why you couldn't build it whichever way you wanted. I just think that any plan would want to take into consideration how logical it would be to its inhabitants. EDIT: Your version could look like this: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fTujp.jpg)

This reminds me of Jacque Fresco's *The Venus Project,* a futuristic city design. You can look it up: <https://www.thevenusproject.com> Some examples:   It may not be exactly what you had in mind for design as not every structure is round, but in terms of viability it may help somewhat.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

There is nothing that inherently makes this impossible but it is very unlikely. **1) Organization and planning.** There were no building codes in the middle ages. You would have to have an organization that manages city planning. City planning was not unheard of in the middle ages but it was never this robust. You have a good start making it a religious requirement, but you would also need the governing power to be on board. Forcing this is going to cost the powers that be to enforce and implement. Considering peasants made due with what was available to build their homes...well you are going to have to figure out how they are going to make peasants create things a certain way and whether are not they are going require standardized sizes and building materials. **2) Location is going to matter.** A city on a plain could probably achieve this but in most cases in the medieval era you would not build on a wholly exposed plain. Its hard to defend. At a minimum you are probably going to need to deal with a coastline or a river. Medieval technology didn't allow city planners to alter the landscape like we can today. If you look at maps of ancient cities, [Athens for example](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS776US776&biw=1920&bih=949&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=IuGBWqWfCdLIsAWFnamADg&q=Ancient%20Athens%20map&oq=Ancient%20Athens%20map&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l2j0i30k1j0i8i30k1l6.34609.37390.0.37595.18.9.0.9.9.0.278.1160.1j4j2.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.16.1264...0i67k1.0.DQf3oCVO9p0#imgrc=VLE_qHO0QOFZTM:), you see that ancient cities followed the lay of the land. **3) Building round is fine.** The technology required to build round is no major hindrance here. Its less efficient and more time consuming potentially but that's about all. Stone is going to be more difficult, but with wood you can set posts in place and then bend saplings in a circle. At that point the walls can be thatch or clay or mud brick or whatever, take your pick. There are plenty of examples of round dwellings from [yurts](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS776US776&biw=1920&bih=949&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=fOOBWrfyKMvAtQX4-43oDg&q=Yurt&oq=Yurt&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i67k1l2j0j0i67k1j0l3j0i67k1j0.724419.724980.0.725071.4.4.0.0.0.0.210.284.1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.2.282....0.byKvFpB627k) to thatch. **4) Planning considerations.** You should alter your city design to ensure transportation, communication, drainage and sanitation etc can be effectively managed. A spoke and wheel design allows you to be round and efficient. A design like this could serve you well. Keep in mind the further from center you get the larger the distance you have to travel to hit one of the spokes. As such you are probably going to want more than 4. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VY7rA.png)

Your city could be planned out like a honey comb, rather than a grid pattern.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

### Yes - Denmark did it (kind of) In Brøndbyvester (near Copenhagen), Denmark - there is a section of suburbs that looks very similar to your building plan. [Google Maps](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/2605+Br%C3%B8ndbyvester,+Denmark/@55.6375391,12.396025,1459m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x465256d9392ef63b:0x4b282aa8663e4051!8m2!3d55.6473055!4d12.414886) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rxZQp.jpg) *(Note: I'm aware the buildings in this are still rectangular, but I'd write that down more to European convention which makes it cheaper to build. For your city, there's no reason cylindrical buildings could not be used. We have been successfully building round stone towers for hundreds of years without problems.)* The idea was to maximise the amount of open space and build small bundles of housing that are close together to give a small community feeling. The solution to "what do you do with all the space in between the houses", is to use it for the population's benefit. In this case, it's open grass space to allow kids to play and people to walk dogs. Instead of looking at the tessellation as a problem - this area used it to force more open space than you'd normally get. In your case, everything is scaled up so that the entire city is circular - rather than just a small neighbourhood. But the same idea could be applied, and would work so long as the city is build to a fixed plan. The key is not to see the empty space as a negative - but to find a use for it that would justify having a sparse city over a tight grid.

You might want to see the [Koch Snowflake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake). [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/a65or.gif) The main reason I recommend it is because two such snowflakes of different sizes can [tesselate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellate) a plane. That is, completely fill the plane without any space left over. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/a6x2W.png) The main problem with your circle idea is that even if you pack the circles as tightly as possible, you get a lot of leftover space. It's not so here. You can keep the large ones as plazas and the small ones as houses, or the other way round, with medium-sized gateways enabling travel from one place to another. One of the main advantages is that every house is connected to three plazas.This also allows for straight travel, as opposed to the zigzag of your circle pattern.

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

If you build it the way you have it in your drawings you would have a lot of wide open spaces between the clumps of buildings; plazas. Which is ok if that's what you want. Traffic would be a nightmare. But if you built it more like this... [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eXGc8.jpg) ...you wouldn't get the open spaces (which might be wasteful) and you might get something that is more logical to people trying to find their way around (that's an aerial view of Burning Man by the way, look it up). Most cities are all messed up in their lay out because different neighborhood's were built at different times. NYC's Manhattan is built as a grid because there is a finite space for it, an island. But so long as your entire city was built all at once with a defined plan I don't see why you couldn't build it whichever way you wanted. I just think that any plan would want to take into consideration how logical it would be to its inhabitants. EDIT: Your version could look like this: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fTujp.jpg)

There is nothing that inherently makes this impossible but it is very unlikely. **1) Organization and planning.** There were no building codes in the middle ages. You would have to have an organization that manages city planning. City planning was not unheard of in the middle ages but it was never this robust. You have a good start making it a religious requirement, but you would also need the governing power to be on board. Forcing this is going to cost the powers that be to enforce and implement. Considering peasants made due with what was available to build their homes...well you are going to have to figure out how they are going to make peasants create things a certain way and whether are not they are going require standardized sizes and building materials. **2) Location is going to matter.** A city on a plain could probably achieve this but in most cases in the medieval era you would not build on a wholly exposed plain. Its hard to defend. At a minimum you are probably going to need to deal with a coastline or a river. Medieval technology didn't allow city planners to alter the landscape like we can today. If you look at maps of ancient cities, [Athens for example](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS776US776&biw=1920&bih=949&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=IuGBWqWfCdLIsAWFnamADg&q=Ancient%20Athens%20map&oq=Ancient%20Athens%20map&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l2j0i30k1j0i8i30k1l6.34609.37390.0.37595.18.9.0.9.9.0.278.1160.1j4j2.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.16.1264...0i67k1.0.DQf3oCVO9p0#imgrc=VLE_qHO0QOFZTM:), you see that ancient cities followed the lay of the land. **3) Building round is fine.** The technology required to build round is no major hindrance here. Its less efficient and more time consuming potentially but that's about all. Stone is going to be more difficult, but with wood you can set posts in place and then bend saplings in a circle. At that point the walls can be thatch or clay or mud brick or whatever, take your pick. There are plenty of examples of round dwellings from [yurts](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS776US776&biw=1920&bih=949&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=fOOBWrfyKMvAtQX4-43oDg&q=Yurt&oq=Yurt&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i67k1l2j0j0i67k1j0l3j0i67k1j0.724419.724980.0.725071.4.4.0.0.0.0.210.284.1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.2.282....0.byKvFpB627k) to thatch. **4) Planning considerations.** You should alter your city design to ensure transportation, communication, drainage and sanitation etc can be effectively managed. A spoke and wheel design allows you to be round and efficient. A design like this could serve you well. Keep in mind the further from center you get the larger the distance you have to travel to hit one of the spokes. As such you are probably going to want more than 4. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VY7rA.png)

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

There are many benefits with having perfectly round buildings: 1. You minimize the cost of construction materials per interior area 2. You minimize the amount of wall space that are exposed to the elements for climate reasons (it's easier to heat a round room because there's less wall length for heat to escape. similarly, it's easier to keep a round room cool because you minimize the surface area that the sun can hit directly and warm the place up). Benefits -------- For reason 1, especially, your city's denizens might find it cheaper to build towers, that is to build up instead of building out. The citizens of your cities might find it more open to the public, as there are more empty areas around the buildings. Since this is medieval-level technology, it might make sense that instead of a park, instead the buildings are surrounded by a [commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land) where goats and chickens can graze. In addition, if there are indeed commons, it might make sense to erect fences to prevent each little commons' animals from escaping into the neighboring commons, and circles are really efficient for fencing. Finally, if your great city needs to be defended, its circular shape means that it is very efficient to create walls, and placing regular towers around the walls means that there are no blind spots to attack. Drawbacks --------- The biggest problem with **your drawing** is the lack of thoroughfares. There are no large, straight line of sight ways for people to travel across the city. Plus, there is no main promenade to parade your victorious armies through the streets, or to throw the annual religious procession. A sewer or aqueduct system would be inefficient to cover every citizen.

Not too many problems when a building stands by itself ------------------------------------------------------ There are many examples (especially in indigenous cultures) with round/circular architecture. Saw this at the Met a while back: <https://mymodernmet.com/round-home-architecture/> The walls of a structure do require a higher technological level, mostly because tree trunks grow straight—ergo, flat, wood walls are easy to build. Problematic with city planning, though -------------------------------------- The difficulty I think you'd get with a city the way that you've shown it is that it's 1) inefficient for ushering trade through the city (I mean, who wants to walk/cart down a street that zigs all over the place and everywhere looks the same?!), and; 2) cities typical grow with different sections or quarters. However, I'm guessing the religious prohibitions maybe cover this. [This article](https://quadralectics.wordpress.com/4-representation/4-1-form/4-1-3-design-in-city-building/4-1-3-1-the-circularradial-model/) is kick ass and I think you'll find it enlightening and good reading over the topic you're covering. Good luck! - DDM

I know it may be impractical, but I have a culture who needs to build round structures for religious purposes. I just wanted to know if it's feasible or if there are any deterrent factors or major reasons that it wouldn't work. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4ytn.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTDkv.png) In the first image, the white circles are the houses and the dark grey ones are the streets with a circular park in the center. The second image shows the blocks, with circular gardens around some of them. Sorry about my drawing skills and I hope the pictures are intelligible. Thank you! **Edit:** They have a medieval technology level.

2018/02/12

The biggest drawbacks to cities like that is that they dont make very effecient use of space like squares do. In medieval times cities were built in a circular manner because they usually were all trying to huddle as close to a castles fortified walls as they could. Living close to a fortress refuge during a time of extreme uncertainty and violence outweighed the inefficient use of space and loss of productivity inherent in the design. Circular cities also tend to run out of flat ground to expand across and begin developing haphazardly after that. Theres no reason your fictional culture CANT build that way if they wanted to, theyd just need A LOT of flat land to do it on. Also keep in mind theyd be wasting a TON of land for growing crops and stuff if "every single thing they build is circular" also includes farmland and property plots. If theres plenty of land and things are bountiful its not a problem, if theyre living in medieval european over-crowded conditions famines would probably become frequent enough to make them ignore circles and just use whatever land they could to grow food.

You might want to check out [Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement), it might not be the best selling point for circular city planning though, no garden cities evolved into cities you'd recognize the name of. However, the main problem with Howard's idea, might not be the circular structure in itself but rather the anti-urban approach. The popular wisdom (at this point in history) is that the main benefit of the city is density, It's a people and talent aggregator. People tended to meet in unexpected ways when they all were cramped in inside the city walls which lead to ideas meeting money (and so forth, you can check out [Jane Jacobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs) for a bit more on urbanist ideas). The exact shape of houses and public space is not extremely important, but there are some factors that you want to keep in mind in designing the city. 1) DENSITY: Stores, restaurants and other businesses all require a certain amount of potential customers to be viable. (This varies of course and factors such as customer segment, employee wage levels and rent levels at the location will guide what is sustainable at any given location.) This means you want not only people living close by but also the next point on the list. 2) COMMUNICATIONS: Urbanist (although not anti-urbanists or modernists) agree that the best locations for businesses are close to communication hubs and along thoroughfares. (Such as the main street.) You want fairly straight streets which cross through more than one neighbourhood. People who pass along from one place to another are the life blood of the city. 3) SECONDARY LOCATIONS: You can't just have major thoroughfares, those locations will quickly be filled with the business owners who can pay the premium prices (like real estate agents in major Swedish cities) and that will stifle creativity in your city. You want smaller streets and alleyways which connects the major streets. The spoked wheel city design suggested by James is a good start but also consider how the Burning Man site is laid out in Len's post. The grid pattern might not be the most practical use of space if all houses and quarters need to be circular, but you might want to give it a thought. How are people flowing in your city? Where do they go? How can their way be effectivized? The shortest path for the most people will be where the prime locations are. Radiating off from the prime locations will be the secondary locations. The reason I bring this up is that we can see how cities who grew organically and gave space for these factors are the most successful cities. Cities planned according to modernist ideals about separation of function and city plans which looked great on a map (most famously Brasilia) tend to be very dependent on political power to stay afloat. Which of course is another idea. A ceremonial political or religious city can be designed along totally different ideals. Maybe there is no need for commerce as we recognize it, the goods needed to sustain the perfect city is brought in and distributed to the elites from the outside. The only thing that matters inside is your social standing which is greater the closer you are to the center of the circle where the seat of power resides.

Do you avoid parallel octaves/5ths when writing parallel supporting Melodies? For example when harmonizing a vocal melody I have a plugin that by default adds a 3rd and 5th underneath. Should I change it to a 6th and 3rd? I read you shouldn’t have a parallel 6 3 chords more then 3 times in a row. So should I automate it to use the 3rd and 5th once in a while. Also. Let’s say I have a chord underneath and the 6 3 chords that are following the melody creating non chord tones with the harmony. Is that okay? Kinda like bichordal stuff. I’m confused with parallel supporting melodies.

2020/05/20

First off, as Tim notes in comments, this has nothing to do with Picardy thirds (false or otherwise). I suppose if Beethoven had actually returned to the major form of the theme in a final *refrain* of the Rondo, maybe you could think of it as a false move into major, but he doesn't. **This is an episode**, which frequently modulates to other keys in a rondo. It sounds convincing partly because it's a common thing to do in rondo forms, sometimes known as a *maggiore* couplet or episode. Rondo forms typically have forms like ABACA or ABACABA, and the B and C sections (known as *episodes* or *couplets*) frequently move into parallel major or parallel minor (*minore* couplets). These sorts of episodes are all over rondos by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. While the first episode in a minor rondo frequently goes to the *relative* major (III), later ones sometimes go to the parallel major. And the return is convincing because it's *part of the form* and returns to the home key along with the refrain, which is pretty much the definition of what a rondo form does. As for the details of why your particular attempt at a similar modulation doesn't work, I have no idea without seeing it. But Beethoven's example partly works because it's the very kind of thing he might be expected to do in a section like that. --- P.S. I do not intend this answer to sound flippant at all. But you've asked quite a few questions relating to form here, and I might recommend you take a look at a serious textbook on form to try to understand how classical pieces work if you're going to use them as models. I might recommend William Caplin's *Classical Form* (or perhaps the more student-oriented version *Analyzing Classical Form* by the same author).

I don't believe the diminished 7th matters - playing the dominant 7th twice in the Beethoven is still convincing. But then I would find it still convincing if the minor theme came in immediately after the C cadence at 3:11. Perhaps it is because I have heard the piece often. Perhaps it is convincing because Beethoven has now used the theme several times and established it in the listener's mind, so there will be a sense of familiarity and rightness when it returns (in the minor key). Perhaps it is because the first 3 notes of the theme still allow ambiguity about whether it is major or minor. Or a combination, or something else I haven't thought of! Do ask somebody else you trust about whether they find your work convincing, as sometimes we are our own harshest critics.

There's [a question](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45448/do-one-quarter-of-swedes-named-ali-have-a-criminal-record?noredirect=1#comment210508_45448) featured on HNQ at the moment. The question asks if a headline from a website named Sputnik News is true. As soon as the premise is examined it quickly falls apart and is easily proven false. I asked in a comment beneath that question: > > Given that this question is related to blatant propaganda, propaganda that relies on its headline message being spread far and wide, propaganda that doesn't hold up the second you scratch the surface; is it really a good idea that this question is in HNQ? Putting it in HNQ seems to be an act that works for the propaganda rather than against it (because more people will see the headline in passing and not read further, leaving them with the message implanted in their minds). Or, rather, does being in HNQ actually encourage deeper inspection? (as it has for me) > > > What do you think? I'm not questioning the question's right to exist, only its right to exist on HNQ.

2019/11/23

I don't see the problem here. Keep in mind that Skeptics has a lot of google juice, so the question, with the rebutting answers will now most likely pop alongside the Sputnik disinformation. Which is surely better than just the latter being up in google. In comparison to google searches, HNQ probably hits a much smaller amount of people... and they get to see the Skeptics version. Also, all Skeptics questions are likely to have their controversial claim in the title, so, I'm not seeing how this question is different in that respect. In retrospect, I see now that [one](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/posts/43730/revisions) of my questions that probably just as iffy (involving race relations) was actually removed from HNQ... but only after a couple of days. So maybe there are different (mod) opinions on this one too. [Update:] And the same mod has now [removed](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/posts/45448/revisions) this latter/propaganda question from HNQ as well (after approximately three days this time).

Given infinite developer hours, could this be fixed or at least improved by adding a line underneath saying “Spoiler alert: No, it gets the numbers and what the numbers represent wrong, and it’s a Russian propaganda outlet amplifying a racist Swedish fringe site, click here to find out more”?

I often struggle with mixing a song when I have all my recordings ready to use and I get closer to the "whole song". My approach is often to take a single track and add effects such as EQs, compressors, distortions etc... Then I listen to all tracks together, make some adjustments, try to make every track present enough and I try it out on different speakers and headphones. The problem is, that I am never really satisfied with the sound. Sometimes an instrument is too quiet, vocals sound too limp, after some adjustments I can barely hear an other instrument and the vocals completely cover something else. In the end, my track just gets louder and louder until I undo it, which is quite frustrating. I figured out how to make a single instrument sound great, but what should I do to make a whole song sound great? Are there different approaches you recommend? --- **Edit:** Due to JCPedroza's very helpful answer, I did some supplementary research and found another weakness that is very frequent in my tracks: I did not know how to equalize correctly, so I found [this article about equalizing](http://productionadvice.co.uk/using-eq/) which can be completed by [this table here](http://www.recordingeq.com/Subscribe/tip/tascam.htm) to make the instruments sound better. Combined with the information in JCPedroza's answer, it shouldn't be a problem for any amateur out there to get a better sound out of their tracks.

2014/11/04

Making everything audible in the mix is not always possible. Elements that share frequencies will [mask](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking) each other. The most crucial part of the mix is not actually in the mixing phase itself, but in the composition, instrumentation, and arrangement phase. Experienced composers will give each element its space in the frequency spectrum, so there is little to no masking, and when there's masking they use it to their advantage in the form of textures, ensembles. The [masking effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking) is the number 1 reason why people end up turning everything louder and louder in the mix. Once one element is audible it masks the other ones that are near it, so you turn up one of those or all of them, and now they are masking something else, and so on. You have tools to improve this situation, but there's a limit on what they can do depending on the severity of the masking. If the problem is that the elements are too close to each other in both time and frequency, then what you want is some separation. * Panning conflicting elements to opposite sides, but your mono mix won't have this benefit. * You can give some frequency space with EQ (accentuate different bands in different elements, for example), but too much of it and you'll be messing with the timbres. * You can use sidechain compression, but you'll need to choose which element will be quiet while the other is on (works great with kick and bass). * You can use an harmonic exciter to make an element cut through the mix, but those added harmonics might be masking something else. You can also consider getting rid of some elements, or redesign them in a different frequency range (check which bands are available), or use them in another point of time. If the problem is too big, it might be worth to re-arrange the song. From SoS [Mix Mistakes](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/mix-mistakes.htm): > > Unhelpful Arrangement > > > The roots of many a mix problem can be traced back to the musical arrangement, and this simple fact renders many of the budget productions I hear effectively unmixable. If your song's verse has more guitar or percussion layers than its chorus, you're likely to face an uphill struggle if you want the chorus to arrive with a bang. Likewise, there's no sense in having different guitar and keyboard sounds competing in the same pitch register if you want to keep any separation between them in the mix. And unless you create some sense of build‑up in the arrangement itself, it's unlikely that you'll hold the listener's attention all the way to your final chorus. > > > From SoS [20 Tips on Mixing](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun98/articles/20tips.html): > > Try not to have too many instruments competing for the same part of the audio spectrum. The mid-range is particularly vulnerable, so try to choose the best sounds at source. You can improve the separation when mixing by using EQ to narrow the spectrum of the sound you're working with. Try rolling off some low end and occasionally taking out any excessive top end. This is sometimes known as spectral mixing, where each sound or instrument is given its own space in the audio spectrum. A good example of this is the acoustic guitar which, in a rock mix, can muddle the low mid. If you roll off the low end, you still get plenty of definition, but the mix will seem far cleaner. Sidechain filters on noise gates (set to Key Listen mode) are often very good tools for trimming the high and low ends of sounds without unduly changing the section you want to keep. > > > The possible problems and solutions don't end here, but that's the most common cause of your issue. Masking aside, a technique that will make your life many times easier is the use of buses and/or mix groups. For example, route all the synths to one fader and mix them separately (mix only the synths). Repeat with drums, vocals, maybe you want to group kick and bass and all other low freq elements, etc. Then you mix those groups together. From SoS [Mixing Essentials](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct06/articles/mixing.htm): > > Divide And Conquer > > > Now that modern DAWs are capable of recording huge numbers of tracks, modern productions seem to want to use them all! You might find your mix initially seems unmanageable, but you can make life much easier by separating key elements of the mix into logical subgroups that can be controlled from a single fader. The obvious example is the drum kit, which may have as many as a dozen mics around it or multiple tracks of supplementary samples, and you clearly don't want to have to move a dozen faders every time you wish to adjust the overall drum kit level. There are two ways to do this in a typical DAW, one of which is to group the faders so that when you move one, the others move proportionally. The other way is to create an audio subgroup and route all your drums via that group, just as you would on a typical analogue studio console. > > >

Assuming you are in stereo (JCP answers assuming you're not) because there is nothing to say you aren't, definition of some instruments will be enhanced by where in the mix you place them. Similar tonal instruments, and ones which at a particular time in the recording, are playing notes close to each other, need panning away from each other. Let's take an organ sound and a harmonica sound. Both panned left OR fight will have the similar sounds getting mixed up. If one was hard left, other hard right, you would be hearing them from different directions, and they would be distinct from each other in the mix.Vocals often work best in the centre, so if other instruments are likely to mask them - they are probably the most important bit - pan the latter away from centre.

I often struggle with mixing a song when I have all my recordings ready to use and I get closer to the "whole song". My approach is often to take a single track and add effects such as EQs, compressors, distortions etc... Then I listen to all tracks together, make some adjustments, try to make every track present enough and I try it out on different speakers and headphones. The problem is, that I am never really satisfied with the sound. Sometimes an instrument is too quiet, vocals sound too limp, after some adjustments I can barely hear an other instrument and the vocals completely cover something else. In the end, my track just gets louder and louder until I undo it, which is quite frustrating. I figured out how to make a single instrument sound great, but what should I do to make a whole song sound great? Are there different approaches you recommend? --- **Edit:** Due to JCPedroza's very helpful answer, I did some supplementary research and found another weakness that is very frequent in my tracks: I did not know how to equalize correctly, so I found [this article about equalizing](http://productionadvice.co.uk/using-eq/) which can be completed by [this table here](http://www.recordingeq.com/Subscribe/tip/tascam.htm) to make the instruments sound better. Combined with the information in JCPedroza's answer, it shouldn't be a problem for any amateur out there to get a better sound out of their tracks.

2014/11/04

Making everything audible in the mix is not always possible. Elements that share frequencies will [mask](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking) each other. The most crucial part of the mix is not actually in the mixing phase itself, but in the composition, instrumentation, and arrangement phase. Experienced composers will give each element its space in the frequency spectrum, so there is little to no masking, and when there's masking they use it to their advantage in the form of textures, ensembles. The [masking effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking) is the number 1 reason why people end up turning everything louder and louder in the mix. Once one element is audible it masks the other ones that are near it, so you turn up one of those or all of them, and now they are masking something else, and so on. You have tools to improve this situation, but there's a limit on what they can do depending on the severity of the masking. If the problem is that the elements are too close to each other in both time and frequency, then what you want is some separation. * Panning conflicting elements to opposite sides, but your mono mix won't have this benefit. * You can give some frequency space with EQ (accentuate different bands in different elements, for example), but too much of it and you'll be messing with the timbres. * You can use sidechain compression, but you'll need to choose which element will be quiet while the other is on (works great with kick and bass). * You can use an harmonic exciter to make an element cut through the mix, but those added harmonics might be masking something else. You can also consider getting rid of some elements, or redesign them in a different frequency range (check which bands are available), or use them in another point of time. If the problem is too big, it might be worth to re-arrange the song. From SoS [Mix Mistakes](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/mix-mistakes.htm): > > Unhelpful Arrangement > > > The roots of many a mix problem can be traced back to the musical arrangement, and this simple fact renders many of the budget productions I hear effectively unmixable. If your song's verse has more guitar or percussion layers than its chorus, you're likely to face an uphill struggle if you want the chorus to arrive with a bang. Likewise, there's no sense in having different guitar and keyboard sounds competing in the same pitch register if you want to keep any separation between them in the mix. And unless you create some sense of build‑up in the arrangement itself, it's unlikely that you'll hold the listener's attention all the way to your final chorus. > > > From SoS [20 Tips on Mixing](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun98/articles/20tips.html): > > Try not to have too many instruments competing for the same part of the audio spectrum. The mid-range is particularly vulnerable, so try to choose the best sounds at source. You can improve the separation when mixing by using EQ to narrow the spectrum of the sound you're working with. Try rolling off some low end and occasionally taking out any excessive top end. This is sometimes known as spectral mixing, where each sound or instrument is given its own space in the audio spectrum. A good example of this is the acoustic guitar which, in a rock mix, can muddle the low mid. If you roll off the low end, you still get plenty of definition, but the mix will seem far cleaner. Sidechain filters on noise gates (set to Key Listen mode) are often very good tools for trimming the high and low ends of sounds without unduly changing the section you want to keep. > > > The possible problems and solutions don't end here, but that's the most common cause of your issue. Masking aside, a technique that will make your life many times easier is the use of buses and/or mix groups. For example, route all the synths to one fader and mix them separately (mix only the synths). Repeat with drums, vocals, maybe you want to group kick and bass and all other low freq elements, etc. Then you mix those groups together. From SoS [Mixing Essentials](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct06/articles/mixing.htm): > > Divide And Conquer > > > Now that modern DAWs are capable of recording huge numbers of tracks, modern productions seem to want to use them all! You might find your mix initially seems unmanageable, but you can make life much easier by separating key elements of the mix into logical subgroups that can be controlled from a single fader. The obvious example is the drum kit, which may have as many as a dozen mics around it or multiple tracks of supplementary samples, and you clearly don't want to have to move a dozen faders every time you wish to adjust the overall drum kit level. There are two ways to do this in a typical DAW, one of which is to group the faders so that when you move one, the others move proportionally. The other way is to create an audio subgroup and route all your drums via that group, just as you would on a typical analogue studio console. > > >

The missing piece in your mixing arsenal and gear is called **sidechain ducking** or **sidechain EQing**. If you learn and know how to use these audio processors, you can take any mix with as many instruments in it and make them all heard properly. If you still want to use the old traditional way of adjusting volume and EQ, here are a few tips: * Use **compressors**. A compressor is very essential in balancing the dynamic range of an instrument, and this in itself can make a big difference between losing an audio track somewhere in your mix, or keeping it heard all throughout the mix. * **Noise gate** other instruments when they are not playing. Alot of mixing producers skip this step and its realy bad because some tracks still have noise in them when they are not playing, and noise captures your entire frequency range and can cause other instruments or tracks to get lost. * Make sure that there are no 2 instruments that share the same frequency range. Mixing is the mathematical equation of simply adding (+) the volume levels of all tracks together, so if 2 instruments share the same frequency range, you'll get an overload in that range that will cause other instruments in your mix to get lost. So if for example you want a Singer and an Acoustic guitar heard together, and you applied EQing on the singer in the range 500-800hz, don't do the same on the guitar. Instead, add some treble and bass to the guitar on the 200-300hz range on one hand, and on the 2000-3000hz range on the other hand. * if you are not sure about which frequency range each instrument takes, use a **spectrum analyser** whenever you can. I hope this answered your question.

I often struggle with mixing a song when I have all my recordings ready to use and I get closer to the "whole song". My approach is often to take a single track and add effects such as EQs, compressors, distortions etc... Then I listen to all tracks together, make some adjustments, try to make every track present enough and I try it out on different speakers and headphones. The problem is, that I am never really satisfied with the sound. Sometimes an instrument is too quiet, vocals sound too limp, after some adjustments I can barely hear an other instrument and the vocals completely cover something else. In the end, my track just gets louder and louder until I undo it, which is quite frustrating. I figured out how to make a single instrument sound great, but what should I do to make a whole song sound great? Are there different approaches you recommend? --- **Edit:** Due to JCPedroza's very helpful answer, I did some supplementary research and found another weakness that is very frequent in my tracks: I did not know how to equalize correctly, so I found [this article about equalizing](http://productionadvice.co.uk/using-eq/) which can be completed by [this table here](http://www.recordingeq.com/Subscribe/tip/tascam.htm) to make the instruments sound better. Combined with the information in JCPedroza's answer, it shouldn't be a problem for any amateur out there to get a better sound out of their tracks.

2014/11/04

Making everything audible in the mix is not always possible. Elements that share frequencies will [mask](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking) each other. The most crucial part of the mix is not actually in the mixing phase itself, but in the composition, instrumentation, and arrangement phase. Experienced composers will give each element its space in the frequency spectrum, so there is little to no masking, and when there's masking they use it to their advantage in the form of textures, ensembles. The [masking effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking) is the number 1 reason why people end up turning everything louder and louder in the mix. Once one element is audible it masks the other ones that are near it, so you turn up one of those or all of them, and now they are masking something else, and so on. You have tools to improve this situation, but there's a limit on what they can do depending on the severity of the masking. If the problem is that the elements are too close to each other in both time and frequency, then what you want is some separation. * Panning conflicting elements to opposite sides, but your mono mix won't have this benefit. * You can give some frequency space with EQ (accentuate different bands in different elements, for example), but too much of it and you'll be messing with the timbres. * You can use sidechain compression, but you'll need to choose which element will be quiet while the other is on (works great with kick and bass). * You can use an harmonic exciter to make an element cut through the mix, but those added harmonics might be masking something else. You can also consider getting rid of some elements, or redesign them in a different frequency range (check which bands are available), or use them in another point of time. If the problem is too big, it might be worth to re-arrange the song. From SoS [Mix Mistakes](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/mix-mistakes.htm): > > Unhelpful Arrangement > > > The roots of many a mix problem can be traced back to the musical arrangement, and this simple fact renders many of the budget productions I hear effectively unmixable. If your song's verse has more guitar or percussion layers than its chorus, you're likely to face an uphill struggle if you want the chorus to arrive with a bang. Likewise, there's no sense in having different guitar and keyboard sounds competing in the same pitch register if you want to keep any separation between them in the mix. And unless you create some sense of build‑up in the arrangement itself, it's unlikely that you'll hold the listener's attention all the way to your final chorus. > > > From SoS [20 Tips on Mixing](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun98/articles/20tips.html): > > Try not to have too many instruments competing for the same part of the audio spectrum. The mid-range is particularly vulnerable, so try to choose the best sounds at source. You can improve the separation when mixing by using EQ to narrow the spectrum of the sound you're working with. Try rolling off some low end and occasionally taking out any excessive top end. This is sometimes known as spectral mixing, where each sound or instrument is given its own space in the audio spectrum. A good example of this is the acoustic guitar which, in a rock mix, can muddle the low mid. If you roll off the low end, you still get plenty of definition, but the mix will seem far cleaner. Sidechain filters on noise gates (set to Key Listen mode) are often very good tools for trimming the high and low ends of sounds without unduly changing the section you want to keep. > > > The possible problems and solutions don't end here, but that's the most common cause of your issue. Masking aside, a technique that will make your life many times easier is the use of buses and/or mix groups. For example, route all the synths to one fader and mix them separately (mix only the synths). Repeat with drums, vocals, maybe you want to group kick and bass and all other low freq elements, etc. Then you mix those groups together. From SoS [Mixing Essentials](http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct06/articles/mixing.htm): > > Divide And Conquer > > > Now that modern DAWs are capable of recording huge numbers of tracks, modern productions seem to want to use them all! You might find your mix initially seems unmanageable, but you can make life much easier by separating key elements of the mix into logical subgroups that can be controlled from a single fader. The obvious example is the drum kit, which may have as many as a dozen mics around it or multiple tracks of supplementary samples, and you clearly don't want to have to move a dozen faders every time you wish to adjust the overall drum kit level. There are two ways to do this in a typical DAW, one of which is to group the faders so that when you move one, the others move proportionally. The other way is to create an audio subgroup and route all your drums via that group, just as you would on a typical analogue studio console. > > >

The best technique I've come across for making each instrument clear and audible in the overall mix is to do your mixing in mono. First, pan your instruments to where you want them in stereo because the pan law can affect the volume of the instruments. Then once you have your instruments panned to where you want them, use the "mono" button on the master bus of your DAW (if it has one, otherwise you could use a plugin which sums to mono as the very last plugin on the master channel) and start your actual mixing here. The reason against mixing in stereo is that you can create "pseudo-separation" by simply panning instruments to make it appear as though they each have their own space when in reality they are stepping all over each other. Your mix might sound great while you are sitting in the sweet spot right between between your speakers, but what happens when you move away far enough from the speakers?...the entire mix becomes mono and that separation you had from panning goes away. Now (for example) the two guitar tracks that you panned opposite each other so you could hear each guitar clearly both turn to a muddy mess once you hear them together in mono. Mixing in mono lets you hear these problems immediately and once you can hear how the guitars are masking each other and neither guitar riff can be clearly heard you will be in a better position to fix these problems. When you can get your mix sounding good in mono when every instrument is fighting for the same space then your stereo mix will sound even better and your mono mix won't completely fall apart. This is such a simple principle and it really works wonders!

I often struggle with mixing a song when I have all my recordings ready to use and I get closer to the "whole song". My approach is often to take a single track and add effects such as EQs, compressors, distortions etc... Then I listen to all tracks together, make some adjustments, try to make every track present enough and I try it out on different speakers and headphones. The problem is, that I am never really satisfied with the sound. Sometimes an instrument is too quiet, vocals sound too limp, after some adjustments I can barely hear an other instrument and the vocals completely cover something else. In the end, my track just gets louder and louder until I undo it, which is quite frustrating. I figured out how to make a single instrument sound great, but what should I do to make a whole song sound great? Are there different approaches you recommend? --- **Edit:** Due to JCPedroza's very helpful answer, I did some supplementary research and found another weakness that is very frequent in my tracks: I did not know how to equalize correctly, so I found [this article about equalizing](http://productionadvice.co.uk/using-eq/) which can be completed by [this table here](http://www.recordingeq.com/Subscribe/tip/tascam.htm) to make the instruments sound better. Combined with the information in JCPedroza's answer, it shouldn't be a problem for any amateur out there to get a better sound out of their tracks.

2014/11/04

The missing piece in your mixing arsenal and gear is called **sidechain ducking** or **sidechain EQing**. If you learn and know how to use these audio processors, you can take any mix with as many instruments in it and make them all heard properly. If you still want to use the old traditional way of adjusting volume and EQ, here are a few tips: * Use **compressors**. A compressor is very essential in balancing the dynamic range of an instrument, and this in itself can make a big difference between losing an audio track somewhere in your mix, or keeping it heard all throughout the mix. * **Noise gate** other instruments when they are not playing. Alot of mixing producers skip this step and its realy bad because some tracks still have noise in them when they are not playing, and noise captures your entire frequency range and can cause other instruments or tracks to get lost. * Make sure that there are no 2 instruments that share the same frequency range. Mixing is the mathematical equation of simply adding (+) the volume levels of all tracks together, so if 2 instruments share the same frequency range, you'll get an overload in that range that will cause other instruments in your mix to get lost. So if for example you want a Singer and an Acoustic guitar heard together, and you applied EQing on the singer in the range 500-800hz, don't do the same on the guitar. Instead, add some treble and bass to the guitar on the 200-300hz range on one hand, and on the 2000-3000hz range on the other hand. * if you are not sure about which frequency range each instrument takes, use a **spectrum analyser** whenever you can. I hope this answered your question.

Assuming you are in stereo (JCP answers assuming you're not) because there is nothing to say you aren't, definition of some instruments will be enhanced by where in the mix you place them. Similar tonal instruments, and ones which at a particular time in the recording, are playing notes close to each other, need panning away from each other. Let's take an organ sound and a harmonica sound. Both panned left OR fight will have the similar sounds getting mixed up. If one was hard left, other hard right, you would be hearing them from different directions, and they would be distinct from each other in the mix.Vocals often work best in the centre, so if other instruments are likely to mask them - they are probably the most important bit - pan the latter away from centre.

I often struggle with mixing a song when I have all my recordings ready to use and I get closer to the "whole song". My approach is often to take a single track and add effects such as EQs, compressors, distortions etc... Then I listen to all tracks together, make some adjustments, try to make every track present enough and I try it out on different speakers and headphones. The problem is, that I am never really satisfied with the sound. Sometimes an instrument is too quiet, vocals sound too limp, after some adjustments I can barely hear an other instrument and the vocals completely cover something else. In the end, my track just gets louder and louder until I undo it, which is quite frustrating. I figured out how to make a single instrument sound great, but what should I do to make a whole song sound great? Are there different approaches you recommend? --- **Edit:** Due to JCPedroza's very helpful answer, I did some supplementary research and found another weakness that is very frequent in my tracks: I did not know how to equalize correctly, so I found [this article about equalizing](http://productionadvice.co.uk/using-eq/) which can be completed by [this table here](http://www.recordingeq.com/Subscribe/tip/tascam.htm) to make the instruments sound better. Combined with the information in JCPedroza's answer, it shouldn't be a problem for any amateur out there to get a better sound out of their tracks.

2014/11/04

The best technique I've come across for making each instrument clear and audible in the overall mix is to do your mixing in mono. First, pan your instruments to where you want them in stereo because the pan law can affect the volume of the instruments. Then once you have your instruments panned to where you want them, use the "mono" button on the master bus of your DAW (if it has one, otherwise you could use a plugin which sums to mono as the very last plugin on the master channel) and start your actual mixing here. The reason against mixing in stereo is that you can create "pseudo-separation" by simply panning instruments to make it appear as though they each have their own space when in reality they are stepping all over each other. Your mix might sound great while you are sitting in the sweet spot right between between your speakers, but what happens when you move away far enough from the speakers?...the entire mix becomes mono and that separation you had from panning goes away. Now (for example) the two guitar tracks that you panned opposite each other so you could hear each guitar clearly both turn to a muddy mess once you hear them together in mono. Mixing in mono lets you hear these problems immediately and once you can hear how the guitars are masking each other and neither guitar riff can be clearly heard you will be in a better position to fix these problems. When you can get your mix sounding good in mono when every instrument is fighting for the same space then your stereo mix will sound even better and your mono mix won't completely fall apart. This is such a simple principle and it really works wonders!

Assuming you are in stereo (JCP answers assuming you're not) because there is nothing to say you aren't, definition of some instruments will be enhanced by where in the mix you place them. Similar tonal instruments, and ones which at a particular time in the recording, are playing notes close to each other, need panning away from each other. Let's take an organ sound and a harmonica sound. Both panned left OR fight will have the similar sounds getting mixed up. If one was hard left, other hard right, you would be hearing them from different directions, and they would be distinct from each other in the mix.Vocals often work best in the centre, so if other instruments are likely to mask them - they are probably the most important bit - pan the latter away from centre.

I want to avoid user registration in my app, and to identity my user by purchased app. If someone purchase app on his iPhone, and with the same Apple ID download this app on other device, I want to use the same settings and content on this devices. **Is posible to use identifiers like AppleID (without entering in input field by user)?** I found similar [question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/227590/unique-identifier-for-an-iphone-app) but UniqueIdentifier is unique only for physical device, not for user.

2011/08/01

No. Apple does not give an app access to the user's Apple ID without the user's involvement. And for good reason.

I don't think you should outsmart the user. You can't assert that the user will want the same settings on another device. For instance I manage all my family iphones and download apps for them, all of them have their own accounts in apps and like different preferences. That's why it's the best to allow users to create accounts and sing in. This way user has a clear understanding what he/she is doing.

Don't you just hate when Euron injures your pet dragons and perforates your fleet with a ballista? Don't worry, all you need is a shipful of Wildfire and a very long fuse (or Mehdi Sadaghdar with electric equipment) onboard. Lay back, play some music and watch the [ensuing light show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuNyWMAWptE&feature=youtu.be&t=103). But how does Wildfire even work? What we know so far ------------------- Wildfire is a neon green liquid that's stable at room temperature, but is very easy to ignite with just about any spark or flame. Wildfire, stored in a closed space, tends to cause enormous explosions, while out in the open, it simply burns with a green flame. Wildfire can't be extinguished with water and continues to burn for quite some time. It is also said that it can burn hot enough to melt steel beams. **Assuming no magic is involved, how could Wildfire work?**

2020/03/07

We can deduce a few properties of the mixture from its observed behaviour: 1. **It's a hydrophobic, glutinous gel** over a wide range of temperatures. There are lots of chemicals which match this description. 2. **It's self-oxidising**. The mixture doesn't require external oxygen from the air to release energy; this is necessary in order for it to explode when confined. Gunpowder, [ANFO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO) and thermite are all good examples of this. 3. **It burns with an extremely high temperature**. If it's capable of at least softening steel beams to the point of failure, it must be able to reach temperatures of 1250°C plus. There's a smaller range of reactions that kick out that kind of heat, but still plenty of examples, like white phosophorus (2760°C) or aluminium-iron-oxide thermite (2500°C). 4. **It's green**, both in base colour and in flame. There are a couple of metals and salts that could be contributing to that. For my money, I'd suggest that wildfire consists of a mixture of a thermite powder dissolved in a glutinous fuel-oxidiser which contains something like barium chlorate as the oxidizer. The leftover barium burns with a green glow which is [very similar](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FireworkatDisneyWorld.png) to the colour of wildfire in the video. The fuel-oxidiser provides the initial heat to start the thermite reaction which can then reach the extremely high temperatures. If the oxide in the thermite was [chromia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium(III)_oxide) instead of iron oxide, you would get the potent green colour in the base mixture as well as in the flame. Chromium itself burns with a silver-white flame which would add the white tints seen in the wildfire.

It seems a more potent version of gasoline. It might have a higher viscosity, and hence a slower evaporation rate, but otherwise behaves very similar. When gasoline is enclosed and ignites, it will explode quite spectacularly. This is because only the vapours ignite, and burst the container throwing the rest of the gas everywhere fine enough to ignite as well, resulting in a fireball. But when gasoline is ignited on a surface the vapours on top burn off, but the rest isn't flung anywhere so it will burn at evaporation speed. It is also hydrophobic. If the burning temperature is high, then it would be hard to douse with water. The water won't cool it quick enough, and the hydrophobic quality means full coverage is hard to achieve. The green flame might be a company signature, they could lace it with boric acid or copper sulfate. "If its green, its quality".

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

I also suggest symfony. Zend will be too much for small project. if you are building blog, then use Drupal.

Have you tried QCodo, which does a lot automatically.

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

I would personally use <http://agiletoolkit.org/> It is done in php but allows you to use one of the best frameworks i have seen to build it. They have great support and have answered all my questions. Check out this page on just the surface of what this framework can do. <http://ui.agiletoolkit.org/>

If you insist on using a framework for this definitely go with [CodeIgniter](http://codeigniter.com/). Its lightweight [M-V-C](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller) approach really makes project like these a breeze. I build a lot of database driven administrative applications with PHP and have found CI to be a time saver. Of course it is entirely possible to accomplish this task using nothing more than vanilla PHP and libraries. I have built many administrative / management applications w/o frameworks. If you have other questions let me/us know. `-` Nicholas

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

I would personally use <http://agiletoolkit.org/> It is done in php but allows you to use one of the best frameworks i have seen to build it. They have great support and have answered all my questions. Check out this page on just the surface of what this framework can do. <http://ui.agiletoolkit.org/>

The quickest way? Write it by hand. If there's potential for re-use, copy and paste at first, then refactor into libraries. This approach works best if you pretty much know what you're doing. Otherwise, a framework might be the answer.

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

On PHP, [Symfony](http://www.symfony-project.org/), which has admin generators, is probably what you're looking for.

Have you tried QCodo, which does a lot automatically.

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

On PHP, [Symfony](http://www.symfony-project.org/), which has admin generators, is probably what you're looking for.

The quickest way? Write it by hand. If there's potential for re-use, copy and paste at first, then refactor into libraries. This approach works best if you pretty much know what you're doing. Otherwise, a framework might be the answer.

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

On PHP, [Symfony](http://www.symfony-project.org/), which has admin generators, is probably what you're looking for.

Maybe [CodeIgniter](http://codeigniter.com/). Haven't tried it but I had this colleague (PM) at work (a Java shop) always ranting about how he could do everything faster and better if we would be using CodeIgniter.

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

On PHP, [Symfony](http://www.symfony-project.org/), which has admin generators, is probably what you're looking for.

I would personally use <http://agiletoolkit.org/> It is done in php but allows you to use one of the best frameworks i have seen to build it. They have great support and have answered all my questions. Check out this page on just the surface of what this framework can do. <http://ui.agiletoolkit.org/>

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

I would personally use <http://agiletoolkit.org/> It is done in php but allows you to use one of the best frameworks i have seen to build it. They have great support and have answered all my questions. Check out this page on just the surface of what this framework can do. <http://ui.agiletoolkit.org/>

Have you tried QCodo, which does a lot automatically.

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

I also suggest symfony. Zend will be too much for small project. if you are building blog, then use Drupal.

The quickest way? Write it by hand. If there's potential for re-use, copy and paste at first, then refactor into libraries. This approach works best if you pretty much know what you're doing. Otherwise, a framework might be the answer.

What's the quickest way to build admin interfaces in PHP? It can be a framework, a library/libraries coupled with a particular approach, or whatever. Background: I'm a Django developer spoiled by auto admin who has to deliver a web-app in PHP. The app is very admin-area/form heavy and has different access levels.

2009/03/09

On PHP, [Symfony](http://www.symfony-project.org/), which has admin generators, is probably what you're looking for.

If you insist on using a framework for this definitely go with [CodeIgniter](http://codeigniter.com/). Its lightweight [M-V-C](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller) approach really makes project like these a breeze. I build a lot of database driven administrative applications with PHP and have found CI to be a time saver. Of course it is entirely possible to accomplish this task using nothing more than vanilla PHP and libraries. I have built many administrative / management applications w/o frameworks. If you have other questions let me/us know. `-` Nicholas

There were similar question like [How to secure a laptop against thieves](https://superuser.com/questions/213650/how-to-secure-a-laptop-against-thieves). But my question is different I have family images, documents, some personal videos, etc (aound 500 GB). I have backups. So even if my laptop were stolen I can get all my data. **But my data should not go to others.** I have currently set a Windows password... But a thief can boot my laptop via Linux and then can access the files. So what can I do to protect my data even if my laptop is stolen?

2017/12/04

Encrypt you hard disk. On Windows you can do it using Bit Locker and on Linux there is also a native tool to encrypt the hard disk.

In addition to encrypting the hard disk (which should be the primary answer), you can also minimize exposure by relying more on resources stored elsewhere. Use cloud storage, or connect to a VPN for files stored at your workplace, rather than saving them directly on the device. A remote desktop services environment is also very good for this. This reduced data loss exposure from device theft is one reason (among several) businesses have been so willing to move to cloud environments. I also know of at least one large business that is transitioning to Chromebooks for this reason. They still have a primarily Windows environment where the Chromebooks just connect to RDS for everything. Suddenly a lost device is much less of a big deal for them; it's only $200 to replace the device and there's no significant data breach risk. You can also get remote management tools for laptops that will do lockouts and even encrypt or destroy data after the fact, but these are much less robust. It's too easy to just remove a hard drive from a laptop and plug it in as a guest in a different system. Then the lockout tool never runs and you can exfiltrate whatever data you want.

Wikipedia's [Sputnik 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1) and [this answer](https://space.stackexchange.com/a/18631/12102) to *Why did Sputnik 1 have four antennas?* say that Sputnik transmitted at both 20 and 40 MHz. Why two different frequencies? Why so far apart? It's worth noting that the ionosphere's transparency [is sometimes very low at 20 MHz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_usable_frequency); the 10 meter or 30 MHz band of amateur radio relies on ionospheric reflection for long distance communications, so sometimes 20 MHz wouldn't even be useful for orbit-to-ground communications, and 40 MHz is not likely to have been available on most home short wave radios (for the same reasons).

2020/02/04

Russian version of [Sputnik-1 Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA-1) has the section labeled "Sounds of Sputnik" and cites the respective [technical report](http://russianspacesystems.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Otchet-o-razrabotke-bortovoy-radiostancii-pervogo-sputnika.pdf) regarding development of the Sputnik's "radio device" D-200 (in Russian). According to the report, primary reason for transmitting on two frequencies was redundancy. The transmission frequency had to be higher than that of the highest critical frequency of ionosphere's F-layer, which was estimated as 15MHz, but transmission frequency was chosen at 20.005MHz due to the limit of Soviet direction finder "Krug". The second frequency was just arbitrarily chosen to be 2 to 3 times higher because it would allow for longer receival duration compared to the first frequency. Wikipedia article gives the brief summary of the basis of frequencies choice (translated from Russian): > > Parameters of the [signal] transmission (power and frequencies) were selected based on the [respective parameters of available] widespread receivers of Soviet and foreign amateur radio enthusiasts, in order to obtain new information about the ionosphere structure from mass amateur observations ([such as] difference in the times of appearance and disappearance of signals at two frequencies, relative level of the signal, Doppler shift). > > > * The frequency of the VHF (ultra-short wave) signal (40.002 MHz) is on the edge [i.e. limit, borderline] of the amateur seven-meter range and does not get reflected from the ionosphere in a wide cone; > * the frequency of the HF (short wave) signal (20.005 MHz), although being higher than the predicted critical frequency of the ionosphere F layer at winter noon of 1957-1958 (up to 15 MHz), is still close enough for the signal to undergo significant attenuation [or damping] in the F layer (about 10 dB ), and in the case of an oblique incidence [of the signal] to be reflected. > > > Therefore, conditions for propagation of Sputnik's radio signals in ionosphere at the selected two frequencies were significantly different, hence allowed the use of ground-based observations (including mass amateur radio observations) to probe through the ionosphere, which was impossible before the launch of the Sputnik. > > > The source also describes distances at which the signal was recieved: > > Satellite signals were firmly received using conventional amateur radio equipment at a distance of up to 2-3 thousand kilometers; [some] cases of extra long [-range] reception at distances up to 10 thousand km were recorded. > > > P.S. As I'm not an expert in radioelectronics, some technical terms might be not 100% correctly translated. --- Below is original text in Russian: > > Параметры излучения (мощность, частоты) были выбраны из расчёта на широко распространённые приёмники советских и зарубежных радиолюбителей, чтобы из массовых любительских наблюдений (разница времени появления и исчезновения сигналов на двух частотах, относительный уровень сигналов, доплеровский сдвиг) получить новые сведения о структуре ионосферы. > > > * Частота УКВ сигнала (40,002 МГц) находится на границе любительского семиметрового диапазона и не отражается от ионосферы в широком конусе; > * частота КВ сигнала (20,005 МГц), хотя и выше прогнозировавшейся критической частоты слоя F ионосферы в зимний полдень 1957—1958 года (до 15 МГц), всё же достаточно близка к ней, чтобы сигнал претерпевал значительное затухание в слое F (около 10 дБ), а при косом падении отражался. > > > Таким образом, условия распространения радиосигналов спутника в ионосфере на двух использовавшихся частотах были существенно различны и позволяли использовать наземные наблюдения (включая массовые наблюдения радиолюбителей) для зондирования ионосферы «насквозь», что было невозможно до запуска спутника. > > > Приём сигналов спутника уверенно осуществлялся с помощью обычной радиолюбительской аппаратуры на расстоянии до 2—3 тысяч километров; были зафиксированы случаи сверхдальнего приёма на расстояниях до 10 тысяч км > > >

The following is (now apparently disproven) speculation based on some very basic radio theory rather than any particular knowledge of Sputnik 1. It should be disregarded if someone with knowledge of the actual circuits in use has better information. I did some web searching but did not find any descriptions of Sputnik 1 that provided good evidence for or against the below theory about its construction. --- If we suppose that 40 MHz is not chosen for reception reasons, then the obvious reason to choose 40 MHz is that **it is the second harmonic of 20 MHz.** An oscillator generally produces some amount of signal at harmonics of the original frequency (small or large depending on its design), and certain RF circuit elements such as [stubs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stub_(electronics)) (and, with some complications, antennas) also work with harmonics as with the fundamental. Therefore, **components could be shared between the 40 MHz and 20 MHz systems,** thus saving weight and complexity. [Further information indicates that this was not the case — the 20 and 40 Mhz transmitters were separate, and considered redundant systems to each other. There still might have been some design reason to use an approximate multiple, but I can't say what exactly they might be.] Furthermore, > > Signals on the first frequency were transmitted in 0.3 s pulses … with pauses of the same duration filled by pulses on the second frequency. [[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1#Design)] > > > While this alternation could be purely to even out the power draw, it also suggests that there might not be two independent transmitters, but **one** transmitter which either produced both signals at once in the oscillator, followed by a switchable filter to select one of them to send to the power amplifier or antennas, or the oscillator itself could be modulated to switch between those frequencies. Sputnik is said in Wikipedia and a citation behind paywall to have transmitted on "20.005 and 40.002 MHz". Of course, 20.005 × 2 = 40.010, not 40.002. But this does not mean harmonics are not applicable; under the theory that the second harmonic was being used to generate the 40 MHz signal, it is reasonably plausible that when the transmitter switched between the 20 MHz and 40 MHz conditions, secondary effects (changes in loading of circuits, etc) caused a slight frequency shift; or, if the oscillator is modulated, it's merely error or a free choice in the designed tuning, and the requirement is only that the second frequency be *approximately* a multiple of the first. I don't know what the actual components of a one-watt tube-based transmitter of the time would be, so I don't know how plausible either of these hypotheses is. [Plausible, perhaps, but apparently false.]

I have a story where world finds out that North Koreans have built a fusion power plant that produces 4 gigawatts of electricity (\*) and they don't reveal it's existence, for unknown reasons they don't want to boast about superiority of Juche. It's unimportant to me how they built it, what I need to know how the world detects it without North Koreans spilling the beans. The story is told from the point of the world which is kept in dark. No defectors with knowledge about the plant is accessible to the journalists, [spy agencies](http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/12/its-scary-how-little-we-know-about-north-korea/46436/) etc. I placed this in North Korea because they're a closest thing to information black hole in this world and still have functional government. So please no hacking, defectors or careless public sources. The knowledge about plant is kept secret as the death of the previous dear leader. Would there be some kind of radiation or some other clue that would tip us off? (\*) The number of 4 gigawatts is arbitrary, any usable amount would do if that changes something

2016/10/15

**By the effects on the grid** All electricity production in NK is 224 TWh your plant will add 35 TWh more, it's impossible that nobody in the grid won't notice, if the grid could cope at all without significant improvement. You can't hide such a large producer. When one plant goes down or closes for annual refurbishment the operator must synchronize the rest of the producers. Even if they control everybody who works Kim Yong fusion plant, they must coordinate with the rest of national electricity company.

This is a very interesting topic even if the source of power wasn't a type of fusion but a breakthrough in coal power. North Korea has for years suffered from electrical power insufficiency. An economist or group like the IEA (International Energy Agency) would probably first suspect something is going on by seeing a shift in supply of electrical power but a decrease in demand for coal and hydro power, he/she/they would also include in this study/report about increases in the amount of light that is visible at night from the international space station and other artificial satellites. **Here are what I would consider the biggest signals of fusion power happening after I had read the economic report:** 1) There would be infrastructure built to accommodate for the large amount of radiated heat. 2) A spike in the demand for Lithium 3) Spikes in detection of Hydrogen 3 production (there may be a fission reactor used to produce Hydrogen 3 but hiding as a power plant) 4) Suspicious looking repositories for the waste North Korea would most likely do more to allow other countries like China and South Korea to invest in it's economy in order to maintain its now most valuable resource. They would probably see an economic boom like it did in 1999 maybe better. More interesting to me would be how it would hide the technology. I would suspect they would export a little of that power to China as well. So even if China didn't know that North Korea had fusion power, it would know that North Korea has an excess of electrical power. For starters try: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea#Power_and_energy> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium#Lithium-6>

I have a story where world finds out that North Koreans have built a fusion power plant that produces 4 gigawatts of electricity (\*) and they don't reveal it's existence, for unknown reasons they don't want to boast about superiority of Juche. It's unimportant to me how they built it, what I need to know how the world detects it without North Koreans spilling the beans. The story is told from the point of the world which is kept in dark. No defectors with knowledge about the plant is accessible to the journalists, [spy agencies](http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/12/its-scary-how-little-we-know-about-north-korea/46436/) etc. I placed this in North Korea because they're a closest thing to information black hole in this world and still have functional government. So please no hacking, defectors or careless public sources. The knowledge about plant is kept secret as the death of the previous dear leader. Would there be some kind of radiation or some other clue that would tip us off? (\*) The number of 4 gigawatts is arbitrary, any usable amount would do if that changes something

2016/10/15

We figure it out by the waste helium. Hydrogen - tritium fusion releases 4He, a neutron, and energy. 4He is ordinary, stable helium—the most common isotope, and it normally outnumbers the 2nd most common (3He) by about a million to one. There are two things that would aid detection: 1. Helium is lighter (less dense) than air. It rises. 2. Helium is quite rare. For both points, aerial "weather balloons" released by nearby nations could be rigged to monitor helium concentrations near North Korea (it's not even necessary to fly over North Korea, as prevailing winds will push the helium around to some extent). Detecting more helium than baseline would be a simple method that would strongly point to a functioning fusion reactor in North Korea. Analyzing the isotopes is somewhat harder, but could provide additional evidence, if one finds far more 4He than the normal ratio with 3He.

This is a very interesting topic even if the source of power wasn't a type of fusion but a breakthrough in coal power. North Korea has for years suffered from electrical power insufficiency. An economist or group like the IEA (International Energy Agency) would probably first suspect something is going on by seeing a shift in supply of electrical power but a decrease in demand for coal and hydro power, he/she/they would also include in this study/report about increases in the amount of light that is visible at night from the international space station and other artificial satellites. **Here are what I would consider the biggest signals of fusion power happening after I had read the economic report:** 1) There would be infrastructure built to accommodate for the large amount of radiated heat. 2) A spike in the demand for Lithium 3) Spikes in detection of Hydrogen 3 production (there may be a fission reactor used to produce Hydrogen 3 but hiding as a power plant) 4) Suspicious looking repositories for the waste North Korea would most likely do more to allow other countries like China and South Korea to invest in it's economy in order to maintain its now most valuable resource. They would probably see an economic boom like it did in 1999 maybe better. More interesting to me would be how it would hide the technology. I would suspect they would export a little of that power to China as well. So even if China didn't know that North Korea had fusion power, it would know that North Korea has an excess of electrical power. For starters try: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea#Power_and_energy> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium#Lithium-6>

I have a story where world finds out that North Koreans have built a fusion power plant that produces 4 gigawatts of electricity (\*) and they don't reveal it's existence, for unknown reasons they don't want to boast about superiority of Juche. It's unimportant to me how they built it, what I need to know how the world detects it without North Koreans spilling the beans. The story is told from the point of the world which is kept in dark. No defectors with knowledge about the plant is accessible to the journalists, [spy agencies](http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/12/its-scary-how-little-we-know-about-north-korea/46436/) etc. I placed this in North Korea because they're a closest thing to information black hole in this world and still have functional government. So please no hacking, defectors or careless public sources. The knowledge about plant is kept secret as the death of the previous dear leader. Would there be some kind of radiation or some other clue that would tip us off? (\*) The number of 4 gigawatts is arbitrary, any usable amount would do if that changes something

2016/10/15

Americans have spy satellites which examine infrared radiation. The upper limit for converting energy into work is the [Carnot cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle). The heat limit for refrigeration components from melting is at least thousand Fahrenheit, probably. So at the very least, 5% of all heat will be wasted... and it will be apparent that it is being wasted. Of course nuclear fusion has only proven to provide enough energy to power itself in the labs. Now as to how the US can detect fission power... well. It requires the nation to purchase nuclear materials. And a big nuclear looking building with a lot of cooling.

This is a very interesting topic even if the source of power wasn't a type of fusion but a breakthrough in coal power. North Korea has for years suffered from electrical power insufficiency. An economist or group like the IEA (International Energy Agency) would probably first suspect something is going on by seeing a shift in supply of electrical power but a decrease in demand for coal and hydro power, he/she/they would also include in this study/report about increases in the amount of light that is visible at night from the international space station and other artificial satellites. **Here are what I would consider the biggest signals of fusion power happening after I had read the economic report:** 1) There would be infrastructure built to accommodate for the large amount of radiated heat. 2) A spike in the demand for Lithium 3) Spikes in detection of Hydrogen 3 production (there may be a fission reactor used to produce Hydrogen 3 but hiding as a power plant) 4) Suspicious looking repositories for the waste North Korea would most likely do more to allow other countries like China and South Korea to invest in it's economy in order to maintain its now most valuable resource. They would probably see an economic boom like it did in 1999 maybe better. More interesting to me would be how it would hide the technology. I would suspect they would export a little of that power to China as well. So even if China didn't know that North Korea had fusion power, it would know that North Korea has an excess of electrical power. For starters try: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea#Power_and_energy> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium#Lithium-6>

This has been asked and answered before, but the answers are for the old interface (predating Google Drive), so I'm asking again. I have about a hundred docs in my Google Docs view, most of which are junk -- they were apparently shared by some other user, and I really don't want them. The only way I can see to remove them is one at a time, which takes maybe 10-15s each. That's an experience I'm not interested in having. I really only want to keep a handful of the documents, and I'd even be able to live with it if they had to go, too, but I'm finding Docs to be pretty useless with all the noise. **Edit:** Please stop trying to "solve" this problem for me on Google Drive. It's not a problem with Google Drive, and the files in question don't show up there at all. The problem is with Google *Docs* (<http://docs.google.com/>). There's no "inbox", there's no opportunity to "select" multiple files. The only controls are a little "hamburger" menu that lets me view "Docs", "Sheets", or "Slides", open a Settings page, get Help, or visit Drive, and some icons to switch between tiled and list views, change the sort order, or open the file picker, and an icon to create a new file.

2015/03/10

Unfortunately you cannot multi-select files from Docs (or Sheets or Slides) and delete them all at the same time. This kind of file management can only be done from Drive, but it sounds like you're having issues with that. 1. Here are some steps to [find missing files in Drive](https://support.google.com/drive/answer/1716222). 2. If you're still having problems, [contact the Drive support team](https://support.google.com/drive/answer/4431192) -- see the "Contact Us" section. 3. Finally, you can always send feedback about this to the team -- same link as above, see the "User Feedback" section.

You can highlight multiple docs at once using "command" + left click on Mac. I believe that correspond to "control" on PC. This will highlight multiple docs at once, and then you can click the trashcan which will delete all the selected files.

This has been asked and answered before, but the answers are for the old interface (predating Google Drive), so I'm asking again. I have about a hundred docs in my Google Docs view, most of which are junk -- they were apparently shared by some other user, and I really don't want them. The only way I can see to remove them is one at a time, which takes maybe 10-15s each. That's an experience I'm not interested in having. I really only want to keep a handful of the documents, and I'd even be able to live with it if they had to go, too, but I'm finding Docs to be pretty useless with all the noise. **Edit:** Please stop trying to "solve" this problem for me on Google Drive. It's not a problem with Google Drive, and the files in question don't show up there at all. The problem is with Google *Docs* (<http://docs.google.com/>). There's no "inbox", there's no opportunity to "select" multiple files. The only controls are a little "hamburger" menu that lets me view "Docs", "Sheets", or "Slides", open a Settings page, get Help, or visit Drive, and some icons to switch between tiled and list views, change the sort order, or open the file picker, and an icon to create a new file.

2015/03/10

Short anwser ============ Google Docs (<http://docs.google.com>) doesn't have a way to delete several files at once. Instead of using it for that use Google Drive web UI, Google Drive for PC/Mac or another tool that use the Google Drive API or Google Apps Script. Explanation =========== Operations in the new Google Docs "file management" web app are very limited. It could be used to: * Sort files * Filter files by owned by the user by owned not by the user or not filtered * Open Google Docs files through the file pickers * Delete single files * Rename single files but could not be used to select multiple files and do actions over the selected files at once.

You can highlight multiple docs at once using "command" + left click on Mac. I believe that correspond to "control" on PC. This will highlight multiple docs at once, and then you can click the trashcan which will delete all the selected files.