Why would Jesus beg himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?

Question: If God and Jesus are the same, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus beg himself in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself from having to be crucified? Furthermore, why would Jesus ask himself why he has forsaken himself by allowing himself to be crucified?
Comment: I think both are completely different questions and probably for the second one the answer is definitely NOT short at all. Consider split the questions.
Comment: This is completely consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, but not in Modalism.  Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Spirit is God, but Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, etc.
Comment: I'm assuming you are asking for answers from the point of view of people who believe Jesus is God. Obviously for someone who doesn't, this isn't a problem.
Comment: I am trying to work out what makes for a good question. Judged by the number of down-votes this is a particularly bad question. Can somebody that down-voted please explain their decision especially in the light of all the up-votes of the answer.
Answer: Jesus is equally God while still not God the father as well as not being God the Holy Spirit. They are three separate entities that all form the single God-head. John's gospels shows this to us.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were
  made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In
  Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light
  shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6
  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came
  for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him
  might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness
  of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every
  man coming into the world.10 He was in the world, and the world was
  made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His
  own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him,
  to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who
  believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will
  of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word
  became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as
  of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." - John
  1:1-14

So once we understand that Jesus was not merely talking to Himself in Gethsemane nor upon the Cross. The question becomes. How could Jesus, being part of the God head, ask to be spared from that which he knew he must do?
Answer. Because while being 100% God he was also 100% man while in the flesh. The bible says that he felt every temptation, knew every pain that man feels. Nothing was withheld from him. So then once we understand that we can ask ourselves what person wouldn't beg to spared of such a painful way to die. Then we are also shown a beautiful example of obedience in that Christ said, "Not my will, but yours." Even knowing what awaited him he obeyed God.
Now to the second part of the question Why would he ask why he was forsaken? Because for the first and only time in eternity. Christ was separated from God's presence. All the sins of all mankind were placed upon Jesus. God is so Holy that he -can not- be in the presence of sin. He can't. It's not an option. Even for the love of his only begotten. Therefore Jesus was indeed forsaken in that instance.
Alternatively, Jesus was fulfilling a prophetic scripture in his crying out as well.

"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?.." -Psalm 22:1

I hope this helps. God bless
Answer: The question is based on a misunderstanding of the Trinity. While Jesus and the Father are both God, Jesus is not the same as the Father. God is "three persons in one God", those three persons being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
You might like to read the Athanasian Creed, which is a definitive (but not simple) statement of the Trinity.
Answer: The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the bible. The only 2 passages that mention the trinity (Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7,8) are considered to be forgeries. The form that they are in the KJV is not consistent with the oldest and most reliable manuscripts that we have.
Simply put, Jesus is not God nor was he ever. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false doctrine that was in development in the Orthodox church during the second and third centuries and was fully developed by the end of the fourth century when the holy ghost was added to make it a full trio.
Jesus, being a mere man, begged God (not himself) to be spared from crucifixion. This shows the very humanistic nature of Jesus. Actually, he was not begging himself, but begging God out of real fear of a long, agonizing death on the cross.
Comment: Where is your evidence that the holy spirit was only added in the fourth century? Christians believe that the trinity is completely consistent with scripture, and is clearly taught in the book of John. And although 1 John 5:7-8 isn't authentic, I've never heard anyone suggest Matt 28:19 isn't authentic. If you are going to claim that it's a forgery then you'll need to provide evidence.
Comment: I don't want to cause a fuss but I suggest reading the countless other scriptures that argue Christ's divinity. For the sake of understanding. Such as: John 1:1-14,4:26,5:18,8:24,8:28,8:58,10:30,13-19,15:26,17:5. Collosians 1:15-17, 2:9. 1 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 9:6, Luke 7:16, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Phillipians 2:6, Hebrews 1:2-8, Titus 2:13, Revelation 19:16, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Luke 5 17-26. There's evidence all through the scriptures in the context that bluntly declare it. As well as the fact that Jesus was arrested for declaring himself to be God in the first place.


Relationship between TCP window size and TCP congestion control

Question: Am I correct that TCP receive window(which is a send window for the sender) has nothing to do with TCP CUBIC congestion control? TCP receive window is solely a property of TCP flow control?
Comment: In slow start congestion control, TCP increases the window size till the maximum transfer rate "m" is achieved. However, m will always be less than R where R is the maximum receive window size. In a way, receive window has "something" to do with congestion control.
Comment: Ok. So they are not directly related, but sender will always check the `send window`(advertised by the receiver as `receive window`) and `congestion window` and then pics the lowest value of two?
Comment: Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide and accept your own answer.
Answer: The first thing to realize is that the TCP window size and the round-trip time (RTT) limit the throughput: no more than one window size per RTT can be transported.
Essentially, with a large RTT (latency) you need a larger window for the same throughput than with a smaller RTT. If you can't increase the window you can't utilize the full bandwidth. This is why the bandwidth-delay product is important to model throughput scenarios in network planning.
Accordingly, congestion control works the other way: with slow start, the windows start at medium size and - assuming ample bandwidth - is ramped up.
At some time, somewhere on the way, a port's capacity is reached and packets can't be forwarded right away. They need to get queued. They spend more time on the way, so ACKs begin to arrive late. The RTT measured by the sender goes up.
In response to filling buffers -> growing RTT the window is reduced again. Sending slows, queues empty, RTT goes down again. In response, the window is allow to grow, starting the cycle over.
In theory, this sounds (fairly) simple. In practice, you have to fine tune the exact response mechanism. Keep in mind that TCP used to work over slow serial modems with just a few 1000 bit/s and today runs over multi-gigabit/s lines (nearly) just as well - that's easily seven or even eight orders of magnitude!
This is where BIC and CUBIC come into play: the traditional congestion control, even with window scaling, has got its limits. Basically, it oscillates between congestion on the one side and throughput is below potential bandwidth on the other.
Instead of ramp up until congestion, then cut back, BIC and CUBIC try to model the channel's exact congestion behavior with a quadratic or cubic function, so that you can run a channel in the "sweet spot" with maximum throughput, just before congestion starts. The model parameters are continuously adjusted to the feedback parameters, so that the model changes when the channel changes.
Comment: Thanks! Still, if for example, TCP congestion control detects a congestion on the connection, then it does not reduce the size of the `Window Size` field in TCP header? Instead, it reduces `congestion window`, which also affects how much traffic sender puts onto wire?


Executing Multiple Notebooks at Once

Question: I wish to run a few notebooks (with distinct contexts) at once using MMA 10 on Windows 8.1.  I wish to run at least one of the notebooks interactively, adding and executing lines of code.  If another notebook needs attention, perhaps by opening a dialog box, I need to be able to open that window, respond, and then return to the notebook in which I was doing code development.  How do I accomplish this?
Answer: You can use several Mathematica kernels for this purpose.
Go to Evalution -> Kernel Configuration Options. In this menu you can add new kernels.
After in notebook, you can specify which kernel it must use by Evaluation -> Notebook's kernel.
Usually, I use two local Mathematica kernels. When default one is doing some number crunching, in other notebook, which I want to run interactively, I use the other (not busy) kernel.
Comment: @bbgodfrey (If your comment is addressed to me.) Unfortunately, I'm not a specialist here, but I suppose no. Parallel code uses parallel procedures (like ParallelMap) and they, in turn, use **sub**kernels. Creating new kernel, as I described, will create new instance of _Mathematica_ kernel, having nothing in common with other instances and their subkernels, which are used for parallel work. Therefore, I think no.
Comment: Thanks for the effective solution, which I have verified.  I also verified that each notebook opens its own set of kernels and, if running parallel computations, tries to claim all four cores on my computer.  Although the "number cruncher" notebook slowed a bit, nothing bad happened.  In all. 12 kernels were open.
Comment: @becko That's right. Using two different kernels is like using several Mathematica instances, like mentioned in answer by UnchartedWorks.
Comment: ,@Kuba, I have four processor cores and a license that accommodates four kernels. My "number crunching" notebook wishes to use all available kernels at times.  If I start my "interactive" notebook before starting my "number crunching" notebook and use the procedure described in the Answer above, will the "number crunching" notebook use just the three remaining kernels, or do something else?
Comment: The different kernels do not share variables, right?
Answer: For Mac users, you can use the command below to launch the second Mathematica instance. So you could run two Mathematica instances.Then you can open different notebooks in different Mathematica instances.
<code>open -n /Applications/Mathematica.app
</code>
Comment: The same can be done in Linux by simply executing `mathematica` in terminal several times. If you want to use the existing instance of Mathematica (if there is any), use `mathematica -sl` (`mathematica --singlelaunch`) instead.
Comment: The same can be done in Windows: press the [SHIFT] key while clicking on the Mathematica icon to start a new instance, which can run in parallel to other previously running ones.

Executing Multiple Notebooks at Once


Is Sakura, Sarada's biological mother?

Question: In the new manga mini-series, Sarada figures out the girl in glasses with Sasuke to whom Sarada seems to look like (the glasses, the face). I was wondering if maybe Sakura isn't her biological mother and that Sarada is a child of Sasuke and the other girl in picture.
Comment: Please note: the "unannounced future events with regard to the production of an anime or manga" close reason is for unannounced future events about _production_, e.g. "will a second season be made?" or "when will X be released?". It is not for questions about _plot events_ that may not have happened yet. Questions about _plot events_ that have not happened yet are appropriate for this site; it may simply happen that they are not answered for some time (i.e. until the plot advances to a suitable point). As such, I have reopened this question.
Comment: Let's not forget the healing technique of Karin. Sasuke has bit Karin's hand quite a few times. :)
Comment: Yes Sakura is Sarada's mother, it is revealed that in anime where Shin is antagonist.
Answer: Everything in this answer takes place after Shippuden ends and should be considered a spoiler.

In Naruto Gaiden: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring Sarada is unsure of who her real mother is after finding a picture of Sasuke with Karin. Since Sarada had never meet her father she follows Naruto to meet Sasuke and find out the truth about her biological mother. When she meets Sasuke he says that its nothing to do with her and leaves it at that.

Later in Orochimaru's hideout Sarada ask Suigetsu about Karin to see if she was there in the hideout or if he knew who her real mother is. Suigetsu did know the answer but remembered that Karin had an umbilical cord in her desk. Suigetsu thought it was from Karin's birth. He then did a mouth swab on Sarada and preformed a DNA test. The test was a positive match. This leave Sarada to think that Karin is he biological mother.

It is later revealed that Karin could not be Sarada's mother because she was the one who delivered her. Karin tells Suigetsui that the umbilical cord he tested was Sakura's and that she was Saradas biological mother.
Answer: Some fans are stating as fact that Karin is Sarada's biological mother based on the result of a DNA test in chapter 700+7, but the test does not make this clear.
In chapter 700+7, Sarada gets a genetic (遺伝子, idenshi) test. The Japanese words for "DNA" (デオキシリボ核酸, deokishiribo kakusan) and "DNA test" (DNA型鑑定, DNA-gata kantei) are not used.
Sarada goes into it with the assumption that doing so will conclusively determine who her birth mother is. Her assumption is based on a photo she saw in chapter 700+1 of Karin standing next to Sasuke, who she believes to be her biological father.

The result of the test is that she has a genetic match (一致, icchi: the image above from page 20). However,
=  it is unknown what genetic material Suigetsu matched Sarada's saliva swab to. Suigetsu found something in Karin's desk which he believes to be from the time of Karin's birth (on page 19), but 1) what item he found and tested is not shown and he does not mention what it is, 2) whether Suigetsu's assessment of it dating from Karin's birth is unknown, and 3) even if it dates from that time, it is unknown whether the item contains Karin's genetic material (the possibility that the genetic material belonged to someone other than Karin remains)
=  there are ways Sarada and Karin could have a genetic match without being mother/daughter
=  even if Sarada and Karin have a genetic match based on Sarada being conceived from Karin's egg, it is possible that Karin was not the birth mother (such as surrogacy, egg donation)
=  the storytelling lead-up within the chapter to this scene implies that the reader should not put too much trust in genes alone through the following plot points.

On page 9, Sakura says that Ochimaru is even a bigger idiot (大バカ者, oobakamono) than Orochimaru because he doesn't at all understand what is important to a parent (親にとって大事なものが何かまるで分かってない!Oya ni totte daiji na mono ga nani ka marude wakattenai!)

On page 15, Ochimaru says that humans are merely "slaves to genes" (遺伝子の奴隷, idenshi no dorei) and that any individual's connection to any other person can be proven by such (その繋がりも全て証明できる, sono tsunagari mo subete shoumei dekiru)

On page 22, Suigetsu feels likes he might've done something bad by conducting the genetic test (…ぼく…なんかまずいことしちゃった感じかな?, ...Boku... nanka mazui koto shichatta kanji kana?)

On pages 22 to 23, Sarada violently reacts to believing she now knows who her biological mother is (we could say, she overreacts: she verbally disowns Sakura as her mother)

There is still room for someone other than Karin to be Sarada's birth mother. If the reader is meant to trust Sakura over Ochimaru regarding what a parent is, and to dislike Sarada's turbulent reaction to the genetic test result, the reader should not 1) interpret the test as conclusive, and 2) even if Karin is the biological mother, to not interpret Karin as the "real mother" because parenting is not simply about biological ties.
Whether Karin is Sarada's biological mother or not has not been stated in canon, but adoptive mothers are real mothers in the full sense of the word, so Sakura is Sarada's "real mother" even if Karin is her biological mother. Likewise, adoptive daughters are "real daughters" of the parent/s who raise them without being related biologically. The relationship between adoptive mother, adoptive daughter, and birth mother is given a careful treatment in Kodomo no Omocha (also known as Kodocha or Child's Toy) manga volumes 3 to 4 and in episodes 17 to 19 of its anime adaption. For more information about the complicated situations of people who grow up without knowing who their biological parent/s are, see the documentary films The Invisible Red Thread, Birthplace Unknown, Foster Child, Anonymous Father's Day and Breeders.
Comment: I think it is time to update you answer
Answer: Karin (the other girl you're talking about).
It's a very minute possibility that Karin is the mother of Sarada.
The reasons being:

There was no relation whatsoever between Karin and Sasuke until the end of war.
After the final fight, Sasuke went to explore the Ninja world. And before leaving, he tapped on Sakura's forehead. The tapping symbolizes love, and affection. This is similar to what Itachi did to Sasuke. So it's a very minute possibility that Sasuke would maintain sexual relations with a girl at that time.
Comment: The latest episode changes everything. So the minute possibility turned out to be true. Karin is Sarada mom..
Comment: oor maybe sakura and karin are related, we do not know who sakura's parents are. Her mom might belong to uzumaki clan which will make sakura and karin related, hence the match.
Comment: then again, Suigetsu did seem to have some trouble finding Karin's DNA
Comment: We know who sakura's parents are, They were shown when Kakashi's story was being shown, Kakashi and Third visited the house of the three pupils of Kakashi. This was when Sakura's parents were shown. Also the rare ability that Karin has make the possibility of her being related to Sakura very small
Comment: @Abhinav Rajput, please see my answer to this question: chapter 700+1 does not itself state that Karin is Sarada's mother (though Suigetsu and Karin think so). It's still possible but not conclusive

Is Sakura, Sarada's biological mother?


Belief-with worship only towards HaShem - in the real existence of intermediaries between the Almighty and the Gentile Nations

Question: I am an Italian Noahide.
There are several discussions in this forum about shituf, understood as associating other entities with HaShem.
Unless I am mistaken, it is generally held that on the halachic level worshiping such intermediaries constitutes idolatry even for non-Jews (a possible, though not very clear, exception could be represented by Rav Yaacov Emden in She'eilas Yaavetz 1:41, see here  ).
A different issue is the status concerning belief in such intermediaries with worship only towards HaShem .
Two very authoritative codes of the Noahide Law, namely Rav Moshe Weiner's The Divine Code and Rav Oury Cherki's Brit Shalom, state that the belief in question, if not accompanied by worship towards these "lesser powers", is lawful for Gentiles, although Rav Weiner adds, so not exactly consistent for me, that if a non-Jew professes this belief he is not a "pious among the Gentiles", which determines his non-participation in the World to Come (see Rambam's Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim 8: 11; Rav Weiner does not establish such exclusion explicitly, but this  is the logical consequence of his words).
Rav Oury Cherki says, in the English edition of Brit Shalom:
"An individual or nation believing it is being led by some power, whether physical or spiritual – which exists on a lower level than the all-encompassing Creator – is not prohibited as long as no worship is associated with said belief"
In support of his ruling,Rav Cherki quotes Rabbeinu Bahya (Rav Bahya ben Asher ibn Halawa), Commentary on Deuteronomy 31:16.
I report below Rabbeinu Bahya's words in  the English translation from Sefaria website :
(...)After the gods of the foreigners of the land." The Torah tells us that such gods as had been permitted to the Gentile nations were nonetheless "strangers" in the Holy Land as that land was always under the direct supervision of the Lord, and He had never assigned what goes on there to the supervision of any celestial/planetary forces. This land is G-d's own "inheritance." This is also what the sages meant when they said אין מזל לישראל, "the Jewish people are not subject to the horoscopic influences we know as mazal." They meant that the Jewish people, when in the land of Israel and observing the laws of the Torah, are not subject to such influences. This must be so, as we have a clear statement by these same sages that מזלו גורם, that "his mazal was a causative factor in his fate." (Yevamot 64, et al) Seeing that the planets, stars, and all other celestial phenomena have been created for the sake of the righteous, how could it possibly be that these same righteous people are suddenly subject to these horoscopic constellations? Each of these horoscopic constellations has been assigned to certain nations, such as the constellation known as scorpion which was assigned to the people of Ishmael, the constellation Sagittarius, the archer, to the people of Persia, etc., etc. This was what the Torah referred to in Deut. 4,19-20 "which He assigned to them, whereas He (personally) took you out of the iron crucible, etc." Clearly, the supervision of the fates of the other nations by celestial forces has been entrusted to agents of the Lord, i.e. the horoscopic forces, whereas that of the Jewish people is not determined by means of intermediaries. It is noteworthy that nowhere in the Torah does G-d accuse the Gentile nations of idolatry or describe them as being punished for relating to these forces as gods. Only the Jewish people have been warned again and again not to turn to any form of intermediary, and they are being held responsible for observing this commandment in the strictest possible sense. The only time Gentile nations are described as being punished for the practice of idolatry is if they did so in the Holy Land, the land which G-d claimed as His share and inheritance''
Now, from reading the aforementioned passage it seems to me that Rabbeinu Bahya supports the real existence of these intermediaries, celestial powers appointed by HaShem as His ministers in charge of governing the Gentile Nations  according to the orders of the Creator,while Israel alone is directly subjected to the rule of HaShem, without the presence of any intermediary
A similar conception seems to me to belong to another very authoritative master, Nachmanides (Ramban), who often expresses himselfelf in these terms in his Commentary on the Torah, for example when he says, on Leviticus 18.25 translation from Sefaria website:
''The Glorious Name created all things and placed the power of the lower creatures in the higher beings, giving upon each nation in their lands, after their nations, some known star or constellation, as it is known by means of astrological speculation. It is in referring to what is said, that the Eternal, your G-d has assigned to all the people, for he has assigned to all nations constellations in the heavens, and higher above them are the angels of the Supreme who has placed as lords on them, as it is written: "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia resisted me" (Daniel 10:13), and it is written: "Behold, the prince of Greece will come" (Daniel 10:20), and "there I was left with the kings of Persia".
Now the Glorious Name is G-d of gods, and Lord of lords over all the world. But the Land of Israel, which is in the midst of the inhabited earth, is the inheritance of the Eternal designated by His Name. He has not set any of the angels as a leader, observer or ruler, as He has given it as an inheritance to His people who declare the Unity of His Name, the seed of His beloved [ie the patriarchs]. It is in reference to this that he said, and you will be my own treasure among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine, and it is also written, so you will be My people, and I will be your G-d, and you will not be subject to other powers at all."
This conception is not without Talmudic foundation : in fact we read in  the  Gemara-Shabbat 156a, the following passage:
"It was stated that Rabbi Ḥanina says: A constellation makes one wise and a constellation makes one wealthy, and there is a constellation for the Jewish people that influences them. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is no constellation for the Jewish people that influences them. The Jewish people are not subject to the influence of astrology. And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people? As it is stated: "Thus said the Lord: Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them" (Jeremiah 10:2). The nations will be dismayed by them, but not the Jewish people.
And Rav also holds that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: From where is it derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people? As it is stated with regard to Abraham: "And He brought him outside, and said: Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if you are able to count them; and He said unto him: So shall your offspring be" (Genesis 15:5). The Sages derived from this that Abraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, "Behold, You have given me no offspring, and one born in my house is to be my heir" (Genesis 15:3). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: No. "And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: This man shall not be your heir; rather, one that will come forth from your own innards shall be your heir" (Genesis 15:4)."
Always regarding the belief in the role played by the stars as intermediary authorities between HaShem and humanity , I transcribe below what my famous compatriot RaMHaL (Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto) affirms in his work "Derekh HaShem" (II, chapter 7- The influence of the stars):
"There is another function that God assigned to the stars. Every event and situation in the material world is prepared and initiated on high, and then is transmitted via the stars, step by step, finally appearing in the desired physical forms below. For example , life itself, wealth, wisdom, children and so forth all originate on high in the realm of the spiritual Roots, reflected down through Branches of these Roots through the agency of particular stars, so that the different phenomena take form on earth in their desired states. This is the result of particular divisions and combinations of the stars, following their specific cycles. Every event that takes place in the terrestrial world is allocated to a particular star, depending on its specific category. All terrestrial things are bound under their authority Through their systems, all things happen as a result of the influence emanating from the stellar array through its connection with each individual thing.
Every human being is also subjugated to this system, and whatever happens to him is a result of this astrological influence. It is also possible, however, that this stellar influence be overridden by a higher power. [Accordingly], our Sages teach us, '[The people of] Israel are not bound by the influences of the horoscope (mazal).' The power of God's decrees and influence is stronger than that of the stars, and what results is therefore dependent on this higher influence rather than on the astrological ".
I point out that several others great Sages of Israel in the Middle Ages, like for example Rav Saadia Gaon (in his commentary on the Book of Creation), Rav Solomon ibn Gabirol (in his Keter Malkhut), Rav Abraham bar Hiyya ha-Nasi and Rav Abraham ibn Ezra considered astrology to be true wisdom and even expressed this belief in their works.Rav Judah Halevi also acknowledges in his magnum opus, Sefer ha-Kuzari, that the celestial bodies have an influence on earthly affairs.
It seems to me therefore that, on the basis of the teaching by several  very authoritative Rabbis, the belief (I repeat, with worship only towards HaShem) in the real existence of intermediaries between the Creator and the Gentiles (while for Israel there is no intermediary, since HaShem directly governs the Jews) is a conception not only lawful, but also correct since such intermediaries really exist.
I therefore do not understand on what halachic basis Rav Weiner, in The Divine Code, can affirm that this belief prevents a non-Jew from being a "pious among the Gentiles",and that even this belief constitutes idolatry for the Jews, unless I believe that great masters such as Rabbeinu Bahya,Nachmanides, Saadia Gaon,Judah Halevi,RaMHaLetc.etc. are heretics who have spread teachings contrary to the Torah.
From Rav Moshe Weiner's The Divine Code, Limited Edition vol. 1:
Therefore,a person is also an idol worshiper if he serves God along another entity as an intermediary,even if he says that the Lord is the "main God",but he also serves another power. This is so regardless of whether one serves the intermediary alone,for example by bringing a sacrificial offering or bowing down to it,or if he brings a sacrifice and bows down and says that this service is for both God and the intermediary.
However,if a person serves only the Lord,but he also believes there is another power or god under the Lord's command that one should also have faith in and swar by,then he is called a "believer in an intermediary".
"Great Rabbinical authorities throughout history debated whether the false belief in an intermediary is actually idolatry and therefore prohibited to Gentiles, or if it is not included in the basic Noahide prohibition of idol worship and therefore not forbidden for Gentiles. The majority opinion and practical ruling is that it is not forbidden. But it is unrighteous, i. e. the person is not one of the Pious of the nations of the world" ( pag. 111).
"Even though belief in an intermediary in not forbidden to Gentiles,this belief is not true.It is fitting for every person to see the mistake in this idea ,which originated in the mistaken beliefs of Enosh and his generation, and to distance oneself from it, especially since many of the grat Sages determinated that this belief is actually idol worship (see Rambam quoted in footnote 6 above, - my note: about christian worship towards a  divine trinity-)  , and  according to all opinions it is considereded to be idolatry for Jews.
Even for those Rabbinical opinions maintaining that belief in an intermediary is permitted for a Gentile, this only means that the person should not be considered ad idolater.But a person does not reach the spiritual level of a Pious Gentile as long as he holding such a belief." (pages 203/204)
But Rambam considers the worship of intermediaries idolatry, not mere belief in them : Mishneh Torah -Avodat Kochavim 2:1
The essence of the commandment [forbidding] the worship of false gods is not to serve any of the creations, not an angel, a sphere, or a star, none of the four fundamental elements, nor any entity created from them. Even if the person worshiping knows that 'ה is the [true] God and serves the creation in the manner in which Enosh and the people of his generation worshiped [the stars] originally, he is considered to be an idol worshiper.
The Torah warns us about this, saying [Deuteronomy 4:19]: "Lest you lift your eyes heavenward and see the sun, the moon, and the stars... [and bow down and worship them], the entities which God apportioned to all the nations." This implies that you might inquire with "the eye of the heart" and it might appear to you that these entities control the world, having been apportioned by God to all the nations to be alive, to exist, and not to cease existence, as is the pattern of [the other creations with] the world. Therefore, you might say that it is worthy to bow down to them and worship them.
For this reason, [Deuteronomy 11:16] commands: "Be very careful that your heart not be tempted [to go astray and worship other gods]." This implies that the thoughts of your heart should not lead you astray to worship these and make them an intermediary between you and the Creator.
In Mishneh Torah-Hilchot Teshuvah chapter three,Rambam himself furthermore describes twenty four categories of individuals who "do not have a portion in the world to come. Rather, their [souls] are cut off and they are judged for their great wickedness and sins , forever".
In point 3.14 Rambam makes it clear that they are "cut off" even if they are Jews, which makes it clear that he is talking about both Jews and Gentiles.
Well, in point 3.7 Rambam identifies, in the sub-category of "minim":
"one who serves a star, constellation, or other entity so that it will serve as an intermediary between him and the eternal Lord" (see Avodat Kokhavim 2:1)
thus confirming that the exclusion from world to come is, in his statement, about those who worship the intermediaries, not those who believe in their existence but worship only HaShem.
It is true, Rambam disputes this belief, but he does not consider it an obstacle for non-Jews to achieve the status of "pious Gentiles", nor does he claim that it even constitutes idolatry for Jews: if he had issued this last sentence, he would have accused so many great sages of Israel of idolatry!
The reference to what Rambam says about Christian worship does not seem to me to be relevant to the present case. True, Rambam claims that Christians are idolaters (uncensored version of Mishneh Torah-Avodat Kochavim 9:4; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 11: 7), and this is in accordance with what is established by the Oral Torah (Gemara-Avodah Zarah 6a and 7b); however, Christianity is not a simple set of beliefs, but is a religion based on worship towards a divine trinity, to which Catholics and Eastern churches
(obviously in the times of Maimonides, and even more so in the Talmudic times, the evangelical churches did not yet exist) add worship towards "angels", "saints" and Mary, the mother of Jesus the Nazarene, who is also called "the mother of G-d "; Catholics and Eastern Christians also make extensive use of cultic statues, in front of which they kneel and perform other service activities: they are all conducts of worship, not mere beliefs.
It is true that traditional Christian beliefs, according to Rambam, prevent the adherent from participating in the world from coming regardless of the type of worship practiced.
In fact, in Mishneh Torah-Hilchot Tesuvah 3:8 Maimonides indicates, among those whose souls are cut off as "Torah deniers":
"one who says that though the Torah came from the Almighty, the Creator has replaced one mitzvah with another one and nullified the original Torah, like the Muslims (literally "the Hagarites") and the Christians" (uncensored version of the passage, attested in the authoritative Yemeni manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, as I have verified with friends and scholars of "Mechon Mamre").
It is therefore attested in Rambam that certain beliefs in themselves determine the exclusion from participation in the world to come, both for Jews and for Gentiles, positions however to which the simple belief in the existence of intermediaries does not belong, if only HaShem is worshiped and the perpetual validity of the Torah is not contested ((in this direction there are great Sages of the Torah such as the aforementioned Rabbeinu Bahya, Nachmanides, Judah Halevi etc. etc.).
Therefore I think that Rav Cherki's rule about this point is much more solid, on the halachic plane, than Rav Weiner's rule.
Are there other rabbis and / or poskim who deliberate on this matter in line with this, in my opinion, highly questionable ruling taken by Rav Moshe Weiner?
Comment: Really great post. I think you got to the heart of the question and clarified many difficult aspects. However, I am wondering where this ruling from Rambam in https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/911896/jewish/Teshuvah-Chapter-Three.htm would fit in?

https://ibb.co/VvZFYxj

Two paragraphs is too long to fit in the comment window, so I posted it as a screenshot.

Does that apply to Christians and other goyim, or only Jews? Can they worship the trinity all their life, then at the end say, "I repent," but no conversion, no brit milah, maybe they never even kept the Noahide laws?
Comment: @ShipBuilding Thank you very much. As for the third chapter of Rambam's Mishneh Torah-Hilchot Teshuvah, I remind you therein speaks, in accordance with the Halachic and Midrashic sources, of "having a share in the World to Come". The extent and characteristics of this "share" depend on the merits acquired by a person on earth, and therefore it is not an equal share for everyone.
Comment: @ShipBuilding Also consider that Talmudic sources such as, for example, Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a, speak of a temporary Gehinnom for human beings neither totally good nor totally evil
Comment: Thanks Amos74. I am aware righteous gentiles have a share in the World to Come, but in the screenshotted portion, Rambam says "any wicked person," but quotes Jeremiah "return, faithless children," which unless I'm mistaken is speaking of Israel only. So I'm wondering if that screenshoted portion, "person" is referring to Jews or non-Jews also? If it's referring to both, fine, but what is meant by "repent"? What does a Jew need to do to repent "even in private" vs what does a goy need to do to repent "even in private"?
Answer: I transcribe below the kind response I received on the matter from Rav Dr Michael Schulman, editor of "The Divine Code" by Rav Moshe Weiner, as well as executive director of Ask Noah International:
"You're specific observation was based on a misunderstanding you have about the definition of "sheetuf", so it is worthy to make a clarification about that in the text of The Divine Code.
"Belief in a sheetuf" does not refer to belief that an entity exists, or that it has operational influence in the creation (i.e., that it's operational influence in the creation exists). For example, it is well accepted within halacha that the planets, stars and mazalot, as well as the different angels at their different spiritual levels, play a role in the channeling of sustenance and the course of events into this world, from the spiritual source of that sustenance and those events. The book does not intend to intimate that this is not correct, nor that acceptance of (or "belief in") this fact is in any way unrighteous or not pious for either Jews or Gentiles. As I said, see Part II, topic 11:10 and the footnote there, about authentic astrology and Gentiles, and the underlying intent that this applies even for Chasidei Umot Ha'Olam.
Rather, the correct / accurate meaning of "belief in a sheetuf" refers to the person's belief about the nature of the operational influence which an entity has. This can be with the accepted understanding that the entity does have influence (such as the mazalot and the angels). I refer you to the book True Existence, which presents and explains a Chassidic discourse on this subject:
True Existence
Note: If a person believes that an imaginary thing exists in the physical or spiritual realm, and he believes that it has some supra-natural influence in the world, then whether or not that also constitutes "belief in a sheetuf" (which would be in addition to being foolish or misinformed for believing that the thing exists) will depend on his belief about the nature of the influence which he imagines that it has.
Nevertheless, even with that clarification about the definition of "belief in a sheetuf", a separate clarification (i.e. additional explanation) also needs to be added in the book about how "belief in a sheetuf" (which is not forbidden for Gentiles) affects the spiritual standing of a Gentile".
Answer: In your question, you confused intermediaries with independent powers. The constellations have no power of their own, not even controlled power. They are like hammers compared to an arm: They are simply the things directly affected by G-D, and everything that happens is a butterfly affect from that. They have no power whatsoever. Serving them is as stupid as talking to a hammer instead of the person using it. Just like a hammer is a special tool of bumpy rock, constellations are special tools of spherical plasma. Neither one is alive, and neither has any power.
G-D controls the Jews directly, instead of through constellations. This can be related to a person using his own hands instead of a hammer.


How does a sighted species explain that they can see

Question: In a world I am building, there are two sapient species, named Ae and Be. Ae are tall but blind, while the Be are short and sighted. While it has been asked how a blind species would discover another species' ability to see, on the other end of the spectrum, how would a species with sight explain what sight is?
Comment: This concept is slightly explored in [Ring of Endless Light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Ring_of_Endless_Light).  The dolphins have a sense that humans cannot ever fully appreciate.  The closest they can come is to imagine how they would explain sight to creatures with no eyes.
Answer: How technologically advanced are the two species? If they've reached the appropriate tech level, then a sighted species should be able to explain that they have organs that detect electromagnetic radiation in certain wavelengths.
I'd assume that the blind species has some equivalent to sight; echolocation, for example. The blind species likely builds up a picture of the world much the same as the sighted do. It should therefore be as simple as saying "The same way you can hear textures of different surfaces, we see different colours." Looking for common experiences and using them as analogies is a very effective tool.
EDITED TO ADD:
Surprisingly enough, we may find that the unsighted species understands the world in remarkably similar ways to the sighted.
Some humans have developed echolocation. People who were born blind or who lost their sight in infancy have demonstrated the ability to rewire their brains such that data is passed from the ear to the visual cortex of the brain, and essentially processed as an image. They can 'see' well enough to ride a bicycle in traffic, or distinguish a metal fence from a wooden one. They can perceive and appreciate visible beauty, and describe the picture they get as "very rich".
The evidence suggests that bats perceive the world the same way. Sure, they don't see colour the way we do, but they do seem to perceive texture much more precisely than we can with our eyes. That's why I suggested that we could describe sight to the unsighted using the analogy of texture for colour.
Answer: They can simply say that they can detect the shape of object from a distance up to several kilometer, which is the basic definition of sight.
Next, list the restriction for correct sight (light level required, impossibility to see through thing, intact eye, etc...).
With this, the blind specie will be able to understand what sight can do, even if more complex things like colour will be more difficult to understand.
Answer: BECAUSE SCIENCE!
Explaining how sight works would be poor and clumsy at best, although it would give the blind race a starting point to trying to understand it.
How do we understand Echo Location? We put bats in a dark room and gave some of them earplugs.
Admittedly, Tech-level would affect how long it took to understand. For example, to understand echo location, you first need an instrument that can pick up sounds you can't. Over time the blind race would come to understand light as 'some form of radiation' that sighted races can detect with their eyeballs. Since they don't know what color is, they would probably learn to associate colors with sounds, and might 'visualize' a picture as a sort of weird melody. (similar to our distorted view on what echo location 'looks like')
Comment: Actually...interestingly enough....the unsighted species may well 'visualise' a picture just the way we do.  There are a few humans who lost their sight at or near birth who have developed echolocation.  MRI scans show that when they are echolocating, the visual cortex of their brain lights up - they are *literally* seeing sound.
Answer: The classic answer in our world is to prove sight is to hand a blind person a camera.   The blind person goes into a private room, takes a picture of her hand holding up some number of fingers, takes camera back, and sighted person states how many fingers.
In your case, the short sighted people might try to pass off sight as magic.
Answer: Maybe you could relate it to heat radiation. Just as skin can sense heat from a distance without any sound, the organs called eyes can sense a different type of radiation called light. And just like sound can bounce off of objects to determine different aspects of that object, light bounces off everything at once to reveal many other different aspects of objects.


What is the physical structure of light?

Question: Conceptually, I understand what light is, but I don't know what a photon would "look like" if it could be frozen in space/time. For instance, the notion of amplitude seems to be absent when discussing light, even tho it is drawn as orthogonal sine waves. Is the sine wave just a way to represent the periodic change in field strength, or do the fields occupy a volume such as would be generated by rotating a sine wave about its axis? Does a light quantum have length, or is it only an instantaneous value at a point in space (and then how can it be red- or blue-shifted)? How does the magnetic field component satisfy the requirement that all field lines be closed? Does light even behave like this on a discrete level?
Comment: Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/103904/2451
Comment: Why do you think a photon can "look like" anything? Quantum objects are not classical objects, and there is neither rhyme nor reason to be found when imposing our intuitive ideas about "size" or "occupying space" or somesuch on them.
Comment: @Qmechanic I read that one but it wasn't a satisfying answer.
Comment: @ACuriousMind If quantum objects didn't have a size or occupy space, they couldn't interact with one another. Wave functions occupy a volume, and EM fields must have a spatial distribution and orientation.
Answer: One has to distinguish the two frameworks: the classical, light; the quantum, photons.
The classical electromagnetic wave, of which visible light is a part of the frequency spectrum, emerges out of zillions of photons, the quantum of light. This happens because the photon has an energy E=h*nu, where h is the Planck constant and nu the frequency of the classical  wave that will emerge from zillions of photons . It also has a spin and can be described by a quantum mechanical wave function that allows the build up of the classical wave from the quanta. The energy of the classical wave is the addition of the individual photon energies building up an amplitude.

Is the sine wave just a way to represent the periodic change in field strength, or do the fields occupy a volume such as would be generated by rotating a sine wave about its axis?

The sine wave and cosine wave belong to the classical electromagnetic wave. Not to individual photons. Individual photons have a probability of appearing in space that is described by a sine/cosine wave, but not a distribution of its energy in space time.  The photon's energy is one whole quantum. The emergent classical wave has a sinusoidal energy distribution in space time of the same frequency .

Does a light quantum have length, or is it only an instantaneous value at a point in space (and then how can it be red- or blue-shifted)?

The photon has no length, it is an elementary particle . The shift in frequency that is assigned a change in color is an emergent effect from the zillion of photons. For the individual photon, a red shift means a lower frequency/energy h*nu, a blue shift a higher frequency/energy h*nu.

How does the magnetic field component satisfy the requirement that all field lines be closed?

The photon does not have a magnetic field component, it is characterized by the potential entering Maxwell's equations and it will build up the magnetic and electric field components of the emergent classical wave. By itself it is a particle characterized by a probability distribution for its space time location.

Does light even behave like this on a discrete level?

On a discrete level, in the double slit single photon experiments which show interference patterns by individual photons, i.e. the probability distribution manifesting in the build up of the experiment, the emergence of the classical wave that coincides with the quantum frame is displayed clearly.
Answer: The only person I know, who spoke about the structure of the photon, is de-Broglie, listen to him:

For both matter and radiations, light in particular, it is necessary to introduce
  the corpuscle concept and the wave concept at the same time. In other words
  the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves has to be assumed in all
  cases. However, since corpuscles and waves cannot be independent because,
  according to Bohr's expression, they constitute two complementary forces
  of reality, it must be possible to establish a certain parallelism between the
  motion of a corpuscle and the propagation of the associated wave.$_1$

Many of them don't agree with him, thinking the quote is of 1929. Let me remind them that, we are still agreeing de-Broglie's hypothesis of matter waves as I know, which is actually derived from the above concept. So, the above quote is still valid. To know more from him, read the noble lecture from the below link.
Another legendary is Feynman, listen to him:

...Some other important observation are that, as light goes from one place to another, it goes in straight lines, if there is nothing in the way, and that rays don't seem to interfere with one another. That is , light is crisscrossing in all directions in the room, but the light that is passing across our line of vision does not affect the light that comes to us from some object. This was once a most powerful argument against the corpuscular theory; it was used by Huygens. If light were like a lot of arrows shooting along, how could other arrows through them so easily? Such philosophical arguments are not of much weight. *One could always say that light is made up of arrows which go through each other!*$_2$

The last line gives a brief description of how light behaves physically.
The below statement is again from the same specialist:

Light is something like raindrops-each little lump of light is called photon-and if the light is all one color, all the "rain drops" are the same size.$_3$

We see the world because of light, then what do you use to see the light? Can we use electron waves? That's upto you now to discover.

Credits: $_1$ Noble Lecture-Louis de Broglie $_2$ Feynman Lectures on Physics-Vol l $_3$ QED:The Strange Theory of Light and Matter


Facebook page not appearing in developers/apps page

Question: So I go to http://developers.facebook.com/apps to try to begin to add an app to a page.  The page has 26 fans and I was allowed to create a vanity URL but the page does not appear on the apps page.  Anyone have a reason as to why this is the case?
Answer: It is not going to be there. http://developers.facebook.com/apps lists apps that you develop.
Go to the app page, then click "Add to My Page", from there you can add an app to your page.


Drawing bots is prohibited or not?

Question: I'm pretty sure drawing animate objects is prohibited in Islam but can you explain about drawing robots, since robots only resemble human features but are actually inanimate, is drawing them prohibited too??
Comment: Well you could still have an issue with humanoid druids. Be aware that the question whether or not drawing is still prohibted is disputable the reason why the prophet pbuh prohibted such things are hardly given today at least for educated people.
Answer: Asamulikum,
Humans make robots, so if we draw robots then it would be halal because we are not imitating the creation of Allah. Robots can also do good things. However, some robots are in the human form. So if you drew a robot, you could be drawing in a human form. So it could be haram.

Drawing bots is prohibited or not?


Where can I stay in a castle in northern Wales?

Question: Where can I stay in a castle in northern Wales, specifically in the Snowdonia Natioal Park, Anglesey or Caernafon-Llandudno areas (not sure of the official name of this area)?
Answer: There are actually several, as found in a quick google search.  But one that matches your area certainly seems to be Bodelwyddan Castle. It is just under an hour from Chester, 10 minutes from the seaside town of Rhyl, and half an hour away from the Victorian Pier at Llandudno.

A similarly close one is Ruthin Castle Hotel, although it's a bit closer to the Chester side of North Wales.

I believe the area names you're looking for might be Denbighshire, which both these castles are located in.
Comment: I'd seen one in a travel program but I could only find Ruthin in my Googling, which didn't look quite right.  Looks like there might be more to choose from than I thought.
Answer: In addition to Mark's suggestions, there's Bryn Bras Castle, 10 minutes drive from Snowdonia National Park and Caernafon.

And also Glandyfi Castle on the southern edge of Snowdownia National Park.


So I have a preflop raise-fold range, but what if someone raises before me?

Question: So I have learnt the standard charts for 9-man raise-fold preflop with no earlier raisers. How do I adjust for a raiser in a certain position? Surely there should be call-3bet charts but I cannot find any. Any maths on the subject would be most welcome.
Comment: The math is too complicated for any human to understand which is why we use solvers to create the charts. These charts all exist. Gareth James at MTT Poker School has created powerful charts using Monker Solver, right now they're only accessible to his students but I'm sure you can try to get in touch. You could also purchase some expensive tools such as those provided by Raize your edge etc. Basically these charts exist, you just have to know where to look.
Comment: You need to figure out some 3-bet/call/fold ranges. There are standard "equilibrium" ranges, of course, but keep in mind that, for making the most money, you'll need to take into account what the preflop raiser's range is, so things get tricky.
Comment: You build a 3bet range
Answer: The reason you don't see this ... are you really keeping track of every players opening percent, at every position, and then on top of that, keeping track of their 3bet percent in every position against openings of every position? Its doubtful.
In this situation its easier to just apply some basic logic/math.
If someone opens, you assume they are using the proper opening range for that position (unless you have have them marked as having an opening percentage that is too high/too low, to expand/contract that range).
When the 3bet comes, you should assume, in turn, that this person believes they can beat the openers range, which means they probably have a holding in the top 50% of the openers range. Probably a little less due to blinds giving them better equity.
When it comes to your hand, you want to be somewhere around the same range as the 3-better to call - that is your hand is in the range which beats the upper half of the original openers range. Now if you in turn beat 50% of the hands in the 3-betters range, which in turn beat 50% of the hands the opener has) then it would make sense to 4-bet.
This is of course talking about a cash game that is deep stacked.
Comment: I would have thought there is some formulaic way, things like Chen's Formula being used
Comment: For one raise, you need to know the raiser's raise policy. For two raises, you need to know the raise policies of both raisers, *and* what the second raiser's belief about the first raiser's raise policy is.
Answer: I once heard a professional, whom I really respect, say "If you are calling raises with more than 10% of your range you are almost certainly a losing player". And through all of my hours playing both live and online, I have to agree with that statement.
So, what does that mean? Folding is rarely a mistake. If you folded to every time someone raised, you could probably still turn a profit in poker.
But of course you want to have some range. So how about just picking top 15 of your hands in your range (not 15% but 15 hands) and playing those. For most people that's going to be  AA-22 and AQs+ and that's it and that's OK.
Will you give up some value over the long run with this? Maybe. But you'll rarely be making a mistake and putting yourself in bad positions there. If you want to consider balancing your actions, you could consider 3-betting with the bottom end of your 15 hands. Go ahead and three-bet every other time you have pocket 5s (which, spoiler alert, wont be very often) and play that way to balance out your range.


How can I test my shell script's file-handling robustness?

Question: I've written a shell script that handles some "regular" filenames, but I've read Why does my shell script choke on whitespace or other special characters? and Why you shouldn't parse the output of ls and I'd like it to be more robust and handle any valid filenames (and/or directory names). How can I create a test-bed of files and directories to run my script against?
Answer: Create a separate directory to play in (for ease of cleaning up later, mainly); this uses the value of $TMPDIR if it's set, otherwise /tmp:
mkdir "${TMPDIR-/tmp}/testing"
cd "${TMPDIR-/tmp}/testing"

Create files that are separate, but appear similar to each other because of whitespace (space, tab, newline, carriage return, backspace):
touch -- a b 'a ' 'b ' 'a b' 'a  b' $'a\bb'
touch -- a$'\xe2\x80\x82'b a$'\xe2\x80\x83'b a$'\t'b a$'\n'b a$'\r'b

Credit for the above to Patrick. The two hex code ones are UTF-8 space separators known as nut and mutton; "in bidirectional context it acts as White Space and (are) not mirrored. The glyph(s) can, under circumstances, be confused with 20 other glyphs."
Create a plain file and one that would expand to the first if it was treated as a glob:
touch -- x '[x]'

Credit for the above to Wumpus Q. Wumbley.
In a similar vein:
touch -- 'a?b' 'a*b'

Credit for the above to dave_thompson_085 in the comments here.
touch -- foo\`echo\ malicious\`bar

Credit for the above to godlygeek.
A filename that will expand to something different (and potentially arbitrary execution!) if evaluated in a shell context:
touch '$( echo boom )'

Use:
touch -- single\'quote double\"quote back\\slash

to catch attempts to put a file name in quotes without escaping quotes.
touch -- -a -b -c -r -R - a=x

Credit for the above to Stéphane Chazelas.
Create a named pipe and symlink (to create files that aren't "regular"):
mkfifo fifo
ln -s a alink

Create subdirectories that have various whitespace included in their names, along with token files inside of them:
mkdir subdir "subdir 1" "subdir 2" "subdir 3 " subdir$'\n'4
touch subdir/file0 "subdir 1"/file1 "subdir 2"/file2 "subdir 3 "/file3 subdir$'\n'4/file4

Create filenames only containing * (possibly problematic to remove), a filename consisting of only a (regular!) space, a dead symbolic link, a symbolic link that loops onto itself, and a sub-directory with a link back to the parent directory:
touch -- '*' '**' '***' ' '

ln -s /does/not/exist dead

ln -s loop loop

mkdir subdir_with_link
(cd subdir_with_link && ln -s .. parent)

More misc filenames.  The last two are unicode for "fractional slash" and "division slash".
touch -- '(' '!' '!!'  $'\xe2\x81\x84' $'\xe2\x88\x95'

Ideas from Scott:
touch -- '-' '--' ';' '&' '|' '<' '>' '$' ')' '{' '}' = \\ '!' '#' '{a,b}'

Characters that are harmless in some locales but dangerous in others:
touch $'X\xa0Y' # non-breaking space in iso8859-1 which is considered
                # "blank" and "space" in some locales

touch $'\xa3\x5c' $'\xa3\x60' # α and ε in BIG5 or BIG5-HKSCS charset, but
                              # �\ and �` in ASCII

Characters that sort the same in some locales:
touch ① ② # sorts the same in GNU locales, order non-deterministic.

Files that escape the .[!.]* * glob (sometimes used to expand both hidden and non-hidden files):
touch ..foo ...

Comment: yes, please describe the test cases your creating most are obvious, some like that one which looks like a Unicode character in it, aren't.
Comment: I'd add `a?b` and `a*b` (quoted of course). @muru: byte sequences E2 80 82/83 are the UTF-8 encoding of U+2002 EN SPACE and U+2003 EM SPACE
Comment: Some evil geniuses at work there :-c
Comment: It might be interesting to play with `-` and `--`, although, depending on the script's requirements, it should maybe be impossible to access them without a leading `./`.  And I'm surprised that there are so few with non-glob shell special characters, like `;`, `&`, `|`, `<`, `>`, `$`, `(`, `)`, `{`, `}`, `=`, ``\``, `!`, and `#` — for example, `{a,b}`.
Comment: Feel free to add in your ideas, @Scott ! That's why I made it community wiki.


Ah freilichen purim .. English please

Question: I was wondering how to say Ah freilichen Purim in proper English.
Is it universal like Gut Yomtiv (or is that also an assumption...) or do you just say Have a Happy Purim - the literal translation. ( I have a co-worker that's not from my background and I want to make sure I address him properly without offending him )
Answer: It literally means "a festive Purim". The words "I wish you" that should accompany it are missing but if you want to say it in proper English then "I wish you a festive Purim" would do the job.
Google Translate has "A happy Purim".
Maybe you need to cast lots to decide which to use. (Purim means "lots").
Comment: @Avrohom Yitzchok Thanks for response. As there are presumably no sources possible for an answer here, I am looking for someone who interacts with those non-yiddish/yeshivish speaking. Is that your case (sorry for being nosy, but otherwise you didn't really answer my question)
Comment: @R.Mo I do interact with non-yiddish/yeshivish speakers.
Comment: I fail to see why "I wish you a joyful Purim" would not be OK to say to a Yeshivish person as long as you don't start singing "I wish you a joyful Purim and a happy Nissan!"
Comment: @Mike My question was about insulting someone by belittling their jewish knowledge. - shoulda had ignorance as a tag.  :)
Comment: Wow I found his answer very helpful. I am teaching in a Orthodox Jewish School and they often use words I don't understand so I look them up. I have started studying Hebrew because I love languages and my students all study it. I try to say the words correctly and they will giggle. When I write my newsletter I just use English words.
Have a blessed Chanukah! :)

Ah freilichen purim .. English please


When does use of offensive language in a book go from a character trait or to convey emotion to bad use of English skills

Question: I decided to included some offensive language in one of my novels as many novels do. I was wondering however at what point does it become poor dialogue or just plain bad English. Obviously I'm not using every second word as a cuss word but it is recurring.
Answer: When it adds no value to the text.
It depends entirely on the context and the setting. Swearing for the sake of swearing is juvenile. Teens do it because they think it makes them appear hard or grown up. Adults tend do it out of frustration, anger or pain, or to add emphasis. Most often frustration.
The trick is how you use it. You don't have to include swearing in dialogue explicitly to have it included in the story. People swear under their breath all the time (in fact, that's usually what I end up doing most of the day at work when responding to emails).
Culture and upbringing also play a role in how a character would respond, and how much they would curse. Australia is rife with this, but most of it's not meant offensively.
Comment: +1, especially for the fact that you don't have to include the actual expletives. When angry people walk away muttering under their breath, readers will easily assume that they are swearing. You can also simply say that people cursed, swore bitterly, remarked unfavorably on somebody's ancestors, had a few choice words, etc. There are lots of ways to describe vulgarity/crudeness without getting your own boots muddy.
Comment: +1 for not including it. Not everyone swears --- or, urm --- not every one uses the same words for swearing, so it can be less distracting to the reader. Of course, if its integral to the character, then it's integral to the character.
Answer: I think the only point where it becomes bad is if it stops having a point. As long as you keep the cussing with characters who would normally cuss, or use it in narration to be emphatic on something then it's okay.
There's this series The Raven Cycle by Maggie Stiefvater that I particularly like and one of her characters has a tendency to use the F word. It's okay because he's one of the only characters saying it, and he uses it in a nonchalant way that shows us how little this character cares for society's etiquette and manners.
Other than that, there is not much other swearing save for "damn" or "shit" by other characters.
If you have a first person novel where the character is from a rough part of town, has grown up in a rude culture, then having- "I walked down the dark street at fucking 2 am with nothing but a shitty light shining from my phone." - makes sense and the reader may find this amusing and fun. Obviously someone who finds this offensive would stop reading, but that does not make it bad writing.
On the other hand, in my paragraph here if I just started inserting- "It's okay because he's one of the only fucking characters saying it, and he uses it in a nonchalant way that shows us how little shit this character cares for society's damn etiquette and manners." - Then that may come off as a little inappropriate and shocking. I am simply writing a chill response to a simple question on a website. There's no need for harsh tongue here.
Comment: No need for harsh goddamned language? Are you out of your fucking mind? When the hell do you not need constant cursing?
Answer: The purpose of fiction is to give pleasure to the reader. The use of profanity, like anything else, works when it gives pleasure to the reader.
Of course, certain profanities will displease certain readers, so you will certainly lose some potential readers if you use profanity. The question is, are they readers you would otherwise have had? If not, you have lost nothing by using it.
Equally, the use of certain profanities will give pleasure to certain readers. The question is, will it give enough pleasure to those readers, over and above the other pleasures your story offers, to turn them from non-readers to readers? If not, you have gained nothing by using it.
Logically, then, you should use it when it gains you more readers than it loses you.
But there can be no general guideline for this, for the simple reason that the use of profanity adds to or takes away from the pleasures that a particular kind of story gives to a particular reader. The same reader may appreciate it in one kind of story and reject it in another, because it adds to the pleasure of one kind of story, for them, and detract from the pleasure of another kind of story, for them.
The right degree and use of profanity is always going to be highly specific to particular readers and particular stories, and even to the style of particular authors, one of whom may be able to pull it off where another cannot.
It is worth noting, however, that it is almost always possible to achieve the same dramatic effect without the use of profanity. There is always a risk in the  use of profanity, in that most profane words are trigger words for some portion of the reading public. I almost always put a book down at the first bit of profanity, not because I am scandalized by it, but because it is almost always a flag for lazy writing. Unless you are very sure of what you are doing, it is probably safer to attempt to achieve the same effect by other means.
Comment: Once again, best answer. As someone who grew up on "the wrong side of the tracks", I'm kind of accultured to a Kevin Smithian level of swearing that some others from more genteel (typically suburban) backgrounds find very off-putting. I've noticed to my surprise that extends to literature. So **there's no one magic level** here. Perhaps you don't have to be so crass as to tune it to maximize readership (your profits), but every artist has to balance being edgy with popular acceptance, and writing is no different.
Comment: Love the last paragraph.
Answer: I think of cuss words in my writing like spices. I don't want hot sauce on everything, and I don't want my carrot cake doused in Habanero Death Spiral.
If you use them too liberally, then like spices you overwhelm the rest of the flavor of the dish. In writing, that includes any poetic imagery, turns of phrase, or anything else.
Like hot sauce, it also just numbs the reader to any shock value the words may have, the just become filler. If 'fuck' is on every fucking page for every fucking character then there is no fucking place to go when something truly fucked up happens out of fucking nowhere.
for this reason, I tend to use cuss words very sparingly, and only for characters in extreme emotional states: grief, rage, hot love, cold hatred.
I am not above the standard fare in my own life, and in real life probably use more cussing than average; often in laughter (e.g. that's so fucked up! What a shithead!).
But I don't write that way. Note that sparing use doesn't prevent one character from cussing frequently, the cusses will still be sparing on the page. If you are writing the Joe Pesci character in Goodfellas (an impulsively violent, cruel and out-of-control gangster), you may need it. Like Pesci's character, frequently cussing can be used to show a lack of self control in a character, and aggression in a character: "Fuck you, asshole" is typically used for anger and aggression.
Too much ruins things. Some of it may be necessary in order to comport to reality. If Alice smashes her thumb with a hammer, an exclamation of "Oh, Pansies! Holy savior I think I broke it!" makes Alice a pretty weird and repressed person.
In extremum, normal people curse. I avoid everyday cursing for my characters because I want the extremum cursing to stand taller.
As for racial, ethnic or homosexual slurs: I think it is necessary for some fiction (movies about civil rights issues or racism in America would be pretty ridiculous without racial slurs, as one example), but I don't write that type of fiction, and don't consume it either. That is a personal choice, what I read and write is intended for escape and adventure, I don't need any fictive versions to remind me of real life hatred, abuse and carnage.
Remember the Ad writers maxim: If you emphasize everything, you have emphasized nothing. Now they are talking about bolding, italicizing, caps, boxes, bigger fonts, graphical arrows and badges and such. If the page is littered with them, they are ignored and probably the piece is put aside. if there is ONE big red arrow on the page, people will read what it points to: If there are TEN big red arrows on the page, none of them get read.
Cuss words are intensifiers, but if everything is intensified, none of them have any power. If nobody is cussing and in chapter 7 Alice explodes and says "Fuck you, Bill! Fuck you!" and storms out, that has power. If Alice uses 'fuck' on every other page, that scene has very little power; in fact the only power it has is provided by the context of the scene, pretty much as if the book were written without Alice cussing at all. Which means we threw away our ability to intensify that scene, by creating Alice as a non-cussing character that cussed with vigor in an extreme emotional state.
Answer: Anything in dialogue (direct or reported speech) is probably fine if it adds to the character. It also works in first person narration, or where the narrator has a specific character - as you say, it's a character trait.
It also depends how you define offensive language, though this is going to be different for different people. Many will be fine with "curse words", but draw the line at ethnic slurs - these can be tricky even when they help define the character.
If you're thinking in terms of character and context, it sounds like you've got the right idea.
Answer: Additional to the other excellent answers is the use of vulgarity for comedic purposes. There are lots of styles of comedy: slapstick, screwball, situational, irony, and so forth. When done right, and in context, vulgarity can lighten the mood of an otherwise deprecating scene, like torture or death, and leave the reader (or viewer) entertained.
And sometimes, such as iconic stand-up comedians like Eddie Murphy, Richard Prior, Andrew "Dice" Clay--it made their careers. South Park, Game of Thrones, and Deadwood, to name a few, do/did just fine with a wide audience.
Answer: I've often seen the following strategy used to great effect: if the cursing is relatively mild, it is directly written in the dialog of the character. On occasions it is very harsh, its effects on surrounding characters are described instead ("onlookers were shocked by the sudden outburst of swearing, and its gory and explicit details they don't usually hear every day despite living in a rough part of town")
Answer: When it stops conveying the true meaning  of the character and end being just extra word with not whatsoever the emotions in the situation the characters utter the words. It's important the words that describes the character also hone by him in different situations.
Answer: The Inheritance Series (Eragon and etc) had the word 'blast' as a cuss word. Including the protagonist's (it becomes 'barzûl' in Dwarvish). So maybe you could use a similar rough word as a cuss.


Random Forest, Duplicating Data increases Accuracy. Why?

Question: I duplicated my training data for the random forest classifier (Sklearn) and the accuracy of the prediction increased by about 3%. Why?
Comment: Hello, welcome to the site. Can you please provide some extra details on your problem? We could use some information, like what kind of problem you're trying to solve (binary or multi-class classification, regression?), the options set in the constructor and for the fit method, how you duplicated the data and got the accuracy scores.

Do not hesitate to provide samples of code!
Answer: Without further details, my guess is that your dataset is unbalanced (not the same number of samples in both classes), so that duplicating the data increases the # samples in the most represented class. Depending on how you configured the Random Forest, it may aim at predicting correctly the most represented class and have less concern about the under represented one. In this case, by duplicating the dataset, you put even more pressure on predicting the most represented class and that's what it does, thus increasing accuracy.
As a note, I believe this would not happen if you were training on a dataset and testing on a different one (samples of the test set, on which you assess performance, should be different from the ones in the train set).
Comment: Classification is slightly unbalanced, about 52:48, yes. But I am training/testing on two different datasets, basically I split them beforehand. Thanks for the answer.
Comment: You may also want to check that you don't have duplicates between your train / test sets, that is the same data contained in both datasets, which could also explain this phenomenon. Also, if you want to have repeatable results, I encourage you to explicitly declare the random_seed you use in your algorithm, otherwise running the same training phase twice may result in different results


Are there any 'home-grown' substances that can be used to clean carpet stains?

Question: I've heard of using walnuts to remove scratches on wooden furniture. Are there any plants that can be grown or foraged that have the ability to remove dirt/stains from carpets?
Comment: What type of stain(s)?
Comment: @chrisFrisina Choclate ice cream
Comment: Coffee stain removal would also be good to know! :-D
Answer: Vinegar is known to be a cleaning agent, but I don't know what sort of stains or what sort of carpet, so it is hard to know if it would be appropriate in your circumstance.  You can make homemade vinegar a number of ways, but my method of choice is a long-standing batch of kombucha.  If I were in your shoes, I might produce a good strong kombucha vinegar, then remove it from the SCOBY, filter nicely, let a bunch of lemon rinds soak in it for several days, then TRY IT on an inconspicuous section of the carpet to see if removes stains without destroying the color/material.
Comment: When I was in middle school I did a science fair project on vinegar's effect on pigmentation in various vegetables.  I was actually interested in following up on the color changes in red cabbage, but I found something else.  Vinegar seems to reduce the color of "green" juices of veggies (I don't know whether it's chlorophyll or something else that it neutralizes).  Usually the result is more orange.


Will Thunderbolt Cinema displays work with Mini DisplayPort equipped macs?

Question: Is it possible to plug a Thunderbolt cinema display into a Mini DisplayPort-equipped Mac and have it work?  This question suggests that it's possible and that it's pretty much the same cable, but I don't see any explicit confirmation anywhere.
Comment: Duplicate: http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/17960/are-there-adapters-to-use-thunderbolt-display-with-non-thunderbolt-computers
Comment: It's not the same cable for sure - thunderbolt has a much greater bandwidth
Comment: Ah, I didn't see that question before.  Mine's a bit more specific, but it is indeed a partial duplicate.
Answer: Plugs are the same, cables are not. The thunderbolt cables contain chips and firmware.
I haven't used the new Thunderbolt display, however I am aware of the following:
MiniDP Macbook -> MiniDP iMac 27: works fine.
Thunderbolt Macbook -> MiniDP iMac 27: works fine.
MiniDP Macbook -> Thunderbolt iMac 27: does not work
Thunberbolt Macbook -> Thunderbolt iMac 27: works fine.
This is in my experience and confirmed from various Apple KB articles. So I believe it's likely you won't be able to use the Thunderbolt display on a MiniDP machine, as that is certainly the case with the iMac 27" models.
Answer: The short answer is no. Apple's Thunderbolt Display requires a thunderbolt signal (and only that) to operate.
The spec page for the display implies very strongly that Thunderbolt displays will only work with Thunderbolt Macs.
This happens to concern me since I own a previous-generation iMac (pre-Thunderbolt) and really wanted to have the option to use it with a Thunderbolt display.  So I asked the guys at the Apple Store.
The Apple Store told me no, it will not work on a non-Thunderbolt Mac.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news :(.
Comment: I doubt it.  It would not be possible to duplicate Thunderbolt with any legacy technology.  You could theoretically produce an adapter that would fake out the interface, but it would be unwieldy and extremely expensive.
Comment: Did they tell you if there are (or will be) adapters?


Can Trump, Pence, or other Trump loyalists derail the remaining proceedings of the 2020 election, and if so, how?

Question: Building on this question: What procedures are in place to stop a U.S. Vice President from ignoring electors?, I am wondering what, if any, actions/inactions might be attempted by Trump, Pence, or other Trump loyalists to subvert the remaining steps toward Biden's inauguration and what effect they may have. It's been said that upcoming joint session presided over by Pence is a mere formality, where any attempt to subvert it would have no real consequence on Biden's inauguration. My question pertains to both the Congressional proceedings on Jan 6th and the inauguration on the 20th - what actions could conceivably be attempted, what guardrails exist to counter them, and what, if any, practical consequences might ensue? My question is predicated on the notion that "team Trump" shows considerable persistence and deep ingenuity toward keeping him in office (or denying it to a legal successor), so is intended to explore the robustness of the process forward of this point and any potential exploits open to mischief or worse.
Answer: As far as legal options go — and barring presentation of some actual evidence of widespread voter fraud — Trump's options are exhausted. There is no legitimate mechanism for Trump to stop either the confirmation by Congress or the January 20th inauguration. His allies can delay the first by a day or so (if they like) through legitimate objection processes, but such objections are destined to die in the House (and likely the Senate as well). And the January 20th date is set by amendment to the Constitution, so even if there were a valid approach to contesting the election, the best Trump could hope for would be to see Pelosi appointed president on that date.
Illegitimate options are more wide-ranging. Trump may be looking for a 'Reichstag Fire' moment in which he can declare a national emergency or insurrection, aiming to use emergency powers to suspend the transition. That would require support from the military (or some organized paramilitary group), and likely the cooperation of the Secret Service and other Federal law enforcement agencies. On a less dramatic scale, Trump might simply and stubbornly refuse to cede the office, thinking he can bully his way into another four years merely because the incoming administration would fear the conflict that would ensue from forcing him out. If he wants to go the dictatorial route he could try to have Biden, Harris, and others arrested, to prevent them from taking office. Of those three the second is the most likely, but all of them (if successful) would represent an end to US democratic institutions. But historically speaking, Trump has always been a conniver — a wheeler-dealer — not a fighter. I don't expect him to try the full-scale authoritarian moves himself, though he is certainly setting the stage for someone bolder down the line.
Comment: @jamesqf: Well, ***IF*** they had solid evidence of widespread fraud by Jan 6, then Congress might rightfully toss out the electors from effected states. That's the rationale behind Congresspeople's capacity to object. All of Trump's court cases were really red herrings; Gore v. Bush notwithstanding, the courts were never going to intercede to overturn electors. That's Congress' job.
Comment: I am not a lawyer, but I think that even if they could somehow manufacture evidence of fraud, there is still nothing that could legally be done.  The electoral votes have been cast, so that's it.
Comment: @jamesqf: ***IF*** widespread fraud could be demonstrated after Congress certifies, then the likely outcome would be impeachment of the president immediately after inauguration. But that's just speculation. The problem here is that Trump *has* no evidence; he wants the electors thrown out (by somebody!) on a wish and a prayer, because he just can't accept that he lost. He wants to put a stop to things so that he can (ostensibly) *find* evidence, but that's not the way anything in the world works.
Comment: @TedWrigley perhaps impeachment would happen, but not removal from office.  We have seen in every impeachment trial that votes go down party lines.  Since you need 66% of senate to vote and senate is generally a 50/50 divide between republicans and democrates that means you would need 1/6 of president's party to vote against him, and that's nearly impossible in any circumstances in modern politics.  Even now nearly 80% of republican voters believe there was widespread voter fraud, no way will senate republicans vote against a republican president here.
Comment: @Ted Wrigley: "IF they had solid evidence of widespread fraud...", but they don't, and can't, have such evidence (unless they somehow manufacture it, as per Trump's phone call to Georgia), because there is solid evidence that there wasn't any fraud.  If there was any such evidence at all, the appropriate time to use it would have been before the electoral votes were cast.
Answer: very quick answer, No.
All they can do is delay and grandstand for a few hours.  It would take a majority of the house and senate wanting to overturn the election to do anything at all.  It's actually a pretty scary proposition that is possible with just a majority of both houses and the president from the same party.  That needs to be changed.


What is the 'best' flour to use for brownies?

Question: Cake, Bread or AP? My goal is a 'chewy', 'moist' brownie. I have always used AP in the past, but am wondering if an alternative flour might improve the final result.
Answer: Short and sweet... Use cake / pastry flour. At 5-7 % protein vs. 11% for AP vs. 13% + for bread flour, that means a lot less gluten formation. This protein, when mixed with water and subjected to mechanical working is what produces gluten. The higher the protein percentage, the 'tougher' (due to the gluten) the final product. Always use cake or pastry flour when making any type of cake, even brownies. And a little extra egg won't hurt, either.
Answer: DO NOT use cake flour--use all purpose. The lower percentage of protein in cake flour makes a "chalkier/crumbly" texture. If you're going for chewy/fudgy brownies, all purpose is the way to go! I actually made a batch today using cake flour, and was so angry at the result. I made a new batch using AP flour (to redeem myself), and it turned out wonderful!
Answer: I think the type flour used will have less of an effect than the amount, especially if your recipe uses lots of chocolate, butter, and eggs. My go-to Brownie recipe uses all-purpose flour (relatively little compared to the rest of the ingredients), and the brownies come out chewy and moist every time.


Grid on second tab doesnot load data on render

Question: I have a form panel and i have added a tabpanel to it. Tab Panel has 2 tabs. When the form panel is loaded the first tab's grid loads fine but when i click on the second tab i do see the grids but data is not loaded by default. But it does refresh with data When i click on the grid header.
Below is the piece of code that i use to load the grids from controllers.
<code>var store = this.getDeficiencyDeficiencyStoreStore();
store.on('load',function() {
    var accountDeliverySettingsGrid = Ext.getCmp('accountDeliverySettingsGrid');
    accountDeliverySettingsGrid.reconfigure(model.allQuartesListStore);
    accountDeliverySettingsGrid.getView().refresh();
})
</code>
Any help/suggestions/advice is appreciated.
Answer: I finally figured this out. I had to use event: activate to explicitly invoke refresh method to get the grids loaded. Below is the piece of code.
<code>  listeners: { activate: function(tab)
    { //alert("Put Your Logic Here");
    Ext.getCmp('accountDeliverySettingsGrid').getView().refresh();
    Ext.getCmp('compositeRelationship').getView().refresh();
}
</code>


How to approach project management using both Agile and Prince2?

Question: I am new to Project management. My current position is helping to project manage a small software team. I have been giving the opportunity to attend the PRINCE2 course which from my reading I would be looking to use to combine with Agile methodologies. Will this approach work?
Comment: Benk - while I agree with you comments on DSDM, the observation on common roots is very misplaced. DSDM came out of a set of commercial organisation in the early nineties who wanted to develop a framework for Rapid Application Development, and Prince2 originated from the UK Government, where the word rapid has yet to be discovered or understood. :)
Answer: My view is that Stephan is right in his response. Agile methods address components of the overall project, but the project should be about delivering the business benefits, not just the technical components. Prince 2 ensures that you have the right governance in place (otherwise how do you know whether the project is still viable?), and the right people directing the project (otherwise how do you know that you are delivering what the organisation needs, especially in times of business change?)
Prince 2 can be applied with a light touch: that is one of the key principles of the methodology. And if the project requires money to be spent, I suggest that this requires proper governance of the company's resources.
To try to put my response into context: If you are delivering a series of components, then you are managing products (in Prince terminology), whereas the overall project will be delivering business change and business benefits, including the implementation, training, and most importantly, mechanisms for benefit realisation.
Answer: PRINCE2 is a rather formal methodology, while Agile is an opposite to formality. In order to combine them you should ask yourself - why are you doing this? What is the purpose of this combination?
I would suggest to use Agile since you're managing a small team.
Btw, this phrase is not valid: "project manage a team". You can "project manage a project" or "manage a team". Project is something that is bounded in time and scope. While "team" is a process.
Comment: Thank you for your answer. Note taken with regards to the phrasing. Thank you.
Answer: I would say that there is a conflict between the formality and requirements-driven nature of Prince2 and the just-in-time, flexible and iterative nature of Agile. Who wants you to attend the Prince2 course? Is a course available instead that would help with your understanding and implementation of Agile? Does the company you work for favour one approach above the other for their own business reasons?
Agile and Prince2 are generally used to manage different sorts of projects: in my experience agile is for fast results-driven market-critical projects where many changes and flexibility are paramount, whereas Prince2 is more often used for projects that need a high level of accountability and paper-trails for all decisions and many stakeholder sign-off and overview procedures.
Comment: Thank you for your answer. The qualification is being offered by my company however was requested by myself. The company is relatively young and I felt lacked structure in its project process's and team management. I researched various project methodologies and frameworks, including Agile and PRINCE2 and due to the pace and length of some of our projects I opted for PRINCE2 however, our software architect is now keen to explore Agile.
Comment: If it's structure you feel is lacking, you might also be interested in looking at Kanban, particularly wrt cadence and metrics. It's very similar to Agile methodologies.
Comment: @Lunivore Kanban is not similar to Agile.  It is one of the key approaches within Agile.
Comment: @Venture2099 I suspect DJA would disagree. The Kanban system is similar to Scrum, but the Kanban method is a change methodology; a meta-process, if you will. Nobody who was a signatory of the manifesto was using Kanban's explicit WIP limits at the time, and even now, very few Agile adoptions start with the existing processes as Kanban recommends. Most of what the Agile industry calls "Kanban" isn't, and most "Kanban" boards aren't.
Comment: @Lunivore - the Agile Manifesto does not describe the list of techniques considered Agile.  Almost every Agile resource discussing the techniques considered Agile list Kanban as one of them.
Comment: @Venture2099 Back in '11 when I wrote that comment, Kanban was still considered part of the Lean methodologies; aligned with Agile, but not part of them. If that's changed, and the Agile body is as a whole *properly* adopting Kanban and not just renaming their Scrum boards to Kanban boards, I'll be very happy. I suspect we've got a way to go yet though.
Answer: Naturally. Agile methods like Scrum can be perfectly applied as the process for "managing product delivery" (Prince2 process group).
Answer: You might be interested in DSDM Atern, which is an Agile methodology that is essentially Prince2-made-Agile. In fact, most training centres for Prince2 also run DSDM courses since they both share the same roots.
I've personally found DSDM to be brilliant around everything except the actual development process itself. I use Scrum to fill this hole, but the framework that DSDM provides wraps neatly around Scrum and provides all the checks and balances that my company requires.
As far as the development team are concerned, however, we only use Scrum. They don't even see or care about the DSDM wrapper that keeps the Business satisfied the project is under control.
Answer: PRINCE2 and Agile are two different formalities. PRINCE2 is from OGC UK, which is a structured methodology for project management. For Agile, where the word express a discipline, implemented via, Scrum Methodology, XP etc is rather towards software development. You can use Scrum or Agile practices within the "Manage Product Delivery" process in PRINCE2. PRINCE2 should be your overall methodology to manage the project, but with in different phases you can use Agile or even traditional waterfall. PRINCE2 is for Project Management, Agile is for Team Management in this context.