Datasets:

IndonesiaAI

/

cleaned-data-split-0

like 1

I work in a small but growing team of UX designers developing a suite of web applications. It's become obvious that we would benefit from a common pattern library, but are unsure how to get started or what tool we should use. We want something that we can collaborate on and also share with visual designers and developers - so adding detail such as notes, graphics and snippets of code would be useful. Has anyone had experience of building a library like this, do you have any tips or recommendations?

2011/07/12

We have put together our own Wiki-based pattern library that contains screenshots, descriptions of use-cases, and notes on variations of the element/widget. The intention of the library was to enforce standardized designs across the different applications. In this regard, it has been of limited success. I attribute this to: * Too many items: we made an attempt at defining every element we used across the applications. * Not enough information about each item: this is likely a result of the first point. There were details like sizing, relationships of elements in compound widgets, etc. that would have been helpful. Ultimately, it seems like we would have gotten better results from making sure we had a repository of fully realized and reusable code for most simple elements (buttons, dropdowns, etc.), combined with a fully detailed pattern library for more complex widgets (lightboxes, lookups, tables, etc.) that needed more explanation of use cases and that would be liable to have multiple variations.

This depends on the tools you're using. Usually you can create a master file placed in a shared location. I've seen this done with Powerpoint (just a ppt with elements), Visio (custom stencils), Axure RP (widget libraries / shared project) and Illustrator (don't know how it was done exactly).

I work in a small but growing team of UX designers developing a suite of web applications. It's become obvious that we would benefit from a common pattern library, but are unsure how to get started or what tool we should use. We want something that we can collaborate on and also share with visual designers and developers - so adding detail such as notes, graphics and snippets of code would be useful. Has anyone had experience of building a library like this, do you have any tips or recommendations?

2011/07/12

We have put together our own Wiki-based pattern library that contains screenshots, descriptions of use-cases, and notes on variations of the element/widget. The intention of the library was to enforce standardized designs across the different applications. In this regard, it has been of limited success. I attribute this to: * Too many items: we made an attempt at defining every element we used across the applications. * Not enough information about each item: this is likely a result of the first point. There were details like sizing, relationships of elements in compound widgets, etc. that would have been helpful. Ultimately, it seems like we would have gotten better results from making sure we had a repository of fully realized and reusable code for most simple elements (buttons, dropdowns, etc.), combined with a fully detailed pattern library for more complex widgets (lightboxes, lookups, tables, etc.) that needed more explanation of use cases and that would be liable to have multiple variations.

There's a market for this type of product. We've done a lot of research on it and haven't found one that really fits the bill yet. In the past two org's I've worked on, we've built skunkworks pattern/component libraries by hand...typically a loose mix of PHP includes. We're toying with the idea of building some custom WordPress components for the task. 'Officially' it's usually a mess of products. SharePoint to maintain wireframes. Perforce to maintain code snippets. Random PDFs scattered about with visual design spec's. Email boxes full of discussions. It's a real mess.

I work in a small but growing team of UX designers developing a suite of web applications. It's become obvious that we would benefit from a common pattern library, but are unsure how to get started or what tool we should use. We want something that we can collaborate on and also share with visual designers and developers - so adding detail such as notes, graphics and snippets of code would be useful. Has anyone had experience of building a library like this, do you have any tips or recommendations?

2011/07/12

There are several [design pattern repositories listed on Konigi web](http://konigi.com/wiki/design-pattern-repositories). From these, [Patternry](http://patternry.com/) allows you to create public and private collections of patterns.

There's a market for this type of product. We've done a lot of research on it and haven't found one that really fits the bill yet. In the past two org's I've worked on, we've built skunkworks pattern/component libraries by hand...typically a loose mix of PHP includes. We're toying with the idea of building some custom WordPress components for the task. 'Officially' it's usually a mess of products. SharePoint to maintain wireframes. Perforce to maintain code snippets. Random PDFs scattered about with visual design spec's. Email boxes full of discussions. It's a real mess.

I work in a small but growing team of UX designers developing a suite of web applications. It's become obvious that we would benefit from a common pattern library, but are unsure how to get started or what tool we should use. We want something that we can collaborate on and also share with visual designers and developers - so adding detail such as notes, graphics and snippets of code would be useful. Has anyone had experience of building a library like this, do you have any tips or recommendations?

2011/07/12

Internally here we use [confluence](http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/). One of our guys is in charge of keeping it in order, and we just all post use it as a way to reference the correct UI to use in a certain situation. That being said, we also use it as a discussion point when we believe an element is wrong or out-of-date.

There's a market for this type of product. We've done a lot of research on it and haven't found one that really fits the bill yet. In the past two org's I've worked on, we've built skunkworks pattern/component libraries by hand...typically a loose mix of PHP includes. We're toying with the idea of building some custom WordPress components for the task. 'Officially' it's usually a mess of products. SharePoint to maintain wireframes. Perforce to maintain code snippets. Random PDFs scattered about with visual design spec's. Email boxes full of discussions. It's a real mess.

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

Not as long as you might think, especially if the room is not tightly sealed. Bugs will eat a corpse pretty efficiently, even without animals. If you are looking for this to be some romantic scene because there isn't viscera, well, it's going to smell if it's been sealed, no matter what. Even if they are bones. The bed will be stained with the fluids of their bodies as well. Mummification might actually be better, but won't work if it's humid/not sealed tightly. The problem with bones is this: once flesh falls away, bones fall apart. They hold together when buried, because they are held together by the earth itself, but in the conditions you are talking about, the jaw bone generally falls away from the skull. Here are the factors you will need to consider, because these data points are crucial, and you can't get an answer without them: **Humidity** The higher the humidity, the less likely the corpses will mummify. **Temperature** Are there seasons? Is this a tropical area? The season in which they die will be a crucial factor. In high humidity and temperature, they can be reduced to bone in a matter of weeks with insects around. If any rats/small critters can get in, the hands and feet will likely be gone. And if there is any airflow at all, rats/critters will be highly motivated. I think, if you are going for romance, which is what it sounds like and you want realism, so I'd say--seal it tight to make some mummies. Mummies rule! Skeletons just can't keep it together! ;)

The rule of thumb is “100 degree-days to get bones”. I don't know what *degree* is measured from, but that should be a start for Google… And that turns up [this link](https://weather.com/science/news/flesh-bone-what-role-weather-plays-body-decomposition-20131031) which is a start. [This one, *The Rate of Decay in a Corpse*](http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/the-rate-of-decay-in-a-corpse.html) is more informative and provides the vocabulary you will need for further searching. Just skimming, the lack of rain or direct exposure and not being directly connected to the soil will reduce the decay rate. Depending on conditions you may bet a mummy and not a skelleton. So allow for **rats** or other wildlife to get in from a wooded area, as well as flys and beetles. That's the opposite of what you specified, so you can expect dessicated remains with nothing happening after flys. You might postulate specific carnivorous beetles, but really you wrote yourself into a corner. Where would the flesh hqve gone off to?

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

They discovered [Richard III's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England#Discovery_of_remains) bones a few years ago. Given that he died in 1485, bones do survive for around 5 centuries in soil. Flesh rots in air, bones desiccate. From what a quick Google search indicates, bones become powdery in air in around 50 years. That said, I would guess, given a lack of air movement, and no animals crushing them with their weight/gnawing on them, the bones should retain their shape indefinitely.

The rule of thumb is “100 degree-days to get bones”. I don't know what *degree* is measured from, but that should be a start for Google… And that turns up [this link](https://weather.com/science/news/flesh-bone-what-role-weather-plays-body-decomposition-20131031) which is a start. [This one, *The Rate of Decay in a Corpse*](http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/the-rate-of-decay-in-a-corpse.html) is more informative and provides the vocabulary you will need for further searching. Just skimming, the lack of rain or direct exposure and not being directly connected to the soil will reduce the decay rate. Depending on conditions you may bet a mummy and not a skelleton. So allow for **rats** or other wildlife to get in from a wooded area, as well as flys and beetles. That's the opposite of what you specified, so you can expect dessicated remains with nothing happening after flys. You might postulate specific carnivorous beetles, but really you wrote yourself into a corner. Where would the flesh hqve gone off to?

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

Okay, there's not much data on timescales of human bones decaying away to nothing, because we bury/ cremate our dead. Also when folk come across a pile of bones, they tend to phone the police. So you might have to look at studies of animal bones and extrapolate from that. The search term you'll need is [taphonomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taphonomy). That's the science of death and decay (and fossilisation). The stages of bone decay are as follows. This scale was invented by Dr Clive Trueman and is based on British chocolates and biscuits, so apologies to those not familiar with them. 1. Fresh bone. The bone is just like one you get from the butcher's for your dog. 2. The [Crunchie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crunchie#/media/File:Crunchie_bar.jpg). The bone has dried out but still has a smooth outer cortex. If you split it open it has a 'honeycomb' cellular structure, like in life. 3. The [Ripple](http://thecandybitch.com/galaxy-ripple/). The bone still looks normal from the outside, with the outer cortex still intact. However, inside it is starting to recrystallise. 4. The [Flake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flake_(chocolate_bar)). The outer cortex has gone and the recrystallisation is complete. The bone has a crumbly texture and will fall to pieces if you pick it up or handle it roughly. 5. The soggy digestive biscuit. The bone is reduced to lumps of mush. 6. Only a chemical analysis of the soil it was lying on can now detect that the bone was there at all. Not the same environment as your bones, but animal bones in Amboseli National Park [decayed beyond recognition in 10 to 15 years](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9669155&fileId=S0094837300005820). These bones are out in the open air. I'd say that's the fast end of the scale for bone disappearance. Here's another paper where bones in Amboselli [are there for at least 26 to 40 years](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clive_Trueman/publication/222557629_Mineralogical_and_compositional_changes_in_bones_exposed_on_soil_surfaces_in_Amboseli_National_Park_Kenya_Diagenetic_mechanisms_and_the_role_of_sediment_pore_fluids/links/02bfe50ffbfee2930f000000.pdf). This [paper on bone decay in different environments](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.2275/abstract) looks as if it has useful data, but you'll have to pay to get beyond the abstract. So, your case has humidity, which will speed bone decay as fungi and bacteria get at them, but is indoors, so it won't be as fast as the Amboseli examples. If it is tropical rainforest climate humidity things will decay a lot faster than cold, damp UK humidity. Given that there are caves full of ice age cave bear bones, your skeletons can survive for thousands of years if you want them to. Or crumble if that fits the story better.

The rule of thumb is “100 degree-days to get bones”. I don't know what *degree* is measured from, but that should be a start for Google… And that turns up [this link](https://weather.com/science/news/flesh-bone-what-role-weather-plays-body-decomposition-20131031) which is a start. [This one, *The Rate of Decay in a Corpse*](http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/the-rate-of-decay-in-a-corpse.html) is more informative and provides the vocabulary you will need for further searching. Just skimming, the lack of rain or direct exposure and not being directly connected to the soil will reduce the decay rate. Depending on conditions you may bet a mummy and not a skelleton. So allow for **rats** or other wildlife to get in from a wooded area, as well as flys and beetles. That's the opposite of what you specified, so you can expect dessicated remains with nothing happening after flys. You might postulate specific carnivorous beetles, but really you wrote yourself into a corner. Where would the flesh hqve gone off to?

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

It really depends on four things 1. how well sealed the room is, keeping rodents out is essential, they will eat bone just for the calcium. 2. the humidity, fungi can eat bone so you want it dry, light is likewise the enemy. 3. the temprature, if it is exposed to freezing and thawing the bones will powderize quite quickly. so it needs to be consistently above freezing or consistently below, dryness will also help. 4. how much anatomy the people finding them know, the more anatomy they know the worse off the bones can be. As long as only bacteria or small insects can get to it bones, and it is dry they may survive intact (identifiable) for 300 years as long as they do not go through to many freeze/thaw cycles. basically the better the conditions are for natural mummification the better they are for your bones. Your biggest problem is the tropical rain forest, the bones are gone unless they get buried, heck even your *buildings* are not going to survive that well in that environment. Bones a month sure, a hundred years highly unlikely. The more cave like the place they are they better they will survive in that climate. There is one way to preserve the bones, but they will not be easy to find afterwards. Guano can seal and preserve material in a similar fashion to amber, but you need to keep it away from the sun and it needs to build up quickly. so you need a lot of bats, possibly coming in through a hole in the roof to keep the rodent population non-existent and keep out the most destructive insects (ants and termites), for this same reason your building needs to be big. The downside is that your bones will then be buried, so unless your people are looking for them they will not find them. bones turning to dust requires a very dry environment, you need to keep biological activity to a minimum. I have handled fossilized mammoth bones in Wyoming and you could crush them with your hands and they were constantly flaking off bone. They were buried in almost 3 feet of natron soil in an extremely dry environment.

The rule of thumb is “100 degree-days to get bones”. I don't know what *degree* is measured from, but that should be a start for Google… And that turns up [this link](https://weather.com/science/news/flesh-bone-what-role-weather-plays-body-decomposition-20131031) which is a start. [This one, *The Rate of Decay in a Corpse*](http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/the-rate-of-decay-in-a-corpse.html) is more informative and provides the vocabulary you will need for further searching. Just skimming, the lack of rain or direct exposure and not being directly connected to the soil will reduce the decay rate. Depending on conditions you may bet a mummy and not a skelleton. So allow for **rats** or other wildlife to get in from a wooded area, as well as flys and beetles. That's the opposite of what you specified, so you can expect dessicated remains with nothing happening after flys. You might postulate specific carnivorous beetles, but really you wrote yourself into a corner. Where would the flesh hqve gone off to?

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

Not as long as you might think, especially if the room is not tightly sealed. Bugs will eat a corpse pretty efficiently, even without animals. If you are looking for this to be some romantic scene because there isn't viscera, well, it's going to smell if it's been sealed, no matter what. Even if they are bones. The bed will be stained with the fluids of their bodies as well. Mummification might actually be better, but won't work if it's humid/not sealed tightly. The problem with bones is this: once flesh falls away, bones fall apart. They hold together when buried, because they are held together by the earth itself, but in the conditions you are talking about, the jaw bone generally falls away from the skull. Here are the factors you will need to consider, because these data points are crucial, and you can't get an answer without them: **Humidity** The higher the humidity, the less likely the corpses will mummify. **Temperature** Are there seasons? Is this a tropical area? The season in which they die will be a crucial factor. In high humidity and temperature, they can be reduced to bone in a matter of weeks with insects around. If any rats/small critters can get in, the hands and feet will likely be gone. And if there is any airflow at all, rats/critters will be highly motivated. I think, if you are going for romance, which is what it sounds like and you want realism, so I'd say--seal it tight to make some mummies. Mummies rule! Skeletons just can't keep it together! ;)

They discovered [Richard III's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England#Discovery_of_remains) bones a few years ago. Given that he died in 1485, bones do survive for around 5 centuries in soil. Flesh rots in air, bones desiccate. From what a quick Google search indicates, bones become powdery in air in around 50 years. That said, I would guess, given a lack of air movement, and no animals crushing them with their weight/gnawing on them, the bones should retain their shape indefinitely.

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

Okay, there's not much data on timescales of human bones decaying away to nothing, because we bury/ cremate our dead. Also when folk come across a pile of bones, they tend to phone the police. So you might have to look at studies of animal bones and extrapolate from that. The search term you'll need is [taphonomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taphonomy). That's the science of death and decay (and fossilisation). The stages of bone decay are as follows. This scale was invented by Dr Clive Trueman and is based on British chocolates and biscuits, so apologies to those not familiar with them. 1. Fresh bone. The bone is just like one you get from the butcher's for your dog. 2. The [Crunchie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crunchie#/media/File:Crunchie_bar.jpg). The bone has dried out but still has a smooth outer cortex. If you split it open it has a 'honeycomb' cellular structure, like in life. 3. The [Ripple](http://thecandybitch.com/galaxy-ripple/). The bone still looks normal from the outside, with the outer cortex still intact. However, inside it is starting to recrystallise. 4. The [Flake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flake_(chocolate_bar)). The outer cortex has gone and the recrystallisation is complete. The bone has a crumbly texture and will fall to pieces if you pick it up or handle it roughly. 5. The soggy digestive biscuit. The bone is reduced to lumps of mush. 6. Only a chemical analysis of the soil it was lying on can now detect that the bone was there at all. Not the same environment as your bones, but animal bones in Amboseli National Park [decayed beyond recognition in 10 to 15 years](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9669155&fileId=S0094837300005820). These bones are out in the open air. I'd say that's the fast end of the scale for bone disappearance. Here's another paper where bones in Amboselli [are there for at least 26 to 40 years](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clive_Trueman/publication/222557629_Mineralogical_and_compositional_changes_in_bones_exposed_on_soil_surfaces_in_Amboseli_National_Park_Kenya_Diagenetic_mechanisms_and_the_role_of_sediment_pore_fluids/links/02bfe50ffbfee2930f000000.pdf). This [paper on bone decay in different environments](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.2275/abstract) looks as if it has useful data, but you'll have to pay to get beyond the abstract. So, your case has humidity, which will speed bone decay as fungi and bacteria get at them, but is indoors, so it won't be as fast as the Amboseli examples. If it is tropical rainforest climate humidity things will decay a lot faster than cold, damp UK humidity. Given that there are caves full of ice age cave bear bones, your skeletons can survive for thousands of years if you want them to. Or crumble if that fits the story better.

Not as long as you might think, especially if the room is not tightly sealed. Bugs will eat a corpse pretty efficiently, even without animals. If you are looking for this to be some romantic scene because there isn't viscera, well, it's going to smell if it's been sealed, no matter what. Even if they are bones. The bed will be stained with the fluids of their bodies as well. Mummification might actually be better, but won't work if it's humid/not sealed tightly. The problem with bones is this: once flesh falls away, bones fall apart. They hold together when buried, because they are held together by the earth itself, but in the conditions you are talking about, the jaw bone generally falls away from the skull. Here are the factors you will need to consider, because these data points are crucial, and you can't get an answer without them: **Humidity** The higher the humidity, the less likely the corpses will mummify. **Temperature** Are there seasons? Is this a tropical area? The season in which they die will be a crucial factor. In high humidity and temperature, they can be reduced to bone in a matter of weeks with insects around. If any rats/small critters can get in, the hands and feet will likely be gone. And if there is any airflow at all, rats/critters will be highly motivated. I think, if you are going for romance, which is what it sounds like and you want realism, so I'd say--seal it tight to make some mummies. Mummies rule! Skeletons just can't keep it together! ;)

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

Not as long as you might think, especially if the room is not tightly sealed. Bugs will eat a corpse pretty efficiently, even without animals. If you are looking for this to be some romantic scene because there isn't viscera, well, it's going to smell if it's been sealed, no matter what. Even if they are bones. The bed will be stained with the fluids of their bodies as well. Mummification might actually be better, but won't work if it's humid/not sealed tightly. The problem with bones is this: once flesh falls away, bones fall apart. They hold together when buried, because they are held together by the earth itself, but in the conditions you are talking about, the jaw bone generally falls away from the skull. Here are the factors you will need to consider, because these data points are crucial, and you can't get an answer without them: **Humidity** The higher the humidity, the less likely the corpses will mummify. **Temperature** Are there seasons? Is this a tropical area? The season in which they die will be a crucial factor. In high humidity and temperature, they can be reduced to bone in a matter of weeks with insects around. If any rats/small critters can get in, the hands and feet will likely be gone. And if there is any airflow at all, rats/critters will be highly motivated. I think, if you are going for romance, which is what it sounds like and you want realism, so I'd say--seal it tight to make some mummies. Mummies rule! Skeletons just can't keep it together! ;)

It really depends on four things 1. how well sealed the room is, keeping rodents out is essential, they will eat bone just for the calcium. 2. the humidity, fungi can eat bone so you want it dry, light is likewise the enemy. 3. the temprature, if it is exposed to freezing and thawing the bones will powderize quite quickly. so it needs to be consistently above freezing or consistently below, dryness will also help. 4. how much anatomy the people finding them know, the more anatomy they know the worse off the bones can be. As long as only bacteria or small insects can get to it bones, and it is dry they may survive intact (identifiable) for 300 years as long as they do not go through to many freeze/thaw cycles. basically the better the conditions are for natural mummification the better they are for your bones. Your biggest problem is the tropical rain forest, the bones are gone unless they get buried, heck even your *buildings* are not going to survive that well in that environment. Bones a month sure, a hundred years highly unlikely. The more cave like the place they are they better they will survive in that climate. There is one way to preserve the bones, but they will not be easy to find afterwards. Guano can seal and preserve material in a similar fashion to amber, but you need to keep it away from the sun and it needs to build up quickly. so you need a lot of bats, possibly coming in through a hole in the roof to keep the rodent population non-existent and keep out the most destructive insects (ants and termites), for this same reason your building needs to be big. The downside is that your bones will then be buried, so unless your people are looking for them they will not find them. bones turning to dust requires a very dry environment, you need to keep biological activity to a minimum. I have handled fossilized mammoth bones in Wyoming and you could crush them with your hands and they were constantly flaking off bone. They were buried in almost 3 feet of natron soil in an extremely dry environment.

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

Okay, there's not much data on timescales of human bones decaying away to nothing, because we bury/ cremate our dead. Also when folk come across a pile of bones, they tend to phone the police. So you might have to look at studies of animal bones and extrapolate from that. The search term you'll need is [taphonomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taphonomy). That's the science of death and decay (and fossilisation). The stages of bone decay are as follows. This scale was invented by Dr Clive Trueman and is based on British chocolates and biscuits, so apologies to those not familiar with them. 1. Fresh bone. The bone is just like one you get from the butcher's for your dog. 2. The [Crunchie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crunchie#/media/File:Crunchie_bar.jpg). The bone has dried out but still has a smooth outer cortex. If you split it open it has a 'honeycomb' cellular structure, like in life. 3. The [Ripple](http://thecandybitch.com/galaxy-ripple/). The bone still looks normal from the outside, with the outer cortex still intact. However, inside it is starting to recrystallise. 4. The [Flake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flake_(chocolate_bar)). The outer cortex has gone and the recrystallisation is complete. The bone has a crumbly texture and will fall to pieces if you pick it up or handle it roughly. 5. The soggy digestive biscuit. The bone is reduced to lumps of mush. 6. Only a chemical analysis of the soil it was lying on can now detect that the bone was there at all. Not the same environment as your bones, but animal bones in Amboseli National Park [decayed beyond recognition in 10 to 15 years](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9669155&fileId=S0094837300005820). These bones are out in the open air. I'd say that's the fast end of the scale for bone disappearance. Here's another paper where bones in Amboselli [are there for at least 26 to 40 years](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clive_Trueman/publication/222557629_Mineralogical_and_compositional_changes_in_bones_exposed_on_soil_surfaces_in_Amboseli_National_Park_Kenya_Diagenetic_mechanisms_and_the_role_of_sediment_pore_fluids/links/02bfe50ffbfee2930f000000.pdf). This [paper on bone decay in different environments](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.2275/abstract) looks as if it has useful data, but you'll have to pay to get beyond the abstract. So, your case has humidity, which will speed bone decay as fungi and bacteria get at them, but is indoors, so it won't be as fast as the Amboseli examples. If it is tropical rainforest climate humidity things will decay a lot faster than cold, damp UK humidity. Given that there are caves full of ice age cave bear bones, your skeletons can survive for thousands of years if you want them to. Or crumble if that fits the story better.

They discovered [Richard III's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England#Discovery_of_remains) bones a few years ago. Given that he died in 1485, bones do survive for around 5 centuries in soil. Flesh rots in air, bones desiccate. From what a quick Google search indicates, bones become powdery in air in around 50 years. That said, I would guess, given a lack of air movement, and no animals crushing them with their weight/gnawing on them, the bones should retain their shape indefinitely.

From death to brittleness? Two bodies, on a bed, in an embrace. Windows and doors closed, so little to no air and light, but not completely air/light tight. No scavenger animals/rodents, but bugs would obviously be present. Humid (tropical rain-forest) environment. The aim is to have my characters stumble across this old castle, and find the bones of two people on the bed. I don't care if the bones are touched they would fall to dust, or if they are moved slightly/disturbed by bugs, or even if some of the bones are dust already, as long as it can be made out that its two skeletons embraced together. (and if not clearly embraced, its at least clear that its two skeletons) (i know "dust" isn't the appropriate term here, but you get what I mean?) How many years could this take? Thankyou EDIT: Just wanted to re-iterate, I don't so much care about the decomposing bodily fluids and flesh. I know that will decompose and be eaten by bugs and will stain the sheets upon decomposition. I know that mummification is out, as of the humidity. I'm wanting to know what happens to the BONES well after the process of rotting flesh is done. I know the joints wont stay together, and I know that the bugs will move the bones around a bit if they are eating the flesh. But say that, after a month or so of the people being dead, their bones would still be on the bed, and it would be obvious that two people were on the bed together, even if not embracing? how long would it take before their bones became so fragile and brittle that they would turn to "dust." or upon discovery of the bones, and disturbing the bones, would they disintegrate to dust upon a rush or air or a touch of hand?

2016/07/31

Okay, there's not much data on timescales of human bones decaying away to nothing, because we bury/ cremate our dead. Also when folk come across a pile of bones, they tend to phone the police. So you might have to look at studies of animal bones and extrapolate from that. The search term you'll need is [taphonomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taphonomy). That's the science of death and decay (and fossilisation). The stages of bone decay are as follows. This scale was invented by Dr Clive Trueman and is based on British chocolates and biscuits, so apologies to those not familiar with them. 1. Fresh bone. The bone is just like one you get from the butcher's for your dog. 2. The [Crunchie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crunchie#/media/File:Crunchie_bar.jpg). The bone has dried out but still has a smooth outer cortex. If you split it open it has a 'honeycomb' cellular structure, like in life. 3. The [Ripple](http://thecandybitch.com/galaxy-ripple/). The bone still looks normal from the outside, with the outer cortex still intact. However, inside it is starting to recrystallise. 4. The [Flake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flake_(chocolate_bar)). The outer cortex has gone and the recrystallisation is complete. The bone has a crumbly texture and will fall to pieces if you pick it up or handle it roughly. 5. The soggy digestive biscuit. The bone is reduced to lumps of mush. 6. Only a chemical analysis of the soil it was lying on can now detect that the bone was there at all. Not the same environment as your bones, but animal bones in Amboseli National Park [decayed beyond recognition in 10 to 15 years](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9669155&fileId=S0094837300005820). These bones are out in the open air. I'd say that's the fast end of the scale for bone disappearance. Here's another paper where bones in Amboselli [are there for at least 26 to 40 years](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clive_Trueman/publication/222557629_Mineralogical_and_compositional_changes_in_bones_exposed_on_soil_surfaces_in_Amboseli_National_Park_Kenya_Diagenetic_mechanisms_and_the_role_of_sediment_pore_fluids/links/02bfe50ffbfee2930f000000.pdf). This [paper on bone decay in different environments](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.2275/abstract) looks as if it has useful data, but you'll have to pay to get beyond the abstract. So, your case has humidity, which will speed bone decay as fungi and bacteria get at them, but is indoors, so it won't be as fast as the Amboseli examples. If it is tropical rainforest climate humidity things will decay a lot faster than cold, damp UK humidity. Given that there are caves full of ice age cave bear bones, your skeletons can survive for thousands of years if you want them to. Or crumble if that fits the story better.

It really depends on four things 1. how well sealed the room is, keeping rodents out is essential, they will eat bone just for the calcium. 2. the humidity, fungi can eat bone so you want it dry, light is likewise the enemy. 3. the temprature, if it is exposed to freezing and thawing the bones will powderize quite quickly. so it needs to be consistently above freezing or consistently below, dryness will also help. 4. how much anatomy the people finding them know, the more anatomy they know the worse off the bones can be. As long as only bacteria or small insects can get to it bones, and it is dry they may survive intact (identifiable) for 300 years as long as they do not go through to many freeze/thaw cycles. basically the better the conditions are for natural mummification the better they are for your bones. Your biggest problem is the tropical rain forest, the bones are gone unless they get buried, heck even your *buildings* are not going to survive that well in that environment. Bones a month sure, a hundred years highly unlikely. The more cave like the place they are they better they will survive in that climate. There is one way to preserve the bones, but they will not be easy to find afterwards. Guano can seal and preserve material in a similar fashion to amber, but you need to keep it away from the sun and it needs to build up quickly. so you need a lot of bats, possibly coming in through a hole in the roof to keep the rodent population non-existent and keep out the most destructive insects (ants and termites), for this same reason your building needs to be big. The downside is that your bones will then be buried, so unless your people are looking for them they will not find them. bones turning to dust requires a very dry environment, you need to keep biological activity to a minimum. I have handled fossilized mammoth bones in Wyoming and you could crush them with your hands and they were constantly flaking off bone. They were buried in almost 3 feet of natron soil in an extremely dry environment.

I need a web based project management software. It should basically have: * Issue tracker * Wiki (not mandatory) * Git integration * Progress It should be open source and I should be able to install it onto my server. Currently, I have found the following options : * [ProjeQtOr](http://www.projeqtor.org/) * [MyCollab](http://community.mycollab.com/) Is there anyone who tested one of those software? I'm also open to any other suggestion.

2014/10/22

I'd recommend using **[Trac](http://trac.edgewall.org/)** (for details and screenshots, see my answers [here](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/7501/185) and [here](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/1560/185). Trac fulfills all your requirements listed: * **Issue tracker:** Yes. * **Wiki:** Yes. * **GIT integration:** Yes, also other VCSs as e.g. SVN or Mercurial are supported. For Git, there's even integration with Github. * **Progress:** Yes, via multiple plugins you can even chose what fits you best. * **Self-hosted:** Definitely, that's what I use. Requirements are at least Python and a web server supporting Python; setup is not that difficult using Apache. A setup [guide for use with SVN can be found on my server](http://www.izzysoft.de/software/ifaqmaker.php?id=1). You can skip the SVN part and take a look at [Installing Trac](http://www.izzysoft.de/software/ifaqmaker.php?id=1;toc=1;topic=trac_install) and [Useful Trac resources](http://www.izzysoft.de/software/ifaqmaker.php?id=1;toc=1;topic=trac_resources). I'm sure there are guides for setting up Trac with Git as well, and probably even more up-to-date ones at that (mine is already a little outdated).

There are various options out there: Gitlab, Redmine, Launchpad, and [others](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software). Out of all of these, I have the best experience with **GitLab**, which is used by the likes of the **GNOME project and F-Droid**. (According to Wikipedia, other users include IBM, Sony, Jülich Research Center, NASA, Alibaba, Invincea, O’Reilly Media, Leibniz-Rechenzentrum (LRZ), CERN, European XFEL, and SpaceX) As for your needs: * Issue tracker: yes * Wiki (not mandatory): yes * Git integration: yes * Progress: I think so--see if [milestones](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/milestones/) meet your needs * Open-source: yes * Can self-host: yes

i have a javascript file about 6000+ lines of codes created by myself. Now it has functions for different sections of my site.. Now what i want to ask is that should i use that large file or divide it in parts for respective sections and call it in respective section.

2011/03/22

I would suggest using 1 large one, as that requires only 1 http request. And with the right server setup it is only loaded once as it becomes cached.

It depends on how much the HTTP request cost is Vs. how likely a visitor is to access one of the sections with specific JS Vs. how much bandwidth is saved for the other pages.

i have a javascript file about 6000+ lines of codes created by myself. Now it has functions for different sections of my site.. Now what i want to ask is that should i use that large file or divide it in parts for respective sections and call it in respective section.

2011/03/22

I would suggest using 1 large one, as that requires only 1 http request. And with the right server setup it is only loaded once as it becomes cached.

If it's just a question of serving the file, then one large one is almost definitely better, particularly if your server has gzip compression turned on (which it should). However, you might also want to break the file up into smaller parts to improve the readability and maintainability aspects of the code. In such a case you might still want to serve out the entire script in a single request, which you can do with a custom servlet (or other comparable bit of server-side logic) that concatenates all the parts together and sends the result to the client.

i have a javascript file about 6000+ lines of codes created by myself. Now it has functions for different sections of my site.. Now what i want to ask is that should i use that large file or divide it in parts for respective sections and call it in respective section.

2011/03/22

I would suggest using 1 large one, as that requires only 1 http request. And with the right server setup it is only loaded once as it becomes cached.

Lately, it appears as if the best approach is to split it up into smaller files and load only the needed ones, in parallell, using some kind of JS loader (like [Head JS](http://headjs.com) for example; click the link and scroll down to the headline "Combining scripts" to read more about the performance difference). Another possible loader to use would be [RequireJS](http://requirejs.org/).

i have a javascript file about 6000+ lines of codes created by myself. Now it has functions for different sections of my site.. Now what i want to ask is that should i use that large file or divide it in parts for respective sections and call it in respective section.

2011/03/22

It depends on how much the HTTP request cost is Vs. how likely a visitor is to access one of the sections with specific JS Vs. how much bandwidth is saved for the other pages.

If it's just a question of serving the file, then one large one is almost definitely better, particularly if your server has gzip compression turned on (which it should). However, you might also want to break the file up into smaller parts to improve the readability and maintainability aspects of the code. In such a case you might still want to serve out the entire script in a single request, which you can do with a custom servlet (or other comparable bit of server-side logic) that concatenates all the parts together and sends the result to the client.

i have a javascript file about 6000+ lines of codes created by myself. Now it has functions for different sections of my site.. Now what i want to ask is that should i use that large file or divide it in parts for respective sections and call it in respective section.

2011/03/22

It depends on how much the HTTP request cost is Vs. how likely a visitor is to access one of the sections with specific JS Vs. how much bandwidth is saved for the other pages.

Lately, it appears as if the best approach is to split it up into smaller files and load only the needed ones, in parallell, using some kind of JS loader (like [Head JS](http://headjs.com) for example; click the link and scroll down to the headline "Combining scripts" to read more about the performance difference). Another possible loader to use would be [RequireJS](http://requirejs.org/).

I know you get 2 set pieces in the new season for reaching level 70, what else do you have to do to get the other 4 pieces? Can you get a free set again if you complete the parameters with a new character?

2016/01/21

You get two more set pieces for completing the Chapter 4 objective "Mercy" (Defeat Zoltan Kulle on Torment II) and two pieces for completing the Chapter 4 objective "Great Expectations" (Complete a Level 20 Greater Rift solo).

As yuuki didn't answer this: **NO**, you can't get the items on other characters.

I started building an app under an individual developer account. In preparing to beta and release this I'm switching over to a new company account. I'm trying to prepare a checklist of the things I will need to update in order to move the project over to the new account. * Install new development certificate and profile * Change bundle identifier in the -info.plist to match the new app ID * In project build settings change code signing identify Appreciate any words of wisdom from others who may have gone through a similar process or pointers to other questions that address this.

2010/10/15

Here is my checklist in addition to your list: * Change Version of your app to 1.0 in case if this is your first time you submit the app. If it's an update make sure it has higher version number than the one on app store * Add Code Signing Entitlement file to the project * Remove debug code like NSLog * Build the App store distribution. Actually there is a guide for this <https://developer.apple.com/ios/manage/distribution/index.action> * Remember to keep the dSYM file that generated along with the .app file so that you can symbolicate the crash log later. * I don't know if that happen to everyone. But before you zip your binary file (.app file) make sure that the file name of the binary file don't have any special character, best to leave it as alphabet only, since it does not affect anything. * Zip your binary file * Submit to appstore using app uploader utility. That what I remember. Correct me If I'm wrong. Hope this help:).

Make sure to clear your Mac user account's Keychain of all old certificates (or use a different Mac User account), clear the Xcode Organizer of all old provisions and then quit and restart Xcode, and delete all old provisions off of your device (Edit: you can keep the old provisions if they are named differently and are for different app IDs). Also make sure to register the new app ID in the provisioning portal and create and download new mobileprovisions.

I have various devices to connect to my iMac using good-old RS-232. Of course, I only have USB connectors on my machine. I have a couple of Prolific PL2303-based cables, and they seem to work OK, but the kext provided seems a little flaky and I'm not sure about long-term support. What is the most-stable, best-supported USB-Serial chip-set or cable?

2011/03/05

I have two Prolific USB-to-serial adapters but they are made by different Vendors (one is Prolific, the other ATEN). I've used their supplied drivers just fine. Note that there are open source drivers for these devices too available here: <https://github.com/failberg/osx-pl2303> FYI my use case is actually patching them through to a VirtualBox Windows VM and using them in Windows, so I have two layers of drivers and have not had any problems yet. However, I think the best supported USB-to-serial devices are those made by Belkin. This is subjective, but I've used them for years without problem, and they are a large company with a reputation. They will likely be around in the future.

Just to be clear, **I have not used this device myself.** Stewart Cheshire, creator of ZeroConf (the basis of Bonjour), gave a Google Tech Talk on the subject of ZeroConf, and presented a couple of embedded devices (Cameras, and an RS-232 unit). I've always wanted to try this out, but have never had a good enough use to cough up the money to do so. Stewart presented an RS-232 over Ethernet module from [SitePlayer](http://netmedia.com/siteplayer/telnet/index.html). They have a built in web interface used to set up the ethernet and serial parameters, and if I understand correctly, you simply telnet to the device's IP address in order to be presented with the serial interface. (See their [pdf](http://netmedia.com/siteplayer/telnet/documents/SitePlayer%20Telnet.pdf) on the subject.)

I have various devices to connect to my iMac using good-old RS-232. Of course, I only have USB connectors on my machine. I have a couple of Prolific PL2303-based cables, and they seem to work OK, but the kext provided seems a little flaky and I'm not sure about long-term support. What is the most-stable, best-supported USB-Serial chip-set or cable?

2011/03/05

I have two Prolific USB-to-serial adapters but they are made by different Vendors (one is Prolific, the other ATEN). I've used their supplied drivers just fine. Note that there are open source drivers for these devices too available here: <https://github.com/failberg/osx-pl2303> FYI my use case is actually patching them through to a VirtualBox Windows VM and using them in Windows, so I have two layers of drivers and have not had any problems yet. However, I think the best supported USB-to-serial devices are those made by Belkin. This is subjective, but I've used them for years without problem, and they are a large company with a reputation. They will likely be around in the future.

Both Prolific PL2303 and FTDI devices work fine. I'm using a TrendNET TU-S9 v2 currently (PL-2303). Other than the vendor provided driver or driver from Prolific's Taiwan website, options include <https://www.mac-usb-serial.com> (fairly inexpensive driver), and the nice Mac app <https://www.decisivetactics.com/products/serial/> (not free but works well) which has built-in drivers and doesn't require a separate driver installation. I have also seen claims that FTDI drivers are built into MacOS now but haven't personally tested since I don't have a FTDI device. One thing to be aware of - to connect to PC's and certain PC-like devices with serial ports (some routers/firewalls etc) you need a null modem adaptor or null modem cable between your USB-serial device and the PC/device you're connecting to, usually with female-female connectors.

I have various devices to connect to my iMac using good-old RS-232. Of course, I only have USB connectors on my machine. I have a couple of Prolific PL2303-based cables, and they seem to work OK, but the kext provided seems a little flaky and I'm not sure about long-term support. What is the most-stable, best-supported USB-Serial chip-set or cable?

2011/03/05

Just to be clear, **I have not used this device myself.** Stewart Cheshire, creator of ZeroConf (the basis of Bonjour), gave a Google Tech Talk on the subject of ZeroConf, and presented a couple of embedded devices (Cameras, and an RS-232 unit). I've always wanted to try this out, but have never had a good enough use to cough up the money to do so. Stewart presented an RS-232 over Ethernet module from [SitePlayer](http://netmedia.com/siteplayer/telnet/index.html). They have a built in web interface used to set up the ethernet and serial parameters, and if I understand correctly, you simply telnet to the device's IP address in order to be presented with the serial interface. (See their [pdf](http://netmedia.com/siteplayer/telnet/documents/SitePlayer%20Telnet.pdf) on the subject.)

Both Prolific PL2303 and FTDI devices work fine. I'm using a TrendNET TU-S9 v2 currently (PL-2303). Other than the vendor provided driver or driver from Prolific's Taiwan website, options include <https://www.mac-usb-serial.com> (fairly inexpensive driver), and the nice Mac app <https://www.decisivetactics.com/products/serial/> (not free but works well) which has built-in drivers and doesn't require a separate driver installation. I have also seen claims that FTDI drivers are built into MacOS now but haven't personally tested since I don't have a FTDI device. One thing to be aware of - to connect to PC's and certain PC-like devices with serial ports (some routers/firewalls etc) you need a null modem adaptor or null modem cable between your USB-serial device and the PC/device you're connecting to, usually with female-female connectors.

In my [previous question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/234454/i-designed-a-maglev-space-propulsion-tube-on-mt-everest-do-you-see-any-issues), I was discussing about the possibility of using a mass-driver on Mt. Everest, to propel payloads to space, and reduce the amount of fuel needed (RIP bulky rockets). A diagram below of my former design:[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g18Ua.png) However, there was a ton of issues with this design: * Dangling a tube from a balloon is a really risky idea as the balloon can be torn apart by the wind and jet-stream on top of Mt. Everest. This could result in collapse of the structure. Firing a payload is even worse, as a tube that is dangling could suddenly jerk and tear the balloon cord, with catastrophic consequences. * The Himalayas are an earthquake zone. The structure would break apart during earthquakes. * Even if you managed not to exceed 3-4gs acceleration, then the curve above the ground could cause a dramatic acceleration spike, this can lead to serious consequences for astronauts. * Mass drivers may work on airless planets like Moon and Mercury, but on Earth, the air is thick enough to burn the payload long before it attained orbit. So, after a lot of thoughts, and ideas, I came up with a grander and more realistic design for the **Mt. Everest Maglev Accelerator**, this time with no ridiculous balloons, or spikes. So here is the design and its principles. Design ======= * This design consists of a large tube that is erected on giant graphene rods about 10 inches wide in diameter. This provides immense strength, as graphene is strong enough not to crush its base and be rigid. * This design is a **ring-gun magnet** type accelerator. This means that the magnets are placed in rings that have the same poles facing the track. The interior of the tube would look sort of like this:[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B7wYE.png) * Cross-section of propulsion tube.[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FIksn.png) * The ring-magnets are still permanent and have a greater strength of 10 teslas. They are not electromagnets. * The payload itself is attached with ring-magnets with like poles, i.e. south pole facing outwards. This generates strong repulsion that propel the rocket at high speeds. The ring-magnet themselves are reusable, they are detached from the payload, and fall back to earth, whereas the payload will gain even more momentum, due to conservation of I-can't-remember, as the ring-magnets are detached. * The tube viewed above from ground, looks sort of like this. (Apologies, I am crappy at photoshop, so this is the best depiction I can make). It is about 30 km tall, and stretches into the lower stratosphere. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LxKJ0.jpg) * The tube's actual length is however astounding. It is about 500 km long, and is mostly built underground. It is made of titanium in order to withstand the stress and pressure from the weight of the mountains above it, and withstands earthquakes. * The curve of the tube is gradual instead of sudden, as to prevent "jerks"(i.e. sudden high-Gs) Principles =========== The aim of the ~~mass driver~~ Maglev Accelerator is to make it travel so fast, that it won't have time to burn up in the atmosphere. I mean literally fast. The payload's velocity upon exiting the barrel is about 60-70 km/s (yes, Kms per second). The idea came from the [Plumbbob Pascal-B Borecap](https://www.businessinsider.com/fastest-object-robert-brownlee-2016-2?IR=T#since-then-brownlees-concludedit-was-going-too-fast-to-burn-up-before-reaching-outer-spaceafter-i-was-in-the-business-and-did-my-own-missile-launches-he-said-i-realized-that-that-piece-of-iron-didnt-have-time-to-burn-all-the-way-up-in-the-atmosphere-14), where it was theorised that it was moving so fast that it had literally no time to burn up in the atmosphere before reaching space. Although this would mean that the payload is moving too fast for it to be able to remain in orbit (about 6x Earth's Escape Velocity), that is not a problem as this accelerator is meant for interplanetary journey, such as travelling to Saturn, Mars and Moon. I will discuss a **orbit-grade accelerator** in a future question, but for now, this accelerator cannot be used for orbiting payloads. The reason why I am using Mt. Everest and not Chimborazo for the accelerator, is that Mt. Everest is actually closer to space than Chimborazo is. This may seem odd, but Mt. Everest's 9km height makes it closer to space than Chimborazo's 6km is. Although Earth being oblate makes Chimborazo cheat and get "taller" technically, Everest is still the victor, as the atmosphere is oblate like the Earth. The air pressure at the top of Mt. Chimborazo is just that at sea-level, whereas the air at the top of Mt. Everest is literally a partial vacuum, with just over a third that at sea-level. Everest's great height also provides structural support to the colossal accelerator to reach the required velocity. **Is this design more better for propelling payloads/passengers to space? If no, then what flaws do I have to fix?** Clarifications: * No, this accelerator is absolutely not used for orbital journeys. This accelerator is used for interplanetary journeys, such as Earth-Mars, or Earth-Saturn journeys Note: I'd like to avoid extended discussions in comments, as I have created [a chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/140455/mt-everest-maglev-accelerator-v2) for this question.

2022/11/06

Though I don't see any reference to it in this question or your previous one, you should probably read about [StarTram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram), because it was a project that considers many of the same things you're looking at. The StarTram authors used to have all their interesting stuff available for free on their website, but the main ebook is now paid-only. StarTram uses an evacuated tube with a "conventional" superconducting electromagnetic accelerator. Here's a diagram that looks a little like your own: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvRna.png) The Gen 1 design, which has the muzzle of the accelerator at the top of a suitable mountain, is intended for cargo only as it has a 30G peak acceleration and a 6-12G peak decelleration when it hits the atmosphere upon exiting the muzzle. It uses a clever [plasma window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window) to maintain vacuum in the tube but still allow the projectile to egress the accelerator. It comes out at near orbital velocity, requiring some small boost rockets (<1km/s delta-V) to finish the job. The Gen 2 design uses a somewhat gonzo electromagnetic repulsion architecture using massive supercondcting cables. I won't regurgitate the exact details of this here, but suffice to say that the authors were well aware that massive scaffolding structures and balloons can't work. Whether or not their solution would is something I won't consider here. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FwDdt.png) (image credit [NASA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Startramgeneration2.jpg)) > > The high altitude evacuated launch tube has a set of high current superconducting (SC) cables that magnetically interact with a second set of high current SC cables on the surface beneath to create a magnet levitation force of several metric tons per meter of tube length. The levitation force is greater than the weight of the launch tube plus its SC cables and tethers, resulting in a net upward force on the structure. In turn, the levitated structure is anchored to the ground by a network of high tensile strength, lightweight Kevlar or Spectra tethers > > > So, now I've shown you the competition, lets look at the details of your design. 1. Permanent magnet accelerator I can't see that this could ever work, even if you could get powerful enough permanent magnets (you probably can't) in sufficient quantity (you probably can't) that are light enough for your 30km high suspended section to work (almost certainly no). Just use a superconducting electromagnetic accelerator... it is something that could conceivably be built with present-day technology, after all. 2. Giant graphene rods Graphene has excellent tensile strength, but its compressive strength is less exciting, and a 30km tall tower that needs to withstand launch stresses and weather patterns is a fearsome undertaking to say the least. Other answers already go into more detail on this matter, but if you want a structure this tall then it needs to be suspended by some other means. I won't go into detail on this here, but maybe you could ask another question? 3. 60km/s muzzle velocity Brownlee lamented the commonly repeated story of the Pascal B test, because it resulted in a lot of people mocking his terrible understanding of aerodynamics. He just estimated the speed of the cap, but made no claims about it getting into space, and assumed it was vaporized in the lower atmosphere. Anyway, that niggle aside, I'm not sure you've necessarily consider the effects of hitting the atmosphere, even at 30km, at that sort of speed. Sure, the projectile will not be in the atmosphere for long, but not being there long enough to slow down below orbital velocity or burn up is not the same as being safe for the cargo. The initial forces on leaving the muzzle of the accelerator are too difficult for me to calculate, but I'm pretty certain they'll be extremely unpleasant if not outright dangerous. I'm not going to commit to these figures, but at an atmospheric density of ~0.01841kg/m3 ([wolfram alpha](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=density%20of%20air%20at%2030000m)), a vehicle with a drag coefficient of 0.09 (from the StarTram design) and travelling at 60 km/s is going to experience a drag force of the order of 10MN. A mass of 40 tonnes (from the StarTram design) will therefore experience a (probably transient) acceleration of ~24 gravities. That is a potentially aorta-dissecting amount of acceleration to apply to a human cargo, especiially given how rapidly it will be applied. For more reading on the subject, have a read of some of the many papers on the subject... here's one I found with a minute or two of searching: [Human Tolerance to Rapidly Applied Accelerations](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980228043). I might be quite wrong here, but you're talking about a speed far too high to be safe even in a fairly thin atmosphere. > > Is this design more better for propelling payloads/passengers to space? If no, then what flaws do I have to fix? > > > Honestly, your design seems to be a combination of overkill and, uh, not-enough-kill. Lets gloss over whether or not the passengers of your craft will die instantly as their coffin leaves the muzzle of your death-cannon for now (but I suspect that the flight is likely to be physically traumatic if not fatal) and consider the other aspects of your idea. The StarTram design dealt with merely surface-to-orbit construction, with the reasonable assumption that if you've cracked the difficult issue of getting out of the Earth's gravity well then you can built much more appropriate interplanetary infrastructure in space. Thing is, your fixed accelerator makes it very difficult to aim... you get to fiddle with muzzle velocity to some degree, but everything else is limited by time of year and time of day. This in turn limits the number of targets you can reach in a convenient timespan. From space though, you have much more flexibility. Even aside from that is the issue of safety... a suborbital flight that requires active boosting into orbit can fail safe (assuming your launch vehicles can safely re-enter, which you should ensure) because you re-enter and can land. Your capsule on the other hand is not only going much faster than terrestrial escape velocity, but can easily exceed solar escape velocity! At Earth's orbit, solar escape velocity is ~42km/s. Earth's own orbital velocity is 30km/s, which means unless you're shooting in a retrograde direction then any problems mean you shoot out into interstellar space, and rescue is likely to be challenging. Don't be so impatient. You can launch your interplanetary vehicle into orbit and renezvous with a secondary propulsion system (eg. laser ablative, or plasma-push magsail or whatever) to hoof you in the right direction at the right time. The additional wait isn't going to be more than an hour or two, and the additional safety and considerable reduction in your accelerator size, cost and complexity will be well worth the tradeoff. (Note that you already have to have some kind of mechanism to impart a delta-V of tens of kilometers per second to your capsule, because you have to slow it down at its destination! As this is a required ability anyway, you may as well use it for the boost phase as well as the brake phase and save yourself a lot of hassle)

> > Is this design more better for propelling payloads/passengers to space? If no, then what flaws do I have to fix? > > > **Two Big Flaws** 1. How does it stay up? 2. How come it's so fast? You claim the graphite stilts will support the track no problem. How are they so dang strong? I feel safe to assume that no known material is strong enough to support a 30km tall 500km railway on stilts alone. The Earth moves and the air moves. I suggest you replace the stilts with a 500km tall solid unobtanium pyramid. On second thoughts why do we need supports at all? Just point Space Tube sideways. You need to launch things sideways to get to orbit anyway. And launching in a straight line in any direction will get you into space: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EfAVL.png) You will need some supports if you desire a perfectly straight tube. But it is not obvious why that would help. Just accelerate along the Earth's curvature instead of a straight line. Of course the image is only accurate if the Earth is round. If your Earth is flat then your Space Ramp Tube is a good idea. The second problem, is how you claim the projectile exits at 40km/s. But how does it go so dang fast? You explain how it is levitated but not how it is accelerated. Maglev stuff, sure, there are real Maglev trains and they work somehow. But those bad boys go only 100ish m/s. That's much slower than Space Tube. Maybe Space Tube uses Particle accelerator tech to go fast. Those things are lined with magnets too. And they go very fast indeed. But particles are famously smaller than spaceships. There is also this: > > Mass drivers may work on airless planets like Moon and Mercury, but on Earth, the air is thick enough to burn the payload long before it attained orbit. > > > You give this problem but don't explain your solution. It sounds like Space Tube Mk. II is just as vulnerable to burning up as Space Tube Mk I. To fix this I suggest the inside of the tube have all the air pumped out.

In my [previous question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/234454/i-designed-a-maglev-space-propulsion-tube-on-mt-everest-do-you-see-any-issues), I was discussing about the possibility of using a mass-driver on Mt. Everest, to propel payloads to space, and reduce the amount of fuel needed (RIP bulky rockets). A diagram below of my former design:[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g18Ua.png) However, there was a ton of issues with this design: * Dangling a tube from a balloon is a really risky idea as the balloon can be torn apart by the wind and jet-stream on top of Mt. Everest. This could result in collapse of the structure. Firing a payload is even worse, as a tube that is dangling could suddenly jerk and tear the balloon cord, with catastrophic consequences. * The Himalayas are an earthquake zone. The structure would break apart during earthquakes. * Even if you managed not to exceed 3-4gs acceleration, then the curve above the ground could cause a dramatic acceleration spike, this can lead to serious consequences for astronauts. * Mass drivers may work on airless planets like Moon and Mercury, but on Earth, the air is thick enough to burn the payload long before it attained orbit. So, after a lot of thoughts, and ideas, I came up with a grander and more realistic design for the **Mt. Everest Maglev Accelerator**, this time with no ridiculous balloons, or spikes. So here is the design and its principles. Design ======= * This design consists of a large tube that is erected on giant graphene rods about 10 inches wide in diameter. This provides immense strength, as graphene is strong enough not to crush its base and be rigid. * This design is a **ring-gun magnet** type accelerator. This means that the magnets are placed in rings that have the same poles facing the track. The interior of the tube would look sort of like this:[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B7wYE.png) * Cross-section of propulsion tube.[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FIksn.png) * The ring-magnets are still permanent and have a greater strength of 10 teslas. They are not electromagnets. * The payload itself is attached with ring-magnets with like poles, i.e. south pole facing outwards. This generates strong repulsion that propel the rocket at high speeds. The ring-magnet themselves are reusable, they are detached from the payload, and fall back to earth, whereas the payload will gain even more momentum, due to conservation of I-can't-remember, as the ring-magnets are detached. * The tube viewed above from ground, looks sort of like this. (Apologies, I am crappy at photoshop, so this is the best depiction I can make). It is about 30 km tall, and stretches into the lower stratosphere. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LxKJ0.jpg) * The tube's actual length is however astounding. It is about 500 km long, and is mostly built underground. It is made of titanium in order to withstand the stress and pressure from the weight of the mountains above it, and withstands earthquakes. * The curve of the tube is gradual instead of sudden, as to prevent "jerks"(i.e. sudden high-Gs) Principles =========== The aim of the ~~mass driver~~ Maglev Accelerator is to make it travel so fast, that it won't have time to burn up in the atmosphere. I mean literally fast. The payload's velocity upon exiting the barrel is about 60-70 km/s (yes, Kms per second). The idea came from the [Plumbbob Pascal-B Borecap](https://www.businessinsider.com/fastest-object-robert-brownlee-2016-2?IR=T#since-then-brownlees-concludedit-was-going-too-fast-to-burn-up-before-reaching-outer-spaceafter-i-was-in-the-business-and-did-my-own-missile-launches-he-said-i-realized-that-that-piece-of-iron-didnt-have-time-to-burn-all-the-way-up-in-the-atmosphere-14), where it was theorised that it was moving so fast that it had literally no time to burn up in the atmosphere before reaching space. Although this would mean that the payload is moving too fast for it to be able to remain in orbit (about 6x Earth's Escape Velocity), that is not a problem as this accelerator is meant for interplanetary journey, such as travelling to Saturn, Mars and Moon. I will discuss a **orbit-grade accelerator** in a future question, but for now, this accelerator cannot be used for orbiting payloads. The reason why I am using Mt. Everest and not Chimborazo for the accelerator, is that Mt. Everest is actually closer to space than Chimborazo is. This may seem odd, but Mt. Everest's 9km height makes it closer to space than Chimborazo's 6km is. Although Earth being oblate makes Chimborazo cheat and get "taller" technically, Everest is still the victor, as the atmosphere is oblate like the Earth. The air pressure at the top of Mt. Chimborazo is just that at sea-level, whereas the air at the top of Mt. Everest is literally a partial vacuum, with just over a third that at sea-level. Everest's great height also provides structural support to the colossal accelerator to reach the required velocity. **Is this design more better for propelling payloads/passengers to space? If no, then what flaws do I have to fix?** Clarifications: * No, this accelerator is absolutely not used for orbital journeys. This accelerator is used for interplanetary journeys, such as Earth-Mars, or Earth-Saturn journeys Note: I'd like to avoid extended discussions in comments, as I have created [a chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/140455/mt-everest-maglev-accelerator-v2) for this question.

2022/11/06

> > Is this design more better for propelling payloads/passengers to space? If no, then what flaws do I have to fix? > > > **Two Big Flaws** 1. How does it stay up? 2. How come it's so fast? You claim the graphite stilts will support the track no problem. How are they so dang strong? I feel safe to assume that no known material is strong enough to support a 30km tall 500km railway on stilts alone. The Earth moves and the air moves. I suggest you replace the stilts with a 500km tall solid unobtanium pyramid. On second thoughts why do we need supports at all? Just point Space Tube sideways. You need to launch things sideways to get to orbit anyway. And launching in a straight line in any direction will get you into space: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EfAVL.png) You will need some supports if you desire a perfectly straight tube. But it is not obvious why that would help. Just accelerate along the Earth's curvature instead of a straight line. Of course the image is only accurate if the Earth is round. If your Earth is flat then your Space Ramp Tube is a good idea. The second problem, is how you claim the projectile exits at 40km/s. But how does it go so dang fast? You explain how it is levitated but not how it is accelerated. Maglev stuff, sure, there are real Maglev trains and they work somehow. But those bad boys go only 100ish m/s. That's much slower than Space Tube. Maybe Space Tube uses Particle accelerator tech to go fast. Those things are lined with magnets too. And they go very fast indeed. But particles are famously smaller than spaceships. There is also this: > > Mass drivers may work on airless planets like Moon and Mercury, but on Earth, the air is thick enough to burn the payload long before it attained orbit. > > > You give this problem but don't explain your solution. It sounds like Space Tube Mk. II is just as vulnerable to burning up as Space Tube Mk I. To fix this I suggest the inside of the tube have all the air pumped out.

Ditch Everest. Switch to Chimborazo in Ecuador. Two reasons: 1. Because it is closer to the equator, it's peak is actually farther from the center of the Earth. 2. Because it is closer to the equator, you get more of a boost from rotation of the Earth. Everest at 29.59 degrees North loses almost 14% of the rotational velocity. So launching from Chimborazo gets you additional altitude, and about 223 km/hr extra launch velocity. The structure you have envisioned is massively beyond our current tech. At both ends. Digging a slanted tunnel roughly 100 km long is getting to silly proportions. The [deepest mine right now is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines) 4 km deep. This is getting pretty close to the limits of our tech right now. The truss you envision holding the launch tube is grotesquely beyond what we can build now. The launch energy needs to be supplied. You need electromagnets up the length of the tube. The energy they need to supply, assuming a constant acceleration, increases as the speed increases. So you need to run gargantuan power cables up the structure as well. You might get someplace by forgetting the extension above and below the mountain. You could have some sort of electromagnetic launcher that pushed a sled that carried your orbiter. Assuming a 50 km track and only 1g, you get 1 km/s in 100 seconds, pretty close to Mach 1, up the mountain. This is fast enough that the sled could detach and the orbiter take over its own burn. The first 25 km or so of the track would be level then curve up the mountain. There are lots of variations on this. For example, the sled could also be a rocket motor that acted as a first stage. Or you could amp up the acceleration up the hill. At 4 g you get pretty close to Mach 2, in 25 seconds. You can get an idea of what you are gaining from launching from the mountain. At 4g you are basically getting the first 25 seconds of rocket power from your launch sled. Suppose you were able to build the truss and extend the ramp another 50 km. This gives you only about another 10 seconds. The part on the mountain might be worth it. Building this currently-impossible truss seems to be a diminishing return.

In my [previous question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/234454/i-designed-a-maglev-space-propulsion-tube-on-mt-everest-do-you-see-any-issues), I was discussing about the possibility of using a mass-driver on Mt. Everest, to propel payloads to space, and reduce the amount of fuel needed (RIP bulky rockets). A diagram below of my former design:[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g18Ua.png) However, there was a ton of issues with this design: * Dangling a tube from a balloon is a really risky idea as the balloon can be torn apart by the wind and jet-stream on top of Mt. Everest. This could result in collapse of the structure. Firing a payload is even worse, as a tube that is dangling could suddenly jerk and tear the balloon cord, with catastrophic consequences. * The Himalayas are an earthquake zone. The structure would break apart during earthquakes. * Even if you managed not to exceed 3-4gs acceleration, then the curve above the ground could cause a dramatic acceleration spike, this can lead to serious consequences for astronauts. * Mass drivers may work on airless planets like Moon and Mercury, but on Earth, the air is thick enough to burn the payload long before it attained orbit. So, after a lot of thoughts, and ideas, I came up with a grander and more realistic design for the **Mt. Everest Maglev Accelerator**, this time with no ridiculous balloons, or spikes. So here is the design and its principles. Design ======= * This design consists of a large tube that is erected on giant graphene rods about 10 inches wide in diameter. This provides immense strength, as graphene is strong enough not to crush its base and be rigid. * This design is a **ring-gun magnet** type accelerator. This means that the magnets are placed in rings that have the same poles facing the track. The interior of the tube would look sort of like this:[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B7wYE.png) * Cross-section of propulsion tube.[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FIksn.png) * The ring-magnets are still permanent and have a greater strength of 10 teslas. They are not electromagnets. * The payload itself is attached with ring-magnets with like poles, i.e. south pole facing outwards. This generates strong repulsion that propel the rocket at high speeds. The ring-magnet themselves are reusable, they are detached from the payload, and fall back to earth, whereas the payload will gain even more momentum, due to conservation of I-can't-remember, as the ring-magnets are detached. * The tube viewed above from ground, looks sort of like this. (Apologies, I am crappy at photoshop, so this is the best depiction I can make). It is about 30 km tall, and stretches into the lower stratosphere. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LxKJ0.jpg) * The tube's actual length is however astounding. It is about 500 km long, and is mostly built underground. It is made of titanium in order to withstand the stress and pressure from the weight of the mountains above it, and withstands earthquakes. * The curve of the tube is gradual instead of sudden, as to prevent "jerks"(i.e. sudden high-Gs) Principles =========== The aim of the ~~mass driver~~ Maglev Accelerator is to make it travel so fast, that it won't have time to burn up in the atmosphere. I mean literally fast. The payload's velocity upon exiting the barrel is about 60-70 km/s (yes, Kms per second). The idea came from the [Plumbbob Pascal-B Borecap](https://www.businessinsider.com/fastest-object-robert-brownlee-2016-2?IR=T#since-then-brownlees-concludedit-was-going-too-fast-to-burn-up-before-reaching-outer-spaceafter-i-was-in-the-business-and-did-my-own-missile-launches-he-said-i-realized-that-that-piece-of-iron-didnt-have-time-to-burn-all-the-way-up-in-the-atmosphere-14), where it was theorised that it was moving so fast that it had literally no time to burn up in the atmosphere before reaching space. Although this would mean that the payload is moving too fast for it to be able to remain in orbit (about 6x Earth's Escape Velocity), that is not a problem as this accelerator is meant for interplanetary journey, such as travelling to Saturn, Mars and Moon. I will discuss a **orbit-grade accelerator** in a future question, but for now, this accelerator cannot be used for orbiting payloads. The reason why I am using Mt. Everest and not Chimborazo for the accelerator, is that Mt. Everest is actually closer to space than Chimborazo is. This may seem odd, but Mt. Everest's 9km height makes it closer to space than Chimborazo's 6km is. Although Earth being oblate makes Chimborazo cheat and get "taller" technically, Everest is still the victor, as the atmosphere is oblate like the Earth. The air pressure at the top of Mt. Chimborazo is just that at sea-level, whereas the air at the top of Mt. Everest is literally a partial vacuum, with just over a third that at sea-level. Everest's great height also provides structural support to the colossal accelerator to reach the required velocity. **Is this design more better for propelling payloads/passengers to space? If no, then what flaws do I have to fix?** Clarifications: * No, this accelerator is absolutely not used for orbital journeys. This accelerator is used for interplanetary journeys, such as Earth-Mars, or Earth-Saturn journeys Note: I'd like to avoid extended discussions in comments, as I have created [a chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/140455/mt-everest-maglev-accelerator-v2) for this question.

2022/11/06

Though I don't see any reference to it in this question or your previous one, you should probably read about [StarTram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram), because it was a project that considers many of the same things you're looking at. The StarTram authors used to have all their interesting stuff available for free on their website, but the main ebook is now paid-only. StarTram uses an evacuated tube with a "conventional" superconducting electromagnetic accelerator. Here's a diagram that looks a little like your own: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvRna.png) The Gen 1 design, which has the muzzle of the accelerator at the top of a suitable mountain, is intended for cargo only as it has a 30G peak acceleration and a 6-12G peak decelleration when it hits the atmosphere upon exiting the muzzle. It uses a clever [plasma window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window) to maintain vacuum in the tube but still allow the projectile to egress the accelerator. It comes out at near orbital velocity, requiring some small boost rockets (<1km/s delta-V) to finish the job. The Gen 2 design uses a somewhat gonzo electromagnetic repulsion architecture using massive supercondcting cables. I won't regurgitate the exact details of this here, but suffice to say that the authors were well aware that massive scaffolding structures and balloons can't work. Whether or not their solution would is something I won't consider here. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FwDdt.png) (image credit [NASA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Startramgeneration2.jpg)) > > The high altitude evacuated launch tube has a set of high current superconducting (SC) cables that magnetically interact with a second set of high current SC cables on the surface beneath to create a magnet levitation force of several metric tons per meter of tube length. The levitation force is greater than the weight of the launch tube plus its SC cables and tethers, resulting in a net upward force on the structure. In turn, the levitated structure is anchored to the ground by a network of high tensile strength, lightweight Kevlar or Spectra tethers > > > So, now I've shown you the competition, lets look at the details of your design. 1. Permanent magnet accelerator I can't see that this could ever work, even if you could get powerful enough permanent magnets (you probably can't) in sufficient quantity (you probably can't) that are light enough for your 30km high suspended section to work (almost certainly no). Just use a superconducting electromagnetic accelerator... it is something that could conceivably be built with present-day technology, after all. 2. Giant graphene rods Graphene has excellent tensile strength, but its compressive strength is less exciting, and a 30km tall tower that needs to withstand launch stresses and weather patterns is a fearsome undertaking to say the least. Other answers already go into more detail on this matter, but if you want a structure this tall then it needs to be suspended by some other means. I won't go into detail on this here, but maybe you could ask another question? 3. 60km/s muzzle velocity Brownlee lamented the commonly repeated story of the Pascal B test, because it resulted in a lot of people mocking his terrible understanding of aerodynamics. He just estimated the speed of the cap, but made no claims about it getting into space, and assumed it was vaporized in the lower atmosphere. Anyway, that niggle aside, I'm not sure you've necessarily consider the effects of hitting the atmosphere, even at 30km, at that sort of speed. Sure, the projectile will not be in the atmosphere for long, but not being there long enough to slow down below orbital velocity or burn up is not the same as being safe for the cargo. The initial forces on leaving the muzzle of the accelerator are too difficult for me to calculate, but I'm pretty certain they'll be extremely unpleasant if not outright dangerous. I'm not going to commit to these figures, but at an atmospheric density of ~0.01841kg/m3 ([wolfram alpha](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=density%20of%20air%20at%2030000m)), a vehicle with a drag coefficient of 0.09 (from the StarTram design) and travelling at 60 km/s is going to experience a drag force of the order of 10MN. A mass of 40 tonnes (from the StarTram design) will therefore experience a (probably transient) acceleration of ~24 gravities. That is a potentially aorta-dissecting amount of acceleration to apply to a human cargo, especiially given how rapidly it will be applied. For more reading on the subject, have a read of some of the many papers on the subject... here's one I found with a minute or two of searching: [Human Tolerance to Rapidly Applied Accelerations](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980228043). I might be quite wrong here, but you're talking about a speed far too high to be safe even in a fairly thin atmosphere. > > Is this design more better for propelling payloads/passengers to space? If no, then what flaws do I have to fix? > > > Honestly, your design seems to be a combination of overkill and, uh, not-enough-kill. Lets gloss over whether or not the passengers of your craft will die instantly as their coffin leaves the muzzle of your death-cannon for now (but I suspect that the flight is likely to be physically traumatic if not fatal) and consider the other aspects of your idea. The StarTram design dealt with merely surface-to-orbit construction, with the reasonable assumption that if you've cracked the difficult issue of getting out of the Earth's gravity well then you can built much more appropriate interplanetary infrastructure in space. Thing is, your fixed accelerator makes it very difficult to aim... you get to fiddle with muzzle velocity to some degree, but everything else is limited by time of year and time of day. This in turn limits the number of targets you can reach in a convenient timespan. From space though, you have much more flexibility. Even aside from that is the issue of safety... a suborbital flight that requires active boosting into orbit can fail safe (assuming your launch vehicles can safely re-enter, which you should ensure) because you re-enter and can land. Your capsule on the other hand is not only going much faster than terrestrial escape velocity, but can easily exceed solar escape velocity! At Earth's orbit, solar escape velocity is ~42km/s. Earth's own orbital velocity is 30km/s, which means unless you're shooting in a retrograde direction then any problems mean you shoot out into interstellar space, and rescue is likely to be challenging. Don't be so impatient. You can launch your interplanetary vehicle into orbit and renezvous with a secondary propulsion system (eg. laser ablative, or plasma-push magsail or whatever) to hoof you in the right direction at the right time. The additional wait isn't going to be more than an hour or two, and the additional safety and considerable reduction in your accelerator size, cost and complexity will be well worth the tradeoff. (Note that you already have to have some kind of mechanism to impart a delta-V of tens of kilometers per second to your capsule, because you have to slow it down at its destination! As this is a required ability anyway, you may as well use it for the boost phase as well as the brake phase and save yourself a lot of hassle)

Ditch Everest. Switch to Chimborazo in Ecuador. Two reasons: 1. Because it is closer to the equator, it's peak is actually farther from the center of the Earth. 2. Because it is closer to the equator, you get more of a boost from rotation of the Earth. Everest at 29.59 degrees North loses almost 14% of the rotational velocity. So launching from Chimborazo gets you additional altitude, and about 223 km/hr extra launch velocity. The structure you have envisioned is massively beyond our current tech. At both ends. Digging a slanted tunnel roughly 100 km long is getting to silly proportions. The [deepest mine right now is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines) 4 km deep. This is getting pretty close to the limits of our tech right now. The truss you envision holding the launch tube is grotesquely beyond what we can build now. The launch energy needs to be supplied. You need electromagnets up the length of the tube. The energy they need to supply, assuming a constant acceleration, increases as the speed increases. So you need to run gargantuan power cables up the structure as well. You might get someplace by forgetting the extension above and below the mountain. You could have some sort of electromagnetic launcher that pushed a sled that carried your orbiter. Assuming a 50 km track and only 1g, you get 1 km/s in 100 seconds, pretty close to Mach 1, up the mountain. This is fast enough that the sled could detach and the orbiter take over its own burn. The first 25 km or so of the track would be level then curve up the mountain. There are lots of variations on this. For example, the sled could also be a rocket motor that acted as a first stage. Or you could amp up the acceleration up the hill. At 4 g you get pretty close to Mach 2, in 25 seconds. You can get an idea of what you are gaining from launching from the mountain. At 4g you are basically getting the first 25 seconds of rocket power from your launch sled. Suppose you were able to build the truss and extend the ramp another 50 km. This gives you only about another 10 seconds. The part on the mountain might be worth it. Building this currently-impossible truss seems to be a diminishing return.

I have Intel NUC i5 with Latest OpenElec installed on it. I would like to wake it up from suspend using Wake On Lan feature (sent from another device on my home network), but I am having difficulties with that. I have verified WOL is enabled in the BIOS, and I have tried to use the WOL Windows GUI provided in Depicious web site - www.depicus.com/wake-on-lan/wake-on-lan-gui I have put those values in the GUI: MAC address of the NUC Internet address - I tried both my router IP and my NUC internal IP Subnet mask - I've put the mask I found in the OpenElec network screen Port - I tried ports 7 and 9. I have also tried to configure my router (DLink) to forward port 7 to the broadcast address (10.0.0.255) - but it doesn't allow configuring port forwarding (or virtual server as it is called) to that address. Anything I am missing? Would really appreciate help here. Thanks!

2015/10/20

I was looking for an answer to this and just tested out a number of syncing services on my Mac by trying to copy an OSX framework. The only one that successfully copied the internal symbolic links between folders was... * **[Copy.com](https://copy.com)** (Edit: **Service will shut down on May 1, 2016**. So that leaves us with... none.) It seemed to work fine, symbolic links were copied as expected. I don't really know anything else about the service - I just found out about it today. The following completely ignored the symbolic links: **Google Drive, Box, OneDrive, Mega, iCloud Drive** The following copied the contents of the symbolic link like it was a folder (thus resulting in duplicate files): **Dropbox**

BitTorrent sync will do what the OP requests. It will copy and sync symlinks as links, without following them. It differs somewhat from services like Dropbox in that there is no cloud involved - just peer to peer communication. There is a free service and a paid service. I dropped Dropbox for this very reason, and have used BitTorrent Sync for over a year without major problem.

I have Intel NUC i5 with Latest OpenElec installed on it. I would like to wake it up from suspend using Wake On Lan feature (sent from another device on my home network), but I am having difficulties with that. I have verified WOL is enabled in the BIOS, and I have tried to use the WOL Windows GUI provided in Depicious web site - www.depicus.com/wake-on-lan/wake-on-lan-gui I have put those values in the GUI: MAC address of the NUC Internet address - I tried both my router IP and my NUC internal IP Subnet mask - I've put the mask I found in the OpenElec network screen Port - I tried ports 7 and 9. I have also tried to configure my router (DLink) to forward port 7 to the broadcast address (10.0.0.255) - but it doesn't allow configuring port forwarding (or virtual server as it is called) to that address. Anything I am missing? Would really appreciate help here. Thanks!

2015/10/20

I was looking for an answer to this and just tested out a number of syncing services on my Mac by trying to copy an OSX framework. The only one that successfully copied the internal symbolic links between folders was... * **[Copy.com](https://copy.com)** (Edit: **Service will shut down on May 1, 2016**. So that leaves us with... none.) It seemed to work fine, symbolic links were copied as expected. I don't really know anything else about the service - I just found out about it today. The following completely ignored the symbolic links: **Google Drive, Box, OneDrive, Mega, iCloud Drive** The following copied the contents of the symbolic link like it was a folder (thus resulting in duplicate files): **Dropbox**

It seems syncthing will also handle symlinks correctly (symlinks are not followed but copied as symlinks); see relevant discussions: <https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/262> <https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/2358> But I'd love to see a cloud hosted solution (unlike bt sync and syncthing) that handles symlinks correctly.

What is the difference between WPF and Silverlight? Is it just the same as winforms vs asp as in desktop apps versus web app or is there an overlap?

2010/01/17

Silverlight is a subset of the functionality in WPF. WPF is desktops, silverlight is cross-platform web apps. Silverlight can run out-of-browser with limited functionality. if you want full blown WPF and access to everything WPF can access on the client, you can't do silverlight out-of-browser - just build a WPF app. WPF and silverlight use XAML at its core to describe the layout. There is a MS document that highlights the differences between the two. I just can't find it right now. WPF is not dead like some bloggers are reporting. Due to its web and cross-platform capabilities it is doubtful SL will ever truly contain 100% of the functionality of its bigger brother WPF. WPF includes some very Windows-specific functionality. Found the document mentioned above. [Here](http://wpfslguidance.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=28278) it is...

WPF is a desktop API that is a replacement to the venerable pixel-based GDI Winforms library. It uses XML layout (XAML) and binding, partial classes and is no longer pixel-based (it deals in units so apps still work where the user has the DPI set differently). Silverlight is a subset of WPF that runs within a browser, much like Flash. Silverlight 3 [extended its reach onto the desktop](http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/first-look-microsoft-silverlight-3-challenges-adobe-air-216) as a counter to Adobe Air so there isn't much of a gap between Silverlight and WPF to the point where one has to question the future of WPF. See [Silverlight 3 might kill Windows Presentation Foundation](http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33355).

What is the difference between WPF and Silverlight? Is it just the same as winforms vs asp as in desktop apps versus web app or is there an overlap?

2010/01/17

WPF is a desktop API that is a replacement to the venerable pixel-based GDI Winforms library. It uses XML layout (XAML) and binding, partial classes and is no longer pixel-based (it deals in units so apps still work where the user has the DPI set differently). Silverlight is a subset of WPF that runs within a browser, much like Flash. Silverlight 3 [extended its reach onto the desktop](http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/first-look-microsoft-silverlight-3-challenges-adobe-air-216) as a counter to Adobe Air so there isn't much of a gap between Silverlight and WPF to the point where one has to question the future of WPF. See [Silverlight 3 might kill Windows Presentation Foundation](http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33355).

[One](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/944608/wpf-vs-silverlight) and [two](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/629927/what-is-the-difference-between-wpf-and-silverlight-application).

What is the difference between WPF and Silverlight? Is it just the same as winforms vs asp as in desktop apps versus web app or is there an overlap?

2010/01/17

Silverlight is a subset of the functionality in WPF. WPF is desktops, silverlight is cross-platform web apps. Silverlight can run out-of-browser with limited functionality. if you want full blown WPF and access to everything WPF can access on the client, you can't do silverlight out-of-browser - just build a WPF app. WPF and silverlight use XAML at its core to describe the layout. There is a MS document that highlights the differences between the two. I just can't find it right now. WPF is not dead like some bloggers are reporting. Due to its web and cross-platform capabilities it is doubtful SL will ever truly contain 100% of the functionality of its bigger brother WPF. WPF includes some very Windows-specific functionality. Found the document mentioned above. [Here](http://wpfslguidance.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=28278) it is...

[One](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/944608/wpf-vs-silverlight) and [two](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/629927/what-is-the-difference-between-wpf-and-silverlight-application).

I imported some 2000 photos into Lightroom 5 on the Mac, and then removed most of the ones in them, bringing it down to 40 photos. I did this by selecting photos I didn't like, pressing the Delete button and selecting Remove (not Delete From Disk). These removed photos are still on the filesystem, taking up 30 GB. How do I move them into the Trash on the Mac? I want to permanently delete them. I thought Lightroom has its own trash bin, and an Empty Trash option, like iPhoto does, but it doesn't seem to. Is there a simpler workflow to use here? I want to go through my collection, remove files I don't want, press Cmd-Z to undo a remove if I accidentally removed something and, when I'm all done, permanently delete the removed files. Is there a simpler workflow for this that I can adopt in the future? Thanks.

2013/11/13

The problem is that Lightroom does not know about these images, so it cannot do anything about it. Essentially you want to know which photos are *not* in Lightroom. I have no idea how to do that but I think this will work: From Lightroom, select the folder or tree where these photos are and synchronize it. It will popup the import dialog, just continue the import as usual. As an extra precaution add a keyword during import, something like "DELETE\_ME\_AGAIN". Once done, all these photos *should* appear under the Previous Import folder. From there see if you can do a Delete From Disk. If not, go to the library view and do it from there by selecting all images matching the "DELETE\_ME\_AGAIN" keyword.

You needed to use the Delete From Disk option. You removed your reference to the images in Lightroom and it now has no more idea about them than it does about your Word documents and internet browsing history. One thing you could do since you have so few images is you could make a new folder, drag the photos to keep in to that folder in the Library view (which will move the files on disk to the new folder.) After confirming they have been moved to the new folder, you can simply delete the contents of the previous folder by hand and then move the images back in Lightroom. Note that this will only work if all the files in that folder other than the ones in Lightroom should be deleted.

In one customer computer (windows vista) almost all forms of my app are oddly unnaligned. Making some investigation I noticed that every component with akRight anchor acts oddly, being positioned way more for the right. Searching in SO I found [this](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1355258/delphi-7-forms-anchors-not-working-in-vista) issue wich is similar to mine but not exacly the same. Since I cannot reproduce the issue in my computer and my access to my customer´s computer is restrict to a few minutes and via remote desktop I´d like to know if my issue described here could be solved by the same fix.

2009/12/16

Aren't you experiencing the problem described in the following question? [Why do my Borland C++Builder 5 forms with right-anchored controls appear incorrectly on Vista?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/525517/why-do-my-borland-cbuilder-5-forms-with-right-anchored-controls-appear-incorrec) Maybe the answer is of some help.

I've also experienced similar issues. After much frustration I pretty much gave up using anchors and started using a combination of the Align, AlignWithMargins and Margins properties.

One of the comments on [this question](https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18623/mileage-varies-by-driving-at-different-speeds) reminded me of something I've been wondering for a while. Given that engines get the best efficiency at peak torque, why do most hybrid cars still use a mechanical transmission (which requires the engine to change speed with roadspeed, as in a conventional car), rather than electrical, with the engine running at a constant rate as a generator? Is it simply a case of giving people what they are used to? bearing in mind that pure-electric cars obviously have electric transmission... Trains have been using diesel-electric transmission since at least the 1950s, so it's not exactly a new concept...

2015/07/21

It depends on the type of hybrid car you are talking about. In one type of hybrid, there will be a gasoline engine and at least one electric engine capable of driving the wheels. In this case, the gasoline engine must still use a transmission because it cannot be revved too high without causing major damage or shortened life. One possible solution to this transmission issue would be to use a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT), which can be more expensive to manufacture but keeps the engine at peak efficiency. The other type of hybrid, where the wheels are driven entirely by electric motors (and has a gasoline generator to charge the battery) does not require a transmission because electric motors have a very wide range of acceptable RPM. Additionally, electric motors have a relatively flat torque curve and the max torque is available instantly. I should note that this type of "hybrid" car is generally just called an electric vehicle (EV) since the gasoline motor is used to charge the battery only and does not drive the wheels. I was going to comment this, but don't have the reputation: The diesel-electric transmission you referred to is more closely related to today's EVs in that a diesel engine charges batteries, which then in turn power electric motors at the wheels. Transmissions in trains are impractical for several reasons (such as need to power up to four axles and the number of gears that would be required to keep it at peak efficiency) and this eliminates the need for a true transmission.

I don't think the accepted answer answers this question acceptably. The reason for hybrid vehicles having a mechanical power transfer pathway is that mechanical power transfer has a higher efficiency than electric power transfer. I have read somewhere (but cannot find the source right now) that the electrical power transfer pathway is approximately 70% efficient in Toyota Prius. To understand this low efficiency, consider that it has a motor-generator operating as a generator, power electronic components, cables, and a motor-generator operating as a motor. Quite many components. This efficiency is considerably lower than the efficiency of the mechanical power transfer pathway. Actually, Toyota Prius has both mechanical and electrical power transfer pathways. It has a gearbox with one speed and constant ratio but three axles, two of which have electric motors. Changing how much power will be transferred through the electrical pathway changes the relative speeds of the input and output axles, and thus it functions as an electrical continuously variable transmission (eCVT). The reason for the mechanical pathway is the higher efficiency. The reason for the electrical pathway is that it allows CVT operation with very low cost of components and higher reliability than traditional CVTs. And, also to provide regenerative braking and power boost to the internal combustion engine from a battery. Have you seen water cooling in a conventional manual transmission? Probably not. However, the inverters in Prius are water cooled due to the high amount of waste heat produced. This illustrates that inverters are less efficient than mechanical transmissions.

A commercial came on the radio last night while I was driving home that was a spoof on the old [news reels of the 30s and 40s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreel). And, being radio, the spoof was entirely centered on the iconic 'voice' of those old news reals...quick talking with an inflection unique enough that when you hear it you immediately think "ah, news reels!" That got me wondering what the history of that voice is. Did news reels typically sound like that? Or is that a stereotype that, overtime, has become emblematic of those reels even if not entirely accurate? If news reels did sound like that, was that a general style adopted by narrators, or was it something that came from one prominent/prolific narrator in particular? If you look through old newsreels on YouTube, they definitely do *not* all share that iconic narration voice, so I'm assuming this was a fabrication at some point in time. (PS, I wasn't sure which site to post this on...perhaps this would be better asked on Moviews/TV?) UPDATE: Trying to find some specific examples. The one I heard on the radio was actually a Geico commercial. But can't find that. The Legend of Korra uses this stereotypical news reel voice as a recap for each episode. You can see an example here: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigqWlscHYc> It's not quite as over-the-top as you find in more satirical uses but seems to be fairly consistent with the style elsewhere. If I had to describe the style I'd say it's" * fast talking * un-natural inflection * 'showmanship' * a trace of an accent...maybe New-Englandish?

2015/11/09

It wasn't just the newsreels. The ultra-fast talking high-pitched (and almost rhythmic) voice was actually common in media of that era. For example, here's the [final scene from Casablanca](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kiNJcDG4E0) in 1942. By modern standards, it sounds like a lot of bursts of rapid-fire dialog, interspersed by pauses for you to mentally catch your breath and process what you just heard. Dialog bits from [Dragnet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHmw2RgznSo&t=4m50s) are also famous for this, particularly when interrogating suspects. Another thing one may notice is that women are typically portrayed speaking much slower (as are the aforementioned Dragnet interrogation subjects). This is a big clue. Dialog speed was used as a marker for dispassionate intelligence. People talking slower and lower were indicating that they were being more emotional and/or not thinking clearly. A great illustration of this is this other [classic Cassablanca scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_a57ZNlU6o). Look away from the screen, and pay attention to how fast and low the actors (particularly Ingrid Bergman) speak depending on who they are speaking to and how emotional they are about what they are saying (or how emotional they are *trying* to be). For instance, whenever anyone is talking about the sentimental song, their voice gets lower and slower. In contrast, when her husband and the Chief show up, both Bergman and Bogart start talking much quicker and higher. To the best of my knowledge, the only person who has looked at this effect from a historical perspective is Maria DiBattista in her book [Fast Talking Dames](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0300099037). "Fast Talking" in this context is explained to be an indicator of intelligence and power. As for the unusual accent you are hearing, CGCambell in the comments pointed out that this would have been the ["Transatlantic" accent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent). It was common among the upper class in New York around the turn of the 20th century. Since those were the people who patronized the theater, it was common there as well. When the first media companies started up in New York, they tended to pick it up, as it was a much more "prestigious" accent than the other locally-available alternatives. This was the accent of the late George Plimpton and William F. Buckley Jr. It started to wane after the movie companies moved out to California and much of television production followed. Today most of the accents you hear in American media are a kind of homogenized [American Midlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_American_English) (which many Americans consider "no accent"), with a smattering of weak [AAVE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English) used to indicate someone from a rougher background.

Please see the [following list, also on WikiPedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_online_video_archives), along with [A Bijou Flashback: The History of Movie Newsreels](http://www.moviefanfare.com/the-history-of-movie-newsreels/). These newsreels were produced by each of the major film corporations between the late 20's to the early 60's. Each Corporation used a different narrator. See my quoted example below, as Movietone and Universal/MGM are the most widely known. Most of them served as the current news for moviegoers, as these reels would run before the movie started, much like we get previews today. Most of them are known and archived because this was a major method of news that IMO reached it's prominence during WWII, as moviegoers would attend movies to check on their loved ones on the front. These reels also provided pictures from the front, which was quite a deal back then. Notice the ad in the lower right of [this movie trailer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movietone_News#/media/File:JazzSingerAndFox.jpg), indicating that the theater would show the newsreel before the movie for the price of your ticket. See [Movietone News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movietone_News): > > [snip] > > > Fox's first use of recording a news event was on May 20, 1927: Charles > Lindbergh's take-off from Roosevelt Field for his historic solo flight > across the Atlantic Ocean was filmed with sound and shown in a New > York theater that same night, inspiring Fox to create Movietone News. > A regular narrator of the newsreels was broadcaster/journalist Lowell > Thomas. > > > After Fox Films merged with 20th Century Pictures in 1935 to form 20th > Century-Fox, the name of Fox Movietone News was shortened to Movietone > News. > > > In Australia, Movietone and Cinesound were competitors for newsreel > coverage, but have now combined under the Movietone News name. > > > --- [Lowell Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Thomas), the voice of Movietone news made himself and fellow journalist [TE Lawrence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._E._Lawrence) famous when he visited the [Western Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I)) during WWI. TE Lawrence is best known for the book and the later adaption into a movie *Lawrence of Arabia* [Ed Herlihy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Herlihy), the voice of Universal/MGM. He narrated most of the reels dealing with WWII. These are some of my favorites as he perfectly puts emotion into the attack on Pearl Harbor, and later the death of President Roosevelt. Later in life he served as the voiceover in commercials for Kraft Foods. --- Update as per Comments ---------------------- There is no iconic voice nowadays. The audio for a radio commercial/TV Spot is made by standing in front of a microphone and recording a voice, and then adding the voice track to the rest of the audio. The inflections etc that you here come from someone's actual voice, and with the advent of television, the announcer you heard probably works for a major network, unless the commercial you heard was local only to your area, i.e. not a national campaign. The example you gave points to [J.K. Simmons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Simmons), as Tenzin, who I know as the voice of [The University of Farmers - National Ad Campaign](http://www.farmers.com/pdf/UofF_brochure.pdf). His degree in Music, and a stint on Broadway most likely are where the roots for that voice inflection come in. As I said earlier, each example you give me will end up being attributed to a person, most likely with a degree in the stage acting, acting, or music arenas. Note that most people who do this for a living have had years of practice. As such, the only way to answer your question is to tell you there are no origins, just highly skilled people. On that same note, I present Johnny Bravo, a.k.a. [Jeff Bennett](http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Jeff_Bennett): 

A commercial came on the radio last night while I was driving home that was a spoof on the old [news reels of the 30s and 40s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreel). And, being radio, the spoof was entirely centered on the iconic 'voice' of those old news reals...quick talking with an inflection unique enough that when you hear it you immediately think "ah, news reels!" That got me wondering what the history of that voice is. Did news reels typically sound like that? Or is that a stereotype that, overtime, has become emblematic of those reels even if not entirely accurate? If news reels did sound like that, was that a general style adopted by narrators, or was it something that came from one prominent/prolific narrator in particular? If you look through old newsreels on YouTube, they definitely do *not* all share that iconic narration voice, so I'm assuming this was a fabrication at some point in time. (PS, I wasn't sure which site to post this on...perhaps this would be better asked on Moviews/TV?) UPDATE: Trying to find some specific examples. The one I heard on the radio was actually a Geico commercial. But can't find that. The Legend of Korra uses this stereotypical news reel voice as a recap for each episode. You can see an example here: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigqWlscHYc> It's not quite as over-the-top as you find in more satirical uses but seems to be fairly consistent with the style elsewhere. If I had to describe the style I'd say it's" * fast talking * un-natural inflection * 'showmanship' * a trace of an accent...maybe New-Englandish?

2015/11/09

Please see the [following list, also on WikiPedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_online_video_archives), along with [A Bijou Flashback: The History of Movie Newsreels](http://www.moviefanfare.com/the-history-of-movie-newsreels/). These newsreels were produced by each of the major film corporations between the late 20's to the early 60's. Each Corporation used a different narrator. See my quoted example below, as Movietone and Universal/MGM are the most widely known. Most of them served as the current news for moviegoers, as these reels would run before the movie started, much like we get previews today. Most of them are known and archived because this was a major method of news that IMO reached it's prominence during WWII, as moviegoers would attend movies to check on their loved ones on the front. These reels also provided pictures from the front, which was quite a deal back then. Notice the ad in the lower right of [this movie trailer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movietone_News#/media/File:JazzSingerAndFox.jpg), indicating that the theater would show the newsreel before the movie for the price of your ticket. See [Movietone News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movietone_News): > > [snip] > > > Fox's first use of recording a news event was on May 20, 1927: Charles > Lindbergh's take-off from Roosevelt Field for his historic solo flight > across the Atlantic Ocean was filmed with sound and shown in a New > York theater that same night, inspiring Fox to create Movietone News. > A regular narrator of the newsreels was broadcaster/journalist Lowell > Thomas. > > > After Fox Films merged with 20th Century Pictures in 1935 to form 20th > Century-Fox, the name of Fox Movietone News was shortened to Movietone > News. > > > In Australia, Movietone and Cinesound were competitors for newsreel > coverage, but have now combined under the Movietone News name. > > > --- [Lowell Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Thomas), the voice of Movietone news made himself and fellow journalist [TE Lawrence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._E._Lawrence) famous when he visited the [Western Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I)) during WWI. TE Lawrence is best known for the book and the later adaption into a movie *Lawrence of Arabia* [Ed Herlihy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Herlihy), the voice of Universal/MGM. He narrated most of the reels dealing with WWII. These are some of my favorites as he perfectly puts emotion into the attack on Pearl Harbor, and later the death of President Roosevelt. Later in life he served as the voiceover in commercials for Kraft Foods. --- Update as per Comments ---------------------- There is no iconic voice nowadays. The audio for a radio commercial/TV Spot is made by standing in front of a microphone and recording a voice, and then adding the voice track to the rest of the audio. The inflections etc that you here come from someone's actual voice, and with the advent of television, the announcer you heard probably works for a major network, unless the commercial you heard was local only to your area, i.e. not a national campaign. The example you gave points to [J.K. Simmons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Simmons), as Tenzin, who I know as the voice of [The University of Farmers - National Ad Campaign](http://www.farmers.com/pdf/UofF_brochure.pdf). His degree in Music, and a stint on Broadway most likely are where the roots for that voice inflection come in. As I said earlier, each example you give me will end up being attributed to a person, most likely with a degree in the stage acting, acting, or music arenas. Note that most people who do this for a living have had years of practice. As such, the only way to answer your question is to tell you there are no origins, just highly skilled people. On that same note, I present Johnny Bravo, a.k.a. [Jeff Bennett](http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Jeff_Bennett): 

Cam Cornelius. <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfKRKI3daoM> He has that old times news voice.

A commercial came on the radio last night while I was driving home that was a spoof on the old [news reels of the 30s and 40s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreel). And, being radio, the spoof was entirely centered on the iconic 'voice' of those old news reals...quick talking with an inflection unique enough that when you hear it you immediately think "ah, news reels!" That got me wondering what the history of that voice is. Did news reels typically sound like that? Or is that a stereotype that, overtime, has become emblematic of those reels even if not entirely accurate? If news reels did sound like that, was that a general style adopted by narrators, or was it something that came from one prominent/prolific narrator in particular? If you look through old newsreels on YouTube, they definitely do *not* all share that iconic narration voice, so I'm assuming this was a fabrication at some point in time. (PS, I wasn't sure which site to post this on...perhaps this would be better asked on Moviews/TV?) UPDATE: Trying to find some specific examples. The one I heard on the radio was actually a Geico commercial. But can't find that. The Legend of Korra uses this stereotypical news reel voice as a recap for each episode. You can see an example here: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigqWlscHYc> It's not quite as over-the-top as you find in more satirical uses but seems to be fairly consistent with the style elsewhere. If I had to describe the style I'd say it's" * fast talking * un-natural inflection * 'showmanship' * a trace of an accent...maybe New-Englandish?

2015/11/09

It wasn't just the newsreels. The ultra-fast talking high-pitched (and almost rhythmic) voice was actually common in media of that era. For example, here's the [final scene from Casablanca](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kiNJcDG4E0) in 1942. By modern standards, it sounds like a lot of bursts of rapid-fire dialog, interspersed by pauses for you to mentally catch your breath and process what you just heard. Dialog bits from [Dragnet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHmw2RgznSo&t=4m50s) are also famous for this, particularly when interrogating suspects. Another thing one may notice is that women are typically portrayed speaking much slower (as are the aforementioned Dragnet interrogation subjects). This is a big clue. Dialog speed was used as a marker for dispassionate intelligence. People talking slower and lower were indicating that they were being more emotional and/or not thinking clearly. A great illustration of this is this other [classic Cassablanca scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_a57ZNlU6o). Look away from the screen, and pay attention to how fast and low the actors (particularly Ingrid Bergman) speak depending on who they are speaking to and how emotional they are about what they are saying (or how emotional they are *trying* to be). For instance, whenever anyone is talking about the sentimental song, their voice gets lower and slower. In contrast, when her husband and the Chief show up, both Bergman and Bogart start talking much quicker and higher. To the best of my knowledge, the only person who has looked at this effect from a historical perspective is Maria DiBattista in her book [Fast Talking Dames](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0300099037). "Fast Talking" in this context is explained to be an indicator of intelligence and power. As for the unusual accent you are hearing, CGCambell in the comments pointed out that this would have been the ["Transatlantic" accent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent). It was common among the upper class in New York around the turn of the 20th century. Since those were the people who patronized the theater, it was common there as well. When the first media companies started up in New York, they tended to pick it up, as it was a much more "prestigious" accent than the other locally-available alternatives. This was the accent of the late George Plimpton and William F. Buckley Jr. It started to wane after the movie companies moved out to California and much of television production followed. Today most of the accents you hear in American media are a kind of homogenized [American Midlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_American_English) (which many Americans consider "no accent"), with a smattering of weak [AAVE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English) used to indicate someone from a rougher background.

Cam Cornelius. <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfKRKI3daoM> He has that old times news voice.

A commercial came on the radio last night while I was driving home that was a spoof on the old [news reels of the 30s and 40s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreel). And, being radio, the spoof was entirely centered on the iconic 'voice' of those old news reals...quick talking with an inflection unique enough that when you hear it you immediately think "ah, news reels!" That got me wondering what the history of that voice is. Did news reels typically sound like that? Or is that a stereotype that, overtime, has become emblematic of those reels even if not entirely accurate? If news reels did sound like that, was that a general style adopted by narrators, or was it something that came from one prominent/prolific narrator in particular? If you look through old newsreels on YouTube, they definitely do *not* all share that iconic narration voice, so I'm assuming this was a fabrication at some point in time. (PS, I wasn't sure which site to post this on...perhaps this would be better asked on Moviews/TV?) UPDATE: Trying to find some specific examples. The one I heard on the radio was actually a Geico commercial. But can't find that. The Legend of Korra uses this stereotypical news reel voice as a recap for each episode. You can see an example here: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigqWlscHYc> It's not quite as over-the-top as you find in more satirical uses but seems to be fairly consistent with the style elsewhere. If I had to describe the style I'd say it's" * fast talking * un-natural inflection * 'showmanship' * a trace of an accent...maybe New-Englandish?

2015/11/09

It wasn't just the newsreels. The ultra-fast talking high-pitched (and almost rhythmic) voice was actually common in media of that era. For example, here's the [final scene from Casablanca](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kiNJcDG4E0) in 1942. By modern standards, it sounds like a lot of bursts of rapid-fire dialog, interspersed by pauses for you to mentally catch your breath and process what you just heard. Dialog bits from [Dragnet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHmw2RgznSo&t=4m50s) are also famous for this, particularly when interrogating suspects. Another thing one may notice is that women are typically portrayed speaking much slower (as are the aforementioned Dragnet interrogation subjects). This is a big clue. Dialog speed was used as a marker for dispassionate intelligence. People talking slower and lower were indicating that they were being more emotional and/or not thinking clearly. A great illustration of this is this other [classic Cassablanca scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_a57ZNlU6o). Look away from the screen, and pay attention to how fast and low the actors (particularly Ingrid Bergman) speak depending on who they are speaking to and how emotional they are about what they are saying (or how emotional they are *trying* to be). For instance, whenever anyone is talking about the sentimental song, their voice gets lower and slower. In contrast, when her husband and the Chief show up, both Bergman and Bogart start talking much quicker and higher. To the best of my knowledge, the only person who has looked at this effect from a historical perspective is Maria DiBattista in her book [Fast Talking Dames](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0300099037). "Fast Talking" in this context is explained to be an indicator of intelligence and power. As for the unusual accent you are hearing, CGCambell in the comments pointed out that this would have been the ["Transatlantic" accent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent). It was common among the upper class in New York around the turn of the 20th century. Since those were the people who patronized the theater, it was common there as well. When the first media companies started up in New York, they tended to pick it up, as it was a much more "prestigious" accent than the other locally-available alternatives. This was the accent of the late George Plimpton and William F. Buckley Jr. It started to wane after the movie companies moved out to California and much of television production followed. Today most of the accents you hear in American media are a kind of homogenized [American Midlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_American_English) (which many Americans consider "no accent"), with a smattering of weak [AAVE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English) used to indicate someone from a rougher background.

I am Cam Cornelius and I can assure you that I did not originate this style, lol! The voice you are referring to is a style of the Mid-Atlantic accent...and yes, as a voice actor I do have opportunities to use this style for historical projects. Here is a great article on the origins: [That Weirdo Announcer-Voice Accent: Where It Came From and Why It Went Away](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/that-weirdo-announcer-voice-accent-where-it-came-from-and-why-it-went-away/395141/)

A commercial came on the radio last night while I was driving home that was a spoof on the old [news reels of the 30s and 40s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreel). And, being radio, the spoof was entirely centered on the iconic 'voice' of those old news reals...quick talking with an inflection unique enough that when you hear it you immediately think "ah, news reels!" That got me wondering what the history of that voice is. Did news reels typically sound like that? Or is that a stereotype that, overtime, has become emblematic of those reels even if not entirely accurate? If news reels did sound like that, was that a general style adopted by narrators, or was it something that came from one prominent/prolific narrator in particular? If you look through old newsreels on YouTube, they definitely do *not* all share that iconic narration voice, so I'm assuming this was a fabrication at some point in time. (PS, I wasn't sure which site to post this on...perhaps this would be better asked on Moviews/TV?) UPDATE: Trying to find some specific examples. The one I heard on the radio was actually a Geico commercial. But can't find that. The Legend of Korra uses this stereotypical news reel voice as a recap for each episode. You can see an example here: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigqWlscHYc> It's not quite as over-the-top as you find in more satirical uses but seems to be fairly consistent with the style elsewhere. If I had to describe the style I'd say it's" * fast talking * un-natural inflection * 'showmanship' * a trace of an accent...maybe New-Englandish?

2015/11/09

I am Cam Cornelius and I can assure you that I did not originate this style, lol! The voice you are referring to is a style of the Mid-Atlantic accent...and yes, as a voice actor I do have opportunities to use this style for historical projects. Here is a great article on the origins: [That Weirdo Announcer-Voice Accent: Where It Came From and Why It Went Away](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/that-weirdo-announcer-voice-accent-where-it-came-from-and-why-it-went-away/395141/)

Cam Cornelius. <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfKRKI3daoM> He has that old times news voice.

My barbarian will be level 3 soon, and I'm looking forward to choosing the Path of the Totem Warrior.

2017/08/26

The most thematically appropriate option would be for your Barbarian to hunt the relevant animal of your choice. The PHB of 50 states > > ... > > > You must make or acquire a physical totem object -an amulet or similar adornment—that incorporates fur or feathers, claws, teeth, or bones of the totem animal. > > > ... > > > Your choice of totem animal is Bear, Eagle or Wolf. In order to facilitate this I would speak to your DM and set out what type of totem you wish to get, and ask if they could facilitate a hunt scenario for this particular animal into your campaign.

You need to acquire the item: > > You must make or acquire a physical totem object -an amulet or similar adornment—that incorporates fur or feathers, claws, teeth, or bones of the totem animal. > > > From [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquire): > > **acquire:** to come into possession or control of often by unspecified means - *acquire* property - The team *acquired* three new players this year. > > > And by *unspecified means* it can include **buying one**. In any sufficient large city there should be a shop of trinkets, oddities[,](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/) or magic components that can sell either the amulet or the required animal parts.

Let's say I have a standalone windows service running in a windows server machine. How to make sure it is highly available? 1). What are all the design level guidelines that you can propose? 2). How to make it highly available like primary/secondary, eg., the clustering solutions currently available in the market 3). How to deal with cross-cutting concerns in case any fail-over scenarios If any other you can think of please add it here .. **Note:** The question is only related to windows and windows services, please try to obey this rule :)

2010/04/07

To keep the service at least running you can arrange for the Windows Service Manager to automatically restart the service if it crashes (see the Recovery tab on the service properties.) More details are available here, including a batch script to set these properties - [Restart a windows service if it crashes](https://serverfault.com/questions/48600/how-can-i-automatically-restart-a-windows-service-if-it-crashes) High availability is more than just keeping the service up from the outside - the service itself needs to be built with high-availabiity in mind (i.e. use good programming practices throughout, appropriate datastructures, pairs resource aquire and release), and the whole stress-tested to ensure that it will stay up under expected loads. For idempotent commands, tolerating intermittent failures (such as locked resources) can be achieved by re-invoking the command a certain number of times. This allows the service to shield the client from the failure (up to a point.) The client should also be coded to anticipate failure. The client can handle service failure in several ways - logging, prompting the user, retrying X times, logging a fatal error and exiting are all possible handlers - which one is right for you depends upon your requirements. If the service has "conversation state", when service fails hard (i.e. process is restarted), the client should be aware of and handle ths situation, as it usually means current conversation state has been lost. A single machine is going to be vulnerable to hardware failure, so if you are going to use a single machine, then ensure it has redundant components. HDDs are particularly prone to failure, so have at least mirrored drives, or a RAID array. PSUs are the next weak point, so redundant PSU is also worthwhile, as is a UPS. As to clustering, Windows supports service clustering, and manages services using a Network Name, rather than individual Computer names. This allows your client to connect to any machine running the service and not a hard-coded name. But unless you take additional measures, this is Resource failover - directing requests from one instance of the service to another. Converstaion state is usually lost. If your services are writing to a database, then that should also be clustered to also ensure reliabiity and ensure changes are available to the entire cluster, and not just the local node. This is really just the tip of the iceberg, but I hope it gives you ideas to get started on further research. [Microsoft Clustering Service (MSCS)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms952401.aspx)

If you break down the problems you are trying to solve, I think you'll probably come up with a few answers yourself. As Justin mentioned in the comment, there is no one answer. It completely depends on what your service does and how clients use it. You also don't specify any details about the client-server interactivity. HTTP? TCP? UDP? Other? Here are some things to think about to get you started. 1) What do you do if the service or server goes down? * How about run more than one instance of your service on separate servers? 2) Ok, but now how do the clients know about the multiple services? * You can hard code the list into each client(not recommended) * You can use DNS round-robin to bounce requests across all of them. * You can use a load-balancing device. * You can have a separate service that knows about all of the other services and can direct clients to available services. 3) So what if one service goes down? * Do the client applications know what to do if the service they are connected to goes down? If not, then they need to be updated to handle that situation. That should get you started with the basic idea of how to get started with high-availability. If you provide specific details about your architecture, you will probably get a much better response.

Let's say I have a standalone windows service running in a windows server machine. How to make sure it is highly available? 1). What are all the design level guidelines that you can propose? 2). How to make it highly available like primary/secondary, eg., the clustering solutions currently available in the market 3). How to deal with cross-cutting concerns in case any fail-over scenarios If any other you can think of please add it here .. **Note:** The question is only related to windows and windows services, please try to obey this rule :)

2010/04/07

To keep the service at least running you can arrange for the Windows Service Manager to automatically restart the service if it crashes (see the Recovery tab on the service properties.) More details are available here, including a batch script to set these properties - [Restart a windows service if it crashes](https://serverfault.com/questions/48600/how-can-i-automatically-restart-a-windows-service-if-it-crashes) High availability is more than just keeping the service up from the outside - the service itself needs to be built with high-availabiity in mind (i.e. use good programming practices throughout, appropriate datastructures, pairs resource aquire and release), and the whole stress-tested to ensure that it will stay up under expected loads. For idempotent commands, tolerating intermittent failures (such as locked resources) can be achieved by re-invoking the command a certain number of times. This allows the service to shield the client from the failure (up to a point.) The client should also be coded to anticipate failure. The client can handle service failure in several ways - logging, prompting the user, retrying X times, logging a fatal error and exiting are all possible handlers - which one is right for you depends upon your requirements. If the service has "conversation state", when service fails hard (i.e. process is restarted), the client should be aware of and handle ths situation, as it usually means current conversation state has been lost. A single machine is going to be vulnerable to hardware failure, so if you are going to use a single machine, then ensure it has redundant components. HDDs are particularly prone to failure, so have at least mirrored drives, or a RAID array. PSUs are the next weak point, so redundant PSU is also worthwhile, as is a UPS. As to clustering, Windows supports service clustering, and manages services using a Network Name, rather than individual Computer names. This allows your client to connect to any machine running the service and not a hard-coded name. But unless you take additional measures, this is Resource failover - directing requests from one instance of the service to another. Converstaion state is usually lost. If your services are writing to a database, then that should also be clustered to also ensure reliabiity and ensure changes are available to the entire cluster, and not just the local node. This is really just the tip of the iceberg, but I hope it gives you ideas to get started on further research. [Microsoft Clustering Service (MSCS)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms952401.aspx)

If the service doesn’t expose any interface for client connectivity you could: * Broadcast or expose an “I’m alive” message or signal a database/registry/tcp/whatever that you are alive * Have a second service (monitor) that checks for these “I’m alive” signals and try to restart the service in case it is down But if you have a client connecting to this service through namedpipes/tcp/etc, the client would have to check the address of the machine with the service running in a database, or have something fancier like an intelligent switch to redirect traffic.

I want to add data in drop down list,I am able to add the data and view it but for that i have to refresh the page again, I want to do that in jQuery without refreshing the page.

2015/04/13

The problem is * Caused by: java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Can't convert to color: type=0x2 at android.content.res.TypedArray.getColor(TypedArray.java:326) The code or id of the color is invalid.

I actually get it! The problem was with the custom theme i was trying to use. I think the main reason for that error came from trying to extend Material Light and that was incompatible with android version on my phone! :) If someone can confirm that i'll be gratefull!

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

A few scams I've seen making the rounds: * Use it to dial a premium rate number owned by the group. In the UK, 09xx numbers can cost up to £1.50 per minute, and most 09xx providers charge around 33%, so a five minute call syphons £5 into the group's hands. If you're a good social engineer, you might only have a 10 minute gap between calls as you wander around a busy high-street, so that's £15 an hour (tax free!) - almost triple minimum wage. * Use it to send premium rate texts. The regulations on there are tighter, but if you can get a premium rate SMS number set up, you can charge up to £10 per text. A scammer would typically see between £5 and £7 of that, after the provider takes a cut. It's also possible to set up a recurring cost, where the provider sends you messages every day and charges you up to £2.50 for each one. By law the service provider must automatically cancel it if they send a text sayin STOP, but every extra message you send gains you money. * Set up an app in the app store, then buy it on peoples' phones. This can be very expensive for the victim, since apps can be priced very high - some up to £80. In-app purchases also work. This is precisely why you should be prompted for your password on *every* app purchase and in-app purchase, but not all phones do so! * Install a malicious app, such as the mobile Zeus trojan. This can then be used to steal banking credentials and email accounts. This seems to be gaining popularity on Android phones.

Some mobile networks in the world allow users to transfer prepaid balances from one account to another. Alternatively, they might send some sort of incriminating SMS from your phone which may cause you issues with law enforcement officer.

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

They could use it to send the detonation signal to that nuclear weapon they've secreted in a warehouse in Manhattan. That's pretty much the worst-case scenario.

While detonating a bomb or EMP would be the most harmful, I think the following scenarios are much more likely to happen. If you have a smartphone, it's very likely you have some kind of weather widget on the homescreen which tells the attacker what is your hometown. Also, I yet have to see a smartphone without news widget, which again, tells the attacker what kind of person you are. Are you following a finance news? Sport? IT? The very same thing can be done by just looking at your installed apps. Do you have any games? Which ones? Do you have any kind of booking apps? Does this kind of app keeps any sort of history? Well, in short, within just few second attacker can make pretty reliable profile of you. Do you have anykind of notebook app? What have you written in it? The second threat is... Well, most likely you just gave him full access to all of your e-mail accounts and with a few presses on the screen, he could forward all of your mails to his account. The last thing which I can remember are pranks. While this doesn't sound like anything danger, it can be really unpleasantly. The attacker could send to a random contact of opposite sex SMS - "Hey, I'm thinking about you...". Just imagine if this random contact is your wife's friend (now, the scenario of detonating nuclear weapon is not so scary, isn't it?). Or even more explicit message to a contact saved as your family member (e.g. Mother). He could also update your Facebook status, leave a message on a Twitter or upload some of your private photos to a public service.

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

They could use it to send the detonation signal to that nuclear weapon they've secreted in a warehouse in Manhattan. That's pretty much the worst-case scenario.

Rule 3: [If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.](http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc722487.aspx#EIAA)

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

with a USB rubber on android the pin password could be hacked (brute forced) <http://hakshop.myshopify.com/products/usb-rubber-ducky> they could then create a backup of your device, they could analyse already created backups, they could download all of your saved data, media etc and use this to further penetrate other areas of interest. <https://santoku-linux.com> they could run the phone through a smartphone pentest framework, and infect it for botnet purposes. <http://georgiaweidman.com/wordpress/> they could hawk it for cash <http://www.cashamerica.com/> **on a side note, if your lucky they could;** 1. correct any duplicate contacts you have 2. organize your mobile media 3. finishing posting your facebook post you left open 4. beat that hard level on Angry birds for you 5. Call your most called numbers to return your phone 6. Call the carrier to report it lost/stolen 7. etc

With some phones it is possible to call system commands or even to lock the SIM card, just by visiting a prepared website. There was an article some time ago on [Heise security](http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Android-smartphones-USSD-calls-can-kill-SIM-cards-1719230.html) about this problem.

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

They could use it to send the detonation signal to that nuclear weapon they've secreted in a warehouse in Manhattan. That's pretty much the worst-case scenario.

With some phones it is possible to call system commands or even to lock the SIM card, just by visiting a prepared website. There was an article some time ago on [Heise security](http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Android-smartphones-USSD-calls-can-kill-SIM-cards-1719230.html) about this problem.

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

While detonating a bomb or EMP would be the most harmful, I think the following scenarios are much more likely to happen. If you have a smartphone, it's very likely you have some kind of weather widget on the homescreen which tells the attacker what is your hometown. Also, I yet have to see a smartphone without news widget, which again, tells the attacker what kind of person you are. Are you following a finance news? Sport? IT? The very same thing can be done by just looking at your installed apps. Do you have any games? Which ones? Do you have any kind of booking apps? Does this kind of app keeps any sort of history? Well, in short, within just few second attacker can make pretty reliable profile of you. Do you have anykind of notebook app? What have you written in it? The second threat is... Well, most likely you just gave him full access to all of your e-mail accounts and with a few presses on the screen, he could forward all of your mails to his account. The last thing which I can remember are pranks. While this doesn't sound like anything danger, it can be really unpleasantly. The attacker could send to a random contact of opposite sex SMS - "Hey, I'm thinking about you...". Just imagine if this random contact is your wife's friend (now, the scenario of detonating nuclear weapon is not so scary, isn't it?). Or even more explicit message to a contact saved as your family member (e.g. Mother). He could also update your Facebook status, leave a message on a Twitter or upload some of your private photos to a public service.

Did not see these: adding another sync account, forwarding your calls, automated pin code retrieval (boostmobile), calling drug dealers, making threats over your phone.

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

They could dial their own number to get yours (assuming your number isn't private.) I think I just invented a new, somewhat forceful and creepy, pick-up move.

They could dial a [USSD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstructured_Supplementary_Service_Data) to get supplimental information about you or your device. Some UUSD codes have been documented to have the capability of doing a factory reset on your phone. [Source](http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/25/dirty-ussd-code-samsung-hack-wipe/)

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

While detonating a bomb or EMP would be the most harmful, I think the following scenarios are much more likely to happen. If you have a smartphone, it's very likely you have some kind of weather widget on the homescreen which tells the attacker what is your hometown. Also, I yet have to see a smartphone without news widget, which again, tells the attacker what kind of person you are. Are you following a finance news? Sport? IT? The very same thing can be done by just looking at your installed apps. Do you have any games? Which ones? Do you have any kind of booking apps? Does this kind of app keeps any sort of history? Well, in short, within just few second attacker can make pretty reliable profile of you. Do you have anykind of notebook app? What have you written in it? The second threat is... Well, most likely you just gave him full access to all of your e-mail accounts and with a few presses on the screen, he could forward all of your mails to his account. The last thing which I can remember are pranks. While this doesn't sound like anything danger, it can be really unpleasantly. The attacker could send to a random contact of opposite sex SMS - "Hey, I'm thinking about you...". Just imagine if this random contact is your wife's friend (now, the scenario of detonating nuclear weapon is not so scary, isn't it?). Or even more explicit message to a contact saved as your family member (e.g. Mother). He could also update your Facebook status, leave a message on a Twitter or upload some of your private photos to a public service.

Rule 3: [If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.](http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc722487.aspx#EIAA)

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

A few scams I've seen making the rounds: * Use it to dial a premium rate number owned by the group. In the UK, 09xx numbers can cost up to £1.50 per minute, and most 09xx providers charge around 33%, so a five minute call syphons £5 into the group's hands. If you're a good social engineer, you might only have a 10 minute gap between calls as you wander around a busy high-street, so that's £15 an hour (tax free!) - almost triple minimum wage. * Use it to send premium rate texts. The regulations on there are tighter, but if you can get a premium rate SMS number set up, you can charge up to £10 per text. A scammer would typically see between £5 and £7 of that, after the provider takes a cut. It's also possible to set up a recurring cost, where the provider sends you messages every day and charges you up to £2.50 for each one. By law the service provider must automatically cancel it if they send a text sayin STOP, but every extra message you send gains you money. * Set up an app in the app store, then buy it on peoples' phones. This can be very expensive for the victim, since apps can be priced very high - some up to £80. In-app purchases also work. This is precisely why you should be prompted for your password on *every* app purchase and in-app purchase, but not all phones do so! * Install a malicious app, such as the mobile Zeus trojan. This can then be used to steal banking credentials and email accounts. This seems to be gaining popularity on Android phones.

With some phones it is possible to call system commands or even to lock the SIM card, just by visiting a prepared website. There was an article some time ago on [Heise security](http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Android-smartphones-USSD-calls-can-kill-SIM-cards-1719230.html) about this problem.

A stranger walks up to you on the street. They say they lost their phone and need to make a phone call (has happened to me twice, and maybe to you). What's the worst a phone call could do? Let's assume they don't run, don't plug any devices into the phone, they just dial a number and do whatever, and hang up.

2012/12/21

They could dial their own number to get yours (assuming your number isn't private.) I think I just invented a new, somewhat forceful and creepy, pick-up move.

While detonating a bomb or EMP would be the most harmful, I think the following scenarios are much more likely to happen. If you have a smartphone, it's very likely you have some kind of weather widget on the homescreen which tells the attacker what is your hometown. Also, I yet have to see a smartphone without news widget, which again, tells the attacker what kind of person you are. Are you following a finance news? Sport? IT? The very same thing can be done by just looking at your installed apps. Do you have any games? Which ones? Do you have any kind of booking apps? Does this kind of app keeps any sort of history? Well, in short, within just few second attacker can make pretty reliable profile of you. Do you have anykind of notebook app? What have you written in it? The second threat is... Well, most likely you just gave him full access to all of your e-mail accounts and with a few presses on the screen, he could forward all of your mails to his account. The last thing which I can remember are pranks. While this doesn't sound like anything danger, it can be really unpleasantly. The attacker could send to a random contact of opposite sex SMS - "Hey, I'm thinking about you...". Just imagine if this random contact is your wife's friend (now, the scenario of detonating nuclear weapon is not so scary, isn't it?). Or even more explicit message to a contact saved as your family member (e.g. Mother). He could also update your Facebook status, leave a message on a Twitter or upload some of your private photos to a public service.

[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VlYZM.png) I have a fictional world, consisting of a federation of 17 provinces (in blue on the map extract). Currently, it is in the late 1920's. The Dzevogurski and Quidthovitse provinces are on the brink of war. Historically, the province of Ladies Beach was part of Dzevogurski but split away peacefully several years ago for admisitrative reasons. The mountain range running NW-SE formed a natural boundry. In the region concerned, there are two major railway lines involved in trans-continental transport. The Fyonas River - Kandice Beach line runs through two districts of Dzevogurski. To Quidthovice, this is a major point of 'pain': Their tracks run through their 'rivals' territory. Also, in the 1890's Quidthovice managed to convince the Kimberley-district government to deny the builders of the Vaenesston-Tannith Beach line access to the 'easy' pass between Kimberley and St. Marias Stone, where the Quidthovice-based railroad company had its tracks laid already. To avoid conflict, the Dzevogurski-Ladies Beach government (sitting in Vaenesston) let this slide. Now, Quidthovice is trying to 'persuade' the two districts of Kimberley and Murrayville (in red/pink) to join their province. Their current 'parent' (the Dzevogurski province) naturally resists. This time, the Dzevogurski government will fight. If Kimberley and Murrayville do flip, this will [exclave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave) Yadzor. The districts of Kimberley, Murrayville, Yadzor are mainly cattle ranches, with some fruit (in the mountains) and dairy production. The population is being influeced by both sides. The question which I'm asking is this: Can two provinces in a federation have a war between themselves, with everybody else staying neutral? Can you still call it a 'civil war'? I know that opinion-based questions are frowned upon in this forum, hence this is an optional question: How would this conflict be resolved?

2019/05/31

**It depends** I would say that if the question is purely about semantics, we do not have an internationally accepted definition of civil war. I think that the conflict between two provinces in a federation is not a civil war. Presumably, there is some sort of a federal government, and it's not taking part in it in the situation you describe. Nor is either of the two sides trying to overthrow the federal government. It can be called 'civil war' in quotes later, if the conflict was especially long or bloody, and the description may stick. Or it may be treated as a big [range war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_war). Most of other parts of your question depend on the strength of the federal government, the acceptable policies in your world. Will other provinces join in the war - depends on what they stand to win by participating and whether that's an acceptable part of their political culture. They may be content to solve some conflicts by proxy, supplying the combating provinces, but not risking their troops. Or they may treat it as a humanitarian catastrophe and declare strict policy of non-intervention in order to reap some political capital from it. As for the ways to solve it - again, it severely depends on the structure of the federation and the strength of the federal government. It may be a literal intervention by federal troops that stops the silliness. Or, maybe, federal government is severely decentralized and has a huge latency - all other provinces need to summon a temporary Council in order to figure out what to do next. It also depends on the international conditions - what are the neighbors of your country like and what will they do when the shooting starts?

**Yes** A civil war is when members of the same country fight against each other for some reason. The people of these provinces presumably think of themselves as part of the same country, and they are fighting, therefore this is a civil war regardless of whether or not some provinces do not fight. There’s a long history of this too: Both Greek and Italian City-states fought each other either directly or through mercenary proxies while still thinking of themselves as part of the same country (for a given value of country). Where I’d question it is the point of public image and definition. If the government of one province or the other calls it ‘civil unrest that needs to be quelled’ instead of ‘civil war’ then at the time of the conflict there may be confusion over the nature of the conflict, and as history is written by the winners even a brutal fight between two provinces could be massaged into ‘inter-region dispute’ with a careful PR campaign. On the other hand if one region declares itself to be independent from the country (even if the country doesn’t recognise it, like Spain and Catalan), then this stops being a civil war (depending on whose definition of the country you accept). In the world of inter-state politics definition of what is and isn’t is crucial. Did Russia invade Crimea or liberate it’s people? It did both depending on who you ask. So yeah. Calling it a ‘partial civil war’ is fine, though some governing bodies in your world may disagree. As for how the conflict is resolved, surely that’s up to you to decide?

[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VlYZM.png) I have a fictional world, consisting of a federation of 17 provinces (in blue on the map extract). Currently, it is in the late 1920's. The Dzevogurski and Quidthovitse provinces are on the brink of war. Historically, the province of Ladies Beach was part of Dzevogurski but split away peacefully several years ago for admisitrative reasons. The mountain range running NW-SE formed a natural boundry. In the region concerned, there are two major railway lines involved in trans-continental transport. The Fyonas River - Kandice Beach line runs through two districts of Dzevogurski. To Quidthovice, this is a major point of 'pain': Their tracks run through their 'rivals' territory. Also, in the 1890's Quidthovice managed to convince the Kimberley-district government to deny the builders of the Vaenesston-Tannith Beach line access to the 'easy' pass between Kimberley and St. Marias Stone, where the Quidthovice-based railroad company had its tracks laid already. To avoid conflict, the Dzevogurski-Ladies Beach government (sitting in Vaenesston) let this slide. Now, Quidthovice is trying to 'persuade' the two districts of Kimberley and Murrayville (in red/pink) to join their province. Their current 'parent' (the Dzevogurski province) naturally resists. This time, the Dzevogurski government will fight. If Kimberley and Murrayville do flip, this will [exclave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave) Yadzor. The districts of Kimberley, Murrayville, Yadzor are mainly cattle ranches, with some fruit (in the mountains) and dairy production. The population is being influeced by both sides. The question which I'm asking is this: Can two provinces in a federation have a war between themselves, with everybody else staying neutral? Can you still call it a 'civil war'? I know that opinion-based questions are frowned upon in this forum, hence this is an optional question: How would this conflict be resolved?

2019/05/31

**Yes** A civil war is when members of the same country fight against each other for some reason. The people of these provinces presumably think of themselves as part of the same country, and they are fighting, therefore this is a civil war regardless of whether or not some provinces do not fight. There’s a long history of this too: Both Greek and Italian City-states fought each other either directly or through mercenary proxies while still thinking of themselves as part of the same country (for a given value of country). Where I’d question it is the point of public image and definition. If the government of one province or the other calls it ‘civil unrest that needs to be quelled’ instead of ‘civil war’ then at the time of the conflict there may be confusion over the nature of the conflict, and as history is written by the winners even a brutal fight between two provinces could be massaged into ‘inter-region dispute’ with a careful PR campaign. On the other hand if one region declares itself to be independent from the country (even if the country doesn’t recognise it, like Spain and Catalan), then this stops being a civil war (depending on whose definition of the country you accept). In the world of inter-state politics definition of what is and isn’t is crucial. Did Russia invade Crimea or liberate it’s people? It did both depending on who you ask. So yeah. Calling it a ‘partial civil war’ is fine, though some governing bodies in your world may disagree. As for how the conflict is resolved, surely that’s up to you to decide?

Yes, it is not only possible to have neutral parties in internal conflicts, it has happened historically. This would probably classified as a [Low Intensity Conflicts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_intensity_conflict) due to the localized nature and limited scale of fighting. While "Low Intensity" might not seem to be "Not really a war", low intensity refers to the infrequency of fighting. Low intensity actually conflicts have very higher casualty rates, due to the use of poorly trained soldiers, guerrilla tactics, and terrorism. Some examples of civil low intensity conflicts with neutral parties: [The Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Overview) - 30 year conflict between Irish nationalists and the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland. While the number of fighters was relatively small, many civilians were killed, even though most citizens of Northern Ireland remained neutral. (Give Ireland back to the Irish) [Sudanese Civil Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_Civil_War) - For most of these wars the Sudanese government participated in "Annual Dry Season Offensives" against the South Sudanese. The rough climate and poor transportation infrastructure of Sudan made it very difficult to hold territory during parts of the year. So almost every year since 1955 The Sudanese Army has invaded the south during the dry season, attempting to take as much land as possible. However, due to the logistical difficulty of holding the land The Sudanese Army retreats every rainy season. [Myanmar Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar) - Since around 1948, for very complex historical reasons, Myanmar has been in constant civil war. The conflict is the world's longest ongoing civil war and shows no signs of stopping. None of the many sides have made significant progress due to not being able to capture highly defensible terrain (mostly mountains and jungle) this has lead to all sides transforming into self-ruling militaristic states

[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VlYZM.png) I have a fictional world, consisting of a federation of 17 provinces (in blue on the map extract). Currently, it is in the late 1920's. The Dzevogurski and Quidthovitse provinces are on the brink of war. Historically, the province of Ladies Beach was part of Dzevogurski but split away peacefully several years ago for admisitrative reasons. The mountain range running NW-SE formed a natural boundry. In the region concerned, there are two major railway lines involved in trans-continental transport. The Fyonas River - Kandice Beach line runs through two districts of Dzevogurski. To Quidthovice, this is a major point of 'pain': Their tracks run through their 'rivals' territory. Also, in the 1890's Quidthovice managed to convince the Kimberley-district government to deny the builders of the Vaenesston-Tannith Beach line access to the 'easy' pass between Kimberley and St. Marias Stone, where the Quidthovice-based railroad company had its tracks laid already. To avoid conflict, the Dzevogurski-Ladies Beach government (sitting in Vaenesston) let this slide. Now, Quidthovice is trying to 'persuade' the two districts of Kimberley and Murrayville (in red/pink) to join their province. Their current 'parent' (the Dzevogurski province) naturally resists. This time, the Dzevogurski government will fight. If Kimberley and Murrayville do flip, this will [exclave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave) Yadzor. The districts of Kimberley, Murrayville, Yadzor are mainly cattle ranches, with some fruit (in the mountains) and dairy production. The population is being influeced by both sides. The question which I'm asking is this: Can two provinces in a federation have a war between themselves, with everybody else staying neutral? Can you still call it a 'civil war'? I know that opinion-based questions are frowned upon in this forum, hence this is an optional question: How would this conflict be resolved?

2019/05/31

**It depends** I would say that if the question is purely about semantics, we do not have an internationally accepted definition of civil war. I think that the conflict between two provinces in a federation is not a civil war. Presumably, there is some sort of a federal government, and it's not taking part in it in the situation you describe. Nor is either of the two sides trying to overthrow the federal government. It can be called 'civil war' in quotes later, if the conflict was especially long or bloody, and the description may stick. Or it may be treated as a big [range war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_war). Most of other parts of your question depend on the strength of the federal government, the acceptable policies in your world. Will other provinces join in the war - depends on what they stand to win by participating and whether that's an acceptable part of their political culture. They may be content to solve some conflicts by proxy, supplying the combating provinces, but not risking their troops. Or they may treat it as a humanitarian catastrophe and declare strict policy of non-intervention in order to reap some political capital from it. As for the ways to solve it - again, it severely depends on the structure of the federation and the strength of the federal government. It may be a literal intervention by federal troops that stops the silliness. Or, maybe, federal government is severely decentralized and has a huge latency - all other provinces need to summon a temporary Council in order to figure out what to do next. It also depends on the international conditions - what are the neighbors of your country like and what will they do when the shooting starts?

There are plenty of historical examples to confirm that such conflicts can exist. Provinces of the [Ottoman Empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) frequently feuded with each other. And in the US there was the third [Pennamite War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennamite%E2%80%93Yankee_War) between Pennsylvania and Connecticut (the first two occurred before the US existed).

[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VlYZM.png) I have a fictional world, consisting of a federation of 17 provinces (in blue on the map extract). Currently, it is in the late 1920's. The Dzevogurski and Quidthovitse provinces are on the brink of war. Historically, the province of Ladies Beach was part of Dzevogurski but split away peacefully several years ago for admisitrative reasons. The mountain range running NW-SE formed a natural boundry. In the region concerned, there are two major railway lines involved in trans-continental transport. The Fyonas River - Kandice Beach line runs through two districts of Dzevogurski. To Quidthovice, this is a major point of 'pain': Their tracks run through their 'rivals' territory. Also, in the 1890's Quidthovice managed to convince the Kimberley-district government to deny the builders of the Vaenesston-Tannith Beach line access to the 'easy' pass between Kimberley and St. Marias Stone, where the Quidthovice-based railroad company had its tracks laid already. To avoid conflict, the Dzevogurski-Ladies Beach government (sitting in Vaenesston) let this slide. Now, Quidthovice is trying to 'persuade' the two districts of Kimberley and Murrayville (in red/pink) to join their province. Their current 'parent' (the Dzevogurski province) naturally resists. This time, the Dzevogurski government will fight. If Kimberley and Murrayville do flip, this will [exclave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave) Yadzor. The districts of Kimberley, Murrayville, Yadzor are mainly cattle ranches, with some fruit (in the mountains) and dairy production. The population is being influeced by both sides. The question which I'm asking is this: Can two provinces in a federation have a war between themselves, with everybody else staying neutral? Can you still call it a 'civil war'? I know that opinion-based questions are frowned upon in this forum, hence this is an optional question: How would this conflict be resolved?

2019/05/31

There are plenty of historical examples to confirm that such conflicts can exist. Provinces of the [Ottoman Empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) frequently feuded with each other. And in the US there was the third [Pennamite War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennamite%E2%80%93Yankee_War) between Pennsylvania and Connecticut (the first two occurred before the US existed).

Yes, it is not only possible to have neutral parties in internal conflicts, it has happened historically. This would probably classified as a [Low Intensity Conflicts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_intensity_conflict) due to the localized nature and limited scale of fighting. While "Low Intensity" might not seem to be "Not really a war", low intensity refers to the infrequency of fighting. Low intensity actually conflicts have very higher casualty rates, due to the use of poorly trained soldiers, guerrilla tactics, and terrorism. Some examples of civil low intensity conflicts with neutral parties: [The Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Overview) - 30 year conflict between Irish nationalists and the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland. While the number of fighters was relatively small, many civilians were killed, even though most citizens of Northern Ireland remained neutral. (Give Ireland back to the Irish) [Sudanese Civil Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_Civil_War) - For most of these wars the Sudanese government participated in "Annual Dry Season Offensives" against the South Sudanese. The rough climate and poor transportation infrastructure of Sudan made it very difficult to hold territory during parts of the year. So almost every year since 1955 The Sudanese Army has invaded the south during the dry season, attempting to take as much land as possible. However, due to the logistical difficulty of holding the land The Sudanese Army retreats every rainy season. [Myanmar Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar) - Since around 1948, for very complex historical reasons, Myanmar has been in constant civil war. The conflict is the world's longest ongoing civil war and shows no signs of stopping. None of the many sides have made significant progress due to not being able to capture highly defensible terrain (mostly mountains and jungle) this has lead to all sides transforming into self-ruling militaristic states

[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VlYZM.png) I have a fictional world, consisting of a federation of 17 provinces (in blue on the map extract). Currently, it is in the late 1920's. The Dzevogurski and Quidthovitse provinces are on the brink of war. Historically, the province of Ladies Beach was part of Dzevogurski but split away peacefully several years ago for admisitrative reasons. The mountain range running NW-SE formed a natural boundry. In the region concerned, there are two major railway lines involved in trans-continental transport. The Fyonas River - Kandice Beach line runs through two districts of Dzevogurski. To Quidthovice, this is a major point of 'pain': Their tracks run through their 'rivals' territory. Also, in the 1890's Quidthovice managed to convince the Kimberley-district government to deny the builders of the Vaenesston-Tannith Beach line access to the 'easy' pass between Kimberley and St. Marias Stone, where the Quidthovice-based railroad company had its tracks laid already. To avoid conflict, the Dzevogurski-Ladies Beach government (sitting in Vaenesston) let this slide. Now, Quidthovice is trying to 'persuade' the two districts of Kimberley and Murrayville (in red/pink) to join their province. Their current 'parent' (the Dzevogurski province) naturally resists. This time, the Dzevogurski government will fight. If Kimberley and Murrayville do flip, this will [exclave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave) Yadzor. The districts of Kimberley, Murrayville, Yadzor are mainly cattle ranches, with some fruit (in the mountains) and dairy production. The population is being influeced by both sides. The question which I'm asking is this: Can two provinces in a federation have a war between themselves, with everybody else staying neutral? Can you still call it a 'civil war'? I know that opinion-based questions are frowned upon in this forum, hence this is an optional question: How would this conflict be resolved?

2019/05/31

**It depends** I would say that if the question is purely about semantics, we do not have an internationally accepted definition of civil war. I think that the conflict between two provinces in a federation is not a civil war. Presumably, there is some sort of a federal government, and it's not taking part in it in the situation you describe. Nor is either of the two sides trying to overthrow the federal government. It can be called 'civil war' in quotes later, if the conflict was especially long or bloody, and the description may stick. Or it may be treated as a big [range war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_war). Most of other parts of your question depend on the strength of the federal government, the acceptable policies in your world. Will other provinces join in the war - depends on what they stand to win by participating and whether that's an acceptable part of their political culture. They may be content to solve some conflicts by proxy, supplying the combating provinces, but not risking their troops. Or they may treat it as a humanitarian catastrophe and declare strict policy of non-intervention in order to reap some political capital from it. As for the ways to solve it - again, it severely depends on the structure of the federation and the strength of the federal government. It may be a literal intervention by federal troops that stops the silliness. Or, maybe, federal government is severely decentralized and has a huge latency - all other provinces need to summon a temporary Council in order to figure out what to do next. It also depends on the international conditions - what are the neighbors of your country like and what will they do when the shooting starts?

Yes, it is not only possible to have neutral parties in internal conflicts, it has happened historically. This would probably classified as a [Low Intensity Conflicts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_intensity_conflict) due to the localized nature and limited scale of fighting. While "Low Intensity" might not seem to be "Not really a war", low intensity refers to the infrequency of fighting. Low intensity actually conflicts have very higher casualty rates, due to the use of poorly trained soldiers, guerrilla tactics, and terrorism. Some examples of civil low intensity conflicts with neutral parties: [The Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Overview) - 30 year conflict between Irish nationalists and the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland. While the number of fighters was relatively small, many civilians were killed, even though most citizens of Northern Ireland remained neutral. (Give Ireland back to the Irish) [Sudanese Civil Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_Civil_War) - For most of these wars the Sudanese government participated in "Annual Dry Season Offensives" against the South Sudanese. The rough climate and poor transportation infrastructure of Sudan made it very difficult to hold territory during parts of the year. So almost every year since 1955 The Sudanese Army has invaded the south during the dry season, attempting to take as much land as possible. However, due to the logistical difficulty of holding the land The Sudanese Army retreats every rainy season. [Myanmar Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar) - Since around 1948, for very complex historical reasons, Myanmar has been in constant civil war. The conflict is the world's longest ongoing civil war and shows no signs of stopping. None of the many sides have made significant progress due to not being able to capture highly defensible terrain (mostly mountains and jungle) this has lead to all sides transforming into self-ruling militaristic states

In Windows Vista, whenever I open a folder, the selection of columns is nonsensical: album, date taken, etc., for folders that contain no music or pictures whatsoever. I can select the correct columns for a particular folder, but all the other folders are still wrong, even when I go in to Folder Options and click the button to set the current options to all folders of this type. How can I tell Windows to use the current column selection for all folders, unless otherwise specified?

2009/09/10

First you set the columns the way you want in one folder, then on the Tools menu (`Alt`+`t` if the menu is hidden by default), click Folder Options... and then go to the View tab, click Apply to Folders. After confirming, you will see that all your folders (at least of that type) have been changed. PS. Thanks for asking; it reminded me that I needed to set this up.

See this article from annoyances.org : ["Default Folder Template Patch"](http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/choosetemplate), which says: > > Windows Vista has a bug that prevents > it from choosing the correct view for > a folder based on its contents, which > is why you may see thumbnails when > they're not appropriate, and no > thumbnails when they're needed. The > following patch stops Vista from > trying to guess how to display a > folder, instead forcing it to use the > template of your choice. > > >

In D&D 5th edition, there is a continuity among the spells that deal with returning life to the dead. Virtually all of them require an expenditure of diamond or diamond dust. * **Revivify** diamonds worth 300 gp * **Raise Dead** diamond worth at least 500 gp * **Resurrection** a diamond worth at least 1,000 gp * **True Resurrection** a sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth at least 25,000gp Additionally, some restorative spells require similar materials: * **Clone** diamond worth at least 1,000 gp * **Greater Restoration** diamond dust worth at least 100 gp Because of this, my players have realized that there is a different order of value placed upon any diamonds they find. An opal or sapphire might be spent, but the diamonds they find are hoarded against possible future need.To be fair, diamonds are used in other spells, but in these they are thematically linked enough to impart the gem a symbolic meaning of restoration, at least in the games we play. I realize that this doesn't change the value of diamonds in a monetary sense. 500 gp worth of diamonds is worth 500 gp, regardless if they are 10gp/carat, or 50 gp/carat. However, it has got me wondering. Since this does make diamonds special in the eyes of my players, setting them apart from other gems which are largely treated as high denomination currency, **are there other gems or substances (precious or not) among the material components in the spell list which are likewise identified with a certain *type* of spell?** Such information would be good to have for anything from simple flavor to home brewing new spells. --- Related: [Material Component of Reviving Spells](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/101979/material-component-of-reviving-spells)

2018/01/17

Yes, some material components are thematically related to types of spells ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I found [this spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KSibOeWub0_f79GYSnMu7om8kWwog1ob8dRY9LLoDAE/edit#gid=0) from this [reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/5fz3k0/spreadsheet_all_material_spell_components_in_dd_5e/), where the user compiled the material components for a lot of spells. Looking at this list, there are some thematic links, some more clear than others. The stronger ones that I noticed are: * **Holy water:** Bless, Commune, Dispel Evil, Forbiddance, Magic Circle, Protection from Evil/Good, Regenerate, True Resurrection, Wind Walk * **Feather:** Fly, Foresight, Identify, Wind Wall, Fear * **Fleece:** Major Image, Minor Illusion, Phantasmal Force, Programmed Illusion, Silent Image * **Phosphorous**: Conjure Elemental (Fire), Dancing Lights, Fire Shield, Symbol, Wall of Fire * **Sulfur**: Conjure Elemental (Fire), Delayed Blast Fireball, Fireball, Flame Strike * **Water**: Armor of Agathys, Conjure Elemental (Water), Control Water, Create Water, Flesh to Stone, Ice Knife (or as ice) (EEPC) (XGtE), Ice Storm, Sleet Storm, Tidal Wave (EEPC) (XGtE), Wall of Water (EEPC) (XGtE), Watery Sphere (EEPC) (XGtE) * **Lodestone**: Disintegrate, Mending, Reverse Gravity However, there are a lot of spells that don't seem to have any thematic link but share similar material components. A handful of examples: * **Ruby**: Infernal Calling, Forbiddance, Forcecage, Simulacrum, Continual Flame * **Iron filings or powder**: Antimagic Field, Enlarge/Reduce, Flaming Sphere, Reverse Gravity I'd suggest that you read through the entire list, as I'm sure you'll find something useful in it.

Thanks to someone on Reddit doing most of the legwork ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/5fz3k0/spreadsheet_all_material_spell_components_in_dd_5e/)), I found a couple common themes for components: 1. Water is a common component for water and ice spells (surprising, I know). See *conjure elemental (water), control water, create water, ice knife, ice storm, sleet storm, tidal wave, wall of water,* and *watery sphere*. 2. Holy water is a common component for 'holy' spells and wards (such as *bless, commune, dispel evil, magic circle,* and *protection from evil*). 3. Sand is common for sleep spells, including *catnap, dream,* and *sleep*. 4. Clay is common for earth spells, notably *conjure elemental (earth), earthquake,* and *stone shape*. 5. Sulfur is common for fire spells, such as *conjure elemental (fire), delayed blast fireball, fireball,* and *flame strike*. Other than those, some other components are common (such as incense and rubies), but seemingly without any specific pattern to the spells they are components for. For example, rubies (whether whole or as dust) are needed for *continual flame, forbiddance, forcecage, infernal calling,* and *simulacrum*. A few components are used in two or three spells of the same type or single-target v. mass target (for example, honeycomb is used for both *suggestion* and *mass suggestion*) but I didn't think this was necessarily worth noting here.

I'm trying to run around 15000 soap requests through JMeter. I have 15000 individual soap files in a folder. I know that the [WebService(SOAP) Request](http://jmeter.apache.org/usermanual/component_reference.html#WebService%28SOAP%29_Request) component has the option to point to a folder. But, the problem is that the files in the folder will get picked up and run randomly and a file can get run multiple times. This is not ideal because each request has a unique correlation id and if a file get's run twice, the second run will fail due to a duplicated correlation id. Is there anyway, I could tell jmeter to run the files only once? Also, as certain soap requests are dependent upon other request having already run, the ability to run these in a specified order would be desirable. Is this possible? These seem like common problems that should have already been solved. But, I can't find much on google. Do you guys have any ideas?

2012/06/01

I would use [the JSR223 Sampler](http://jmeter.apache.org/usermanual/component_reference.html#JSR223_Sampler) to run a script (e.g. Groovy) to iterate through the files in the directory and store the text of each file in a String. See, for example, [this other answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/9733568/62667) about using a Groovy script to iterate a list of values.

You could put the data into a csv file and read it in using a CSV Data Set Config. If you need unique values over multiple threads then you have to create multiple files, one per thread. You could also put the data in a database and use a JDBC Config/Sampler to access it, making sure to either a: delete the data after it is read, or b: mark it as 'read' using a flag. Both methods would prevent the same record being read twice by different threads. If you need to run requests in order you should structure the test plan as such, requests will be made sequentially, top to bottom.

As we all know that Upanishads were written to understand Vedas. Some great scholars also said that they are the branches of Vedas. My question is related to it. Yesterday in a library, I was reading some books and then I found a book written by Dr. Surendra KR Sharma. The name of the book was in Hindi **Kya baloo ki bhit par khada hai Hindu dharma (Does Hinduism stand on the wall of sand)**. On page no. 344. In this book he quoted Mundak Upanishad 1:1:5. I am giving the English translation by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.  So my question I am confused now that **Why Vedas are called inferior in Upanishads?**

2020/01/04

We should also read the next verse (1:1:6) in continuation for understanding Mundak Upanishad 1.1.5 Please [read the following](https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mundak1/mundak1_1.html): > > We cannot go to the Veda directly and understand anything out of it > unless we are proficient in these six auxiliary shastras, or > scriptures, called śikṣā kalpo vyākaraṇaṁ niruktaṁ chando jyotiṣam. > All these, says the great Master, together with the original Vedas—the > **Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda—\*\*should be considered \*\*\*as lower knowledge.\*** > > > They purify our minds and enlighten us into the mysteries of the whole > of creation. They purify our minds because of ***the power that is > embedded in the mantras*** and the emotional or religious awareness that > is stimulated within us on account of the meaning that we see in the > mantras, the blessing that we receive from the sages, who composed the > mantras, and also the special power that is generated by the metre. > > > All these put together create a religious atmosphere in the person who > takes to the study of the Veda. It is great and grand, worth studying. > It will lift us to the empyrean of a comprehension of values that are > not merely physical, but ***superphysical***. Yet, it is not enough. There > is a ‘but’ behind it. What is that greater knowledge, which is higher > than this mentioned? > > > ***Atha parā yayā tad akṣaram adhigamyate***: That is the ***higher knowledge*** with which alone can we reach the imperishable Reality. Learning is > different from wisdom; scholarship is not the same as insight. One may > be a learned Vedic scholar and very proficient in the performance of > sacrifices and the invocation of gods in the heavens, but eternity is > different from temporality. > > > All these glories of the Veda are in the region of time, and the Eternal is timeless. What is that timeless thing, that which is called **Imperishable**? > > Yat tad adreśyam, agrāhyam, agotram, avarṇam, acakṣuḥ- śrotraṁ tad > apāṇi-padām, nityam vibhuṁ sarva-gataṁ susūkṣmaṁ tad avyayam yad > bhūta-yonim paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ (1.1.6) > > > That great Reality is to be encountered in ***direct experience***. * **Adreśyam**: that Reality which is not capable of perception through the eyes; * **agrāhyam**: that which cannot be grasped with the hands; * **avarnam**: which has no origin; * **agotram**: which has no shape or form; * **acakṣuḥ-śrotraṁ**: which has no sense organs like us; * **tad apāṇi-padam**: which has no limbs such as feet, hands, etc.; * **nityam vibhum sarva-gataṁ susūkṣmaṁ**: which is permanent, eternal, all-pervading, subtler than the subtlest; * **tad avyayam**: which is imperishable; * **bhūta-yonim**: which is the origin of all beings; * **paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ**: heroes on the path of the spirit will behold that great **Reality** ***within their own selves***. --- Mundak Upanishad 1.1.5 was saying that mere learning Vedic mantras of Vedas is not sufficient to attain the Ultimate Wisdom. That is why it is calling the Vedas as Inferior to the ***ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE***.

The Upanishad verse in question refers to the Vedas interpreted only ritualistically, as inferior. It does not negate the importance of Vedic knowledge itself. Because we see the same Upanishad talk about the Vedas in high regard. 2.1.6: > > तस्मादृचः साम यजूंषि दीक्षा यज्ञाश्च सर्वे क्रतवो दक्षिणाश्च > > > From the Atman, came the Rk, Sama, Yajus, consecrations, yajnas, all holy works and holy donations. > > > 3.2.10: > > क्रियावन्तः श्रोत्रिया ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः स्वयं जुह्वत एकर्षिं श्रद्धयन्तः । > > तेषामेवैतां ब्रह्मविद्यां वदेत शिरोव्रतं विधिवद्यैस्तु चीर्णम् ॥ > > > This Brahmavidyā should be taught only to those who regularly perform all the rituals (kriyāvanta), are well-versed in the Vedas (śrotriya), committed to Vedic learning (brahmaniṣṭha), who perform their own yajnas (svayam juhvata), and have truth-belief in the Atman. > > > So clearly, the Upanishad feels that the prerequisite for learning about Brahman is to be completely leading a committed Vaidika lifestyle and a wise knowledge of Vedas. This shows that the Upanishad knew about the secret spiritual teachings in the Vedas hidden under symbolism. It only criticises the superficial application of Vedas.

As we all know that Upanishads were written to understand Vedas. Some great scholars also said that they are the branches of Vedas. My question is related to it. Yesterday in a library, I was reading some books and then I found a book written by Dr. Surendra KR Sharma. The name of the book was in Hindi **Kya baloo ki bhit par khada hai Hindu dharma (Does Hinduism stand on the wall of sand)**. On page no. 344. In this book he quoted Mundak Upanishad 1:1:5. I am giving the English translation by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.  So my question I am confused now that **Why Vedas are called inferior in Upanishads?**

2020/01/04

The Vedas are divisible into two parts which are [Purva Mimamsa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%ABm%C4%81%E1%B9%83s%C4%81) or Karma Mimamsa dealing with rituals for Dharma, Artha, Kama and Gyana Kanda or Uttara Mimamsa/Upanishads for Moksha. Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha together are [Purusartha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puru%E1%B9%A3%C4%81rtha) or purpose of society and its beings. Upanishads have called Purva Mimamsa as inferior when compared to Gyana Kanda Vedanta. [Mundaka Upanishad Chapter 1](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mundaka-upanishad-shankara-bhashya/d/doc145078.html) > > 3. Saunaka, a great grihasta, having duly approached Angiras, questioned him “What is that, O Bhagavan which being known, all this > becomes known.” (3) > 4. **To him he said “There are two sorts of knowledge to he acquired. So those who know the Brahman say; namely, Para and Apara, i.e., the > higher and the lower.** > 5. **Of these, the Apara is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda, and the Atharva Veda, the siksha, the code of rituals, grammar, > nirukta, chhandas and astrology. Then the para is that by which the > immortal is known.** > 6. That which cannot be perceived, which cannot be seized, which has no origin, which has no properties, which has neither ear nor eye, > which lias neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, diversely > manifested, all-pervading, extremely subtle, and undecaying, which the > intelligent cognized as the source of the Bhutas. (6) > 7. As the spider creates and absorbs, as medicinal plants grow from the earth, as hairs grow from the living person, so this universe > proceeds from the immortal. > 8. By tapas Brahman increases in size and from it food is produced; from food the prana, the mind, the Bhûtas the worlds, karma and with > it, its fruits. > 9. From the Brahman who knows all and everything of all and whose tapas is in the nature of knowledge, this Brahma, name, form and food > are produced. > > > Importance of Brahmgyan over memorizing Vedic Karma kanda alone, was also explained by sage Yagyavalkya to Gargi and sage Uddalak to his son Shvetaketu. > > [Brihadarayanka Upanishad 3.8.9](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118359.html). **He, O Gārgī, who in this world, > without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs > sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, > finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gārgī, who departs from this > world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable.** But he, O Gārgī, > who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower > of Brahman. > > > [Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 6](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc239254.html) > > 1.1. Āruṇi had a son named Śvetaketu. Once Āruṇi told him: ‘Śvetaketu, you should now live as a brahmacārin. No one in our family has not > studied the scriptures and has not been a good brāhmin’. > > > 1.2. **Śvetaketu went to his teacher’s house at the age of twelve. After studying all the Vedas, he returned home when he was twenty-four, > having become very serious and vain, and thinking himself to be a > great scholar. [Noticing this,] his father said to him: ‘O Śvetaketu, > you have now become very serious and vain, and you think you are a > great scholar. But did you ask your teacher for that teaching [about > Brahman]—** > > > 1.3.**‘—that teaching by which what is never heard becomes heard, what is never thought of becomes thought of, what is never known becomes > known?’** [Śvetaketu asked,] ‘Sir, what is that teaching?’. > > > 1.5. O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of gold you know all objects made of gold. All changes are mere words, in name > only. But gold is the reality. > > > 1.7. [Śvetaketu said:] ‘Surely my revered teachers did not know this truth. If they knew it, why should they not have told me? So please > explain it to me, sir.’ His father said, ‘Let it be so, my son’. > > > 2.1. Somya, before this world was manifest there was only existence, one without a second. On this subject, some maintain that before this > world was manifest there was only non-existence, one without a second. > Out of that non-existence, existence emerged. > > > 2.2. The father said: ‘O Somya, what proof is there for this—that from nothing something has emerged? Rather, before this world came into > being, O Somya, there was only existence, one without a second’. > > > 2.3. That Existence decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ He then created fire. That fire also decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall > be born.’ Then fire produced water. That is why whenever or wherever a > person mourns or perspires, he produces water. > > > 3.2. That god [Existence] decided: ‘Entering into these three deities [fire, water, and earth], as the individual self, I shall manifest > myself in many names and forms’. > > > 3.3. Sat [Existence] thought, ‘I shall divide each of these three deities threefold.’ Then, having entered into these three deities as > the individual self, he manifested himself as names and forms. > > > Thats why, after Buddhism spread in India during reign of Ashoka, many leftout Hindus attached themselves to Purva Mimamsa for Dharma,Artha and Kama naturally, and Adi Shankaracharya, champion of Uttara Mimamsa defeated Buddhists and followers of Karma Mimamsa like [Mandana Mishra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%E1%B9%87%E1%B8%8Dana_Mi%C5%9Bra) in [scriptural debates](https://www.esamskriti.com/e/Spirituality/Vedanta/The-classic-debate-between-Mandana-Misra-and-Adi-Shankara-1.aspx) and made them enter into Sanyass or Bhakti Hinduism of Puranas.

The Upanishad verse in question refers to the Vedas interpreted only ritualistically, as inferior. It does not negate the importance of Vedic knowledge itself. Because we see the same Upanishad talk about the Vedas in high regard. 2.1.6: > > तस्मादृचः साम यजूंषि दीक्षा यज्ञाश्च सर्वे क्रतवो दक्षिणाश्च > > > From the Atman, came the Rk, Sama, Yajus, consecrations, yajnas, all holy works and holy donations. > > > 3.2.10: > > क्रियावन्तः श्रोत्रिया ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः स्वयं जुह्वत एकर्षिं श्रद्धयन्तः । > > तेषामेवैतां ब्रह्मविद्यां वदेत शिरोव्रतं विधिवद्यैस्तु चीर्णम् ॥ > > > This Brahmavidyā should be taught only to those who regularly perform all the rituals (kriyāvanta), are well-versed in the Vedas (śrotriya), committed to Vedic learning (brahmaniṣṭha), who perform their own yajnas (svayam juhvata), and have truth-belief in the Atman. > > > So clearly, the Upanishad feels that the prerequisite for learning about Brahman is to be completely leading a committed Vaidika lifestyle and a wise knowledge of Vedas. This shows that the Upanishad knew about the secret spiritual teachings in the Vedas hidden under symbolism. It only criticises the superficial application of Vedas.

As we all know that Upanishads were written to understand Vedas. Some great scholars also said that they are the branches of Vedas. My question is related to it. Yesterday in a library, I was reading some books and then I found a book written by Dr. Surendra KR Sharma. The name of the book was in Hindi **Kya baloo ki bhit par khada hai Hindu dharma (Does Hinduism stand on the wall of sand)**. On page no. 344. In this book he quoted Mundak Upanishad 1:1:5. I am giving the English translation by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.  So my question I am confused now that **Why Vedas are called inferior in Upanishads?**

2020/01/04

Vedic karma Kanda and Jnana Kanda are both far below spiritual experience. > > They study the Vedas and discuss. **But they do not realize the Ultimate > Reality just as a spoon does not know the taste of food**. > > > The head > carries the flowers, the nose knows the scent. The people study the > Vedas. But, very few persons understand the same. **Not knowing the > Reality of the self, a fool is infatuated by the sastras.** > > > When the > goat stands in the shed, the shepherd seeks for it in the well in > vain. **The knowledge of the sastras is not competent to destroy the > infatuation accruing from worldly affairs.** > > > …. > > > Having studied the > Vedas and realized their essence **the wise man should leave all the > sastras just as one desiring corn leaves the husk**. > > > Just as one > satiated with nectar has no use of food, **no one who is in search of > Reality has anything to do with the sastras**. > > > One cannot obtain release > by reading the Vedas or the sastras. **Release comes from experience, > not otherwise,** O son of Vinata. > > > [**Garuda Purana, Dharma Khanda, Chapter XLIX**]

The Upanishad verse in question refers to the Vedas interpreted only ritualistically, as inferior. It does not negate the importance of Vedic knowledge itself. Because we see the same Upanishad talk about the Vedas in high regard. 2.1.6: > > तस्मादृचः साम यजूंषि दीक्षा यज्ञाश्च सर्वे क्रतवो दक्षिणाश्च > > > From the Atman, came the Rk, Sama, Yajus, consecrations, yajnas, all holy works and holy donations. > > > 3.2.10: > > क्रियावन्तः श्रोत्रिया ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः स्वयं जुह्वत एकर्षिं श्रद्धयन्तः । > > तेषामेवैतां ब्रह्मविद्यां वदेत शिरोव्रतं विधिवद्यैस्तु चीर्णम् ॥ > > > This Brahmavidyā should be taught only to those who regularly perform all the rituals (kriyāvanta), are well-versed in the Vedas (śrotriya), committed to Vedic learning (brahmaniṣṭha), who perform their own yajnas (svayam juhvata), and have truth-belief in the Atman. > > > So clearly, the Upanishad feels that the prerequisite for learning about Brahman is to be completely leading a committed Vaidika lifestyle and a wise knowledge of Vedas. This shows that the Upanishad knew about the secret spiritual teachings in the Vedas hidden under symbolism. It only criticises the superficial application of Vedas.

So, a little background. I work for a company that has a number of extremely important, non-public facing websites. People's safety and livelihoods depend on these staying up. We have very little downtime, but there are always catastrophic situations that mean restoring from bare metal. Our current setup is inadequate, but I'd like opinions on what I see as the potential options. We host everything internally on an incredibly nice vSphere setup. Right now, we have one monstrous Ubuntu instance that hosts everything--all sites, databases, assets, et cetera. We backup every way you can imagine, and one of the benefits of the vSphere setup is that we can restore offsite if we have to, but having one massive machine means the restore time isn't insignificant. I see two roads I can head down. 1. Simple redundancy. Migrating from this one machine to a web server, a SAN and a database server, and then either having redundant machines ready full time, or be able to spin them up quickly. This is what I'd traditionally expect to exist, but I don't know that it helps us that much. Restoring offsite means taking hours to get *all* sites back up, and it seems difficult to restore in a way that I could give preference to the most mission critical things. Internally, with vSphere, this doesn't seem like a massive advantage. But, this is fairly easy to maintain. 2. Split everything up with vSphere. Each site could be its own vSphere instance (or small set of vSphere instances to split out database/assets). This means more work maintaining a number of small servers instead of the one monolithic one, but it also means I could easily choose to restore Site A and Site B in a catastrophic situation, and leave the non-mission critical things for later. This also allows things to diverge software wise where necessary, which is both a positive thing and a negative thing. Opinions? Am I ignoring an obvious option?

2014/02/18

* Leverage VMware SRM, or at least VMware Replication. It will drastically reduce the amount of time it takes you to come online in a secondary datacenter. (Hyper-V Replica and HVRM are the equivalent in the Microsoft stack. * Separate your front-end from your back-end. It sounds like you need a web tier and a database tier. * Invest in proper load balancing for your front end. This can mean installing and configuring a multi-site Netscalar cluster, or configuring something like HAProxy. * Introduce redundancy in your database tier. You don't mention which DB product you're using, but many have high availability, replication, clustering, etc available. Use this. * Make your DR site a "warm site" where you have some servers running constantly, such as database mirrors. Then you don't have to restore them in a disaster, you just make them the active node. vSphere makes backup and recovery easier by abstracting the hardware away, but it's no substitute for tried and true HA methods when availability is critical. There's no reason to have a single vSphere instance per-website. This doesn't gain you anything.

I've seen the second setup more often than the first, especially when your DR site doesn't have the same capacity as your primary site. However, I think this question isn't really appropriate for SF, since it's very much opinion based (although I'm not going to flag it as such since I see some value to the question).

I have been reading quite a bit in order to make the following choice: which path-finding solution should one implement in a game where the world proceduraly generated, of really large dimensions? Here is how I see the main solutions and their pros/cons: 1) grid-based path-finding - this is the only option that would not require any pre-processing, which fits well. However, as the world expands, memory used grows exponentially up to insane levels. This can be handled in terms of processing paths, trough solutions such as the Block A\* or Subgoal A\* algorithms. However, the memory usage is the problem difficult to circumvent; 2) navmesh - this would be lovely to have, due to its precision, fast path calculation and low memory usage. However, it can take an obscene pre-processing time. 3) visibility graph - this option also needs high pre-processing time, although it can be lessened by the use of fast pre-processing algorithms. Then, path calculation is generally fast too. But memory usage can get even more insane than grid-based depending on the configuration of the procedural world. So, what would be best approach (others not present in this list are also welcome) for such a situation? Are there techniques or tricks that can be used to handle procedural infinite-like worlds? Suggestions, ideas and references are all welcome. EDIT: Just to give more details, one should see the application I am talking about as a very very large office level, where rooms are generated prodecuraly. The algorithm works like the following. First, rooms are placed. Next, walls. Then the doors and later the furniture/obstacles that go in each room. So, the environment can get really huge and with lots of objects, since new rooms are generated once the players approaches the boundary of the already generated area. It means that there will be not large open areas without obstacles.

2015/10/06

Given that the rooms are procedural built, portals created and then populated, I have a couple of ideas. A\* works really well on navigation meshes, and works hierarchically as well. I would consider building a pathfinding system that works at two levels - first, the room by room level, and second within each room, from portal to portal. I think you can do this during generation at an affordable rate. You only need to path from room to room once you enter it, so it's very affordable from a memory/cpu cost. High level A\* can be done by creating a graph of each portal and room - a room is the node, and the 'path' or edge is the portal to another room. The cost of traversal has some options - it can be from the centre point of the room to the centre point of the other room, for example. Or you might want to make specific edges from portal to portal with real distances, which is more useful, I suspect. This let's you do high level pathfinding from room A to room B. Doors can be opened and closed, enabling or disabling specific paths, which is nice for certain types of game. Because it's room/portal based it should be pretty easy and affordable to calculate - just distance calculations and graph book keeping. The great thing about this is it reduces the pathfinding memory costs dramatically in large environments since you are doing only the room-to-room finding. The harder part will be the low level A\* because it should be polygonal navigation mesh. If each room is square, you can start with a polygon. When you place obstacles, subtract the area occupied from the polygon, making holes in it. When it's all finished you'll want to tesselate it into triangles again, building up the graph. I don't think this is as slow as you think. The difficult part is performing the polygon hole cutting, which requires a good amount of book keeping on that kind of stuff, but it is well documented within half-edge structures, and established computer science graphics books. You can also perform this generation lazily, in a background graph, as you don't actual need the A\* results of this level until someone is in the room - the high level takes care of basic path planning for you. Someone may never even enter the room in a run, because the high level A\* never leads them there. I know I have glossed over the low level navigation mesh generation, but I think it's one of those things you set your mind to and solve and then it's done. There are a bunch of libraries out there like CGAL (<http://www.cgal.org>) and others that can do this stuff, but really to get it going fast you might need to write it yourself so you only have the things you need. Alternatively, you could make each room be a grid, and the obstacles fill up parts of the grid, and then do all the standard grid smoothing algorithms, but I like navmesh data as it is small and fast. Hope that makes some sense.

I'm going to take a stab and recommend a **hierarchical pathfinding algorithm**, such as [**HPA\***](http://aigamedev.com/open/review/near-optimal-hierarchical-pathfinding/). Even though I'm not an expert in AI, I'm fairly confident in this guess because your generator sounds almost identical to [the one in a game I'm working on](https://github.com/cxong/cdogs-sdl/wiki/Classic%20Maps), i.e. I've thought about this problem a bit too. HPA\* (Hierarchical Path-Finding A\*) is a method of optimising regular A\* by first clustering the map into areas that are inter-connected, then producing a high-level graph of those clusters. When pathfinding, A\* (or any pathfinding algorithm) is run on the high-level graph, then in each of the clusters that form the best high-level path. Apparently it's widely used in RTS games, where lots of units will need to navigate unique paths across a large map in real time, so this should give you an idea of how efficient this method is. Here's an image from their paper; the left is the clusters with connecting nodes, and the right is the high-level graph: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5anyR.png) Fortunately for your generator, it is very suitable for this algorithm, because of the rooms that you place: this gives you half the clustering for free. Your high-level graph is essentially made up of all the doors of your rooms. So what HPA\* is for you is: find the series of rooms/doors I need to go through, and how to navigate every room in that sequence. Some more neat things about this algorithm: * A\* is slow because it has to find the complete path before returning any results; with HPA\*, you can find the high-level path plus the path for the first room, so you can follow it immediately and defer the paths for the rest of the rooms later. This makes the algorithm responsive. * You can cache the pathfinding results between pairs of doors for each room, since paths that traverse but don't start or end in this room are guaranteed to follow one such path. * You can have multiple levels in this hierarchy, although this is only useful for truly gigantic maps. Do note that HPA\* is *near*-optimal. You can easily see why by imagining a room with so many obstacles that it takes a long time to get through it. For the same reason, you should watch out if a room has enough obstacles to effectively partition it - don't treat this room as a single cluster in the high-level graph. For some other possible algorithms, you could try this question on [cstheory.SE](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/11855), which lists a ton of them.

Ever since upgrading to Google Maps 5.1.0 on my Droid X, I have often had Google Maps bog down and freeze to the point of completely crashing the phone. Anyone else seeing this crash? Anyone find a solution?

2011/02/23

You can usually uninstall updates from the app's page in the market. However, previous updates to Google Maps had similar problems for users that never turned their phones off. Try just restarting your phone.

Upgrade to Google Maps 5.2.1, released today.

recently I bought 3 solar panels rated at 5V 200 mA each. I want to use them to charge a 5V battery bank to charge a phone. Thinking about the proper way to put them, I thought i can connect all in parallel to get maximum current, but realized that if the sun light was a little weak it will no generate full 5v thus preventing charging. So I decided to put 2 in parallel to give the equivalent of one 5V solar panel, connected in series with the 3rd panel to give the equivalent of 10v. sacrificing a little current to get higher voltage, to allow the charging to happen on a wider range of sun light power. The following picture shows the wiring and the schematic I intend to replicate. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4oFHJ.jpg) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lHrv9.jpg) Now that I have an equivalent of 10v, 400mA solar panel. I used a 7805 voltage regulator to cut down the excess to 5v. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IbnN3.jpg) Final step, I added a standard diode to prevent the panels from leaking the battery in the shade. and now measuring: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A0RIw.jpg) Questions: 1. I didn't think about this before putting the diode, but is it okay to put the blocking diode on the ground wire? because I know some applications do not use the ground except for safety (i.e. 3 phase system). it would be helpful also to avoid the 0.7v drop across the diode before the regulator. 2. according to previous calculations, I'm supposed to get a maximum of 10v output before regulation, and considering that the sun was pretty shinny today, why was the reading I got not more then 6v? I have measured across each panel seperatly and got around 5.5V, are the connections right?

2016/01/23

Putting a single panel in series with two other panels that are in parallel does not accomplish what you think it does. The overall current of such a setup is limited by the single panel to 200 mA, so the three panels will not produce any more power than you'd get by just putting two panels in series. A single solar cell can be thought of as a current source in parallel with a silicon diode. The current source is driven by the incoming light. The diode "shorts out" the current source, which is why the voltage across a single cell can never be more than about 0.65 V, the forward drop of a silicon diode. A 5V panel is approximately 10 such cells connected in series. The current through all of the cells will be limited by the cell that is receiving the least amount of light. Also, the blocking diode in your diagram is pointing the wrong way. If your panels are rated at 5V, and your "battery bank" requires 5V to charge, then you don't need to do anything more than put all three panels in parallel and hook them directly to the battery. Forget about blocking diodes.

That's a mess, and your labels about what is + and what is - out of each panel seem inconsistant. For the most effective use of the panels, wire them all in series. That will put out around 15 V under full sun. Now use a buck converter to make a regulated 5 V from that. There are many buck converter chips available off the shelf at these low voltages. Finding one with a built-in switch and synchronous rectification shouldn't be too hard. You only have to supply the inductor, a few caps, and maybe a charge pump diode depending on the chip you chose. The other advantage of a switching power supply is that you probably won't need heat sinking. The resulting overall circuit will be smaller, cheaper, and give better performance than just throwing a 7805 regulator at it. At 10 V in and 5 V 1 A out, the 7805 will dissipate 5 W. That's way beyond what it can do without a heat sink.

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

Suppose you throw a ball up into the air. You could ask how the ball manages to move upwards when gravity is pulling it down, and the answer is that it started with an upwards velocity. Gravity pulls on the ball and slows it down so it will eventually reach a maximum height and fall back, but the ball manages to move upwards against gravity because of its initial velocity. Basically the same is true of the expansion of the universe. A moment after the Big Bang everything in the universe was expanding away from everything else with an extremely high velocity. In fact if we extrapolate back to time zero those velocities become infinite. In the several billion years following the Big Bang gravity was slowing the expansion, in basically the same way gravity slows the ball you threw upwards, but the gravity didn't stop the expansion - it only slowed it. The obvious next question is how did the universe get to start off expanding with such high velocities, and the answer is that we don't know because we have no theory telling us what happened at the Big Bang. There is a slight complication that I'll mention in case anyone is interested: dark energy acts as a sort of anti-gravity and makes the expansion faster not slower. This has only become an important effect in the last few billion years, but as a result of dark energy right now gravity isn't slowing the expansion at all - in fact it's making the expansion faster.

update: the accepted answer has now been updated to make my answer superfluous. **we totally don't know.** we don't know why the universe started expanding at the beginning of time. we basically just shrug and say "it seems like there was this big bang". your question seems to imply that gravity should have stopped the expansion by now, which makes sense. originally, we thought that the universe was still expanding simply because **it hasn't been long enough since the big bang for gravity to stop the expansion**. but now we know, the universe appears to be expanding faster over time, rather than more slowly. we don't know why that is happening either. ask a physicist why the universe is expanding and he will say "dark energy". then ask him what dark energy is, and he'll say "the thing that makes the universe expand". this circular definition reflects the fact that we dont' really know why, but **we expect to find an explanation that fits our mathematical models. in the mean time, we call that something "dark energy"**. i don't feel qualified to address the math or physics of your question about a "bigger object" pulling the universe apart. but from a philosophical perspective, it seems to be an unproductive [homunculus argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument). although, i admit i like the parallels it draws between [vacuum polorization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization) and the big bang. side note: John Rennie's answer is also excellent (as usual). i felt he kind of dodged the question by illustrating what we do know (or theorize), but he has since updated his answer to include the points about which we are ignorant (dark energy and the big bang). we just don't have a good explanation for some things yet, and it is good to admit that. to quote einstein: [the larger the circle of light, the larger the perimeter of darkness around it](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/143906-as-our-circle-of-knowledge-expands-so-does-the-circumference).

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

update: the accepted answer has now been updated to make my answer superfluous. **we totally don't know.** we don't know why the universe started expanding at the beginning of time. we basically just shrug and say "it seems like there was this big bang". your question seems to imply that gravity should have stopped the expansion by now, which makes sense. originally, we thought that the universe was still expanding simply because **it hasn't been long enough since the big bang for gravity to stop the expansion**. but now we know, the universe appears to be expanding faster over time, rather than more slowly. we don't know why that is happening either. ask a physicist why the universe is expanding and he will say "dark energy". then ask him what dark energy is, and he'll say "the thing that makes the universe expand". this circular definition reflects the fact that we dont' really know why, but **we expect to find an explanation that fits our mathematical models. in the mean time, we call that something "dark energy"**. i don't feel qualified to address the math or physics of your question about a "bigger object" pulling the universe apart. but from a philosophical perspective, it seems to be an unproductive [homunculus argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument). although, i admit i like the parallels it draws between [vacuum polorization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization) and the big bang. side note: John Rennie's answer is also excellent (as usual). i felt he kind of dodged the question by illustrating what we do know (or theorize), but he has since updated his answer to include the points about which we are ignorant (dark energy and the big bang). we just don't have a good explanation for some things yet, and it is good to admit that. to quote einstein: [the larger the circle of light, the larger the perimeter of darkness around it](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/143906-as-our-circle-of-knowledge-expands-so-does-the-circumference).

> > How can the universe expand if there is gravitation? > > > Because gravity alters the motion of light and matter through space. But *it doesn't make space fall down*. > > We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? > > > Because the expanding universe is something like a stress ball. Squeeze it down in your fist, then let go. It expands. > > Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? > > > Because a gravitational field is a place where space is "neither homogeneous nor isotropic", this being modelled as curved spacetime. See the [Einstein digital papers](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22): [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gIswA.jpg) And on the very largest scale space is homogeneous and isotropic, see the [FLRW metric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric#General_metric). There is no overall gravitational field in the universe. And even if there was, it wouldn't stop space expanding. > > I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object? > > > No. A massive body such as a star "conditions" the surrounding space. It *alters* it, and this effect diminishes with distance. As a result there's a gravitational field. But the space doesn't fall down towards the star. The [waterfall analogy](http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html) is badly misleading in this respect. In similar vein expanding space is not falling up towards some other object. NB: dark energy is not gravity: gravity is *not* making the universe expand faster.

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

Something the other answers don't really delve into is this: **Space itself is what's expanding** Let's think about a regular Newtonian Spacetime with zero expansion, borrowing Jim's example of a car on the road. You're sitting completely still, as is a friend you're following on a roadtrip, with about a hundred feet of distance between you. If I move towards them at a few feet per second, then my distance is going to decrease at the same rate. I'll also be approaching another car a few hundred feet ahead of them at the same speed, because again none of us are moving. Now, if we were in a classical, flat, non-expanding spacetime that's more or less what we'd see. Galaxies would gravitationally attract, and eventually (Meaning over a literally infinite timeframe) everything would re-merge. This is where things get bizzare, and well outside the scope of our daily experience. We're not on a road as we know it, **The road itself is growing. Space itself is expanding.** Imagine that, somehow, every 10 feet of road is growing an extra foot every second. If I were standing still, I'd see my friend move away from me at about 10 ft/s for the first second. A car 500 feet away would move away at 50 ft/s, and a car a mile away would rocket off at **over 500 ft/s** If I started moving towards my friend at 20 ft/s, I'd only see him getting closer at a rate of 10 ft/s, and the car a mile away would still be speeding into the distance faster than I could catch up to it. This is where the idea of the Observable Universe comes from. There are points in space that we can never see, because they're "expanding" away from us faster than the speed of light.

The attraction of any two objects is proportional to the product of their masses times the distance between them squared. This force always accelerates the objects toward each other. But that "distance between them squared" term means that the force drops off faster than the velocity does. This means that any two objects that are initially moving away from each other will be continuously slowing down, and there can be two outcomes: 1) They eventually slow down to the point where they start moving back toward each other, which happens if their initial relative velocities are below a certain threshold for a given pair of objects, or 2) Above this threshold, the gravitational force drops off faster than the velocity does, so that while they continuously decelerate, they never get down to zero relative to each other. Remember, gravitational force drops off with the square of the distance. Based on the estimated total mass of the universe and the observed speed at which everything is moving away from each other, it is believed that the universe is in the latter condition, and will always be expanding. Or to put it another way, on average, everything in the universe is moving away from each other faster than their mutual escape velocity.

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

update: the accepted answer has now been updated to make my answer superfluous. **we totally don't know.** we don't know why the universe started expanding at the beginning of time. we basically just shrug and say "it seems like there was this big bang". your question seems to imply that gravity should have stopped the expansion by now, which makes sense. originally, we thought that the universe was still expanding simply because **it hasn't been long enough since the big bang for gravity to stop the expansion**. but now we know, the universe appears to be expanding faster over time, rather than more slowly. we don't know why that is happening either. ask a physicist why the universe is expanding and he will say "dark energy". then ask him what dark energy is, and he'll say "the thing that makes the universe expand". this circular definition reflects the fact that we dont' really know why, but **we expect to find an explanation that fits our mathematical models. in the mean time, we call that something "dark energy"**. i don't feel qualified to address the math or physics of your question about a "bigger object" pulling the universe apart. but from a philosophical perspective, it seems to be an unproductive [homunculus argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument). although, i admit i like the parallels it draws between [vacuum polorization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization) and the big bang. side note: John Rennie's answer is also excellent (as usual). i felt he kind of dodged the question by illustrating what we do know (or theorize), but he has since updated his answer to include the points about which we are ignorant (dark energy and the big bang). we just don't have a good explanation for some things yet, and it is good to admit that. to quote einstein: [the larger the circle of light, the larger the perimeter of darkness around it](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/143906-as-our-circle-of-knowledge-expands-so-does-the-circumference).

The attraction of any two objects is proportional to the product of their masses times the distance between them squared. This force always accelerates the objects toward each other. But that "distance between them squared" term means that the force drops off faster than the velocity does. This means that any two objects that are initially moving away from each other will be continuously slowing down, and there can be two outcomes: 1) They eventually slow down to the point where they start moving back toward each other, which happens if their initial relative velocities are below a certain threshold for a given pair of objects, or 2) Above this threshold, the gravitational force drops off faster than the velocity does, so that while they continuously decelerate, they never get down to zero relative to each other. Remember, gravitational force drops off with the square of the distance. Based on the estimated total mass of the universe and the observed speed at which everything is moving away from each other, it is believed that the universe is in the latter condition, and will always be expanding. Or to put it another way, on average, everything in the universe is moving away from each other faster than their mutual escape velocity.

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

Ok I am no professional physicist, so feel free to scrap this if you want to, but as I have had explained to me: the expansion of space is the phenomenon that distances increase, *without* relating to any motion. It is the space in between atoms and galaxies that gets "stretched", not that objects "move" away from each other. Like you blow a ballon up, points on the balloon get further away, but it is because of the fabric of reality itself that is expanding and not any motion of the matter in it.

I would like to start by clarifying a couple of misconceptions you have. 1)Everything is NOT attracted to a "**bigger** thing". Everything IS attracted to **everything**. 2)For the expansion of our universe to be caused by a "bigger thing," the thing would have to be a "shell" bigger than our universe, and the shell itself would have to be expanding as well. Therefore, this shell would also need a "bigger" shell, etc., ad infinitum (for ever). Gravitation **could** stop the expansion. However, this is **only one of three** possible outcomes. Einstein came up with a formula that shows that if the amount of energy and matter (E & M) in the universe is more than a critical amount (CA), the universe will not only stop, but also reverse direction and start contracting (outcome 1). If the amount of (E & M) is equal to the (CA), the universe will stop expanding and **remain at the size attained** (outcome 2). If the amount of (E & M) is less than (CA), then the universe will continue to expand (outcome 3). At the present time, it appears that outcome 3 is the one that is going to happen, since the amount of (E & M) calculated is about 22% of the critical amount. However, if those doing the calculations did not take into consideration the (E & M) of the black holes, and the fact that the universe **is bigger** (at least twice) than the **observable universe**, this number could easily be around 90%! But because of the additional effect of "space expansion," even this larger amount won't be enough to stop the expansion.

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

Something the other answers don't really delve into is this: **Space itself is what's expanding** Let's think about a regular Newtonian Spacetime with zero expansion, borrowing Jim's example of a car on the road. You're sitting completely still, as is a friend you're following on a roadtrip, with about a hundred feet of distance between you. If I move towards them at a few feet per second, then my distance is going to decrease at the same rate. I'll also be approaching another car a few hundred feet ahead of them at the same speed, because again none of us are moving. Now, if we were in a classical, flat, non-expanding spacetime that's more or less what we'd see. Galaxies would gravitationally attract, and eventually (Meaning over a literally infinite timeframe) everything would re-merge. This is where things get bizzare, and well outside the scope of our daily experience. We're not on a road as we know it, **The road itself is growing. Space itself is expanding.** Imagine that, somehow, every 10 feet of road is growing an extra foot every second. If I were standing still, I'd see my friend move away from me at about 10 ft/s for the first second. A car 500 feet away would move away at 50 ft/s, and a car a mile away would rocket off at **over 500 ft/s** If I started moving towards my friend at 20 ft/s, I'd only see him getting closer at a rate of 10 ft/s, and the car a mile away would still be speeding into the distance faster than I could catch up to it. This is where the idea of the Observable Universe comes from. There are points in space that we can never see, because they're "expanding" away from us faster than the speed of light.

update: the accepted answer has now been updated to make my answer superfluous. **we totally don't know.** we don't know why the universe started expanding at the beginning of time. we basically just shrug and say "it seems like there was this big bang". your question seems to imply that gravity should have stopped the expansion by now, which makes sense. originally, we thought that the universe was still expanding simply because **it hasn't been long enough since the big bang for gravity to stop the expansion**. but now we know, the universe appears to be expanding faster over time, rather than more slowly. we don't know why that is happening either. ask a physicist why the universe is expanding and he will say "dark energy". then ask him what dark energy is, and he'll say "the thing that makes the universe expand". this circular definition reflects the fact that we dont' really know why, but **we expect to find an explanation that fits our mathematical models. in the mean time, we call that something "dark energy"**. i don't feel qualified to address the math or physics of your question about a "bigger object" pulling the universe apart. but from a philosophical perspective, it seems to be an unproductive [homunculus argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument). although, i admit i like the parallels it draws between [vacuum polorization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization) and the big bang. side note: John Rennie's answer is also excellent (as usual). i felt he kind of dodged the question by illustrating what we do know (or theorize), but he has since updated his answer to include the points about which we are ignorant (dark energy and the big bang). we just don't have a good explanation for some things yet, and it is good to admit that. to quote einstein: [the larger the circle of light, the larger the perimeter of darkness around it](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/143906-as-our-circle-of-knowledge-expands-so-does-the-circumference).

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

After the Big Bang, the universe was left already expanding. Imagine sitting in a car. You step on the gas and get it to top speed. Then you put it in neutral and turn off the engine. What happens? You keep moving forward. But why? The car can't take off by itself. Friction should prevent it from moving. This answer is obvious, the car keeps moving because it has inertia; momentum. Similarly, the universe kept expanding initially; back when radiation and matter dominated the universe. In those eras, gravity, as you'd expect, caused expansion to slow. Much like friction and air resistance slows your car. Then, when dark energy became dominant in the universe, its negative pressure caused the universe to begin accelerated expansion. Dark energy is like negative friction. I know that doesn't make sense, but you have to expect that not every crazy and wonderful thing in the universe has a simple analogy to things in everyday life. I see in John Rennie's answer, he described dark energy as a sort of anti-gravity. Here, I describe it as a form of energy itself that counteracts the gravitational influence of normal matter and radiation. You might think those are two different things and that only one of us can be right, but no! Dark energy can easily be described as either a part of gravity or as a form of energy. It's completely up to you. Both are valid and each just represents where you want to include dark energy in the gravity vs. matter-energy equation. But Jim, you absent-minded artichoke, you forgot to mention why the universe had such a large initial expansion in the first place. Oops, you're right. We can't give you a single good, accepted reason for the initial expansion of the Big Bang. But we can tell you that very soon after the initial curvature singularity (that's the Big Bang), if it existed, inflation drove expansion. This was the part where you stepped on the gas. Inflatons, which are quasi-particle things present during inflation, caused the universe to expand almost exponentially. If you don't like comparing it to stepping on the gas, then it's like if the car started on a large hill. In park, nothing happens. But put the car in neutral and it'll just start rolling down the hill and then continue once it hits the level area at the bottom. Still with me? Now let me be clear, in my analogy, the car doesn't represent any galaxies or matter or nonsense like that (us cosmologists don't really care about anything *in* the universe), it represents the expansion of space itself. Because that's what's expanding; space. The speed of the car represents the rate of expansion; basically the amount of distance that's added per second between two distinct points some initial distance apart. So when I say dark energy drives acceleration of expansion, that's like stepping on the gas. The car accelerates, representing an increase in the rate of space expansion. Now some of you readers out there may be thinking "But Jim, you foggy London morning, you're still unclear". That may be true (the unclear part. I resent being called a morning), and if something is still bothering anyone about this, I can point you to some excellent other posts on the site that speak about the expansion of space or any other weird and wonderful cosmological ideas. But for now, I think the question is sufficiently answered, so I'm going to end there.

Ok I am no professional physicist, so feel free to scrap this if you want to, but as I have had explained to me: the expansion of space is the phenomenon that distances increase, *without* relating to any motion. It is the space in between atoms and galaxies that gets "stretched", not that objects "move" away from each other. Like you blow a ballon up, points on the balloon get further away, but it is because of the fabric of reality itself that is expanding and not any motion of the matter in it.

We live in an expanding universe - so I'm told. But how can that be possible? Everything imaginable is attracted by a bigger thing. So, why can't gravitation stop the expansion of the universe? I know the "Big Bang" theory, but is it possible that the expansion of the universe is caused by the attraction of a bigger object?

2016/08/25

Suppose you throw a ball up into the air. You could ask how the ball manages to move upwards when gravity is pulling it down, and the answer is that it started with an upwards velocity. Gravity pulls on the ball and slows it down so it will eventually reach a maximum height and fall back, but the ball manages to move upwards against gravity because of its initial velocity. Basically the same is true of the expansion of the universe. A moment after the Big Bang everything in the universe was expanding away from everything else with an extremely high velocity. In fact if we extrapolate back to time zero those velocities become infinite. In the several billion years following the Big Bang gravity was slowing the expansion, in basically the same way gravity slows the ball you threw upwards, but the gravity didn't stop the expansion - it only slowed it. The obvious next question is how did the universe get to start off expanding with such high velocities, and the answer is that we don't know because we have no theory telling us what happened at the Big Bang. There is a slight complication that I'll mention in case anyone is interested: dark energy acts as a sort of anti-gravity and makes the expansion faster not slower. This has only become an important effect in the last few billion years, but as a result of dark energy right now gravity isn't slowing the expansion at all - in fact it's making the expansion faster.

Something the other answers don't really delve into is this: **Space itself is what's expanding** Let's think about a regular Newtonian Spacetime with zero expansion, borrowing Jim's example of a car on the road. You're sitting completely still, as is a friend you're following on a roadtrip, with about a hundred feet of distance between you. If I move towards them at a few feet per second, then my distance is going to decrease at the same rate. I'll also be approaching another car a few hundred feet ahead of them at the same speed, because again none of us are moving. Now, if we were in a classical, flat, non-expanding spacetime that's more or less what we'd see. Galaxies would gravitationally attract, and eventually (Meaning over a literally infinite timeframe) everything would re-merge. This is where things get bizzare, and well outside the scope of our daily experience. We're not on a road as we know it, **The road itself is growing. Space itself is expanding.** Imagine that, somehow, every 10 feet of road is growing an extra foot every second. If I were standing still, I'd see my friend move away from me at about 10 ft/s for the first second. A car 500 feet away would move away at 50 ft/s, and a car a mile away would rocket off at **over 500 ft/s** If I started moving towards my friend at 20 ft/s, I'd only see him getting closer at a rate of 10 ft/s, and the car a mile away would still be speeding into the distance faster than I could catch up to it. This is where the idea of the Observable Universe comes from. There are points in space that we can never see, because they're "expanding" away from us faster than the speed of light.

I know the differences between a **rangefinder** and a **SLR/DSLR** but what is the real reason to put a mirror in front of a lens to reflect light into the viewfinder? It raises lens prooduction price when you put extra distance between lens and sensor. So why do that? Does it improve image quality somehow? Isn't it logical to use rangefinders only?

2013/06/09

Simple, it allows you to see exactly what the camera will "see" when you expose the shot. Nir has given you a part of the argument as well which is accuracy. In the "middle ground" of anything around mabye 20-100mm, building a rangefinder is not too difficult and Leica had adapters for longer and wider lenses if I am not mistaken. It takes some effort to calibrate but is doable. However with an SLR you can use even more extreme focal lengths - try a 7mm or 15mm Fisheye lens, how do you get that into an extra viewfinder (which incidentally needs a similar lens system). Or maybe a 400mm, 800mm lens? Every system is a compromise somewhere - and using a mirror to reflect the light from the lens to the viewfinder (or focussing screen if one is finicky) allows the user to fully exploit the flexibility that is offered by the range of available lenses. Coming back to rangefinders, you might have noticed that lenses typically span around 20-135mm and I think there are is at least one lens that offers 17mm on Leicas as well. The extra distance between the sensor and the lens is itself also not disadvantageous given the way that sensors are designed. Leica's sensor uses a specially shifted micro-lens arrangement to improve the light gathering capability of the sensor. Now whether it works is another discussion, in theory it should. Moving the lens closer to the sensor means that the light hits the sensor at an oblique angle rather than a near right angle. Given the nature of "light wells" on a sensor, this increases light loss (hence the shifted microlenses on a Leica). (This is actually the basis for this issue: <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml> )

Simple — you can't make an exchangeable lens rangefinder where the viewfinder is even remotely accurate. (Well, you can't without digital technology and live view — and then the mirrorless cameras makes more sense than rangefinders.)

I know the differences between a **rangefinder** and a **SLR/DSLR** but what is the real reason to put a mirror in front of a lens to reflect light into the viewfinder? It raises lens prooduction price when you put extra distance between lens and sensor. So why do that? Does it improve image quality somehow? Isn't it logical to use rangefinders only?

2013/06/09

Simple, it allows you to see exactly what the camera will "see" when you expose the shot. Nir has given you a part of the argument as well which is accuracy. In the "middle ground" of anything around mabye 20-100mm, building a rangefinder is not too difficult and Leica had adapters for longer and wider lenses if I am not mistaken. It takes some effort to calibrate but is doable. However with an SLR you can use even more extreme focal lengths - try a 7mm or 15mm Fisheye lens, how do you get that into an extra viewfinder (which incidentally needs a similar lens system). Or maybe a 400mm, 800mm lens? Every system is a compromise somewhere - and using a mirror to reflect the light from the lens to the viewfinder (or focussing screen if one is finicky) allows the user to fully exploit the flexibility that is offered by the range of available lenses. Coming back to rangefinders, you might have noticed that lenses typically span around 20-135mm and I think there are is at least one lens that offers 17mm on Leicas as well. The extra distance between the sensor and the lens is itself also not disadvantageous given the way that sensors are designed. Leica's sensor uses a specially shifted micro-lens arrangement to improve the light gathering capability of the sensor. Now whether it works is another discussion, in theory it should. Moving the lens closer to the sensor means that the light hits the sensor at an oblique angle rather than a near right angle. Given the nature of "light wells" on a sensor, this increases light loss (hence the shifted microlenses on a Leica). (This is actually the basis for this issue: <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml> )

Its tradition. When we had film cameras, a mirror system was used to give the photographer an accurate image of what the lens was seeing irrespective of which lens was attached. Obviously one could have a system with a live viewer. Old time photographers are used to looking in a view finder and composing an image.

Reading Matthew 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? I cant seem to pin point where is his kingdom? Evil men dont seem to be united?

2013/12/31

Let's take a long look at the Scriptures around your referenced Scripture: Matthew 12:25 through 28 KJV > > 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: > > > 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? > > > 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. > > > 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. > > > and see if Jesus was actually saying that Satan had a Kingdom to begin with. What Jesus was retorting to was the verse preceding this retort (Matthew 12:24): But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Jesus was incensed by their claim that he was getting his power to do these miracles from Satan, and his angry retort was meant to marginalize them. In verses 26 and 27 He is belittling them by: 1. saying that If Satan is ruining his own plans, If He had a Kingdom by fighting against himself he would be destroying his own Kingdom. 2. Jesus is saying and if as you say I am getting my power from Satan, where are your people getting their power from? The last stone he casts is in verse 28 where he tells them knowing what I have just told you my power must come from another source. and if my source is God then you have just seen the Kingdom of God. Here are some other Scriptures concerning Satan's supposed power which you may find will help you in understanding Satan. Please remember that Jesus himself said that Satan was a liar and the father of lies. Matthew 4:1-11 KJV > > Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. > > > Mark 3:22-26 KJV > > And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them [unto him], and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. > > > In This Scripture what Jesus is pointing to is that if what they were claiming were true then Satan does not have the power of God since he could not do what they claimed and be eternal. Revelation 2:13 KJV > > I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even] where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. > > > Revelation 12:9-12 KJV > > Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. > > > Revelation 3:9 KJV > > Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. > > > Revelation 12:9-12 KJV > > Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. > > >

I see three questions plus the question in the quote. **Is Satan's kingdom here on earth?** Yes, the adversary is here on earth. He was cast out when Jesus was "snatched up to God and to his throne" (Rev 12:5). Most likely his "Ascension into Heaven" (Acts 1:9-11) but possibly at his death on the Cross. **I cant seem to pin point where is his kingdom?** Opposing the spirit is the Flesh (Gal 5:17) Therefore when serving the Flesh we also serve Satan. "..you are slaves of the one you obey.." (Romans 6:14-19). These two questions work together. **Evil men dont seem to be united?** "**If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?**" -Matthew 12:26 Singular: If a man hates himself and actively pursues damage to himself. How can he stay alive? Married Couple: If the couple actively pursue damage to the relationship. How can the relationship survive?

Reading Matthew 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? I cant seem to pin point where is his kingdom? Evil men dont seem to be united?

2013/12/31

Let's take a long look at the Scriptures around your referenced Scripture: Matthew 12:25 through 28 KJV > > 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: > > > 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? > > > 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. > > > 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. > > > and see if Jesus was actually saying that Satan had a Kingdom to begin with. What Jesus was retorting to was the verse preceding this retort (Matthew 12:24): But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Jesus was incensed by their claim that he was getting his power to do these miracles from Satan, and his angry retort was meant to marginalize them. In verses 26 and 27 He is belittling them by: 1. saying that If Satan is ruining his own plans, If He had a Kingdom by fighting against himself he would be destroying his own Kingdom. 2. Jesus is saying and if as you say I am getting my power from Satan, where are your people getting their power from? The last stone he casts is in verse 28 where he tells them knowing what I have just told you my power must come from another source. and if my source is God then you have just seen the Kingdom of God. Here are some other Scriptures concerning Satan's supposed power which you may find will help you in understanding Satan. Please remember that Jesus himself said that Satan was a liar and the father of lies. Matthew 4:1-11 KJV > > Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. > > > Mark 3:22-26 KJV > > And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them [unto him], and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. > > > In This Scripture what Jesus is pointing to is that if what they were claiming were true then Satan does not have the power of God since he could not do what they claimed and be eternal. Revelation 2:13 KJV > > I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even] where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. > > > Revelation 12:9-12 KJV > > Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. > > > Revelation 3:9 KJV > > Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. > > > Revelation 12:9-12 KJV > > Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. > > >

This question is about spiritual world. How it is reflected within humanity? How it manifests? How a spiritual world stands? To understand how a man can become evil man, or a good man, I will quote from Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy, where many mysteries about humanity and God where revealed to us through Holy Spirit and His servants. (<http://tzarlazar.tripod.com>) > > [CHAPTER FOUR](http://tzarlazar.tripod.com/lazar04.htm) ...Man is wondrously composed of body, soul, and > spirit. The spirit is the mover and the lord of the whole of man's > being. As the spirit is, so will the movements of the soul and body > be. As the spirit is, so also is the man. The spirit moves the soul, > and the soul the body. 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is > of no avail.' (John 6). Even the circles of the angelic host in the > heavenly kingdom live and are moved only by the Spirit of God. From > that Spirit there springs forth for us angels those four streams of > sweetness: truth, love, life, and joy. In this same manner the > progenitor of your race also lived and was moved by the Spirit of God, > similar to us angels. > > > "When, however, he insanely departed from righteousness and heavenly > Love, a fundamental transformation took place in him. In appearance he > remained the same; nevertheless an essential change occurred within > him. To this day little is known in the world about this > transformation. It is one of the strangest, quietest, most consecrated > mysteries. The fundamental transformation lay in this: the insulted > Creator pulled His Holy Spirit out of man, and left man alone with his > created soul and natural spirit. With this natural spirit, which is > created and not inspired by God, fallen man was condemned "to eat > bread in the sweat of his face" (Gen. 3), like the ants and the > bees and the beasts. Thus man degenerated into an animal, the lord > became the peer of his servants, the king became equal to his > subjects. Man the god became man the animal. But this is not the worst > part. For the animals are in their own state wondrous and beautiful. > What is the worst part is that man the animal quickly tumbled down > into man the demon, of his own free will. Of his own free will, after > having exchanged the Holy Spirit for an unclean vessel, he also threw > away his natural, created spirit and accepted into himself a third > spirit — the unclean spirit, the spirit of falling away from God and > struggling against God, the spirit of the angels of hell. For when man > lost the Holy Spirit, he was placed at a crossroads, where his natural > created spirit is in control, and where two opposite spirits meet: the > spirit of light and the spirit of darkness, the Spirit of God and the > spirit of hell. > "At this crossroads, where the natural spirit is in control and where the two opposing spirits are blowing, many people turn their > face to the spirit of darkness and death, while there are only a few > who turn their face toward God. To these latter our gracious God has > again given His Holy Spirit. These are those amazing righteous people, > to whom the promise and the prophesied salvation have been given. As > it has been given to them so also will it be given through them to > every future generation of mankind, so long as it remains on the > crossroads facing towards the God of life. > "For thousands of years they have been the only man-gods in the midst of the man-animals and, what is worse, man-demons. They have > been called gods and sons of God, not because of their mortal flesh or > their natural soul and spirit, but because of the Holy Spirit of God, > which has been given to them again, and because at the crossroads of > the spirits their face has been turned, with faith and reverence, > towards the Holy Spirit of God. Because of this God has breathed His > Spirit from Himself into them, and thus they have been made worthy to > be called gods and sons of God. ... > > > With this understanding we can pin point how the kingdom of Satan stands. As an example think about 2 men driven by the same evil spirit. They maybe want to hurt themselves or to kill each other, in appearance they are not united but in spirit they are the similar, exercising the same activity. They are bearers of the same evil spirit, and they potentially contaminate with the same spirit people around them which they contact to .. the hate, the greedy, the deprivation, the anger, the proud etc are manifestations of the same evil spirit. When you observe this around you and inside you, over and over, you can realize in which Kingdom you or people around you are living and how this Kingdom stands.

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

### To punish them. Looking at your situation from a modern lens - Politicians love spending money on those who voted for them, and also those who could be plausibly convinced to vote for them. They don't like spending money on those who voted strongly against them. Dishing out favour in this way is known as [pork barreling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel). So there's a town where people didn't vote for you / send enough tax money to you / support you in a recent coup / send enough virgins to your harem / whatever spited you. You can show your disaproval by screwing them over at the next chance you get. Maybe their tax rate is raised, or maybe they get less resources allocated. You can also send them a message by withdrawing or reducing the police. The safety of that community is less of a concern for you if you want to teach them a lesson - they're not going to vote for you / support you / etc, why should you waste resources on them? Perhaps after a few months of crime running out of control they'll learn their place and they'll be better subjects next time.

Instead of government-sanctioned crime, what about a small area with a different government or no government? It could be an independent city where three or more large countries meet, and none of the countries can take it over because the others wouldn't let them. This also gives a good explanation for why there would be lots of devious machinations going on by various government agents in the city, and it would be a prosperous trade hub if it is the best route between those nations.

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

I wonder if you have a too modern view of the state -- by the people, for the people. Over much of history it was by *some* people, for *some* people. * **Illicit substances** Very much in the eye of the beholder. In much of the West, alcohol is legal (and taxed) and cannabis is not. Say you have strong merchant guilds interested in the trade in those substances, and they might have gained permission to do so. Also consider the [Opium Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars). * **Racketeering** Just who is exploited, and how? Look at the rise of firefighters in [ancient Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_to_power_and_wealth). Early on they were for-profit companies who charged whatever the market would bear when a house was on fire. Or take a medieval craft guild, regulating prices, quality and competition and making sure that guild masters had a decent living. * Special case: **Tax farming** The government sold the right to [collect taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_(revenue_leasing)). The interests who paid a hefty sum now try to squeeze money out of the city to cover their costs and make a profit on top. Not everybody is allowed to racketeer, but from the perspective of the victims some rackets are legal. * **Burglary** This one is difficult. When it is made legal, powerful factions like the merchants and guilds mentioned above must guard their properties without the help of a city watch. But do you know the proverb *only the rich can afford a weak government?* Say burglary is not legal, the rules against it are simply not enforced by the government. That is left to merchants and shop-keepers, who form associations (see *racketeering*) to employ guards and [thief-takers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker). * **Murder** As above, making it a kind of *civil* offense requiring [weregild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild) if the relatives of the victim are strong enough to insist.

Instead of government-sanctioned crime, what about a small area with a different government or no government? It could be an independent city where three or more large countries meet, and none of the countries can take it over because the others wouldn't let them. This also gives a good explanation for why there would be lots of devious machinations going on by various government agents in the city, and it would be a prosperous trade hub if it is the best route between those nations.

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

Nonsense. If something is allowed by the law, then it is not a crime. The very definition of a crime is breaking the law. The proper question would be why the law in this city is more lenient than elsewhere. Consider for example the US, which is probably the country with the most legally heterogeneous country in the world. In some places you can walk around with an assault rifle or drive a tank. Do it in other places and it's jail for you. Why? Because different places have different populations with different world views, and the government at federal level does not want or cannot interfere.

Hollywood will show you many - prolly dozens - of stories in which "governments" sanction crime for their own devious ends… most often to justify increasing the security budget or beefing up security powers. That and any other Answer uses "government" in a rather loose sense. Even in today's Communist China and the historical USSR, it's almost unthinkable that an entire government would collectively go your way. May we assume the Question is really about agencies, branches or departments, or rogue agents within them?

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

I wonder if you have a too modern view of the state -- by the people, for the people. Over much of history it was by *some* people, for *some* people. * **Illicit substances** Very much in the eye of the beholder. In much of the West, alcohol is legal (and taxed) and cannabis is not. Say you have strong merchant guilds interested in the trade in those substances, and they might have gained permission to do so. Also consider the [Opium Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars). * **Racketeering** Just who is exploited, and how? Look at the rise of firefighters in [ancient Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_to_power_and_wealth). Early on they were for-profit companies who charged whatever the market would bear when a house was on fire. Or take a medieval craft guild, regulating prices, quality and competition and making sure that guild masters had a decent living. * Special case: **Tax farming** The government sold the right to [collect taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_(revenue_leasing)). The interests who paid a hefty sum now try to squeeze money out of the city to cover their costs and make a profit on top. Not everybody is allowed to racketeer, but from the perspective of the victims some rackets are legal. * **Burglary** This one is difficult. When it is made legal, powerful factions like the merchants and guilds mentioned above must guard their properties without the help of a city watch. But do you know the proverb *only the rich can afford a weak government?* Say burglary is not legal, the rules against it are simply not enforced by the government. That is left to merchants and shop-keepers, who form associations (see *racketeering*) to employ guards and [thief-takers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker). * **Murder** As above, making it a kind of *civil* offense requiring [weregild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild) if the relatives of the victim are strong enough to insist.

> > What might be the benefits for [a] government to sanction certain crime within [an] important trade city? > > > There are already excellent answers to this question, but to add some more real world details that have been overlooked: ### Strengthening Colonial Rule The most famous real-world example is [**Hong Kong**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong). In order **(a)** to **facilitate illicit trade** in opium and other products, **(b)** to **enjoy an additional local spy network** in a large and hostile neighbor, and most importantly **(c)** to **maintain a semblance of order** over a large population whose language few of the colonial administration spoke, the Brits maintained deals with the [Triads](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_(organized_crime)) to essentially outsource most public order over the Chinese slums to powerful criminals. [The "tea money" *hongbao*](https://www.cinemaescapist.com/2018/04/chasing-dragon-critique-british-corruption-colonial-hong-kong/) provided by the gangs were also prime sources of income for the colonial police. Things were periodically shut down or renegotiated, as after the [1956 Double Ten Riots](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hong_Kong_riots), but the Triads were so entrenched that [even the PRC were forced into deals with them during the handover](https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/50/5/851/463592) and has only been slowly chipping away at them since, usually [when they start messing around on the mainland](https://www.chinasmack.com/large-hong-kong-triad-gathering-in-shenzhen-raided-by-police). There are tons of books, TV shows, and movies about this era but lots of them are in Cantonese. To bring the same idea closer to home, [*The Shield*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shield) dramatizes the [LAPD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Police_Department)'s similar accommodation of crime as a way of handling the endemic mess in the poorer neighborhoods of [**Los Angeles**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles). Essentially, apart from enriching themselves, the Farmington police are shown choosing their battles, angling for local black and hispanic criminal leaders who keep the violence and crime away from better (and whiter) neighborhoods and away from directly harming the local children or the police themselves. ### Handling Temporary Emergencies In [**New York City**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) during World War II, [the US gov't made common cause with the mafia](https://historycollection.com/10-undeniable-ties-united-states-government-organized-crime/7/) in part to get a better spy network in the leadup to the invasion of Sicily but also to maintain control over longshoreman and other important labor unions involved in **maintaining the armed force's logistical network**. It wasn't until the 1960s that the Feds got around to cleaning any of that up, in part because they were grateful for the assistance in tamping down any possibility of strikes during the war years. ### Illicit Profits Exceeding Gov't Revenues Another important real-world example is the accommodation of the *narcotraficantes* by governments in Central and South America, especially [**Mexico**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico). Although [coordinated government action limited local problems for years](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vrios/files/jcr587052.pdf), over time the amount of money involved in funneling drugs and people through to the US erupted into massive turf wars within Latin America itself. Disunity between local and federal parties didn't help, but mostly the flow of cash reached the point where nearly the entire law enforcement apparatus could be bought, the rest [could be hunted](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/in-mexico-cartels-are-hunting-down-police-at-their-homes/OJG54TOADTJW3OBRXWZUHWK2AM/), and (push come to shove) local gangs have sometimes [been better armed than the national military](https://time.com/5705358/sinaloa-cartel-mexico-culiacan/).

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

**Crime keeps people scared. Scared people want governments that are tough on crime. To demonstrate you are tough, you need criminals to punish.** <https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-diego-homeless-attacks-help> > > San Diegans beg city to curb violence by homeless: 'like you’re in the > 'Walking Dead'' > > > What a packed headline - scared people begging the government for help, violence, and dehumanizing criminals by comparing them to zombies. Your city government sells itself as tough on crime. Law and order. But if it is too good at its job, people forget about crime like people have forgotten about polio and measles because vaccines are too good at preventing disease. Your governments puts on a show of force, public discipline of criminals, etc. Maybe more like what we would consider a protection racket. And they need grist for the mill - so crime is allowed in neighborhoods where people who are disloyal or dissatisfied with the government might live, to keep these malcontents scared. You can still satisfy your followers / customers with the punishment of criminals taken from places where criminals live. Maybe satisfy them better when they see the criminals as the dangerous "other".

> > What might be the benefits for [a] government to sanction certain crime within [an] important trade city? > > > There are already excellent answers to this question, but to add some more real world details that have been overlooked: ### Strengthening Colonial Rule The most famous real-world example is [**Hong Kong**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong). In order **(a)** to **facilitate illicit trade** in opium and other products, **(b)** to **enjoy an additional local spy network** in a large and hostile neighbor, and most importantly **(c)** to **maintain a semblance of order** over a large population whose language few of the colonial administration spoke, the Brits maintained deals with the [Triads](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_(organized_crime)) to essentially outsource most public order over the Chinese slums to powerful criminals. [The "tea money" *hongbao*](https://www.cinemaescapist.com/2018/04/chasing-dragon-critique-british-corruption-colonial-hong-kong/) provided by the gangs were also prime sources of income for the colonial police. Things were periodically shut down or renegotiated, as after the [1956 Double Ten Riots](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hong_Kong_riots), but the Triads were so entrenched that [even the PRC were forced into deals with them during the handover](https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/50/5/851/463592) and has only been slowly chipping away at them since, usually [when they start messing around on the mainland](https://www.chinasmack.com/large-hong-kong-triad-gathering-in-shenzhen-raided-by-police). There are tons of books, TV shows, and movies about this era but lots of them are in Cantonese. To bring the same idea closer to home, [*The Shield*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shield) dramatizes the [LAPD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Police_Department)'s similar accommodation of crime as a way of handling the endemic mess in the poorer neighborhoods of [**Los Angeles**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles). Essentially, apart from enriching themselves, the Farmington police are shown choosing their battles, angling for local black and hispanic criminal leaders who keep the violence and crime away from better (and whiter) neighborhoods and away from directly harming the local children or the police themselves. ### Handling Temporary Emergencies In [**New York City**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) during World War II, [the US gov't made common cause with the mafia](https://historycollection.com/10-undeniable-ties-united-states-government-organized-crime/7/) in part to get a better spy network in the leadup to the invasion of Sicily but also to maintain control over longshoreman and other important labor unions involved in **maintaining the armed force's logistical network**. It wasn't until the 1960s that the Feds got around to cleaning any of that up, in part because they were grateful for the assistance in tamping down any possibility of strikes during the war years. ### Illicit Profits Exceeding Gov't Revenues Another important real-world example is the accommodation of the *narcotraficantes* by governments in Central and South America, especially [**Mexico**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico). Although [coordinated government action limited local problems for years](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vrios/files/jcr587052.pdf), over time the amount of money involved in funneling drugs and people through to the US erupted into massive turf wars within Latin America itself. Disunity between local and federal parties didn't help, but mostly the flow of cash reached the point where nearly the entire law enforcement apparatus could be bought, the rest [could be hunted](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/in-mexico-cartels-are-hunting-down-police-at-their-homes/OJG54TOADTJW3OBRXWZUHWK2AM/), and (push come to shove) local gangs have sometimes [been better armed than the national military](https://time.com/5705358/sinaloa-cartel-mexico-culiacan/).

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

Crime is allowed in the central city because it symbolically reinforces the government's claim to power. * The current rulers are not nobles whose authority to lead flows down from their heritage. * They are not great businessmen whose authority comes from their wealth and the employment opportunities they bring to the nation. * They are not chosen by God, representatives of the divine authority of the Church. * They were not chosen by the people. They are conquerors, who recently attained their power by defeating the previous owners of the throne. Their power comes from their ability to overwhelm the previous symbol of law. It comes from the standing army which they brought with them, warriors who are now free to commit whatever crimes they wish in payment for their services. Justice has fallen to their might. But they are also not fools. They know that if lawlessness is allowed throughout the kingdom, then the kingdom will very quickly fall. So outside of this city, the law is enforced even more brutally than it was under the previous king. But here in their new home, strength is the only law.

**All of that is already legal to some extent in some places** Legal in lots of jurisdictions, some of them even real democracies: * Killing humans, for example in self defense, in war, as capital punishment, to save the mother of an unborn, abortion or euthanasia. * Substance trading and consumption: Drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco or cannabis * Taking other people’s property: Taxes, fines, fees, interest, foreclosures The most important part is that the above activities are tightly controlled in order to provide stability and reliability. A successful city or country generally needs stability. You certainly don’t want random murder on the streets to be legal or you’d have anarchy and mayhem. But as long as it’s controlled and restricted in some way it’s perfectly feasible for murder to be legal. Even if it’s just some amount of money (“tax” or fine) you have to pay to the government for committing certain things.

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

**Crime keeps people scared. Scared people want governments that are tough on crime. To demonstrate you are tough, you need criminals to punish.** <https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-diego-homeless-attacks-help> > > San Diegans beg city to curb violence by homeless: 'like you’re in the > 'Walking Dead'' > > > What a packed headline - scared people begging the government for help, violence, and dehumanizing criminals by comparing them to zombies. Your city government sells itself as tough on crime. Law and order. But if it is too good at its job, people forget about crime like people have forgotten about polio and measles because vaccines are too good at preventing disease. Your governments puts on a show of force, public discipline of criminals, etc. Maybe more like what we would consider a protection racket. And they need grist for the mill - so crime is allowed in neighborhoods where people who are disloyal or dissatisfied with the government might live, to keep these malcontents scared. You can still satisfy your followers / customers with the punishment of criminals taken from places where criminals live. Maybe satisfy them better when they see the criminals as the dangerous "other".

We have good historical examples where this occurred because of jurisdictional confusion. For example, the tangled relationship of royal and Church prerogatives in Europe in the medieval and early Modern period often allowed Church leaders to exempt people from royal laws while on their lands. For example, in an area that later became part of London that was known as the [Liberty of the Clink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_of_the_Clink), the bishop was able to license prostitutes, brothels, and theatres. [Kowloon Walled City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City) came to be because of a complicated history of claims over a small area of land by the British colonial government of Hong Kong and the Nationalist and Communist governments of China. Britain did not want to govern the area, but also did not want to return it to Chinese jurisdiction. So you ended up with a sort of *Passport to Pimlico* self-organizing quasi-anarchy without official law enforcement.

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

Nonsense. If something is allowed by the law, then it is not a crime. The very definition of a crime is breaking the law. The proper question would be why the law in this city is more lenient than elsewhere. Consider for example the US, which is probably the country with the most legally heterogeneous country in the world. In some places you can walk around with an assault rifle or drive a tank. Do it in other places and it's jail for you. Why? Because different places have different populations with different world views, and the government at federal level does not want or cannot interfere.

Some governments [pork barrel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel): they favor the electorates that voted for them with money for projects that will benefit those communities - better roads, park lands, new hospital or extension to an existing one, etc. There is also an element of divide and conquer. If the communities are competing with each other there will be less focus on the government. A government that encouraged crime in one area would not do so openly. By encouraging such a situation, the government would openly give the perception of tackling the crime. By doing so, the people will have less of a focus on what the government is doing in other areas, such a corruption and kleptocracy. It also gives the government a better chance of staying in power. One way to unite a people to align with the government is for the government to create common enemy. The criminals in the crime zone would be one such "enemy".

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

**In the real world, we sanction crime already** Many countries allowed crime. Prostitution is illegal in many areas and has been at many times. It was and is often *tolerated*. Reasonings like, "if we don't tolerate it, the sailors will grab our woman of high social standing" were used to justify this. It was certainly still illigal, but as long as it wasn't in the way of society, it was ok. This has happened in many other cases. Drug use for example. But there's also more difficult ideas like violence. Citizens, military and police all have varying amount of violence that is tolerated. Killing someone in self defence, or beating political rivals, or simoly killing an enemy all have different amount of tolerances. Violence in itself however is normally illigal. Your government can use the same. Murder? Don't care. Murder of a policeman or factory worker? Illegal. As soon as the value to the city ramps up, the amount of tolerance will go down.

Hollywood will show you many - prolly dozens - of stories in which "governments" sanction crime for their own devious ends… most often to justify increasing the security budget or beefing up security powers. That and any other Answer uses "government" in a rather loose sense. Even in today's Communist China and the historical USSR, it's almost unthinkable that an entire government would collectively go your way. May we assume the Question is really about agencies, branches or departments, or rogue agents within them?

Assume this city is relatively large by late medieval standards, around 200,000 people. The city is mainly a site for trade due to its geographically central position and being on a river. Also, because it is geographically central, it also means the city is important for the government to project power. **What might be the benefits for this same government to sanction certain crime within this important trade city?** Crime that would be considered legal within city limits ranges from murder, burglary, trade of illicit substances, and racketeering. This is all under the condition that the crime does not directly affect the government's activities.

2021/07/17

**In the real world, we sanction crime already** Many countries allowed crime. Prostitution is illegal in many areas and has been at many times. It was and is often *tolerated*. Reasonings like, "if we don't tolerate it, the sailors will grab our woman of high social standing" were used to justify this. It was certainly still illigal, but as long as it wasn't in the way of society, it was ok. This has happened in many other cases. Drug use for example. But there's also more difficult ideas like violence. Citizens, military and police all have varying amount of violence that is tolerated. Killing someone in self defence, or beating political rivals, or simoly killing an enemy all have different amount of tolerances. Violence in itself however is normally illigal. Your government can use the same. Murder? Don't care. Murder of a policeman or factory worker? Illegal. As soon as the value to the city ramps up, the amount of tolerance will go down.

We have good historical examples where this occurred because of jurisdictional confusion. For example, the tangled relationship of royal and Church prerogatives in Europe in the medieval and early Modern period often allowed Church leaders to exempt people from royal laws while on their lands. For example, in an area that later became part of London that was known as the [Liberty of the Clink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_of_the_Clink), the bishop was able to license prostitutes, brothels, and theatres. [Kowloon Walled City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City) came to be because of a complicated history of claims over a small area of land by the British colonial government of Hong Kong and the Nationalist and Communist governments of China. Britain did not want to govern the area, but also did not want to return it to Chinese jurisdiction. So you ended up with a sort of *Passport to Pimlico* self-organizing quasi-anarchy without official law enforcement.

We would like to get rid of the Tridion Broker as part of a project and publish content directly to a repository as part of a Storage Extension. My question is, is there any deep dependency that Tridion has on the Broker that might mean things work in a sub-optimal way, or gotchas that I should be aware of? Update - We are going to be using Tridion purely as a content store which will push out JSON. There will be no functionality or any form of business logic/UI.

2013/07/25

I will assume that what you mean with the Broker is the Tridion Broker database. It is possible to publish everything to the file system, it includes, content, linking info, metadata and references, however this functionality is deprecated and will be removed in future releases, having said that, in future releases, linking, metadata and references will always be stored in the Tridion broker database. If what you want is to override the storage layer and create a custom one, it will for sure affect key features like the Tridion CD API, Dynamic Linking and of course it won't be supported by either Customer Support or R&D. Other key feature that depends on the Tridion Broker database is the Session Preview functionality.

1. Dynamic Linking is the big one as Rob mentions. 2. any DCPs embedded on Pages will render UCs/Tags. 3. Any code that queries CPs using Criteria/Query API will need to be gutted/replaced. 4. If you use P&P, then any personalized content will be rendered and filtered via User Controls/Tags, and this will need replacing 5. If you use UGC, same as #4. When starting a fresh implementation Broker/no-Broker is a decision to be made, but once it's done and the site is live, you have a lot of work on your hands to get rid of the Broker.

We would like to get rid of the Tridion Broker as part of a project and publish content directly to a repository as part of a Storage Extension. My question is, is there any deep dependency that Tridion has on the Broker that might mean things work in a sub-optimal way, or gotchas that I should be aware of? Update - We are going to be using Tridion purely as a content store which will push out JSON. There will be no functionality or any form of business logic/UI.

2013/07/25

1. Dynamic Linking is the big one as Rob mentions. 2. any DCPs embedded on Pages will render UCs/Tags. 3. Any code that queries CPs using Criteria/Query API will need to be gutted/replaced. 4. If you use P&P, then any personalized content will be rendered and filtered via User Controls/Tags, and this will need replacing 5. If you use UGC, same as #4. When starting a fresh implementation Broker/no-Broker is a decision to be made, but once it's done and the site is live, you have a lot of work on your hands to get rid of the Broker.

This sounds like an unusual implementation. It might be worth blueprinting your website to allow you to localize the templates to render the json. The new child publication could be used with a new deployer for you to test if this gives you the output you need without any missing functionality.

We would like to get rid of the Tridion Broker as part of a project and publish content directly to a repository as part of a Storage Extension. My question is, is there any deep dependency that Tridion has on the Broker that might mean things work in a sub-optimal way, or gotchas that I should be aware of? Update - We are going to be using Tridion purely as a content store which will push out JSON. There will be no functionality or any form of business logic/UI.

2013/07/25

I will assume that what you mean with the Broker is the Tridion Broker database. It is possible to publish everything to the file system, it includes, content, linking info, metadata and references, however this functionality is deprecated and will be removed in future releases, having said that, in future releases, linking, metadata and references will always be stored in the Tridion broker database. If what you want is to override the storage layer and create a custom one, it will for sure affect key features like the Tridion CD API, Dynamic Linking and of course it won't be supported by either Customer Support or R&D. Other key feature that depends on the Tridion Broker database is the Session Preview functionality.

This sounds like an unusual implementation. It might be worth blueprinting your website to allow you to localize the templates to render the json. The new child publication could be used with a new deployer for you to test if this gives you the output you need without any missing functionality.

We would like to get rid of the Tridion Broker as part of a project and publish content directly to a repository as part of a Storage Extension. My question is, is there any deep dependency that Tridion has on the Broker that might mean things work in a sub-optimal way, or gotchas that I should be aware of? Update - We are going to be using Tridion purely as a content store which will push out JSON. There will be no functionality or any form of business logic/UI.

2013/07/25

I will assume that what you mean with the Broker is the Tridion Broker database. It is possible to publish everything to the file system, it includes, content, linking info, metadata and references, however this functionality is deprecated and will be removed in future releases, having said that, in future releases, linking, metadata and references will always be stored in the Tridion broker database. If what you want is to override the storage layer and create a custom one, it will for sure affect key features like the Tridion CD API, Dynamic Linking and of course it won't be supported by either Customer Support or R&D. Other key feature that depends on the Tridion Broker database is the Session Preview functionality.

I would be vary wary of any approach that removes all Content Delivery functionality, or the ability to hook into it. Customers I have seen that take this approach due to whatever requirements, tend to become very dissatisfied in the long term. Usually they bought Tridion for the whole package of functionality, CM + CD. Some typical issues are: 1. Upgrading - if you build your own Content Delivery framework, this needs to be tested and updated before the client can upgrade their Tridion version. Maybe the people/organization that created the framework have moved on, and no-one knows how the heck it works any more anyway. I have even had customers who didnt even have the source code for their framework! 2. New product features - Tridion releases a new version or module with feature X that is amazing. The sales guy does the hard sell, the customer MUST have it... but wait - it requires Content Delivery elements, which are not part of your framework So think carefully before following this route. You can still publish JSON to Elastic Store with Tridion, but I would try to keep standard Tridion CD for as much as possible...

We would like to get rid of the Tridion Broker as part of a project and publish content directly to a repository as part of a Storage Extension. My question is, is there any deep dependency that Tridion has on the Broker that might mean things work in a sub-optimal way, or gotchas that I should be aware of? Update - We are going to be using Tridion purely as a content store which will push out JSON. There will be no functionality or any form of business logic/UI.

2013/07/25

I would be vary wary of any approach that removes all Content Delivery functionality, or the ability to hook into it. Customers I have seen that take this approach due to whatever requirements, tend to become very dissatisfied in the long term. Usually they bought Tridion for the whole package of functionality, CM + CD. Some typical issues are: 1. Upgrading - if you build your own Content Delivery framework, this needs to be tested and updated before the client can upgrade their Tridion version. Maybe the people/organization that created the framework have moved on, and no-one knows how the heck it works any more anyway. I have even had customers who didnt even have the source code for their framework! 2. New product features - Tridion releases a new version or module with feature X that is amazing. The sales guy does the hard sell, the customer MUST have it... but wait - it requires Content Delivery elements, which are not part of your framework So think carefully before following this route. You can still publish JSON to Elastic Store with Tridion, but I would try to keep standard Tridion CD for as much as possible...

This sounds like an unusual implementation. It might be worth blueprinting your website to allow you to localize the templates to render the json. The new child publication could be used with a new deployer for you to test if this gives you the output you need without any missing functionality.

I am designing a campaign and I have a couple of evil power blocs vying for control. I would really like to have one of them directly interacting with the party and I think I really want it to be a devil because I love the idea of the lawful evil tricking them while still being true to its word. So my question would it be possible to disguise a devil as a human\* using canon mechanics? I know I could just house rule that the devil has the spell polymorph or something but I was wondering if there was a way to do it within the rules as written for 5e? Now, this doesn't have to be an undetectable disguise. I am fine with the players discovering he is a devil in disguise if they look hard enough. Also, the type of Devil can change if needed, though I would prefer to have a more prestigious Devil that is calling the shots. I have read the entire section on Devils in the Monster Manual and there isn't anything obvious. I was thinking of an Erinyes with a Hat of Disguise Self but I don't think Disguise Self would be able to conceal the wings, so they would have to pretend to be an Angel which I wouldn't really consider "normal" to be interacting with. As for making a custom monster according to the DMG I would consider that akin to house ruling it. Which is definitely something I can fall back to, but I was trying to think of something more direct from the rules. \*Or anything else that would normally interact with a party around a town.

2017/01/18

Consider Titivilus ================== Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes includes a number of devils that you can draw on for your campaign. One of these is [Titivilus](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/titivilus) who can innately cast [*Alter Self*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/alter-self) and [*Nondetection*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/nondetection) at will. *Alter Self* would allow him to easily pass as a human and *Nondetection* would help prevent his true nature from being discovered. Other relevant spells include *Modify Memory*, *Major Image*, and *Mislead*. Titivilus is the second in command to Dispater making him important enough to count as prestigious while still being lowly enough that he would personally manage his schemes on earth.

Would [Shapechange](http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Shapechange) go? It only lasts for an hour, but the caster can transform into any creature with same or lower challenge rating. Limitations are "not a construct or an undead, no class levels or the Spellcasting trait, and you must have seen the sort of creature at least once", so a human form seem to be available.

I am designing a campaign and I have a couple of evil power blocs vying for control. I would really like to have one of them directly interacting with the party and I think I really want it to be a devil because I love the idea of the lawful evil tricking them while still being true to its word. So my question would it be possible to disguise a devil as a human\* using canon mechanics? I know I could just house rule that the devil has the spell polymorph or something but I was wondering if there was a way to do it within the rules as written for 5e? Now, this doesn't have to be an undetectable disguise. I am fine with the players discovering he is a devil in disguise if they look hard enough. Also, the type of Devil can change if needed, though I would prefer to have a more prestigious Devil that is calling the shots. I have read the entire section on Devils in the Monster Manual and there isn't anything obvious. I was thinking of an Erinyes with a Hat of Disguise Self but I don't think Disguise Self would be able to conceal the wings, so they would have to pretend to be an Angel which I wouldn't really consider "normal" to be interacting with. As for making a custom monster according to the DMG I would consider that akin to house ruling it. Which is definitely something I can fall back to, but I was trying to think of something more direct from the rules. \*Or anything else that would normally interact with a party around a town.

2017/01/18

Why not try using the disguise of an entirely different person? In the MM, all the stronger devils seem to have telepathy of 120ft. They could use their telepathy in order to communicate through another person that is in service to the devil. I think it would make sense that a higher more prestigious devil would employ servants to do dirty work. This wouldn't be entirely undetectable. The devil would have to remain 120ft close to tell the Servant what to say or maybe even closer to hear the PCs(depending if you consider telepathic communication a 2-way street. I could not find a straight answer on this.) A wise PC might could notice the words of the Servant are not the Servant's own, maybe a hesitation in the Servant's voice which would require investigation, or sense they are being spied on a powerful being.

A hat of disguise could easily allow an erinyes pass off as an aarakocra or winged elf, either of which would stand out in a crowd, but wouldn't be barred entrance to a city.

I am designing a campaign and I have a couple of evil power blocs vying for control. I would really like to have one of them directly interacting with the party and I think I really want it to be a devil because I love the idea of the lawful evil tricking them while still being true to its word. So my question would it be possible to disguise a devil as a human\* using canon mechanics? I know I could just house rule that the devil has the spell polymorph or something but I was wondering if there was a way to do it within the rules as written for 5e? Now, this doesn't have to be an undetectable disguise. I am fine with the players discovering he is a devil in disguise if they look hard enough. Also, the type of Devil can change if needed, though I would prefer to have a more prestigious Devil that is calling the shots. I have read the entire section on Devils in the Monster Manual and there isn't anything obvious. I was thinking of an Erinyes with a Hat of Disguise Self but I don't think Disguise Self would be able to conceal the wings, so they would have to pretend to be an Angel which I wouldn't really consider "normal" to be interacting with. As for making a custom monster according to the DMG I would consider that akin to house ruling it. Which is definitely something I can fall back to, but I was trying to think of something more direct from the rules. \*Or anything else that would normally interact with a party around a town.

2017/01/18

You had requested no homebrew creatures, and I'm not sure this qualifies as homebrew or just refluff, but you could easily take the Deva (MM pp16) and have it be "fallen" (think Lucifer.) Instead of an Angel, it is a Fallen Angel, but still has all of the attributes which allows for Change Shape with everything you're looking for. It's technically homebrew because it's not the name/alignment of an Angel from the MM, but it's also basically the exact same creature, just with an alignment change from having "fallen" and probably a switch from Radiant to Necrotic (but not necessarily.)

A hat of disguise could easily allow an erinyes pass off as an aarakocra or winged elf, either of which would stand out in a crowd, but wouldn't be barred entrance to a city.

I am designing a campaign and I have a couple of evil power blocs vying for control. I would really like to have one of them directly interacting with the party and I think I really want it to be a devil because I love the idea of the lawful evil tricking them while still being true to its word. So my question would it be possible to disguise a devil as a human\* using canon mechanics? I know I could just house rule that the devil has the spell polymorph or something but I was wondering if there was a way to do it within the rules as written for 5e? Now, this doesn't have to be an undetectable disguise. I am fine with the players discovering he is a devil in disguise if they look hard enough. Also, the type of Devil can change if needed, though I would prefer to have a more prestigious Devil that is calling the shots. I have read the entire section on Devils in the Monster Manual and there isn't anything obvious. I was thinking of an Erinyes with a Hat of Disguise Self but I don't think Disguise Self would be able to conceal the wings, so they would have to pretend to be an Angel which I wouldn't really consider "normal" to be interacting with. As for making a custom monster according to the DMG I would consider that akin to house ruling it. Which is definitely something I can fall back to, but I was trying to think of something more direct from the rules. \*Or anything else that would normally interact with a party around a town.

2017/01/18

Consider Titivilus ================== Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes includes a number of devils that you can draw on for your campaign. One of these is [Titivilus](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/titivilus) who can innately cast [*Alter Self*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/alter-self) and [*Nondetection*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/nondetection) at will. *Alter Self* would allow him to easily pass as a human and *Nondetection* would help prevent his true nature from being discovered. Other relevant spells include *Modify Memory*, *Major Image*, and *Mislead*. Titivilus is the second in command to Dispater making him important enough to count as prestigious while still being lowly enough that he would personally manage his schemes on earth.

When you say 'devil', would *any* devil do? If so, and given your "anything else that would normally interact with a party around a town" then - for a given definition of "interact" an imp works. It's technically a devil and can shapechange at will into a spider, rat or raven, all of which can be encountered in a town without raising suspicion. It retains its statistics in the new form which means it can speak Common and Infernal. You could either have it claim to be an Animal Messenger of a party who wishes to remain anonymous, or have it perch on the shoulder of a zombie (or corpse, or just someone paralytically drunk or intimidated or bribed into going along) disguised to look like a well-wrapped wizard. Nobody is going to assume the voice is coming from the spider.