What precautions are needed when doing electrical work on cables containing asbestos?

Question: I need to install new lighting and old cloth wiring has tested positive for ACM.  I am not doing the work myself, I am hiring an electrician but I will let him know what I have found.  Is there any special precautions he should take.
Comment: Exposure to tiny amounts of Asbestos is not a problem. it's not Plutonium.
Comment: Keep in mind that cloth wiring is generally a problem for reasons that have 0 to do with asbestos and 100% to do with 70+ year old natural rubber being exposed to degrading conditions...(imagine a natural rubber tyre that old, and just how rotten/shot that'd be)
Comment: For what it's worth: My wife & I just spent a few hours this past weekend pulling siding off our house in preparation for an addition. I _highly suspect_ that the siding has asbestos in it. We wore KN95 masks (which don't actually protect against asbestos - it says so on the package) and eye protection. We did our best to avoid breaking the pieces of siding, but many broke anyway. We took showers when we were done & threw the clothes straight into the washer. We'll live. So will you. Do tell the electrician so he can take precautions _he_ decides are necessary.
Comment: *KN95 masks (which don't actually protect against asbestos - it says so on the package)* Actually, any half-way decent mask (and the K95 much more than the basic masks) **will** block a lot, though probably not 95%. But unless tested - and testing costs a fortune - they can't claim that and in fact have to state (effectively) the opposite. Since any mask manufacturer has been able to sell all the masks they want for the past 2-1/2 years, why test for anything extra? And the companies that make tested/certified asbestos PPE get to charge a lot more for that. Therefore, different product lines.
Answer: Turn off the breaker.  Since older wiring often has faults or simply unmarked MWBCs (which cannot be detected by voltage testers), I suggest turning off the main breaker.
For the other risk, look into what Neil DeGrasse Tyson says about "political truths", i.e. if something is repeated often enough the human brain goes "must be true".  And obviously, it isn't.
It turns out there actually is a health risk associated with asbestos, but you have to be a career laborer working around asbestos dust.  Because of this, companies responsible for such laborers set up trust funds to pay out claims for affected workers. There's a tiny amount of legal work involved in getting a claim.  As for publicizing the existence of these trust funds, they decided to leave that to the free market.
The result is dirty lawyers carpet-bombing media with ads trying to identify and retain anyone who worked with asbestos, so they can lock in potential clients, so they can collect a 1/3 contingency fee for ticking a few boxes on some forms.
The side effect of this "feeding frenzy" is triggering that "political truth" that Tyson speaks of.  "Surely asbestos must be more dangerous than dioxin, since it gets more press!" ... Occasional, incidental exposure to non-dusty asbestos a few times in a lifetime is simply not a risk factor. At all.
If you really want to, you can wear any quality COVID-spread-prevention mask, and wipe down the work area afterwards.
Answer: Lawyers in my field are definitely guilty of what has been said here and elsewhere regarding the profession. What's the joke, what do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. Badum bump.
The basic fact is no exposure to asbestos dust should be considered "safe." Your electrician (if he's licensed) will likely already have experience donning PPE for asbestos work. Frankly, I would advise taking precautions with any cloth wiring. But I also wouldn't pretend the sky is falling.
https://youtu.be/ThpITJBQjT0
The latency of symptoms from asbestos exposure is decades, 20-to-50 years, and in the vast majority of cases stems from years of contact. At the same time, secondary exposure to asbestos is real. I have clients who were spouses and children of people who worked with asbestos.
Remember, better safe than sorry. Asbestos fibers don't dissolve. There's NO KNOWN safe level of exposure, but, again, it needs to be airborne. Just touching the wire won't hurt you, but taking a belt sander to it would suggest you're a few eggs short of a dozen.


Did Robert Mueller try to prove a negative?

Question: In Robert Mueller's statements following the conclusion of his investigation said if he had the evidence the president did not commit a crime he would have said so (paraphrasing). This sounds like the clearest example of trying to prove a negative. Logically speaking, you can't prove someone did not do something. Is it possible there is some legal language he was speaking in where this makes sense?
Comment: Also remember that sometimes it IS possible to prove a negative. If I claim someone robbed a bank in New York on the 30th May 2019, and they can prove they were in California for all of that day, then the claim is disproved.
Comment: Downvote for paraphrasing which changes the question.  The actual quote is "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so", which is different from " if he had the evidence the president did not commit a crime he would have said so". They weren't looking for evidence he didn't commit a crime, but if they had found nothing showing Trump _could_ have commited a crime Mueller would have said so.
Comment: Unclear why this was put in hold for discrediting something. No one dislikes trump more than I.  The valid critisim I saw was the phrasing of confinence cvs evidence. I think my misunderstanding makes the question invalid. Should I delete or preserve for future reference on good comment discussion?
Comment: I think you should read http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf Your actual question (as I see it) has little to do with politics. Perhaps ask on philosophy SE if you're still confused.
Answer: For any normal citizen, a prosecutor can arrive at one of three conclusions:

There is no evidence of misdeeds, so file under innocent.
There is not enough evidence of misdeeds to fight in court, so file under innocent.
There is plenty of evidence of misdeeds, so prosecute.

But the US President isn't a normal citizen. There's a DOJ doctrine whereby he's too busy a person to prosecute. Mueller explicitly accepts that doctrine in his report. So his options were:

There is no evidence of misdeeds, so file under innocent.
There is not enough evidence of misdeeds to fight in court, so file under innocent.
There is plenty of evidence of misdeeds, so cannot file under innocent.

Mueller picked option 3, made this explicit in his report, and said so again this week during his press conference. It can be tempting for someone who is partisan to suggest that, actually, this could also mean he picked 2. It could have indeed, except that:

Mueller's report explicitly exonerates a few people on the basis that, while there's some evidence of misdeeds, they fall under option 2. This suggests that while the evidence against, say, Trump's son, wasn't enough to indict, the evidence against Trump himself is more serious.
His report goes on to document a whole slew of evidence that, in the opinion of quite a few former prosecutors, would have led to option 3 for a normal person
His report has an interesting footnote that basically invites to prosecute Trump once he is out of office.
Comment: @JJJ: you're innocent until proven guilty, so it stands to reason that if you decide to not prosecute then you're de facto filing that person under innocent (however much you think there's residual doubt).
Comment: Do prosecutors in the US *"file under innocent"*? Or do they just decide (e.g. based on lack of evidence) not to prosecute? From my limited understanding, one only arrives at the "*innocent*" conclusion (on some count) if the prosecutors did prosecute but a jury finds the defendant not guilty of that count.
Comment: @JeffLambert yea, I think a lot depends on jurisdiction. For example, [Scotland has](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal#Scotland) two types of acquittal: *not guilty* and *not proven* (with double jeopardy not applying to the second). Going through the Wiki page in different languages, it seems many jurisdictions have their own complex exceptions to the rule (of double jeopardy).
Comment: Fair enough, though there is a distinction between being found innocent (by a court of law) and being innocent because you haven't been tried yet. Specifically, if you have been found innocent of something by a court then they cannot just try to prosecute again. If they held of because there wasn't enough evidence they can prosecute later on. How that distinction works in US law, that I don't know. ;)
Comment: @JJJ Of course "file under" is only meant figuratively here. They do not have two large file cabinets, one labelled "innocent" and one labelled "prosecuting", files are certainly rather kept (if we are still talking about paper files) ordered by last name and only marked with conclusions. Option 2 represents the situation that the prosecutor estimates that a win in court would be too unlikely to be worth the effort or (not sure if this applies to US) the potential harmful effect of a probably not-to-be-found-guilty person being exposed to lengthy proceedings.
Comment: @HagenvonEitzen I think my distinction is a bit overlooked (or poorly expressed by me). The principle Denis refers to is the **presumption** of innocence, you cannot just leave out the word *presumption*.
Comment: @JJJ and Denis My understanding is that juries and courts don't generally find someone "innocent," they are only found "not guilty" which is all the determination a court needs to know in order to decide whether punishment needs to be handed out or not. The only people maybe found "innocent" are those who were already convicted and later exonerated.


Do miss chances stack?

Question: Say a paranoid magic user has Blurring bracers of armor, Mirror Image, Blink, Invisibility, Wings of Cover, and Etherealness going. How to calculate the miss chances versus a normal attack, magic attack, force attack, and so forth?
Answer: Don't stack miss chances; instead use the highest miss chance that affects an incoming effect
The Rules Compendium says, "If a creature receives miss chances from multiple sources, such as from being incorporeal and having concealment, only the highest miss chance applies" (32).
Suspicious of the Rules Compendium?
The Rules Compendium—by here expanding yet not contradicting the core rules—, in this case serves its function as the Player's Handbook concerns itself with miss chances due exclusively to concealment (e.g. "Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not stack" (PH 152)).
Comment: @fectin The core rules concern themselves with miss chances exclusively due to concealment ("Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a *blur* spell) do not stack" (*PH* 152)). The *Rules Compendium* expands but doesn't contradict those rules.
Comment: The Compendium had a lot of novel interpretations. Do you recall if that's supported by the SRD?
Comment: The *Player's Handbook* (2000) says, "Do not add the miss chances together" (133), which is much easier but also out of context and pre-*3.5* revision. Also, the *PH*  quotation above is hilarious  in some electronic versions of the *PH* (a product of OCR misinterpretation or mischief I know not) but the hilarity is absent in print versions.

Do miss chances stack?


Forward voltage of LED

Question: Somehow LEDs with a lower forward voltage than the source with a 100 Ω resistor tend to blow up every time the switch is turned on. How can I understand forward voltage better?
Comment: It's unclear what you're asking. Could you elaborate on the problem?
Comment: LEDs, too, may breakdown biased in reverse (just reminding).
Answer: It's not just forward voltage you need to know, you also need to know the rated current. From these, and the supply voltage you can calculate the resistance needed.
Example, you have an LED with a \$V_f\$ of 1.8 V, and a current rating of 20 mA. You are going to connect it to a 5 V supply. To find the resistor needed you have use Ohm's Law which tells us that resistance is voltage divided by current.
So we need to know how much voltage there will be across the resistor, this will be the supply voltage minus \$V_f\$, so 5 V - 1.8 V = 3.2 V.
Now you have the voltage and current, so the resistance needed to limit the current to 20 mA will be 3.2 V / 20 mA = 160 \$\Omega\$. If you had used a 100 \$\Omega\$ resistor the current would be 32 mA and the LED would probably have burned up. To be on the safe side you would go up to the next standard value resistor, 180 \$\Omega\$ and the current would be a little under 18 mA, leaving a little wiggle room.
Comment: Apparently, the higher current is what's making the LED's in the simulator to blow up.
I will consider applying this solution to the simulator.
Answer: LEDs do not have a well specified 'forward voltage', only a range, that varies a bit with temperature, roughly as the logarithm of the current, and a lot from device to device. That means if we design to a 'voltage drop', perhaps we think we want 3.0 V across a white LED, then we will get huge variations in current, perhaps over orders of magnitude, taking us from dim to blown, as the device temperature varies, or we swap in one device for another.
LEDs do however have a well specified current, which will get rated brightness without overheating, or blowing up.
If we have as much or more voltage across a dropper resistor than we have across the LED, then it's possible to choose a resistor and drive voltage to give us a suitable current. The LED forward voltage variations will be swamped by the extra voltage across the resistor.
However, that's wasteful of voltage drop, and what we invariably do when we can is to current-drive LEDs. This is most efficient when done from a switch-mode constant current power supply.
It's best to think of 'LED forward voltage' as the voltage that happens to develop across a LED when driven by its rated current, which is the minimum output voltage a constant current LED driver should produce.
Comment: Forward voltage is an approximation, but it does exist.
Answer: The problem stems from assuming a current-limiting resistor value of 100 Ω
instead of calculating the required value.
The following schematic will be of help.

Vs - Supply voltage
Vf - LED forward voltage
If - LED forward current
R Ω  - Value of current-limiting resistor
Vr - Voltage drop across the resistor.
The resistance value is to be calculated.
Vs = Vr + Vf
Vr = Vs - Vf
Vr = If x R
R = Vr / If
Answer: Heat sink!
If these are illumination LEDs, they may require a heat sink.  Make sure that is dealt with.
Any lighting LED will fry if it's not appropriately heat sinked.
Don't guess at resistor value
Others have explained the math.  If you can't be bothered to crunch the numbers, then start with about ten 100 ohm resistors in series with the LED and an ammeter.  Bypass resistors one at a time until the LED gets bright and the ammeter shows an appropriate value for current.

Forward voltage of LED


Are Libertarians for or against prohibitions on insider trading?

Question: Now, unless I'm missing something, I'm fairly certain that Libertarians aren't PRO insider trading. That said, are they for or against rules prohibiting it? Or do they view it kinda like hostile takeovers, a kind of unavoidable evil of the system?
Comment: It bears noting that insider trading is a fairly sophisticated concept which many rank and file libertarians aren't familiar with period and have no opinion on, let alone an informed opinion tied to their deeper political principles. Even though libertarian rank and file voters are probably more likely to be familiar with what insider trading is than Dems or Republicans, I doubt that even 20% of libertarian rank and file voters could accurately define what insider trading is, and that fewer than 10% could accurately describe its legal status in the status quo. These answers are re elite views.
Comment: Is this question limited to the United States and the Libertarian Party?
Comment: I was more referring to the libertarian ideology. Though, I will admit my perspective is based in the USA, but I meant the question to be more general than that.
Answer: Many libertarians think insider trading should be allowed. One argument goes like this, information will allow people to make money, but if insider trading is prohibited, then the people making the money are just information hawks instead of insiders. Average people still aren't being protected by insider trading laws. For example Warren C. Gibson argues on an article with the Foundation for Economic Education:

What happens when insiders are not allowed to trade on an important piece of news? That news will get out eventually, and the first people to find out about it will be outsiders just beyond the gates. These will very likely be securities analysts, whose full-time job is to keep abreast of developments in public companies. So they, the firms they work for, and their clients would be the first to benefit from the news. The news will eventually reach most shareholders, but later than it would otherwise. Instead of early profits accruing to insiders, they will accrue to professionals, and this makes no difference to most shareholders, especially long-term shareholders.

Another concern is that defining terms critical to insider trading lawsuits is very subjective and vague. Libertarians are very skeptical of the ability of democratic government to do anything complex without succumbing to corrupt special interests. Gibson continues with this argument:

Vagueness and subjectivity make insider trading well-nigh impossible to police. Difficult as it is to decide whether a particular transaction violated the rules, it is impossible to police nontrading. What if an insider had planned to sell but, having heard inside good news, decides to hold instead? Insider gains from such inaction could be very real but impossible to detect or punish.

Cato institute (a libertarian think tank) scholar Doug Bandow make similar arguments, saying:

The objective of insider trading laws is counter-intuitive: prevent people from using and markets from adjusting to the most accurate and timely information. The rules target "non-public" information, a legal, not economic concept. As a result, we are supposed to make today's trades based on yesterday's information.
Unfortunately, keeping people ignorant is economic folly. We make more
  bad decisions, and markets take longer to adjust.

Gibson proposes that instead of using the state to prosecute insider trading, corporate bylaws should define what insider trading is and how it should be punished financially. If corporations defined and punished insider trading, then competition would lead to more effective ways of getting back money from fraudulent insiders especially compared to relying on a stagnant government bureaucracy.
Another libertarian approach to reform insider trading laws, here expressed in an article from the Foundation for Economic Education, is to let corporations opt out of insider trading protections.

[insider trading] can increase the general efficiency
  of financial markets. Instead of an outright prohibition,
  no trading on insider information could be the
  default policy for corporations, but they could opt out
  in favor of a policy allowing insider trading by making
  that policy clearly and widely known.

This idea comes from the framework of libertarian paternalism. The government should be there with basic guidelines, but companies should be free to make their own choices. This approach recognizes the downsides of allowing unlimited insider trading, but accepts that their might be upsides policymakers can't see and lets people choose for themselves where to put their money.
A theoretical objection to insider trading is the strong efficient market hypothesis(EMH). Weaker efficient market hypotheses say that people can't make money off of publicly available information. Many people believe this. The strong efficient market hypothesis states that individuals cannot beat the market even if using inside information. One example definition is:

The strong form of EMH assumes that current stock prices fully reflect all public and private information. It contends that market, non-market and inside information is all factored into security prices and that no one has monopolistic access to relevant information. It assumes a perfect market and concludes that excess returns are impossible to achieve consistently.

If you think markets are strongly efficient, then insider trading is not a problem. I don't think all libertarians believe that it's impossible to make money off of insider information, but their faith in markets means many libertarians find the strong EMH more compelling than the average voter.
Comment: I was asking for a yes or no, but this is awesome! Thx, m8! :D
Comment: So... basically the argument is similar to rules against scientific research into things like AI; where you can argue that while AI taking jobs may be bad; the answer isn't to fruitlessly hold back research. Something akin to that?
Comment: I would think the first people to use inside information are friends and family at the moment.
Answer: Professor Bainbridge a leading conservative corporate law scholar who is a professor at a law school is a pretty strong opponent of insider trading on balance. He is a fairly informed critic of this having written a book on it.
Admittedly he is arguably more socially conservative in connection with his devout Roman Catholic religious beliefs than many people who would classify themselves a libertarian. But, the arguments that he advances for not regulating insider trading as a crime in the manner that we currently do would be essentially the same ones that a libertarian would make on the subject as "socially liberal" issues really have little to say about an almost purely economic issue like insider trading. For example, pretty much any view regarding insider trading can be consistent with Roman Catholic positions on the sanctity of life.
Probably the best way to sum up his views, with apologies to a much more nuanced position, is that inside information should be viewed a property of a corporation rather than something that it "breaks the rules" to disclose, so civil lawsuit enforcement by the owner of the information ought to be the limit of any regulation.


Ways in Which TCP/IP Stack Fails?

Question: In a variety of books and learning materials, we're told that if pinging the localhost/loopback address fails, this is a sign of a malfunctioning TCP/IP stack. What we aren't told is why/how this may happen. I've searched and found ways in rebuilding the stack, but haven't been able to find why a TCP/IP stack would fail if it had been functional previously, and I've personally never had a failure, and rarely see problems relating to a failed stack. Obviously the latter is subjective, but I mean more so in a general sense; help boards, technical issues discussed, etc.
Answer: I'm not sure why you included the phrase "if it had been functional previously". Does that really relate to the learning materials you mention?
If you omit that phrase -- yes, I've seen malfunctionaing TCP/IP stacks. After all, they consist of several layers, each of which must be correctly registered with the operating system.
If you don't omit that phrase -- you can still imagine changing BIOS settings, or an additional driver must be loaded such that the kernel runs out of resources (semaphores, memory pools, ...) required for the new configuration, due to inconsistent settings.
Comment: The "...if it had been functioning previously...", was more so to better understand how and why the TCP/IP stack can fail/no longer work.

Ways in Which TCP/IP Stack Fails?


What does "goddamn" mean exactly?

Question: I thought it means "damned by God" until I read that Christians may find it offensive, hence I thought it may mean cursing G*d (God forbid) not God cursing! Which is it?
Comment: It's "reduced" from ***May** God damn [you / it / the thing causing vexation]* - or feasibly *May God damn me [if I lie]*, as with *Cor Blimey! = May God blind me [if I lie]*.
Answer: It means very little.  If someone says "I can't find the goddamn remote control", it has the same meaning as "I can't find the remote control".  The curse word just indicates the speaker's frustration.
It comes from "God damn" - exactly as you say "damned by God", ie judged and doomed to punishment in Hell.  Taken literally the speaker is saying that the remote control has been (or should be) sent to eternal suffering (!)
There are people (particularly some Christians and Muslims) who may find it offensive because it invokes God and punishment in Hell in a trivial or casual way.
However, I notice you are from Iran.  The vast majority of people in the UK are much more relaxed about religion than in Iran. "Goddamn" is coarse, but not offensive to the vast majority of English people, most of whom aren't Christian.
The expression is very old. Most slang is less than 100 years old, and slang from 20 years ago can seem dated.  This dates back to at least the 14th century, and was common enough that French soldiers would refer to English soldiers as "Goddem". (etymoline)
Comment: One of the "10 commandments" is not to invoke the name of God without reverence, and Christians extend this to not joking about God or using the idea of the Judgement of God to express frustration or insult someone.  And not just some Christians, some Muslims feel that jokes about religion are improper.  On the other hand, many Christians don't see this as being particularly problematic.
Comment: @Juhasz personal experience, and the S.E. userpage of the OP. If I wanted stats I'm sure I could find them.
Comment: Years ago, one use used to see it written in direct speech in novels as `God-damn'` (with a final apostrophe to indicate the missing 'ed' of 'damned').
Comment: In the 1990s, I heard of Brits being called _les fuck-offs_ by French people. I used to make my French friends laugh when I called the UK _chez les rosbifs_.
Comment: My father used to call people he despised 'damned fools''.
Comment: "The vast majority of people in the UK are much more relaxed about religion than in Iran."  What are you basing this on?  The *government* of Iran is clearly not relaxed about religion, but most people seem to be not especially religious.  My Iranian mother-in-law might say "ay khoda-ye man" ("oh my God") at least once an hour.
Comment: @Juhasz - I just finished watching a TV series starring two British Muslims, one an Imam, both of whom would be very respectful of their religion one minute, whilst goddamning the next - just in the way many Brits would these days - each completely in context with the motives of the dialog at that point. Many expletives are used in 'haste' with absolutely no conscious realisation of what the words themselves actually mean.
Answer: American English speakers often refer to the use of all kinds of offensive words as "cursing" (or 'cussing'). Actually, "God damn" is probably one of the few utterances that is really a 'curse'. Originally, if someone said "God damn you" it meant that you were wishing that God would 'damn' the person, meaning send them to hell. A 'curse' literally means to declare or threaten evil upon a person by supernatural means.
These days, few people would actually believe that such words would have that literal result - even Christians. The teachings of Christ actually state that persons should not wish evil upon or judge others!
The reason why many Christians object to language such as "God damn", "oh my God", or any use of 'God' is because they equate it with the command in the Hebrew scriptures (canon to both Jews and Christians) at Exodus 20:7 to "not take the name of the LORD your God in vain". "In vain" could be rendered as "in a worthless way", so any mention of God that is trivial or unnecessary could be seen as breaking this commandment. Ironically, the actual name of God found in the original Hebrew texts was removed by many translators - wherever you see 'LORD' in capital letters as in the quotation above this denotes in many English translations that this is a substitute for God's name. 'God' is simply a title, so using this is not strictly taking his 'name' in vain.
To sum up - religious people mostly object to curse words that mention God simply on the basis that it is a misuse of the word as a 'swear' word, not because of any historic meaning as a literal 'curse'. The fact that most swear words could be substituted for any number of other words to add the same emphasis shows that any literal meaning has long since been lost.

What does "goddamn" mean exactly?


UDP broadcast using CFSocket on IOS

Question: Have been doing some google search and some reading on this subject but cannot seem to get it right no matter how much time i spent searching.
What i want to do is to receive broadcast message of devices that are connected on my network by advertising my interest in their services that they supply. Using wireshark i can see the broadcast/notification messages from the network devices that i want to connect to sent over my network but not my broadcast search for interest of their services.
But with network utility i can see that the socket is created but don't know which state it is in, whether listen or connected.
Yes i know that there are libraries that i can use to do this, but i wanted to build something of my own from the ground up and get a better understand of how it works.
MySocket.h
<code>#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import <CoreFoundation/CoreFoundation.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <arpa/inet.h>
#if TARGET_OS_IPHONE
#import <CFNetwork/CFNetwork.h>
#endif

 @interface MySocket : NSObject
 {
    NSString* _message;
    CFSocketRef cfSocket;
    CFRunLoopSourceRef cfSource;

 }

 - (void)listen;
 @end
</code>
MySocket.m
<code>#import "MySocket.h"

#define MAX_UDP_DATAGRAM_SIZE 65507

@implementation MySocket

static void socketCallback(CFSocketRef cfSocket, CFSocketCallBackType
                           type, CFDataRef address, const void *data, void *userInfo)
{
    NSLog(@"socketCAllBAck was called");
}

- (void)listen
{
    //Enable broadcast to network hosts
    int yes = 1;
    int setSockResult = 0;
    _message = [[NSMutableString alloc ] initWithString: @"M-SEARCH *HTTP/1.1\r\nHOST:22.214.171.124:1900\r\nMAN:\"ssdp:discover\"\r\nST:ssdp:all\r\nMX:1\r\n\r\n"];

    CFSocketContext socketContext = {0, self, NULL, NULL, NULL};

    /* Create the server socket as a UDP IPv4 socket and set a callback */
    /* for calls to the socket's lower-level accept() function */
    cfSocket = CFSocketCreate(NULL, PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP,
                              kCFSocketAcceptCallBack | kCFSocketDataCallBack , (CFSocketCallBack)socketCallback, &socketContext);
    if (cfSocket == NULL)
        NSLog(@"UDP socket could not be created\n");

    /* Re-use local addresses, if they're still in TIME_WAIT */
   setSockResult = setsockopt(CFSocketGetNative(cfSocket), SOL_SOCKET, SO_BROADCAST, (void *)&yes, sizeof(yes));

    if(setSockResult < 0)
        NSLog(@"Could not setsockopt for broabcast");

    /* Set the port and address we want to listen on */
    struct sockaddr_in addr;
    memset(&addr, 0, sizeof(addr));
    addr.sin_len = sizeof(addr);
    addr.sin_family = AF_INET;
    addr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr("184.108.40.206");
    //inet_pton(AF_INET, "22.214.171.124", &(addr.sin_addr));

    addr.sin_port = htons(1900);
    //addr.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY);

    NSData *address = [ NSData dataWithBytes: &addr length: sizeof(addr) ];
    if (address != nil && CFSocketSetAddress(cfSocket, (CFDataRef) address) != kCFSocketSuccess) {
        NSLog(@"CFSocketSetAddress() failed\n");
        CFRelease(cfSocket);
    }

    CFDataRef data = CFDataCreate(NULL, (const UInt8*)[_message UTF8String], [_message lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]);

    setSockResult = CFSocketSendData(cfSocket, (CFDataRef)address, data, 0.0);
    if(kCFSocketSuccess != setSockResult) NSLog(@"Unable to send data, %i", setSockResult);
    else NSLog(@"Sending data");

    cfSource = CFSocketCreateRunLoopSource(kCFAllocatorDefault, cfSocket, 0);

    if(cfSource == NULL)
        NSLog(@"CFRunLoopSourceRef is null");

    CFRunLoopAddSource(CFRunLoopGetCurrent(), cfSource, kCFRunLoopDefaultMode);

    NSLog(@"Socket listening on port 1900");

        CFRelease(cfSource);
    CFRelease(cfSocket);
    [address release];
    data = nil;
    CFRunLoopRun();
}

- (void)dealloc
{
    CFRunLoopRemoveSource(CFRunLoopGetCurrent(), cfSource, kCFRunLoopDefaultMode);
    CFRelease(cfSource);
    CFRelease(cfSocket);
    [_message release];
    [super dealloc];
}

@end
</code>
Edit: Everything runs well until the call to send data.
Is there something small but critical in order for this to work that i'm missing?
Or i'm missing the big picture?
Any help or guide is appreciated.
Thanks in advance and have a nice weekend
Answer: remove SetAdress and all will be work fine. i've tested this now;
Answer: How about use this initialization with address
<code>CFDataRef address=CFDataCreate(kCFAllocatorDefault,(UInt8 *)&addr,sizeof(addr));
</code>

UDP broadcast using CFSocket on IOS


Derivative with respect to perturbation in QM

Question: The book "Introduction to Computational Chemistry" by Frank Jensen claims the following (Eq. 10.35):
Let $H(\lambda) = H_0 + \lambda V$ be a Hamiltonian parametrized by a perturbation strength of $\lambda$ and $\Psi_i^{(0)}$ , a complete set of eigenfunctions of $H_0$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\left \lvert \frac{d\Psi_i(\lambda)}{d\lambda}\bigg|_{\lambda=0} \right\rangle = \sum_{k \neq i} \frac{\langle \Psi_k^{(0)} | V | \Psi_i^{(0)} \rangle}{E_i - E_k} |\Psi_k^{(0)}\rangle.
\end{equation}
Now if $\Psi_i(\lambda)$ is analytical, then from the standard derivations of time-independent perturbation theory, the above is true. But I have heard that often perturbation theory is not convergent (e.g. quartic perturbation to harmonic oscillator).
Does the above still make sense somehow (e.g. that the divergences only occur in higher-order terms) or is it plainly wrong in general? Maybe somebody will have an example where both sides of the equation can be determined exactly (note that both sides of the equation are well-defined quantities).
Comment: This is discussed in [The anharmonic oscillator: a singular perturbation theory* BARRY SIMON](http://math.caltech.edu/SimonPapers/R2.pdf) . I could not find a more recent treatment.
Answer: Both Sides of the Equation can be determined exactly for the harmonic oscillator, $V_h=w^2x^2$, with linear perturbation, $V_p = \lambda x$. You can solve it exactly and second order perturbation gets you the exact energy shift.
To solve it exactly complete the square of the total potential $V_T=w^2x^2+ \lambda x$.  Doing this will get you $V_T = w^2(x+\lambda /2)^2 - w^2 \lambda^2/4$ which is just a shifted harmonic oscillator. To solve it perturbative, rewrite the perturbed potential with raising and lowering operators:
$$\lambda x = \lambda \sqrt{2 \hbar\over{mw}} (a + a^\dagger)$$
So \begin{align}\left \lvert \frac{d\Psi_i(\lambda)}{d\lambda}\bigg|_{\lambda=0} \right\rangle & = \sum_{k \neq i} \frac{\left\langle \Psi_k^{(0)} |  \lambda \sqrt{2 \hbar\over{mw}} (a + a^\dagger) | \Psi_i^{(0)} \right\rangle}{E_i - E_k} \left|\Psi_k^{(0)}\right\rangle\\ &= \frac{\left\langle \Psi_{i-1}^{(0)} |  \lambda \sqrt{2 \hbar\over{mw}} a | \Psi_i^{(0)} \right\rangle}{E_i - E_{i-1}} \left|\Psi_{i-1}^{(0)}\right\rangle +\frac{\left\langle \Psi_{i+1}^{(0)} |  \lambda \sqrt{2 \hbar\over{mw}} a ^ {\dagger} | \Psi_i^{(0)} \right\rangle}{E_i - E_{i+1}} \left|\Psi_{i+1}^{(0)}\right\rangle\end{align}
At higher orders, the raising and lowering operators will mix more and more states, but there will only ever be a finite sum so at any given order there will be no divergence since $E_k$ isn't equal to $E_i$.  If you calculate energy shifts,  you should get 0 at first order and $-w^2 {\lambda}^2/4$ as suggested by the exact solution.
Only time you get divergences is if $\dfrac{\lambda}{E_k-E_i} >1$ and thus your series as a whole diverges(thus truly invalidating perturbation theory). Or if your eigenstates are degenerate (i.e. $E_i =E_k$)  and this divergence can be avoided by a proper choice of basis for the degenerate states.  The proper choice is one which diagonalizes V. This way the degenerate states that would have a 0 in the denominator have a 0 in the numerator since the numerator is the off diagonal term in the potential:
$$\left\langle \Psi_{k}^{(0)} | V | \Psi_i^{(0)} \right\rangle=0$$
This is most likely what you hear when there are divergences.  This is very often talked about in field theory, where this is a more serious problem because your eigenstates are infinitely degenerate, but we can still make sense of perturbation theory using tools like Renormalization Group.
So to answer your question: Yes, you can still  make sense of it as long as the divergence is due to degeneracy, not from being outside the realm of perturbation theory.
Answer: It's true that perturbation theory is usually not convergent (a different issue from the question of whether the individual terms is the series are finite, which is what Shane's old answer adresses), but the derivatives of quantities  at $\lambda=0$ are given correctly by the standard formulae.


Update from group query without creating a physical table

Question: I have a table named ECD which is like this:
Cle2                 Mont           Lettrage
acbd....            +8,36            Suspens
abcd...             -8,36            Suspens
dced..              +12,89          Suspens
dced..              -12,89           Suspens

Where
Cle2 is the field that identifies the records in the table which belong to the same group
Mont is the field that stores the amount per record
Lettrage is the field that stores a label that will change according to the resut of my query.
What I have to do is basically group the table ECD by Cle2 and in the meanwhile sum the values of Mont (Sum(Mont)) then check if the values in Mont summed and grouped by cle2 are equal to zero or not. If they are equal to zero, I update Lettrage labelling those records as OK, if not I label those records as SUSPENS!
I've already done this in access but the code is not so efficient what I basically do is :
1, Create a new table called provisional
2, Insert into this table the values of the select Query
Code:
INSERT INTO Provisor
SELECT Cle2 As Cle2p, Sum(MONTANT_ORACLE) AS Sum
FROM ECD
GROUP BY Cle2

3, Create a table ECD2, empty, with the same fields as ECD
4, Insert into this table the result of the join statement like this:
Code:
INSERT INTO ECDlet1
SELECT Provisor.lettrage As Let2, ecd.*
FROM Provisor
LEFT JOIN ECD ON Provisor.[Cle2p]=ECD.Cle2

5, Then clean the db and update the Lettrage with the right label
So what I'd like to do is do something like this without creating all those stupid physical tables
I want to underline that I execute the query in the Visual Basic by using The CurrentDb.Execute statement.
Thank you in advance for your answers!
Answer: How about:
UPDATE ECD
SET ECD.lettrage = IIf(DSum("Mont","ECD","cle2='" & [cle2] & "'")=0,"Ok","Suspens");


Pass string parameters to the model construct in Magento 2

Question: What is the best way to pass some not predifined string to model construct in Magento 2 with di.xml?
I have an api class which requires incoming params like service url, login and license key which i want to take from config section.
Comment: Can't you just inject in your class and instance of the config model and then read the values from the config?
Comment: Yes it is possible, but i want to keep api class independent from config class and just pass required information to construct.
Comment: I'm not 100% sure but I think you cannot inject a dynamic value through `di.xml`. From my point of view, if you need in your class a value from config, this means that your class depends on the config class. But I may be wrong.
Answer: The correct answer would be, you dont do this.
You have at least a data Object.
But Maybe you are more searching for the Configuration parts already existent in Magento1. You can use them like here and like in Magento1 you can create a default entry for this configs, so you dont need to add a real input field in the system config.


In Laravel Factories, what is the difference from "state" and "defineAs"?

Question: What is the difference, in Laravel's Factories, from using the method state and the method defineAs?
Is state just an extension of the base method and defineAs a whole different definition? Could you present some examples to make it easier to understand?
Answer: The methods state and defineAs serve completely different purposes.
define and defineAs
You register a factory for a model using the define method which you provide with a class and a callback. For example, if you are creating a factory for the User model then you would register it like this:
$factory->define(App\User::class, function (Faker $faker) {
    // set values here
});

Then you would call the factory like so:
factory(App\User::class)->make();

However, sometimes you may wish to register a factory using a name instead of the class, so that you could call the factory like this:
factory('user')->make();

That's where defineAs comes in: defineAs accepts a class (e.g: App\User::class) and a name. For example:
$factory->define(App\User::class, 'user', function (Faker $faker) {
    // set values here
});

defineAs isn't documented but you can find it in the Eloquent source.

Factory States
Factory States are used for generating models with a specific set of attributes:

States allow you to define discrete modifications that can be applied to your model factories in any combination.

For example, your User model may have an additional is_admin field which determines if the user is an admin or not. You can create a state to allow for a user who is an admin to be generated through the factory.
First you define your state (where admin is the name):
$factory->state(App\User::class, 'admin', [
    'is_admin' => true,
]);

Then when generating your user you pass in the admin state:
factory(App\User::class)->states('admin')->make();

This means that you can have a single factory for your User model that supports many different types of User; you could create a state for banned users, or users who have a picture associated with their account, all within the same factory. This is extra beneficial because it means developers don't need to be concerned with the underlying structure when using factories, and if the underlying structure changes (e.g: is_admin becomes administrator_at) only the factory needs to be changed.
Comment: The defineAs method is removed in Laravel 7.x. See:
[Eloquent source 7.x](https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/7.x/src/Illuminate/Database/Eloquent/Factory.php)
Comment: The correct usage is `factory(User::class, 'admin')->make()`, not `factory('admin')->make()`.
Comment: @MaksimIvanov You are absolutely right, but that is what he wrote. `factory('admin')->make()` is what you would wish to do and `factory(User::class, 'admin')->make()` is how you do it
Comment: Oh my confusion was About `->state & ->states` . thanks.
Answer: The answer before says that defineAs is like an alias or a shorthand name but it is wrong! If you make:
factory('user')->create(); //it won't work

defineAs and states are pretty much the same with a slightly difference.
In version prior to 5.2 states were called states https://laravel.com/docs/5.2/testing#model-factories
So defineAs creates a different model type when you are creating a model, based in a raw model to set common attributes like this:
$factory->define(App\User::class, function ($faker) {
    return [
        'name' => $faker->name,
        'email' => $faker->email,
        'password' => str_random(10),
        'remember_token' => str_random(10),
        'admin' => false,
    ];
});

$factory->defineAs(App\User::class, 'admin', function ($faker) use ($factory) {
    $user = $factory->raw(App\User::class);

    return array_merge($user, ['admin' => true]);
});

while states are doing the same but in a better fashion way like this:
$factory->state(App\User::class, 'address', function ($faker) {
    return [
        'admin' => true,
    ];
});

Or even without a callback, just an array:
$factory->state(App\User::class, 'address', [
    'admin' => true,
});

The other difference is that define fires an event (afterCreating) called once the object is persisted in database and states will fire an event afterCreatingState.
Also, you can create an object with multiple states like this:
factory(App\User::class)->states('admin', 'disable')->create()


Async Call To Services

Question: Is there any time it would not be a good idea to call web services async? My data layer is a REST-based interface and I thinking of adopting an async-only approach to all the CRUD in the system. Is there anything I should know?
Answer: I guess not! After so many months of non-response, I guess I should just stay with my conclusion that it's all good ... if I can cope with the additional code complexity of handling async operations.
However, a proof of concept that puts some metrics around the difference using proper message size, data load and user load models, network infrastructure and server resources will be a very definitive approach.
Answer: You should be fine. Web calls are actually one of the major reasons that async is good. Since web calls can take quite a bit of time, you don't want that happening on the UI thread, as it's obviously going to block. The only things you need to worry about are the fact that you aren't going to be able to use session like you normally could (you CAN use sessionstate="readonly"), and certain types of I/O operations can still block, even if your code it set up to be async. But by and large you should be fine with the async approach.

Async Call To Services


Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise

Question: What does this mean? "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise"
Comment: This has been answered on Bible Hermeneutics [What is meant by 'Paradise'](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/473/what-was-meant-by-paradise-when-jesus-spoke-to-the-thief-on-the-cross)
Comment: Welcome to the site, F. Mcintyre. If your question could provide a bit more information / research, that would be helpful. It's also important to direct your Q to particular religious groups as they usually give different answers. For instance, some groups take issue with where the comma should be placed. To attract answers, you need to be more specific. Do take the Christianity Stack tour to learn more about us:  christianity.stackexchange.com/tour This shows how we are different to other sites.
Comment: Welcome to Christianity Stack Exchange. When you have a moment, please take the Christianity Stack tour to learn more about us. This is a site that discusses the beliefs of many different Christian denominations and traditions. You need to specify the Christian tradition or denomination from which you seek answers and avoid questions that are primarily opinion-based. Good questions show research and provide evidence of any claims made. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tour
Comment: I believe this is still a unique question as @F. Mcintyre asked for the meaning of the whole text, and not simply the word "Paradise". If he changes his question then it may be a duplicate.
Answer: From the SDA perspective this is a problematic text, as we believe (according to the Bible) that when people die they don't immediately go to hell or heaven. This text seems to contradict many Scriptures in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 9:5, The dead don't know anything
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, The righteous dead are sleeping, awaiting resurrection at the return of Christ.
John 5:28-29, Some shall be raised in the resurrection of life and some shall be raised in the resurrection of damnation.
John 11:1-16, Jesus calls Lazarus death a "sleep", and his resurrection "waking him up".

There are many more, but this suffices to show why this verse is at odds with the text you are referring to:

And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in
  Paradise."
Luke 23:43

1. The verse numbers and punctuation are not inspired
In the original Greek, the verse numbers and punctuation were not present, so these were added later by translators to make sense of the text. This means that the verse could be:
a. And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."
b. And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise."
This single comma changes the meaning of the verse dramatically. But which is correct? There are two reasons why I believe the second is correct, but first we must understand where Jesus was referring to as 'Paradise'.
2. Paradise is heaven, where the Father is
Paradise of God is where the Tree of Life is.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
  churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of
  life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Revelation 2:7

In 1 Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul also refers to this Paradise.
The Tree of Life is where the very throne of the Father and the
Lamb(Christ) are:

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,
  proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of
  the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree
  of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit
  every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the
  nations.
Revelation 22:1-2

3. Were they in Paradise that day?
In order for the normal reading of Luke 23:43 to be true 2 things MUST be true:
1. The thief was in Paradise that very day (Friday).
2. Jesus was in Paradise that very day (Friday).
IF EITHER OF THESE WAS NOT TRUE, THEN THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE
It is likely that the thief did not die on Friday as the Sabbath was drawing near and the thieves were still not dead, prompting the Jews to ask for their legs to be broken to finish them off.

Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should
  not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high
  day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that
  they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of
  the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they
  came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His
  legs.
John 19:31-33

I concede that it is possible the thief could have died on Friday though but what about Jesus?
4. Jesus did not go to Paradise of Friday
Jesus died on Friday, was in the grave on Sabbath, and resurrected on Sunday. On Sunday morning, Jesus said the following to Mary:

Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended
  to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending
  to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.' "
John 20:17

Jesus said He had not ascended to the Father, which means He was NOT in Paradise on Friday, since He had not gone on Sunday yet. Because of this I believe the correct reading of Luke 23:43 is

And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be
  with Me in Paradise."
Comment: @Dan The separation of body and soul as separate living entities is not Biblical but spiritism. It opens the way for things God forbade such as communication with the dead. It also makes God a liar and the serpent truthful, as God said that the soul that sins shall die, but the serpent says "you shall not surely die". It is an inversion of the Bible, and in my eyes, dangerous theology not grounded in the Bible.
Comment: I'd like to offer 2 references about the placement of the comma in the history of greek manuscripts, highlighting what is at stake (the doctrine of soul sleep): [this](https://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/118-5-today-paradise.htm) and [this](https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/06/the-significance-of-a-comma:-an-analysis-of-luke-23:43).
Comment: About point 1. The thieves not dying on Friday. I think the whole point of the text is they wanted to speed up their deaths, that were, inevitable anyways. They surely didn't last for long.
As for Jesus, I'd point out that while corporal he was on earth, his spirit never ceased to be in Heaven with God (God, and Jesus being God, is omnipresent.)
Comment: @Dan I don't really agree with this interpretation as it doesn't seem to be really Biblical. As Jesus Himself said to Mary, He hadn't ascended to the Father. If Jesus was already there in "spiritual" form, why would He need to ascend? Also, when Jesus says to the Father, "Into your hands I commend my spirit" the Bible says Jesus "gave up the ghost". Why would He commend His spirit and give it up if it was already with the Father to begin with. It doesn't make sense.
Comment: @JesusIsComingSoon starting to agree with you my dear friend...
Comment: @Dan And thank you for your comments my dear brother. Blessings!


Self-employed: Is the HST portion of my invoice to be included in my taxable income?

Question: I am self-employed and charge and receive HST.  I file an HST return so any monies are returned to the government.   Is the HST portion of my invoice to be included in my taxable income?
Answer: No. It is recorded in a contra account that washes itself out after each submission. Any monies "earned" in this account would be deemed income.


Is it possible to create a quantum computer with a double-slit or Stern-Gerlach apparatus?

Question: If we choose double-slit, can we put multiple "slits" and create calculation for just one algorithm (problem, solution...)?
Not general purpose quantum CPU, just for one.
Same question for Stern-Gerlach.
Answer: To all intents and purposes, the double-slit experiment is the same as the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (a photon can go one of two paths before interfering at the output). Since the Mach-Zehnder interferometer implements Deutsch's algorithm, you could claim that the double slit experiment will do the same. Effectively, what you'd be talking about is by putting a piece of glass (of the correct optical depth) over one of the two slits, or not, creating two different interference patterns. If you can tell which pattern you've got, you can tell if the piece of glass is there or not.
However, what you lose is any evidence of a speed-up. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer works with a single photon, so it has a clear interpretation as `a single run of the computation', compared to the equivalent classical calculation, which requires two runs. Once you go over to the double slit, you need to create an interference pattern. To observe that, you're going to need many photons.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment is basically just a measurement of a qubit in a specific basis. You need more than that for an algorithm....
Answer: To get a quantum gate with single photons, you need something of the form:
$$(|0\rangle+e^{i*0}|1\rangle)|1\rangle \rightarrow (|0\rangle+e^{i\pi}|1\rangle)|1\rangle$$
Putting this in English, it means that a second photon causes a phase shift in the first photon. This type of interaction can't occur simply by overlapping or interfering photons, but requires a "nonlinear" interaction where one photon sort-of "pushes" the other. In a lab setting, this typically happens through some other material. For instance, a photon shining on a gas of atoms might change the energy of the gas, which will change the properties of the medium, and the second photon will experience a different phase as a result. (For example, maybe the first photon causes the medium to slow down the speed of the second photon).
Getting these types of interactions to work (where one photon changes the phase of a second photon) is extremely difficult and is an active field of research. If it was developed, then it would be a big deal - and we wouldn't just have another competitor for a new quantum computing architecture, but we would also be able to do some interesting things like quantum nondemolition measurement.


String conversion with sed

Question: I have a couple lines in my input where I am initializing structs. Everytime I see something like the following line in the input file:
something1 = (struct something2){ something3, something4};
I need to convert it to:
init_something2( &something1, something3, something4);
I used the following function and it works.
sed -e 's/\([a-zA-Z0-9]*\)\s*=\s*(\s*struct\s\([a-zA-Z0-9]*\)\s*)\s*{\s*\([a-zA-Z0-9]*\)\s*,\s*\([a-zA-Z0-9]*\)\s*}\s*;/init_\2( \&\1, \3, \4);/g'

My question is how do I modify it so it will work for however many inputs.
Can you modify it to do any number of inputs. Like for example:
something = ( struct something2) {something3, something4, something5, something6..};

should become
init_something2( &something1, something3, something4, something5, something6..);

(Pay attention to the paranthesis vs braces)
Thanks a lot!
Answer: Sure. Just use ([^}]*)} to capture everything before the brace, e.g.
sed -e 's/\([a-zA-Z0-9]*\)\s*=\s*(\s*struct\s\([a-zA-Z0-9]*\)\s*)\s*{\([^}]*\)}\s*;/init_\2( \&\1, \3);/g'

String conversion with sed


FIFA 15 online play

Question: Can friends play together against computer on FIFA 15? Or is it only against real players? I've tried looking an I'm not sure this is  possible. Any FIFA gurus out there?
Answer: I guess you are asking about playing with a friend with 2 different consoles not in the same network against the computer. The answers is no, you can't sadly.
Answer: If you are talking about playing with a friend that sits next to you and using a controller - sure you can play a friendly match against the computer or start a tournament.
Comment: I think he meant online.
Answer: Yes you can, I do this all the time.
Just select the same side when in the controller setup.
Comment: Even when online? Where/how can you set it up this way?

FIFA 15 online play


Can I save Faridah Malik?

Question: I just got back to China the second time around.  After our helicopter was shot down, Malik tells me to run while the guards are distracted by the chopper.  On my way out, I tried killing as many guards as possible, but she was still killed along with the helicopter.  If I was able to take down all the guards (and the robot) fast enough, could I have saved her?
Comment: I don't know how to reword the title to make it less spoilerish.
Comment: Let's not over convolute/obfuscate the original question just to remove a small spoiler.  Especially since the game has been out for 5 years already.
Comment: @yx_ Yeah, I couldn't think of a better way of wording it either.  If anyone else has an idea, please feel free to edit
Answer: Yes you can.  I managed to do it on Deus Ex mode.  Here are a few things that may help out:

Use those exploding barrels.  You can use those to take out enemies that are nearby.
If you have a long ranged weapon like sniper rifle, it helps out a lot.  You have to take out those heavies fast as they do tons of damage.
Get the attention of the big bot that gets dropped.  If you can toss two emp grenades over, he'll die.  If you don't have any, shoot it a few times so he's focused on you instead.

You can still save her on a pacifist playthrough, but its much harder.
Here's a video walkthrough on how to do it.
The reward for saving Malik is:

She later assists you by saving the Sarif scientists in Singapore and dealing with a bunch of enemies with an emp blast so you don't have to face them.
Comment: What are the rewards if your successful?
Comment: Interesting, I'll try harder on my next playthrough, I suppose.
Comment: @Rob_IGS added the reward
Comment: I had no grenades, but I was able to take out the bot with a heavy rifle by peaking around the right of the right-most cover thingy and just holding down the mouse button.  For some reason, it couldn't hit me - I didn't lose any life at all.
Comment: Seems like the (upgraded) Typhoon might be the best way to knock out all those enemies quickly enough to save her. Anyone tried that?
Comment: And if you don't have a sniper rifle, immediately break left with a good close-range weapon (like a shotgun with the 2x shot upgrade).  Ignore the snipers to begin with, and focus on the support troops.  Pick off the heavies from behind as they start to advance on the chopper.  When the robot drops, finish off the snipers and engage it from above.
Answer: Here's a little walkthrough if you're on Pacifist (so no exploding barrels etc.)

Shoot the two heavies with Tranq darts from where you stand.
Sprint around to the right (don't bother cloaking or being subtle, the enemies won't focus on you until you're too close or shooting at them)
Pull out your stun gun and starting with the one guy on the bottom floor and working your way up the stairs to the next floors, takedown (non-lethal) and stungun every guy you see. They'll be too focused on Malik to put up much resistance.
After you've cleared out the first floor (not the ground floor) there should only be about 3 guys left, one sniper above you, and two guys (one more sniper) in the other building.
Whether you want to take the sniper out or take out the other guy first and then take out both snipers is up to you, but with the snipers slow rate of fire they're not much of a threat.

It took me about 10 reloads before I tried this and it worked the first time. Keep in mind however that I'd learned the layout in those 10 tries so it might not work for you the first time.
Comment: This strategy worked for me, with the caveat that, on Deus Ex mode, the heavies took 3 tranqs to the head each to take down, which took waaaay too much time.  Instead, I ran immediately to the right, took out the first guy, ate an energy bar, cloaked, and took out both heavies with a stun-gun *(which only took one hit each - without cloaking, they shot at me and I died immediately)*.  On the second try on Deus Ex mode, I managed to do it, without killing one, and taking no damage :D
Comment: What about the bot, though?
Answer: I saved her on Deus Ex difficulty while maintaining the pacifist achievement.  It was actually pretty easy if you had the right equipment.

You are going to need max level cloak, tranquilizer rifle, EMP grenade and a lot of CyberBoost bars
Immediately cloak and run directly at the heavies and knock them out.  After this, focus on the combat rifle guys on the ground.
When the robot comes out, EMP it.  If anyone dies from the resulting self destruct, it does NOT break pacifist behavior.
When the guys on the ground and the robot are KO'd, you can let cloak expire.
Quickly use your tranquizer rifle to stun the snipers on the upper level.
Answer: If you have the right augmentations and enough bars, it's easy. Just take a right, everyone will be focused on the chopper so you can use take-out on all the enemies on the right, without even being shot at. When you reach the bot, go invisible, use typhoon as far away from the human mobs as possible and you can take down the bot without anyone dying.
Then, climb up the stairs, take down the second floor on the right wing, then on the top floor make sure to hit that sniper from the side or the front. Otherwise you will punch him off and he dies. Then jump down, take down the remaining mobs on the ground, then use the container to jump onto the last sniper and take him down as well.
For this, you'll need:

3-6 bars
fully upgraded Typhoon augmentation
jump augmentation
invisible augmentation (not really required, but nice when you get shot a)
Comment: I dont think you even need a cloak. I ran around and tasered everyone. I have the 9ft jump enhancement so all i did was jump and taser. and typhoon-ed the bot
Answer: On Normal difficulty, with the PC version, I was able to save her by rather messily taking down the heavies, EMPing the robots, and then pistol sniping everyone else. Managed to do it fast enough.. I was just lucky I suppose.
Answer: I managed it pretty easily using the revolver. I was only on Normal mode, and not aiming for pacifist, but never the less, revolver with laser sight and exploding rounds clears them out in no time. Also had an EMP mine which I chucked at the robot =)
Answer: Rooster Teeth did a guide on this because saving her is an achievement
Answer: Yes, but it is obviously harder.
My weapons used:
tranquilizers: 12 darts
Stun gun: 2 clips
PEPS: not used
EMP grenades: 2
Add ons needed:cloaking (at least basic), and the aim tracking on tranquilizer gun really helps.
Basically, take out the three guys (by my count) with heavy rifles with the tranq darts.
As the guys move closer, use your cloak and stun gun to take out the ground troops. Stand back, cloak and take out the sniper (tranquilizers). At some point the robot will appear. Toss two emps two solve that problem. Then shoot the two guys on the roof with tranquilizers and you're done. Took me 5 tries. mostly to get the layout and order right.
Answer: I did it in a 'Pacifist' way. Maxed out health. Four energy cells. Invisibility, running, takedowns on the base floor, EMP mine for the mech, takedowns on the first roof & tranq rifle for the snipers. One HypoStim & two CyberBoost ProEnergy Jar. Very cool. It is just like a Ninja.
I believe that with the Typhoon, among with the upgraded revolver, it should be a piece of cake.
Answer: Personally, I went in with no ammo period -- I wasn't prepared for this mission at all so I ended up getting up close and personal.
If you pick up a green barrel and charge the heavies you're essentially carrying a shield; you can then take them down melee style and pick up their weapons. Then you can shoot at the bot to make it attack you, and then it's a matter of going up the building and taking out all the other guys until you get to the sniper.
After taking him out you can use his rifle to take out the remaining soldiers left; there is some heavy rifle ammo by the building on the right that you can pick up and finish off the robot with it. If you do not have heavy rifle you can get one from the heavies you took down earlier. Also there are a lot of combat rifles dropped if that's more your style.
Answer: I went pacifist and it was far easier than trying to shoot everyone.  Work from the right hand side and take down the heavy rifles quickly, them EMP grenade for the bot.  Then just mop up the rest - job done!
Answer: I came into this fight completely unprepared. It took me about seven or eight tries, but I saved her.
I ran up the right side and cloaked, then repeatedly ran back and forth across the elevator, looking straight at the ground, laying a couple of mines in front of the elevator each time - first frag mines, then EMPs on the second pass to kill the bot.
I got lucky on one of these runs and there were few enough enemies left after the frag mines and robot explosion that I was able to kill them all by gunfire before Malik died.
As goofy as it was to use proximity mines to win this fight, they were all I really had - no sniper rifle, no tranquilizer gun, and I wasn't fast enough for headshots to make headway.
If I had had the Typhoon at level 2 at that point, I probably just would have used it three or four times with very similar effects.
Answer: All you need is one Sniper-rifle. From where the level begins give each Heavytrooper one headshot and they both focus on you... after the 2nd headshot (if you didnt pimp your sniper) they are fish food. This triggers the Robot to be dropped, but before they drop it shoot the Barrel too the left, first floor. Then shoot the sniper to the right (2nd floor), meanwhile the Robot should be there. Kill it with your RPG, EMP's, or regular weaponry. The remaining Troopers are no problem for the Malik, and Jenson ^^
Answer: It's actually pretty easy to do when not on pacifist.
Start out by jumping down and taking cover. The helicopter will be right in front of you. To the right, there's a load of them, so take out as many as you can from here.
Stay behind this cover until the guys with the heavy rifles come. Kill them both (shots to the head using armor-piercing guns).
Around about now the robot will drop in. The best way to kill it is using the typhoon (make sure you have the killing robots augmentation). Take cover as soon as you do since the robot self-destructs.
Take out the last of the men, including the two snipers on the third floors.
As soon as they are all dead, Malik flys away :)
Answer: You have to remove the guys that do the most damage first. With the sniper rifle I took out the heavy rifle guys first since they cause the most damage before the giant mech gets dropped. It takes two shots to the head. Then I sniped the snipers and as many of the other guys as I could until the mech is dropped. You have to take it out right away because it causes damage to the helicopter quickly. One EMP grenade does the trick. shooting red barrels takes out a bunch of soldiers. The exploding mech takes out some too. It took me tens of tries to get this. here's a play.tv clip

Can I save Faridah Malik?


I'm trying to kill someone with healing magic, is it possible?

Question: Scenario: A healer is facing an enemy and can only use magic.
I want the healer to oppose this enemy by using his magic, so that the continuous healing would kill the target, like he has too many cells, or grows tumors or something. Is it possible?
Comment: Please explain how your healing works
Comment: If it is a zombie it can kill it... oh wait.
Comment: Auchenai Soulpriest comes into mind.
Comment: @Aify a dozen! I got my Inheritance Cycle facts wrong!? MUST. RE-READ.
Comment: Your question is currently in danger of being closed as too broad, I'd recommend adding more detail about the kinds of healing magic available in your world.
Comment: You could just cast Embrace the Shadow with Prophet Velen in play
Comment: In the Inheritance Cycle, I seem to remember that Selena (the Black Hand) fought and killed two men with only the knowledge of the spell "heal". Can't remember how though.
Comment: @AricFowler She was up against a dozen men, and "she"healed" the enemies of any emotion or loyalty or whatnot that could drive them to kill her, and while they stood there gazing at each other like idiots, she walked up to them and slit their throats". AFAI can remember, that's almost word for word, I think.
Comment: Can a surgeon kill their patient?
Comment: Check out the healing magic in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alera.
Comment: I just have to say, that the result you're looking for is impossible under what I personally consider "healing" magic. To me "healing" would improve health regardless. It's a type of "white magic," thus it shouldn't be possible to use as a form of attack. For example, if you had full HP and used Regen, you would simply regenerate 0 HP for the duration of the spell. You wouldn't be harmed. I think you should consider renaming your magic from Heal to something more befitting what it actually does. Under a better name it could work as others here have described.
Answer: Given the information in this question and its accepted answer, it seems clear that the natural healing process of a human being (or of any other creature) can itself be a deadly weapon if supplied with magical acceleration.
If the body is healing an injury, it requires the ability to supply the necessary energy, materials, etc., needed to physically perform the repairs. If you use healing magic to accelerate that process naively (without accounting for these secondary problems), the body will begin to steal from itself in an attempt to keep up. It's probably going to lose that contest, however; step up the healing rate to a thousand times the normal (which is still short of what would be necessary to get near-instant regeneration, incidentally), and it's a safe assumption that the body cannot increase blood flow by a thousand times, meaning that the tissues around the injury will almost instantly be deprived of oxygen and nutrients.
Give that a little time (a few minutes, probably, before you get gangrene or cell death), and the only result of the healing process is that the damage has actually expanded. You've also weakened the opponent in the meanwhile by drawing off a large part of their bodily reserves for this healing. The accelerated healing will then start up for this new damage, and... well, you can see how this will result in a vicious spiral that can only get worse as long as the healing magic is kept up. The exact cause of death may vary, but my bet is on oxygen deprivation (hypoxia) as the body steals so much oxygen from the bloodstream that it can no longer fuel essential organs or tissues.
Comment: You're looking for the word "hypoxia". "Suffocation" (or "Asphyxia") refers specifically to the breathing part.

Refs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxia
Comment: @RogerLipscombe Thanks for that, I knew I was missing something. Edited the post to correct that.
Answer: Killing an enemy with a tumor is not effective on a battlefield. If you want to kill somebody, you want him dead now, not in 20 years from now.
Set this aside, assuming that your "healing spell" is not a generic one, but really addresses some inner body functions, it is doable.
I.e. a certain spell can increase the adrenaline production. In some cases this is beneficial for the body. Do it out of context or too much and you will give a nice heart attack to your target.
Same goes with insulin.
Answer: It depends of course on the nature of the healing magic and how fast it's working. I'll assume the magic is more or less equivalent to modern day medicine and that it can be used without the prerequisite of an existing condition to cure.
The three things I'd try:

A spell used to staunch blood flow also be used on a non-bleeding target causing massive blood clots.
Magic to increase Insulin production for diabetics. Will put victim in a coma and eventually kill them.
Spells used to anesthetize. These are basically sleep spells designed so that the patient does not react to damage and wake up. They must work fairly quickly and once incapacitated the victim will be an easy target for any other attack, magic or otherwise.
Comment: Please provide an answer that does not require clarification from the OP. OP has not yet revealed how the healing works, and your answer does not provide **how** to kill the enemy after all.
Comment: @Vylix Ok, rephrased.
Answer: If part of the healing magic involved stimulating the immune system of a patient, then the Healer could focus on  stimulating their enemy's immune system to such an extent this would look like an allergic attack turning into a full anaphylactic shock. Anaphylaxis can be fatal.

Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and
  may cause death.[4][5] It typically causes more than one of the
  following: an itchy rash, throat or tongue swelling, shortness of
  breath, vomiting, lightheadedness, and low blood pressure. These
  symptoms typically come on over minutes to hours.1
Common causes include insect bites and stings, foods, and medications.
  Other causes include latex exposure and exercise. Additionally cases
  may occur without an obvious reason.1 The mechanism involves the
  release of mediators from certain types of white blood cells triggered
  by either immunologic or non-immunologic mechanisms.[6] Diagnosis is
  based on the presenting symptoms and signs after exposure to a
  potential allergen.

Magically induced anaphylaxis could be caused by if the healing process can be manipulated to make the enemy's immune system overreact. This the most probable way healing magic can be used as a lethal technique.
Answer: It depends on how you want your magic to work.
Also depending on your setting there will be differences, for example a medieval world will have other methods than a modern or post-apocalyptic one.
There are quite a few possible methods.
Please note, that I answer the question to killing with healing magic but I do not activly adopt the approach with tumors and cell regeneration.
Below are the ones I think are the easiest to apply in any setting.
Technique for preventing blood loss
If there is a method to block the blood flow.
Apply that to a vital region like the lungs or the heart and the result might be deadly.
Sugical techniques
See ArnoldF's answer.
Techniques for detoxication
There might be methods to help someone from poision, including emptying the gastro-intestinal tract, which might lead to server pain and organ failure. This can at least immobilize someone for a time.
Magic for healing bones
Sometimes you have to rebreak a bone to mend it right.
So your magic could have a method for this. Apply this magic to the spine of skull and the result can be fatal.
Others
There are a lot of other possible techniques including something like regrowing stuff or generating blood to let vessels explode, even some kind of magic painkiller that works similar to modern ones.
Comment: Welcome to WorldBuilding *SeaS*! Interesting first answer. If you have a moment please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. Have fun!
Answer: Cancer
Cancer is the runaway reproduction and growth of cells, unbound by normal constraints (i.e. stop it you jerk, we're all in this together). In a vague general sort of way it's caused by cells deciding that the environment they're living in isn't conducive to cooperation and it reverts to winner take all (that is, I'm in this for me and my daughter cells).  All the instructions for being a single-celled form of life is still in our DNA, it's just turned off so that cells specialize in order to cooperate together.  Turn them back on again through some trigger and you get cancer.
Magical healing could potentially be viewed as a rapid increase in typical cellular life-cycle.  And if the conditions are no longer viewed as mutually beneficial by the individual cells (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma equation starts looking better and better if the cell Defects rather than Cooperates) then they could be spurred towards being cancerous instead.
And cancer would just eat that healing magic right up. Yes please make me a healthier cell!
Comment: You do realize that while killing him with cancer on the battlefield, you will be dead a few years before your opponent is?
Comment: Use the power like an assassin. Every competent enemy leader gets virulent cancers, leave the incompetent ones alone, and within 5 years you should be able to beat them militarily.
Answer: Surgical techniques are dangerous.
Any magical healer worth their salt would have a need to excise tumors, sap poison from blood, or mend broken bones. One could imagine any of these spells backfiring or being deliberately applied (by a skilled caster) in such a way that much more than a tumor is taken away, or all of the target's blood is drained, or bones are regrown to the point where the target can no longer move.
As an example, in the anime Naruto, Kabuto Yakushi's fighting style is based around his unusual offensive application of the "Chakra Scalpel" technique. He uses this spell ("jutsu" in the show's parlance) in close quarters combat to add a precise lethality to his blows.
Comment: Welcome to WorldBuilding *ArnoldF*! Interesting first answer. If you have a moment please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. Have fun!
Comment: Thanks, @Secespitus! I just took the tour. I'm on a couple other SE sites; I assume this one is similar :)
Comment: Similar, but we have quite some differences. Many people have problems when they are formulating questions as WorldBuilding tends to be a rather broad and opinion-based topic. That's why I always try to recommend the tour and help center to users with their first post on the site. Being on-topic tends to be harder here for many people than on other sites. Anyway, looking forward to your contributions!
Answer: I can see quite a lot of opportunities. Most of them depend on the assumption that you, as a dedicated Healer, have access to not only generic healing spells that cure minor ailments, but also a wide arsenal of specialized healing spells that address specific body functions and problems, and that these spells actually require you to judge if they're the right tool for the job, and that they will work regardless of the current state of the target.
For instance, you could cause a target to overdose on a certain hormone, such as adrenaline. In that specific case you'd have to be careful to actually make them overdose, as giving them not enough to die might potentially turn them even more powerful. It's quite easy to give "more than safe" amounts, though.
Depending on the biological knowledge behind these spells, you might have access to a defibrillation spell that induces a strong (relative, that is, strong when introduced to nerves) electric current which can be very dangerous when the target is not actually suffering arrythmia. Alternatively, depending on the level of control that you have over the magic, you might be able to induce a current in other nerves, potentially paralyzing your target.
And you might have access to a cauterize spell to sear open wounds -- which can also be just as dangerous when used on healthy skin. You could turn the target's immune system against it by activating responses out-of-context. You could administer narcotics and render them unconscious. The list goes on and on.
However, if you don't have fine control over the magic, your actions are rather limited. If you only have access to spells that cure specific (or generic) ailments, the most obvious solution could be to use healing spells in a far greater scale than they were designed for, potentially causing many of the effects I just listed. Doing so might cause the body to deprive itself of resources, which probably causes a brief surge in power (during which you might want to run away) but causes death by exhaustion shortly after.
All of these things, however, might take a lot of time (which you might not have) and probably drain a lot of energy on your part (which might be better spent on healing allies).
All in all, if you are a healer and your allies are all dead (on the assumption that you actually have allies and that you didn't go solo as healer), the best recourse might be to run.
Comment: Welcome to WorldBuilding *latias*! If you have a moment please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. Have fun!
Answer: Well it is magic. You can make it to behave what ever way you want.
Having an antidote healing spell at hand?
Let it be poisonous if not actually poisoned.
Want to make the healing create tumors if healed too much?
Well, describe as your healing magic to behave like this.
Want your magic healing to summon a lot of nanobots rebuilding target cells?
Just let your magic behave that way.
Want to let healing deal damage instead? let your magician summon hearthstones Auchenai Soulpriest!
Its simply magic, you can't search for a real world confirmation without specific scope. If you ask "can magic do ....?" The answer simply is "Sure it can, its magic!"
Answer: Not only a healer could do that. A healer specialising in dental spells would kill people with ease.
You cast two spells - one for deciduous teeth and a second one for jaw soft tissue to regenerate in a very fast manner. Or for salivary glands to instantly produce a lot of saliva. Your enemy is now suffocating.
Second approach. You speed up the liver's healing process. The liver regrows so fast that it's painful to move and all intestines, literally, are bursting out.
Third approach. You speed up the work of the kidneys or the stomach. Your enemy is now dehydrated, but also his bladder is full and he really needs to go to the loo.
And at last, cardio spells. You're a healer Leonard, goddamit! Cast a higher pressure spell on his heart and tightening vessels spell on, let's say, the legs. You can the play to make him faint or to create an infarct. Or just a plain old heart attack if you can stack high pressure/low pressure spells for 10 seconds.
Answer: Yes, there are many ways in which a "healing effect" could be used to kill the target. It's the way in which your healing effect works which would be key. So if the effect can be directed this would help.
Auto-Immune diseases
If the healing effect could be linked to making the immune system better you could get it becoming over active this can lead to conditions like MS which could be used in an accelerated fashion to kill, this might be a bit slow.
Cancer like
Another option is if you can accelerate the actually process of splitting the cells within the body. Then you could have various forms of cancer in this way, just heal the body till it creates a huge mass of cells, this replicates cancerous growths.
Bacteria
If you can accelerate cell splitting then you could also heal not the person but the bacteria that is already present in the target, we have many many different type of bacteria or fungus in us and an imbalance can cause many issues, a mild condition is Thrush but there are other bacteria or fungus that can also be fatal, or cause other condition such as blood poisoning.
Comment: Why the downvote on my answer how can it be improved ?
Answer: The answer is pretty much yes – you can kill someone by healing. That is if it's using the body is natural healing process and just speeding it up. This might work for all types of healing depends how you magic works.
But again assuming that you're not actually healing person so much as speeding up their body's natural healing process. Body naturally and places damage cells with new ones. For reasons that are yet unknown the body can suddenly start producing large quantities of new cells for no apparent reason this is what's commonly called cancer. If you can control the body's natural healing process you could theoretically cause cancer.
Answer: Yes
Fundamentally it's magic, so you can define how it's mechanism works however you like.  To help define a mechanism by which "too much of a good thing is bad" here are some sources.
A scientific mechanism of "too much of a good thing" is oxygen toxicity.  Essentially if the partial pressure of oxygen is too high, it becomes toxic.  Cell membranes are damaged as they become "oxidized".  Your healing magic could behave the same way.  Too much magic in the system causes the target's flesh to essentially cook or burn.
A literary example of too much healing being a bad thing is a book by Orson Scott Card. "A Planet called treason".  The main character has regenerative powers, but is a "Radical regenerative"  The body cannot distinguish between healthy and injured.  As a result the regeneration is constant, resulting in extra digits, or limbs that must constantly be cut away.
Answer: As there already are a bunch of answers covering the 'healing' of the opponent, I'll take another route than the others:
Self-Enhancement
Healing Magic can potentially fix broken bones and even recover them. Use this to 'recover' the mage's bones to an extent, which can already be considered as enhancement. Make his knuckles or his complete arm several times bigger, harder, more resistable and so on. Let him use his magic to boost his strength or adrenaline to a maximum and then let him attack. Should be able to crush an enemy's defense and kill him in one punch.
Answer: Healing can be restitution.  Having a prosthesis competing for space with regenerated limbs/organs can become ugly.  And what if you stop the healing with the limb back in place but circulation not yet in working order and/or enough blood available yet?  Shock, likely.
You might incapacitate an enemy by healing his hairs from all the haircuts they have been given, effectively turning him into a tripping hairball.
How about healing bacteria in his body from a past infection?
Answer: As Zaibis mentioned, the short of it is that you can do whatever you want because it's magic.
If you actually want it to be readily accepted, you need to go into the full specifics. For example, is some methods of arcane healing I've seen, the process has a duel fuel system using the source of magic as the medium for energy transfer.
For the amount of healing done, around 75% of the "life" energy required was given up by the caster while 25% or so was taken from the recipient. As a result, if the person that required healing was damaged too much or hadn't had much in the way of nutrients, there was a chance for failure, or the caster would give up too much energy and end up passing out or dying on their own.
The more detail you go into the process, the more you can get away with and actually explain.
"Ignore my search history, I'm a writer, I swear."
Comment: Welcome to WorldBuilding! If you have a moment please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. Have fun!
Answer: Obviously, it depends on the way magic works, but we can ask a more generic question. Can a healer kill? Imagine a surgeon with a scalpel in his vic^W patient. Can he kill? Of course, it takes him a lot of precision and control not to kill. And if your healer can use his healing magic on his opponent, then, figuratively speaking, he has his scalpel in him already. Now all he needs is to twist it just the wrong way.
Answer: Natural healing occurs in the body as well as the mind. Forced healing (though magic) might only heal the body, but not the mind. This unnatural gap between the two can be fatal when it becomes too large.
This is based on the idea of "the body cannot live without the mind".
A finger cut causes pain. Not that much pain, so it's trivial to overcome. A couple of minutes after cutting yourself you don't even notice it anymore.
But imagine you've been brutally handled on the battlefield, your thigh impaled by a lance, the leg almost severed, your shoulder crushed by a massive hammer. You still live, but your mind has already turned inwards because it could not cope with what happened.
Before the finishing blow you're rescued and a squad mage performs some quick healing. While your body is repaired, you are still secluded somewhere deep inside your mind. How to recover from that takes a vastly different approach then the healing of your body.
Comment: Can you clarify what is the mental healing one needs? i.e. from a cut in the finger?
Comment: I've added a bit of a story to clarify the concept.


Why isnt git ignoring my sub directory?

Question: my .gitignore file
ext/templates_c

my git status call
D:\Development\online\site\newsite>git status
# On branch master
# Changes not staged for commit:
#   (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed)
#   (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory)
#
#       modified:   ext/pages/config.php
#       modified:   ext/templates_c/60a4cccd667e8b1e3a702b2a2c9108f056837adc.file.pages.html.php
#       modified:   ext/templates_c/fd38ffaa13c6f4c29772bec22cad5aebb1d4d7f6.file.form.html.php
#
no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a")

Have I done something really stupid?
Why isnt git ignoring the files in ext/templates_c
Answer: The fact that git status shows files in your "ignored" subdirectory as "modified" means that those files are already being tracked by git. Because of this, simply adding the directory to .gitignore is not sufficient to get those files ignored (although new files in that directory will properly be ignored). You need to do a git rm --cached <file> for each of the files in that directory that are currently tracked.
Answer: As I was writing this I discovered that
 ext/templates_c

does not work but
ext\templates_c

does.
So you need to use windows slashes.

Why isnt git ignoring my sub directory?


Article url linked via 100s of comment spam - Delete the article or not?

Question: I just noticed that someone has generated hundreds of links to one of our articles through comment spam. I wanted to know if it would be a good idea to delete this article and repost it, thereby changing the article url so the links from the comment spam will lead to a dead page (404). Also, should I also disavow these incoming comment spam links? Thanks.
Answer: The answer is no, according to Google. Don't Worry About Spammy Links. And you do not do anything.
John Mueller of Google was asked on Twitter if one should disavow the spammy links that you see from an article going viral. John said "no need" to do that.


Where is the mass energy of potential energy (such as for the universe?)

Question: As you know, energy has mass via $E=mc^2$. If I understand right, mass must be inside of a particle, and can not just be "free floating." Gravitational potential energy (or what ever its equivalent would be in General Relativity) is the energy an object has when separated from other objects. Where is all this mass? Which object does it reside in of the two? Or does it reside as invisible mass at the midpoint undetectable except for its gravitation? More importantly why about the potential energy between myself and the center of the galaxy. What about all of potential energy of all the objects in the universe with respect to each other. Does the expansion of the universe create it, and if so, from what other energy source?
Comment: It seems to reside in the system as a whole, and would be detectable if a force from outside the system tried to accelerate it. Strictly speaking, potential gravitational energy is negative energy, and increases asymptotically to 0 as objects move away from each other. So it is more like a system losing potential energy as its constituents move together. I would love to hear an expert description of what is happening.
Comment: @sanchises "In relativity, all of the energy that moves along with an object (that is, all the energy which is present in the object's rest frame) contributes to the total mass of the body, which measures how much it resists acceleration. Each potential and kinetic energy makes a proportional contribution to the mass." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Meanings_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E.C2.A0.3D.C2.A0mc2
Comment: (In case anyone didn't notice, I was subtly suggesting that dark matter is freefloating potential energy, a notion which is most likely patent nonsense.)
Comment: I didn't notice, so you should put this into your question.
Comment: Again, it seems like patent nonsense, especially given that it turns out potential energy is negative.
Answer: First, the equation $E=mc^2 $does not mean that if there is energy at a point then there must be mass as well. The equations says that having some energy at some point will have the same effect as having mass at that point.
In general relativity, there is no such thing as gravitational potential energy. The theory helps us understand gravitation in terms of curvature of space-time. Things move as straight as possible in curved space time in the absence of any force. Any mass curves spacetime so that the straightest possible paths for objects near it accelerate toward  it. Even in non relativistic mechanics, potential energy at some point is defined as the work done to move a a mass from infinity to that point. All potential energy does is allow us to better state and understand the work energy theorem in conservative fields, where one can simply say that energy is conserved.
To make it clearer what $E=mc^2$ implies, let's consider an example. Electromagnetic waves are propogated by massless particles called photons. Yet, photons do have their own gravitational fields(very small ones though) because they carry energy.
Hope that clears your doubts.
Comment: Okay, where does potential energy generate its gravitational field then, and where's it's inertia?
Comment: As I said in the answer, potential energy isn't actually a form of energy.
Comment: If I have a box and convert some of its kinetic energy to potential energy is (like moving two masses apart) then according to this the inertia of the box would decrease, which is impossible.
Comment: Technically, it would. That's cause rest mass of any object is less than its moving mass. Though, the $m$in the equation refers to rest mass of particle only. The technically correct equation is $E =m_0c^2 + \frac{1}{2}mv^2$
Comment: An isolated systems' inertia can't change. $E=mc^2+\frac {mv^2}2$ only relates rest mass and energy.


How can I call a function according to any data change in WPF (C#) page?

Question: I need to do call a function according to any data change in WPF (C#) page, that is if any of the data of the current page is changed such as Textbox, Radiobutton, Checkbox,  Combobox, Datagrid etc then I need to call a function how can I do it without using different event ?
Answer: Implement INotifyPropertyChanged in the class, Raise the property changed notification in all properties setters.
HTH
Answer: You can use dependency properties in your code and bind to it from your control. That will allow changes in your control or your code to automatically updated.
Answer: If you put this in your code behind it will call Handler for every event
If u put this after InitializeComponent
<code>InitializeComponent();

foreach (RoutedEvent event in EventManager.GetRoutedEvents())
{
    AddHandler(event, new RoutedEventHandler(Handler), true);
}
</code>
You can have it execute the Handler method. This will attach it to every event.
void Handler(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
    Title = e.ToString();
}
Alternatively you can just set the events that you want for example text changed to the same method,  or you can use a linq query or some logic in the foreach loop to only attach to certain events.
Hope this helps


Why are my imovies imported from iphoto sometimes sideways, upside down?

Question: I finally figured out how to get my movies from my iphone to imovies - thank you - but now sometimes they are upside down or sideways in the big viewing screen top right.  How do I correct this?
Answer: I would suspect that it has something to do with the orientation you were holding the phone in when you took the movie.
iMovies is probably checking the orientation and trying to display the movie the "right way up". Look for an option that controls this.