Why is exhaling more forceful than inhaling?

Question: By blowing at pencil, a piece of paper, or another object up to fifty centimeters away, I can cause it to move away from me significantly.  But I can't move an object toward myself by inhaling sharply from that distance, even if it is extremely light.  Why is that?
Answer: I think the reason is that when you are blowing on an object, you are making lots of air particles collide with it perpendicularly in one direction thus transferring a lot of momentum to the object. When you are sucking air in, the only force that's acting on the object is by the air particles that rush in to fill up the gap that you just created. These particles come in from all kinds of different directions failing to transfer momentum in a consistent way.
Answer: I think the reason is twofold.
First, when you are inhaling the air goes from an unbounded domain, to a bounded domain, for exhaling this is the other way around. So for exhaling the air gets accelerated in the hole between the two domains (your mouth), because of continuity (contraction). When you inhale, there is no such requirement, there is only deceleration.
Second (also mentioned by Vinayak), is the direction. When you exhale, you can consider the flow of air as a turbulent jet. It is known for turbulent jets that the spreading angle is about $20^\circ$ (this has to do with turbulent diffusion of momentum) which is generally true for all fluids. This is the reason that after this $50cm$ you cannot blow anything away: the jet is wider, and thus weaker/lower velocity.
Comment: That's what I was going to say, for the same reason the flow around a fan is not symmetric fore and aft. Going into the fan it is simply being drawn from all directions, but coming out of the fan it has momentum in one direction, so forms a jet.
Answer: Physiology probably makes up for another good part of the effect: The lung is more easily compressed than expanded because muscles primarily work by contraction (and the skeleton´s muscles are more or less wrapped around the chest).
Also, compressing an enclosed volume (e.g. a paperbag) is easier than it´s expansion because the volume´s surface is under tension when compressed (which stabilizes the process) but becomes unstable when expanded (you have to pull in a lot of directions, while compression can be applied at one point).
Comment: I may be mistaken, but I think the mechanism of inhalation is not from the skeletal muscles around the rib cage, but from the diaphragm.  The diaphragm pulls downward, expanding the thoracic cavity and creating a partial vacuum; the pressure differential between the inside and the outside forces air into the lungs.
Comment: @MarkDominus You also expand the rib cage (have to so that you can contract it again later...). Indeed some martial arts instructors have students practice trying to separate the two mechanisms which can be useful when you're in a lock or hold that impedes just one of them.
Comment: @MarkDominus there are different kinds of breathing, but [diaphragmatic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragmatic_breathing) is one of them, and I have a feeling the diaphragm is always taking part - but I´ll be happy to correct if anyone has knowledge on this one.
Answer: You can also answer this by just considering the pressure difference between your mouth and the outside-- without even thinking about fluid dynamics!
The absolute max limit of pressure difference you can ever get by sucking-in is simply atmospheric pressure. In other words, the best vacuum generator in the world will, at best, give zero psi abs pressure whilst the outside is ~15 psi.
The absolute max pressure difference you can get when blowing air can be quite high-- several atmospheres (consider inflating a balloon, it must have a higher pressure than atmosphere to even be a recognizable balloon).
This applies even if you're considering the case of blowing or sucking through a straw.
Comment: I am not sure if you can inflate at several atmospheres. A ballon does not need so much for inflation anyway - you just have the impression that your head is gonna blow away at some 1/10 atmospheres already. Perhaps some savvy anesthetist can come forward to clarify!
Comment: OK, maybe not several, but definitely MORE than one atmosphere. That is already _bigger_ than the max achieveable pressure difference limit from sucking, minus one atmosphere.
Comment: According to [this](sensorwiki.org/doku.php/sensors/air_pressure) the maximal pressure difference under standard conditions is not much more than 3.3 psi or around .23 bar. You may get higher pressures using the closed mouth cavity but as far as the lungs go, that seems to be it...
Comment: @YvesKlett, ok so... 3.3psi above 1 atm.


What common chemical/physical reactions would, in an atmosphere composed of ~20% Oxygen and ~80% Argon, behave differently than on Earth?

Question: Ignoring how this sort of atmosphere would come about, what are some things that happen regularly on Earth that would be altered by this sort of atmosphere?
Example: Would firearms still ignite normally with that much argon present? Would humans have trouble breathing? How easily would light pass through without reflection/refraction?
Comment: It seems like the main change you want to make is the replacement of atmospheric diatomic nitrogen by argon.  I propose, for minimal disruption and to keep the scope of the question contained, that this is be the only change you make.  (Getting rid of CO2 would be disastrous for plant life, getting rid of water vapor impossible if water is present, and getting rid of the lesser trace components... we could have an unexpected dependency on some trace gas that we can't fulfill from diet that we don't even know about yet because we've never been in atmosphere w/out the trace gas.)
Comment: That said, replacing all atmospheric nitrogen by argon would be a nightmare for all life on Earth.  Atmospheric nitrogen is our source of fixed nitrogen (ammonia and derivatives, usable by a broad range of life, are produced by some bacteria and archea, and by electrical storms.)  So, on Argon World, you at the very least need an alternative source of fixed nitrogen.  It is colorless (throughout the range of earthly atmospheric temperatures, anyway), odorless, and tasteless.  Asphyxiation is a risk, as it is significantly more dense than oxygen, so it will accumulate lower in the atmosphere.
Comment: Inert gas narcosis is a thing. Argon is 2.33 times more narcotic than nitrogen so humans would suffer mild effects. I'd assume this would be fixed by evolution, so the actual effect would be everything having nervous tissue more resistant to narcosis.
Comment: @SudoSedWinifred - Argon has a molecular weight of 40, oxygen 32 (2 atoms per molecule), Nitrogen 24.  The density difference wouldn't be significant, as we don't have issues with Oxygen sinking relative to Nitrogen now.
Comment: The density of argon at stp is 1.784 g/L, whereas diatomic oxygen and nitrogen have respective stp densities of 1.429 g/L and 1.251 g/L.

Oxygen is denser than nitrogen, so to the extent that density matters, oxygen sinks relative to nitrogen.  But the lowest 100km of our atmosphere is well-mixed by air currents.  However, heavy gasses can accumulate in poorly-ventilated ground and subterranean structures.  Oxygen being denser than nitrogen, no problem.  But with argon denser than oxygen...  an Ar-based atmosphere could be dangerous.
Answer: You've basically replaced nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere with argon, but left the ratios otherwise intact.
Argon is slightly denser than nitrogen; as a result, there would be slightly more light refraction in your argon atmosphere, but unfortunately I can't tell you what that would end up looking like to an observer. The speed of sound would also be ~10% slower, which isn't likely to be noticeable until timed.
Combustion (including firearms) would not be significantly affected, since that's really just oxidation of a fuel and you've left the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere untouched. One thing that does change, however, is that you've eliminated less common byproducts of combustion, such as NO and NO2
The biggest problem is that you've eliminated the nitrogen cycle, which makes impossible the biology we know here on Earth. Nitrogen is crucial to every living organism we know, with atmospheric nitrogen being a staple of the process: Plants take it in, animals eat the plants, other animals eat those animals, and everything releases it back into the air during decomposition. Nitrogen is a critical piece of our biology, being a foundation of amino acids, and without it in the atmosphere we have no nitrogen cycle, and thus no (or at least insufficient) nitrogen to live on.
Unfortunately, argon is a noble gas, so it can't plausibly replace nitrogen in a hypothetical "argon cycle"-based biosphere. You have to either come up with a biology that doesn't depend upon nitrogen, or find a way to get it back in somehow (which, since it's a gas at anything above 77K, is pretty much impossible without it getting back into your atmosphere).
The good news is that argon is inert, so since there's adequate oxygen it's almost certain that humans could visit this planet and breath without needing full spacesuits and carrying heavy oxygen tanks. The slightly denser atmosphere would result in their voices sounding slightly deeper (think the opposite effect of inhaling helium, but much less pronounced), but otherwise they'd not really notice anything. They may just need to have access to foods that were part of the nitrogen cycle, and/or ship in nitrogen supplements for long-term habitation.
Comment: Wouldn't a slightly denser atmosphere mean slightly *faster* speed of sound?
Comment: Your point on the nitrogen cycle is spot on.  Fixed nitrogen already limits plant growth in many places.  That is why it is in so much fertilizer.  It would become *precious*.  Animals would have to evolve to recycle much more of it instead of excreting it as urea after breaking down proteins.
Comment: @Draco18s I would have thought so as well, but among the chemical properties of argon and nitrogen I found the speed of sound in each, with the former being about 90% of the latter.
Comment: Interesting.  Good research. :)
Answer: I think plants would get into trouble. Plants need nitrogen compounds, which many of them get from bacteria that take the nitrogen from the air. Without nitrogen in the air, those bacteria cannot create nitrogen compounds, and thus those plants are in trouble.
Note that the nitrogen compounds in dung indirectly come from plants, too. So that's no way to get new nitrogen into the cycle. Ultimately all that nitrogen comes from the air.
And the nitrogen in artificial fertilizer is taken from the air as well, so unless there's another source available, even that won't work.
Note that Argon, as a noble gas, cannot replace nitrogen in chemical compounds.
Answer: Argon is an inert gas. It takes a great deal of effort to get it to react with anything.
Would firearms still ignite normally with that much argon present?
Firearms (specifically, bullets) include their own oxidiser. That's why many guns will happily fire while underwater.
Would humans have trouble breathing?
A little bit. Argon is ~43% more dense than Oxygen. We'd have a harder time breathing, but our bodies would very likely adapt to that change just fine.
How easily would light pass through without reflection / refraction.
The refractive indices of Argon and Nitrogen are pretty similar. Interestingly, Argon's absorption spectra is quite a bit more lively than Nitrogen's. Despite it being a colourless gas, I imagine an atmosphere full of it would tint the sky with a tiny amount of green.
Argon's thermal conductivity is a lot lower than Nitrogen. Blowing on your hot coffee won't be as effective.
Answer: Argon is inert, meaning that in doesn't really interact much with anything. Like the other noble gases, it is much less reactive than the major components of the atmosphere. Therefore, to look at changes in this atmosphere, it's important to look at what we'd lose if the nitrogen was this substantially reduced.
That said, atmospheric nitrogen (N2) doesn't do much, either - it's also quite inert. So indirect results are what we need to look at - specifically, the nitrogen cycle.
Things that are impacted by the nitrogen cycle:

No nitrogen fixation, leading to a lack of ammonia produced by nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
Highly reduced amino acid synthesis (it needs that ammonia)

Really, atmospheric nitrogen isn't that important. Other sources of nitrogen exist, and organisms get quite a lot of their nitrogen from the ground and elsewhere.
Comment: Argon wouldn't asphyxiate a human when mixed with 20% oxygen.  It's inert, so it wouldn't have any noticeable effect at all on human respiration.
Comment: The nitrogen that is in the ground is fixed by bacteria that take it from the air.


Is this edit working?

Question: Ok, let's settle something here.
I would like the people who closed my question to come to state their case.
I would like the people who have closed my question on wattage to copy and paste the say what is wrong with my question.
Answer: Your question is not clearly written.
In general, there are two kinds of questions: concrete questions about a specific case, and theoretical questions. "What [power level] is safe" suggests a concrete question. In that case, you should specify which band(s) you are building a radio for ('kHz and MHz' is impossibly wide) and what type of safety you are considering (safety of the user? safety of components? compliance with interference regulations?).
It would also help to give more context on your question. Add this information to your question: Why are you proposing to use brass strips? This sounds like an odd choice for radio construction, so you should explain what you want to achieve by doing it, or instead ask a question about circuit construction rather than safe power levels.
Also, your sentences have unclear phrasing. This causes people to have a poor impression of your request for help, but it also makes the question ambiguous, which is bad. For example, you wrote "is it safe to have these Brass strips do this until I have signals being emitted by this network inside of my radio". By "…do this until…" do you mean that "signals being emitted inside the radio" is what you are trying to achieve or what you are trying to avoid?
Learning and using the proper technical terms helps questions be unambiguous. If you're not sure what the right term is, ask that question.

Finally, a more subjective consideration: The way in which your question is written suggests that you are unfamiliar with how to construct a radio at all, and yet you are making specific unusual design choices up front. This can cause people to think that answering the specific question as asked is not actually worthwhile.
Comment: I made changes to the question.
Comment: @BenMadison Thank you, that has cleared it up.
Answer: Since we are all unpaid volunteers here and our time is limited, it is expected that users will do a reasonable amount of research before asking a question here. Please see How do I ask a good question?

Is this edit working?


What's the healthiest order to do things when you wake up?

Question: I understand it's healthy to exercise in the morning but should it be done after or before having breakfast or a snack? Also, it seems pointless to shower before exercising so I guess that should be postponed until after the work out? And I guess this question doesn't matter but just in case, does it matter when a person uses the toilet the first time in the morning, should it be done right away? Thanks.
Comment: I noticed that you tagged your post as "diet".  If you're interested in diet, please don't hesitate to join our nutrition proposal here:  http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition
Answer: This depends a bit on the kind of exercises you do.
There is a little debate in the fitness community if exercising in the morning with or without prior breakfast has an effect on fat loss. The theory is that your glycogen levels are low and your body has to burn fat to compensate. However as far as I recall research could not show that this is true.
So back to the exercise, what definitely is true is that your glycogen levels are somewhat lower after sleeping. If your exercise is only a jog around the block for some minutes, this probably does not matter. If it is a full weightlifting routine or a prolonged cardio session (eg running for an hour) you will probably feel exhausted easily without a prior meal.
On the other hand a full stomach might also have negative effects on your workout. Some people (including myself) don't like working out with a full stomach or even get nauseous.
So the decision you have to make here is what you like more; working out with a full or an empty stomach. You could also eat something before and the rest afterwards. Splitting meals has the advantage that you might want to eat less, which can come in handy if you are trying to lose weight.
For the other actions: Go to the toilet when you need to, I would do that as first thing in the morning, as a full bladder doesn't feel good and you gain nothing by holding stuff in. Take the shower after your workouts, unless you want to annoy people.
Comment: I'm a big fan of the pre-breakfast run, but challenging workouts are best done at least 2 hours after one meal and immediately before the next. For recovery purposes, eating immediately after exercise is a good idea.
Answer: Here's the research - exercising before eating is the best for fat burning:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/phys-ed-the-benefits-of-exercising-before-breakfast/
Personally, I've been doing 40 minutes medium intensity workout every day before breakfast for several years. I am very fit, though I consume a lot of sweets, however, if I for some reason don't have time in the morning, I feel very sleepy and need at least ten push-ups to wake up.
Answer:
I'm not completely certain the goal of this question as the order is largely dependent on the individual. To effectively answer the question, one has to make some assumptions:

The person had a light/no dinner which makes the person naturally hungry in the morning. Some have heavy dinners in order to skip breakfast.
The person needs to empty their bowel in the mornings; not everyone does that.

So, the proper order (as I see it):

Bathroom call; you can't (or shouldn't) really do anything else if you have the urge to do this. No eating, drinking, or exercising if this needs to be done.
Unless very hungry (or too hungry to effectively exercise), exercise before breakfast. The Internet is rife with articles on why exercising before breakfast is more effective.
Shower (if possible, with warm water to reduce the exercise's fatigue) after your exercise. Yes, it's pointless to shower before exercising; just ensure you shower after.
Have a healthy breakfast
Repeat the sequence tomorrow morning.

I think most people will agree to this order; however, this largely depends on individuals and their preferences. The main thing is to find whatever works for you and stick with it.


Which philosophers have argued that a God cannot exist?

Question: Which philosophers have argued that a God cannot exist and why? What are some of the major positions involved, and perhaps some common responses?
Comment: Even as someone who has studied the philosophy of religion fairly extensively, I'm not sure I've heard any philosopher claim that God *certainly cannot exist*, unless we are talking about an Abrahamic God who's omnipotence and omniscience inherently conflict. Most who hold positions on that end of the spectrum tend to acknowledge that it might be on some level *possible* for a God to exist, it is just highly *unlikely*. Are you looking for philosophers who have argued that God *necessarily* can't exist, or simply those who argue against the likelihood of God's existence?
Comment: Yeah this question is just as good, and probably fits here better, thank you for the modification.
Comment: I have attempted to clean up the question somewhat -- please feel free to improve further, or of course rollback if you feel I have misconstrued your problem.
Comment: It is a question, and it is philosophical in what is concerns. If I am required to ask about philosophy itself, then I suppose I have placed it in the wrong stack.
Comment: But I'd like to say that there are many questions here that are philosophical in what they concern but are not questions about philosophy itself, that haven't been closed.
Comment: Just in passing, there have already been several questions on whether traditional deity notions are logically consistent; compare e.g. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/300/is-the-definition-of-god-consistent
Comment: Well, I contend that it's impossible to completely rule out a god, even an omnipotent omniscient god (I do not understand why there is a conflict there), and I want to see arguments that try to prove that atheism is more sound than some sort of agnosticism.
Answer: Your question as reformulated is very broad; people write whole novels on these subjects. I will try to cover the most famous arguments, organizing my responses in terms of the argument first, with references afterward to a person or people who posited the argument, followed by common responses.

The Problem of Evil
Perhaps the most famous argument against the idea of God is the Problem of Evil, which targets specifically the Abrahamic god (the god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam who is considered to be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent). Various versions of the Problem of Evil has been espoused by numerous philosophers over the ages, going back several centuries. Most notable of these include Epicurus, Hume, Leibniz, Kant, Cousin, Kreeft, and Hatcher.
The argument generally goes as follows:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

A well-known refutation to the argument is Alvin Plantinga's The Free Will Defense, which essentially says that God allows evil in order to allow humans to have free will, which is a greater good). Consider also reading John Hicks refutation, The "Soul-Making" Theodicy, and Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov which also touches upon this subject in a story-like format.

The Ultimate Boeing 747
Well-known atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins argues most prominently with the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Richard Dawkins explains in his book, The God Delusion, the premise of the concept:

"The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and
  the scrapyard. ... Hoyle said that the probability of life originating
  on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping
  through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. ...
  This, in a nutshell, is the creationist's favorite argument - an
  argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand
  the first thing about natural selection ..." –Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, pg. 113

In reality, it is the Design Argument in reverse, which itself comes from the Argument from Improbability. The Argument from Improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance, thus, because many things in nature seem complex, people extend the idea to use God as a designer. However, as Dawkins points out, "come about by chance" is not equivalent to "come about in the absence of deliberate design". Evolution by natural selection offers a solution that has nothing to do with chance and does not need to invoke a God. But what the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument also argues is that, as a method of explaining complexity, we often invoke the idea of a designer to explain how a complex object came about. For example, a beautiful painting or an amazing sports car - these things did not just "happen" by chance, they were designed and created. But in the case of the the argument from design, proponents posit that God did all the designing, an entity which would be even more unlikely to have come about by chance than a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

Argument from Free Will
The Argument from Free Will is the idea that omniscience and free will are incompatible (technically, free will is also incompatible with omnipotence as well, since omnipotence encompasses omniscience). The basic idea is that if God knows what you are going to do in the future, that means your future is determined, which removes any possibility of free will. If you are truly free, not even God would have the ability to predict what choices you could make.
This argument has been used by numerous philosopher over the ages, and as a generic refutation my Philosophy of Religion books don't even ascribe a particular author. Counter-arguments include altering the conception of free will to prevent a contradiction, such as the idea that free will is merely freedom from coercion, not necessarily freedom from causation. Also, opponents of this argument has tried to reformulate the idea of omnipotence—the Wikipedia article on this topic does a decent job of describing the counter-arguments here, most notably those from Thomas Aquinas and C. S. Lewis.

Omnipotence paradox
Another contradiction which goes against the existence of God is the Omnipotence paradox, which essentially claims that the very idea of omnipotence is a paradox, therefore God as typically formulated can't logically exist. In simple form it is often expressed as a question: Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? Again, here the Wikipedia article provides a surprisingly thorough analysis of the issue, so I'm not going to belabor the point here.

More Reading
For a general introduction to the philosophy of religion and the major arguments over the ages against (and for) the idea of God, I would recommend Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction and the companion book Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings by William Rowe. It offers a comprehensive look at the classic arguments going back many centuries up until modern times. For more modern arguments (and popular readings), I would recommend first and foremost Sam Harris' books, particularly Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. Richard Dawkin's also wrote a few books on the subject as well, the most notable being The God Delusion, although it gets dry at parts in the book. Christopher Hitchens also wrote an excellent novel called god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything that you might be interested in.
Comment: We can create a chatroom for more in-depth discussion of these arguments, but as I mentioned, these are perhaps the most common arguments used to deny the existence of a God, and you will find a version of each (if not multiple versions) in almost every existing textbook on the subject. Based on each of your replies, you seem to misunderstand the crux of each of the main arguments I posited; I would encourage you to explore further readings on each one as these arguments have been used by countless brilliant philosophers through the ages and are not as dismissible as you think. :P
Comment: Concerning argument from free will: This argument is flawed. Just because from the perspective of someone unbound by time being able to see all that were are and will be at a single glance an entire history can be witnessed as one moment, doesn't mean that the actions weren't yours to select or that your path is entirely deterministic. Such a god may choose to influence people toward doing things at certain times, like adjusting someone's disposition, but this does not concede that there is no free will. An omnipotent god COULD take away all free will, but we cannot assume that he does.
Comment: Concerning the Problem of Evil, this assumes a lot of God it also assumes that we understand the nature of God in how he judges good from evil. I think this is very presumptuous. I do not think this is an adequate paradox for any god, even the Abrahamic one unless we assume much of how it discerns good from evil. I personally believe the Abrahamic god a self centred god, he discerns good from evil as everything that is concerning, regarding or following himself is "good", and all that disconcerns, disregards or goes against him is "evil" in this way bad things can happen if it is his will.
Comment: Concerning chance vs design, This only addresses the most literal interpretation of the Judaic Christian biblical creation story. I don't think that there is no room for a god that works through chance, and natural selection, perhaps causing certain outcomes to be much more likely than one would naturally assume. I do not think that just because evolution is true, that god is false. I do not think that believing in evolution and believing in a deity not conflicting thoughts.
Comment: Concerning The Omnipotence Paradox: I pose that a gods is only omnipotent and omniscient as a function of their relationship to the physical world. They're only omnipotent/omniscient of the physical world because they are in a position where they have complete control/perception of it. I do not think it unthinkable that a god could within his own plane of existence be limited in ability or perception.
Answer: Rebecca Goldstein has published a novel entitled 36 Arguments for the Existence of God which contains an appendix listing 36 philosophical arguments for the existence of God, along with the flaws found in each argument.  Her husband, Steven Pinker, is also a well-known atheist, and has published on the subject as well.  I'd recommend her list as a good starting point for the commmon arguments in both directions.
On a much more sophisticated level, Martin Hägglund argues (somewhat controversially, but persuasively, in my opinion) that Derrida's thought is based upon a Radical Atheism.
And, of course, all Buddhist philosophy is predicated on the notion that there is no all-powerful, creator God (although minor, relatively ineffectual deities are permitted.)
EDIT: As this answer has started drawing downvotes, I thought I'd flesh it out a bit more.  My  answer above was based on what I thought the spririt of the question was, and not the actual letter of the question.  I will now treat of the actually stated question.
I see that the question asks about arguing that "a God" cannot exist.  We need to be clear here, because there is a significant difference between arguing that a particular god cannot exist, and that no god can exist-- the latter argument is impossible to make, unless we have a clearly agreed-upon set of properties for any possible god, which is extremely unlikely.
So, the question then becomes, Which philosophers have argued that a particular God cannot exist?
Now, at this point, we must turn to the question of modality.  The question, as stated, talks about the argument that a particular God cannot exist, rather than does not exist.  This means that we are looking for arguments that the non-existence of particular God is a necessary fact, and merely a contingent fact.
Arguments of this sort are therefore going to depend upon the notion of logical impossibility.
One type of argument will be that the properties attributed to the particular God are logically inconsistent.  For example, one can argue that certain notions of omnipotence are self-defeating, and therefore it is impossible that any God possessing this notion of omnipotence necessarily cannot exist. Bertrand Russell takes this tack in parts of Why I Am Not A Christian where he argues for the impossibility of a God who is defined as a First Cause.  One also finds arguments of this type in the classical/medieval Indian debates between the Buddhists and the Nyāya regarding the existence of the God Īśvara.
Another, slightly more complex argument, is going to depend upon a conflict between the properties attributed to the God, and the actually existing state of affairs in the world-- for example, arguments of Theodicy.  This is a more problematic case, depending on the framework of the the question; there is the danger that we come back to arguments of contingency --the argument that the presence of evil in the world demonstrates that God does not exist, but if we take the presence of evil to be contingent and not necessary, we are then left with the possibility that although God does not exist, there could have been a perfect world with no evil and a God.
However: one should not limit oneself to atheist positions, if one is attempting to answer the question as written-- most religious arguments for the existence of a particular God contain arguments against the existence of other Gods. So, many traditional arguments for the existence of the Christian God include (or imply) an argument that that god Thor cannot exist, as these arguments stipulate as a property of the Christian God that He is the only god.
Comment: Does this author argue *against* the existence of God? Or merely refute the arguments *for* the existence of God? It's not clear but I think the OP wants the former.
Comment: Indeed. This work seems to refute and knock over the easy arguments formed by specific religions that their God exists, and no other does. Which is always fraught with logical fallacy and just plain ignorance of logic and how burden of proof works. I'd like to see an actual arguments that a God cannot exist, thus justifying atheism over agnosticism.
Answer: I'm responding here chiefly to the final point of Ben's of the merits of atheism versus agnosticism, because I think the core issue he has here is perhaps not being addressed in the edited question.
Strong atheism, in the sense of maintaining that it is absolutely true that no god exists, is not a very popular position, and hard to justify logically. Maintaining that no god can exist is stronger still, and still less popular, and so the answers you get to the question you asked will be few.
Weak atheism does not assert that no god exists, but merely refrains from asserting any god exists. This is a much more popular position, as it is easily defensible from within the epistemology of science, which draws heavily on Popperian falsificationism. In scientific statistics, the null hypothesis - that the things measured are not linked by any relationship - is assumed true as a starting position, and invalidating it requires showing that the empirical data gathered have a low probability of being encountered if the null hypothesis holds. At no point is the null hypothesis ever claimed to be absolutely true;  it is merely held to be the only rational default position until evidence shows otherwise. To tie this back to atheism, those using this line of thinking to reason about supernatural entities begin with the default assumption that no such entity exists, and will require proof before they budge from it. Dawkins, who is one examplar of this philosophy, calls this "Tooth Fairy agnosticism" - he cannot prove that there is no such thing as a Tooth Fairy, so his belief that there is no Tooth Fairy is not absolute, but he nonetheless evaluates it as exceedingly unlikely that such a being exists.
Arguments against the particular gods espoused by particular religions exist, of course, mostly exploiting inconsistencies of mythology or morality, but I gather those are not what you're looking for here.
Answer: The atheists are the philosophers arguing against the existence of god(s).
Among this list of people some are inevitable: Nietsche, Russel, Camus.
I would also cite other well known atheists (but not really philosophers): Linus Pauling, Alan Turing and Richard Dawkins.
There was also atheists in antiquity; Leucippus and Democritus who first imagined the atomic theory of matter.
This list of 'brilliant' atheists is a good one. David Mills book 'Atheist Universe' presents most of modern atheists arguments.
Our ancestors mainly needed supernatural explanations to account for bizarre empirical phenomena (thunders, earthquakes, but also the sun's heat, or why it does rain) or to answer ontological questions (why do I exist, where did the Earth comes from).
Following that, most of the atheist arguments are that as we understand more and more deeply the World, there is less and less need for god(s) to explain our Universe.
Common responses are, yes we know increasingly about our Universe, but we don't (and we won't) understand 100% of it, hence, god is still needed to explain the rest (for instance in Evolution vs Creationism, god is still needed to account for the lack of some transitional fossils).
Answer: If you wanna know about Philosophers, then I suggest Nietzsche, I would also suggest to read famous religious people and atheists to see the competition.
the questions you shall have are:

Is Free will truly free or a simulation inside a Matrix?
If God exist/don't what does it mean to me, and what will I do with it?
Why haven't the philosophers and writers-poets found better answers on this topic?
How to be a better Man in the light of this problem?
Comment: Nietzsche proposed that God had once existed, but had since died. That is rather different from saying that none can exist.
Comment: I agree, polemically speaking its still valid, for there are various forms something can exist. This is the part, there Nietzsche exceeds philosophy and goes into other faculties. When God is a myth, although religious people wont agree, he dost not need to exist, but be gullible. It needs to just fulfill its primary purpose, it was summoned to existence. Traditions can exceed their usefulness and be replaced with other better ones. Marx was notorious talking about the recycle-bin of History. None can exist would be too strict does that mean, logos cannot exist or Abrahamic God cannot exist!
Answer: One argument not yet mentioned is the positivist argument from verification. Since the world obeys the laws of physics and arbitrary miracles are never observed, it is not possible to determine empirically whether a God exists or not; therefore, the whole idea of a God is meaningless.
Or, to turn it round the other way, if some supposed God did exist, why has science never once observed a bona fide miracle?
(The argument is easily defeated, but that is not what is being asked here).


When negotiating a compensation package with a prospective new employer, how can I determine what element is worth more?

Question: i.e. is there a way to "normalize" value and future-value of compensation components such as: annual bonus, commission, pension contribution, health benefits, vacation days, company car, etc. so that when evaluating offers, I am comparing apples-to-apples?
Answer: Yep, add it up!
They don't give you, say, 30 days to accept an offer because you need 30 days to go to the post office - they are giving you the time to evaluate the offer.
A simple request for information from HR will net you exactly (or at least rough terms for variable benefits) what you will pay for benefits, receive as over-salary compensation, and cost and policies related to vacation days, etc.
Add it up, and compare that with the detailed accounting you did for the other companies, and you should be able to tell which number is larger than the other.
If you're also familiar with extremely basic financial principles, you can make a tiny spreadsheet that can show you the value of an offer over time as well. (Pay raise bands, etc)
As a personal warning though, make sure you don't get TOO detailed into the accounting. If it matters that much to you, I doubt you are choosing the company for the right reasons.
Comment: Yes, you need to do these calcs yourself for the simple reason that you might weight things differently from someone else - eg two additional days of vacation a year might be worth more to you than a higher pension contribution, whereas someone else might value them the other way round. In other words the "worth" of some of these compensation-package items is not entirely monetary.
Comment: Excellent point, @Vicky, feel free to edit the answer to improve it with that clarification!
Answer: IMO... if you're working in a large corporation.. wouldn't they have a pay scale for the position you're in... and levels of experience required to match that pay level... I'm sure each company will have different pay valuations... so shopping for the best one is probably the thing to do.


How to encourage students to work more carefully and independently?

Question: One of the challenges of advising students is working with students whose "quality control" expectations do not agree with that of the advisor. When such mismatches occur, how do we encourage them to provide "better" quality work. Note that it's not the number of hours being worked the concern, but rather issues like returning a marked-up manuscript with half of the important suggestions left unaddressed, or leaning too much on the advisor or more senior members of the group for help.
Answer: I recently heard a nice angle on this problem. Computer Scientist Olivier Danvy, adapting Buddhist philosophy, stated in a recent presentation that you need to inhale before you can exhale. What he meant was that in order for grad students to produce quality work, they need to see, read, ingest and understand quality work. Perhaps you can show them the difference between the high quality work and low quality papers you've also come across. Try to get the student to gauge where his/her work fits in relation to these other papers.
You'll also need to explain that even though poor quality work can actually be published, that this is not a good thing. Not good for science. And not good for building a career.
Many iterations of corrections is important. It takes time. But for every comment that is ignored, you need to find out why it is ignored, and make the student aware that it takes your time and is annoying if you need to make the same comment over and over again. Maybe the student does not understand the comment. Maybe the student is overwhelmed by the vast amount of comments. Maybe that just missed it accidentally. Maybe they just disagree.
Answer: In my experience, teaching "quality control" in larger-scale projects is part of the enterprise, since (in mathematics, for example) standard coursework provides no inkling of this. That is, it is not typically the case that sloppy or flawed homework or exams are returned with detailed comments, for iterated corrections, to be repeated until the thing is acceptable. Rather, as we know, schoolwork is presented to students as a high-volume stream of disconnected small tasks, most of which truly do not merit "perfecting", but, rather, treating as a bulk-processing problem.
So the methodology and style of iterative improvement and "perfecting" a larger, months-or-years-long project is arguably a novelty to the student. The "solution" seems to be to just keep iterating the corrections, perhaps making the auxiliary point of the inefficiency of your making the same point several times.
I've had the opposite problem a few times, as well, namely, exaggerated attention to over-perfecting an initial fragment, effectively avoiding addressing the sequel and larger project.
Thus, I think that imparting a functional sense of editing and quality control is part of the task of the mentor/advisor/supervisor, although, yes, energy allocated to this takes away from the more literal scientific/intellectual tasks. Advisor's firm repetition of the standards is essentially the only constructive response, I think, since, for example, it seems infeasible to hope that novices can sufficiently critique each other, as they usually share the same inexperience.
Answer: I would cite one of the maxims in industry. Your people is only as good as your structure. A good structure designed to give incentives to current students and guidance to new ones can do wonders for any organization.
You can streamline a lot if you have a whole system in place where you have older students mentoring fresh students (one to one basis) and a more structured way of presenting the job. This way the students (and the adviser) won't be running to catch deadlines and will be way more efficient.
Comment: I do not think that giving too much liberty to someone that essentially has never worked or known the stress of self imposed deadlines is necessary a good thing. It looks more as a two edged sword.


Simple harmonic oscillator by operators

Question: I'm reading simple harmonic oscillator problem in "Modern Quantum Mechanics" by J.J. Sakurai.
The approach is by defining the annihilation ($a^{t}$) and creation ($a$) operators, then a number operator is defined as the product between these operators $N=a^{t}a$. Also, an energy eigenket of $N$ is denoted by its eigenvalue $n$, that is, $$N|n\rangle=n|n\rangle.$$ Then we can find $$Na|n\rangle=(n-1)a|n\rangle$$ and the book says this implies $$a|n\rangle=c|n-1\rangle,$$ where $c$ is a numerical constant, the problem is I can't understand why this is true. I'm new with Dirac's notation, maybe that is the problem.
Comment: Possibly duplicates: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/39307/2451 , https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/23028/2451 , https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/46639/2451 and links therein.
Answer: This becomes more apparent with some parenthesis:
$$
N(a|n\rangle)=(n-1)(a|n\rangle)
$$
Since $N$ yields an eigenvalue of $(n-1)$ when operating on the state $a|n\rangle$, then $a|n\rangle$ must be an eigenstate of $N$ with an eigenvalue of $(n-1)$, aka $|n-1\rangle$ (a overall phase factor/numerical constant $c$ could also be included in this state, which would be cancelled from both sides).
Answer: Your question is why the eigenvalue-$n-1$ eigenspace has dimension $1$. Since repeated application of $a$ can reduce the eigenvalue until it is $0$, while repeated application of $a^\dagger$ can increase the eigenvalue, each eigenspace has the same dimension. You can easily prove this dimension is $1$ in the $n=0$ case.
Comment: So, if  eigenspace hasn't dimension 1 the equality doesn't hold, does it?
Comment: @AlbertoNavarro But it does have dimension $1$. Can you prove that for the eigenvalue-$0$ eigenspace?
Answer:
the problem is I can't understand why this is true

From your equation 1, we get that:
$$Nc|n-1\rangle = (n-1)c|n-1\rangle$$
Your equation 2 is:
$$Na|n\rangle = (n-1)a|n\rangle$$
Thus, it must be that
$$a|n\rangle = c|n-1\rangle $$
To be clear, $a$ is an operator that, given a ket, returns a ket so we could write something like
$$|m\rangle = a|n\rangle$$
and then your equation 2 becomes
$$N|m\rangle = (n-1)|m\rangle$$
which implies that $|m\rangle$ is proportional to $|n-1\rangle$, i.e.,
$$|m\rangle = c|n-1\rangle$$

Simple harmonic oscillator by operators


Running Head Start Offsides American Football

Question: Is it offsides in American football to have one person start 20 yards behind the line of scrimmage and start running, having the ball snapped just before he crosses the line to give him a running head start?
It seems like this would work since you are allowed to have one man in motion.
Comment: Please edit your question to include that information, and also which league.
Comment: I'm guessing you're relating this question to how arena football teams usually run their offenses?
Comment: Could you specify which league you're referring to and whether the player is on offense or defense? The answers vary significantly.
Comment: Yes, I am referring to a receiver on the offense
Comment: Arena football allows this, but why would you need a 20 yards.
Answer: In the NFL, offensive players are not allowed to be moving towards the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped. Quoting from the 2015 rulebook, Rule 7, Section 4:

ARTICLE 7. ILLEGAL MOTION. When the ball is snapped, one player who is lined up in the backfield may be in motion,
  provided that he is moving parallel to or away from the line of scrimmage. No player is permitted to be moving toward the line
  of scrimmage when the ball is snapped. All other players must be stationary in their positions.
Penalty: For a player illegally in motion at the snap: Loss of five yards.

(my emphasis)
Answer: According to this article:

Players in motion can do about whatever they want as long as it doesn't simulate what happens right after a snap. The catch though is that if the last thing he does is move towards the line of scrimmage, he must be set for at least one second. If he's moving parallel to or backwards from the line, he doesn't have to be set. Without this rule, you get Arena-style nonsense where a receiver is running at full speed towards the line right as the ball is snapped.

So, assuming you're talking about offense, technically it seems that you could run towards the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped, but you would have to stop, set yourself for one second, right before the ball is snapped.
The rule according to Sporting News

Offenses often send players in motion prior to the snap because it allows the quarterback to see what type of scheme the defense is using based on how they react. Players also go in motion if the quarterback changes the play at the line of scrimmage. When players go in motion they must come to a complete stop and pause before the snap, otherwise illegal motion is called. This prevents wide receivers from sprinting towards the line of scrimmage at the snap to get a running start for the play.

Another reference

Rule 7-2-7:
  A team A player is in motion towards his opponents goal at the snap

or -

the player in motion is not 5 yards behind the line if he started in motion from a position not clearly behind the line and did not stop for one second to establish himself as a back


Recording 2 USB cameras using Motion

Question: As stated in the title, I'm trying to record 2 USB cameras using Motion. I managed to record video in a single-camera setup; but, when I include the second camera, Motion does not record anything. I applied the procedure explained in the second answer of this question. To be more precise, I used two thread files, thread1.conf and thread2.conf, icludes this code:
<code># /usr/local/etc/thread1.conf
#
# This config file was generated by motion 3.2.12

###########################################################
# Capture device options
############################################################

# Videodevice to be used for capturing  (default /dev/video0)
# for FreeBSD default is /dev/bktr0
videodevice /dev/video0

# The video input to be used (default: 8)
# Should normally be set to 1 for video/TV cards, and 8 for USB cameras
input 8

# Draw a user defined text on the images using same options as C function strftime(3)
# Default: Not defined = no text
# Text is placed in lower left corner
text_left CAMERA 1

movie_filename %v-%Y%m%d%H%M%S-C1

############################################################
# Target Directories and filenames For Images And Films
# For the options snapshot_, jpeg_, mpeg_ and timelapse_filename
# you can use conversion specifiers
# %Y = year, %m = month, %d = date,
# %H = hour, %M = minute, %S = second,
# %v = event, %q = frame number, %t = thread (camera) number,
# %D = changed pixels, %N = noise level,
# %i and %J = width and height of motion area,
# %K and %L = X and Y coordinates of motion center
# %C = value defined by text_event
# Quotation marks round string are allowed.
############################################################

# Target base directory for pictures and films
# Recommended to use absolute patch. (Default: current working directory)
target_dir /home/pi/motion_vid

############################################################
# Live Webcam Server
############################################################

# The mini-http server listens to this port for requests (default: 0 = disabled)
webcam_port 8081

# Command to be executed when a picture (.ppm|.jpg) is saved (default: none)
# The filename of the picture is appended as an argument for the command.
on_picture_save /usr/local/motion-extras/camparse1.pl

# Command to be executed when a movie file (.mpg|.avi) is closed. (default: none)
# Filename of movie is appended as an argument for the command.
on_movie_end /usr/local/motion-extras/mpegparse1.pl
</code>
For the second camera, I used:
<code>videodevice /dev/video1
text_left CAMERA 1
movie_filename %v-%Y%m%d%H%M%S-C2
webcam_port 8082
on_picture_save /usr/local/motion-extras/camparse2.pl
on_movie_end /usr/local/motion-extras/mpegparse2.pl
</code>
I tried connecting the cameras both directly to the RPi and by using a powered USB hub; and I think it's not about the power requirements.
In the main .conf file; I tried decreasing fps to 2 (to descrease the bandwidth consumption) and it didn't work either. I record the videos at 640x480 resolution.
Anyone have a suggestion?
Thanks.
Answer: Try setting the resolution to 320 x 480. I could only get motion to stream two cameras at that resolution.

Recording 2 USB cameras using Motion


Locked content before clicking CTA

Question: We want to increase our conversion rate, so the marketing team suggests to use the pattern when information is locked before the customer clicks CTA.
I actually don't know how this pattern is called and if it's a promising idea, so I'll appreciate any information about your experience, some reading or research, thoughts.
Is it considered as a dark pattern?
Example
Answer: "Read More" CTAs are used on article/news sites to help determine if users are just opening the article, or if they're actually engaged enough in it to continue reading the rest.
In the example above, the CTA given may not be the best option. If they're looking for the graph and already have access to it, this is just slowing down how they're retrieving their data, while "teasing" them that it's right there.
An alternative to get any click-through you may need is instead a button that says "Open Charts", then the chart appears on the same page. So that it's like the user is loading in the chart after visiting the page.
Another alternative would be to just have the chart on a separate page, and then you can track page visits.
If the user does not have access to the charts and you're trying to get them to upgrade and buy it, changing "Unlock Charts" to "Upgrade to Unlock Charts" may be more descriptive and allow the user to know what they're clicking on.
About whether or not it's a dark-pattern depends on how it's implemented in this case. If they have access, but you're just hiding it from them, that doesn't help the user and obscures their access to your product from them. By using my suggestions in those cases it may seem less like you're just hiding things for no reason and instead need an extra button click/page visit to load the information for the user.
If they don't have access to the chart, re-wording the unlock button to be more clear of where they'll be taken or what it will do may help. Additionally, the graph behind the overlay shouldn't be the actual graph (because they could just look through it) and could just be a blurred out fake graph to prompt them to see what may be there.
Comment: by clicking "unlock charts" they force you to start a free trial.

Locked content before clicking CTA


iPhone 5s slow on wifi

Question: I have an iPhone 5s that was bought several months ago. For some reason, it is quite slow on the wifi in my house - noticeably slower than 4g/LTE speed - and has been this way from the beginning. Other devices (Macbook, iPhone 4) do not have this problem when used from the same location. Also, the phone seems to work well on other wifi networks. Are there any ways to troubleshoot this?
Comment: Yes, there are.  However, more information would be helpful:
How are you checking your network speed on the iPhone?
What is your ISP downlink/uplink speed?
What spec is your 802.11 router?
What is the speed you are experiencing? on the iPhone and on your Macbook?
Can you see what kind of connection your phone is negotiating with your router? This would likely be available on one of the admin screens from your router.
If the connection is not 802.11n, that's the most likely issue.
Answer: You might want to follow Apple's steps in troubleshooting generate Wifi issues.
In addition, try resetting the iPhone's Network Settings by navigating to Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings, then restart the iPhone and re-connect to the WiFi network.
Comment: Thanks for the trouble shooting link. What seemed to work was restart phone, hit forget the network in the wi-fi info screen. You need to hit the i to get there. Then reconnect and put in your network password again. That worked.
Answer: I went to Wi-Fi and forgot the network that I was connected to. I restarted my iPhone 5s and after reboot found the wireless network. I re-entered the password and joined.
Answer: Absolutely....so easy and I followed the gentleman on "You tube"..
go to settings, general and go to reset and then reset network..Then all you have to do is put your password in for wifi.  As what I understand the problem was on the last update  Good luck
Answer: What I found that really helps me is getting the app called battery doctor and it's free of course it works so well when I clean my junks files the iPhone immediately starts working fast

iPhone 5s slow on wifi


Why do some fighters have two engines and other have only one but still give the same performance?

Question: The F-16, F-35, and Gripen have single engines.
On the other hand, the Ching-kuo (Taiwan) and F/A-18 have double engines, but the combined thrust of two engines is almost equal to the single engine thrust.
Why do some aircraft use double engines?
Comment: It's nice to have a spare.
Answer: Some countries don't get the most powerful engines and have to use what is available in the market. To avoid upsetting China too much, the US would not sell the F404 or the F100 to Taiwan, and a derivative of a civilian engine had to be developed.
A second reason is redundancy: When the US Navy had to decide between the F-16 and what was to become the F-18, they preferred the design with two engines, because losing your only engine over water is a much more life-threatening experience than losing it over land. Similarly, the Eurofighter was designed more for peace than for war - having two engines will reduce training losses.
Generally, a single, bigger engine will be more powerful and more efficient per unit of mass, because manufacturing tolerances will be relatively smaller in the bigger engine, if the same technology is used for both. Single engines need to have more system redundancy than one of a pair of engines, so some of that advantage cannot be transferred into the finished design. Nevertheless, from a performance standpoint the single engine fighter will look better.
Comment: @LightnessRacesinOrbit: The Eurofighter was referred to internally at Flight  Magazine as the "Bureaufighter". This is closer to truth than most would like to admit. Where else would you find an ineffective speed brake which is located as it is because that would bring the British part to the desired percentage?
Comment: @BROY: Vertical landing would not be possible with one engine inoperative anyway.
Comment: So, following your logic, the F-22, F-15 and many other twin-engine fighters were also designed for peace, not for war.
Comment: @ChrisV: … and so are the MiG-29 and the Su-35. But also size matters: If the most modern engine is designed for a lightweight fighter (think F-20 and F-16), it is more economical to use two of them on your new, big, expensive multi-role fighter. Even the SR-71 had to use what was available and needed two of them to have enough thrust.
Comment: @PeterKämpf - +1 to your statement on "size matters" except that the F-16's engine (P&W F100) was essentially plucked right off the F-15's spec sheet as a cost-saving measure (LWF, unlike FX and VFX, made cost an important selection criteria). The GE F404 and derivative F414 used on F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets were purpose-built for those planes and have not, to date, been used on any other. That's apparently fine by GE; over 2,000 Hornets and Super Hornets have been built, each with 2 engines, for which GE is the only supplier, *and* they produce a competing engine for F-16 "0-blocks".
Comment: But what about F-35? It is intended for the Navy but still has single engine.
Comment: I agree with most of what you said, except with your statement that those fighters were not made for combat/war
Comment: @ChrisV: Funny how they're called "fighters", then.
Comment: @LightnessRacesinOrbit: it's been a while, bit I believe I was referring to the statement where the Typhoon was being referred to as an aircraft made for peace rather than for combat. I was in disagreement with that. I believe you misinterpreted my comment
Comment: @ChrisV: I didn't "misinterpret" anything; I was making a funny joke. Calm down
Comment: @PeterKämpf: lulz
Answer: Very early jet engines weren't particularly powerful; it took two in most cases to equal (or slightly exceed) the performance of a single big V-12 or large radial.
The next generation was more capable; most fighters in Korea and many in Vietnam were single-engined. Some exceptions were quite large – the F-4 Phantom and (R)A-5 Vigilante come to mind. The more combat load required, the more thrust, and a single engine able to power an F-4 Phantom would've likely been quite large.
Modern engines are much more capable; it mostly comes down to the desires of the operators. A single engine requires less maintenance (although probably not half) than a twin-engine aircraft. It is also more susceptible to mechanical failures or combat damage. The need for larger combat loads, redundancy, and —in some cases— excess performance are probably the primary reasons that not all modern fighters are single-engined.
Answer: Number and placement of engines is one of the initial trade-offs that a scratch-built aircraft design deals with.
There are several criteria for the trade-off of the basic configuration. Here are a few:

Thrust-to-AircraftWeight
Weight penalty
Aircraft Performance
Stability/Control (agility)
Survivability
Reliability
Maintenance intervals
Time-to-replace
Safety
Inlet configuration (if it's down the aircraft, then FOD problems show up)
Stealth (a single engine is bigger than two smaller engines (more
 exhaust area))
Cost of engines
Cost of aircraft
Provisions of the platform (to add future capabilities, and robustness to design changes)

These and several other criteria (esthetics, marketing, etc) are used to judge the different configurations, and then one of them wins.
Answer: This question is pretty complex and has to do with several factors
Design performance criteria - what are the specifications for the airplane's mission, flight envelope, onboard mission systems, payload, etc.
Available engine technology - performance criteria are largely limited by this factor.  Power plants are developed in parallel with aircraft programs, often beginning 1-2 years before development on the plane begins.
Military fighters tend to favor a single engine arrangement for power to weight and specific fuel ratios which favor energy maneuvering.  But performance requirement such as large combat radii or mission systems and stores carry combined with engine limitations often make a multi engine design attractive.
System redundancy is a tertiary benefit of multi engine aircraft, since losing an engine results in only a 50% loss in total available thrust plus redundant generators and hydraulic pumps to allow the aircraft to continue to fly.  This is alleviated somewhat with APUs or EPUs Un single engine fighters which do provide electrical power and hydraulics but no additional emergency thrust.
Answer: In war time, one engine or two engines is immaterial.
In peace time, the number of engines is quite important.
I had two engine failures during my military career:  one of the aircraft I brought home.  Following engine failure on the other, the aircraft and I returned to earth separated in time and distance.
So, if you envision your airforce operating during peace time for the majority of the life of the aircraft, you'll want to protect your assets from unnecessary losses, especially if you have finite resources.


Moped dies when trying to give gas after filling up gas tank

Question: My moped has been running just fine lately but after I put gas in it immediately started choking off when I give it gas. The tank was pretty close to empty when I topped it off. Is that the reason that all of a sudden the moped doesn't run properly?
Answer:
Scenario 1
Your carburettor might have been flooded, the fuel pump(vending machine) has a certain
pressure with which it pours in fuel to your tank, your moped being
small I am guessing not more that 4 litres of fuel capacity will be a
small tank and when you are pretty close to empty or empty the
pressure of the fuel coming in can flood your carburettor which will
choke for a mile or two after that it should resume working properly.
It is basically like pulling up the choke on your moped , it floods the carb.
To  avoid such situations always remember to shut off the fuel valve before filling up.
Scenario 2
You might have overfilled the tank and sealed it sort of
air tight,       sometimes(common on olden motorcycles & Mopeds)when
you fill up the tank too  much and close the lid without any sort of
gap in the tank for air , it creates a partial vacuum and the fuel
will not be able to freely flow to the carb thus casing it to choke
solution is to open the tank and reseal it slowly allowing some air to get in or remove some fuel.
Scenario 3
There is a high chance that you might have put it adulterated or bad fuel in your moped, this will definitely clog the engine part and will cause issues to an otherwise smooth engine.

Udate:
As your friend suggested, the fuel filter could also be an issue do check it.
Comment: Thanks for all of your suggestions! I was able to get it up to around 10mph by very lightly giving it gas but once I gave it to much it would choke off again. I went around the block a couple of times and nothing improved at all. I also took some gas out and ran it with the cap off to troubleshoot scenario 2. its the gas station I normally fill up at so that could be it. One of the guys I work with suggested that since i let the gas get so low some of the sediment that floats on the top usually was pushed through when i filled up. He suggested a new fuel filter to see if that works
Comment: Ive had problems like this before on this moped and just had a new carbureter put in late August so not to sure what else it could be this time. We had a bunch of rain the day before this all happened but was using it for half a day before I went to the gas station to fill up
Comment: @MichaelBall So have you tried all of the above solutions?


Is the phrase "Dying is the #1 cause of death in the world" logically sound?

Question: I just came across it and though it seems like an obvious statement I feel like the rapport of cause doesn't apply here. Dying IS death and not a cause of it. Right?
Comment: You know, this is a surprisingly deep question.  Is dying death?  Well, dying is the process of death, but is the process of a thing the cause of the thing?  I'm inclined to say no.
Comment: Your statement is a tautology.
Comment: "I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens". Woody Allen
Answer: Dying is the most proximal efficient cause of death. In one sense it is a process, and someone can be dying, but get rescued before arriving at death.  So in some sense, there is a logical point here.
However, we do not tend to consider efficient cause a cause very often in modern thought, because we have a largely Alchemical/Newtonian view that conflates material and efficient cause -- the way things are is an immediate consequence of the way they just were in the preceding instant, and natural laws.
From so strong a notion of physics, someone is dead when they are dead, and to declare them to be dying before then is misreading their current state.  You can never rescue someone who is dying.
Intuitively that last sentence seems wrong.  So I am in favor of Aristotle's four causes (final, formal, efficient, and material) over Alchemy's three (correspondingly: mutable, cardinal, fixed (and even more fixed)).
I would assert that for philologic reasons, you are unlikely to care about this point if you are a modern English speaker.  We have sets of triads of modal verbs (will, shall, and can; would, should and could; might, may and must) borrowed from the Germanic family, that map nicely onto the three causes (mutable, cardinal, and fixed).  So we have trouble thinking of the fourth one, (the non-modal indicative?) as being separate from the third, and our traditional view of physics makes it redundant anyway.
(It may not be coincidental that Newton was an Alchemist, or that both he and Maxwell were English.)
Answer: While there is an undeniably an element of dying that can be identified in all cases of death, correlation is not causality. The "cause" of death is always a breakdown in the complex machinery of life.
To address @jobermark's comment, I didn't mean that to say that "breakdown in the complex machinery of life" is the "cause" of death. A cause must have some specificity that allows it be distinguished from other causes, otherwise it is merely a tautology that has no explanatory power. Thus one must identify what the breakdown is, and if that can be done with any degree of specificity, that is the cause of death.
Comment: So are you saying that dying is something other than this breakdown?  Or are you saying that it is only coincidentally related to death?  Either seems far-fetched.  I would buy that it is the death that causes the dying, and not the other way around, as an interpretation of 'correlation is not causality', but you would have to say so.
Answer: My read of everyday English is that "dying is the process (or stages) that a thing goes through when it makes the transition from living to dead".  With this definition, dying is not a cause of any sort.  Various things can be the cause of death, and the general label affixed to the process that ensues when these causes arise is "dying".  Thus, though a nice turn of phrase, the statement involves a form of category error.
A carpenter is the efficient cause of a table (Aristotle); the "building" of a table is not the efficient cause of a table. I'm using the idea  that "building" is to table as "dying" is to death in this context.
Comment: There are a nested succession of causes of any sort.  The carpenter surely is an efficient cause of a table, so is his training as a carpenter, and so is mother.  But his action in making the table is a closer efficient cause to the actual table.
Comment: @jobermark It is still the case that none of the nested succession of causes are, in themselves, "dying".
Comment: Based on what?  There is an argument from Aquinas that the most immediate effective cause of a thing is simultaneous with it.  What other cause of dying does not happen until the exact instant of death?
Comment: @jobermark based on the definition presented in the answer.  If you disagree that that is an appropriate definition of dying for this question then the answer is wrong or irrelevant; if you agree, then "dying", is a process not a cause.  If you want to argue that all processes are causes, then we're going to talk past one another, since I don't accept that assertion of equivalence.


Using .net core web api from sitecore root

Question: We are building JSS application in SSR mode.
We need to build an api which will be running from sitecore root.
Can I build API using .net core or only .net framework is supported when running it from sitecore root.
Another query if using .net framework, can we use 4.8 as it is not in compatibility table.
Answer: "Can I build API using .net core or only .net framework is supported when running it from sitecore root."
No , you need to rely on .NET framework for your API, if you plan to host the service from within Sitecore Website. IMO you should move away from the Sitecore root and deploy your service in a seperate website , this way you can leverage .NET core as well.
Since the question is unclear on what your service does, You could try using Sitecore ItemService API if you need data from within Sitecore Items
Comment: Thanks Abhay. API is to log end user (from jss app) in sitecore virtually and setup user context (custom) to evaluate personalization. It will be used from jss app while executing layout service. JSS app is running from different server n connecting to sitecore in headless mode. Not sure if possible to run api outside sitecore root, as we need to authenticate end user (virtually).


Which dogs shed the least?

Question: My son want a puppy like yesterday.  We will be going to an animal donation center tomorrow.  My wife is adamant that it has be be a dog that doesn't shed fur.  I don't know if such a breed exists, but I know some shed less fur than others.
Comment: The list on http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/characteristics/low-shed-dogs is good, it has the name and a picture of each breed. It will take someone more skilled than me to put it as an answer. Here is some of the smaller breeds Tibetan Terrier.
Maltese Terrier.
Shih Tzu.
Brussels Griffon.
Portugese Water Dog.
Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier.
Poodle (Toy, Miniature, and Standard)
West Highland White Terrier.
Comment: This is a easy Google search. Poodle crosses, Maltese. Some long haired dogs shed very little and some short coats shed a lot.
Comment: @SAMA The goal of pets.se is to have the answers to all pet related that are a good fit for our model.  Google has lots of answers, and the best answer google finds should be here.
Comment: Are you looking for a large breed or small. How much exercise are you reasonably going to be able to provide. On a side note have you considered the cost of vaccination, registration, cost of feeding it etc?
Comment: We had a larger dog in the past so we are familiar with responsibilities and costs you mentioned.  We would like a smaller one this time.
Answer: This answer is part of Pet's Spring Cleaning Campaign. This question is old, but this answer will still help people with the same problem.

Hypoallergenic dogs:
You're looking for a hypoallergenic dog.
A hypoallergenic dog means this:

A hypoallergenic dog breed is a dog breed that is purportedly more compatible with allergic people than are other breeds.

(Wikipedia)
In reality, there isn't such thing as a true hypoallergenic dog, but a dog that is far less allergenic than others.
mayoclinic.org agrees:

There's no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog breed, although some individual dogs may cause fewer allergy symptoms than others. Many people think that pet allergies are caused by a dog's or cat's fur, but the real source of pet allergies is often a protein that's in the saliva and urine of dogs and cats.

Things to look for
You want to look for short coats and hair rather than fur.
I would also recommend reaching out to the shelter or breeder to ask if you could spend a few hours with the dog, to see if your allergies react.
The above two options are backed up by helix.northwestern.edu:

"These dogs have hair instead of fur. Their hair grows much as a human's does," Becker said. "We usually advise people with allergies to spend a few hours with our dogs just to see how they react."

Other than that, the only thing you can do is to Google the breed (if you know what it is).
Examples of hypoallergenic dogs:
Most to all poodle crosses are somewhat hypoallergenic (including the Goldendoodle, Labradoodle, Aussiedoodle, and my personal favorite - the Bernedoodle).
The following is a short list taken from here and here (which have more detail and pictures). More near hypoallergenic dogs can be found here and here. There are many more wonderful hypoallergenic dogs out there, so don't limit your research to this list:
(links are to Wikipedia)

Affenpinscher

Afghan Hound

American Hairless Terrier

Barbado da Terceira

Barbet

Bedlington Terrier

Bichon Frise

Bolognese

Chinese Crested

Coton de Tulear

Giant Schnauzer

Irish Water Spaniel

Kerry Blue Terrier

Lagotto Romagnolo

Löwchen

Maltese

Miniature Schnauzer

Peruvian Inca Orchid

Poodle (Miniature, Toy, and Standard)

Portuguese Water Dog

Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier

Spanish Water Dog

Standard Schnauzer

Wire Fox Terrier

Xoloitzcuintli

Yorkshire Terrier

Which dogs shed the least?


What scripture is James 4:5 referring to?

Question:
James 4:5 (ESV)
  Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?

I don't know of an Old Testament passage similar to James's quote. What is he referring to?
Comment: while I don't have enough data yet to answer fully, there is nothing that guarantees James is referring *only* to one passage, nor that it is *necessarily* in the Old Testament - Peter refers to Paul's writings as "[scripture](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:14-16&version=NASB)"
Comment: @warren good points! No wonder the passage has seemed so strange, when I had wrong assumptions to begin with!
Comment: still don't havea  full answer for you ... but those cross-referenced verses seem to be a good start (the cross-references from them!) :)
Comment: [Commentary in NABRE](http://www.usccb.org/bible/james/4/#67004005-1)
Comment: @warren and dancek, E.W. Bullinger and J.F. Dake report the same thing that warren has stated. I did a cursory search of the apocrypha today and found nothing either. Galatians 5:17 is also quite similar to the concept James is referencing.
Answer: There is indeed no Old Testament passage that contains those words, but there are a number of theories regarding what James was referring to. From Precept Austin:

Ideas include (1) James quoted from some unknown apocryphal work (2)
  The quote is an unrecorded statement of James' half brother Jesus. (3)
  James quotes from some NT passage. (4) James was paraphrasing an OT
  passage. (5) James was not quoting a specific single passage, but is
  summarizing truths found in several OT passages. (6) Finally, some
  commentators (and Bible translations) do not treat the first half of
  verse 5 as a "formula" introducing a quotation but as a sentence which
  stands by itself. Several of the translations emphasize this latter
  view by dividing verse 5 into two separate sentences...

Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which
  he made to dwell in us long unto envying? (ASV)
Think ye that the scripture speaks in vain? Does the Spirit which has
  taken his abode in us desire enviously? (Darby)
Do you think what the scriptures have to say about this is a mere
  formality? Or do you imagine that this spirit of passionate jealousy
  is the Spirit he has caused to live in us? (Phillips)
Or think ye that, in vain, the scripture speaketh? Is it, for envying,
  that the spirit which hath taken an abode within us doth crave?
  (Rotherdam)
Answer: This is, unfortunately, a passage where there are many options and no real consensus over a definitive translation. Perhaps the most popular assertion is that James is merely alluding to "Scripture" as a whole. There is, of course, no requirement to expect James to quote a specific verse having said that "the Scripture says" (See Motyer's commentary on James p148).
There are other scholars who see this "quotation" as evidence that some early Christian writers believed that not every inspired word from God had to be incorporated into the canon (See The Old Testament in Early Christianity, E. Ellis, p4-5). Personally, I find this explanation weak as New Testament writers are usually fairly conservative in what they quote - none ever quote the Apocrypha. There are a couple of quotes from other Jewish texts that were considered to have some "religious weight" (the most well-known being Jude's quote of 1 Enoch 1:9), but they are very rare (see Models for Scripture, J. Goldingay, p145.)
To conclude, I support Motyer's claim that James is referring to Scripture as a whole (or rather, numerous passages from the Old Testament concerning the jealousy of God), and that putting quotemarks after "the Scripture says" is somewhat unwise. Though other options are not to be entirely discounted.
Comment: The book of Hebrews is contested by many to reference Maccabees (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-hebrews-1135-37-proof-for-inclusion.html). Related to this discussion is how to handle ancient quotations in scriptures that do not appear in our Bible. See here some quotations that Justin the Martyr accuses the Jews of removing from scripture (http://biblehub.com/library/justin/dialogue_of_justin_philosopher_and_martyr_with_trypho/chapter_lxxii_passages_have_been_removed.htm#1). Notice how references 2219 and 2221 cannot be found in our contemporary scriptures.
Comment: My point is that there is evidence that the ancient writers may have been quoting scripture that we are not familiar with nowadays. It is also worthwhile to note that one of Justin's quotes in question (The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation) is also quoted by Irenaeus (so says that page linked above).
Answer: I have always understood James as referring to the "jealousy" of God as brought forward in many OT passages. For example;

Exodus 34:14 (RSV)  14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the
  LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
Deuteronomy 4:24 (RSV)  24 For the LORD your God is a devouring fire,
  a jealous God.
Deuteronomy 6:15 (RSV)  15 for the LORD your God in the midst of you
  is a jealous God; lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled
  against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.
Joshua 24:19 (RSV)  19 But Joshua said to the people, "You cannot
  serve the LORD; for he is a holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not
  forgive your transgressions or your sins.
Ezekiel 39:25 (RSV)  25 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Now I will
  restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of
  Israel; and I will be jealous for my holy name.
Joel 2:18 (RSV)  18 Then the LORD became jealous for his land, and had
  pity on his people.
Nahum 1:2 (RSV)  2 The LORD is a jealous God and avenging, the LORD is
  avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and
  keeps wrath for his enemies.
Zephaniah 1:18 (RSV)  18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be
  able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. In the fire
  of his jealous wrath, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full,
  yea, sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.
Zechariah 1:14 (RSV)  14 So the angel who talked with me said to me,
  `Cry out, Thus says the LORD of hosts: I am exceedingly jealous for
  Jerusalem and for Zion.

When coupled with the verses about God putting His Spirit in His chosen/elect.

Isaiah 42:1 (RSV)  1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in
  whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring
  forth justice to the nations.
Isaiah 44:3 (RSV)  3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and
  streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your
  descendants, and my blessing on your offspring.
Isaiah 59:21 (RSV)  21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them,
  says the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have
  put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the
  mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children's
  children, says the LORD, from this time forth and for evermore."
Ezekiel 36:27 (RSV)  27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause
  you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.
Ezekiel 37:14 (RSV)  14 And I will put my Spirit within you, and you
  shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then you shall know
  that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I have done it, says the LORD."
Ezekiel 39:29 (RSV)  29 and I will not hide my face any more from
  them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the
  Lord GOD."
Joel 2:28 (RSV)  28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will
  pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall
  prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall
  see visions.
Joel 2:29 (RSV)  29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants in
  those days, I will pour out my spirit.
Haggai 2:5 (RSV)  5 according to the promise that I made you when you
  came out of Egypt. My Spirit abides among you; fear not.
Zechariah 4:6 (RSV)  6 Then he said to me, "This is the word of the
  LORD to Zerub'babel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,
  says the LORD of hosts.
Acts 2:17 (RSV)  17 `And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
  that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your
  daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and
  your old men shall dream dreams;
Acts 2:18 (RSV)  18 yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in
  those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
Answer: I think that the strongest candidate is Wisdom 6:23, in the Deuterocanonical books of the Greek Septuagint. I explain my reasoning below.
The ESV editors chose to translate the Greek as you indicate,

He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell
  in us

where they interpreted the Greek,

Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει; Πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ
  κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν.

as, after arranging the proper order:

He yearns -- ἐπιποθεῖ, lit. "longs for", "He" understood
  Jealously -- Πρὸς φθόνον, lit. "With envy"[over] the spirit -- τὸ
  πνεῦμα that he has made to dwell -- ὃ κατῴκησεν, lit. "that which
  took up abode" in us -- ἐν ἡμῖν.

The western Church Father (Venerable) Bede maintains that this is not the correct rendering.  He states that the second clause must be read as a question in itself:

Does the spirit that dwells in you have a desire for envy?

which falls into place simply when πρὸς is understood to mean "for" (one of its accepted translations) instead of "with" and understanding the clause to be a question (the original manuscripts were not punctuated).
This does not make finding the verse in the Old Testament much easier to find (Bede and other Fathers said it simply isn't to be found), but it would negate some of the interpretations suggested that say the verse is referring to the jealousy of God.  Bede writes:

This must be read as a question of rebuke, as if it said, 'Does the
  spirit of grace with which you were signed on the day of your
  redemption desire this, that you envy one another?  Certainly it is
  not the good, but the wicked spirit that brings about in you the vice
  of envy.'  This is similar to the manner of speaking in the Psalm
  [49:7 LXX], A brother will not redeem, will a man redeem?  For it is
  understood thus, 'If Christ, who deigned to become a brother to us
  through his humanity, did not redeem us, is some mere man in a
  position to redeem us?'  Certain people have explained this thought, Does the
  spirit that dwells in you have a desire for envy? thus: 'He has a
  desire against envy, that is, he desires that the disease be overcome
  and rooted out of your minds.'  Others understand it as said of the
  spirit of man, so that the sense would be, 'Do not have desires, do
  not cling to the friendships of the world, because while the spirit of
  your mind desires earthly things, it certainly desires to envy, while
  you envy others having those things which you yourselves desire to
  possess.'
Commentary on James

As I said, Bede's interpretation and commentary don't reveal which Old Testament Scripture is being referred to.  I did notice, however, that the Greek word φθόνος ("envy", "jealousy") only appears in the Septuagint's Deuterocanonical books: 1 and 3 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon.  Only Wisdom 6:23 seems to be related:

Wisdom of Solomon 6:23 (Brenton LXX)
Neither will I go with consuming envy; for such a man shall have no
  fellowship with Wisdom.

If we take the reference in James 4:5 as a paraphrase rather than an exact quote, this passage seems to fit, but I would certainly be interested in opinions.
Answer: JAMES 4:5 IS QUOTING HOSEA
I hate be the odd ball here....
First off... this letter was not written by james.... it was written by yakov/ jacob....
Second.... let s look at his audience.... "the twelve tribes scattered abroad"
By the way.... this is not only "jews" which is a reference to judah and benjamin, but it is a reference to the 10 tribes to the north who whored after pagan gentile ways and whose seed/ sperm had been mixed with the pagan gentiles all over the globe as prophesied by the prophets....
Yakov/ jacob is addressing both houses of israel as 12 but 1 in fulfillment of ezekial 37's 2 sticks and hundreds of other prophecies never preached correctly....
All of israel... that is his audience... it is not a spiritual israel... it is a physical israel awaiting their time to return from the nations in the last days... see also the prodigal son's return.
Third... let's see his audience in chapter 4=5... "you"... is a reference to "the 12 tribes scattered abroad".... in this chapter he calls us "adulterers""adultresses"... ..
My point is that "you" is not an individual... "you" is a people... the congregation that is still scattered today.
Last.... the "spirit in you" from 4=5 is not holy.... that's why we get confused and try to rationalize why the Ruach Ha Kodesh/ Spirit that is Holy would be jealous/ envious/ OR MORE ACCURATELY "LUSTETH"... He is not that..
This is a corporate address to the congregation scattered.... and Yakov/ jacob is actually referencing the Scroll of Hosea, which is also a prophecy to the whoring 10 northern tribes of Ephraim/ Israel/ House of Joseph.....
You will notice in Hosea 5 that we are informed that our harlot spirit (little "s") is in our midst....
The translators didnt know what to do with "the spirit lusteth" because they didn't and still don't know the Scriptures.
I believe Andrew Gabriel Roth's translation of the Eastern Aramaic Manuscripts gets this Yakov 4=5 part right.....
By the way I highly recommend the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament) to ALL pastors. He sheds light on alot of greek fallacies butchered by anti semitic scribes through the dark ages...
So to sum it up.... Yakov/ Jacob/ James 4:5 is a reference to Hosea 5:4....
4:5 = 5:4
Comment: Can you edit this answer to focus on... *the answer*?
Comment: Welcome! We're glad you are here, but this answer would be much stronger if you showed, with sources, that it doesn't merely reflect your own analysis.  I hope you'll take a minute to review [how this site is different from others](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1809/21576), and better understand how [your answer can be supported](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/692/21576).
Comment: Very interesting thought
Answer: Some of the confusion appears to be root words vs derivatives.
Envy #07068 from Heb. root #07065 is used 9x in OT.
Zealous is this same Heb. root #07065.
Jealousy #07067 is used 6x in OT but only used of God; but it, too, is from Heb. root #07065.
Apparently envy and jealousy are very close in meaning; so close that one word is used for God alone, to separate it, and bind it to a holy meaning.
Thus, James could be referring any one or all of the 6 #07067 "jealousy" passages attributed to God.
Comment: All too often today, English speakers confuse the two terms (i.e., envy and jealousy), and the majority of times (from my observations) they use "jealousy" when they mean "envy". Jealousy rears its ugly head in human affairs (pun intended) when there is a third party involved. A jealous husband, for example, suspects every guy of flirting with his wife; subsequently, he acts out in unseemly ways. Envy, OTOH, doesn't require a third party. It pops up when I want something you have and resent you for having it. God is both jealous and envious; the former is obvious, but the latter not so much.
Comment: The "triangle" in God's jealousy consists of us, His children; our friendship with the world; and God, who gave us the command not to have any other gods before Him. God's jealousy is never petty, self-centered, or irrational; rather, it reveals His heart of love for us. He knows that our friendship with the world system will drag us down. As for envy, the thing God envies is something He has every RIGHT to desire passionately, and that is our absolute fidelity, love, and obedience. He has bought us with a price by His Son's blood, and He wants us--spirit, soul, and body--in return.
Comment: Welcome to the site!  This next has nothing to do with the quality of your answer, it's just standard to help new visitors avoid misunderstanding the site (as I did at first.)  As a new visitor, I'd recommend checking out the following two posts, which are meant to help newcomers "learn the ropes": [the help page](http://christianity.stackexchange.com/help) and [How we are different than other sites?](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/how-we-are-different-than-other-sites)
Comment: Adding quotes or links to those 6 passages would improve this answer immensely.