How it is with a right to solicitor after arrest and in custody?

Question: I would like to find out how it is with a right to solicitor after arrest and in custody? I demanded a lawyer but I was not allowed to meet him personally and actions were continued and I was forced to take part in proceedings without the presence of a lawyer. During a short phone conversation the lawyer said that he could not talk to me because the conversation was recorded and he was waiting for information when he could meet me in private.
Comment: What proceedings and actions took part without the presence of a solicitor? Ie interview, breath analysis, charging etc?
Comment: Thank you for the reply. As far as I can see (from the link provided) I have to contact a lawyer because none of my rights had been respected. Nor right to the interpreter, nor right to see the solicitor. I was forced to talk to some people claiming to be a committee verifying my health and mental health. To explain immediately I did not have any health or mental health problems, I was not under the influence of any substances, whether intoxicating or narcotic or medical. I have an asthma and allergy.
Answer: You are entitled to legal advice
Once you are arrested the police must inform you of your rights1 which includes the right to legal advice. Police have to explain this to you by reading the police caution:

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Note that, unlike in the US, the fact that you did not cooperate with the police can be taken into account by the courts. For example, if you have an alibi, you need to tell the police you alibi or it may be inadmissible when you go to trial.
Once you ask for legal advice, the police are not permitted to question you until you get it. They can do whatever policey things they want like fingerprinting that aren't questioning. You can use your own lawyer or the duty solicitor to get this advice. The advice can be given over the phone. Your lawyer is not entitled to be with you while you are being questioned although the police can allow this if they want.
1England, Wales & Northern Ireland, the rules are different in Scotland
Comment: The reason I ask in the comments about what proceedings the OP was asking about is because the police can get on and do things like require you to take a breath test, or take an evidential blood or urine test without your lawyer being present or even informed *unless they are available and present either physically or on the phone at that exact moment*.

You can be charged, required to take standard tests, and a whole bunch of other things without the police having to wait for your lawyer to attend.  It sounds like this is what happened, hence request for clarification.


Storing dictionaries in mongo

Question: Is there any reliable and fast database architecture that allows to store a dictionary(containing up to hundred thousand words) using mongodb?
Answer: For optimal performance, MongoDB schema design must be custom-tailored for each application's unique access patterns. It's better to study general MongoDB design techniques than specific architectures (which may not match your specific application).
Having said that, Wordnik is a great case-study:

Similar application: real-time dictionary
20 billion records stored in 3.5 terabytes of MongoDB
Many online presentations sharing their MongoDB knowledge/experiences

Inside Wordnik's Architecture gives a more "macro" view of Wordnik's
architecture.
Lots of other slides

Here is how Wordnik apparently modeled their words:

source: MongoDB Schema Design

Storing dictionaries in mongo


How to connect my phone to a motorized telescope via a cable?

Question: Some motorized telescopes (e.g. Celestron NexStar Series) have no WiFi by default. Can I connect my phone to them to be used as a hand control via a cable? The telescopes have AUX port and phones USB C ports. Even when they have hand control or even WiFi, connecting the phone by cable can be better. I've heard that some telescopes have issues with WiFi connection and that the hand control does not provide the same level of convenience as an Android app (e.g. SkyPortal).
Answer: Group dedicated to all versions of the Celestron "C14" 14-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope.  This includes the original C14 and the newer "EdgeHD" series. All other Celestron SCT telescopes are welcomed to participate.
https://groups.io/g/C14EdgeHD
Comment: Thanks. I believe you intended to add a comment.


Ubuntu 12.10 won't boot after install

Question: I recently wiped my hard disk and tried to install ubuntu 12.10 but after a sucessful install from the USB,I booted from the HD and when I do I get a purple screen saying ubuntu and a loading animation but that's all it does,it keeps loading and loading an I can't get to the login screen...I'm used ext2 as the /boot and btrfs as /..I don't know if that would affect this but I did it because it kept failing to create a ext4 partition....please help!
Comment: Check the boot options, you might need to set acpi=off or something similar. Happened to me when I updated to 12.04.
Comment: Can you tell us more about your hardware please, could be a driver issue. Your video card might not be working properly. Also try what @Dialogos suggested
Answer: A possible solution that strangely worked for me in the past is:
When viewing the purple ubuntu screen, wait like 1 minute then press Ctrl+Alt+F1. Login with yer account and type sudo restart lightdm. Might work for you as it did for me.
Answer: If you can login through the console, as Dialogos suggests, I would also plug it in to a network connection and run the updates:
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade

As I have seen this type of behaviour before, and generally there is an update that fixes it.
Also, Ubuntu 12.10 support ends in April 2014.
  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases

Ubuntu 12.10 won't boot after install


Two itunes accounts on one laptop

Question: My wife and I have two separate iTunes accounts and two separate laptops.  Now that we are married, when it came to the time we both needed to replace our own laptops we decided just to buy one.  I would be grateful for any advice on what the best way would be to deal with our separate iTunes accounts.  Can we merge them, or both have our own iTunes accounts installed on the same machine.  Any advice would be much appreciated.
Comment: The accounts cannot be merged, which makes Mark's existing answer the only real option - but I just wanted to add that your can share apps, books, music etc, rather than merge, by using [Family Sharing](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201060)
Answer: You should each have your own user account/login on the computer then you can have each use your own iTunes, iCloud, email, Facebook, Twitter, etc… accounts.
You can create an user account on your computer by going to

System Preferences > Users & Groups,
Unlock that panel if necessary (Click on the lock in the lower left corner and enter you password if the lock icon shows as locked)
Then press the "+" icon in the table above the unlocked icon to add another account to your computer.
Comment: To add to Mark's answer...   you might find this article helpful.   It gives a good tutorial on adding multiple user accounts to the system, and how to configure them.    http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-set-up-multiple-user-accounts-on-os-x/

Two itunes accounts on one laptop


Clarifications on Tomcat's "temp" and "work" directories

Question: I have been using Tomcat for quite a while now but I am not sure what the

"temp" and
"work"

directories are used for and when I need to clean which.
Can anyone please advise?
Answer:
work stores compiled JSPs and other assets.
=> You only need to "clean" the webapp directories under it on the rare occasions when an update to a WebApp is not picked up.
temp is used to store files created using the Java File API for creating temporary files.
=> You can "clean" it every time you restart Tomcat. If it is getting too full then one of your WebApps may have some form of leak where its not releasing temp files when its done with them (although it could just be under higher load too).
Comment: Robert: thanks! Can you tell me under which directory the session data is stored?
Comment: @balteo session data is in-memory, isn't it?
Comment: @adarsh not persistent session data though.
Answer: Addressing the temp files not being cleaned after restart.
<Host name="localhost" appBase="webapps">
    <Context docBase="mywebapp" path="/mywebapp">
        <LifecycleListener className="org.apache.catalina.startup.ContextConfig"
            <Parameter name="clearReferencesStopThreads" value="true" />
        </LifecycleListener>
    </Context>
</Host>

The configuration you added to the server.xml file will enable Tomcat's cleanup mechanism to remove temporary files in the /opt/tomcat/temp directory. This is a valid way to address the issue of accumulated temporary files.This solved the issue for me. Make sure it is affecting your desired webapp.
Also can someone please specify the possible reasons why these files are not getting cleaned? I am facing the same issue where temp files are not being cleaned up after tomcat restart. I am trying to find the solution other than adding the configuration.


Prevent future holes in PVC vent pipe in walls

Question: Is there any practice or products out there to help protect a PVC pipe where someone might drill into the wall in the future for hanging stuff or something. I'm considering just using metal piping for my vertical vent pipe runs through the walls.
Comment: I was installing surround sound speakers in my old house, speakers wall-mounted with cables in the walls (wired through an unfinished basement) with faceplate terminals. Anyway, I was cutting a rectangle for one of the faceplates and hit a PVC drain pipe for the upstairs bathroom. I did not realize it was a wet wall, being 2x4s as opposed to 2x6. Anyway, a drywall saw barely nicked the surface, and I imagine a drill would slide off as well. I have tried cutting and drilling PVC pipes and they are not as easy as they look.
Answer: I believe that code requires it to be located at least 1-1/2 inches from the wall (or framing?) face or to be covered by at least 1/16" steel plates (similar to wiring, and for the same reason.) This is why (as implied in @John Gaughan's comment) wet walls are typically framed with 2x6 or even 2x8 rather than 2x4 lumber (that would be a "practice" in the spirit of your question.) Another method is to use 2 separated rows of 2x3 or 2x4 framing, which saves on a lot of hole drilling and lumber cost. Does not prevent the determined idiot from finding a pipe and drilling something longer than code expects into it, but nothing does, really.
On the whole, I prefer PVC - having dealt with corroded metal pipes (those can be drilled through as well.) Providing an actual pipe chase (boxed in, rather than trying to "bury it all in the wall") provides more protection (you can give them more space) and should help keep anyone with the slightest clue from drilling there by accident (because it's obviously a pipe chase.) Plus, you don't need to make the rest of the wall excessively thick.
Comment: Thanks. I believe I decided that using a chase was probably my best bet, at least for the main stack vent. I just have to find out if I can put the vent in the same chase as the HVAC air return. Don't see why I wouldn't be able to.


Did the Buddha teach the Mahayana

Question: I understand that according to some "schools" at least historical ones that the historical Buddha didn't teach the Mayanaha.
Is that true?
Comment: According to the academics or according to Mahayana doctrine, or according to non-Mahayana doctrine? The various camps have predictable answers, the academics put the writing of the Mahayana Sutras hundreds of years after the passing of the Buddha.
Comment: what is meant by "historical school" (and what is a "non-historical" one?)?
Answer: At the time of the Buddha there were no schools, only one "type" of Buddhism was known: The teachings of the Buddha, the discourses and verses spoken by him.
Buddha taught the Dhamma-Vinaya, he did not teach Theravada, Mahayana or Zen.
After the Buddha passed away to PariNibbana, the monks got together in councils to unify and register the teachings of the master, they put together the suttas, the Vinaya, the verses (Dhammapada), Jakata stories etc.
After many decades there was a split in the Sangha due to different interpretations of the teachings and that was when this discussion of Mahayana and Theravada began. As Buddhism reached different countries, different versions of the religion appeared addapting Buddhism to the culture and older religions of the country. Tibetan Buddhism is a good example, it still has traces of Astrology and Shamanism in some of its schools (this is not criticism, I'm not claiming this or that school is right or wrong, I tried not to take any side on this answer and respect all views)
Answer: Yes, some schools say that, but according to Tibetan Buddhism the teachings of Mahayana were actually given by Buddha, during the second turning of the wheel, at the Vultures Peak.  The emphasis is in the concept of emptiness and boddhichita or universal compassion.
In the third turning of the wheel, there is not a specific place mentioned.  They deal specially with the Buddha Nature that all sentient beings possess.
Answer: It's impossible to know what the Buddha taught, as even the earliest known writings were written long after he passed on.  However, many schools claim they were the original words of the Buddha, either as a bid for credibility or as part of sectarian disputes.
Don't take any such claims seriously.

Did the Buddha teach the Mahayana


Problem interfacing with an lcd with an arduino

Question: My lcd arrived today and i saw that when i connect the backlight pins (A and K) to GND and +5V, the backlight turns on, but i cannot control it with the potentiometer. The wiring seems fine (ive checked and rechecked). Also, the 'hello world' sketch from the arduino website does not seem to be working at all. Any suggestions?
Comment: The potentiometer probably controls the LCD contrast, not the backlight.  If you turn the pot to one extreme, you should get black blocks on the screen, and at the other extreme, the display will be blank.  I assume you've connected power and data to the LCD?
Comment: Schematic of how you've got it connected?
Comment: The lcd is displaying a bright green backlight. No blocks are seen even when i turn the potentiometer to both the extremes
Comment: The Arduino library probably needs to be configured with correct pins used by the display shield. You'll have to find the datasheet for you specific shield and find the paragraph that lists the pin out. In your code look for a line like Look for a line like `LiquidCrystal lcd(8, 9, 4, 5, 6, 7);` http://arduino.cc/en/Reference/LiquidCrystalConstructor
Answer: You need to check a few things.
1) What voltage rating is the LCD?  Most LCD displays require +5V power supply.
2) What voltage is the processor on your Arduino board running at?  These can be either 3.3V or 5V.
If your Arduino board is running at 3.3V and you are trying to run a 5V LDS display from it without using level conversion, it probably won't work.
3) Does the display change at all as you rotate the contrast pot?  FWIW - the voltage on the contrast line is usually fairly close to ground.
4) How have you connected the display to the Arduino?  You need a minimum of 6 lines: data lines 4-7 plus EN & RS.  Just connect the R/W line from the LCD to ground for now.
5) Is your LCD rated for operation at cold temperature?  If so, you may need to bring the contrast line below ground (negative).  It doesn't need to be much below ground and you should still see something on the display with the contrast voltage set to 0V - but you may need to do this if you can't get enough contrast on the display when you get it working.
6) Is your Arduino sketch known-good working code?
7) Are you actually getting your code into the Arduino?  Maybe do a flashing LED from one of the port pins to ensure that your programming environment is working.
Comment: well, the lcd is built to be used for hobbies(the site ssaid so). the display did not change a single bit when i rotated the pot. the lcd's backlight is working perfectly well, only the blocks cannot be seen. tcd is connected to the 5v pin on the arduino, so i dont think the voltage is faulty...
Comment: Do you have the power and ground for the LCD logic connected - that is usually a separate pair of terminals from the backlight.
Comment: Probably best to go back to the basics first.  Use some code that makes a LED flash at the port pins of the Arduino.  When you have that working, we can progress to finding out why the LCD doesn't work.
Comment: I mentioned this before but I'll ask again: what voltage does your Arduino run at?  3.3V or 5V?  This does matter and we need to know.


Contradicting definitions for atomic mass unit?

Question: I have seen online that the amu is equal to approximately $1.661 \times 10^{-27}\,\text{kg}$ and is $\frac{1}{12}$ the mass of carbon-12. However, I have also seen it described as the average nucleon mass and equal to approximately $1.673 \times 10^{-27}\,\text{kg}$. Are both definitions widely used?
Comment: 1.661 is approximately 1.673, or vice versa.
Comment: @my2cts, more precisely: 1.661 is approximately 99.3% of 1.673. That's a ratio that can be ignored for _some_ purposes, but may be significant in other situations.
Comment: Does that explain how it happened?
Answer: The first definition is correct – the atomic mass unit (or Dalton) is defined to be $1/12$ the mass of carbon-12. The IUPAC definition elaborates on this:

Non-SI unit of mass (equal to the atomic mass constant), defined as one twelfth of the mass of a carbon-12 atom in its ground state and used to express masses of atomic particles, $u\approx1.660\;5402(10)\times10^{−27}\,\text{kg}$.

This definition was also not affected by the 2019 redefinition of SI base units.
It is in fact true that the average nucleon mass is about $1.673 \times 10^{-27}\,\text{kg}$, though this is not used as a definition for the atomic mass unit – it might be helpful to provide the sources that claim so. Another possibility might be that the second (wrong) "definition" for the atomic mass unit was actually referring to the mass of hydrogen-1 which is $1.008\,\text u\approx1.673\times10^{-27}\,\text{kg}$.
Comment: It's also true that the amu is *approximately* the average mass of a nucleon, to better than 1% accuracy.  That might be good enough in some circumstances, and I could envision some introductory textbooks glossing over this distinction for the sake of being more easily understood.
Answer: Technically, the former definition is correct. Such an exact value only became an issue when technology allowed us to care about any actual differences in the mass of nucleons. Until then, the best estimate at the time had been 1.673 and had become the standard convention by use.
But when it came time to standardize, the IUPAC needed something rigorous, not the colloquial best-estimate, and needed something they felt would be most representative - because the masses differ by proton/neutron and slightly by atom. Carbon-12 fits both. It is 12 nucleons with half protons and half neutrons (a fairly representative ratio) and was measurable.
The first one is right. The second is old. But papers from the past are sometimes sighted a lot, plus books.. anything published.


Get full file url, avoiding the siteUrl trailing slash

Question: so I'm using an asset field for an OG Image. I need to get the full url for this and I've yet to find a clean way to do this. I figured I could just combine siteUrl and the asset url but I have a weird issue with a double slash.
<meta property="og:image" content="{{siteUrl}}{{entry.ogImage.first().url}}/>

This does what I expect except it adds a slash at the end of {{siteUrl}} and the beginning of the asset so my url is bad, leaving me with a double slash. Short of some programatical removal of the slash, is there another way to do this? Why does my siteUrl have that trailing slash? is something wrong there?
Answer: Instead of {{siteUrl}}{{entry.ogImage.first().url}}, try {{entry.ogImage.first().getUrl()}}. getUrl() should return the full image path, including host.


Twin paradox - observers counter orbiting Earth

Question: Imagine three observers - one (A) stationary on the surface of Earth (latitude 0 deg) and two others orbiting the planet in the same circular equatorial orbit just in the opposite direction. When the orbiting observers B and C meet each other just above the observer A all theisr clocks are synchronized. When their meet again what will their clock show? They move relative to each other, but experience equal acceleration and gravitational potential. Will the orbiting observers have their clock synchronized all the time? If the time intervals differ who measures greater time and why? Suppose Earth in non-rotating itself and with perfect spherical symmetry.
Answer: Interesting question... with the assumptions you've specified, obviously observers B and C will have the same time on their clocks when they meet again because their situations are identical. Observer A, on the other hand, has to hold itself in place with a rocket or something, so it's not in an inertial reference frame. Based on that, A will have a different time on its clock when the three meet up again.
Let's see what the math says. Given a spherical, nonrotating Earth, we can use the Schwarzschild metric to describe spacetime outside it.
$$c^2\mathrm{d}\tau^2 = \biggl(1 - \frac{r_s}{r}\biggr)c^2\mathrm{d}t^2 - \biggl(1 - \frac{r_s}{r}\biggr)^{-1}\mathrm{d}r^2 - r^2(\mathrm{d}\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta\,\mathrm{d}\phi^2)$$
For the spacetime trajectories of the three observers, $\mathrm{d}r = 0$ (because they stay at a constant radius) and $\mathrm{d}\phi = 0$ (because they orbit in a single plane). So a bit of algebra gets you to
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau}{\mathrm{d}t} = \sqrt{\biggl(1 - \frac{r_s}{r}\biggr) - \frac{r^2}{c^2}\biggl(\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d}t}\biggr)^2}$$
In this formula, $r$ is equal to the radial coordinate of the three observers, $c$ is the speed of light, and $r_s$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth. All three of those are constants. The only thing that differs from one observer to another is the coordinate angular velocity $\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d}t}$, which is something like the angular velocity as measured by a distant observer. For observer B, this will be equal to some constant $\omega$, for C it'll be equal to $-\omega$, and for A it will be zero. This means that $\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau}{\mathrm{d}t}$ is equal for B and C, and slightly greater for A.
Now, this quantity $\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau}{\mathrm{d}t}$ is the rate at which proper time ($\tau$) elapses relative to coordinate time ($t$). The coordinate time is, again, basically what would be measured by a distant observer. So each time the three observers A,B,C meet up, the meeting takes place at the same coordinate time for all three of them. However, the proper time $\tau$, which is the time each observer measures internally, is not the same for all three. The fact that $\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau}{\mathrm{d}t}$ is larger for observer A means that for a given amount of coordinate time (like, say, the interval between two successive meetings of the three observers), A will experience more time than B or C. So if the observers start with synchronized clocks, when they next meet up, A will find that its clock is a little bit ahead of B's and C's clocks.
If you're curious about the numbers: we may not have enough precision to get an accurate result, but I can do this just to show how the calculation would work. Let's plug in the Earth's Schwarzschild radius of $r_s = 8.9\text{ mm}$ and the orbital radius of, say, the International Space Station at $r = 6750\text{ km}$ (rough average). We can also use the ISS's orbital speed of $r\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d}t} = 7.68\ \mathrm{\frac{km}{s}}$ for observers B and C. That gives the following rates:
$$\begin{align}\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau_A}{\mathrm{d}t} &= 1 - 1.2027\times 10^{-8} & \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau_{B,C}}{\mathrm{d}t} &= 1 - 1.2355\times 10^{-8}\end{align}$$
The difference works out to $3\times 10^{-10}$. So over a 90-minute orbital period, the clock on A would come out ahead of that on B or C by 1.7 microseconds. But again, I'm not sure this number is necessarily trustworthy because we are talking about very small numbers here, and some of the GR effects I've neglected may contribute.
Comment: Thanks for detailed answer. How would be the entire situation seen or calculated by one of the orbiting observers (rather than Schwarzschild far away from Earth)? I assume that for him/her (B) the clock of C will has different rate but that the dilatation due to relative velocity average out during the orbit?
Comment: All I've calculated here is the difference between the various observers' clocks that accumulates over one orbit. Since all the observers meet at the same position after the orbit, this quantity is the same no matter who is observing it - in other words, there is no distant observer actually involved. The calculation tells you what A,B,C themselves would actually measure. Of course a distant observer would see the same thing as well.
Comment: Now, if you wanted to calculate the rate at which time passes for C as observed by B, you would have to do a more complicated calculation using the Kerr metric, because B observes the Earth to be rotating relative to its own inertial frame. I could try to add that in (when I have time) if you want.
Comment: Thanks for the additional comments. If you have time later to add the Kerr metric solution I would much appreciate it.
Comment: @Leos I will do that when I have a chance but it might have to wait for a day or so.
Comment: @LeosOndra actually this turns out to be more complicated than I thought. It may not actually be the Kerr metric that is the appropriate choice for this situation; I'm not sure if some coordinate-transformed version of the Schwarzschild metric would be appropriate instead... someone who's more familiar with how these things work would have to explain this one. If I can find such a person I'll see if I can ask them about it.
Comment: OK, don't worry. Your current answer is already very detailed :-)
Answer: As soon as there is any gravitation or acceleration you need to use general relativity and the simple time-dilation effects you get in special relativity are not present (that is they are no longer as simple).
In fact the scenario you describe is equivalent to the standard twin paradox with the exception that your twins are smoothly accelerating with respect to each other and that there is symmetry between twins (triplets?) B and C.  The resolution to the twin paradox is that for the travelling twin to return she must accelerate and that is counter to the assumptions made in special relativity.
The nice thing about your example is that it shows that the problem with the twin paradox is not that there is symmetry breaking between the twins, but that acceleration or gravitation is present.
Answer: B and C will have the same time, but A time will differ. It will either be faster, if B and C are in a low enough orbit, or slower if they are in a high enough orbit. You must use GTR if gravity is involved
Answer: Interesting problem. The ref A, the static one can be ommited. The others that are orbitng the Earth, will experience the same gravitational force, and both clocks are equally affected and so GR can not contribute to any difference.
The orbit is circular and, at first sight, it calls for an acceleration.
Is it so? Nope, imo. Although they are subject to forces, the gravitation and the centripetal force, they cancel each other and the net force is zero in the radial direction. If the engines are off then the tangencial acceleration is also zero.
They are simply following the 'geodesic', in free fall.
The problem is clearly symetrical at all levels, and SR is enough.
The moment they cross each other thay can send a message with the clock time and they will see that they mark the same time.
Mr David in his answer already told what happens to the clock of A that remained in the surface of the Earth.
I'will change its position to the same altitude of the others that are orbiting.  If it goes to a stationary position wrt the non-rotating Earth surface it must apply engines to counter the effect of the gravitation, by the same amount of force. But, inspite of this,  is the observer accelerating ?  Nope, imo, by the same reason that he suffer zero net force in all directions.
SR is enough?  Make your own conclusions.


owner of apartment complex with tenants inoperable or leaking vehicles

Question: I have a tenant in Memphis, Tn. who's vehicle is on 3 tires, the 4th no axle , up on a jack old me that he would have it up and running this past monday, today is friday. what can I do?
Comment: Is there anything in the lease about this situation? How about the city ordinances?
Answer: I assume this is in an off-street parking space that residents can use, either because they directly rent it from you, or as a perk for renting an apartment. In the future, you can include contract language that requires any parked vehicles to be operable and not leaking. Or, include a clean-up clause (in case of spills). You will have to decide how strict you want to be, given that new restrictions are likely to annoy existing tenants. There are many other options, which you should discuss with your lawyer.
In case you did not contractually grant the tenant an unfettered right to use the parking space, you may be able to tell him to move the car (or have it towed -- the legality of that depends on local law). A verbal agreement counts, so discuss this with your lawyer, who can advise you whether you have a contractual obligation to let the guy remain in his spot.


What exactly is "collusion"? What is Robert Mueller expected to prove?

Question: It seems to me that what most people typically mean when they say "Trump colluded with Russia to win the election" is, quite simply, that Trump, or his campaign, knowingly met with some key people from Russia (who either were government officials, or had connections to government officials) and received help from these Russians in order to help Trump's campaign, and this particular "help" from the Russians was illicitly obtained by them in the first place (e.g. through hacking).
However, all of the above is already proven. It is known that Donald Trump Jr. met with these officials in order to get dirt on Hillary. It has recently also become known that George Papadopoulos also met with Russian agents in order to get dirt on Hillary. In both these cases, the particular knowledge that Russia had on Hillary would, obviously, had to have been obtained illicitly by them (such as her private e-mails and what not).
So my question is, if above is not what collusion actually means, then what does it mean? What is the Special Counsel actually expected to prove before this entire collusion-matter can be laid to rest?
I just don't get it. It seems to me that collusion has already been proven? I mean, do we expect the Special Counsel to prove that Trump sat in a room with Putin and they were both laughing maniacally about how they were going to collude together? Obviously any collusion that would take place would take place in the form mentioned above, with meetings and exchange of information, but we already know that happened, so what else is there to prove?
Comment: [New NYTimes opinion piece](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/opinion/collusion-meaning-trump-.html) argues against using the term "collusion"; that it is "implying precision where there is essentially none".
Answer: You are correct that "collusion" is being used very loosely. There is no specific federal criminal statute that outlaws "collusion", for example (except for an antitrust law not relevant here).
This NYTimes editorial argues that the term is a problem:

The problem is that the focus on the term "collusion" has had the effect of implying precision where there is essentially none. Meeting the standard of "proof of collusion" isn't a matter of meeting a technical definition or threshold — it is a matter of persuading enough people that what we're seeing is collusion. It is, in other words, a political judgment and, as with all things political, is extraordinarily subjective and vulnerable to all sorts of manipulations. The fuzziness of the current discourse may not matter much to the F.B.I., whose investigation will surely adhere to the letter of the law — but it might matter a great deal for how its findings play in the court of public opinion.

Some people appear to use it broadly, as a synonym of "cooperate"; others use it more strictly, closer to "participating in a proven criminal conspiracy". Still others probably wouldn't admit it was truly "collusion" even if they saw a literal contract signed by Trump and Putin.
The problem is that we're talking about pretty wide range of possibilities in the Trump/Russia matter, many of them with very different bottom lines:

Were members of the Trump campaign aware in advance of the hacked emails, or only after the fact?
Did they actively coordinate with Wikileaks about the timing for releasing the emails?
Did they know or care that Russia was involved in the email hack?
Did some minor figures in Trump's campaign simply have some passing interactions with a few people associated with Russia, that ultimately came to nothing (as they are currently claiming)?
Did members of the Trump campaign innocently but eagerly accept offers of damaging info on Clinton from people who happen to be from Russia? If so, is their claim that nothing ever came of it true?
Or, did members of the Trump campaign enter into a wink-wink-nudge-nudge with Russian agents that Trump might be willing to consider reducing or dropping Russian sanctions in exchange for help getting elected?
If so, was this known and approved by Trump himself? Was it coordinated by Sessions in his meetings with the Russian ambassador? Or was it the machinations only of long-gone people like Flynn? Would members of the campaign really keep this important information from their boss?
Or, as the "dossier" claims, did Russia and Trump have an explicit quid-pro-quo to not only help elect Trump but to also give Trump a 19% stake in Russian oil company Rosneft in exchange for changing the party platform on Ukraine and for dropping Russian sanctions? Is it just coincidence that Rosneft sold 19.5% of its shares (worth $11 billion) shortly after the election?

Obviously, these aren't the only choices, nor do all of them necessarily mean that Trump (and/or Pence) were personally aware/involved, but they all involve some measure of "collusion".
Some of these might involve broken laws (campaign finance laws, money laundering laws, criminal conspiracy laws, etc.), while others may not; but all have likely political fallout.
Please note that it is absolutely possible for Trump to be impeached based on actions he took that weren't illegal. For example, Trump clearly had the power to fire Comey as director of the FBI, but many people view that action as an improper abuse of power and an attempted obstruction of justice (whether anything comes of that is still to be determined). In a similar way, a clear quid-pro-quo with Russia (election help in exchange for dropping sanctions) could be politically damaging enough to result in impeachment, even if it isn't clear that any laws were broken.
Clearly the Trump administration is denying and minimizing as much as possible, but as so many of their past denials have proven false ("nobody involved in the campaign met with any Russians, ever!"), I don't give their denials much weight.
Personally, I agree with you, that even the information that has been admitted by members of the Trump campaign (Trump Jr's emails, Papadopoulos' signed confession, etc.) clearly indicate we are somewhere among the bullets above. How exactly this all shakes out is still unclear.
To answer your second question, Mueller was authorized to conduct an investigation into the following:

Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
any other matter within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a).

It also authorizes the Special Counsel to "prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters".
This article describes what 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a) may mean:

Section 600.(4)(a), which is referenced in Rosenstein's order, would seemingly allow the special counsel to investigate efforts to obstruct the Russia-related investigation, since obstruction of justice is specifically enumerated as something a special counsel has authority to investigate.

Note that "prosecuting federal crimes" isn't the only possible outcome of the investigation. As I discussed previously, Mueller could also uncover non-criminal "links and/or coordination" that are politically damaging enough to lead to impeachment.
So, yes, I think based (only) on the Papadopoulos confession, we know that Mueller has found at least some "links and/or coordination", although the full scope is still undetermined.
The indictments of Manafort and Gates, as they aren't (directly) linked to Russia, appear to be a result of "matters that arose directly from the investigation".
It seems likely that much more is still to come as Mueller continues his work.
Comment: Thanks, @FrankCedeno. Instead of "political expedience", I'd describe it more like "can congressional Republicans do the minimum possible to maintain even the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability to keep this obvious criminal madman in office so they can keep pushing their congressional agenda", but that would be opinionating, so I left that part out :)
Comment: Excellent answer and I will amplify that the purpose of this investigation is to see if it is politically expedient to Impeach President Trump. Even though I support the President, it is a fact that impeachable acts are anything Congress think is impeachable, for example wearing the wrong color tie is impeachable if Congress thinks it is.
Comment: @DonielF Because "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't mean what you think; its a vague term of art that includes other things besides literal crimes. See http://www.newsweek.com/you-dont-have-commit-crime-be-impeached-647926
Comment: Here's an example not connected to our current situation: what if the president just said "I hate this job, screw this mess" but refused to resign and instead holed up with endless beer in the bowling alley in the basement of the White House for a few weeks. Or months. Or years. Clearly no crime involved, but Congress could absolutely impeach him and remove him for refusing to do his job.
Comment: @DonielF Keep in mind, Bill Clinton's impeachment was initiated on two charges; perjury and obstruction of justice. Although he was acquitted, they stemmed from a sexual harassment case, in which itself was not illegal (although immoral). In this case, it's been proven that Donald Trump's campaign has committed perjury, and the only hurdle to turn that into a "crime" for Article II would be to see if Trump himself had anything to do with it. Regardless if he did or not, because of the relations his team has had, it wouldn't take much to make a connection between the two if Congress wanted.
Comment: @Anoplexian Right. Clinton's (alleged?) perjury occurred during a deposition for a civil legal proceeding, not a criminal legal proceeding. Trump's situation isn't completely analogous, although he's repeatedly claimed no knowledge of or involvement with Russians, I don't know that any of HIS statements have been under oath or while being questioned by the FBI. So perjury or "false statements to the FBI" might not be on the table for Trump personally, even if "he lied to the country" could still be a valid basis for impeachment.
Comment: You say that a president can be impeached "based on actions he took that weren't illegal." How does this jive with the statement in Article II, section 4, that impeachment comes about because of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"? Surely collusion, if not illegal and doesn't involve bribery, should not fall under this terminology? I will note that certain points on the list could be considered bribery, but, for instance, prior knowledge of the hacks doesn't seem to fit this requirement.
Comment: @pcj50: I thought the Clinton impeachment was about him lying about it afterwards.
Comment: @Frank Cedeno or, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, impeachment is for when an official has ["rendered himself obnoxious"](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/american-presidents-can-be-impeached-because-benjamin-franklin-thought-it-was-better-assassination-180961500/).
Comment: The Clinton impeachment centered entirely on acts that weren't illegal in themselves.
Comment: To add to the last point re Rosneft -- a few words to Google: Kara Sea, Exxon, Tillerson. Four *trillion* dollars worth of oil is reason enough to dare interfere with the US elections.
Comment: @DonielF - Just to add to what BradC said, Andrew Jackson was impeached for "engaging in libelous 'inflammatory and scandalous harangues' against Congressional members whom he called 'traitors.'" among other things.  ([link](http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/senate-hears-impeachment-charges-against-andrew-johnson)).
Answer: First off, consider the charges against Manafort. The actual charges, without interpretation.
Manafort and Gates have not been indicted for 'collusion'. They have been indicted for tax evasion, and for not registering themselves as foreign agents with the US state department - which is required. The period of time in which these offenses occurred was 2005-2012, long before the 2016 Trump campaign began.
In addition, George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, made misleading statements to FBI investigators, which is also illegal - statements made to FBI investigators are essentially the same as testimony in court, with the same penalties for not being honest. Charges against Papadopoulos He apparently was seeking dirt on Hillary Clinton, and went to Russian sources to see if any could be had. (he didn't get it, but that's not the point - he lied to the FBI about seeking it)
So, in the current indictments, there is nothing regarding 'collusion' between the Trump campaign and Russia, or any other foreign interest, other than a foreign policy advisor seeking but not getting dirt on a political opponent from a foreign country, which isn't necessarily illegal but is politically quite damaging.
There may well be coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence services, but so far, nothing actionable has turned up. After all, Clinton couldn't have lost the election because she was out of touch with the electorate, beset with her own legal problems, plus backstabbing Sanders and his supporters, could she?
Comment: Papadopoulos lied to the FBI *about details and timing of past and planned future meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian agents*. There is surely more to come, and it may not (yet) implicate bigger fish like Trump and Sessions, but to say this isn't related to the collusion charge is just silly.
Comment: "The period of time in which these offenses occurred was 2005-2012," apart from the 2013-2014 money laundering, 2015-2016 mortgage fraud, the 2016 false statements to the DOJ, and so forth. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-6d73-d751-af7f-7f735cc70000
Comment: This isn't true. The indictments (if they hold) do prove collusion on some levels at this time.
Comment: your commentary regarding Clinton contributes nothing to your answer. Who won the election should be independent of crimes committed by campaign personnel.
Comment: I think you're inferring that the OP is seeking some excuse as to why clinton lost. I think it's easier to infer from the OP that he simply thinks that trump and his campaign did very shady, if not illegal activities - that some might consider treason, to gain an upper hand.
Answer: Collusion: "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose"
The media has been using Collusion as a catch all for other potential crimes that the Trump team is being accused of.  I am not a lawyer, but the legal usage of Collusion would appear to be mostly limited to unfair market practices (e.g.: price fixing between two companies).
So what Mueller needs to prove would depend on what he is actually investigating.  His investigative powers are fairly wide ranging, and he has the ability to go where ever the evidence takes him (to be cliche).  Recently, that led to Manafort(for acts committed years before he was a member of the Trump team), and appears to have started to latch on to Tony Podesta.
It's not even clear that Mueller is currently investigating Trump specifically at this point.
Comment: True, though we don't exactly know what Mueller's team is after yet. The indictments typically are about things they know they can prove *right now*. Often that means they are using those provable offenses as leverage to get into the deeper accusations that they may not have quite enough evidence of yet. ie, at this point, they may just be witness-flipping.
Comment: Re: "I stated price fixing as an example": Ah. In that case you meant "e.g." (which means "for example") rather than "i.e." (which means "that is"). That's not an uncommon mistake, but it's nonetheless pretty confusing in contexts like yours.
Comment: The example sentence from your link is _acting in collusion with the enemy_, so I don't think unfair market practices are the limit of either the dictionary or the legal use. Also, from the [charges](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/30/the-paul-manafort-and-rick-gates-indictment-annotated/?utm_term=.b4d355f28587): _From in or about and between 2006 and 2017_, so it includes much more recent than "acts committed years ago".
Comment: @blip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion  I stated price fixing as an example of the sorts of market practices that Collusion usually refers to.  I looked, and wasn't able to find an example *outside* of commerce.  IE: how it's being used for Trump and company.
Comment: The point about it being used as a catch-all, and the illegality being deeper than just "collusion" was a great start, by, along with the others, I'm not seeing how you made the leap to claiming it primarily would be about price-fixing. Here's a non-commerce example - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-englewood-four-misconduct-police-prosecutors-met-20170719-story.html
Comment: @JeffLambert The most recent years (from skimming the indictment with layman's eyes) would seem to be their lying about past crimes, which at least have their origins over a decade ago.  My point was, and still is, that the Mueller investigation doesn't seem to be pursuing the things that the media believes (or portrays) it is, and as a result, what they need to prove is going to vary on what they pursue.  Manafort and Gates were allegedly involved in an illegal lobbying effort for Ukraine, and then hid the income from that (tax evasion).
Comment: I don't see the connection between your definition and your assertion that it only refers to price fixing.
Comment: @JackOfAllTrades234  The most recent crime listed in the charges is 2014, not a decade ago.  Seven of the charges relate to not filing forms in 2011-2014.  They did not charge Gates for 2011, so there are seven.  The statute of limitation is only six years (or perhaps five and reported a year later), so they can't go back before 2011 in that set of charges.  The conspiracy charge potentially allows them to reach back farther in evidence to prove a pattern.  The relevant actions started in 2006, just over a decade ago, and continued until 2014.
Comment: @Brythan I think if the indictment proves to be true (it's easy to forget that an indictment is not guilt, we thankfully don't have a legal system where that is true), it's narrative on how events played out make it pretty safe to say that the origin was over a decade ago.  Legally, it's probably a string of separate offenses, but logically I'd call them branches of the same tree.  It's hard (for me at least) to follow the narrative that this has anything at all to do with Trump, the Russians /maybe/ (the Ukrainian government paying for Manafort was a pro-Russian one).
Comment: @JackOfAllTrades234 The probably point of how these financial charges relate to the accusations about Russia is that *Manafort's allegiance and motive is highly suspect*.  The Ukranian president that paid him all this money was basically a *puppet of Putin's Russian government*. I think we will be hearing a lot more about (and perhaps from) Manafort.
Comment: @JackOfAllTrades234 you are absolutely right that they are innocent until proven guilty. But note that federal indictments are usually already rock-solid cases. As I mentioned in another comment, odds are they are doing some witness flipping right now. Get them on known, provable violations in hopes they will cooperate to get the ones above them.
Comment: If there's one thing I know about people who follow up $75 million money-laundering and tax evasion schemes with mortgage fraud, it's that they invariably go completely straight and commit no other crimes thereafter.
Comment: @ruakh Neat, I'd actually never realized those were Latin abbreviations.  Learn something every day I guess.
Answer: To prove illegal collusion, they have to prove that the Donald Trump campaign or Trump himself made an agreement for someone to engage in an illegal act.  Collusion is not in and of itself illegal, the actual crime would be something else.
It is not illegal to hear information that Russia might want to share, even if the information were obtained illegally.  It would be illegal to ask Russia to do something illegal to get information.
It is normal for foreign dignitaries to meet with presidential candidates during the campaign to advocate for positions favorable to their countries.  This is especially so since many presidential candidates (not Trump or Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama and Clinton in 2008) already are in the government when they run.

It is known that Donald Trump Jr. met with these officials in order to get dirt on Hillary. It has recently also become known that George Papadopoulos also met with Russian agents in order to get dirt on Hillary. In both these cases, the particular knowledge that Russia had on Hillary would, obviously, had to have been obtained illicitly by them (such as her private e-mails and what not).

But Russia didn't actually give them any information.  Instead, Russia asked them for things (like sanctions relief).  To prove collusion, they would have to prove that Don, Jr. or Papadopoulos made an agreement with the Russians.  Since neither returned with dirt on Clinton, the meeting was not obviously productive.
An example of what they hope they could find.  Rather than using Donald Trump, I'll talk about Bernie Sanders.  The same basic argument would apply to Trump, while some of the details may differ.
Think Progress:

We've also learned that certain pages called for followers to vote for Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders, as opposed to Clinton — although those posts, especially as pertaining to Sanders, haven't yet been revealed publicly.

This shows that the Russians supported Sanders over Clinton.  In fact, Russia hosted Facebook pages and bought ads supporting Sanders over Hillary Clinton both during the primary and after that.  (They also supported both Trump and Stein in the general election.)
If Sanders had shared Democratic National Committee information on voters (to which he had access as a nominally Democratic candidate) with the Russians so that they could then use it to target political messaging, that would be collusion.  So they would have to prove that Sanders approved the transfer of information to Russia.  It would not generally be enough to prove that an employee of his had engaged in the transfer.  They would have to prove that Sanders approved of that action, at least implicitly.
When they talk about colluding with the Russians to interfere with the elections, that's what they mean.  That a campaign coordinated with the Russians, where the Russians provided advertising and the campaign took advantage of it.  Or perhaps the Russians obtained information about voters (e.g. by hacking the state election system) that the campaign then used.  They would like to argue that the Russians changed the election results by hacking, but Stein's recounts prevent that claim.
They tend to avoid the idea that the Russians could have placed votes illegally.  This is because most of those charging Russian interference are Democrats, and it is the Democratic position that fraudulent votes are rare if not non-existent.  This is important to them because Democrat voters have traditionally been more likely to find requests for identification difficult to fill.  I.e. Democrats are urban and less likely to have driver's licenses.  So a claim of Russians changing the voting results by fraudulent voting might hurt Trump but would help Republican positions overall.
This is of course very difficult to prove.  It's not enough to prove that the Russians supported Sanders.  That's illegal for the Russians, but it's not illegal for Sanders to receive illegal support.  It would be illegal for him to have conspired to get that illegal support from the Russians.
It's not enough to prove meetings, as they did with Trump (if there were meetings with Sanders and Russians, they haven't been published widely).  It is not illegal to meet with foreign nationals.  For example, Sanders did meet with the Pope, who is currently a resident of the Vatican and is an Argentine.  It is illegal to accept campaign donations from them, but there is no proof nor even rumor that the Trump campaign received such donations.  They would have to prove that the meetings led to something.
It's quite difficult to prove agreement.  Note the politicians who have skated recently, like Sheldon Silver.  They proved that he received money and that he provided special treatment but failed to prove that the special treatment was illegally special.
Robert Mueller needs to prove not just a legal meeting, not just a legal political position, not just illegal behavior by the Russians.  He needs to prove that the illegal behavior by the Russians was the result of the meeting (or a different meeting, which he'd also have to prove), not because, say, they hate Clinton.
Another way of saying this is that politically, Democrats can accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians based on a meeting with a Russian citizen who knew people in the Russian government.  That's just how politics works.  The meeting happened.  Legally though, proof of that meeting is just a small step in proving a conspiracy (actual legal term) or other crime.
They would have to prove that Don, Jr.'s characterization of the meeting was false.  That instead of the Russian lawyer lying about having proof that Clinton was taking money from the Russians when she just wanted to talk about how the Magnitsky Act was impacting adoptions, there was an agreement made whereby someone did something illegal at the behest of Don, Jr. or someone else as a result of a specific agreement.
It's not enough to assert that the Russians would have had to obtained whatever information illicitly.  They didn't.  If they were laundering funds through intermediaries to the Clinton campaign, the lawyer could have found out about it quite properly.  The lawyer could have been considered the representative of a whistleblower in that case.
Comment: This is more of a rambling diatribe than a clear answer to the question. I also think your definition of collusion (that the Russians would have had to take future illegal actions at the explicit behest of Trump) is wrong, you can still engage in a criminal conspiracy, for example, for a past crime.
Comment: Peanut gallery comment: this whole situation is often portrayed as Russia favoring Trump but all the stuff you pointed out helps paint the actual picture, which is that Putin personally hated Hillary Clinton and backed literally everyone who was not her. They have a history and she was very critical of Putin's last election, essentially turning Putin into a personal political enemy. This will never be "Trump colluding with Putin". It will be "Putin undermining Hillary" as a sort of personal vendetta.
Comment: But if it's a past crime, you wouldn't be charged with conspiracy to commit the past crime but conspiracy to obstruct justice (a future crime).
Comment: @JamieB it can certainly be--and likely is--both.
Answer: The Mueller report says the following about collusion (page 2 of the first volume, page 10 in the pdf). The second paragraph (it was originally one paragraph, but I added a line break to improve readability) is essentially a definition / description of the special counsel's focus.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
  a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion.
  " In so doing,
  the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" was used in communications with the Acting
  Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has
  frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific
  offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
  criminal law.
For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
  was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
  factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ed]"
  —a term that appears
  in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. We understood
  coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the
  Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
  actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term
  coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the
  Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

A similar statement is repeated in fewer words on page 180 of the first volume (page 188 in the pdf):

As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the
  collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion,
  " but through the lens
  of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ej" appears in the
  Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public
  reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown &
  Williamson Tobacco Corp.. 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or
  theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the
  contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as
  that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Black's Law
  Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is "[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain
  something forbidden by law"); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871)
  ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ
  such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object."); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352 (1897) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms
  of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.
  ").

And the beginning of the next paragraph on the next page (emphasis is mine):

For that reason, this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was
  on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion.
  " The Office
  considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked
  individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their
  own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy
  statute (18 U.S.C. § 371).

The word 'collusion' seems to be mentioned a lot, but so far as I can see these are mostly quotes of the people (e.g. headlines, tweets, etc.).


how to edit source code of specific page in wordpress?

Question: i am taking a hard time to figure how to do it. I have three different pages in my wordpress installation besides the Homepage. I need to edit each one of them separately, remove header, footer and do some other stuff. The thing is that i dont know where are those pages source code files in wordpress directory in order to edit them.
Answer: Much of the code for any page, including header and footer, comes from your theme.
If you want to create fully custom code, your best bet is to create a child theme (which just means creating a "style.css" file with some comments that refer to the parent theme, which is what you're currently using) and inside the child theme, create custom templates. It's there where you can add your own HTML and a loop to grab the content for each page (the part you edit in wp-admin).
Comment: I just need to customize three inner pages. How do i create this child theme?
Comment: WP documentation would be a good place to start. As I mentioned you just need to create a style.css file with brief comments.
Comment: I have created the child theme and now i am going to customize it. However, i was wandering how to link a button, for example, to a specific page of the child theme.
Comment: You can't. All of the files in the child theme are templates - see the WP Template Hierarchy. There's usually one template for Pages, one for Posts, and so on and so forth. So, you create the content in the wp-admin Editor as Pages, Posts, or a custom post type, and the template files in the theme add the wrapper HTML and any CSS and JS you wish to include (plus CSS and JS from plugins).
Answer: As mentioned elsewhere here, the display of your posts/pages depends on the theme that you are using. And making changes to the theme's code is not recommended, as any changes will be overwritten with a theme update. That's why you would create and activate a Child Theme to make changes. (Although you can make simple CSS changes via Admin, Themes, Customization, Additional CSS screen.)
But if you really want to know how to change a specific look of a page, without changing the theme, Child Themes is what you want to do. Then you can add your customized page code to modify how things look.
For this, you need to understand how themes work, and how they are 'built'. You should start here: https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/ . Then, look at 'theme hierarchy' to understand what theme template file is used to 'build' the post/page. There are also manu google/bings/ducks on how to build themes, create Child Themes, and the theme hierarchy.
Answer: Rather than editing Wordpress or your theme's source code you're better off using the "Additional CSS" option found while customizing your theme appearance within the admin menu.
Using Google Chrome or similar, load your up page, right click on the header region then select "Inspect". You will see on the left of your screen the CSS styles associated with your page.
In my case the header was called "header-layout-1". Yours might be different.
While editing the "Additional CSS" add the following line;
.header-layout-1 {display:none;}

Save your changes and reload your page. Your header should be gone.
Follow the same steps for the footer or anything else you don't want displayed.
More information from Wordpress
Answer: Open up the root directory of your Wordpress folder and then navigate to wp-content/themes/ to see all the installed themes. Select the theme you're using and that folder will contain all theme specific code, including template files.
Comment: Under the hood, those are the template files which render your pages. Without knowing what you're seeing or what theme you're using the best I can do is tell you to read up on Wordpress's template hierarchy at https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/. Feel free to add the contents of those template files.
Comment: accessing the directory you've mentioned, i just find page.php, single.php and index.php but not my other pages.


How to get rid of text box artifact with Fivestar module?

Question: I'm using Drupal 7.14 and Fivestar 7.x-2.0-alpha2.  There is a text box artifact displayed below the stars on all nodes with a Fivestar field (see screenshot below).

Here is the HTML/CSS source for this screenshot:

great

Reader Rating:

3

I suspect that

 is what is creating this empty text box.
This empty box being shown is despite having chosen No text in the Text to display under the stars dropdown menu for the Fiverstar field at /admin/structure/types/manage/$content_type/display (where $content_stype is a dummy for whatever content type I am editing).

Am I missing something?

Is there another option somewhere to get rid of this annoying text-box?
Is this the default behavior of Fivestar/would I need to manually modify Fivestar to fix this?
Or is this a bug that noone has reported yet (I couldn't find anything that sounded like this issue here)?  I would think that if this was a bug someone would have reported it already (it is pretty noticable) so I'm inclined to think I am just missing something--but if people think that this is a bug, please indicate as much and I will remove the question and file an issue!

Thanks in advance for any help.
Comment: @whitefleaCH Thanks for your response.  Adding `div.description { display: none; }` with CSS injector gets rid of it.  But I feel that there should be a better way that I'm missing (I'm following the "Using Drupal" book and their screenshot doesn't have these boxes or mention a CSS workaround).  Also I'm a little wary that down the road this could affect some other element also called `description`.  Nonetheless, if you add your comment as an answer and I don't hear any better ideas in a few days I'll accept your answer.
Answer: Can't you get rid of it with CSS? display: none;


Hair disappears in particle edit mode

Question: once ive got my hair all sorted i go to particle edit mode to position it and stuff but its all suddenly gone and all i see is the model the hair is on??
anyone help??
Answer: In Blender 2.8, to see the hair in Particle Edit mode you need to have overlays switched on.
To see the children in Particle Edit mode, open the tool bar (press N) and in the Tool tab there is Options. In that tab is Viewport Display where Children needs to be switched on.
The Path Steps will display less/more of the children hair length.

Hair disappears in particle edit mode


GKE pod connecting via VPN?

Question: I have a GKE cluster with a handful of nodes and I would like pods in this cluster to be able to connect to remote hosts on a private network that can be reached via a site-to-site VPN provided by GCE. As far as I can tell, there is no simple way to assign an address to a pod for outbound connections? (It does not seem feasible to add each pod-cidr to VPN configuration each time a node is added or replaced.) Do I have to set up a NAT bradge external to the cluster, or is there some Kubernetes way to control the outbound address of a pod?
Answer: Instead of adding each node's pod-CIDR to the VPN config, you could add the entire cluster-CIDR (where any new/recreated nodes will have their pod-CIDRs pulled from).
To find the cluster-cidr:
<code>gcloud container clusters describe your-cluster | grep clusterIpv4Cidr
</code>
Comment: Aha, that would probably work. Of course, nrpe has no config to accept a cidr for host address, but inetd could probably help. How small can clusterIpv4Cidr be? Does GKE assume that it can hand out /24:s? (I can't see that this cluster will ever need more than a handful of pods per node.)
Comment: GKE (and the defaults for Kubernetes) are very *ahem* generous in their IP space allocations. It always gives each node a /24 (256 - broadcast - net intf = 254 pods), and gives each cluster a /14 (space for 1024 /24's). The *current* behavior dishes out /24's from the bottom of that /14, so you might be able to get away with only configuring your VPN for a subset, but no guarantees that that continues to work. Services on GKE are allocated from the top of that /14, so depending on if/how you want those to work across your VPN, you may need to consider that too.

GKE pod connecting via VPN?


I need to inspect the view hierarchy on an iPhone program

Question: How do I determine what the view structure on my iPhone program while running on the simulator?
Answer: There's a built-in way to dump the view hierarchy: recursiveDescription
NSLog(@"%@", [view recursiveDescription]);
It will output something like this:
<UIView: 0x6a107c0; frame = (0 20; 320 460); autoresize = W+H; layer = […]
   | <UIRoundedRectButton: 0x6a103e0; frame = (124 196; 72 37); opaque = NO; […]
   |    | <UIButtonLabel: 0x6a117b0; frame = (19 8; 34 21); text = 'Test'; […]

See: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/technotes/tn2239/_index.html
Comment: NSLog(@"%@", [view recursiveDescription]);
Answer: You don't have to write a single log statement or alter your code at all.
Hit the pause button.

Enter the following into the console
po [[UIWindow keyWindow] recursiveDescription]

Comment: As a shortcut, this is available with the `pviews` command in Facebook's [Chisel](https://github.com/facebook/chisel) debugging library.
Answer: These answers are all variants of -recursiveDescription, but it's been about three years since the question was posted and these days there are much better ways to inspect your view hierarchy. -recursiveDescription was always a bit unmanageable with large hierarchies - you'd spend more time looking through your Output Log than you spent programming!
Here are some newer solutions:

You can use DCIntrospect to print out the view hierarchy and
view properties, and get some cool onscreen debugging markers.

You can use the Spark Inspector
to see your app's view hierarchy and interact with it in 3D. The
Spark Inspector has a sidebar that mirrors Interface Builder and you
can adjust your views while your app is running. (Full disclosure: I
am the lead developer of this tool—send me your feature requests!)

You can use PonyDebugger to connect
the Chrome Inspector to your app - you can view your app's view
hierarchy in the DOM view, and they also capture network traffic,
which can be useful.

Comment: +1 on Spark Inspector. Allowed me to quickly pinpoint offending views
Answer: Along the lines of what Yannick suggests, Erica Sadun has code here that pretty-prints the view hierarchy (with class and frame information).  You can make this into a UIView category with the following interface:
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>

@interface UIView (ExploreViews)

- (void)exploreViewAtLevel:(int)level;

@end

and implementation:
#import "UIView+ExploreViews.h"

void doLog(int level, id formatstring,...)
{
    int i;
    for (i = 0; i < level; i++) printf("    ");

    va_list arglist;
    if (formatstring)
    {
        va_start(arglist, formatstring);
        id outstring = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:formatstring arguments:arglist];
        fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", [outstring UTF8String]);
        va_end(arglist);
    }
}

@implementation UIView (ExploreViews)

- (void)exploreViewAtLevel:(int)level;
{
    doLog(level, @"%@", [[self class] description]);
    doLog(level, @"%@", NSStringFromCGRect([self frame]));
    for (UIView *subview in [self subviews])
        [subview exploreViewAtLevel:(level + 1)];
}

@end

Comment: This solution does what I asked for.  The fun part is always trying to  ask the right question.
Comment: I notice some extra subviews in view hierarchy between viewDidLoad and viewDidAppear. I am not adding any subview to my view programatically. How could it be happening when the entire view hierarchy is already there in the nib file? I guess in that case, both viewDidLoad and viewDidAppear should print the same view hierarchy but that's not what I observe.
Answer: Try this magic:
NSLog(@"%@", [self.view recursiveDescription]);

Comment: This worked, but I had to use `performSelector:withObject:` in Xcode 5.1.1; otherwise, it was an error.
Answer: you can use some algo like this:
-(void)inspectView:(UIView *)aView level:(NSString *)level {
    NSLog(@"Level:%@", level);
    NSLog(@"View:%@", aView);

    NSArray *arr = [aView subviews];
    for (int i=0;i<[arr count];i++) {
        [self inspectView:[arr objectAtIndex:i]
          level:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%@/%d", level, i]];
    }
}

And add this line in an viewDidLoad for example:
- (void)viewDidAppear:(BOOL)animated {
    [super viewDidAppear:animated];
    [self inspectView:self.viewControllers level:@""];
}

source: view hierarchy
Answer: I've also dealt with this problem, and I came up with a single recursive method as a Category on UIView. It uses only basic Foundation classes, so it is not as complex as Erica's solution.
Here is the Category method:
- (void)printSubviewsWithIndentation:(int)indentation {

    NSArray *subviews = [self subviews];

    for (int i = 0; i < [subviews count]; i++) {

        UIView *currentSubview = [subviews objectAtIndex:i];

        NSMutableString *currentViewDescription = [[NSMutableString alloc] init];

        for (int j = 0; j <= indentation; j++) {
            [currentViewDescription appendString:@"   "];   // indent the description
        }

        // print whatever you want to know about the subview
        [currentViewDescription appendFormat:@"[%d]: class: '%@'", i, NSStringFromClass([currentSubview class])];

        // Log the description string to the console
        NSLog(@"%@", currentViewDescription);

        [currentViewDescription release];

        // the 'recursiveness' nature of this method
        [currentSubview printSubviewsWithIndentation:indentation+1];
    }
}

For more detailed information, check out my blog post about this issue: http://www.glimsoft.com/01/07/how-to-inspect-subviews-hierarchy-of-any-uiview/


Activate founding power with eren and lara tybur

Question: I heard that Lara Tybur is a royal family / royal blood. Can Eren activate the power of founding titan when they touch each other since the Warhammer titan has a royal blood? Thanks for answering.
Answer: According to the wiki page, they are said to be of "noble" blood, but not necessarily royal:

The Tybur family (タイバー家 Taibā-ke?) is a house of Eldian nobles living in Marley as honorary Marleyans.

They were allegedly opposed to King Fritz and were also fighting for the power of the Nine Titans. Logically speaking, this wouldn't make sense if they were also of royal blood, as they would inevitably get the power of the Nine anyways.
So to speak, the Tybur's are not of royal blood, and Eren couldn't have used the Founder's ability while making contact with Lara. If she was of royal blood, I have no doubt that he would enact the Rumbling.


Quick question regarding the meaning of Voltage of a Battery

Question:
Is the voltage of a battery simply the work necessary to move a unit charge from one extreme of the battery to the other?

If this is the case, then when calculating the voltage of a battery the length of such battery should be taken into account, right?
Comment: The voltage of a voltaic cell or battery of such cells is determined by the chemistry in the cell(s). In other words, the specific oxidation and reduction reactions, the electrodes and so on. Length, per se, does not factor in: a 1.5V D cell is longer than a 3V button cell.
Answer:
The voltage of a battery is indeed related to the work necessary to move a unit charge from one terminal of the battery to the other. In more technical terms, it is a measure of the electric potential difference between the two terminals. However, the length of the battery doesn't directly influence this voltage.

The work done to move a charge between two points in an electric field is independent of the path taken; it depends only on the properties of the electric field itself. This is why, in the case of a battery, the voltage is determined by the electric field generated by the chemical reactions within the battery, not by the physical length of the battery.

Voltage is an intrinsic property of the electrochemical processes happening inside the battery, determined by the materials and the chemical reactions involved. It's not a function of the physical size or length of the battery. For example, regardless of size, a typical alkaline AA, AAA, C, and D battery will all have a nominal voltage of about 1.5 volts, because they are based on the same chemistry.

The size of the battery more directly affects its capacity (measured in ampere-hours, Ah) and the amount of current it can deliver. Larger batteries can generally store more energy and provide higher currents for longer periods of time, but the voltage remains defined by the chemistry of the battery.
Answer:
Essentially, yes. The charge needs to be taken from one terminal to the other via a path on which it encounters no resistance and not through the battery itself, which has an internal resistance. Then
$$\text{emf}, \mathscr E=\frac{\text{work done on charge}}{\text{charge}}$$
The size of the emf is determined by how many cells constitute the battery and by the chemistry of the cells.

The charges that arise on the terminals of the battery set up a conservative field: The work needed per unit charge to take a 'test' charge from one terminal to the other is independent of the route taken! If we take it by a longer route, the mean electric field component along the route will be lower.
Answer: Is the voltage of a battery simply the work necessary to move a unit charge from one extreme of the battery to the other?
One must be careful when using the term voltage as its use often produces ambiguities.
The emf of a battery is the work done in taking unit positive charge round a complete circuit which includes the battery.
It is a measure of the amount of chemical energy which has been converted to electrical energy within the battery and depends on many factors including the composition of the battery electrodes, the electrolyte between the electrodes, the previous usage of the battery, etc $\dots$
The potential difference across the terminals of the battery is the work done in taking unit positive charge between the terminals of the battery.
So what did you mean by voltage, emf or potential difference?
If you connect a battery to a resistor of resistance $R$, and measure the potential difference across the terminals, $T_1,\,T_2,$ of the battery, $v$, and also the current passing through the circuit, $i$, as the resistance of the resistor is varied and then plot $v$ against $i$ you will get a series of data points as shown below.

You can then model the real battery as an ideal battery with emf $\mathcal E$ and internal resistance $r$ as shown below.

For the straight line portion of the graph the relationship between the potential difference across the terminals of the battery and the current through the battery is $v= \mathcal E -r\,i$.
The model breaks down if the currents are too large or current is drawn from the battery over a prolonged period of time.
You will note that the physical size of the battery has not been mentioned.
Larger batteries of the same type have more chemicals inside them so although the emf is the same they can deliver larger currents for longer periods of time.
Answer: Voltage is W/Q in the external circuit, not between the electrodes.
E.M.F is W/Q throughout the circuit including the internal circuit.
E.M.F = (R eq. + r)I.
As the length between the electrodes affects the internal resistance (r), it is affected by distance between electrodes.


Are Gnosis rolls made with Permanent or Temporary Gnosis?

Question: My GM and I are confused about whether you roll your Permanent or Temporary Gnosis when making a Gnosis Roll. What is the proper choice, and what pages specify it?
Answer: This was a lot more complicated to find a book answer than I thought it would. In the end on page 126, you'll see it reference the "pool" and the "rating". You always roll your rating in a dice pool. The pool is how many points you have. On page 171, they also reference how many dice you can roll for "ratings" that go above 5 (Such as Willpower, Rage, and Gnosis).
This is out of Werewolf the Apocalypse's Revised core book.
Comment: It holds true for all of the world of darkness games where the names are similar for permanent and temporary stats (demon had the same problem with temporary and permanent faith and even for its humanity trait). Wish they were a bit more creative back then naming power stats and energy stats differently from each other.
Answer: Normally you use the permanent gnosis.

When rolling Rage, Gnosis or Willpower, do you roll temporary or permanent ratings?
Usually permanent, although some Storytellers prefer temporary. Either way is fine. The exception is Rage; you always roll temporary or permanent, whichever is higher.

This is answered in the Errata from the Storyteller's Handbook of Werewolf of 2002, page 21.


Should women also be bowing down on yom kippur

Question: During the mussaf on the high holy days we bow down to the floor. Do women also have this minhag.
Did they also bow down in the temple when it was standing on hearing the kohen godol say the shem.
Comment: Most women I've seen don't bow down to the floor, however they do a "serious" sort of standing bow
Answer: Rivivos Efraim 3:421 brings reasonings that woman should bow down on Yom Kippur and reasonings that woman should not bow down on Yom Kippur. He discusses whether woman bowed down in the temple and says that they did not as they were not there, however had a lady been in the courtyard of the temple and heard the Kohain Gadol say Hashem's name they would be required to bow down too. He concludes that everyone should do according to their Minhag.
Comment: Where's the evidence that women weren't attending services in the beith hamigdosh
Comment: Men were also never in the temple only in the courtyard. There was a special esras noshim why didnt they attend on yom kippur.
Comment: Or where they all watching their daughters dancing in the vineyards. I believe they only danced in the 'break'.
Answer: Bowing on the High Holidays is a relatively modern practice that wasn't specifically endorsed or described by the Talmud or early halakhists. The idea is to mimic the Yom Kippur service of the Second Temple, when (m. Yoma 6) "the priests and the people who were standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit name, which came out of the mouth of the High Priest, would kneel and bow and fall upon their faces." One way of approaching this question, then, is by asking "would women have bowed in the Second Temple?" To which the answer is possibly no -- women didn't stand "in the courtyard," but instead in the "women's courtyard." However, David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra (T'shuvos RDBZ 810) says that everyone who could hear the name would bow, and those who couldn't hear the name, even if they were within the courtyard, would not bow. That would seem to imply, by removing the distinction of the courtyard's walls, that women who were close enough would also bow.
Joseph b. Soloveitchik gives significant evidence about early modern practice in Nefesh haRav (pg. 214): "Our teacher recalled that when he was in Lithuania he did not see women bowing on Yom Kippur, until he came to Berlin where he saw it for the first time, and then he began to think on why the women did not do so in Lithuania. It occurred to him that the Tosafists quote the Yerushalmi saying that only the 'near' would bow and not the 'far,' and he said that the 'near' are those within the courtyard and the 'far' are those without." However a note in the book says that Soloveitchik elsewhere endorsed the contradictory interpretation of RDBZ.
Analytically, I would connect this to women's practice in other prayer rituals. It's extremely rare for women's sections to uniformly avert/cover their eyes from Birkas Kohanim, for example. In many synagogues, women are used to standing and watching while men perform the rituals and rarely receive official informed guidance. I think Soloveitchik's argument is admirable -- he says elsewhere that RDBZ is correct but here he uses a contradictory logic, presumably to defend the practice of Lithuanian women. The female mimetic tradition is valuable and its oddities are worthy of limmud zechut. But I don't think he meant to criticize the women of Berlin, who did bow and whose tradition is just as valuable.
Comment: Usually in my experience the women are further from the kohanim and don't have to do anything in particular in order to not see their hands.
Comment: In my hometown the women would turn and face the back of the shul. But relatives tell me this is very unusual and they're used to just watching the kohanim (whose hands are in any case covered by their taleisim). In many older shuls with wide balconies (e.g. Spanish-Portuguese in NYC) the women have great views; also Modern Orthodox shuls built with more egalitarian designs.


What kind of sausage could I use as a substitute for Cumberland sausage?

Question: I live in the USA and Cumberland sausages don't exist. They have sausage links and patties but I don't want to make sausage casserole and have the flavor altered because I picked the wrong kind of sausage. Can anyone help me?
Comment: Perhaps if you explain what "sausage casserole" is? I see tons of sausage casseroles that use uncooked tubes of Jimmy Dean sausages.
Comment: I can easily get course ground pork, and then season it myself.  Do you have any butcher shops or full-service meat counters at grocery stores near you?
Answer: If you read the Wikipedia article you'll see that the main flavour is pepper, both black and white,and that the meat is coarser than in some other sausages.
As it's for a casserole where the flavours have time to come together, I suggest you get sausages without herbs in (which should be easy enough). If possible they'd also have a coarser texture but that probably isn't on the label - you might have to choose based on what you're familiar with. Then add plenty of pepper to the sauce, early in the cooking. My recollection is that the white pepper flavour comes through, but I use black pepper quite heavily so maybe I'm used to that.
The other spices (and herbs though they shouldn't dominate) vary. This recipe includes sage, which other sources (and I) say is wrong, but the nutmeg, mace and coriander all contribute to the classic flavour. While I haven't made it, the recipe I've linked should give some idea of the proportions of spice to meat,assuming your sausages are quite bland to start with.
Edit: I should probably have been clearer that I mean links. Sausage patties aren't really a thing here in the UK. I've seen them twice. Once was McDonald's, the other may have been good but I can't remember.
Comment: Varieties will vary by region, but the typical "country" ring sausage will generally fit this bill - the flavors mostly match the recipe, and while it varies from brand to brand, they also have a coarser texture than something like kielbasa. Most supermarkets keep it in with the hot and sweet Italian varieties.
Answer: Cumberland Sausage is thick and made in one long ring. Coarse pork mince - either hand-cut or using a very coarse mincer.
Ingredients for the spice mix: white pepper, black pepper, salt, sage, thyme, mace, nutmeg, cayenne.
Use very little mace and nutmeg - but they are a key to authentic Cumberland Sausage flavour.
Casing for the genuine thing has to be natural pig intestine.
Answer: This is a tough one.
To purchase Cumberland, I found:

Myers of Keswick, NY NY
Parkers, Buffalo NY
Proper British Bacon

Keswick appears to only be a walk-in market. Proper and Parkers, on the other hand take internet orders and ship.
You could try and make your own: There's this How to make a Sausage video. I can't vouch for it since I didn't watch all 20 minutes.
Or for substitutions: The description of Cumberland being peppery made me think of Bob Evan Hot Sausage, which is readily available and economical throughout the US. It is not equivalent of Cumberland, because it will have savory spices such as Sage, Rosemary and Thyme. Maybe you could use it on one of your trial runs.
Comment: Cumberland sausage not be peppery, but I don't think anyone would call it hot.


Nuclear physics problem, Why do we use high weight atomic elements?

Question: So as far as I know, nuclear fission uses high weight atomic elements to manufacture power. If the risk of runaway reactions are a major reason for not expanding this technology, why don't we use elements with lower atomic weight (eg. less energy) or lower amounts of fuel (eg. less total mass)?
Answer: This is a graph of Binding Energy per nucleon for the various nuclei.

The fission of heavier nuclei would lead to daughters with higher binding energy than the parent (graph slopes downward towards the high mass end). Daughters will be stable, hence energetics favors fission for heavy nuclei.
In Response to comment:
This answer address fissionable nuclei, i.e elements heavier than iron. It has received justified criticism that this actually does not explain why certain nuclei are "fissile" (i.e nuclei that undergo fission when struck by slow thermal neutrons). After reading the question, I realize that the OPs concern was really with fissile materials. So I apologize for the initial answer which concentrated on fissionable nuclei.
The answer, btw, is still energetics. Wikipedia is a good starting point to get an explanation.
Comment: Once again,it is a matter of necessary and sufficient. It is necessary to have a small binding energy in order to be fissible, so that leaves nuclei above Fe in the binding energy curve, but not sufficient for the choice. It is the reactions and decay chains  themselves that determine the choice. If a chain reaction cannot be set up, it is no use as a reactor fuel.  Small atomic masses, even if larger than Fe are not able to set up a chain reaction. The question was about using smaller atomic masses than the ones utilized by present reactors.
Comment: I don't think this really answers the question. Energetically, anything after an atomic weight of about 100 would be a possible fission candidate (daughters more tightly bound than parent). So why do we have to go all the way up to atomic weights above 200? The answer's not energetics, at least not in this sense. It's that only the very heavy ones are so weakly bound that neutron-induced fission has an appreciable reaction rate.
Comment: @Ted Bunn Please see the clarificatory addition to my answer.It addressed why some nuclei are fissionable. You are right, of course. As for making a artificial fission reaction with slow neutrons, this explanation does not suffice.
Comment: @Anna that is a correction I accepted in edit and the comment above. By "this explanation" i meant my initial explanation. Sorry if it confused you, English is not my native language but I try my best.
Answer: The nuclei used are the ones which can be fissioned in a chain reaction!
The lighter ones You think of will not split. That's simply a result of experiments.
Comment: Georg, yayu's answer is the correct one. It is the energy budget that decides whether one gains energy by fusion or fission, binding energy per nucleon. So fission happens after Fe in atomic numbers, and yes, then the appropriate chain decays of the fission have to be chosen so that a self sustained reactor can be made.
Comment: ""So fission happens after Fe in atomic numbers,"" No, wrong. Look up a table of isotopes about fission or not. Yayus answer is not wrong, but much too comlicated to someone as simple as the questioner.
Comment: @anna v -- Energetically, it's favorable for something with an atomic mass of, say, 150 to fission into two daughters with atomic masses of 75 each, right? (The binding energy per nucleon peaks at iron-56.) Yet this is experimentally not seen to happen.
Comment: @Ted Bunn Sure it is seen to happen in the decay chains from higher atomic masses, and in low energy neutron beams. But it is not sufficient to set up a self sustained chain reaction useful for a reactor or bombs. It is traditional to call reactions  with atomic masses above iron "fission", and below, "fusion" .
Comment: ""It is traditional to call reactions with atomic masses above iron "fission", and below, "fusion" . "" ????
Answer: Nuclear fission uses large atoms splitting apart to generate energy. Only large atomic nuclei are unstable enough for this to happen at any appreciable rate
Comment: @Eric Fossum look at my comment in Georg's answer. Both the binding energy and the decay chain have to be taken into account for a viable reactor design.
Comment: Can't we use atoms 20% smaller to take a hit in efficiency in exchange for safety?
Comment: the safety factor doesn't really work like that. There are some possible new fuels such as Throium which have a lower spontaneous rate 9so when you turn the reactor off it goes off quicker) but they have other issues


iPhone Audio Issue

Question: I released an iPhone application a few months ago.  Everything has been working fine and I have confirmed at least 20 different devices/users working flawlessly.  In the last week though I've had two reports have people hear no audio (it's a soundboard app).  I've been able to dialog with one of the guys and confirmed that the phone wasn't in vibrate mode and the volume was up.  He's on the same firmware version I am 2.2.1, but his phone model is slightly different mb704ll vs mine mb048ll.
I'm using the AVFoundation/AVAudioPlayer to play the sounds (code snip below):
<code>- (IBAction)imagePressed:(id)sender
{
    NSString *imageIdS = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d", [sender tag]];
    NSString *path = [[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:imageIdS ofType:@"caf"];
    AVAudioPlayer *audioPlayer = [[AVAudioPlayer alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:[NSURL fileURLWithPath:path] error:NULL];
    [audioPlayer play];
    //[audioPlayer release];
}
</code>
Do you know of any reason why this works on so many phones but a few people are having issues?
Thanks in advance!
Answer: Maybe you're not handling Audio session interruptions.

iPhone Audio Issue


How can I open an older type Gustavsberg cistern toilet?

Question: Can anybody advise how to open this type cistern...?  I tried to loosen nut on top but did not want to force it.
Thanks
Comment: I'm voting to close this question because it's been abandoned.
Comment: Does the knob have some kind of set screw so it can be removed from the shaft?
Comment: No...seems it cannot be removed from shaft
Comment: Does the knob itself unscrew? (Just fishing for possibilities...)
Comment: If you have the manufacturer and model number you might be able to find the manual. (Post them here if you do.)
Comment: Maybe you need to push/flush then twist... kind of like the modern ones
Comment: It looks a bit like a hex nut.
Answer: This page details two different sorts of top-flush toilet repairs:
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/fix-flusher-top-toilet-66536.html

Unscrew and remove the knob from the end of the rod that goes through
  the top of the tank cover. Spray lubricant on the rubber grommet that
  seals the rod where it goes into the hole in the cover. 2
Push down on the end of the rod as you lift up the cover. Take the
  cover off the tank. If necessary, lift up the cover enough to grip the
  rod at the underside of the cover, using vice grips. Lift up on the
  cover and pull the rod out of the grommet. Set the tank cover aside. 3
Fit the vice grips onto the rod and rotate the rod a bit each way
  several times as you pull upward. In some cases, mineral deposits can
  build up and prevent the rod from pulling upward. If the toilet
  flushes, reattach the tank cover in the reverse order and screw on the
  knob. Alternatively, if the toilet doesn't flush, enlist a plumber to
  install a new flush valve and rod mechanism.

The quote above is for the "rod-activated" version.
You mentioned that the knob feels tough-- try using a penetrating oil on it, it may help. It appears as if the rod sits inside of that knob... It also seems to imply that you'd have to pull it for it to work (yours doesn't look like it would be the button type).


present perfect continuous for an action recently stopped

Question: The present perfect continuous can be used for an action that has just stopped, but has a present result, for example: I have been gardening (my hands are covered in soil) or it has been raining (the streets are wet). My question is: if there has been a party which has finished but there are still empty glasses and bottles everywhere, is it possible to say "they have been having a party"? The party has finished but there is a result in the present.
Comment: There has been a party here, you can tell from the mess.
Answer: Yes. That would be a correct use of the present perfect continuous, for the reasons that you give.
Comment: Seeing the mess. Can I either use present perfect or present perfect continuous:(1) They have been having a party there.  (2) There has been a party here.?