Ever since I moved from Vim to Neovim, my ag has started acting strange

Question: I recently switched to Neovim, but ever since my ag usage have acted weird lately. Here is my current .vimrc file.
Here is my Neovim init file ~/.config/nvim/init.vim:
set runtimepath^=~/.vim runtimepath+=~/.vim/after
let &packpath=&runtimepath
source ~/.vimrc
let g:python3_host_prog='/Users/abdullah/.pyenv/shims/python3'
let g:python_host_prog='/Users/abdullah/.pyenv/shims/python'

Here are the problems I'm facing:
When I search the current keyword, I get a preview of the results, before actually seeing the results
So suppose I place the cursor ontop of attachClusteredOrders here
public static function attachClusteredOrders($orders, float $distanceThreshold, int $backtrackDays)

actual behavior
I get this preview of search results with the prompt to enter a command to continue:

Once I enter Enter, I see this

expected behaviour
I should see the search results directly without having to enter Enter
Note: here is the relevant part from my vimrc on this:
" The Silver Searcher
if executable('ag')
  " Use ag over grep
  let &grepprg = "ag --nogroup --nocolor --ignore wiki --ignore tags --ignore dist --ignore tests --ignore seeds --ignore migrations -w"

  " Use ag in CtrlP for listing files. Lightning fast and respects .gitignore
  let g:ctrlp_user_command = 'ag %s -l --nocolor -g ""'

  " ag is fast enough that CtrlP doesn't need to cache
  let g:ctrlp_use_caching = 0
endif

" bind K to grep word under cursor
nnoremap K :grep! "\b<C-R><C-W>\b"<CR>:cw<CR>

" command -nargs=+ -complete=file -bar Ag silent! grep! <args>|cwindow|redraw!
" above replaced with
" https://vi.stackexchange.com/a/14939/14510
function! Ag(args) abort
  execute "silent! grep!" shellescape(a:args)
  cwindow
  redraw!
endfunction

When I run my keyboard shortcut to launch AG, nothing happens
actual behaviour
I run my keyboard shortcut to start the AG prompt \ and then I see this

but when I type enter nothing happens. But if I manually type :Ag <query> and press enter it works just fine!
expected behaviour
The keyboard shortcut should work from the first time
Note: relevant part of my vimrc:
" bind \ (backward slash) to grep shortcut
nnoremap \ :Ag<SPACE>

Answer: this fix worked for me so far but I'm not too happy about it b/c it still shows the intermediary output for a second then it shows the results, I'd rather it jumped straight to the results instead.
" bind K to grep word under cursor
nnoremap K :grep! "\b<C-R><C-W>\b"<CR>:cw<CR><ENTER>


Implication in sentences

Question: What implications do we get when we use the past tense? For example, if I say that when I was younger, I used to play football, does this imply that now I don't?
Comment: I'd call that redundant or ambiguous. "When I was younger I played football" and "I used to play football" both mean I played football in the past but I currently don't. But "In the past I used to play football" is murky. In the past you didn't play football. In the past you USED to play football ... in the even farther past? If I'm your English teacher I knock off a point or two and tell you to be precise and not ambiguous. Like the guy who pretended to be an imposter. He didn't pretend to fly planes or be a war hero. He merely pretended to be an imposter!
Answer: We often make inferences that do not follow directly from what was said, but that do follow if we also take into account the speaker's intent.  For example, when a headline says "US Figure Skater Wins Silver Medal," strictly speaking it does not follow directly from that that the gold medal was not also won by a US figure skater.  But, given that we also know the newspaper's intent in having maximally informative (or attention-grabbing?) headlines, it is safe to conclude that the gold medal was won by someone from a different country.
It seems that your example is similar -- from the fact that you played football in the past it does not follow directly that you don't anymore, but in most circumstances it is safe to assume that you would have expressed yourself differently in that case.

Implication in sentences


Does mysql_escape_string have any security vulnerabilities if all tables using Latin1 encoding?

Question: I have heard that the PHP function mysql_escape_string has security vulnerabilities related to mult-byte characters. Are there any vulnerabilities if all tables are using Latin1 encoding?
Answer: The issue is that mysql_escape_string() does not check the database for character encoding. As a result mysql_escape_string() would be unaware of your database encoding and may treat multi-byte characters as single byte characters. This could result in the last two bytes being escaped into a reserved character such as ' as well as countless other character which have special relevance for the SQL engine.
In such a case, the attacker could append additional SQL commands to gain access to data or functions not intended. This is why the function is deprecated and the use of mysql_real_escape_string() is recommended.
mysql_real_escape_string() works almost identically except that it connects to the database to determine what encoding is used by the database, preventing known multi-byte escaping issues.
Also note that mysql_escape_string()  and mysql_real_escape_string()  do not escape the % and _ characters (as per the manual reference http://php.net/manual/en/function.mysql-escape-string.php and http://php.net/manual/en/function.mysql-real-escape-string.php see notes). This could allow access to data that not intended when used with keywords such as LIKE, so special care should be taken.

Update

So, what encoding does mysql_escape_string assume?

I believe it is ASCII, however I am unable to confirm this. Regardless it makes no difference to the result which is; using Latin1 for database encoding could result in a security vulnerability if not properly encoded.
Also note that this is not just vulnerability with the database. Within the application/server-side script you must be careful when handling input to be aware of how strings are passed from function to function and ensure that correct encoding is preserved. Ideally using UTF-8 end-to-end would be good but not always an option.
Comment: So, what encoding does `mysql_escape_string` assume?
Answer: Personally, I think you are asking the wrong question.  If you want to avoid SQL injection vulnerabilities -- as well you should -- the answer is not to use mysql_escape_string more carefully.  The right answer is to use prepared statements.
The fundamental problem is that mysql_escape_string is fragile, and it is hard to predict all of the specific ways in which it might break.  You have learned one source of fragility in mysql_escape_string, and now wonder if that is the only source.
Personally, I take away a different lesson.  The lesson I draw is that, if security is the job, mysql_escape_string is the wrong tool for the job.  Instead, you should be using prepared statements (parametrized queries).
Among the security world, it is pretty widely accepted that the most robust way to avoid SQL injection is to use prepared statements.  Don't try to escape/encode your data and then build up a SQL query using string concatenation; that approach is fragile and can easily break if, e.g., the database interprets your query differently than you expected.  So my advice is: don't try to get clever -- just use prepared statements and be happy.
Comment: When code is live, updating it requires a huge amount of testing. I need to know whether fixing this issue is critical or just something that would be nice to do
Comment: @user5385: we can't judge your security decisions, but using `mysql_real_escape_string` over `mysql_escape_string` is the least you can do - it is trivial to implement, and you defend at least against basic threats. The added benefit of parametrized queries, in this context, is that the code is neater and more convenient, and that it is harder to forget to escape (and quote!) a value.
Comment: Replacing mysql_escape_string() correctly with mysql_real_escape_string() can be done almost fully automatically - and it's straightforward to detect the (v. rare in the wild) scenarios where a specific connection must be passed. OTOH using prepared statements requires a major manual rewrite and testing.
Comment: @symcbean: it's not that big of a deal, really. You can always replace an existing set of database access functions with an API compatible set that uses parametrized queries under the hood (and exposes them in a compatible way), and then phase out the non-parametrized queries at a rate that can be managed comfortably. Writing such a wrapper should take less than a day, and if you have unit tests for the old code, you can just keep them intact.
Answer: Per @BernieWhite's answer, mysql_escape_string() performs escaping in complete ignorance of the string encoding that is actually being used for the database connection (which is separate from that used in your tables).
Therefore, it attempts to escape ' characters by replacing them with \' whenever they occur.  It does this on a bytewise basis, replacing every occurrence of 0x27 with 0x5c27 (i.e. it is effectively operating under the assumption that the string is encoded in a single-byte superset of ASCII); for example, it will convert the string 0xbf27 to 0xbf5c27—but if the connection encoding is GBK, this will have converted an invalid string to 縗' (note the unescaped ' character).
Thus mysql_real_escape_string() was introduced to perform escaping properly, i.e. according to the connection character encoding.  However, one must therefore inform the client library of the character encoding by calling mysql_set_charset()—this step is often overlooked, and leaves one just as vulnerable as if the original mysql_escape_string() was being used!
But even if one uses mysql_real_escape_string(), there are still other edge cases that can leave you vulnerable.  As explained in my answer to "SQL injection that gets around mysql_real_escape_string()" over on StackOverflow:

TL;DR
mysql_real_escape_string() will provide no protection whatsoever (and could furthermore munge your data) if:

MySQL's NO_BACKSLASH_ESCAPES SQL mode is enabled (which it might be, unless you explicitly select another SQL mode); and
your SQL string literals are quoted using double-quote " characters.

Because of these practical difficulties in ensuring that embedded string literals are handled safely, it is generally recommended that one not even attempt it!  Instead, one can send literal values to the database connection in packets that are entirely separate from the SQL; consequently, the server will not even attempt to parse those values for anything else: this is known as "query parameterisation", is what @D.W.'s answer suggests, and is nicely explained in How can I prevent SQL injection in PHP?


Inducing a context free grammar

Question: I have a file containing a subset of possible strings from a context free language. I am looking for a mechanism to induce the grammar from this information. Is that possible?
Comment: One grammar just lists each string as a production for the start symbol. There are clearly an infinite number of grammars that generate the given strings, so without any other criteria on the grammar, this problem just has no possible answer.
Comment: This question falls a bit short (cf vonbrand) but it's also way too broad; learning grammars in an entire research subfield!
Comment: It wasn't obvious to me that having only positive examples is not enough to induce a grammar. The answer by @D.W. made that clear. While I understand that grammar induction itself is a sizable field of research, wouldn't this question and the accepted answer below help someone else like me overcome the same misconception?
Answer: If you have only positive examples (strings that are in the language), in principle, no, you cannot infer the grammar.  For all you can tell, the language might be $\Sigma^*$: no matter how many example strings you have, you'll never be able to rule that out as the language.
However, if you have a little more information, there are known solutions.  You can take a look at Angluin's algorithm.  If you need a software implementation, take a look at LearnLib.  See also Wikipedia's page on grammar induction for other approaches.
Another approach is to try to find the smallest context-free grammar that can generate every string in your set of examples, and nothing else.  Finding the absolute smallest CFG is probably hard, but there are known heuristics that tend to give a good solution in practice.  I'd recommend the Sequitur algorithm, if you need something in practice and have only positive examples.  This gives up generalization -- there might be an even simpler/smaller CFG that can generate every one of your example strings as well as some others -- but for some applications it works reasonably well in practice.
Comment: This is a good answer to a rather bad question. Do you see a good edit that would make the question worth keeping?

Inducing a context free grammar


why in some countries trade deficits for a few years generates economical crisis and in United States 40 years of deficit hasnt?

Question: why in some countries (e.g. Argentina) trade deficits for a few years generates economical crisis and collapse and in United States 40 years of deficit havent? Which are the economical effects in both countries and why they are different?
Answer: Persistent trade or balance of payments deficits generate debt and other liabilities, either in the currency of the importer or in some foreign currency.  This may be sustainable so long as lenders expect to be repaid in something of value.
The United States borrows in dollars, and the general expectation among its creditors is that its debts will be honoured (there was some doubt in 2011 and 2013) and that others will accept dollars in the future.
For Argentina, this expectation is much weaker.  In the past there have been defaults on borrowing in dollars (eight times since 1824, most recently in 2001 and 2014).  Alternatively, Argentina could borrow in pesos, but there have been frequent bouts of hyperinflation, which makes foreign lenders reluctant to lend.
So for the United States, its historical behaviour has created a degree of trust among its creditors which allows a sustained deficit.  Argentina's history makes it harder to borrow, so any new suggestion of a persistent deficit means it soon finds financing imports more difficult, thus creating a crisis.
Answer: The US borrows in its own currency. So it can always issue new currency to repurchase its own debt. And it mostly trades in its own currency, so when its currency gets devalued against the currencies of its trading partners, the trade imbalance is corrected.
Argentina borrows in someone else's currency - the US dollar. So it cannot issue new currency to repurchase its own debt. Furthermore, its international trade is largely denominated in other currencies than its own, too, so devaluing the Argentinian Peso does not correct the trade imbalance.
Comment: @Pablo rather than asking new questions in comments, please do post them as new questions, where everyone can benefit, and you'll get more - and better - answers
Comment: That's exactly was about to ask in a commentary. Can US issue new currency without any negative consequences? In other countries creating new currency with no backup in dollars generates in inflation
Comment: @Pablo it's a one-off inflationary stimulus, and *ceteris paribus* will lead to a fall in the value of the currency, so will help correct the trade imbalance.
Comment: so, if US has to create new currency to compensate 541.000 millions of euros of deficit (last year), sometimes over a trillion of deficit yearly, how is that the dollar doesnt devaluate and more or less keep its value? or is it all years devaluating?


Local Calendar events disappeared

Question: I tried to remove a repeating calendar event from the unsynchronized Local Calendar account using the stock calendar app1. At first I thought that all calendar events were deleted (not just the repeating event), because the calendar was now completely empty.
But then I realized that I could still export all calender events using Calendar Import - Export.
And sure enough, inspecting <code>/data/data/com.android.providers.calendar/databases/calendar.db</code> revealed that all events were still there.
I tried the following to have the events displayed again in the calendar app:

Checking the proper calendar account was selected (it was, there is only one)
Using another app: DigiCal also displays no events (which it previously did)
Resetting the calendar app
Restoring the calendar app from a backup
Clearing the cache (not the data) of the Calendar Storage app that provides the database file mentioned above
Manually adding a new event works, but all other events are still missing. Exporting all events again now also includes this new event.

Nothing of the above fixed the problem. I could purge the data from the Calendar Storage app, clearing the DB and importing all events that I previously exported. But I'm hestitant to do so without understanding what's gone wrong and how I can properly fix it so it won't happen again, and I'm not sure this would even work.
What's going on here? How can I have all the events displayed again?
1 I'm running Xiaomi.eu's MIUI 184.108.40.206
Answer: Absent other ideas, I purged the data from the Calendar Storage and reimported the events.
This worked: All events are now displayed again, though it remains unclear what actually went wrong in the first place. Let's hope this won't happen again.

Local Calendar events disappeared


Rate-determining step of Claisen condensation

Question: If we use a strong base such as LDA or NaH, will the rate-determining step  change from enolate ion formation to nucleophillic acyl substitution step?
Comment: If you use a strong base, you're likely generating the enolate in full before adding the electrophile, so I believe this question is moot.
Comment: @Zhe If the reaction were to be carried out in protic solvent, won't it also aid carbonyl bond polarisation.
Comment: But you _choose_ when to add the electrophile. The rate effects are totally irrelevant.
Answer: Let me get one thing out of the way: the hydride ion is not a strong base. However, once a hydride is protonated to form hydrogen the acid-base equilibrium breaks down which makes it seem like a much stronger base than it is.

Your actual question — whether the rate determining step shifts from enolisation to nucleophilic attack — is harder to answer as it depends primarily on the reaction procedure. It depends on how you perform the Claisen condensation and what you want to condense.
If, for example, you want to perform a hetero Claisen condensation (i.e. couple two different esters), then you would typically make sure to deprotonate quickly and kinetically first before adding the second ester as Zhe implied in a comment. For example, you might use a very strong base such as $\ce{BuLi}$ or $\ce{LDA}$ for complete deprotonation followed by a waiting period before adding another ester. In this case, obviously you are already dealing with a fully deprotonated product and the question becomes moot.
However, you might be interested in a homocoupling product. For that, you might decide to add $\pu{0.5eq}$ of a strong base to a solution of the ester. Here, it depends on whether you add the strong base rapidly, (meaning the acid-base equilibrium is practically immediately established, in turn meaning that now the attack becomes rate determining) or whether you add it slowly and dropwise, in which case you, the experimentor, are rate-limiting deprotonation and causing it to remain the rate-determining step.

Finally, in response to a comment you gave under your question: You cannot use a protic solvent if you intend to use a strong base. Protic solvents are characterised by a relatively high acidity, meaning they will be deprotonated long before the ester ($\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a} \approx 25$). This will completely inhibit the reaction.
Answer: If a strong base is used, it will result in complete formation of the enolate ion, while in weaker bases, the RDS is enolate ion formation as it is a very weak acid.


Boost interprocess_mutex copy/move constructor?

Question: I'm trying to create a vector of objects in shared memory that each own an interprocess_mutex as follows:
struct test
{
    test(){}
    interprocess_mutex mutex;
};

using namespace boost::interprocess;
managed_shared_memory seg(open_or_create, "MySharedMemory", 65536);
allocator<void, managed_shared_memory::segment_manager> void_alloc_(seg.get_segment_manager());
vector<test, allocator<test, managed_shared_memory::segment_manager>> vec(void_alloc_);
vec.push_back(test());

However interprocess_mutex is explicitly missing a copy/move constructor and clang fails to compile with this error:
copy constructor of 'test' is implicitly deleted because field 'mutex' has an inaccessible copy constructor
interprocess_mutex mutex;

Is there a reason for this? It looks like boost::thread mutex has a copy constructor. How can I accomplish this using interprocess_mutex?
Comment: See:  http://stackoverflow.com/a/29988626/576911  The type is different but the issue is the same.
Answer: No standard or Boost mutex-type class provides a copy constructor. If you need to copy classes containing a mutex member, the mutex needs to be turned into a pointer, and you need to provide a copy constructor to deal with the mutex appropriately.
What would copying a mutex even do? Would both instances refer to the same mutex? Would each instance have it's own mutex? What if the mutex is already locked during the copy?
Aside from these questions, a mutex member is often used to protect the object's other members. If you support copying on a class with a mutex member, you very likely want to lock that mutex at some point during the copy.
Comment: I came across this question while trying to move a boost interprocess mutex. Would you happen to know why that is not possible?
Answer: I solved the problem by changing the vector to contain shared_ptr instead of test directly. test() gets called only once and the object is owned by the shared_ptr object, which is move/copyable:
    using namespace boost::interprocess;

    typedef managed_shared_memory::segment_manager SegmentManager;
    typedef allocator<void, SegmentManager> test_allocator;
    typedef deleter<test, SegmentManager> test_deleter;
    typedef shared_ptr<test, test_allocator, test_deleter> test_pointer;
    typedef vector<test_pointer, allocator<test_pointer, SegmentManager>> test_pointer_vector;

    managed_shared_memory seg(open_or_create, "MySharedMemory", 65536);

    test_allocator alloc(seg.get_segment_manager());
    test_deleter del(seg.get_segment_manager());

    test_pointer& p = *seg.construct<test_pointer>(anonymous_instance)(seg.construct<test>(anonymous_instance)(), alloc, del);
    test_pointer_vector& vec = *seg.construct<test_pointer_vector>(anonymous_instance)(alloc);

    vec.push_back(p);
    p.get()->mutex_.try_lock();


What are the main points of contention between Marxist and capitalist economic philosophies?

Question: What are the main points of contention between Marxist economic philosophy and the various "pro-capitalist" economic philosophies (Labor Theory of Value, Austrian School, Libertarianism, etc.?)
Comment: Not sure I would say it's a point of contention between Marx and Smith per se, but generally the Labour Theory of Value vs the Subjective Theory of Value gets to the heart of a lot of the differences in thinking between capitalist and socialist philosophies
Answer: I'll use "liberal" (in the European sense) instead of "pro-capitalist" here, as I think it's more relevant.
Socialist philosophy is based on seeing faults and injustices in society and wanting to fix them by implementing total equality of outcome. Its aim and desire is to make people equal. It as such tends to attract people who want everybody to be the same. There is a safety and a comfort in the homogeneous group, where people understand each other and there is little conflict. Socialist philosophy strives for harmony and unity.
Faults and injustices:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
-- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Manifesto of the Communist Party

Equality of Outcome:

The point being that an essential feature of a decent society, and an almost defining feature of a democratic society, is relative equality of outcome-not opportunity, but outcome.
-- Noam Chomsky: The Common Good

Make people equal:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
-- Karl Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme

Safety and comfort in the group:

...the individual ceases to be himself; he adopts entirely the kind of personality offered to him by cultural patterns; and he therefore becomes exactly as all others are and as they expect him to be. The discrepancy between 'I' and the world disappears and with it the conscious fear of aloneness and powerlessness.
-- Erich Fromm - The Fear of Freedom

Liberal philosophy is based on seeing potential and freedom in humans. It wants to reach this potential by implementing equality of opportunity. Its aim and desire is to make people free. It therefore tends to attract individualists. There is a stifling pressure and lack of freedom in the homogeneous group where you are not allowed to be different. Liberal philosophy strives for diversity and complexity.
Potential:

Adam Smith's central insight remains true today: there is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women.
-- Barack Obama

Equality of Opportunity:

Equality of opportunity, like personal equality, is not inconsistent with liberty, on the contrary, it is an essential component of liberty.
-- Milton Friedman

Freedom

[E]ach person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
-- John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

Lack of freedom in homogenity

See "Brave New World" and "We".

End result in economic policy
Socialist economic policies focus partly on a direct desire to fix injustices which results in large redistributions of wealth, and often price controls in a misguided attempt to keep fundamental needs affordable (with the result that they instead becomes more scarce). It also is affected indirectly by it's desire for equality of outcome, which is to be implemented by common ownership of the means of production. This results in state control and state ownership and homogeneous state owned health care and education.
Liberal economic policies focus partly on a desire to even out the opportunities in life, which results in redistributions of wealth (but smaller than the socialists), and partly on a desire for freedom, which results in privately owned and heterogeneous health care and education, which however, to support equality of opportunity, may be state funded (for example French healthcare and Swedish schools).
The difference between economic theories like Labor Theory of Value vs Marginal Utility Theory of Value is best saved for another question, I think.
Answer: It would do well to separate the question into two, one being about Marx and Smith and another concerning the differences between Marxism and bourgeois economic theory.
In point of fact, Adam Smith was a key contributor to the development of the Labor Theory of Value as was David Ricardo who followed on his heels. It was then Marx who took the LTV to its full logical development, whereupon the bourgeoisie had to throw out classical economics and start over lest that classical economics be taken to its logical (and, for the bourgeoisie, imminently dangerous) conclusion both in theory and in practice.
Marx expounded on the Labor Theory of Value to show that according to the Labor Theory of Value (which was the theory of value that was used by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, etc) capitalists (owners of the means of production) exploit workers by depriving them of value that workers themselves create. According to Marx and in simplified form that neglects rent, interest, depreciation, etc., profit is the difference between the value that the worker has created and the wage that the worker receives from his employer.
Once Marx firmly established this principle, the Labor Theory of Value was criticized and abandoned by supporters of capitalism.
The closest thing to a bourgeois critique of Marx is by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and it dates back to over 100 years ago. While others have criticized small slivers of Marx's work, Böhm-Bawerk's is considered to be "comprehensive". It is astonishing how many footnotes on the "total debunking of Marx" end up leading exclusively to him. In fact, Böhm-Bawerk's work is structured to look exactly like an anti-matter version of Marx, i.e. a three volume Capital and Interest. The actual theory is thin stuff indeed, focusing on the term or period of capital.
I forget who said it but somehow Böhm-Bawerk stepped on Adam Smith somewhere in his writings against Marx and one of the neo-Smithians referred to him as "that bombastic flea, Böhm-Bawerk".
Do you know what else the bombastic flea "contributed"?
He is one of the "founders" of "Libertarian Economics" (the so-called Austrian School)...
Modern Libertarian political philosophy was born in exactly the same way as Eugene. It was "discovered" and funded by capitalism as a bought-and-paid-for ideological "criticism" of Marxism. The first important "Libertarian" institutions in America (in the early 1930's - imagine that! during the Great Depression... what a coincidence?) started out by popularizing the bombastic flea's work and distributing his books, free, to libraries and schools.
It is one heckuva of a story but the whole "Libertarian" racket was more crooked than a Ponzi scheme, absolutely manufactured out of whole cloth to oppose socialist ideology and nothing more. It is a designer theory that was designed to fulfill the needs of a free market. The demand was there for an oppositional theory to Marxism, but no supply. You can imagine how high the price was... although it fell right back down to its value when the Universities solved the crisis of production.
The reason that Libertarianism is reminiscent of Marxism is that it took it's technique entirely from Marxism but it was born as anti-Marxism or "Bizzaro Marxism" (I wasn't just joking about that reference). In fact it is fairly unique among political and economic ideologies in this regard, with only Creationism and a few others of this type coming to mind. Just as with Creationism's battle with Darwin, the Libertarians simply could not accept the direction of Science and set out to overturn it. The pioneer in this space, Carl Menger, was a contemporary of Marx but already saw in the political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo the seeds of the Marxist evolution, with Saint-Simon acting as the Nostradamus of the coming storm. Menger's student, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk wrote the first "definitive criticism" of Marx's political economy. The resurrection of Libertarianism in the 1930s was not just in direct response Bolshevism but also to New Deal policies and Keynesianism, which were seen as surrender to "socialist principles" and it is not by accident that the doctrine was inextricably linked with Ayn Rand and Joseph McCarthy in post-war America. In all of this, Libertarianism never even found the time to "revise" the history of the "natural evolution" of Libertarian economics from classical political economy (to which it had previously been uniformly hostile), nor even to "discover" an underlying formal "philosophy" until the 1970s when Hayek's books were given free by groups like the Olin Foundation to universities in much the same way as Bawerk's had been before.
Virtually every "theorist" of the ideology began as a virulent anti-communist well before they were "theoreticians," Oddly, few of them bother to hide this. Virtually all of them admit to setting out to overturn a science, the implications of which, they simply could not accept. The principle cornerstone of that science inevitably begins with "The Labor Theory of Value."
with the attempt to depict Austrian economic theory, and marginalism in general, as fundamentally free of any political taint, Hayek declared (1973):

"I can find no indication that Jevons, Menger, or Wairas, in their efforts to rebuild economic theory, were moved by any desire to revindicate the practical conclusions that had been drawn from classical economics. Such indications as we have of their sympathies are on the side of the current movements for social reform."

Hayek here missed the point, however. The question does not concern Austrian (and marginalist) economics as a defense of laissez-faire capitalism against social reform, but as a defense of the basic market economy (private ownership of the means of production) against socialism (collective ownership of the means of production, first by the state and later collectively in a post "state capitalist" indeed post-state form when the state has "withered" as the bourgeoisie is fully vanquished and only a single class remains).
Hayek ignored the theoretical crisis that existed in economics on the eve to the marginalist revolution (at least in English-speaking countries). Friedrich von Wieser testified to this crisis in his biographical notice on Menger (Wieser 1923). Both he and Böhm-Bawerk were deeply troubled as they began their careers as economists. Among the problems confronting them were the implications of the classical theory of value. If that theory were true, then:

"Is not the socialist critique of current conditions, is not Karl Marx with his theory of surplus value, totally correct? Is not socialist theory just the completer of the classical idea, which the classical economists themselves did not have the courage to think out to the end?"

Frank A. Fetter was another scholar who saw the emergence of marginalism as a deliverance from an ideological dilemma. Fetter (1923) elaborated on the predicament of classical economics after the middle of the nineteenth century. Of Ricardo and his LTV, Fetter stated (1923; see also Ross 1991):

"...with his sophistical arguments he had given to this really primitive conception the phenomenal authority of his name, and it was to go on exerting a tremendous and evil influence in ways then all unforeseen. Labor is the source of value (exchange value, virtually market price as he used it); labor is the cause of value; labor produces all wealth. Naturally follows the ethical and political conclusion: if labor produces all wealth then labor should receive all wealth..."

The science simply could not be left to the scientists. With their search for "abstract truth," they had simply ("tragically") justified the revolutionaries...
Now, to the underlying and really salient question: What is value?
Everything that is produced by human beings is a "use value." The term is a "null term" in effect. A thing would not be produced unless it satisfied some human want or need, real or imagined. Further, its usefulness is a function of the properties of the thing produced. The appropriation of even the simplest elements of nature requires the exertion of labor and thus counts as "production," i.e. it would not occur without some "use" as its precondition.
Any product of labor that enters into exchange acquires a "value." The expression of that value is called an "exchange-value" of which one form (that of an exchange value expressed in money) is "price." The process of exchange represents an abstraction away from the physical properties of the products under consideration and thus away from use values as a whole (because use values have no existence apart from the physical properties of the products of human labor). Instead, exchange value and the value underlying it, gauge a social quality that is layered on top of (or "congealed" in) the products of human labor when they enter into exchange. This value appears to be no less a property of those products than their physical properties despite the fact that no electron microscope of any intensity has yet been invented that can find a single iota of value in a bar of gold. This is the basis of "fetishism."
This attribute of commodities is common to all commodities and thus to all products of human labor intended for exchange, whether or not that exchange is realized and thus all "intermediate" goods, industrial capital, etc., also have this character. On occasion, things that are not products of labor may also acquire exchange values but this is mainly an artifact of the surrounding production of commodities. There is also a detailed discussion of this in both Marx and the preceding classical economists.
The nature of the labor that makes up "value" is that it is labor of a "peculiar sort," according to Marx. It too is abstracted away from the specific physical labor that creates use values. Marx calls it "abstract social labor" and it is clearly a social average which reaches across the specific traits of the laborers to achieve an average duration and intensity. It is also a kind of labor which reduces the widely varied skill levels of many types of labor to a common denominator. It is not necessary to debate this as this was "documented" in the earliest forms of exchange and has not been challenged in any of the critiques of classical Political Economy. The art critic may argue that there is no commonality whatever between the talent that produces "Sofa Art" and the genius of DaVinci, but that same critic has to concede that, to the extent that both paintings are commodities, that "commonality" is established and reconciled every day (even if it is at a ratio of 1 million to one).

On further edit regarding the rephrased question: It is certainly popular today to deify Adam Smith as surely "pro-capitalist" although in terms of Labor Theory of Value, history has decidedly marked him as otherwise even as the deification contradictorily rolls on.
By modern American standards he would be decried as a "socialist!" not for LTV (*most folks haven't a clue about it or the marginalism cooked up to replace both Marx and it) but for his other positions:
In this era, free-market proponents have been commonly viewed as the intellectual heirs to Adam Smith. But as the Cambridge historian Emma Rothschild has pointed out, Smith was widely regarded as a socialist pioneer until the second half of the 20th century. How socialist? In 1881, Lord Acton had claimed that "government with the working class was the irresistible consequence of Smith's ideas." A 19th-century German economist concurred, writing that Smith was "the immediate precursor - indeed the champion and pioneer of - socialism," adding, with a wry nod to Latin naming, that "socialism is the pure consequence of Smithianissimus." http://www.pimpmyadamsmith.com/ihand.html
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor ... The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith
Answer: Capitolism is more an economic policy.  Socialism more of a is a govenment policy.  The 2 can coexist.
Socialism has the govenment providing basic neccessities to everyone (Food, health, medicine, etc).  Capitolism can provide beyond these necessities or as an alternitive to the government provided services.
Marxism is a form of socialism that gives the state ownership of everything.  Capitolism is not compatible with marxism.
Communism is an economic policy where everything is shared equally.  Communism is not socialism.  Communism provides shared bounty and famine alike.  Marxism and Socialism are not compatible with Communism despite claims by both sides to the contrary.  Both Marxism and Socialism have a strong central government providind and deciding what to provide.  Communism is more compatible with democracy than Socialism or Marxism.
I believe the debate between Marx and Smith would likely center around Marx's belief that government must provide for the needs of man and society and Smith's belief that man will provide for itself and society with out the intervention of government or other factors.  Smith believed that it was in the interest of businesses that produce to keep their customers and workers healthy and productive.  Smith would likely argue that marxism takes away the incentive of business to care for their customer and workers thus causing them harm.
Comment: Just a note: State ownership is where you end up in practice with Marxism, but it isn't in Marxism itself. An Socialism is not about providing basic necessities at all. Socialism is about common ownership (which also Marxism is about). And with all forms of socialism, you end up with state-ownership. Communism and Socialism was two words for the same thing in the beginning, but the words have changed meaning multiple times. I don't find this answer helpful as such.
Comment: @Chad: You need to read more early socialist thinkers, I notice. :-)
Comment: @Chad: Again: You are allowed to disagree with a definition, but you can't just substitute your own arbitrary definition without saying this. Which you didn't do. Your definitions are unique to you, you can't use them as if they were commonly accepted definitions. Did I make myself clear now?
Comment: right; Marx's view was that history would move from dictatorship by the bourgeoisie (capitalism) to dictatorship by the proletariat (socialism) to communism.
Comment: @lennart I disagree Commununism is common ownership.  Socialism is state care.  They are not the same thing.
Comment: @Lennart I agree that many socialist thinkers found communism to be be compatable, and even ideal.  But communism is not required for socialism.
Comment: @Chad: Possibly you misunderstand. I'll try again. From Wikipedia: "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned". This is the definition of socialism, and the definition of communism as well. The meaning of the word socialism has started to shift after the fall of communism. But most books you find discussing socialism will use this definition. As you fail to acknowledge this in your answer, it becomes unclear and may be misleading.
Comment: @Lennart - That would be because I totally dissagree with that definition.  Socialism is a form of policy making(AKA Government).  Communism is a form of economic system.
Comment: Actually I think I defined socialism in my answer. Granted not throughly as one would if he were to define it in the ultimate and definitive source for all truth, WikiPedia.
Comment: Both socialism and communism are collective ownership of the means of production and used to be used synonymously. However once Lenin referencing Marx took government and once Stalin pretended that was an ideology of it's own terms changed a little. So socialism moved from communism to an intermediary state of affairs in which the requirement for communism are prepared. That's apparently what you call "Marxism" and "Socialism" though it's rather Marxism-Leninism and whether that's adequately called socialism is also debatable but I guess that name stuck.


Measuring postsynaptic potential vs action potential at axon hillock?

Question: I have been reading literature regarding Neuronal potential measurement. Conventionally, researchers use electrode-based method to measure action potential. However, as it's of high invasiveness and low throughput several optical methods such as Genetically encoded voltage indicators (GEVIs) and chemical methods such as Voltage-sensitive dyes (VSDs) are emerging. One fundamental question I came across was GEVIs indeed can be targeted to the site of interest however, there only a few chemical methods targeting specific cell type have been developed. One such recent literature is this one: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.0c00861.
I am wondering, are neuroscience researchers really interested in measuring neuronal potential at individual synapses (which is gradient) or only at the axon hillock (as it's the one which finally matters?). I mean does measuring gradient potential at a defined area is of any interest or is it just another piece of research making no use for neuroscience researchers? (I don't know whether it's useful to synapse plasticity research and all)
Answer: Measuring voltage at a synapse gives you a measure of the input to a cell.
Measuring voltage at the axon hillock (for a typical neuron, practically the soma can substitute as well) gives you a measure of the output of a cell: how near it is to threshold and/or if it has reached threshold and produced a spike.
Measuring voltage at intermediate sites in the dendritic tree can be a measure of spatial integration, which can be quite complex.
All of these measuring sites can be of interest, though there is a lot of variance in how difficult each will be.
Comment: @Science123 Because sometimes what you're really studying is the inputs and things that modulate them. If you're only interested in output then you might as well just measure spikes. It would be like only being interested in final scores of sports matches, and not broadcasting or having fans in the stands for the rest of the match, because all that matters is the final score. The final score doesn't tell you much about how you got there.
Comment: Thanks for your answer. Yes, I am wondering what is such interest in measuring those miniature inputs at dendritic synapses (which may cancel out/sum up later). Because ultimately action potential depends upon status at the axon hillock.


Is "Phantom Rouge" story canon?

Question: Simply that: did the events of Hunter x Hunter: Phantom Rouge really happen (with respect to HxH story, of course)? At least the timeline is credible (between Yorknew City and Greed Island arcs).
Answer: It's a part-canon side-story.
AniDB:

The premise of the movie is based off a manuscript of the Yorknew City arc written by Togashi Yoshihiro that he eventually ended up scrapping.

WP:

The film is based on an unpublished story manga creator Yoshihiro Togashi wrote around 10 years ago.

Since it's based off his own work, Phantom Rouge presumably has Togashi's blessings.
Answer: I think it is, it hasn't been confirmed by the mangaka but there is a manga chapter about Kurapika's past that is shown in the movie.

Is "Phantom Rouge" story canon?


Is the mauve paper still actual?

Question: I would like to know if the mauve paper is still actual or it is better to rely on the sharding FAQ and Proof of stake FAQ or on other sources?
Answer: The mauve paper has been deprecated for about 2 years. Yes, refer to the FAQs that you mentioned, with https://notes.ethereum.org/SCIg8AH5SA-O4C1G1LYZHQ# being the latest WIP development for shasper (sharding + casper FFG), plus you can keep an eye on the sharding and casper categories on ethresear.ch or watch these categories to be notified of new posts if you're keen, although I suggest to only do that if you're actively involved in R&D, particularly in implementing or scrutinising/critiquing research ideas. There's also a sharding implementers call, although I didn't join the first one. https://github.com/ethresearch/eth2.0-pm.
Comment: You may, although it is implementation specific and repetitive, particularly for me as I already know the research that they refer to. Personally I prefer Rust as my programming language of choice. FMI see e.g. https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/, https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/2018-edition/, and https://medium.com/paritytech/why-rust-846fd3320d3f.
Comment: Can we also consider this https://github.com/prysmaticlabs/prysm/blob/master/validator/README.md source? Or is too implementation specific?

Is the mauve paper still actual?


Document Center best practice

Question: Is it generally best practice to have a single Document Center for a company, with various Document libraries for different areas of the company, or create multiple Document Centers, perhaps by department?
Answer: this will depend on the amount of data and members of your organization,
but as a best practice you'll want to create at least a site or site collection for each department and possible a subsite for each team on each department.
Answer: Both of them can be deployed in this case , but before that ,you should compare and consider which scenario is suit for you .
Multiple Document Center :
Advantages : Let each department manage and store their own files and policies , much safety .
Disadvantage :It very hard to manage for an Administrator .
Single Document Center :
Advantage :

Only 1 site to store all files and items , much easy to manage .

For End users , they also prefer going to 1 place to find all your company policies , It is like one-stop-shop!

Disadvantage : If your organization are very huge , different department have own policy and be treated as departmental confidential , it is not very safety .

Document Center best practice


Have there ever been inter-faith debates between Jews and Muslims?

Question: There are records of many inter-faith debates (disputations) between Jews and Christians even up to modern times. However I have never heard of similar such debates between Jews and Muslims. Are there records of such debates ever having taken place? Are there transcripts?
Answer: According to the historian Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam :

In general, Muslim polemicists pay little attention to the relatively
  insignificant Jew. Insofar as they deign to discuss the superseded
  religions, they are far more concerned with the Christians who, as the
  bearers of a competing proselytizing religion and the masters of a
  rival universal empire, offered a serious alternative and therefore a
  potential threat to the Muslim dispensation... Despite the
  condemnation of Jews and Judaism in the Qur'an, and in both commentary
  and hadith, anti-Jewish polemic was rare.
Comment: Lewis here seems to be making his case for _why_ there have not been such debates (with their nonexistence assumed), instead of providing any sort of evidence to suggest that such debates were, or were not, rare (which is the point of the question). His blanket statements regarding the Islamic view on Judaism sprinkled on top serve to clarify his position on the matter.
Answer: This interesting research paper in the Encyclopedia of Jews in the Muslim world discusses the historical account of the debates and polmeics between muslims and Jews. I could find some debates which were based on Alī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā(d. 818) a prominent Muslim scholar, reportedly engaged in a
public disputation with a Christian patriarch and a Jewish exilarch that is recorded by Abū Jaʿfar Ibn Bābawayh (d. 991/92) in his Kitāb al-Tawḥīd and his ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā. The arguments and modern citations to the verses mentioned in the debate are discussed here.
Most of the debates and polemics were  written in the form of books, with most of them referring to both Jews and Christians, Famous scholars of important works are  Ibn
Ḥazm (Andalusia, d. 1064), al-Qarāfī (Egypt, d. 1285), and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (Syria, d. 1350)  mentioned because of the wealth of polemical detail they provide and because of the influence they had on the development of the genre. The most important tracts by these authors are  Kitābal-Fiṣal fī ʾl-Milal wa-l-Ahwāʾ wa ʾl-Niḥal, Kitāb al-Ajwiba al-fākhira ʿan al-asʾila al-fājira, and Hidāyat al-Ḥayārā fīAjwibat al-Yahūd wa-l-Naṣārā respectively,
The polemics center around the theme of Peoples of the Book like in the Quran, refering both the Ahle Kitab as liable for  distortion in meaning and understanding among the masses, hiding testimonies, refusing to accept the abrogation of their scriptures and laws, displaying excessive reverence toward religious Rabbis and so on.
Also, most of These written polemics have in fact been evolved from oral disputations between Jewish Rabbis and Muslim scholars.The Muslim scholar Ibn Saḥnūn of Qayrawan (d. 869) is said to have held a disputation with a learned Jew in Egypt that lasted several hours. It was initially private in nature, but turned into a public event as more and more locals flocked in to witness the account.
More ever during the Islamic golden age, Majlis sessions in which Jews were invited, or at times even summoned, to participate and to argue for their religion were held either in the salons of leading intellectuals or under the auspices and in the presence of members of the ruling elite, such as viziers, governors, sultans, and even caliphs. The famous Fāṭimid vizier Ibn Killis (d. 991), who was himself a convert from Judaism took much interest in arranging such sessions in which mutakallimūn from different faiths participated. The works of Jewish theologians like Samuel ben Hophni and Yūsuf al-Baṣīr (who are both known to have participated in such sessions) and other Rabbanite and Karaite theologians  were in fact written as manuals or guides for participants in such sessions.
The Quran itself is a reflects  the various debates between Jews and Christians and many of the verses reflect on the debates between the prophet and Jewish rabbis.In most of the debates  the arguments are  concerned with the very foundation of the Jewish faith, namely the Torah. And the Jewish Rabbi most often does not bring about rabbinical sources in the arguments.
Here is a video which enacts  the debate documented in the above source, but it should be taken with a grain of salt as it is too localized and is targetted to a persian Shiite audience:
Answer: According to this article, at Jewish Virtual Library, there were instances of polemical attacks between Jews and Muslims in a literary format, but no public disputations. The two main Islamic practitioners of such polemic are said there to have been Ibn Ḥazm and Samuel al-Maghribī, the second of whom had converted from Judaism. While the article does mention the existence of Jewish response, it doesn't record the names of their authors.
Evidence, however, that there may have actually been at least one instance of a public debate between Jews and Muslims can be found in an early 13th century Persian text, housed in the British Museum. If you have a log-in for JSTOR, you can read about it in this article by Moshe Perlmann. It speaks of a public disputation between Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi Tabataba'i and the Jews of Du-l-Kifl, in the year 1211. It is an Islamic text, and it presents the Islamic arguments stronger than the Jewish ones. The disputation closed when the Muslim scholar likened the manner in which Moses superceded Abraham for the Jews to the manner in which Mohammad ultimately supercedes Moses. He then asks the Jew whom he was questioning whether he has "given thought to the pursuit of truth and knowledge", at which point the Jew requests time to think some more about his answers and the debate is brought to a close.
Comment: Thanks , I have read that article and after some research I also found the original debate between Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi Tabataba'i and the Jews of Du-l-Kifl transcript in an academic journal paper:http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-62658416/a-shii-jewish-debate-munazara-in-the-eighteenth
Comment: Actually, @Ali, that's a different one! The one from your article is in the 18th century; the article I shared concerns a debate in the 13th.
Comment: But the debate I have posted as another answer does refer to this debate in Du-l-Kifl., Do check my another answer
Answer: It is not an actual debate, but the Kuzari (Yehuda halevi) presents a fictional account of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. The king decides to pit a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim against each other to prove their religion, and the Jews win.
Comment: Isn't there also a philosopher in the mix?
Answer: Shimon's answer alludes to a debate which got me interested to research more about the transcripts of the actual debate and after some research I found it in an academic paper as it appears in the translated form , the citation for this Journal paper is :

A Shii-Jewish "Debate" (Munazara) in the Eighteenth Century By: Moreen, Vera B.
| The Journal of the American Oriental Society, October-December 1999

As the OP asks for transcripts of such a debate, there is a verbatim transcript from the paper of the debate between   Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi Tabataba'i and the Jews of Du-l-Kifl here.
Comment: It's great content, to be sure, but now I'm concerned that it might violate copyright law or SE terms of service. Maybe just a link and a short, one-line explanation. It will still enhance the other answer, even if it is not widely accessible. I still think the other answer is primary and this is supportive of that. If the asker really wants to invest in obtaining a transcript, it might be possible to go through a library that has rights to share reference material; since you've linked to the source it shouldn't be too hard for a librarian to pull it up.
Comment: Ah. Hmm, well, I'm not really sure what to say about it. If that's the case, there might be other issues to consider, like the fact that you are posting otherwise locked content that is not meant to be accessible to the entire internet.
Comment: Adding this link to your other answer (with a short introduction but without the verbatim quote) would enhance an already solid answer. Pasting the entire thing as a second answer is kind of weak, imho.
Comment: It sets a limit , I cant have more than 30,000... characters hence another answer concentrating on the transcript part
Comment: I have quoted the entire transcript as it is not easily accessible for most of the people as they dont have institutional access to Journal papers


What is the difference between a propeller and a rotor?

Question: I have been making the mistake of using words "propeller" and "rotor" interchangeably when they are not the same thing. What is the difference between a propeller and a rotor?
Comment: 'at times' ... 'somewhat interchangeable'. When? Can you provide examples? It might help someone like me who's so accustomed to aviation terminology that these terms don't really ever feel interchangeable at all. The only exception is _maybe_ the V-22, which uses what they call `proprotors`.
Comment: I've always understood a rotor to be a horizontal propeller mounted on a helicopter, while a propeller was a vertical rotor mounted on a airplane. i.e., they're the same thing, differing only in the angle at which they're mounted to the craft in question. (I do realize that there tends to be a fair bit of twist in some propeller blades that doesn't seem to occur in rotor blades, but otherwise, same-same.)
Comment: @FreeMan A helicopter rotor and a propeller both have aerofoils, fixed to a hub and rotated by an engine.  That's about the end of the similarities. Propellers and rotor heads are far from same-same.  Most aspects of their design are different.
Comment: @egid Modified to address your comment, thanks.
Comment: @egid: The "rotor" part of the word "Proprotor" is due to the V22's Propellers being able to rotate perpendicular to their main axis, I would think.
Answer: Short answer:

A propeller is used to propel something, the force at stake being called thrust. Thrust is usually horizontal (but not always, think about rockets). This device comes from the navy domain.
A rotor of a rotorcraft is used to control anything, including the altitude, the generated force being called lift. Lift is generally vertical (but not always, think about a rudder). Rotors have generally more than two blades.

Lift and thrust involved are components of the same physical force (the aerodynamic force) to which we refer to differently based on their purpose after an arbitrary breakdown based on the direction they act (compared to the direction of the aircraft or to the gravity field).
For our pleasure, let's also talk about a turbine rotor, which is a rotor/propeller which doesn't produce lift or thrust, but convert the fluid velocity (actually momentum) into torque. For example the wind turbine rotor. A turbine rotor is certainly a propeller, but we don't refer to it as a propeller, as it propels nothing.

Rotor is the most generic name for something spun by a shaft. It can be used for a propeller, the rotating wing of an helicopter, the rotating elements of a compressor or a turbine, etc. You can't be wrong using rotor for any spinning device. Rotor (rotating) is the antonym of stator (stationary). These terms are not specific to aerodynamics, in a electric motor there is usually a stator and a rotor as well.
The rotor of a rotorcraft comprises blades and is comparable to a propeller, if we except blades additional freedom in flapping and leading-lagging to limit vibrations created by repeated force swings encountered while performing a 360° turn.

Source: Wikipedia
But actually the main rotor is a (rotating) wing, and the anti-torque rotor is a (rotating) rudder. Their blades are meant to produce lift like the wing and the rudder they replace. Because lift is involved, we tend to name them rotors rather than propellers.
A propeller also comprises blades, fixed on the rotation axis.

Source.
The purpose of a propeller is to propel the aircraft, that is to push it in the direction of its flight.
Both a rotorcraft rotor, a propeller and a wing create the same aerodynamic force. However the conventions are:

A rotor and a wing are used to eventually counter weight and control altitude, and a propeller to eventually counter drag and control velocity along the flight path (I say eventually because to gain altitude you usually temporary increase thrust, that's a detail)
A rotor and a wing create lift, a propeller creates thrust.

Wing, propeller blade and rotorcraft blades work exactly the same from an aerodynamic standpoint. The resultant of their action is the total aerodynamic force, which is then broken down arbitrarily into lift, drag, thrust and torque to facilitate mechanical analysis.
Notes:

Moving an aircraft along its path (thrust) is easier than maintaining its altitude (lift), and therefore a main rotor is far larger than a propeller for aircraft of the same mass.
The horizontal displacement of the rotorcraft is also produced by the main rotor (cyclic control), so some part of the aerodynamic force can also be seen as thrust, and the rotor also acts as a propeller.
Propeller is used for simple propellers and not in turbine engines. While the fan of a turbofan is comparable to a propeller, participates to thrust production and aircraft propulsion, the fan is still only one part of a system (guide vanes, fan duct and exhaust nozzle greatly maximize final thrust). Bottom line the fan is a rotor, not a propeller.
Comment: Hmm. (Some) Rotor blades (rotorcraft) are not fixed, some are.  Depending on the [head design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_rotor#Rigid), they may or may not have flapping and lead-lag hinges.
Comment: Exactly.  In a fixed head, the forces from flapping and drag (lead/lag) are absorbed by the blades flexing. Plus 1 anyway ;)
Comment: @Simon: You're the master of rotorcraft :-) I mean they can lead-lag thanks to their flexibility. Correct?
Comment: @Auberron: You're right, that's explained in the answer, and also in the previous comment.
Comment: And what would be the most correct term or terms for the non- flapping fixed-blade rotors or propellers used on radio-controlled quadcopter models, and on manned aircraft designed along similar principles?
Comment: @quietflyer: As long as these elements are wings, they are called rotary wings, rotating wings or [rotor wings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotorcraft). The rotor being the axis and the blades. As said, a part of the force generated is used for propulsion too, but we usually don't refer to them as propellers. Some do, especially when the rotor has only two blades. This is of no consequence as anyway there is only one principle involved: Creating an aerodynamic force using rotating blades.
Comment: @mins What produces thrust in the rotorcraft?  Isnt the rotor itself provides thrust too?
Answer:
Rotor is a generic term for a rotating part of a mechanical device.
Fan is a rotor that creates a flow within a fluid (i.e. gas or liquid).
Propeller is a fan with the purpose to create thrust.

According to these definitions, it is not wrong to name propellers as rotors and vice versa.
In aviation language usually helicopters have rotors and planes have propellers, because:

A plane propeller creates (mostly) thrust, and the lift is created (mostly) by the wings.
The air flow from a helicopter rotor generates both, lift and thrust.
Helicopters are differentiated from planes by rotary wings versus fixed wings.
Answer: In general a rotor is anything that requires continuous rotation to function. Rotors also occur in devices such as the distributor in an electrical ignition system and in some rotary pumps.
The vertical-axis rotary wing, used for lift by helicopters and gyroplanes, is commonly called a rotor. Horizontal-axis lifting rotors also exist; the flanged cylindrical Flettner rotor and the flat wing rotor are two examples of Magnus rotors. More complex horizontal-axis lifting rotors include the cyclogyro and FanWing, both examples of the cross-flow fan.
A spinning set of blades designed to create gas flow is often called a fan. Such fans are typically housed in a duct.
A spinning set of blades designed to create thrust for forward motion is often called a propeller. But this is not so far from the function of a fan, so here we get into niceties, such as;

Where a ship's propeller typically has very broad short blades, an aircraft propeller typically has long thin ones.
Where a propeller typically has a small number of blades, a fan typically has a large number. For aircraft this is sometimes expressed as disc coverage; if you look through the rotor disc and see mostly the far scenery then it is a propeller but if you see mostly blades then it is a fan (note that it does not apply to marine propellers).
The ducted front stage of a high-bypass turbofan engine, which provides much of the thrust, is called a fan. This contrasts with the free-air propeller of the turboprop.
A piston engine with a ducted propeller is likely to have it called a ducted propulsor.
Some modern turbine engines have multi-blade thrusters curved to avoid compressibility effects and spinning in free air; these have sometimes in the past been described a ductless fans, although Europrop call them propellers.

I trust that is wholly clear and unambiguous to you! Or, to put it another way, the industry just makes it up as it goes along and uses whatever word seems like a good idea at the time. You just have to remember what they have decided for each gadget.
Answer:
Propeller is getting lift from the wing and thrust from the propeller but helicopter gets both from the rotor.
propeller aircraft can not hover over a spot but helicopter can.
Propeller aircraft can not perform vertical landing but helicopter can do.
Propeller blade is pre-twisted but helicopter blade are symmetrical.
Propeller aircraft has two hard/re-enforcing point such as: Wing root and Engine mount but helicopter has only one hard point that is "ROTOR MAST" and more differences are there.
Comment: Please don't use a signature, tagline or similar. If you want to display your credentials, you can do so in your profile. See [What kind of behavior is expected of users?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/help/behavior), specifically the point on *Do not use signature, taglines, or greetings.*
Comment: This answers a different question: "list some differences between airplanes and helicopters."


How to potty train my 3-year-old, who likes to sit on the potty but doesn't go?

Question: My 3-year-old is quite happy to sit on potty or toilet but won't go. He will go in his training pants and hides when doing a poo. How do we get him to go?
Comment: Your three year old has sphincter control and is asserting it. You want something from him that he doesn't (for whatever reason) want to give; motivate him positively to want it as well. Frankly, I bribed my oldest with a movie he wanted; it took him maybe three days to come around permanently.
Comment: He'll go when he's ready. Are you reading some books about using the potty to him? I'm sure that helped with our little one.
Answer: Potty training is all about rewards, not punishment or pressure. Your child needs to want to use the potty, so you need to think about what will motivate him to do it. The reward needs to be immediate, not long term. I've found TV or using apps on a tablet to be the best motivators, when my children did a pee in the potty they got to watch a short program like Octonauts, Dora the Explorer, and the like. If they did a poo they got a movie or a longer TV program.
Once that was working I would gradually move the goalposts. At first if any pee went into the potty they got TV, eventually it was only if they did a pee in the potty with none in their underpants did they get TV.
Another great reward is a star chart, a pee gets a silver star while a poo gets a gold. Many children do really well with star charts.
Of course praise is the best motivator of all. The first time he does a pee in the potty make a really big deal out of it. Tell him what a big boy he is, call his grandparents and tell them about it, get them to tell them what a big boy he is and how proud they are of him. Let him pour the contents into the toilet and flush it, because that's what big boys do, that sort of thing.
Whatever happens be patient, and don't get angry when he doesn't do it. You want everything around the potty to be positive, and non-pressured. Don't get in a battle of wills, and don't lose your cool. It's easier said than done I know!


UCSD P-System: Why only 77 files per volume?

Question: What was the reason that the UCSD P-system filesystem was designed in such a way that it was limited to 77 files per volume?
Comment: If you can find a copy, chapter 2 of the UCSD Technical Reference IV has some code showing the packed records for files and directories. 77 is an interesting enough number that I bet it has to do with that number or size of such structures in another packed structure.
Comment: This was a common problem. My first computer (Altos 586 running MP/M-86) had a 1024 file limit for a 20 Meg. hard drive. Way too restricting. So I poked around and figured out how to patch MP/M-86 for 2048 files - not an official patch but changing some of the assembly language drivers (all, fortunately, included in those days), which let me effectively use the entire hard drive. A bit risky of course - I could have ended up with any number of crazy problems if I got it wrong, but it worked.
Answer: There is some information on the internals under ucsdpsys_fs in http://ucsd-psystem-fs.sourceforge.net/ucsd-psystem-fs-1.22.pdf. Note, the default volume size was 140kb, i.e. one Apple floppy disk (see ucsdpsys_mkfs in the same PDF)  which puts the "77 files and no subdirectories" limits into context.

Directory Format
Each directory entry is 26 bytes long. Thus, 78
  directory entries fit into 2kB (4 blocks). The remaining bytes are
  zero padded. The first directory entry describes the directory itself,
  the remaining 77 entries are used for regular files.

ucsdpsys_text (in the same PDF) implies that the minimum size of a non-zero-length "text file" was 2kb, and hence 77 files would fill the default size file system.
Answer:
What was the reason that the UCSD P-system filesystem was designed in such a way[...]

Quick Answer: Simplicity
Like with many early systems, it was all about making access easy by assuming certain structure.

The numbers are a result of the assumed default size entry size.
There's only one directory, no subdirectories and default size was to be 4 blocks of 512 bytes in length (2048 total). One entry has 26 bytes. Thus 78 entries are possible. The first describes the volume/directory itself, leaving 77 for other files.
The filesystem itself could have worked with longer directories (and subdirectories as well, there is an according type) but AFAIK it was never used on an Apple at least.
Now while the whole idea of the p-system was to provide a hardware-agnostic view of a virtual machine - not just the CPU, but disks (*1) and terminal I/O as well - selecting the default size of the directory might have been in fact hardware related. Leo B.'s Answer did remind me of the PDP-11 as eventually the first targets for the p-system, and the RX01 floppy system as disk.
The RX01 was single-sided with 26 sectors of 128 bytes each per track (and 77 tracks). With the 512 byte per block (*2) abstraction, always four 128 byte blocks (*3) must be blocked, resulting in six and a half blocks per track (*4). With the first two blocks fix reserved for any machine specific purpose/OS loader (*5), the directory starts with the third block. This only leaves 3 more full blocks that could be read without moving the head - something quite slow, thus less than desirable on directory operations.
So, while not strictly hardware related, deciding on 4 blocks for the directory was a sensible decision considering the RX01. As so often, a solution gets stuck with such shortcuts for quite a long time.

*1 - To facilitate this, the only high level requirement for disk storage was a block size of 512 bytes and the ability for consistent enumeration from high level, while any kind of physical placement and blocking/deblocking was done in hardware related drivers.
*2 - While block and sector are often used interchangeably, Pascal did use it on purpose to distinguish between physical sectors, which may or may not have 512 bytes, and its logical blocks which always had 512 bytes.
*3 - Unlike many users assumed, the Apple II p-system didn't use a its own disk format. Only the file system was different. It also offered the ability to create disks which are at the same time DOS and Pascal media - and eventually DOS,PASCAL, ProDOS and CP/M on a single flip disk. But that's a different story.
*4 - Yes, as result, not only block number to track/sector conversion was a bit weird, but also every 7th block was a slow read due to an intermediate track change.
*5 - This is done by convention. The first two blocks are (for most parts) ignored by the p-system. The only fixed structure is the first 26 bytes of the third block with the file system label - and the directory entries following.
In fact, since the volume begin is arbitrarily calculated by the hardware driver, it's more of a convenience function, as the hardware driver could add an arbitrary offset before the file system's first block. Heck, there was even a field within the volume header to support this.
Comment: And why exactly "default size was to be 4 blocks of 512 bytes", if the file system was developed for a floppy with block size 128 or 256?
Comment: @LeoB. The file system was designed to be hardware agnostic - that's the whole point of the p-system, creating an environment that can be implemented on any machine available to the university and provide a cnsistent unified interface. This starts with organizing all block media in units of 512 bytes.
Comment: My question focused not on "of 512 bytes" but rather "4 blocks". What good does that hardware agnosticism do if it doesn't allow a variable number of files depending on media capacity?
Comment: @LeoB. Erm, you are somehow mixing up blocks and sectors. The p-system works on blocks (of 512) bytes. The **file system** was not made to work on 128 or 256 byte **sectors**. It was made to work on 512 byte blocks. That's the abstraction layer used to work on any kind of disk, no matter if 128 or 2048 byte sectors are used, the file system doesn't care about them It only works with blocks. The whole idea was to make a system that can be implemented on all systems available at the university, not just PDP-11 and RX01.
Comment: @LeoB. In addition, there was a pointer (to the first usable data block after what was reserved for the directory. Meant to reserve space for directories of arbitrary length.  So while complaining that none (of the common implementation) is legal, it doesn't make much sense. If at all, the file system was developed toward subdirectories.
Answer: There are a few basic ways a floppy-drive OS can handle directories:

Reserve a fixed amount of space in both RAM and on disk to hold them.  This will make finding files fast, but will require that one reserve RAM to hold all the directory entries one may ever need.
Reserve a fixed amount of space on disk to hold them, but load them into RAM on demand.  This will make things slower and more complicated, but one may be more willing to go an extra 2K or so of disk space than an extra 2K of RAM.
Allow directories to be arbitrarily placed on the disk.  This will add even more complexity and make things even slower, but it will allow for directories of arbitrary size.
Require that directory blocks be stored sequentially at a fixed location, but allow the number of such blocks to vary as needed.  This could work, but on a system where files must be stored sequentially, it would either be necessary to allocate directory slots from the opposite "end" of the disk from the files, require that user guess how many directory entries will be needed before placing the first file, or perhaps have every other physical track numbered 9-26, while the others are numbered from 8 down to 1 and 35 to 27 (so that directories allocated from tracks 35 downward would be located near files that are allocated from track 1 upward).  Actually, I like that latter idea, but don't think anyone's ever done such a thing.

Limiting the number of directory entries makes things simpler and faster, provided there's no need to exceed the expected limits.
Answer: The UCSD P-system was originally developed on PDP-11, where the format of DEC RX 8-inch floppy drives had 77 cylinders (tracks) and 26 sectors per track.
There are multiple ways to partition 2 Kb into directory entries, but the fact that the chosen number 77 for the directory entries matches the number of cylinders, indicates a probable attempt to simplify making most files cylinder-aligned for faster access.
Comment: I don't se no rational in using the track number here in any way (BTW it's 78 entries). An RX01 track had 26 128 byte sectors. So that's not 2 KiB either. The p-System manages disks as logic blocks of 512 byte - a RX01 track would be 6 1/2 blocks. Using that as an assignment value makes again no sense. Even worse, only every 8th track is aligned to a 2 KiB boundry. Also, there is no other 2 Kib structure used. _Last but maybe most important, the p-system was meant to be device agnostic. So why on earth would they then deeply encode a specific drive here? Bottom line: **Pure conincidence.**_
Comment: Yes, it could - like the BESM-6 could have had the structure of a 6502, and we all still being subjects to the Roman empire :)) Except, they didn't so it is two blocks that get ignored at the begin of each volume. And while a larger reservation after the boot blocks would have been possible (The volume header includes a field of the first usable data block after the directory), it never has - at least to my knowledge - been used to extend it in length. Instead it has been used to reserve space for a directory duplicate on some systems, as well as to 'hide' some data.
Comment: That's guessing, right?. For one, it was 78 entries, but more important, it justt adds up the way the directory entries are layed out. Keep in mind, they are made the Pascal way, so not really caring about the underlaying structure.
Comment: @Raffzahn The directory structure doesn't fill the whole first track, so the remaining 77 entries for files allow each of the files to start on a separate track. Other explanations lack the rationale for limiting the directory size at 2 kb.
Comment: Now, when looking at the track size 3,25 KiB or 6 1/2 filesystem blocks and the way the filesystem is organized, 4 blocks is exactly the number of continuous blocks left on track 0. The filesytem reserves (and ignores) the first two blocks (1 KiB) for any kind of bootloader. The Directory starts right thereafter - and there are exactly 4 blocks left before the system would need to switch sides or tracks. Considering this, the RX01 might in fact have lead to this 4 block default size used as a good start value, and never really changed. So your idea was maybe right, but the reasoning way off.
Comment: @Raffzahn Why not 5 blocks to make the number of entries close to 100?
Comment: Because then the last block would have been half on track 0 half on track 1, thus any complete directory read would have always incooperated two searches (one to reach the directory and on the step one track ahead), thus being way slower?
Comment: @Raffzahn The filesystem could have as well been designed to reserve one 512 byte block for a bootloader, not two.
Comment: @LeoB "Why not 5 blocks to make the number of entries close to 100?" - Since when did computer programmers think about designing anything using *decimal* arithmetic? (OK, I expect your next comment will be that the BESM-100 was a counter example...)
Comment: @alephzero Since ENIAC, which was decimal, I guess.


Please name this plant

Question:
What is the name of this plant? It was found in a village in Bangladesh, in the month of February.
Comment: @FaysalAhmed Add this info (and as much else you can think of) to the actual question (use the edit button).
Comment: Where was this plant found and what time of year?
Comment: @FaysalAhmed Don't copy the posted answer(s) to the question. It makes the Q-A pair impossible to understand for future readers.
Comment: From a village of  Bangladesh, in the month of February.
Answer: I believe this plant may be Rotala rotundifolia
Quoting from Wikipedia,

It is a common weed in rice paddies and wet places in India, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, and has been introduced to the United States.

This makes sense, as Bangladesh is located near both India and China.

The emerse form has rounded leaves, the submerse leaves are narrow lanceolate. It is very variable dependent on light and environmental conditions. Under strong light, the leaves can become almost wine red. It has pale pink flowers.

(source)

Please name this plant


Twitter, is he following me or not?

Question: Someone who I am neither following nor is following me appeared on my home page on twitter, why?
Comment: Post the screenshot. It's probably a retweet
Answer: He is followed by someone who you follow, and his tweet was retweeted by the person you follow. That's why his tweet appeared on your timeline. For more about retweeting, you may see this page.
Answer: In addition to one of your friends pushing the official "retweet" button, Twitter is rolling out a feature that brings ads to your feed as a normal post. Here is an informative news article so you can figure out if this is happening to you. It sounds like it only happens if you're following some kind of brand, famous person associated with a brand, or spokesperson - so if you follow your 20 close friends and no one else you'll never see one. Or something. They're not very clear.

Twitter, is he following me or not?


Need to determine size of large tables from API

Question: As the title says, I'm using a COUNT(id) query on some tables using the SOAP API. One of our tables is very large, and we're getting back QUERY_TIMEOUTs. Is there an easier way to figure out the size directly from the API? Assume I can't go into the front end at all.
Comment: Is that your full SOQL query? Just Count(Id) FROM [table]?
Comment: Yes, I'm looking for the total row count of the table, straight from the SOAP API (we're using the Beatbox library), so Select Count(id) from [Table].
Answer: I'm curious to know the requirement for total row count on an object with no limiting WHERE clause. Can you elaborate on the use case?
A few common ways, the first which already gave you trouble:
Integer contactRows = [SELECT Count() FROM Contact];

You could also use a Summary Roll-up field on a parent object to aggregate the number of child records and then simply query this one field to get the total number of records. (sum a field on each record containing the number 1, 'the power of one')
Comment: The use case is strictly to find the number of rows in a table. The tables are not owned by us, but rather one of our clients. We periodically download this data (mostly just new rows, but occasionally full pulls of this data). The problem is when we try to pull the full data, we run into issues when there are a large # of rows. We'd like to know WHEN we're going to hit these issues by getting a row count in advance.
Answer: https://dataloader.io/ ..This app has a count in last step of export and it tells how much data excatly is in Database .
Edit after rethinking with REST
Not sure about SOAP API but fot rest API we definately can achieve this easily
/services/data/v26.0/query/?q=Select+id+From+Account
This API first attribute is totalsize and this will definately give the exact count .
eg("totalSize" : 37)
All you need is use a REST API call within the salesforce with token as userinfo.sessionId().
Comment: This is interesting.. apparently the API is coming soon, so I will have to wait on that.


How can I escape from a planet like Mars without any modern technological tools such as a rocket?

Question: I wonder whether it is impossible. How can I be launched into space without using a rocket? If the planet has some super volcanoes, can a volcanic eruption be used to launch a vehicle into space? How can a vehicle launched into space  survive the volcano?
Comment: What technology level is available? Is the vehicle supposed to carry humans or intricate machinery?
Comment: We have today the technology to build rockets, but not to survive volcanic eruptions. Why is a volcano more practical in this case?
Comment: @ZhuPeng - This question has a few answers with votes from users.  Removing the content of your opening question destroys the question for anyone in future who might have the same question as you.  If you wish to resolve this question, please mark your preferred answer with the "tick" to show it answered your question.
Comment: Rockets aren't modern technology...
Answer: It's extremely difficult, but somewhat plausible
(That's a very, very cautious "yes"). There are many challenges, not the least of which is building a tube angled into the sky some 416km in length, capable of sustaining a massive amount of energy from a volcanic eruption. I have serious doubts as to whether this could work, but it might work.
Reaching escape velocity
Mars has an escape velocity of 5.0 km/s. You didn't specify a size or mass of your spacecraft, but for argument's sake, we'll go with 25 tonnes (close to the mass of the STS (Space Shuttle)). The space shuttle had a sustained acceleration of around $30 m/s^2$. That gives us a force of $F = ma = 25\,000\text{kg} \times 30 \text{m/s}^2 = 750 \text{kN}$.
Now, at 30 m/s/s, how long does it take to reach escape velocity? That's simply $\frac{5.0 \text{km/s}}{30 \text{m/s}^2} = 166.\bar6 \text{s}$.
A very, very long barrel
Next, your volcano's blast energy would need to be directed and focused, so some kind of launch tube (like a gun barrel) would be required. How long would that barrel need to be? That length is $s$ in the following equation:
$$s = \frac{1}{2}at^2 = 30 \text{m/s}^2 \times (166.\bar6 \text{s})^2 = 416\,333\text{m}$$
Thus you would need a tube some $416 \text{km}$ in length, and it would need to be angled, because "going to space" really means going sideways very fast. That is a very, very huge engineering task, especially if it needs to contain a blast with the energy of a volcano.
Given the difficulties of creating a "simple" space elevator, I have my doubts as to whether you would be able to come up with strong enough materials for this tube, but since it doesn't need to support its own weight, that's why I'm not giving this an outright "no", but I'm still highly skeptical.
Energy Requirements
How much energy are we talking about?
The launch requires $750 \text{kN} \times 416\,333\text{m} = 3.12 \times 10^{11} \text{J}$. Obviously you would need a little more than that because the energy transfer will not be 100% efficient. Volcanic eruptions vary greatly, but Krakatoa released $8 \times 10^{17} \text{J}$, although it destroyed most of the island around itself in the process. However, since that's around a million times more energy than you need, it is at least plausible that there would be enough energy for launch with much smaller eruptions.
Survival
This will be difficult.
First, you will need a heat shield (or some kind of buffer/insulated sabot), but more importantly, you will need some way to regulate the eruption itself. Perhaps you can have some kind of valve or muzzle brake to vent excess gases.
Building the tube some distance from the volcano would probably help; that would give you some protection from the most extreme heat and larger projectiles from the eruption. Add in some heavy duty screening at the tube entrance to catch as many of the smaller projectiles as possible.
Without knowing a great deal more about your spacecraft design, it's hard to predict how feasible this will be, but there's nothing intrinsically impossible about the idea.
Predicting Eruptions is Hard
There is some speculation that Mars is still volcanically active, but we haven't seen any recent eruptions.
But since you are merely talking about a Mars-like planet, then the above doesn't matter—just be careful have a planet with active volcanoes. However, predicting eruptions is difficult to say the least (almost certainly harder than inventing rockets), and scheduling launch dates around essentially random natural events would be problematic.
Comment: It sounds like by the time you have the infrastructure to build a non-rocket solution, you could just build a rocket.
Comment: @Azuaron Pretty much that was my thinking as well. However, the question is pretty adamant about the no rockets rule, so I went with it.
Answer: You'd better take Io instead of Mars. Io jets materials up to 500 km into space; the Lagrangian point between Io and Jupiter is, presumably, 8000 km above Io's surface. If you teak the sizes of planets (lighter Io, heavier Jupiter, smaller distance between them), volcanic debris could probably end on Io's or Jupiter's orbit.
Comment: @Innovine, the question is merely about escape. Without rockets, they couldn't navigate the space at all, so, yes, the crew is doomed in any case. Io and Jupier have heavy radiation, yes, but the planets have to be changed to allow eruptions reach L1 anyway. And the entire point of being on the orbit is that you won't fall back onto the planet.
Comment: Heh, and then what? Die in the vacuum of space? Die by radiation from jupiter? Die by falling back down into a volcano? Not a lot of options :p
Answer: You would need a vehicle of some sort to protect and manoeuvre yourself while in space don't you?  If you were able to build yourself a capsule of some sort that could survive the extremes of space, it would also be tough enough to survive small volcanic forces.
I think you're on the right track with the idea of using another option to propel yourself into space, but I don't think you'll realistically and reliably get far with a volcano!  There's far too many "if's" and "buts".
On the propulsion idea, the first thing that occurred to me was to build yourself a gigantic gun that could fire a capsule into space.  The bad points on this is that the capsule itself would have to be strong enough to survive terrific forces, the pressure, heat, shock etc.  However this wouldn't necessarily involve the use of tech, you just need a gigantic stick of dynamite or similar explosive.
Although the use of a rail-gun or coil-gun to propel a capsule into space would involve some tech, there's a possibility that they could be fashioned from elements on the planet itself - use mineral deposits for the power source, etc.  If these options are possible, they are more realistic, and the forces can be controlled and governed.  There isn't so much shock as using an explosion to propel you into space, but both options can be scaled up to do what you want.
You either have to be propelled into space, or you need to propel yourself.  I think the second option could only realistically work with a rocket, or similar.  Using a lighter than the atmosphere craft (a balloon of some kind) occured to me, but I wouldn't think you could reach outer space with this.
Comment: You can always edit your own post to improve it.
Comment: Space sucks. Pretty literally, pressure inside is higher than outside. Volcano pushes. Space is cold and thermally insulating. Lava is hot and conducts heat relatively well. First paragraph is very wrong, because hazards are opposite, and solutions different.
Comment: Sorry just re-read the question and realised the title states no tech tools, so I'm guessing a coilgun / railgun would fall outside of this.  Failing that, I guess you will need to use a skyhook. :)
Comment: Christopher priest's SF novel THE SPACE MACHINE: A Scientific Romance (1976), combines elements of HG Wells' THE TIME MACHINE and WAR OF THE WORLDS in a scientific romance hommage/pastiche. It has Wellsian Martians launching their invasion vehicles using a gigantic space gun. Priest had had the calculations done to demonstrate that the passengers launched into space via space guns fired on Mars could survivable. Your answer's fine. Just leave out rockets. Plus one from this little black duck.
Comment: @Mołot - both volcano and space would put massive pressure on the vessel - and if the vessel is strong enough not to explode in space, it'll be strong enough not to explode in a volcano.  If it can survive the stresses and friction of exiting the atmosphere, it should survive the heat of a volcano.  If it needs to be insulated from heat in a volcano, the same insulation will also insulate it from cold in space.  So yes, as you say, the hazards may be opposite, but they can be reduced in similar ways.
Comment: @Tomy-rex you're so wrong. Imagine brick arc. Pushing from above does nothing to it. Push from below, and it'll break easily. "strong enough" is **not** direction independent!
Comment: @Mołot Yes I do understand what you mean.  However, in both cases the pressure will be forcing the capsule to explode, and not implode.  The vacuum in space will mean the pressure inside the capsule will try and force it's way out, and as heat expands, the heat of a volcano would also make the capsule explode, as the pressure is trying to force it's way out.  However, if you had a spherical capsule (the strongest pressure-resistant shape there is), it will implode and explode at equivalent pressures as the pressure is equal on all surfaces - in your example the pressure is not applied equally.


ARM watchdog reset

Question: I have an MP3 development board I picked up from sparkfun that runs off the LPC2148 ARM processor. In looking through the code, I see a function to force a watchdog reset. My question is, how do you figure out what values to feed to the watchdog register? I looked through the LPC2148 data sheet and couldn't figure it out. I don't just want to use other people's code, I want to understand why they did what they did and how they figured out what to do.
Answer: This is the code I use for an LPC2148:
WDTC = 0x00000FFF;  // very short timeout
WDMOD = 0x03;       // watchdog resets CPU
WDFEED = 0xAA;      // start watchdog
WDFEED = 0x55;
Comment: 0xAA and 0x55 are often used in this sort of code which affects an application in a big way, as they are unlikely to be encountered during normal code execution. - Leon Heller
Answer: From the LPC23XX datasheet, should be the same for LPC2148 ::

Watchdog feed sequence register.
  Writing 0xAA  followed by 0x55 to this
  register reloads the  Watchdog timer
  with the value contained in  WDTC.
Answer: It sounds like you're trying to force a watchdog reset, not keep the watchdog from resetting you.  This is accomplished by a misfeed: feeding the watchdog 0xaa followed by a value OTHER than 0x55.  Example:
<code>WDFEED = 0xAA;    /* Correct feed... */
WDFEED = 0x00;    /* ... Oops, insta-reset! */
</code>

ARM watchdog reset


Retrieve SP-List data cross domain via SPServices?

Question: I am trying to retrieve data from a SharePoint List hosted in a different server/domain. We are still running SP 2010 but about to migrate to 2013. I am not sure if jQuery.SPServices and CORS are the way to go ahead. Any solution?
Answer: I think you should look into consuming web services. You can consume them using managed code (by adding a service reference ) or using javascript (ajax call).  This is a pretty comphrensive discussion around consuming the authentication.asmx towards authenticating request to sharepoint.
 Authenticating user with javascript
The authentication.login method retunrs a token that you need to add to all the subsequent request headers. Inputs to authentication.login are login name and password.
Once you get the token, you can use either the rest api or lists.asmx to fetch data. jast make sure you pass the token in the subsequent requests.
References :  Working with lists.asmx

 SharePoint 2010 Rest API
Answer: Hello I would suggest CSOM approach where you need to create two separate client context for each SharePoint i.e. one for SP2010 and other for SP2013 and then you can access list data from SharePoint 2010.
All the best!!!