Why do Americans care so much about their constitution?

Question: The constitution is evidently a major deal in American politics. It shows up all the time in the political discourse, often used to defend certain opinions and views, or to highlight the grandeur of America by using the constitution as some sort of symbol of freedom. Here's an overview of how much Americans google the word "constitution" (BLUE), as compared to "poverty" (RED), "climate change" (YELLOW), "child abuse" (GREEN) and "human rights" (PURPLE). Also notice the spikes every 2 years during the elections, highlighting how important the word is for the political discourse.  source: Google Trends
But why? Why is the constitution so important to Americans?
Most countries have one. My country has one too. It gets mentioned here and there, but, largely, people don't really care. It's considered nothing more than a piece of old legislature crafted by a bunch of old people who, through our present-day lens, were flawed in multiple ways. The perception is that it was nice to have it back then, sure, but now, in 2017, it doesn't carry much weight, nor should it: rather, we should seek to continuously improve as a society. If mistakes were made in the past, they should be corrected rather than set in stone.
Yet in the USA, it seems to be different. Why? What is so special about the American constitution? Why do Americans have such as strong bond with their constitution, even in 2017 (the original version of the constitution came to be in 1789, 233 years ago).
Comment: Re "continuously improve as a society", perhaps it's important to recognize that a lot of Americans really don't see things that go against the Constitution (and particularly the Bill of Rights) as improvements.  Thus if you think that for instance freedom of speech (which a good many countries still don't have to the same degree as the US) is important enought to protect, you cite the 1st Amendment.  Indeed, a good bit of what in other places would be called only "human rights" is referred to as "constitutional rights" in US discourse.
Comment: IMO, that is linked to [American exceptionalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism); if the USA is exceptional then there must be some special facts that justify it. Lacking miraculous tales and legends about its foundations, the most accessible options are either divine will (USA are the Puritans escaping prosecution, and everything else is "foreign") or to enshrine the [Founding Fathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States)(like that, in caps) and their acts to semi-mythical status.
Comment: I think you haven't read the chart correctly. I see spikes every September and troughs in the summer, and odd years generally as large as even years, which implies to me it is dominated by schools.
Comment: I don't see why you'd think the # of google search reflects how much people "care" about something in any way. I care about a lot of things I don't search on Google, go figure, and many other people do that too.
Comment: "Most countries have one" - they say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I guess other nations have found the US model at least somewhat impressive.
Comment: @PoloHoleSet or, you know, the US just imitated other countries itself. It was by no means the first.
Comment: One answer might be that the constitution is roughly comparable to a civic religion; I've heard it mentioned in those terms.
Comment: @Erik - actually how they structured the Constitution and the act of people putting themselves into power and then turning around and making a document that primarily limited the powers they just took was novel and never done like that.  As a whole, with all the parts done together, no, it was new.  It's the oldest written constitution still in use today. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bob-goodlatte/goodlatte-says-us-has-oldest-working-national-cons/
Comment: @PoloHoleSet It's the [oldest _national_ constitution still in force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions). There are older sub-national constitutions, not least [Massachusetts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Massachusetts), which apparently is "the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world".
Comment: @Bregalad: its useful as a rough statistical guide.
Comment: I agree with @notstoreboughtdirt, there isn't spikes every 2 years. Comparison of the words in another place would show if the word has an exceptional status in the states.
Comment: I can't imagine googling "poverty" or "human rights". Googling "Child abuse" sounds like a bad idea. I can think of lots of reasons people might want to see specific information about the constitution.
Comment: @SteveMelnikoff - We're not talking about sub-national documents. A state version would not work for a federal union of states, for obvious reasons. I'm disputing the idea that the US Constitution was basically cribbed/copied, which Erik seems to be claiming in response to my pointing out that other national ones that followed or even modeled after the US Constitution is a testament to it's originality and novelty as a founding national set of laws.
Comment: @PoloHoleSet: I think it is more right to say that the US constitution brought something entirely in the already-existing world of constitutions.
And it is not historically true that most country had one by imitation of this of the US. 5 years after the US Constitution was written, France got a constitution but it was quite different from the US one, in particular it was a constitutionnal monarchy. Since then, France has had a lot of constitutions (2 empires, 3 monarchies, 5 republics) which differed a lot from the american model. European countries and colonies followed **both** models.
Comment: @Distic - I think there's a word missing - "brought something entirely {??} in the already-existing world of constitutions."
Comment: sorry, the word missing is "new"
Comment: I'd like to know OP's country of origin - I imagine there are more people who regard their constitution with high regard than they might think.
Comment: How did you (OP) restrict your google search to (only) Americans searching for constitution?
Answer: US citizens tend to get passionate about the constitution, if for no other reason that it's one of the few things most of them agree on.
The first part of the US constitution is boilerplate government operational stuff. It's the amendments, specifically the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, that the citizens pay the most attention to. They were originally written by James Madison in 1789, to address concerns by the individual states that they would lose too much power to the federal government. If only Madison could know the effect his amendments had...
These lay out the rights any citizen has. Save being convicted of a serious crime, these rights cannot be taken away. Any law passed by congress must adhere to these rights, or it is struck down. Most notably...
Any citizen cannot be prevented from, or prosecuted for, speaking their mind. Nor can the government censor the press. The government cannot stop citizens from peaceably assembling, or getting together. Nor can the government stop the citizens from telling it what it is doing wrong. (they can ignore what the citizens are saying... at least until the next election cycle)
It forbids religion from being involved in government, and it forbids the government from either promoting or suppressing a religion. Many democracies do this today, but the US constitution spelled it out in black and white, in 1789, when most governments had a chosen religion, and many suppressed other religions.
A citizen cannot be imprisoned without just cause, and without due process of law. Government officials can't just toss someone in jail because they don't like what the person is saying. Try that one in N Korea.
A citizen has a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. While trials can be conducted only by a judge who will pronounce judgment, a citizen has a right to demand a trial by twelve other citizens, chosen at random.
The government cannot take property from a citizen, or even requisition it, without just compensation.
There are others, but those stand out as having served the citizens of the country very well. And those ten amendments, written in 1789, have remained unchanged, and are still very relevant. (although inflation has passed the twenty dollar figure in amendment 7)
The Bill of Rights is a reminder that we occasionally get something right.
Comment: This explains what the constitution is, it does not contrast constitutions and attitudes between nationalities and thus does not answer the question.
Comment: Your answer contains a [very common] fallacy- the amendments to the constitution do not guarantee those rights to the individual.  The rights are *assumed* to be inherent, and the amendments serve to restrict the government from passing any law which would infringe upon those rights.
Comment: +1 for the point that most people care only about the Bill of Rights. I would go further and say that probably 90% of the time "Constitution" is used as a metonym for either the 1st or the 2nd amendment.
Comment: I like your answer, I wish it would include that it is negative powers of the Government that makes it unique at the time the admendments were written.  I mean negative as in the "government cannot...", and "shall not..." instead of "the government can and will..."
Comment: You are not setting the USA a very high standard if you compare its constitutional practices to those of North Korea.
Comment: @Derek_6424246 there are people who *claim* that the rights (and only those) enumerated in the amendments are natural rights of persons, but other people disagree about the list. E.g. why guns but not healthcare?
Comment: Do you have examples of democracies promoting/suppressing a religion?
Comment: @Erik: Israel? Also Iran if you think it is a democracy (clearly, it is more democratic than north korea but less than the western standard); Also, for a long time, the  king of the UK could not marry a catholic, so it looks like the state is not neutral toward religion.
Comment: Of course, it was also one of those amendments in the bill which outlined the only way any of rights it expressed could be abridged.  Well, the only way which is in accordance with the constitution, at least.
Comment: I feel you have a point here.  The parts that are specifically aimed at limiting the power of the government over individuals are not unique to the US.  And if you look at things like France's *Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen* or Canada's *Charter of Rights* there is a **lot** of public affection, awareness and care for those specific parts of their constitution.  And, yes, law cases that run close to them quickly get very litigious around precisely whether those rights have been infringed or not, not unlike in the  US.
Comment: The difference with North Korea is more in how the constitution is applied rather than in what is written down.  Many authoritarian dictatorships have or had nominally strong rights written in their constitutions, which in practice aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Comment: @Erik The UK. Charles is the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the House of Lords.
Answer: Your measure of the american interest for the constitution is flawed.
I did the same research as you did in french, in France, which is an interesting example because :

there is no "Bill of rights" in the french constitution.
Instead, there is the "Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen" of 1789, which is approximately the same as the Bill of Rights, and is quoted by the constitution.

It gives approximately the same result as yours (I had to remove time before 2006,because in 2005 there was the referendum on the European constitution), that is :

"constitution" comes before the "declaration des droits de l'homme" and every other research term you used.
There is a spike roughly each october.

But France is not known to be particularly proud of its constitution, and it is even somehow a controversial topic (every now and then, mainstream candidates in the presidential election propose to write a new one). Still, there were no particular spikes at the 2007 and 2017 elections, when it happened recently. "Constitution" also beats "Cinquième République" and "Sixième République". Those are the terms mostly used in the debate for changing the constitution (more than "constitution" itself).
Then I tried in German. Note that in German, stricto sensu the word for Constitution is "Verfassung", but German people seem to use instead "Grundgesetz" which means "fundamental law". So "Verfassung" is used as a common noun for any constitution while "Grundgesetz" is used as a proper noun and refers to the german constitution as it is now. At the end, we get that "Verfassung" und "Armut" are quite close, but "Grundgesetz" comes first (and there are still those spikes).
As I had translated to German, it seemed easy to try in Austria.
But as noted in the comments, "Bundesverfassung" (which means "federal constitution") is used as "Grundgesetz" in Germany, that is to refer
to the particular constitution of Austria.
Then "Bundesverfassung" comes first, before "Armut" and "Verfassung".
There are no regular spikes in fall, but that's it for the differences.
And probably some debates about the constitution
have modified the research result.
For trends in German, if you want to check, I used the words "Armut", "Verfassung", "Bundesverfassung", "Grundgesetz", "Umweltschutz" and the 01/01/2009 - today (5th december 2017) window.
Then I did other experiments in french in Senegal, in Belgium and in Morocco.
French is the only official language of Senegal, but not of Belgium.
In Morocco it is a widely used language, used at universities
and in some schools.
"Constitution" definitely comes first,
even if you remove a spike in Morocco in 2011.
Presumably a lot of google requests for the constitution are from lawyers,
or law students, or assistants of the members of parliament.
Because the constitution is old does not make it outdated
Presumably the Constitution has authority in the US precisely because it is old :

it makes it a piece of history
it was written by people widely seen as heroes because of their fight for the independance.
Respecting their constitution, the US have gone from a small country to the first place in the world.
Comment: The authors of the US constitution aren't revered for fighting a revolution. They are revered for setting up a country that would address the very reasons they had the revolution (unlike many other revolutions that just changed the powers that be), and authoring a document that has become a blueprint for human rights and equality.
Comment: I would assume lawyers who's work might touch the constitution would be more likely to use a [bookmark](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript), a downloaded reference, or a framed hardcopy then need to search google.
Comment: @notstoreboughtdirt: I think in the US the work of *every* lawyer may touch the constitution due to diffuse constitutional review (I may be mistaken). But I am not sure about what you said: in scientific research, most people use wikipedia to get a first idea on a topic, which helps when you search in books.
Comment: I think it's a levels of abstraction thing. Most lawyers deal with legislated law and precedent. Appeals (which might involve constitutional issues) are a specialty. Searching is a big part of legal research, and I may be wrong about how much share google has in it, but the couple of lawyers I know well enough to say use tools that I doubt are counted in trends.
Comment: @notstoreboughtdirt: It may also be law students that have not bought a book yet (and so the spike in september/october).
Comment: The German constitution is called "Grundgesetz", not "Verfassung".
Comment: @Nebr: Thank you for your comment. I edited my answer, let me know if I wrote anything wrong about Austria and Germany.
Comment: @tj1000: Are you claiming no-one is revering them because of the independance war? Even when they were alive? The question is not why do the american love their founding fathers, but why do they care so much about the constitution. So I could not answer, "they care about the constitution because it was written by people who wrote this good constitution".
Comment: The Austrian constitution is called "Verfassung", so it seems naturally that Austrians would google Verfassung instead of Grundgesetz. Note that "Grundgesetz" is explicitly the name of the German constitution. Any other constitution would still be named "Verfassung" in German. So it is "Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", but "Verfassung der USA". A bit confusing, I know, but a remainder of post-WWII legislation. For Austria, it is "(Bundes-)Verfassung der Republik Österreich", and it might be worth to add the results for "Verfassung" and "Bundesverfassung".
Comment: @Nebr: It is approximately what I wrote, I think: "Grundgesetz" is used like a proper name for the German constitution while "Verfassung" is more like a common name. If you think it is not precise enough, feel free to edit.
I will look at the trends for Bundesverfassung in Austria.
Comment: It is correct as it is now, I think.
Comment: The lore about the German constitution is that due to being split into several parts after WWII one wanted to avoid the term constitution, because a reunification was still thought to happen sooner or later so the formal act of constituting a country by it's citizens was so to say postponed. However as a constitution also works as a basic law, one needed to have a de facto constitution anyway. Reunification took it's time and when it happened it was one country joining another rather than the formation of a new one and so the term basiclaw (Grundgesetz) stuck but it is the constitution.
Answer: The US has a particularly adversarial and litigious culture.
We take everything to at least the legal limit. And then grouse that the legal limit is wrong. The constitution is the legal limit of legal limits, so is pretty much always the center of such agitating and counter agitating.
Our constitution is perhaps less clear than some would like.
There are books written about nearly every line, and they don't all come to the same conclusions. The 2nd amendment is the poster child for uncertainty, where a not clearly wrong reading could be that only the national guard is allowed to be armed, or that felons can't be stopped from bringing nuclear bombs with them to jail. Currently we are in a middle ground, but all side continually insist theirs is the correct interpretation.
Our constitution mostly works.
It was made to limit government, and with some notable (I'm looking at you commerce clause) exceptions it does. But as my favorite Franklin quote mentions it only works if we do. So we have kept it at the forefront of debates to see that it continues to work.
It is the only meaningful weapon that we have.
The US government is one of the most powerful forces that has ever existed. It kicks in doors all over the world, reads your mail, "enhanced interrogation"'s its enemies, and wages economic war on entities from individuals to nations. No external power exists strong enough to certainly stop it. But I can make a stand on some issues with confidence that the constitution will protect me.
Answer: The Constitution of the United States is currently the oldest constitution in force in the world to be adopted by popular representation (There are older constitutions, but they are no longer used).  For Americans at the time of the adoption, it was a radical departure from the parliamentary system in England, if by means of what is the final authority on the law.  One critical difference between the two systems is that in English the final authoritative law is that which is enacted by Parliament, thus if parliament has had enough of this "Free Speech Nonsense" they can enact laws that change the nature of the freedom.  Contrasted with the United States, which puts limits on even the most powerful offices of the government (the original framers believed the Legislature would be more powerful than the Executive, though history suggests the reverse happened).
Americans are typically distrustful of their government as a whole, and the people who wrote the Constitution definitely numbered in this crowd (many being the folks who rebelled against British rule).  They recalled the abuses of power their government enact on the people when they were under British rule and took steps to limit themselves from taking those aggression when they were in power.  The amendments in the bill of rights are classed into three categories (The Liberty Amendments (1,2,3), The Justice Amendments (4,5,6,7,8), and the unenumerated rights Amendments(9, 10)).  A quick read of the Liberty Amendments are checks against abuses of British Power on the American colonies.  The right to speak freely was curtailed severely and the press and pulpits were censored for the crime of criticizing the government, the British disarmed the civilian population and then forced them to provide for the very troops enforcing these things.  To the people, these were very egregious crimes and the first thing the people wanted was their assurances they hadn't swapped "George the Third for George (Washington) the First".
With the modern nation, the idea that we don't trust our elected officials holds true to this day.  That isn't to say that government isn't necessary, but that what authority it is given it isn't trusted.  Now, with the ethos of the population in mind, lets look at your data.
Each seems to contain a double spike, with the interest going up, down, up slightly, and down to a low point, lather, rinse, and repeat.  These may correspond to certain periods in a typical year where interest is at an all time high.  The political season is in full swing in the fall with general elections in November every even numbered year.  This means that the most discussion of the policy and law are likely to occur in this time frame and immediately after as people check to make sure everything lines up (2016 for example were awash in Constitutional Crisis scenarios, the validity of which is not necessary for this discussion).  Then there's a short drop as this abuts a busy Holiday (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years) and then a descent to a mid season low with a short bump in the summer period.  This bump can be attributed to the Supreme Court, which is concluding their term and publishing all the decision they have made (and they typically do this over multiple days in June and July and usually save the controversial ones that everyone really wants to hear for last).  Following that, August, the low point, is typically a slow point in political news in general.  Congress is in a long vacation/recess period, the Supreme Court is deciding what to hear for the next term, and the Exective is just running the country.  Also, most Americans are on vacation during this time.  Then we start the process all over again.  Even in non-election years, the budget and other major legislation is done around this time, as Congress does not like to push major legislation in an Election year, so the Fall period is the last point to do something that they hope the voters won't remember in the following year.
It would be interesting to see those numbers side by side with things like celebrities and pop culture, as I think you'll see even higher numbers.  The other issue with your comparison is that these issues are quite specific, where as the Constitution is very general.  And while it's interesting to see the level of searches that contain queries for both the topic and the constitution, most of these issues would be handled at the state level, not the federal one.  As a final interpretation of the data, you'll notice that the 2004 summer slump was unusually high compared to other slump periods where it seemed to be googled consistently throughout the summer.  An additional reason for this could be that the popular movie "National Treasure", which includes conspiracies related to many of America's founding documents, debuted later in this year, with the trailers appearing sometime around the summer movie season.
The data (EDIT: Provided by the OP) also doesn't support that (EDIT: the OP's assertion that) American's love the constitution more than other countries because we do not have a similar line for rate at which another country's constitution is googled by their citizens (What's the trend of Canadians googling the Canadian Constitution?).  Not saying that Americans do not love the Constitution of the United States, cause we do... but how does it stack with googles for other constitutions?
As a final note, in many parts of the world, following WWII, demonstrations of reverence towards national symbols such as flags and the like have been somewhat taboo and creepy to Europeans.  This did not translate to United States, where we went from WWII to the Cold War, where civic pride for the rights our government recognizes was our answer to the Soviet Union's human rights abuses.  Historically, the First Amendment has been put under the scrutiny during the later half of the 20th century more than any other amendment, which has lead to an increase in respect for the Constitution's rights over all.  The right to say anything (even very offensive slurs) and the right to own firearms are still very unique among the constitutions of the world.  The period language used may also have some affection, as the more modern constitutions are written in a more modern voice and thus read like any other law (that is to say, boring and overly narrowed).  Compare to the U.S. Constitutional Language, which is much more poetic and evokes the era of the period it was written.  The language drift also leads to interesting discussions on what each rule means, as U.S. Jurisprudence is set by the intended meaning of the writer of a particular article or amendment.  All of these combine to make the Constitution of the United States a rather interesting read in and of itself, and opens it to some unique discussions with regard to it.
EDIT:  To address one final point, the OP also makes mention of the Constitution as if it was inflexible.  The constitution does have an amendment process (Article Five) which sets the procedures to amend the Constitution.  It is possible to add or repeal the constitution to meet the needs of the changing world (There was debate in the early days if the Vice President became President when assuming the office or was still the Vice President until the next election, but now did President stuff.  This was changed.  Similarly the 3/5ths compromise is no longer in effect and the State Appointment of senators was amended to direct electoral appointment).  This process can even be used to repeal and replace the Constitution writ large (The only part that cannot be changed is that the states may not be deigned equal senatorial representation).  The fact that it is a very difficult process requiring 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress and 3/4ths of all States means that it actually has some legitimacy to the document that which remains is accepted as vital to the nation, and that which was changed was accepted as being rigorously vetted and accepted by the majority of the people via representation.  Since it's ratification, there have been 11,539 instances of proposed amendments to the constitution of which, only 17 changes meeting the full requirements to full amendment status (0.15% success rate).
Comment: You correctly say in the second last paragraph that you don't really answer the question.
Comment: @Communisty:  Not really, I only say that the data provided doesn't support the assumption that Americans love their Constitution than any other country loves it's own Constitution.  All it states is that Americans search for it more than those other things it is compared to.   It could be that the OP made a correct assumption... it could be that another country exists that loves it's constitution more... but that cannot be difinitively stated.  The applied historical and data interpretation that can assist in seeing why those trends may exist in the ways that they do.
Comment: @Communisty - stating that the premise is flawed is not the same as saying "I'm not addressing the question."
Comment: Yeah I agree that the premise is flawed. I'm just saying regardless of it that you didn't compare the situation to other countries (which as I understood the question was quite integral part of the it).
Comment: @Communisty:  The OP did not ask for that.  OP asked why the 233 year old constitution is preferred to a more modern constitution.  Assuming that it was the point, I also made notes of the distinctions of the document when compared to the world writ large, without making any specific comparisons to one specific country.
Answer: The Constitution is important to Americans because it is supposed to be the final arbiter of the most important disputes. In theory, we can argue about many of the less important aspects of running the country, but critical questions about rights and who has final say in decision making are supposed to come from the Constitution. In theory, having the Constitution on your side should be the trump card (no pun intended).
An important aspect of that power of the Constitution is that the Constitution guarantees important rights that Americans cherish (and that you are likely quite aware of such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, etc.),
And so the Constitution protects us from tyranny both by protecting rights and by preventing a slide in to dictatorship, at least in theory.
To what extent the theory holds up in practice is widely debated but even in that debate each side will claim that the Constitution is on their side.
As for what sets the American constitution apart, there are several points. First, America's constitution is generally less ambitious than most others. Rather than getting into the weeds of how policies should be implemented, it lays out core rights that nearly everyone can agree on (e.g. we may argue what "freedom of speech" means but we all agree we should have freedom of speech).
Second, there is the history.
This link talks in part about the length of the American constitution compared to the EU constitution.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/comparing-us-eu-constitutions
This site provides a listing of constitutions that can be sorted by rank. America has one of the shortest (though there are a few democracies with shorter ones - notably Japan).
America's constitution was created by founding fathers who are widely respected. Also, it was created at a time when it was revolutionary. This distinguishes from, say Japan, whose constitution was created more recently by people who were far less respected.
Comment: This does not contrast constitutions and attitudes between nationalities and thus does not answer the question.  You claim America's constitution is less ambiguous than others but fail to prove this or cite anything relevant.  Most of what you said is universally applicable.
Answer: Before I answer, I just want to point out, America isn't one thing.  It's a lot of different ideas and individual opinions / often shouting against each other.   "Why is this liked in America", it's more accurate to say that there's a movement where part of the US population is making noise about something, not necessarily the entire nation, but a movement.  That may be obvious, but I thought I'd point it out.
And I worry that this is an opinion question not a factual one, but I think there's enough agreement behind it to make a good answer.
There's several reasons.  I'll touch on a few, and I'm sure I'll miss a few.
1) Unlike many European Nations that have history that goes back millennia, America had a clear beginning, a "birth" if you will and that came from the essentially two documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   (historians might add Thomas Paine's common sense, which at the time had a huge influence on reaching the public, but it's not retained the sense of importance that the other two documents have).   I'll add that the Declaration of Independence, while very important at the time, was a statement, where was the constitution was a design for America.  It was the only document that was meant to be used as a design for our government going forward.
2) Going back to the Birth of America, America has founding fathers that are revered even today.  Even though Jefferson hasn't looked quite as good in the eyes of history with his sleeping with his slaves, Hamilton, Washington, Ben Franklyn, others, are America's founders and the Constitution is largely their work, though Jefferson wrote it, Washington upheld it was the first president and others had a hand in what it should say.     SO 1 and 2 go hand in hand, respected people at the birth of a nation and a document that defends that.
3) It has beautiful language that even opposing parties can agree with.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
  Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
  common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
  of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
  this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's practically poetry.  The words are easy to like.  It's also very high ideals.   Everyone wants justice, tranquility, general welfare (I could say a few things about that one).   Blessings of Liberty - even though that actually doesn't mean anything specific, it points to a high ideal for a nation.
4) The constitution is a sword.   It's a weapon that people can use to defend their rights, even against the US government, and that's true for both sides of the political scale.  That defense is even for stuff that not everyone agrees with.
The Social Justice Warrior who wants to defend a protestors rights to burn a flag, can take that right all the way to the supreme court and win, because the constitution defends individual rights, free speech and free expression . . . sometimes to a fault.
The Pornographer is also free to take his case to the supreme court.  The constitution defends his right to produce and sell smut, and, I'm not just talking about Larry Flint, but there's a form of political pornography too - Steve Bannon, Alex Jones and Donald Trump sell things that sound good, that have no basis in truth.   The liar, the spin doctor, the rabble rouser and the smut peddler can all use the constitution as a rallying cry.
And the small government (and/or anti-government) libertarian can use the constitution to defend his rights and interest.   While it didn't hold up in the supreme court, people have argued that the income tax is unconstitutional because it's not specifically mentioned (legally that's a questionable argument), but there is a feeling that the constitution defends the libertarian against an overreaching government (sorry - that's too general).   There's also the 2nd amendment that many people feel protects their rights to buy and own guns (it's more complicated than that, but that's another aspect that gun rights advocates love about the constitution).
and finally 5) - covered above, but he Constitution is represents ideas that even people who don't like government can like.  "Promote domestic tranquility / general welfare" - Even people who are generally anti-government still want tranquility and general welfare.   Maybe not tax and spend welfare, but everyone I know wants general welfare.
So, we have a document that defends the individual's rights on both sides of the scale, a document written at the birth of the nation, and written in beautiful language promoting the highest ideals by people in history that remain popular.   There's lots to like.
What changed in the last 15-30 years?
I'll add to that, more recently, in the last 15-20 years or so, there's been kind of an anti government movement in the US, growing in numbers, but these people use the constitution as a way to express what they stand for.    "I don't like congress, I'm a constitutionalist" - if a somewhat general statement on my part, represents very deep feelings among many Americans who LOVE America but don't like our government today.
That's the gist of it, that last paragraph especially is why, if anyone says anything anti-constitutional, they get attacked and booed viciously.    I've met many people who want to overthrow the government.  I've never met anyone who wants to burn the constitution.
All that said, it's become largely an emotional thing.  Many who profess to love the constitution, haven't read it, beyond the first paragraph that was read-allowed in grade-school, and, in addition to not reading it, don't understand it.
I want to add that, while these themes are all generally and historically true, the "feeling" of love for the constitution wasn't always there.   In the 60s, many radicals who protested didn't hold the constitution in high esteem, and weren't educated in the history.   Even though the constitution defended their rights, there wasn't always a reverence for it like there is today.   I remember when I was in school in the US (a long time ago) the constitution was a boring document that we had to study.   We liked it, but the 70s when I grew up weren't like today.   Today, a few decades later, there's a passionate respect and honor for the constitution.   People feel it represents them (generally speaking), at a time when there's not much faith in government.
That's a rough summary anyway.   I'm not sure it's a good answer, as opposed to my observation, and I'll try to clean it up a bit later and post some examples.
Comment: I didn't get very far into this before having to downvote.  The statement that some people argue the income tax is unconstitutional because it isn't specifically mentioned is just plain wrong.  The 16th amendment specifically gives Congress the ability to levy income taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution  The right to produce and distribute pornography and burn flags are listed by this answer as protected, yet those are not rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Comment: This does not contrast constitutions and attitudes between nationalities and thus does not answer the question.
Comment: @Readin  I'll review your other points, however and I may delete the income tax argument entirely, or I'll re-word it to be more clear.  Even though I think I was clear on that point, I'll take your comments to heart.   On the 60s and 70s - I knew teachers who taught during that time, but I only know a story or two, not all that much.
Comment: @Readin  I said it was wrong in my post, so we agree, but that's not really the point.   People who don't think income tax is constitutional still like the constitution on average.  Whether they are wrong has nothing to do with what they like - which is what this question asked.   That said, it's probably my weakest example and I might delete it all the same.   I tend to be wordy and rambling sometimes too, so my bad there as well.
Comment: You said the income tax item was "legally questionable". It isn't; the language of the 16th amendment is clear. I have read your whole answer now and there is way to much opinion and too much taking sides on various issues in the answer.  Your first four points are excellent but would be better without the comment about Jefferson, the parenthetical comment about general welfare, and the examples on point 4. Examples are fine but choose them more carefully and work harder to avoid your own opinions. I also like the section on attitudes in the 60s and 70s and would love a source to learn more,
Comment: @Readin now you're just taking things out of context.   I SAID  "people have argued that the income tax is unconstitutional"  "A legally questionable argument" - in that context, legally questionable implies moronic.   Now, granted, not everyone who understands the nuances of english might pick that up, but what I said was clear in common English, the language of this site.   You're trying to disagree with me on something we agree on.
Comment: Just a note: Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, as he was in France as Ambassador at the time.
Comment: @jamesqf  Really?  Wow.  I feel dumb now.  I did not know that.
Comment: @Readin The 16th amendment was made because it was worried that the "income tax is unconstitutional" argument was not certainly wrong. Now it is pretty clear, but the argument has been made reasonably successfully in the past, and like many other ideas in the US being proved wrong now doesn't make it go away.
Answer:
Why is the constitution so important to Americans?

I see two reasons why the American constitution holds a lot more regards:

It's very very hard to change it, as any change requires the consent of both the federal legislature and 3/4 of the states. No constitutional amendments have been passed for many decades and it's unlikely any would be adopted in the coming years. On the other hand most other countries only require the consent of 2/3 of both legislative chambers to adopt a change, so their constitutions are in constant motion. And if it's in constant motion it loses a lot of respect, as the very next elections could see it completely overhauled.
It provides for a lot more freedoms than are available through the constitution in other countries. Let's have a look at the first 10 amendments, a.k.a. the Bill of Rights:

Nearly absolute freedom of speech, religion and peaceful assembly. In countries like Germany the government can punish people for denying the Holocaust, for displaying Nazi symbols, for lying about their education, etc. Not so in the US where there are very few exceptions to freedom of expression.
The right to own guns. Other countries generally restrict the ownership of weapons to very limited applications and require weapon owners to go through difficult licensing schemes to obtain and keep their firearms.
The right to avoid quartering soldiers in your home. This part is a bit outdated, so I'll skip it.
The right for privacy, requiring that all searches are approved by a court of law. This is generally the rule in other democracies as well, but their legislators are free to introduce exceptions to the process in whatever manner they see fit.
The right to a jury trial and protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination. This means that the US is the only country in the world where the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal in the lowest court. It is also the only country where jury nullification is truly possible.
The right to a speedy trial. In other democracies an accused person can sit in limbo for years as their case goes through the legal system.
The right to a jury trial in civil cases.
The ban on cruel and unusual punishments. This is generally upheld in other democracies as well, but it used to be a revolutionary concept.
Grants people the power to do anything not otherwise prohibited
Assures that the constituent states retain power over everything not spelled out by the Constitution. Although this amendment has been generally neglected since the 20th century.

A lot of things are wrong with the US government, but at least their Constitution provides a solid foundation for the functioning of the government. In times when Congress has a 5% approval rating the President has a 40% approval rating it's nice to have a single document on which the entire country can more or less agree on.
Comment: Like most of the other answers, this still comes down to (a) "Americans like the constitution because it contains provisions that they agree with for reasons x, y & z" and (b) "constitutions provide certainty in uncertain times". I'm beginning to wonder if these are, in fact, the best answers to the question that we're going to get. However, (b) is true of many constitutions, and for (a), some of the things that Americans may like about their constitution are not necessarily shared by everyone else.
Comment: There's an implication in your summaries of the Bill of Rights that all of the things listed are good, but without an explanation as _why_ for some of the more controversial ones. For example, in #1, where the line on free speech should be drawn is highly subjective, and as you note, varies by country. #2 is highly contentious within the US, let alone elsewhere; in countries like the UK and Japan with very tight gun controls, people (on the whole) like it that way. Also, in #5, the Wiki article lists Canada and England & Wales as other places with jury nullification. For #6: sources please.
Comment: @SteveMelnikoff most other constitutions are much easier to change and they do change a lot. That's another important point.
Comment: @SteveMelnikoff #1 as you said - in other countries the government is free to draw the line. But in the US there is nothing they can do about anything that doesn't directly harm people (e.g. calls for violence). #5 the Wiki is wrong as Canadian and UK prosecutors can appeal a jury verdict in a higher court. Not so in the US. #6 in the US you are guaranteed a trial within 6 months after being charged and once acquitted you are free to go, period. Here in Europe appeals can take a decade and there's no general right to get a trial within a specific period of time.
Comment: @SteveMelnikoff regarding #2 - while the right to own guns is indeed controversial, many Americans take comfort in the fact that the Constitution prevents the government from taking away their guns. Not even mass shootings and public hysteria can change this, unless you gather the consent of 3/4ths of the States. That's a rock solid foundation of society, no matter how you see it.
Answer: The Constitution is important on several levels:
First of all, it is the basic law of the United States. Congress can't overrule it, and we see it as the foundation of our freedom. Many of the freedoms we enjoy today exist because they are enshrined in the Constitution. Examples include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, and so forth.
Secondly, ever since the deeply contentious election of 1800, it has resolved basic questions in a way that is seen as legitimate. Even in 1860, when most Southern whites hated Lincoln and everything he stood for, and even though he only won about 40% of the popular vote, there was no question that he had won the election, because the Constitution said so.
Thirdly, its prohibition of trade barriers among the States made the United States into a free trade area early in its history. This has remained the case right up to the present day. A strong case can be made that this is the foundation of American prosperity. For a contrast, look at all the contention surrounding the EC, Brexit, and so forth.
Fourth, just as many successes of American society can be traced to the Constitution, so can its greatest failure -- the failure of the original Constitution to ensure racial equality.
Fifth, the Constitution deliberately makes it difficult to pass a new Federal law. The President, House and Senate are all chosen in different time intervals, with votes apportioned differently. That makes it harder to get something done. Not only that, if it doesn't pass muster with the courts, it may be overturned. In light of the number of bad things Government can do, a lot of people think that's all a feature, not a bug.
Lastly, the continuity ensured by the Constitution is remarkable. How many other countries have had continual popularly elected government since 1792?
Comment: It could be argued that none of these things are unique to the US. E.g. #1 is true of many countries with written constitutions. #2 is true of many countries with well-defined and long-observed electoral laws. #5 I don't know; a few; what's your point? So, I don't feel this answers the question.
Comment: This does not contrast constitutions and attitudes between nationalities and thus does not answer the question, it just says what the constitution is.
Comment: I've added one more point(#5) that sets the US apart from a lot of countries. That said, the question was "Why is the constitution so important to Americans?" So I've explained how it is seen by Americans. This sort of thing is particularly important in a large country, where people from different regions are likely to disagree. Re the final point, it is indisputable that the USA was early and influential in this regard; at the time we made our Constitution, most of the world was under either a monarchy or a colonial government.
Comment: @SteveMelnikoff - the degree to which it's not unique now is says nothing about whether it was back then, and the degree to which it is not unique now would be a testament to how often others have found it impressive enough to feel they should model their own supreme national laws using the US version as a model.
Answer: An essential feature of the Constitution, though one which has been largely subverted by a variety of entities and means, was that it served as a "user's manual" for the population, so that if someone were to e.g. resist government agents who were attempting to forcibly enter his dwelling, neighbors would be able to ascertain whether to assist the government agents in serving a lawful warrant, or whether to assist the neighbor in resisting the actions of lawless people calling themselves government agents.
This kind of balance of power between the government and the citizenry doesn't always yield perfect governance, and the world has become so much more complicated in many ways than it was in 1789.  Nonetheless, it did a good job of discouraging certain kinds of government "misbehavior" that have become problematic over the last few decades, and if it were abandoned completely such misbehavior would almost certainly skyrocket.


dealing with the pirc

Question: What are some aggressive lines that I can employ against the Pirc, I have been using the 150 attack but I don't like black's Queenside play with c6,b5 and want an alternative setup that allows me to play aggressively.
Comment: As a Pirc player there's little you can do to stop the q side play if you want aggressive, Black has to find counter play and if you are going all neanderthal on the k side the q side is where that shall be. The Austrian attack is probably your best bet (it's what I play against the Pirc), but that's one line you will need to be booked up on. If you don't want that then the Bg5 lines, or simply the Classical is what I would suggest.
Comment: Or if you want to go slightly off-piste there's always the Grand Prix attack
Comment: As mentioned by Ian Bush, the Austrian Attack.
This variation is the reason why the Pirc has lost most of its popularity in higher-amateur-play. At high level, Black knows how to survive and play for something, but at amateur level is requires to much precision to not get into serious trouble quickly.
I stopped playing the Pirc because of it, transitioning then to the Modern Defense (delaying ...Nf6 for a few moves).
Comment: But black is fine against the Austrian Attack - you just have to know what you are doing. Same for all Pirc variations.
Comment: Yes if you know exactly how to navigate it, most variations are okay. The aggressive White setups arising out of the Austrian Attack are just very hard to manage without much by-heart memorizing of lines, in my opinion.
Answer: As both a Pirc and a 1. e4 player here's a few thoughts, basically my comments expanded.
Firstly you have to understand the Pirc is a counter attacking system, "defence" is in many ways a misnomer. Black deliberately accepts a slightly cramped position in the hope that he/she can gain counter-play by seeing where White places his or her pieces and reacting appropriately - gaining this counter-play is at the very heart of Black's strategy. So as White you have two main choices

Be aggressive and crush black before the counter-play starts (As a Pirc or Modern player you have to accept that very occasionally this will happen). Typical systems here are the Austrian Attack, the Argentine Attack, the 150 Attack, the Bg5 (aka Byrne) system and the Bc4 (aka Kohlmov) system, and a number of unsubtle variations involving a very early g4 or h4
Concentrate on minimising the counter-play and only once Black is strangled start your own more direct plans. Typical here are the Classical Variation and the Fianchetto Variation, though some ways of playing the 150 attack can tend towards this.

These are of course extremes, and there is a whole spectrum in between. But the point is if Black plays accurately he/she will get counter-play and all you can control is the degree of it - and if you spend more of your time with your plans rather than stopping Black's, then Black will get more time to progress this counter-play. And if your play is on the king side, as is typical then Black's counter-play will be where you don't have your pieces, i.e. on the queen side or in the centre.
So if you don't like the counter-play, play the Fianchetto system or the Classical System - Karpov played them for a reason
If you want to be aggressive you have to accept Black will get counter play. You can split the aggressive systems roughly in two, those where White plays in the centre, such as in the Austrian, the Bg5 variation and the Bc4 variation, and where black plays on the king side, such as the Argentine attack or the 150 attack. In the central systems you are trying to push e5 and e6 if possible and crush black. f4 in the Austrian is the obvious supporting move, Bg5 aims at making e5 more difficult for Black so making it easier for White due to the latent attack against the Black Queen, and Bc4 aims at supporting the pawn into e6 quickly after it has reached e5. Each has their own features
The Austrian Attack
[White "Austrian Attack"]
[Black "Pirc hero"]
[StartPly "9"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3

is a very good system for White. Despite repeated comments here the Pirc is sound (good enough Nepo for Mamedyarov, good enough for me) and if Black knows what they are doing you won't blast him/her off the board, but IMO this is about the best bet. There are two main problems, one practical, one theoretical. The practical one is there is a lot of theory here, and Black is likely to be booked up. Further there are two big main variations ( 5. ... O-O and 5. ... c5) which are very different in nature, and especially the c5 can get to insane positions where you have to know what you are doing .The theoretical one is your poor black squared bishop - that f pawn has condemned it to being a spectator for a while, and if Black knows what they are doing it will stay that way. But IMO if there is any variation that really tests the Pirc it's the Austrian attack.
The Bg5 (Byrne) Variation
    [White "4 Bg5"]
    [Black "Pirc hero"]
    [StartPly "7"]
    [FEN ""]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bg5

is also good. As I stated earlier White hopes to use the bishop to strengthen the e5 break, and as White also often plays f4 there is some similarity to the Austrian Attack - in fact one can almost think of this variation (after White plays f4) as an attempt by White to play the Austrian Attack without getting a bad dark squared bishop. In fact for a while this was the line I feared most as a Black player, but the problem is  black doesn't have to play 4. ... Bg7, instead 4. ... c6 starts to set up the standard Queen side counter play which you want to avoid. And in this variation the Bg5 variation tends to move from a "central attack" variation to a "king side attack" variation with an strong (if you are white) / exposed (if you are black) bishop on g5 - it can get hit not only by h6, but f6 and also Ne4; for this reason the d5 break by Black is more common in this variation than most. But it is a good variation.
The Bc4 Variations
    [White "4 Bc4"]
    [Black "Pirc hero"]
    [StartPly "7"]
    [FEN ""]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Qe2

I wouldn't recommend. 5. Qe2 is typical and thematic here as white is trying to get e4-e5-e6 in as quickly as possible. The problem is it just doesn't quite work, and often leave White with an exposed (or no) white squared bishop, on c4 it just encourages b5, Na5, Nd7-b6, d5. Further white weakens the already weak d pawn - in fact black can attack it straight away with 5. ... Nc6 and while complicated that line is probably better for black. And that's supported by the stats in the Lichess Master's database:

where White really isn't doing that well.
I'll try to find time and energy come back and look at the more king side variations - but as you effectively say you don't want to face the q side play I for the moment am going to rule those out for now.
In summary if you want aggressive I would say play the Austrian Attack if you want to put some effort into it, 4. Bg5 if not.
(And there's always the Grand Prix Attack...)

dealing with the pirc


Software Update hangs...where can I see a log as to what its doing?

Question: For the last 2 weeks Software Update on my Snow Leopard box seems to hang at "Installing 1 item...Writing files...".  Where can I look to see if it is making progress or just hung up?  It has been trying to finish today's Software Update for over 2 hours now.  It feels like it is hung but I would like to be sure before I kill it.
Answer: So it looks like the Console application is the only way to "view the logs", so to speak.  I launched it from the Finder under "Applications/Utilities".  It is rather sparse, but it does have information regarding the update.
I am having more success watching the progress of Software Update by executing it from the command line of a terminal.  This I launched as
sudo softwareupdate -i -a -v

I still don't expect it to complete, but am hopeful that I can get a better clue as to why it is failing.  Currently there are 4 packages called out in /Library/Updates, one of which is likely the source of my problems:
bobk-mbp:~ bobk$ find /Library/Updates/
/Library/Updates/
/Library/Updates//.DS_Store
/Library/Updates//index.plist
/Library/Updates//ProductMetadata.plist
/Library/Updates//zzzz041-3450
/Library/Updates//zzzz041-3450/041-3450.English.dist
/Library/Updates//zzzz041-3450/CoreFPDelta.pkg
/Library/Updates//zzzz041-3450/iTunesAccessDelta.pkg
/Library/Updates//zzzz041-3450/iTunesXPatch.pkg

Finally, it looks like you can actually tail the install log as
tail -F /var/logs/install.log

So I now know how to watch the thing, but why isn't it completing?
Comment: Clues are hard to come by troubleshooting this, my symptoms are almost exactly this post:  https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3015458?start=15&tstart=0
Comment: Yep.  That was it.  Did what the above post said and my system is all up to date and good to go!  At the end of the day, this is total SoftwareUpdate fail on Apple's side; the tool itself gave no useful feedback.  Who knows if iTunes actually works.  I do software development on this machine and don't even use iTunes.


My Tor Browser runs very slowly

Question: Compared with my previous use of Firefox, browsing with Tor runs very slowly. Is this because Tor Browser is loading ads that you can't se because of ad blockers?
Answer: Well, this case can be fixed a bit - if you have a good connection. You need to add IsolateDestAddr to your SocksPort directive in config. But be warned - if the website uses multiple (sub)domains - in some rare cases it can misbehave. The method here is to use different circuits for different destination addresses. So ads will be loaded via separate circuit and the parallelism of the whole process will be a bit better. But circuits are circuits - you're not insured from having a slow circuit in any place.
Comment: It's not clear quite what the OP is asking but it seems as though it is as simple as "Why is it slower to browse the web using Tor than it is without Tor?" Answer: Because the use of Tor interposes at least three servers between you and the ultimate webpage that were not there when you were browsing directly.
Comment: This is unlikely to improve performance, it will result in the requirement to build a (potentially very) large number of extra circuits for every site you try to load, which will increase loading times.
Comment: on 10Mbps+ on **both** sides in connection speed it used to improve speeds. On a slow ones and mobile ones - yes, you're totally right. That's why I've made a remark about the connection

My Tor Browser runs very slowly


Am I too tall to bother modifying my old trek?

Question: I bought an old Trek 500 series road bike a couple months ago and have put love and parts into it but it's just too damn small for me (I'm 6'4"). All the post adjustments are at their safest limits. Are there mods or extensions worth buying to make it more comfortable/efficient or would it be cheaper/easier just to sell it to a short person and find a bigger framed bike? Thanks, J
Comment: I'm about your height, and rode a too-small MTB for a couple years by using an extended seatpost... until the frame cracked.   By far the best thing you can do is get a bike that is big enough.  Pass the old one on to family or relatives or friends/kids if it has meaning for you, or sell it to offset the costs of a new bike.  You're obviously into riding in a good way, shout yourself a new one.
Answer: If you adjust a bike to the max and its still significantly too small, you should sell the bike and get a new bike.
There are extra long seatposts, and extra long quill stems and what not, but in all likelihood its not really worth it if the bike doesn't fit with the normal seatpost + stem; the other parts of geometry like top tube length are probably too small anyway.


Photos: decrease in quality when exporting a live photo as a gif

Question: The photos app decreases the quality of each frame to terrible levels when exporting a live image as a gif. Can somebody suggest a fix or an alternative?
Answer: The GIF format was never designed to be for photos and by definition only allows 256 colours.
From Wikipedia, GIFs are used as follows:

GIFs are suitable for sharp-edged line art (such as logos) with a limited number of colors. This takes advantage of the format's
  lossless compression, which favors flat areas of uniform color with
  well defined edges.[23]
GIFs may be used to store low-color sprite data for games.[24]
GIFs can be used for small animations and low-resolution video clips.[24]
Comment: wow, didn't know that. Can you please suggest some alternatives to actually share the live gizmo on other social media platforms which is not actually a full fledged video but can be used as more of an image?
Comment: Sadly not, or at least not that I know of. Essentially it seems you do want a video.


Indian National Trip to Nepal from Malaysia as tourist

Question: I'm an Indian National and presently in Malaysia and wants to travel to Nepal and from Nepal I intend to drive to India. Do I need to get an immigration chop at Kathmandu airport while arriving into Nepal from Malaysia or I can simply show my Driving License.?
Answer: I doubt with a driving license after you are going to Nepal via air, but you can show your Passport to get a stamp in Immigration. That's all. Simply land to Kathmandu, go to the Immigration agent, show your passport. They will stamp it for your entry.
Some times Aadhar Card will also work as it depends upon Immigration person as you only need to verify that you are Indian.
After that, you can take any means of transportation to get to India via road either Gorkhapur exit, Rakshwal exit or mid-western side of Nepal exit point to the driver and get in India.
Comment: Thanks.. so they give an arrival departure stamp at airport or chop a Nepalese visa on passport while entering the Country through Kathmandu Airport
Comment: @CAPTANANT: for you, they will put the stamp of entry only. No Nepalese visa will be there for you as it is free to pass for Indian in Nepal and vice versa.


How to use variables in field calculator using ArcPy

Question: The aim is to perform a multicriteria-analysis in which I use 3 columns in a dataset (dataset) and 3 weight settings, each one relating to one column. A new column (MCA) equals the result of the multicriteria-analysis. ArcPy is the opted method to achieve this. Imagine that I have the following weight settings for every column (being columnA, columnB, and columnC).
#parameter settings

weight_columnA = 0.3
weight_columnB = 0.4
weight_columnC = 0.2

Total_weight = weight_columnA + weight_columnB + weight_columnC

Now a 'fixed' calculation would be feasible:
arcpy.management.CalculateField("dataset", "MCA", "(!columnA! * 0.3) +( !columnB! * 0.4) + (!columnC! * 0.2)/0.9", "PYTHON3", '', "TEXT", "NO_ENFORCE_DOMAINS")

However, the weight settings should be easy to change, based on the user needs, so that a more dynamic approach should be realized. To encourage this dynamic approach, I would like to insert the defined weight variables into my formula. However, this does not work via this way:
arcpy.management.CalculateField("dataset", "MCA", "(!columnA! * weight_columnA) +( !columnB! * weight_columnB) + (!columnC! * weight_columnC)/Total_weight", "PYTHON3", '', "TEXT", "NO_ENFORCE_DOMAINS")

Also, inserting str() (e.g. str(weight_columnA) before the variables does not work.
What is a workaround so that the defined variables (i.e. weights) can be implemented successfully into the field calculator, using ArcPy?
Comment: The documentation contains examples of how to reference fields and use Python.
Answer: A solution is to use the format() function:
arcpy.management.CalculateField("dataset", "MCA", "(!columnA! * {}) +( !columnB! * {}) + (!columnC! * {})/{}".format(weight_columnA, weight_columnB, weight_columnC, Total_weight), "PYTHON3", '', "TEXT", "NO_ENFORCE_DOMAINS")


The space of Borel function modulo comeager sets is Dedekind complete

Question: Let $(X,\tau)$ be a topological space. Denote by $Bor(X)$ the space of Borel functions $f:X\to\mathbb{R}$ where we identify two functions whenever they agree on  the complement of a meager set. We endowed  $Bor(X)$ with the pointwise partial order. I have read somewhere that this space is Dedekind complete. Is that true? Where can I find the proof worked out?
Comment: I should mention the following fact: If $(X,\Sigma)$ is a measure space equipped with a $\sigma$-ideal $\mathcal{N} \subseteq \Sigma$, then the poset of measurable functions $f : X \rightarrow [0,1]$ measurable with respect to the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on [0,1], identifying functions that differ only on a set from $\mathcal{N}$, is a complete lattice iff $\Sigma/\mathcal{N}$ is a complete Boolean algebra (instead of just $\sigma$-complete). With this result, the question is equivalent to the question of whether the Borel sets modulo the meagre sets is always a complete Boolean algebra..
Comment: (I suspect there is some relation, because the Boolean algebra of regular open sets, again under certain assumptions I'm not too sure about, coincides with the Boolean algebra of Borel sets modulo meager sets, cf. Halmos, "Lectures on Boolean Algebras" (1963), §13. But I'm afraid I'm unable to fill the dots.)
Comment: @Gro-Tsen [An answer on math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1065401/214353) seems to be relevant
Comment: @Littlefield The set of measurable functions to $\mathbb{R}$ is not literally a complete lattice - for instance the sequence of constant functions $n : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ has no least upper bound, because it has no upper bound. The actual statement is that every bounded set of functions has  a least upper bound. By translating and rescaling, this is equivalent to $[0,1]$-valued functions being a complete lattice, and this is a little easier to prove technically. Unfortunately I do not know a reference, but I can outline the proof in an answer.
Comment: @Littlefield You are right that Borel sets modulo meagre sets is always a complete Boolean algebra - I just couldn't see the right way of proving this at first, which is to enlarge the Borel $\sigma$-algebra to the $\sigma$-algebra of sets having the Baire property.
Comment: I have a followup question: Dilworth proves in his 1950 paper "The Normal Completion of the Lattice of Continuous Functions" that (possibly with assumptions on $X$ like T3½) the Dedekind-completion of real-valued continuous functions can be identified with (a)normal upper- (or lower-) semicontinuous real-valued functions on $X$, and (b)continuous real-valued functions on the Stone space of the (complete) Boolean algebra of regular open sets on $X$. What is the relation with the space in the question?
Comment: @Gro-Tsen You will need the space to be a Baire space for them to be the same. For instance, if $X$ itself is meagre (such as if $X = \mathbb{Q}$) then there is only one equivalence class of Borel functions modulo meagre sets, but there are non-trivial regular open sets (e.g. the strictly positive rationals).
Comment: In the general, non-Baire-space case, I'm not certain that the space of Borel functions modulo meagre sets *is* Dedekind complete. A counterexample, if there is one, would have to be a space that is not Baire and not c.c.c..
Comment: @RobertFurber Even with whatever assumption is necessary to identify Borel-sets-modulo-meager-sets with regular open sets (even if $X$ is $\mathbb{R}^m$, say), it's still not clear to me why the space of Borel-*functions*-modulo-meager-sets that OP asks about can be identified (can it?) with the Dilworth space I mention in my first comment. (Can it?) I think you should post an answer, even if you need to make a few assumptions on $X$.
Comment: @Gro-Tsen I'll do that, but a bit later, because it's night time for me now.
Comment: @RobertFurber This result relating completeness of $\sigma$-ideals and quotient of measurable functions is really interesting and beautiful; thanks. Could you give me a reference of that result? I am pretty sure that the set of Borel sets modulo meager sets is a complete Boolean algebra, so this would solve my question. A question: why do you use [0,1] instead of $\mathbb R$? I suppose that the assertion is the same in both cases.
Comment: @RobertFurber I would be happy if you give a reference for the proof or outline it in an answer.
Answer: Fremlin's measure theory textbook is a good reference for these things. I am splitting things up into the Boolean algebra part and the real-valued functions part.
Complete Boolean algebras:
The way to show that $\mathcal{B}or(X)/\mathcal{M}(X)$ (using $\mathcal{M}(X)$ for the meagre sets) is a complete Boolean algebra is to reformulate it a bit first. The $\sigma$-algebra of sets with the Baire Property, $\mathcal{BP}(X)$, consists of the sets $S \subseteq X$ such that there exists an open set $U \subseteq X$ such that $S \vartriangle U$ is meagre ($\vartriangle$ meaning symmetric difference). As it is a $\sigma$-algebra and contains the open sets, $\mathcal{B}or(X) \subseteq \mathcal{BP}(X)$, and in fact $\mathcal{BP}(X)$ is the completion of $\mathcal{B}or(X)$ with respect to the $\sigma$-ideal $\mathcal{M}(X)$ in the same sense that the $\sigma$-algebra of Lebesgue measurable sets is the completion of the Borel sets with respect to the $\sigma$-ideal of Lebesgue null sets. For short, I will write $\mathrm{BP(X)} = \mathcal{BP}(X) / \mathcal{M}(X)$.
Because of this, the inclusion map $\mathcal{B}or(X) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{BP}(X)$ induces an isomorphism $\mathcal{B}or(X)/\mathcal{M}(X) \cong \mathrm{BP}(X)$, so we only need to prove that the latter is a complete Boolean algebra. This is done in 514I in volume 5, part 1 of Fremlin's Measure Theory.
The regular open sets $\mathrm{RO}(X)$ form a complete Boolean algebra. Each regular open set has the Baire property, and this defines a complete Boolean homomorphism $\mathrm{RO}(X) \rightarrow \mathrm{BP}(X)$. This is surjective, and is injective iff $X$ is a Baire space, i.e. if every meagre open set is empty. This is discussed in the same place in Fremlin's book, along with the fact that if $X$ is the Stone space of a complete Boolean algebra $A$, regular open sets are the same thing as clopens, so $\mathrm{RO}(X) \cong A$.

Real-valued functions
The way we get to real-valued measurable functions from the above has to do with Dana Scott's construction of the reals in a Boolean-valued model of set theory, as described in section 4.3 of Solovay's article Real-valued Measurable Cardinals.
Although expositions of these things often restrict to the case of a probability measure space, every proof I've seen goes through without using any particulars about the $\sigma$-ideal of null sets other than the fact that $\mathcal{B}or(X)/\mathcal{N}$ is a complete Boolean algebra. So in the following, we will say that a triple $(X,\Sigma,\mathcal{N})$ is a negligibility space if $\Sigma$ is a $\sigma$-algebra on $X$ and $\mathcal{N}$ is a $\sigma$-ideal in $\Sigma$ such that $\Sigma/\mathcal{N}$ is a complete Boolean algebra. (I know no standard terminology for this, so this is my own term)
We define $L^0(X,\Sigma,\mathcal{N})$ (or $L^0(X)$ for short) to be the set of $\mathbb{R}$-valued measurable functons on $(X,\Sigma)$ modulo the equivalence relation of being equal almost everywhere, i.e. outside a set from $\mathcal{N}$. Similarly $L^\infty(X)$ consists of bounded functions, $L(X;[0,1])$ of $[0,1]$-valued functions.
The key point is that we can, in a suitable sense, define the Borel sets of $\mathbb{R}$ and $[0,1]$ by generators and relations, and then define measurable functions in terms of this and the complete Boolean algebra $\Sigma/\mathcal{N}$. This way of doing things is also explained in Fremlin's section 364, and I think 364B, C and M are enough to establish what you want, but here is my explanation anyway.
For each $q \in \mathbb{Q}$, define $b_q = (q,\infty)$, and for each $q \in \mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1]$ define $c_q = (q,1]$ (we will write $[0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}}$ for $[0,1] \cap \mathbb{Q}$ from now on). Now, $(b_q)_{q \in \mathbb{Q}}$ generates the Borel sets of $\mathbb{R}$, subject to the relations:

$b_q = \bigvee\limits_{q' > q} b_{q'}$ for all $q \in \mathbb{Q}$.
$\bigvee_{q \in \mathbb{Q}} b_q = 1$
$\bigwedge_{q \in \mathbb{Q}} b_q = 0$,

while $(c_q)_{q \in [0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}}}$ generates the Borel sets of $[0,1]$ subject to the relations:
$c_q = \bigvee\limits_{q' > q} c_{q'}$
For a complete Boolean algebra $A$, we define $\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{Q},A)$ to be the set of functions $f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow A$ subject to the relations described above, (so for the first one $f(q) = \bigvee_{q' > q}f(q')$, and so on). We define $\mathcal{C}([0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}}, A)$ in a similar manner. We define the ordering on these pointwise, i.e. $f \leq g$ iff for all $q \in \mathbb{Q}. f(q) \leq g(q)$ (respectively with $[0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}}$ in that case). Then we can define, for a family $(f_i)_{i \in I}$ a function $f$
$$
f(q) = \bigvee_{i \in I}f_i(q).
$$
It is easy to prove that in the case that all $f_i \in \mathcal{C}([0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}}, A)$, then $f$ is too. But in the case of $f_i \in \mathcal{C}(\mathbb{Q},A)$, relation 3 does not hold automatically, but if there is an upper bound $g \in \mathcal{C}(\mathbb{Q},A)$ for $(f_i)_{i \in I}$ then it does. It then follows that $f$ is a least upper bound for $(f_i)_{i \in I}$.
To use this for $L^0(X)$ and $L(X;[0,1])$ we build poset isomorphisms. So define $F_{X,\mathbb{Q}} : L^0(X) \rightarrow \mathcal{C}(\mathbb{Q},\Sigma/\mathcal{N})$ as follows:
$$
F_{X,\mathbb{Q}}([a])(q) = [a^{-1}(b_q)]
$$
and $F_{X,[0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}}} : L(X;[0,1]) \rightarrow \mathcal{C}([0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}},\Sigma/\mathcal{N})$ similarly:
$$
F_{X,[0,1]_{\mathbb{Q}}}([a])(q) = [a^{-1}(c_q)].
$$
Then prove that this is well-defined, an order embedding, injective and surjective, the last two relying heavily on the countability of $\mathbb{Q}$ and the fact that $\mathcal{N}$ is a $\sigma$-ideal. These isomorphisms then establish that $L^0(X)$ is Dedekind complete, and $L(X;[0,1])$ is a complete lattice, and so $L^\infty(X)$ is Dedekind complete.
Regarding the question from Gro-Tsen: I unfortunately do not have the time to work out if this really works, but an isomorphism between $L^\infty(X,\mathcal{B}or(X),\mathcal{M}(X))$ and the normal lower semicontinuous functions would follow for completely regular Baire spaces if normality of a lower semicontinuous function $a : X \rightarrow [0,1]$ were the same as $a^{-1}((q,1])$ being a regular open set, rather than just open. This condition certainly implies that $a$ is a normal lower semicontinuous function, by reinterpreting Dilworth's Theorem 3.2, but I don't know if it goes the other way.
Comment: [This paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7856) uses the term "localizable measurable space". (It also defines measurable spaces to be equipped with a $\sigma$-ideal of negligible sets, which is unfortunately not standard, but "localizable measurable space" is still unambiguous.)
Comment: @Dap I'm aware of Dmitri Pavlov's terminology, but I don't agree with it. I don't like the term "measurable space", because otherwise there's no name left for a set with a $\sigma$-algebra on it. The other problem is that the name implies that it will be possible to put a measure on a "measurable space", but this is not so - for any Polish space $X$ without isolated points, the only countably additive measure on $(X,\mathcal{B}or(X), \mathcal{M}(X))$, that vanishes on the $\sigma$-ideal $\mathcal{M}(X)$ is 0.
Comment: In some sense, it is the usual thing for complete Boolean algebras *not* to admit countably additive measures, but any complete Boolean algebra can be presented as a $\sigma$-algebra modulo a $\sigma$-ideal.
Comment: @Dap: Meanwhile, in my new paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05284) the triple (X,Σ,N) is called "enhanced measurable space" (i.e., enhanced by the σ-ideal N), and if the Boolean algebra M/N is complete and admits a faithful semifinite continuous valuation (which yields a measure M→[0,∞] that is semifinite and vanishes on elements of N and only them), I refer to (X,M,N) as a "localizable enhanced measurable space".
Answer: After some googling, I managed to track a reference that answers the question, under the assumption that $X$ is a Baire space (i.e., every nonempty open subset is non-meager):

Kusraev & Kutateladze, Boolean-Valued Analysis (Springer 1999), §5.1.7 example (6) on page 206

— explicitly states that, if $X$ is a Baire space, the set of Borel functions $X\to\mathbb{R}$ modulo equality on the complement of a meager set is a "$K$-space", or Kantorovich space, meaning (op. cit., §5.1.4) a Dedekind-complete vector lattice.
Furthermore, this provides some hint of a link to the space I was referring to in the comments, since the immediately following example (7) states that the space in question can also be identified with the set of lower semicontinuous functions $X \to \overline{\mathbb{R}} := \mathbb{R}\cup\{\pm\infty\}$ such that $f^{-1}(-\infty)$ and the closure of $f^{-1}(+\infty)$ are nowhere dense, again modulo equality on the complement of a meager set.
Meta: I hope someone can post a better answer than this one and clarify the exact relation (under suitable hypotheses on $X$, maybe Baire + T3½) between "real-valued Borel functions modulo meager sets" (as above) and "normal lower-semicontinuous real-valued functions" (or "continuous real-valued functions on the Stone space of the Boolean algebra of regular open sets") as in Dilworth's 1950 paper "The Normal Completion of the Lattice of Continuous Functions" that I mentioned in the comments.  (I suspect the only difference is in boundedness or something like this.)  I must say, I find it maddening that the word "meager" (or "first-category") does not appear anywhere in Dilworth's paper and that no reference to Dilworth's paper appears in the Kusraev & Kutateladze book (even though they seem tantalizingly close).  If the answer is not staring at me in the face, I might ask a different question about this.


Cant do anything on my Htc one m8

Question: My htc one m8 was all good since yesterday. It's age is about one year. The problem is when i open any apps or do anything it's just restart automatically and vanish my previous activity. As a example I uninstall an app then it restart and after restarting the is still there. I also try to factory reset the phone but it's done nothing all my apps was there.Can anyone help.
Thanks in advance.
Comment: This problem also happens into safe mode. I've tried both from settings menu and also recovery menu to factory reset the phone.
Comment: Which brand is it? Is it rooted?
Answer: That's because your memory is read-only! You can't write data to it: the delete operation writes to memory - at least modifies it.
Not sure about what may be causing this, but probably from malwares or as I can think of now a defective eMMC chip like you know those SD Card that suddenly becomes "Write protection enabled" .
I have myself experienced this and never found a solution so far. This seems to happen with HTC, HUAWEI and I had a case involving a Motorola phone.
Comment: Thank you so much for reply. Which memory you are telling about? Imternal or external
Comment: I am not able to change anything to my htc one m8. Every time I try to change something it takes reboots and goes to the same place where the problem starts. I have found others having this issue in this https://androidforums.com/threads/internal-phone-storage-becomes-read-only.347685/. Help me pls. I don't understand the instruction there.
Comment: I mean the internal memory. You may try flashing the firmware to the phone and see if it gonna solve this.

Cant do anything on my Htc one m8


Xcode cannot run using this device

Question: First of all I know that there are already questions like this asked but I could not find an answer so I decided to just ask myself. I am using an iphone 5s for my testing and I have 64 bit arm7 and everything on but after I did a clean I somehow get a message saying:Xcode cannot run using the selected device choose a supporting architecture in order to run on this device.
Thank you in advance.
Answer: check your app it support for x64 bit architecture if it is not change to like below

Xcode cannot run using this device


D&D 3.5 mounted movement in battle

Question: If my gnome rider has the dodge and mobility feats does my riding dog mount gain the benifits of the feats in battle movement?
Answer: No.
Your mount is a separate creature with its own feat selection, and does not automatically have access to your feats. It cannot use the feats it does not have, and the feats in question do not allow to share their benefits.
Answer: As Jeor says, not automatically, but I'd probably allow a player a ride check in order to grant the bonus from the feat to their mount, depending on the feat.
In regards to Dodge and Mobility, I'd probably allow the Dodge bonus on a successful ride check, but not Mobility; the Dodge bonus represents your character's keen reflexes, which you could arguably use to guide your mount out of danger; whereas the Mobility feat is more about your character's personal speed AFAIK.
Comment: Mounted Combat feat (taken by a character) already does what you describe - allows you to get your mount out of the harm's way. Still yours is not an unreasonable houserule - the benefit in question is so minor it would hardly affect anything.

D&D 3.5 mounted movement in battle


How to display the recent user revision in a views block with contextual filters?

Question: We are having a Setup where we need to be able to display User Revision Fields via Views Blocks. We are using the User Revision Module and even fixed a Bug on the Contextual Filter Plugin of that Module.
Lets say the Url is /user/abc/revision/123 everything with a Contextual Filter for the VID on the Path works fine.
The Problem comes when we want to display the last Revision trough the same View because it has not the Revision Url pattern. it is only user/abc
Do i have to write a custom Contextual Filter which can differentiate the Url ? And what is then used instead of the VID ?
Answer: I ended up using PHP Code in the contextual filter:
<code>$cpath = explode('/',current_path());
$path_uid = $cpath[1];
if (array_key_exists(3, $cpath)) {
  $path_vid  =  $cpath[3];
  return $path_vid;
}
else {
  $result = db_query("SELECT vid FROM {user_revision} u WHERE uid = (:uids) ORDER BY vid DESC LIMIT 0,1", array(':uids' => $path_uid))->fetchField();
  return $result;
}
</code>
Would be nice to put this in a custom module so if have to make changes and do not have to touch every display of the view.


How to capture customer email address in a landing page

Question: so I have a link in my email that points to a landing page that I created in exacttarget. I want to capture the email address and save it to a data extension, I also need a date created field in the data extension. Is there anybody know how to do that?
Comment: Make sure you add some code that you have already tried when asking questions.  Some general understanding will help others answer your questions and be respectful of their time as well.
Comment: yes, I understand. but what code? its just a link in the email? what should I put?
Comment: You want to try to do as much research in advanced, and not just ask for code to complete a task.  Glad you were able to get an answer for this and get it working.
Answer: Pass over a query string parameter (you can encrypt this if you like using AMPScript)
The URL will look something like http://linktolanding.com/page.aspx?qs=qwerty&email=%%EmailAddr%%
In your landing page you can retrieve the value by using RequestParameter()
<code>%%[

SET @email = RequestParameter("email")

InsertData("Data Extension Name", "Email", @email)

]%%
</code>
As for creating a date created field in the Data Extension - just navigate to the Data Extension and add a new column called date created with a data type of date and check the box to use today's date as the default. That way you won't need to include a date stamp in the AMPScript function.


Significance of the slope of a straight line fit

Question: I know the significance of the slope of a LMS linear regression can be calculated using the r2 coefficient of determination and looking up the appropriate value in an F table. However, I was thinking of perhaps making this "more robust" by replacing the LMS linear regression with a repeated median straight line fit, and perhaps even replacing the average value used to calculate r2 with the median value of the data. Is there any reason why this would NOT be a valid approach? Maybe the values in an F table are predicated on using LMS and averages, for example?
Answer: No, F tests are based on the assumption that lowest sum of residual squares is optimal. It does not hold in case of robust regression, where the criterion is different.
For instance, effectively one may consider robust regression as least squares on data stripped from outliers; using $r^2$ on all data in this case adds non-culpable penalty for high residuals of outliers.
Answer: No need to reinvent the wheel. There is an alternative, robust, R^2 measure with very good statistical properties:
A robust coefficient of determination for regression, O Renauda
Edit:
*Is there any reason why this would NOT be a valid approach? * For one this does not make your method any more robust. There is a large literature on this issue, and fortunatly, good tools have been designed to adress these points.
Answer: I would simply use the standard regression output to evaluate the significance of the slope coefficient.  I mean by that looking at the coefficient itself, its standard error, t stat (# of standard errors = Coefficient/Standard error), p value, and confidence interval.  The p value directly addresses the statistical significance of the slope or coefficient you have in mind.
R Square of the model tells how well the model explains the dependent variable, or how well the model fits the dependent variable.
The p value of each coefficient tells you how statistically significant those coefficients are.
Very often you can have a model with a high R Square, but that includes one variable with a coefficient that is not statistically significant (its p value is too high).  In such a case, it suggests your model would be nearly as good if you took that variable out.  By the way, you should really focus on the Adjusted R Square instead of R Square.  The Adjusted R Square correctly penalizes the model for having more variable and potentially over-fitting the data with independent variables that are not so relevant.
Answer: It should be possible to use a permutation test to test the significance of the slope.
Under the null, the slope is zero.
Under the assumptions of the model and the null together, there's therefore no association between y and x.
Hence the y's can be shuffled relative to the x to obtain the permutation distribution of the test statistic.
The p-value can be determined by funding the proportion of values at least as extreme as the observed statistic in the null distribution.


Prirority and triggered abilities

Question: When my opponent has a creature with triggered ability "At the beggining of each end step, this creature...." and it's my turn, what happens after this ability goes on the stack? Normally, I get priority at the beggining of each step, and here is the same?
Does it simply go on the stack independently on my opponent and I get priority?
Answer: Triggers do go on stack the first time a player would get priority after their condition has been met, before that player gets priority. In this case that means the triggers will be on the stack before you get priority in the end step, but you will have a chance to act before they resolve.
This timing is explicitly covered in the comprehensive rules:

603.3 Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that's not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 117, "Timing and Priority." The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it's countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

If you wanted to do something before the ability was on stack, you would need to do it in your second main phase - by moving from that phase to the end step (by all players passing priority with the stack empty) you let these triggers go on the stack. As for it going on the stack independent of your opponent, it's your opponent who puts it on the stack, as far as the game is concerned, and makes any modal choices or targeting choices related to that triggered ability.
Answer: Yes, during the end step, each player gains priority in turn order. Anyone with priority can cast instant-speed spells and activate abilities.
Players don't gain priority during all steps and phases, but during most of them. You do gain priority during the end step:

513.1. The end step has no turn-based actions. Once it begins, the active player gets priority.

Abilities that trigger "at the beginning of each end step" go on the stack like they would at any other time their triggering event happens.

117.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event (see rule 704, "State-Based Actions"), then repeats this process until no state-based actions are performed. Then triggered abilities are put on the stack (see rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities"). These steps repeat in order until no further state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the player who would have received priority does so.

If multiple abilities would go on the stack at the same time, their respective controllers decide their order. Then the stack starts resolving as it always would, with each player gaining priority whenever a spell or ability has resolved.

Prirority and triggered abilities


Are you on Facebook

Question: Hi guys and girls,
This is not really a question... Who is using Facebook here?
My profile is http://www.facebook.com/cvrgoje
Comment: This question appears to be off-topic because it is about information that can be shared in profiles.
Answer: I quit last year after I realized that Facebook took too much of my time. Another reason was that communication between friends became kinda weird, because you tend to just drop a message rather than calling someone.
Answer: Still have it to keep in contact with people who don't answer their phones! But other than keeping in touch with old friends that have changed their numbers or don't answer I don't really like it. As mny said it takes up to much time and doesn't do much.
Answer: Am on it, don't really use... Maybe if they added a Don't Like button I might use it more ;)
As William Gibson said "Facebook is like the mall, Twitter is like the street" or someone else said "Facebook makes you hate your friends and Twitter makes you like people you don't know"
Comment: I hate malls, and therefore have never, and still don't, have a Facebook presence of any kind. :-)
Answer: I use FB as a way to contact friends who I don't see often enough (live away from my area), and Twitter is the place to meet lovely people like Sound Designers :)
Answer: I've moved around quite a bit in my life so I find FB invaluable for keeping up with friends.  I also have a page for the studio and while I can't say I've received a job via the FB page I do receive a lot of feedback regarding the postings about what the studio is up to.  John.

Are you on Facebook


Who sent Harry thousands of the same letters?

Question: In the first book/movie, when Harry wasn't allowed to read the letter from Hogwarts, there started a bombardment of thousands of the same letters.
Who was behind this? Was it ever mentioned in canon?
Comment: Stupidity? It seemed to me to be a rather charming way of ensuring that Harry would get ahold of at least one to actually read. I'd downvote if I could.
Comment: @Ernest Friedman-Hill: Harry didn't read the letter until Hagrid delivered it i.e., sending thousands of letters hadn't worked.
Comment: It seemed more like determination to overcome the Dursleys efforts to withhold Harrys mail. I imagine the yard, car and house were fairly covered in owl poop, which in itself would be enough to get me to give the kid his letter.
Answer: Why is it stupid?
This isn't canon, but knowing Dumbledore's sense of humor, he was probably behind it. He showed, in his visit with the Dursleys in Half-Blood Prince that he thought it amusing to do things to annoy them. (Bouncing cups off their heads because they're too stubborn to take them, for example)
Of course, it would have fallen to Professor McGonagall to send the owls, but I still think Dumbledore had a hand in it. I can easily picture him, with a twinkle in his eye telling Professor McGonagall to send them, and her, joyfully complying. (She had a sense of humor, too you know.)
Comment: I agree that it would totally be Dumbledore's style of humor to bombard No. 4 Privet Drive with letters. :)
Comment: @Slytherincess - [SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM and SPAM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE)! Well, he IS British, and probably a MP fan!
Comment: What I like is that we KNOW Hagrid would have had to go ANYWAY (Snape's memories), so there really was no reason other than for fun ^^.
Comment: Could it have actually been a spell connected with the Book and the Pen (forgot what they are called) that keeps sending letters until one is received?
Answer: That would be Hogwarts. The return address was on the back of the envelope, thus indicating who was sending the letters. Professor McGonagall, as Deputy Headmistress of Hogwarts, was in charge of the Hogwarts letters. And, yes, this is in the book. :)
Comment: -1 for no quote (yes, different standards apply to you :)
Comment: By the way, it should be noted that this (without any supporting quotation) is only speculation - it could be the case that McGonagall went to Dumbledore and said "Potter hasn't responded to his letter, whatever should we do?" and Dumbledore said "Send as many letters to him as we have owls in the owlery!  Instruct the owls to break the door down, if they must!".
Comment: +1 to @DVK for humorous observation, without actually giving the -1.
Answer: Hagrid says

"I was allowed ter do a bit ter follow yeh an' get yer letters to yeh an' stuff -- one o' the reasons I was so keen ter take on the job --"

In chapter 4 of Sorcerer's Stone, Hagrid makes the claim that he himself was responsible for delivering and sending Harry's letters. As we know, Hagrid was expelled from Hogwarts and not allowed to use magic, but jumped at this opportunity to send Harry his letters and use as much magic as he liked in the process.
Another quote showing Hagrid was on the job from the start:

"I never expected this," he said, in a low, worried voice. "I had no idea, when Dumbledore told me there might be trouble gettin' hold of yeh, how much yeh didn't know. Ah Harry, I don' know if I'm the right person to tell yeh -- but someone's gotta -- yeh can't go off ter Hogwarts not knowin'."