usedRectForTextContainer for NSTextContainer returning improper height

Question: I'm trying to get the size of the rectangle needed to display the text in a given text container with the following code:
s = [manager usedRectForTextContainer:container].size;

I expect the text to be in multiple lines, but it cuts off at the end of a line and doesn't show what is on the next line. This happens only when there are a few extra characters; in a line of about 60 characters, there will be about 10 or 15 leftover that should show on the next line but do not.
Could this be a problem with insets? Perhaps text wrapping? I'm really not sure since I'm new to both iOS and UI programming.
Edit: In the above code, manager is an NSLayoutManager, and container is an NSTextContainer.
I'm pretty sure the the output of this is the issue, because after this function call, if I change the value of s to what I expect it to be, I get the expected layout with the entire string shown.
The information about the Layout Manager is
<NSLayoutManager: 0xd203f60>
    1 containers, text backing has 140 characters
    Currently holding 140 glyphs.
    Glyph tree contents:  140 characters, 140 glyphs, 1 nodes, 32 node bytes, 384 storage bytes, 416 total bytes, 2.97 bytes per character, 2.97 bytes per glyph
    Layout tree contents:  140 characters, 140 glyphs, 62 laid glyphs, 2 laid line fragments, 3 nodes, 96 node bytes, 856 storage bytes, 952 total bytes, 6.80 bytes per character, 6.80 bytes per glyph, 31.00 laid glyphs per laid line fragment, 476.00 bytes per laid line fragment

I expect there to be three lines in this case, but it looks like there are only 2 line fragments, meaning perhaps the problem is in my layout manager?
Answer: You are creating your own text container, but you also need to configure it. You need to set the lineBreakMode and the numberOfLines that you might want displayed.
In your case I am pret
textContainer.lineFragmentPadding = 0.0
textContainer.lineBreakMode = label.lineBreakMode
textContainer.maximumNumberOfLines = label.numberOfLines


Planetary colonization by human modification

Question: SF short story about an attempt to colonize a planet by modifying successive generations to enable them to live on the surface's hostile environment. The main character is a modified human but cannot live on the planet's surface. His and the other colonists children will be the first generation that can live outside the dome.
Comment: Hi there! That's some info already but could you please take a look at [thse guidelines](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9337/98028), see if they trigger any more memories you could [edit] in? Perhaps the most important - when did you read it and when would it have been published? Was it in English, was it a translation?
Comment: Probably the same as https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/67472/story-about-suicidal-breeding-of-aggressive-next-generation-on-generation-ship, but please accept the answer below (using the green checkmark at left) if this is the right story. Welcome!
Answer: Maybe "Between the Dark and the Daylight" (1958) by Algis Budrys. The story is available at the Internet Archive here (link courtesy of @user14111).

A human spaceship crashlands on a planet where conditions are inimical to human life - including a hostile sentient native species. So the humans build a large enclosure for themselves and undergo induced mutations so each succeeding generation is better adjusted to conditions on the planet than the last until finally the last generation is ready to step out of the enclosure.

More precisely, from another question (see below):
At the end of the story [...] the final generation is almost ready to be released into the wild, but they are strong (with a low, dense, non-humanoid body shape) and out of control, and risk damaging (or actually do damage) the dome and therefore the lives of the older generations.
The older generations knew very well what was going to happen; the new generation being so aggressive they would end up killing their elders. Quote snatched (again!) from user14111's answer to Story about suicidal breeding of aggressive next generation on generation ship

There was a new sound echoing through the dome. "Now they don't need us to let them out, anymore." There was a quick, sharp, deep hammering from outside—mechanical, purposeful, tireless. "That . . . that may be Donel now."

Plagiarising my own answer to Short story about humans on a hostile planet, genetically engineering their offspring gradually over generations, to be able to survive on it
Answer: In high school I found a short story "Keep Out" by Fredric Brown, where people in a dome colony on Mars genetically alter the kids in a later generation to survive on the outside. In the end the narrator, one of the altered children, tells of how they have come to hate the unaltered humans and plan to kill them—the final line is:

This is our planet and we want no aliens. Keep off!

The story is available at Project Gutenberg.
Answer: "The Keys to December" by Roger Zelazny.

Born of man and woman, in  accordance  with  Catform  Y7  requirements, Coldworld  Class,  Jarry  Dark was not suited for existence anywhere in the universe which had guaranteed him a niche. This was either a blessing  or a curse,  depending  on how you looked at it. So look at it however you would, that was the story. Thus does life repay those who would serve her fully.

He and his fellow kind were bred to live on extremely cold planets, but then not sent to them as the program died. They had to live in special refrigeration cases on earth, with no plans now to send them to planets for which they were adapted.
They decided to "terraform" a planet to the deep cold to which they were adapted. The number of expensive Worldchange units they could afford would take thousands of years.
So they rotated in suspended animation as their new world VERY slowly changed.
The calculations, decisions, further voting, and more decisions on how any Worldchange units they could afford, and how long it would take to "terra"form follow:

"The staff also says that a hundred Worldchange units could alter it to what we want in 5-6 centuries. Will forward costs of this machinery shortly.  Come live with me and be my love, in a place where there  are no walls....Sanza"
  When  the  figures  arrived  Jarry
  wept icy tears. One hundred machines, capable of altering the environment of
  a  world,  plus twenty-eight thousand coldsleep bunkers, plus transportation
  costs for the machinery and his people, plus...Too  high!  He  did  a  rapid
  calculation. He spoke into the speech-tube:
       "...Fifteen  additional  years is too long to wait, Pussycat. Have them
  figure the time-span if we were to purchase only twenty  Worldchange  units.
  Love and kisses, Jarry."
  During  the days which followed, he stalked above his chamber, erect at first, then on all fours as his mood deepened. "Approximately three thousand years," came the reply. "May your coat be ever shiny--Sanza."
  "Let's put it to a vote, Greeneyes," he said.

The decision to use only twenty Worldchange units that take three thousand years to "terra"form the planet, while they rotate in and out of suspended animation sleep, becomes their action:

The vanguard arrived, decked out in refrigeration suits, installed ten Worldchange  units in either hemisphere, began setting up cold-sleep bunkers in several of the larger caverns.

Although the 3,000 years of world-change forced either fast evolution or death on the native life, the "bipeds" evolved at the very edge of their ability, and still many died. The protagonist advocated for an even longer time, to give the now-"people" a chance to evolve.

"They are intelligent," he told them. "It's all in my report."
       "So?" asked Yan Turl.
       "I don't think they will be able to adapt. They  have  come  very  far,
  very rapidly. But I don't think they can go much further. I don't think they
  can make it all the way."
       "Are you a biologist, an ecologist, a chemist?"
       "No."
       "Then on what do you base your opinion?"
       "I observed them at close range for six weeks."
       "Then it's only a feeling you have...?"
       "You  know  there  are  no  experts  on  a  thing like this. It's never
  happened before."
       "Granting their intelligence--granting even that  what  you  have  said
  concerning  their  adaptability  is correct--what do you suggest we do about
  it?"
       "Slow down the change. Give them a better chance. If they can't make it
  the rest of the way, then stop short of our goal. It's already livable here.
  We can adapt the rest of the way."
       "Slow it down? How much?"
       "Supposing we took another seven or eight thousand years?"
       "Impossible!"
       "Entirely!"
       "Too much!"
       "Why?"
       "Because everyone stands a three-month watch every  two  hundred  fifty
  years.  That's  one  year of personal time for every thousand. You're asking
  for too much of everyone's time."
       "But the life of an entire race may be at stake!"
       "You do not know that for certain."
       "No, I don't. But do you feel it is something to take a chance with?"
       "Do you want to put it to an executive vote?"
       "No--I can see that I'll lose. I want  to  put  it  before  the  entire
  membership."
Comment: This story is kind of the opposite from what is being asked about - they are modifying the planet to fit the colonists, not the other way around.
Comment: Is that the one where there's debate over slowing the process to allow semi-intelligent native life to adapt rather than go extinct?
Comment: I just reread it after years and have one change to my answer. The 20 worldchange units taking three thousand years was all they could afford, set before they purchased the planet and.moved there. They see the changes in the bipeds adapting and evolving, some dying, whereas if they could have afforded the 100 change units they had wanted, the "terra" forming would have been completed in 500 years, killing most or all original life. After Jarry Dark meets with them, he advocates for taking 7,000 years to terraform, rather than 3,000, to give them more time to evolve. He and they lose on that.


Dying cichlids in our tank

Question: We have lost over 40 fish in the last couple of weeks. All cichlids! They stopped eating, then developed small cottonball like specks on their entire body. From there red bruise like blotches appeared, starting by the fins and spreading over the body. They clamped their fins and lost their ability to stay upright. Soon after this, they died. Can't find anything on the internet to help us stop this. Looking for advice. We have a catfish and a pleco in the same tank. They have not been affected but we are wondering if they could carry the problem if we put them in a different tank. Any help is greatly appreciated
Comment: "cottonball like specks" sounds like a fungal infection.
Comment: Could also be "Columnaris", which is a bacterial infection. Regardless, it sounds like you have an infection of something in your tank.
Answer: 40 fish!? This does sound like an infection... specifically, this sounds a lot like White Spot (aka Ich). Check out our existing question What, exactly, is "ich"? or this link with more info and treatment. The 'bruises' may be a secondary infection even.
As with most fish illnesses- quarantine is the best first step to troubleshooting. I would start a fresh tank for the new Cichlids, but if you can't, follow some of the treatment steps in the link above, but take it slow: environmental changes are always stressful on fish. Be mindful of oxygen changes and temperature (!and pH!) changes.
In my experience cat fish are hardy little beasties, so it might be that their skin type and where they live in the tank plays a role in them not getting sick. They, and your plants may well be contributing factors. I know some plants may be 'carriers' if they've lived in infected tanks before.
Comment: I added a link to our in house Q&A that addresses treating White Spot, if your exteranl link dies, your answer will still have a link to more info and treatment.

Dying cichlids in our tank


Why isn't the arrow operator in C++ just an alias of *.?

Question: In c++, the * operator can be overloaded, such as with an iterator, but the arrow (->) (.*) operator does not work with classes that overload the * operator. I imagine that the preprocessor could easily replace all instances of -> with (*left).right, and that would make iterators nicer to implement. is there a practical reason for -> to be different, or is that just a peculiarity of the language/designers?
Answer: The rule that foo->bar equals (*foo).bar only holds for the builtin operators.
Unary operator * doesn't always have the pointer dereference semantics. I could make a library in which it means matrix transposition, zero-or-more parser matches, or pretty much anything.
It would make the language more bothersome if anything that overloads unary operator * would suddenly gain an operator -> you did not ask for, with semantics that might not make sense.
operator -> is separately overloadable, so if you want one, you can overload one with minimal effort.
Also note that such an overload would have some rather interesting properties, like automatically chaining operator -> calls until one in the chain returns a raw pointer. This is quite useful for smart pointers and other proxy types.
#include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>

struct Foo
{
    boost::shared_ptr<std::string> operator -> () const
    {
        return boost::make_shared<std::string>("trololo");
    }
};

int main()
{
    Foo foo;
    std::cerr << foo->size() << std::endl;
}

Comment: It illustrates the last paragraph of my answer, how using the `->` operator chains until it gets a raw pointer to something, dereferencing and accessing a member of it. If operator -> didn't chain, the example would be ill-formed as a shared_ptr is not a raw pointer.
Comment: What does your example illustrate? Are you returning a smart pointer to a string and somehow outputting the size? I'm confused.
Comment: @LarsViklund: your answer has a problem: you said "operator-> ... automatically chains operator-> calls until one in the chain returns a raw pointer". This is not correct - using `A->B` syntax chains at most 1 additional call. What the C++ -> binary syntax actually does is not call the object's `opeartor->` directly - instead it looks at the type of `A` and check if its a raw pointer. If it is then `->` derefs it and execute `B` on that, otherwise it calls the object's `operator->`, derefs the result (either using native raw pointer or another `operator->` and then executes `B` on the  result
Comment: @Guss: I cannot find any chapter and verse for your claim, nor reproduce it in a compiler. C++11 13.5.6/1 indicates that if a suitable overload exists, `x->m` shall be interpreted as `(x.operator->())->m`. If the LHS is something that has a suitable overload of `operator->` again, this process recurs until there's just the usual `(*x).m` effect of 5.2.5/2.
Answer: "The C++ Programming Language" describes the fact that these operators are different so that they can be, but also says:

If you provide more than one of these operators, it might be wise to provide the equivalence, just as it is wise to ensure that ++x and x+=1 have the same effect as x=x+1 for a simple variable x of some class if ++,+=,=, and + are provided.

So it seems that the language designers provided separate overload points because you might want to overload them differently, rather than assuming that you always want them to be the same.
Answer: As a general rule, C++ is designed to favor flexibility, so overloads of * and -> are separate. Though it's fairly unusual to do so, if you want to badly enough you can write those overloads to do entirely different things (e.g., might make sense for a domain specific language implemented inside of C++).
That said, iterators do support either usage. On ancient implementations, you might find a library that requires (*iter).whatever instead of iter->whatever, but if so, that's a bug in the implementation, not a characteristic of the language. Given the amount of work involved in implementing all the standard containers/algorithms/iterators, it's not surprising that some early releases were somewhat incomplete, but they were never really intended to be that way.
Comment: C++03 24.1/1 requires that any iterator where `(*i).m` is valid must support `i->m` with the same semantics.
Comment: I didn't realize standard library containers implemented ->, or that it was overloadable.


Jeep Patriot 2016 brake light whistle sound

Question: When I brake I hear a light whistle sound every time unless a step on the brake harder then the sound goes away. When I drive normally I do not hear anything (unless I start lightly braking). Not sure if this is a sign of a brake wear indicator.
Answer: I suspect a leaking brake servo booster diaphragm. My '76 Triumph TR7 did exactly the same thing, so I disconnected and plugged the vacuum hose.
The noise was gone, but it made for an extremely hard brake pedal. I don't recommend you do that, but you could do it as a short test to see if that's the source of the noise. Don't drive the vehicle, just depress the brake pedal while stationary.
It could also be as you suggested, the wear indicator. That sound is more of a screech - nails on chalkboard. Does it seem to come from behind the dashboard, or from one of the wheels?
It's a simple matter to remove the wheels and see if any of the wear indicator tab(s) is touching the brake rotor...


Arrival to Heathrow for an early flight

Question: I have a 7:30am flight out of T2 on a Thursday morning.  I'm debating whether or not to stay the night somewhere the night before or just sleep in the airport because I am recommended to get there 3 hours before my departure.
Comment: I am a regular user of Heathrow. I typically aim to arrive 60-70 minutes before a flight if I have no bags, and 90-100 minutes if I have a bag to check (which is almost never). If you are new to the airport, maybe add thirty minutes or even an hour to those times for some peace of mind. But there is no reason to arrive 3 hours beforehand, the airport will not even be open at 4:30.
Comment: @Calchas +1 looks like an answer to me :D
Answer: I am a regular user of Heathrow. I typically aim to arrive 60--70 minutes before a flight if I have no bags and a boarding pass already, and 90--100 minutes on the rare occasion I have a bag to check, or if I need to talk to a check in person for some reason.
If you are new to the airport, maybe add thirty minutes to those times for some peace of mind. So, with a bag, you could aim to arrive at 5.30 am. (If you need to park or return a rental car, perhaps 15 minutes before that, as these can be quite confusing.) There is no reason to arrive 3 hours beforehand, the airport check in areas will not even be open at 4:30.
If you are travelling a long way to get to the airport, and you are concerned about getting lost, your car breaking down, or whatever, then you may be more comfortable with the three hour buffer, that is up to you. But it isn't required.

If you do want to stay nearby, the most convenient hotel for you is the Yotel at Heathrow Central. There is also a Sofitel attached to Terminal 5 and a Hilton Garden Inn near Hatton Cross tube station. Other hotels require a bus ride: local London red buses are free to pick up within the airport perimeter and accept contactless card payment on the way back, but they don't always go directly to/from the hotels; the "Heathrow Hoppa" [sic] is outrageously expensive at £5 per ride per person and should usually be avoided; taxis are very reluctant to do local jobs to/from the airport (although they can be cheaper than the Hoppa); and the non-London buses are cash-only and overpriced. In reality I don't think staying nearby saves much hassle over coming out from London, unless you are in one of the first three hotels I mentioned.
Comment: Agreed on the Yotel. I love these things and often time my connections so that I can have a 6-7 hours shut eye after a transatlantic flight.

Arrival to Heathrow for an early flight


Why is the jacket or sheath of fibre optic endoscopes always black?

Question: Why is the jacket or sheath of fibre optic endoscopes always black?
Is it just a convention, or is there a more logical explanation for this?
Comment: This could very well be an inertial design decision. In other words, a design decision that was made early in the original design of the first prototypes, was found to be largely unimportant, and then forgotten by the entire industry because it wasn't worth passing on that design knowledge. So now everyone manufactures them in black because they've always been manufactured in black. That doesn't mean, of course, that it's an optimal design decision, merely that it is believed to be uneconomical to investigate changes.
Answer: I really have no idea, but I did come up with the following possibilities.

To minimize reflections from the instrument itself.  Light reflecting off the endoscope could interfere with the doctor's view.
Because little (if any) body tissue inside the body is black, thus making it easier to distinguish the instrument from body parts.
Because that's the natural color of the plastic including additives.  Adding dyes could be undesirable if they leech over time, and since it's not a typical consumer item there's no need to make it colorful and flashy.
To shield the fibers from outside light, thus minimizing interference.
Comment: The "natural" color of most polymers are browns and dirty whites. The CHON bonds tend to absorb light strongly in the infrared region of the EM spectrum and not interact strongly with visible light. Occasionally specific polymer bonds will interact with a specific visible band, especially in organometallic complexes, but I can't think of how a polymer would be made to absorb all wavelengths of visible light without additives of some kind. This leads me to believe there must be some other reason, and (2) seems most likely (read: useful) to me.
Comment: @starrise, I agree, can't think of any plastic that's black naturally.  I'm editing the question to correct that.
Comment: I vote for 1 and 4 depending on which caused the early developers some noticeable problems.
Comment: Some liquid light guides for endoscopes are grey.
Answer: To prevent ambient light from "leaking" into the fiber optic cables. It's mainly a redundancy (extra layer of protection)
Answer: Industrial polymers are often black by default because carbon black pigment is added to stabilise them against environmental degradation, especially the effects of UV light. This is certainly the reason why tyres are almost always black.
And black goes with everything :P


Freewheel disassembly problem

Question: This is a cheapo Chinese freewheel, probably from a Walmart bicycle, etc. It's unusually heavy compared to my mountain bike's freewheel. I'm just trying to see if I can disassemble it. It's a learning experiment.  I've already figured out how remove the freewheel from the hub, and the gears (chain-rings) from the freewheel-hub assembly.  Now I'm trying to unscrew the central ring that allows access to the freewheel bearings and pawls. I can tell it's reverse threaded,  so I'm turning it the CW direction.  I have a pin tool for that spacing (which I normally use for bottom brackets), but the pins are too short to access the central ring's holes, b/c that central ring is recessed below the hub that the chain-rings slide over.  I've trying whacking a screwdriver tangentially in the CW direction, holding the tip against a hole. I get good purchase, not slipping, but the ring won't budge.  I've tried this with the freewheel installed on the wheel, and with it off the wheel & secured to the bench, locked in place with the freewheel tool and a wrench. I've never had any problems removing that ring on any other freewheel, it's just a bearing cone after all,  so what's up? Any ideas?
Comment: @DanielRHicks "I'm just trying to see if I can disassemble it. It's a learning experiment."
Comment: I'm trying to understand why you'd bother, vs replacing the entire freewheel.
Comment: My first bike was a Walmart bike and heavily used meaning I had to do basically everything to it.  I'm so glad I did because I learned so much, and because my learning was on a cheap bike so my mistakes didn't leave me in tears.  (Well at least not a lot of tears.)  Now I'm on to a steel-frame 90s hybrid, chosen and maintained thanks to what I learned from the first one.  Anyhoo, I think you're on the right path with your learning, keep up the good work.  (You should post a picture of the freewheel face.)
Comment: I suspect its got thread locker.  Can you hit it with some heat?  Either a short blast with a torch, or a half a minute with a hairdryer on high ?  Don't burn yourself.
Answer: This is the OP, George_San_Jose.  I finally got it turning. I'm not exactly sure what the  critical step was b/c I tried a combination of ideas.  The solution was some  combination of a couple days soaking in thread penetrant, working the job w/the freewheel on the wheel,  and using a steel center punch (rather than a screwdriver) to whack the hole tangentially with a hammer. I expect the latter was the most important, as some of the impact-value from the hammer was getting lost in the plastic handle of the screwdriver.
Comment: It appears that you have 2 different accounts with your name (the question and this answer have different amounts of reputation).  You should [merge your accounts](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts).
Comment: I concur with @DavidW  If you merge your accounts then you can select this answer as "accepted" which is good.
Comment: I'm glad you got it sorted!  Thanks for checking back and filling us in.
Answer: Most janky freewheels die by seizing up, or a gradual descent into poor rolling.
Far fewer of them will ever wear out their teeth because they're made of relatively strong steel, which tends to be over-build to account for fairly low-grade steel.
One previous freewheel I worked on had to be removed by angle grinder, because it was so rusted onto the hub, and it used a non-standard chinese spline pattern.
Based on your answer, the pawls and/or bearings were seized and soaking them in some penetrating oil was enough to free them.  However they'll never be "great" because the balls will have lost some of their roundness, and there's a good chance the bearing running surfaces are no longer flat.
If its a bike you like and want to keep using, consider a new freewheel with the same/similar toothcounts, and an identical number of gears.  Once fitted, store your bike inside a garage or at least under cover out of the rain.  That helps a lot.

Freewheel disassembly problem


How to toast whole nutmeg to put in coffee?

Question: Playing mad scientist a bit, I tried putting some ground nutmeg in coffee, and I really thought it tasted neat, especially with brown sugar. I think it'd taste even better if I used whole nutmeg, toasted/roasted it a little, and ground it up with the coffee beans. Since nutmeg comes in whole...nuts....how can I break off a little chip of it? Also how can I toast it without having to get a whole pan dirty? Thanks :)
Answer: You can break up a whole nutmeg with a hammer - just wrap the nutmeg in a kitchen towel first so none of it goes flying. Give it a couple solid smacks with the hammer, right through the towel, laid on a hard surface. This should break it up into larger pieces. (Add a couple more whacks if it doesn't, but try not to break it up too much.)
To toast the pieces, the easiest way really is just to use a pan. Don't worry - you will barely need to clean it, a quick rinse with water will do once you're done.
Toast the pieces on a stove, over low heat. Move the nutmeg bits around frequently with a spoon or by carefully tossing the pan until you start to smell them. You can also use an oven on a medium temperature (around 350 degrees F) and toast for about 10 minutes, checking and stirring them halfway through. Make sure your pan is oven-safe before you do this.
Either way, once the nutmeg smells toasted, it probably is. Remove from the heat, and add to your coffee for grinding.
Answer: You could toast it by holding it in tongs in front of a blowtorch.  But the problem is that the surface is a tiny fraction of a nutmeg, so you'd have to toast it, grate that surface off (fairly evenly) and toast it again next time.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to toast it though.  Many spices are better toasted, but freshly grated nutmeg is often added to wet dishes (like rice pudding) without any toasting.
Answer: Store-bought nutmeg is always the sun-dried variety, so unless you're going to buy both the nutmeg seeds and your coffee beans fresh and roast them together and then ground them up together as well, why would you want to toast a nutmeg chip if the taste is great already?
If you insist on breaking off a little chip, I really like the most versatile tool in the universe:

(great for breaking coconuts too: everyone should have one of these in their kitchen!)
But you're better off keeping the recipe as is...  :-)
Comment: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a coconut.
Comment: Honestly that looks like a more useful tool if you want to play hunt-the-nutmeg under your kitchen furniture (not my DV BTW)


Meaning of concentric circles on the spectrogram

Question: I've got this unusual spectrogram and I am really curious what these circles could mean. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? What could be the source of the signal?
Comment: It looks much like some Moiré pattern
Comment: Would it be possible to provide some more information about this? For example, a plot of the signal in the time domain, the package, function name and parameters you are passing to it and whether you built the spectrogram function? This has an "audio explanation" but its boring and unlikely and the pattern is suspiciously log and regular. Could be a bug in overlap-(add/save) or poor choice of parameters.
Comment: That's what I'm looking for, i.e. what kind of signal could produce this spectrogram! First, I thought that the pattern is due to a 'bug' or improper usage. But while the circles are regular they are not regular enough... Do you mind to share your "audio explanation" or just give me some clue?
Comment: OK, straightforward answer from what is provided: If this is an audio signal, then it could have resulted from something that sounds like this https://freesound.org/people/Timbre/sounds/122950/ until the pause followed by its reversed version. But your case doesn't contain this much noise and seems to also have some echo added to it because faint "circles" appear shifted in time too. But without a bit more information it is impossible to provide any more meaningful help (i.e. whether this could be the result of bug or erroneous parameters).
Answer: In Understanding FFT Overlap Processing, p. 10, it is suggested that uniform of constant windows, for certain hop patterns, with repeated pulses, could generate such artifacts.
Answer: I'm not able to comment yet but could it be some kind of FM Synthesis?
Like Olli Niemitalo wrote, it looks like Moiré pattern. I found a spectrogram which looks a little bit similar:


What is the meaning of this verse 2:2:10 of Krishna Yajurveda?

Question:
Asavadityo na vy arocata tasmai devah, prayascittim aichan tasma etam.
   Somaraudram carum nir avapan tenaivasmin rucam adadhus  (Krishna Yajurveda 2:2:10)

What is the exact meaning of this shloka?
Is it related to Surya & Rudra?
Answer: Krishna Yajurveda - 2:2:10

"asavadityo na vy arocata tasmai devah prayascittim aichan tasma etam
  | somaraudram carum nir avapan tenaivasmin rucam adadhus |"
"Yonder sun did not shine, the gods sought an atonement for him, for
  him they offered this oblation to Soma and Rudra: verily thereby they
  bestowed brightness upon him. If he desires to become resplendent, he
  should offer for him this oblation to Soma and Rudra; verily he has
  recourse to Soma and Rudra with their own portion; verily they bestow
  upon him splendour; he becomes resplendent".

The Shaivism interpretation of the mantra is as follows;

The Aditya who is the sun actually shines under the grace of Lord
  Rudra as mentioned in Yajurveda. Rudra himself is present as sun as
  well as moon also. But once Sun didn't shine, all the gods prayed to
  Soma-Rudra (the doctor aspect of Rudra, which in later texts called as
  vaidyanatha), and he gave brightness to him. Soma (aspect) is Amruta
  hence he gives life to any dying person. Hence he is the healer. But
  it is lord Rudra who is the supreme light which illuminates
  everything. Hence the Sun started shining again when Rudra imparted
  brightness to him.
Rudra alone is the supreme effulgent Atman whose light illuminates
  everything.

If we ponder esoterically/SPIRITUALLY, we may get different perception.
In Rig Veda Rudra/Indra/Savitr/Varuna, etc are mentioned as one and the same BRAHMAN.
According to Advaita, everyone has God residing within oneself.  The Jnani knows it, others do not.  That is the difference.
This ignorance is termed as realisation hidden in darkness (waters capturing by Vritra) by Rig Veda.
Once ignorance is lifted, the Realisation shines by itself.
In the mantra in question, the hidden realisation was compared to lost brightness of Aditya.  And, due to the grace of BRAHMAN (Rudra), one's ignorance (darkness) will be removed, making the one REALISED.
Here,  Soma indicates bliss emanated out of realisation.


Do the Game-Rec Guidelines apply to all of the kinds of recommendation questions?

Question: Game recommendation applies to both the recommending of games and the recommending of products for games, such as tools. The recommending of game systems in particular is the basis for  our game-recommendation guidelines/banner. Do these guidelines need to be followed on other sorts of recommendation questions other than system recommendations? If someone asks, for example, whether to purchase Complete Psionic or Expanded Psionics Handbook for their 3.5 game, must I have actual play experience with Complete Psionic to answer or is "Complete Psionic is one of the worst books written for 3.5 [citation][citation][citation] (none of which cite actual play directly, but rather cite thorough rules analysis, balance analysis, rpg theories, etc).  The Expanded Psionics Handbook is one of the best books written for 3.5 [similar citations].  You should get the Expanded Psionics Handbook." an acceptable answer, since it's not a recommendation for a game.
Comment: I am going to go fishing this weekend, and am grateful for the nice can of worms ... *grin*
Comment: Your previous title was asking if the game-rec guidelines applied to all the kinds of game-rec questions, which is... tautological, and not consistent with the question in your body. I've changed your title to say all the kinds of _recommendations_ (full stop) instead, to match the phrasing in your question body.
Comment: @doppelgreener No, I in fact meant all *game-rec* questions because that currently *is* all on-topic reccomendation questions, including (theoretically) tool rec, as you address in your answer.  This is silly, and, as you point out, we have moderate support for not doing this, but until we actually use different tags for other kinds of recommendation the game-rec banner goes up on tagged questions (like the one linked) and I want to make sure ignoring it and answering withing the broader GS/BS guidelines is correct behavior before doing it.
Comment: @thedarkwanderer That's why I made the edit - [game-rec] *does not* include [tool-rec], or any other kind of recommendation, except the limited ones we've agreed it does.
Answer:
Do these guidelines need to be followed on other sorts of recommendation questions other than system recommendations?

No. Our game recommendation guidelines never really got genericised. It is not universal. It applies spottily to some things other than the recommendation of actual games, but not to all recommendations.
What applies to all recommendation questions is good subjective guidelines. Our game-rec rules just translate these with some extra specifics. The good subjective guidelines are the one that carry the famous Back It Up principle, i.e. our iron-clad rule you must be able to say you've seen it done, or else back your statements up with a conclusive reference.
We've had some discussion on the generic-ness of our game rec rules. Here's the results:

Has [system-recommendation] grown too big for its britches? (December 2012). The most conclusive answer in here opposes a genericised recommendation tag. Low support here for the rules being genericised.
Can we add an adventure-recommendation tag? (December 2013) has an assertion game-rec should apply for published adventures too. We've taken up that practice.
Let's make [game-recommendation] actually be for recommendations of games (February 2014) has a strongly supported assertion that the game-rec rules and tag should not be generic.
What are our requirements for tool recommendation questions and answers? (March 2015) asserted that the game-rec rules apply but was never heavily supported. (As the author, I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time, I could have just referenced GSBS.) To date no tool-recommendation questions have our blue game recommendations rules notice.

The community has never expressed strong support for universalising the game-rec rules. Historically stronger support seems to be for not doing that. Game-rec rules have been extended into one place only: adventure modules and other published game material expansions. The important bits are already standard procedure: back it up, don't be too broad, don't ask a question that's entirely opinion based, etc, and we don't need the game-rec rules to implement those.
Comment: In practice we certainly have been enforcing the same rules around *-recommendations, we just didn't want tag sprawl for the *.
Answer: Yes and no. Yes, officially, game-rec covers anything recommended for a game, not just the recommendation of games themselves. This includes everything under the tool-recommendation tag as well (which is just a tagging convenience due to volume, not a separate site-rules jurisdiction).
However, in practice the tool-recs aren't a problem like other game-recs are. Are they full of great answers? Not usually. They're usually pretty crappy list questions, actually. But in practice, we don't see the same massive partisanship and popularity-voting on those questions. So in practice, they're benevolently neglected as regards the game-rec guidelines.
They still get closed when they're too-broad list questions, mostly a matter of opinion, or insufficiently specified (i.e., unclear) though. Sometimes they're slow to be closed, as the community waits to see evidentially if they're going to be a good or bad question. That's the thing though: the normal SE processes tend to work fine, so those processes are left to take care of it as normal.
So yes, de jure they are under the game-rec guidelines.
But de facto they don't get the guidelines as zealously applied to them, so long as they don't make a nuisance of themselves.
Comment: On what basis do you say our game-rec rules officially cover anything recommended for a game? You say de jure, _what law?_ The [first portion of our game rec guidelines](http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/a/1071/1204) suggests that shopping recommendations can be on topic, but the rest of the answer caters very specifically to recommendations of games, and we don't enforce and cite the game rec rules within tool recommendations that I have seen. You appear to be asserting the game-rec rules are more broadly impactful than the community has ever agreed with.
Comment: @doppelgreener The tag's wiki excerpt has said so explicitly since 2013, as part of implementing [this proposal](http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/a/3006/321) at the time.
Comment: @doppelgreener If the game-recs go, then our draconian bandaid solution for them will go too, I have no doubt. Whether tool-rec and such will live on after is probably something that will take some time to shake out, but regardless they'll be managed on their own merits.
Comment: Tool rec's wiki excerpt doesn't appear to mention anything about the game rec guidelines, unless I've misunderstood.
Comment: @doppelgreener [What are our requirements for tool recommendation questions and answers?](http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/q/5399) (A: all game-rec stuff applies)
Comment: Oh, now I see the game-rec wiki. It hasn't been used that way, though.
Comment: That tool rec answer got barely agreed with. Considering I plan to rewrite that answer to make references to GSBS instead of Game Rec guidelines, I suggest you do not cite me.
Comment: @doppelgreener It's true! At first I thought that was an odd failure of enforcement, but pondering how to answer this... well, this answer is the result. They're not great Q&As, but they're also not being nuisances. Smooth functioning of the site is the guiding light (rather than perfect application of the rules for the rules' sake), and tool-rec hasn't risen to the level of nuisance yet.
Comment: @doppelgreener If the winds keep blowing as they appear to be, this particular meta won't have relevance anymore even if that one does, so citing it here or not won't matter either way.
Comment: That's fine, I don't care strongly about the existence of game recommendations. I do care about members not interpreting this as meaning we handle other recommendations with the draconian force we've (by necessity) applied to game recommendation questions.
Comment: Back to my original response though - I suggest this would be better off being backed up by citing what makes this official and to what extent. I'm no longer confident in my answer on this question and would consider deleting it if I could (I can't, being accepted), given I think I misread some of what I cited.
Comment: Recs of any sort that don't follow GS/BS, I will personally take measures to stamp out...
Answer: The game-recommendation tag applies to any recommendation question, per earlier discussions like Has [system-recommendation] grown too big for its britches?. In fact, we changed the tag from system-recommendation to game-recommendation to genericize it.
Note that this guidance is really just a codification of general SE best practices for an edge case where people seem really tempted to ignore them.
As a result, no, personal speculative opinions are not a valid answer.  Neither is citing other peoples' personal speculative opinions. Only experience, personal or documented on behalf of someone else, is proper support for a subjective question. I'm not going to bother linking Good Subjective, Bad Subjective again, but read it, it applies to all subjective content on this SE. Of course, where there is objective content (e.g. this generates a higher DPS), that is not subjective and doesn't fall under that requirement.
Comment: -1: Expertise from things other than play experience is not 'personal speculative opinion'.  And personal speculative opinion is not the only alternative to personal experience/documented experience of others.
Comment: I do not believe that to be true.  It is just a place where we explain GS/BS in detail for a specific use case and enforce it with deliberate zeal.
Comment: Obviously where the other documented information is stack valid it's stack valid, where it's not it's not. But you're drawing a false dichotomy between game-recs and any other question here, the GS/BS guidance applies to everything with a subjective component.
Comment: I do not think our game-rec guidelines our equivalent to GS/BS.  Our game-rec guidelines are *significantly* stricter and also approach things from a fundamentally different angle.


John 4:21-22 : Whom does "we" refer to? If Jesus Himself is God (according to the doctrine of Trinity), who is He going to worship?

Question: Jesus said to her,

...; we know what we worship, NKJV)
..., we worship what we know (The Interlinear Bible)
...; we worship what we know (NASB)

Can 1 Corinthians 15:28 be taken as a corresponding passage to this verse?
Comment: (-1) for asking self-evident questions. (Since Jesus is the Son of God, and since the Decalogue commands children to honor their parents, the answer should be relatively straightforward).
Answer: This is how the EXB explains it "You Samaritans worship something you don't understand. We [Jews] understand what we worship, because salvation comes from the Jews [because the Messiah who brings salvation comes through the Jews]." The We here is The Jewish people.
Answer: I have no problem seeing this passage as Jesus speaking for the Jews and I can see the larger argument about why this passage does not challenge the wide and consistent Scriptural affirmation of deity for the Son.  But it raises for me the mystery of the Trinity that is always beyond revelation and our human understanding.  By this I mean, we are given very little information beyond the basic description of the 3 in 1.  We have no true understanding (and perhaps we shouldn't even expect to understand) the union and intimate interaction within God.  In one sense knowing more is probably none of our business because the interactions of the persons belong to the Trinity.   I think of how Moses asked to see the glory of God but was only given a partial view 'from behind'.  At least for now it is more than we can stand and, when you consider how much we 'see' in Scripture and the Gospel, we should be so grateful for what we have been given already.
Answer: After we analyze the text of John 4:22 [KJV] : "We know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" - The identification of "We" is clearly "the Jews" (Ha-Yehudim,  הַיְּהוּדִ֜ים ).
Although Samaritans of 1st century AD were offered atonement for sins by their faith in the God of Yisrael, Yeshua the son of Yehozadak criticized 5th century BC Samaritans who opposed the re-construction of Yerushalem ( יְרוּשְׁלֶ֑ם) and God's 2nd temple in [Ezra 4:3]. - John 4:22 is referencing Yeshua's rebuke of ancient Samaritans in Ezra 4:3 : "It is not for you and for us to build a House for our God, but we ourselves shall build for the Lord God of Israel."
Jesus of Nazareth is revealing Himself to be the cornerstone of a new temple literally raised up by "Salvation" (Yeshua, ישׁוּעָֽ) from God's Right-Hand through the descendants of Yehudah, passed down to Boaz as a Guardian Redeemer, to King David's as defender of Yisrael against the Philistines, to Yeshua of Nazareth as Messiah eternally atoning for Yisrael's sins - for Yeshua is from Ha-Yehudim ( הַיְּהוּדִ֜ים).
Answer: Jesus here speaks on behalf of Jews, and Himself as a Jew according to flesh, for He, although being equal to the Father (Phil. 2:6), became man, having adopted the entirety of human nature, and man of the nation of Jews, to which nation Lord entrusted prophets who preached about the advent of the Messiah.
Now, does Jesus worship God, if He has for all eternity and infinity of infinities been equal to God and thus co-worshiped with God as being Himself God (John 1:1)? The answer is yes, in His human nature Jesus worshipped God, for healthy condition of human nature is a condition of worshiping God, that is to say, the human nature being created and finite should unite itself, or rather, should willingly allow God to unite it (the created human nature) to Him, the Uncreated and Infinite, and the essence of this unity on the part of the finite essence is that of worship and adoration. If we can freely say on the testimony of the Gospels that Jesus was fortified by an angel (Luke 22:43), of course we can also say that Jesus worshiped God, for in both cases the Gospels speak about His human nature; and when Jesus is tempted by devil who says to Him to worship him for the transient goods of this world, and He rebukes him saying "it is written worship only God" (Luke 4:8), of course by this words He asserts that He worships God through His human nature and does not submit this nature to the idolatry, for idolatry is a ruin of soul, and how could He, the Healer and Saviour of created souls of all humans, submit His own created human soul to a ruin? He showed perfection of human nature in Himself and the perfection of human nature is in worshiping God.
But is it possible to worship Father without Him? No, it is, so to say, an ontological impossibility, just as it is an ontological impossibility for the Father to create universe without the Son. And that is why Jesus teaches and warns against the wrongheadedness of thinking that it is possible to worship the Father while denying Him - the Son, Jesus Christ, for whoever denies Son does not have Father (1 John 2:23) and in fact to Both the same worship applies (John 5:23).
The only possible conclusion is that Jesus' created human nature worships the Father together with the Son, just as the same human nature was created by Father together with the Son. This should not lead one to a heresy of Nestorianism and claim that there were two personalities in Jesus - one co-eternal with the Father, the Son-Logos, while the other - temporal and created person of Jesus who worshiped the Father and the Son. No! That is the Nestorian blasphemous Christology. There is only one divine Person in Jesus, the one co-eternal with the Father, while this Person through His human nature thirsts water, gets hungry, gets tired, feels pain, is fortified by an angel, undergoes death and worships God.
To the same Samaritan He says that He is to be worshiped along with the Father, for what else is His statement: "but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life"? (John 4:14) Only that soul thirsts that is unsatisfied, but only God can satisfy soul, for human soul is finite and created but the purpose of its creation is to be united most intimately to the Uncreated, to God; and here Jesus says that He is the very one who can satisfy soul, which is a clear claim of His divinity, which He also confirmed by telling her her inner thoughts, which, the knowledge of human heart, is a proper feature of God.
Thus, Jesus is uniting Himself fully with the Jewish people to whom is entrusted knowledge of how to properly to worship God, but at the same time He claims His own divine, that is to say, worshipable status, for who has the Son as the "object" of worship, simultaneously has also the Father and vice versa, for nobody comes to the Father but through the Son (John 14:6) and nobody comes to the Son but through the Father (John 6:37, 44-45).
Comment: @Down-voter Hi my anonymous reader! You must possess tons of arguments for substantiating your down-vote, for to down-vote otherwise, with no rational reasons, is shameful and ignoble; so, please, be not lazy and lay down them, your arguments, to me, they are most welcome!

John 4:21-22 : Whom does “we” refer to? If Jesus Himself is God (according to the doctrine of Trinity), who is He going to worship?


Does Dragon's Breath break Sanctuary?

Question: We know that a familiar can use Dragon's Breath establishing it is not an attack, nor is it a spell being cast (from this tweet). Does that mean a familiar under the effects of Sanctuary could use Dragon's Breath without breaking its effect?
Answer: This was changed by errata, so dragon's breath's action does break sanctuary
As of the November 2018 Player's Handbook errata, sanctuary ends when:

the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature

Hence, using the action granted by dragon's breath would end sanctuary as it deals damage to another creature.
Comment: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/87003/discussion-on-answer-by-david-coffron-does-dragons-breath-break-sanctuary).
Answer: RAW you are correct.
However, Jeremy Crawford disagreed on Twitter in a ruling related to a spell with similar wording to dragon's breath for dealing damage:

RAW: witch bolt exploits a loophole in sanctuary. RAI: witch bolt's damage ends sanctuary.

Casting witch bolt and then having sanctuary cast on you would make it harder for enemies to target you while still allowing you to do damage to enemies without ending sanctuary.
The dragon's breath spell would exploit a similar loophole. Crawford has explained that this is not the intent.
Comment: As of the current errata, the designers have closed this exploit.

Does Dragon's Breath break Sanctuary?


Halachic status of Sikhism as Avoda Zara

Question: Are there any sources that explicitly discuss the halachic status of Sikhism regarding to what extent it follows the Noahide laws, and if it is considered avoda zara or shittuf?
Comment: See the wikipedia page. It seems that they are a purely monotheistic religion.
Comment: @Ephraim Wikipedia also [says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, but that does not mean that it is not avoda zara according to halacha.
Comment: @Malper, the Sikhs have no doctrine like the trinity. And I see no doctrine, or aspects thereof that are manifestly problematic.
Comment: Somewhat (tangentially) related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/18623/can-a-ben-noach-practice-another-religion
Answer: From what I understand "avoda zara" or "shittuf" means, our religion, Sikhism, is neither. It's a monotheistic religion where we believe in the existence of one Omni-Present God.
He is above all. He is not confined in any idol or temple. He created us. We respect Him for what He has given us. (That's why we are not supposed to trim body or facial hair, or perform circumcision.)
Regarding Noahide laws, I am not able to understand them clearly. I apologize. I will do some more research and get back on that later.
Comment: I think you give a good answer regarding what Sikhism is and there is a good chance that you are correct (and that is "pure monotheism" similar to Judaism and Islam), but that not exactly what was asked.  Thank you for your input anyway since it was still informative.
Comment: Hello G.D. Singh. Welcome to Mi Yodeya. Just so you know, the reason this answer has been downvoted is because it does not answer the question. As is mentioned in the comments, Christianity considers itself to be monotheistic, but we consider it to be shittuf. The question asks for **sources** that discuss the **halachic** status of Sikhism. Not for personal opinion based on random internet people's interpretation of halacha.
Comment: This answer is downvoted, I'm sure, because of the fact that, although informative, it's incomplete (at best). The question specifically asks for sources explicitly discussing the Halachic status of Sikhism. Despite its usefulness in the discussion (which I believe it has, as I stated above), there's a good case to be made for deletion as "not an answer".
Comment: I disagree, @doubleaa. Not entirely, but on the point that this isn't a valuable contribution. It can be improved upon, certainly, but I think it's a useful starting point for the Halachic discussion.
Comment: As i quoted i was not able to understand the words used in the question clearly, as they are new and complex to me. But on my behalf i think i have answered the question partially correct as our religion is not "abodah zara". It's a monotheistic religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheistic#Sikhism Coming to downgrading the answer, there was not need for it. My answer was just incomplete, just like other answers mentioned here: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/12229/avodah-zarah-in-other-religions These answers mostly do not cite any references too.
Comment: @G.D.Singh Why do monotheistic religion and Avoda Zara have to do with each other? You can worship only one God, but if it's the wrong God, that doesn't really help much, does it? I appreciate your interest in helping, but without a basic understanding of Jewish law, you won't be able to contribute much to a discussion thereof.
Comment: Avodah Zarah means that you believe in an intermediary between you and G-d. So, if that is what Sikhism believes in, they are Avodah Zarah.
Comment: Also, some groups in Christianity use Jesus as an intermediary, so they are Avodah Zarah.
Comment: @G.D.Singh search the Internet for the 7 laws of Noah
Answer: I'm not aware of any halachic literature on the subject, but I've never seen any reason to treat it as Avoda Zara. Sikhism has some qualms with some of the practices of Islam (e.g. circumcision) but generally stays quite close to its overall theology.
Answer: I do not believe Sikhism contains elements of either avodah zarah or problematic Shituf.
Sikhism is a strict monotheism (Ek Onkar - One God) based on the teachings of the 11 Gurus (10 human teachers, one textual, the Guru Grath Sahib).  It was started around 1500 CE by Guru Nanak in the Punjab part of India.
For baptized (ordained/confirmed) Sikhs (male or female), strict vows are undertaken - lesser vows by the lay membership.  These include
-Rise in the anrit vela (21/2 hrs before sunrise) and recite morning prayers, meditations, yoga and others practices
-Recite 2 other prayers throughout the day
-Recite the evening prayer around sunset
-Recite the night prayer before sleep
-Refrain from intoxicants and stimulants
-Treat all people with respect and courtesy and protect all human rights
-Earn an honest living
-Share with those in need
For many "baptized" (amritdhari) Sikhs they have additional commitments:
-Refrain from all meats, fish, etc.
-Keep all hair  - kesh and wear the dastar (turban)
-Carry kirpan (ceremonial blade), at least symbolically
-Wear kachera (modest undershorts)
-Use a kanda (wooden comb)
-Wear the kara (steel bangle)
Put very simply, these are the do's and don'ts of Sikhism:
Do:
 -Respect the equal rights of all regardless of rank, gender, caste,
   class, color, or creed.
 -Share with others, especially those in need.
 -Perform altruistic service for humanity.
 -Earn income by honest employment.
 -Come to the aid of the defenseless.
 -Keep all hair intact and unaltered.
 -Meditate and read or recite daily prayers.
 -Worship and recognize one divine light manifest in all.
 -Regard any other than one's spouse as brothers or sisters.
 -Become initiated as Khalsa and wear the five articles of faith.
 -Follow ideals of the ten gurus, accepting the perpetual guidance of Sikhism's scripture the Guru Granth.
Eleven Sikhism Don'ts
    The goal of Sikhism is to subdue and overcome the effects of ego which foster duality and work to keep one from realizing enlightenment and union with the divine. These eleven Sikhism don'ts outline means of avoiding falling into the trap of egocentric living.
Don't:
 -Worship idols.
 -Deify any human being.
 -Pray to demigods or deities.
 -Observe caste or gender inequality.
 -Give credence to auspicious dates, horoscopes, or astrology.
 -Be involved with illegal activities or dishonorable associates.
 -Cut or otherwise alter the hair of the head, face, or body.
 -Engage in premarital or extramarital intimacies.
 -Eat the meat of sacrificial animals.
 -Practice superstitious rituals.
 -Smoke or use intoxicants.
My knowledge of Sikhism is from being a professor of World Religions (and knowing adherents of Sikhi) and my knowledge regarding avoda zara and halacha is from being a rabbi.  Brachot.
Comment: May be that some informations in your post are not needed for the proof that Sikhism isn't AZ. or Shituf.


Is there a difference between 生出 and 生産?

Question: I checked the definitions in here for 生産 and 生出 and there appears to be a huge overlap between the two words. That said, what is the major difference between these two?
Comment: Is it 出生 or 生出 that you're interested in?
Comment: It's 生出. Sorry if I caused any confusion. But feel free to add 出生 to the mix.
Answer: 産出【さんしゅつ】: production (of natural resources and agricultural crops)

中国は小麦の産出量で世界一だ。
石油の産出で有名な国。

生産【せいさん】: production (mainly for industrial products, but also for natural resources and crops)

この工場では車の部品を生産している。
中国は小麦の生産量で世界一だ。

(Strictly speaking, as defined in the dictionary you checked, 生産 can be used for human reproduction in highly academic contexts. For example 総再生産率 means gross reproduction rate. But not many native speakers are familiar with this usage, and it's wise to always avoid using 生産 for humans unless you are talking with experts.)
出生【しゅっせい】: birth

王子の出生を祝うパーティーが開かれた。
日本の出生数は低下傾向だ。

(出産 is also "birth" but it's closer to medical "delivery" as the last process of pregnancy.)
輩出【はいしゅつ】: production (of capable people from school)

この大学は多数の政治家を輩出している。

生出【せいしゅつ】 is an old word and it's extremely rare in modern Japanese. You probably don't have to remember this. (My IME and I did not know this.)
Comment: 生出 might be a psuedo-Sino-Japanese compound that derives from 生み出す. It'd sound weird in the Chinese sense of the character 生.

Is there a difference between 生出 and 生産？


Passing more than 20 parameters in solidity

Question: How to pass more than 20 parameters in solidity function? I have tried using array[] parameter that uses pragma ABIENCODERV2 experimental feature. But this feature cannot be used in production purpose.So is there any other way which passes 20 parameter to the solidity function at a time?
Comment: 20 parameters of the same type? Sure you can use an array without pragma ABIENCODERV2. Otherwise, you might wanna post your code here, so that others will be able to suggest alternatives.
Answer: I don't think so. So your options are:
1) Get by with less
2) Call separate functions to set more values. So in first function set 10 values and in another set another 10 values.
3) Combine data in different parameters into one by for example concatenating string. Note that it's expensive to split the string again into separate parameters.


How general is the Lagrangian quantization approach to field theory?

Question: It is an usual practice that any quantum field theory starts with a suitable Lagrangian density. It has been proved enormously successful. I understand, it automatically ensures valuable symmetries of physics to be preserved. But nevertheless the question about the generality of this approach keeps coming to my mind. My question is how one can be sure that this approach has to be always right and fruitful. Isn't it possible, at least from the mathematical point of view that a future theory of physics does not subscribe to this approach?
Comment: Vladimir, I think what your wrote is what physicists SHOULD do, but in actual fact they write down Lagrangians based on observed symmetries from experiments. Mathematically, the typically used  method is glorified curve fitting.
Comment: Not every field theory can be described by a Lagrangian. This was discovered only very recently. See, for example, the slides to this excellent talk http://indico.ipmu.jp/indico/event/134/contribution/17/material/slides/0.pdf. Moreover, what is known for a long time now is "that not all dynamical systems are amenable to a Lagrangian formulation" http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert2255/papers/symmetries.pdf
Comment: Vladimir, Carl, I think what Vladimir wrote is what physicist don't do anymore (at least in fairly fundamental physics) and shouldn't do. An equation falls from the sky as least as arbitrarily as a Lagrangian density. And equations are not that easily quantised, but alas, the world seems to be quantum, so we want to jump to quantum theories as fast as possible. (Of course, if we are doing completely classical stuff such as environmental physics, we might me happy with just equations.)
Comment: Actually, physicists advance first physical equations, and then, if possible, write the corresponding Lagrangian. Doing in the opposite direction is funny but does not guarantees equations describing some physics. Moreover, the equations obtained for the principle of least action may have unphysical solutions.
Answer: That's an excellent question, which has a few aspects:

Can you quantize any given Lagrangian? The answer is no. There are classical Lagrangians which do not correspond to a valid field theory, for example those with anomalies.
Do you have field theories with no Lagrangians? Yes, there are some field theories which have no Lagrangian description. You can calculate using other methods, like solving consistency conditions relating different observables.
Does the quantum theory fix the Lagrangian? No, there are examples of quantum theories which could result from quantization of two (or more) different Lagrangians, for example involving different degrees of freedom.

The way to think about it is that a Lagrangian is not a property of a given quantum theory, it also involves a specific classical limit of that theory. When the theory does not have a classical limit (it is inherently strongly coupled) it doesn't need to have a Lagrangian. When the theory has more than one classical limit, it can have more than one Lagrangian description.
The prevalence of Lagrangians in studying quantum field theory comes because they are easier to manipulate than other methods, and because usually you approach a quantum theory by "quantizing" - meaning you start with a classical limit and include quantum corrections systematically. It is good to keep in mind though that this approach has its limitations.
Answer: As far as you're wondering about 'quantum' field theories, all bets are off - just take a look at the arXiv or on Google. However, most of those theories seem (to me) less well studied than regular QFT. They do have a lot of structure in common with normal field theory (you can still have a Hamiltonian, for example).
In terms of classical fields, I might be giving some kind of trivial answer, but you could consider a (classical) field that obeys a differential equation that can not be derived from a Lagrangian through the Euler-Lagrange equations. Maybe someone with a background in PDE's can elaborate on this.
Comment: The typical example of a PDE that does not come from a Lagrangian is the heat equation. However, I doubt this qualifies as a "field equation", mostly because I don't know what that means, unfortunately. I don't know if this comment adds anything to this old discussion, but I wanted to try.
Answer: I was confused by this too.
Maybe I'm wrong, but at some point I made my mind in a following way:

The most general way to describe 'quantum anything' is a Feynman path integral
In this picture for each 'path' we have to have an action
If we want causality and are agree that our world is Poincaré invariant, then the action must be local.
which means that action must be an integral of "something" over the space-time.
This "something" is a Lagrangian

Therefore questioning generality of the Lagrangian you are actually:

either questioning the generality of Feynman path integral
or questioning the validity of Poincaré invariance
or the necessity of casuality

Repeat -- I can be wrong. And I would be happy if someone points out my mistake.
Comment: It is (1), which is the most general way to "quantize" - start with a classical limit and include quantum corrections systematically. There are inherently quantum theories which have no classical limits, and they fall outside (1) almost by definition.
Comment: I thought causality and locality are two different things. How does causality and Poincare invariance imply locality?


Any way to help muscles grow during rest, besides food (protein etc.)?

Question: Since muscles grow when they are resting, has anyone got any tips, supplements or anything at all that will help my muscles grow more effectively during resting period?
Comment: @RobinAshe Good question. I think we can generally accept that steroids will definitely achieve the goal of increased muscle growth. That said, I choose (thus far) not to use them, regardless of efficacy, for health & legal reasons. So, I guess let's leave steroids as a comment and out of the answers.
Comment: Do you even want steroids as an answer?
Comment: @Greg steroids in moderate doses and when you know how to use them have are not as bad as people make them out to be. Only when abuse begins is where health problems arise, just like many other things.
Answer: Overview
Your supplements are called copious sleep, hydration (with milk if it's part of your diet, water if not), and food. You know--eggs, vegetables, olive oil, meat, butter, greens, starches.
Olympic lifting coach Greg Everett recommends walking, massage, self-myofascial release, and hot baths on rest days as well.
Beyond those, supplements are good primarily to make your wallet lighter, and thus easier to carry.
Details
Sleeping over 10 hours a night improved athletic performance. To quote Mah, Mah, Kezirian and Dement:

Optimal sleep is likely beneficial in reaching peak athletic performance.

Sometimes a very light workout is useful during a recovery day, but one's capacity for active rest intensity varies person-to-person, again according to Greg Everett:

Ultimately, you'll have to experiment to some degree to see what you can and can't tolerate. You may be able to get away with more than someone else, but most people need to keep their rest days super low intensity.
Comment: I think the Pareto principle applies here. 80% of results come from the basics. Chasing the last 20% might involve post-workout whey powder or supplemental vitamin D and magnesium, but the basics are far more important.
Comment: Thanks for backing up the theory that I'm researching. The theory is that it really is as simple as doing basics properly and consistently. Everybody doesn't believe it's that simple, thus company's make millions selling products to people who believe it is more complex.
Comment: It's important to note that an increased volume of training will improve recovery much more than 7 hours vs 10 hours of sleep will ever do. The body will adapt to the higher frequency and muscle protein synthesis will reach its peak. Put quite simply, you simply need to do what you are trying to get better at ALOT.
Answer: If we want to grow muscle, we need to give it a reason to grow.
This reason (ie the stimulus) can be a 185 lb bench press or a 400 lb bench press - it all depends on the person.
If the stimulus is not enough, we will not grow. If it is too much, we will not grow either. If it is just right, however, and we allow for proper recovery (sleep + nutrients), we will grow.
Make sure you are challenging yourself but no over doing it. When in doubt, keep the gas tank filled to 10-20%. Leave the gym stimulated; not annihilated.
Now we can be giving our body the right stimulus (ie right amount of training volume) but still not be growing.
What's up with that?
Well, exercise is stressful for the body. And depending on our overall stress load, it can be good or bad.
When we sleep 5 hours, spend the day drinking coffee, and then decide to do a 1.5 hr training session - this is BAD.
There is just too much stress for our body to develop a positive adaption.
In most cases, when people are not building muscle as fast as they want, they need to learn to manage all the stress outside the weight room so that body can focus on adapting to that one stressor (ie muscle damage).
So how to quiet all the other stress?

sleep enough
eat enough calories, sodium, and carbs, and dont restrict any macronutrients
make sure you are not deficient in vitamin/minerals ( most people, especially athletes, are deficient in zinc and magnesium)
manage psychological stress and avoid confrontational people
stay away from poisonous things (allergies)

RECAP:
1) Provide an acute stressor (exercise)
2) Cut down on all chronic stressors
3) Sit back and grow
Comment: Indeed, stress management is important for growth & health! Thanks for the answer.


What does "prev_out" and "n" mean in blockchain.info's API data?

Question: When getting information about transactions with blockchain.info's API, every transaction contains exactly one "prev_out" object, and within that object "n" is always equal to either 0 or 1.
What do these things stand for/mean?
Answer: A transaction consists of a number of inputs and a number of outputs. Outputs define a script that need to be executed to be able to spend the coins in the output. Inputs provide data to enter into an output script to make it execute successfully and to spend the coins in it.
So, a transaction input must be able to reference the output it is willing to spend. Outputs in a transaction are ordered, so an output can be referred to by specifying the transaction ID of the transaction it has been defined in, and the index it has in the list of specified outputs in that transaction.
The prev_out field is the transaction hash (txid) and the n is the index of the output.
It's not true that every transaction contains exactly one prev_out value. However, many transactions do. This is because many transactions have only one input. You must know, though, that it is possible to have multiple inputs.
Answer: A typical bitcoin transaction is made up of inputs and outputs. Unspent coins from previous outputs are reference by the inputs. These coins are pooled, then redistributed to the outputs, which now represent the same number of unspent coins (minus fees).
The inputs reference the unspent coins by the transaction hash and the index of the output that's being redeemed.
Although you can have as many inputs and outputs as you want -- in theory, you could write a transaction that references every coin in existence, and redistributes it to ten million new addresses -- in practice, most transactions only have one output (the recipient) or two outputs (the recipient and the "change" address), so "n" is usually -- but not always -- 0 or 1.
For example, if you look at https://blockchain.info/tx/017ee876b7078170066da40894b291e496dc09b7fb3edff4e2e7e8262545c7b1?format=json you can see the "n" value in the sole "prev_out" dictionary is 170. That's because this transaction is spending coins that came from a prior transaction with 170 or more outputs.
Answer: Previous tx is a hash of a previous transaction. Index is the specific output in the referenced transaction. see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions


始まる->始まり Is there a rule of making nouns from verbs (besides nominalization)?

Question: Lately my ears started catching words ending in り that seem like nouns created from verbs. I'm sorry I don't have any other examples besides the one from the title 始まる (to start) -> 始まり (the start).
Is it just a small number of word pairs like that or there is some magic grammar formula to produce such nouns?
ありがとうございます!
Answer: As a rule, a verb's 連用形 (conjunctive/continuative form) can become a noun (名詞化). I think that technically it doesn't matter what word it is. All can take that form and become nouns. In regular use, though, I think you'll find that words that are used this way are relatively limited. So we have common words like 始まり、綴り、しゃべり、 etc. It may be useful to think of these as distinct words that happen to follow this rule of nominalization, because there are quite a lot of words that you wouldn't normally use this way (though I don't think that means you can't). It's just a matter of what's most natural. For example, you wouldn't say 彼の言いを聞いてください. Rather you'd say 彼の言うことを聞いてください, or something along those lines that uses other forms of nominalization.
In my experience, outside of the 'usual' words that you can use, compound verbs seem to be the most common targets of this form, like 話し合い or 打ち合わせ or もの探し. You can also use these verb stems as suffixes. For example you can add ~作り to the end of something to refer to the act of making something (ケーキ作り, or making cake).
There are some words that take on unique meanings in this construction, though, so be wary. Like 見合い, which refers to arranged marriage rather than the literal act of looking at each other.
Comment: That's a great answer! I think it covers about everything I wanted to know and even more. Cheers!
Answer: I believe there's a rule to convert verbs into nouns. All you have to do is to turn a Verb into its Verb stem form & it can be used as a noun.
To prove this, I would like to cite Tae Kim's Guide to learning Japanese and 皆の日本語・初版 I 本冊, lesson 13. There is a similar pattern in both cases.
Tae Kim's Guide to Learning Japanese > Complete Guide >Verbs > Polite Verbs.
It is written here that there are 3 rules to convert a verb into verb stem.
(1) For ru-verb: Drop the る
(2) For u-verbs: Replace u-sound with i-sound equivalent
(3) Exceptions:する to し・くる to き・
Now, to compare said rules with examples in Lesson 13 of Minna no Nihongo. Specifically, this lesson uses a grammar formula of:
Sは S2を Nに Vます
*S, S2 = subject, usually noun. N = noun. V = verb
Examples:
・私は フランスへ 料理を 習いに 行きます。I go to France to learn its cuisine. (convert習う>習い)
・私は 神戸へ 遊びに 行きます。I go to Koube to have fun. (convert 遊ぶ>遊び)
・私は 神戸へ ロシア料理を 食べに 行きます。I go to Koube to eat Russian cuisine. (convert 食べる>食べ)
The corresponding similarities lead me to believe that you can convert verbs to nouns by using verb stem rules.I would very much appreciate further discussions & feedbacks on this opinion.
よろしくお願いします。
Reference:
(Tae Kim) Polite verbs. Accessed at: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/complete/polite_verbs
皆の日本語・初版 I 本冊, page 104, 106


How bad is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. a3?

Question: Is this move clearly losing for white? Chessgames.com shows 1 win and 2 losses for white only, and I could not find any other reference for this move.
Comment: Interestingly enough, there's a book about 2.a3 against the Sicilian, by Alexei Bezgodov, with the idea of playing an improved version of the wing gambit. http://brooklyn64.com/2010/challenging-the-sicilian-with-2-a3/
Comment: If you really want to play a pawn move, I would suggest 3. c3
Answer: <code> [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. a3?
</code>
No, it is not clearly losing, but I would say that the question mark is appropriate. You have to understand that white, by the nature of going first, can afford to waste a move in many early opening positions without it being a losing move. What it does though is it usually throws away any chance at gaining an advantage, and that is because you cannot be sure that the wasted move, in this case 3.a3?, will be helpful to your position as the position develops. In general, in the opening, you want to play moves that you KNOW will help you and that you know you want to play...you cannot know that about a3. a3 also does nothing to fight for the center. At best, you might play an early b4 trying to get play in the Wing Gambit.
In the Mega Database, there are actually 35 games, but the average rating for white and black is only 1796 to 1768, so that should tell you a lot: Strong players do not think it is good, even if not losing. For the record, white only scores a 37.1% with 3.a3?, but again, anything can happen between 1700s.
Comment: @Akavall There are several ways to decide if a move is bad. In this case, not only did the Stockfish eval on move one drop like a rock, again, it really does not fight for advantage, which is a different type of error. Lastly, while the Wing Gambit might be fun at lower levels, even if you were to make it work like it does in the main lines, it is not really a particularly good opening. Its only real benefit, and again this can be valuable at lower levels, is that is mostly dangerous to the unprepared.
Comment: I was a bit skeptical of your `?` evaluation as opposed to `!?`, but after exploring the wing gambit ideas in this line, I realized that there is no good way for white to do it. So I agree with your evaluation of `?`.
Answer: It's pretty bad but not close to losing. 3.a3 has been chosen in 34 games in my database, and scores around 38%. Stockfish at depth 28 gives an evaluation of about 0.14. So objectively speaking the game is equal after 3.a3 and White can't seriously hope for an advantage. It's also not one of those openings which you might play to trick your opponent, since pushing the a-pawn isn't threatening.
Answer: Other posters have shared database and Stockfish results, but I would prefer just to talk strategy. What, exactly, is your plan with 3. a3 ?

If you want to play b2-b4, you can already do that on move 3; it's called the Wing Gambit, and though it does not have a sterling reputation, you'll find masters who have won games with it, and can study those games.
Why do those masters who have played the Wing Gambit not play a3 first? Generally it's because a3 is a do-nothing move. Even if you get to play b4, black doesn't have to trade there, and if he doesn't, then you've given him a free move to execute his strategy.
What, then, is black's strategy? To fight for the dark squares in the center, specifically d4. The move a3 doesn't do anything to hinder that strategy.

So with those points in mind, I think Black has several good moves here. First, you have all of the normal Sicilian moves, like 3...Nc6, 3...e6, 3...a6, or 3...Qc7. Preparing a fianchetto of either bishop, 3...b6 or 3...g6, seems fine. But also you might be giving Black a chance to fight for d4 more directly with 3...e5!?. If Black has so many viable moves, it doesn't seem like you've gained anything over a normal Sicilian.
Answer: It's not a good move because it wastes a tempo and doesn't really accomplish anything.
However, it's not a horrible move because white still has a tiny advantage due to his better center and his lead in development (at least for now). Theoretically white could argue that since d5 is the equalizing move for black in the sicilian and black has "lost" a move playing d6 that white could possibly gain that tempo back. However, a3 doesn't give white anything at all so gaining the tempo back is one giant moot point.
Maybe there's an advantage in playing a waiting move and waiting for Nc6 before Bb5 but there should be several waiting moves that at least accomplish something.
Typically, the Sicilian is a battle between white's dynamic advantages and black's long-term advantages. If white plays slowly, black should be able to equalize fairly easily and take control of the initiative. That's probably the biggest reason something like this isn't played at high levels. Aside from that though there are several moves that accomplish everything a3 does but do other things as well.

How bad is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. a3?


Strict Transform under Blow-Up along singular Subscheme

Question: My question is if this can be generalized as well:
Let $\beta:\widetilde{X}\mathrel{\mathop:}=\mathop{\mathrm{Bl}}_Z(X)\to X$ be the blow-up of a smooth algebraic variety $X$ along a irreducible generically smooth subscheme $Z$.
Let $E\mathrel{\mathop:}=\beta^{-1}(Z)$ be the exceptional divisor. Now, let us assume I have a divisor $D$ on $X$, with $Z$ closed subscheme of $D$ ($D$ smooth and irreducible, if it helps).
Then I ask if  $\beta^\ast D \sim \widetilde{D} + \alpha E$, for some integer $\alpha$, where $\widetilde{D}$ denotes the strict transform of $D$ and "$\sim$" is linear equivalence.
Answer: I think the answer is, almost.
$E$ might have more than one component.  Indeed, since you only assume that $Z$ is generically smooth, $E$ might have many different components.  $E = \sum E_i$.
You can always write $\beta^* D = \widetilde{D} + \sum_i \alpha_i E_i$, but you can't use the same $\alpha$ for all of them.
Let me give an example.  Suppose $X = \mathbb{A}^2$, $Z = V(x \cdot (x,y) \cdot (x,y^2)) = V(x^3, x^2y^2, x^2y, xy^3)$.
Certainly $Z$ is generically smooth and irreducible (its just not reduced, in higher dimensions, I'm think I can rig reduced examples as well).  Set $D = \text{Div}(x^3)$.  The blow-up of $X$ has two exceptional divisors.
Note $Z$ is a closed subscheme of $D$ as well.  By working in higher dimensions, one can rig examples where the support of $Z$ and $D$ are different.
Anyway, one chart of the blow-up looks like $k[x/y, y^2/x]$ with the obvious map to $\text{Spec} k[x,y]$.  On that chart, the two exceptional divisors are $E_1 = \text{Div}(x/y)$ and $E_2 =\text{Div}(y^2/x)$.
On this chart, we compute $\beta^*D$.  Note
$$x^3 = ((x/y)^2 \cdot (y^2/x))^3$$ and so $$\beta^*D = \widetilde{D} + 6 E_1 + 3 E_2.$$
Comment: gio, another point you can consider is what do you mean by $E = \beta^{-1}(Z)$.  Do you mean scheme theoretically, or set theoretically.  In particular, does $E$ have the reduced structure? That's how I interpreted your question in my answer.  If not, then the thing you wanted is still not true, but there might be a little more hope in some examples.
Comment: Thank you for your answer.  Hence what I wanted would be valid only if $E$ is irreducible.
I think also that find conditions of $Z$ to ensure the irreducibility of $E$ is very complicated :(... bye


Adding a utility sink drain to the main to the main cast iron stack

Question: I need to add a utility sink and the drain would connect directly into my main stack (see attached picture). Is it possible to add a connection to the main cast iron stack, without cutting out a section and adding a new fitting? Basically, I am suggesting cutting a hole in the side if the cast iron stack and adding a saddle Wye (see picture)my stack as it is now.
Comment: I don't see any picture?
Answer: My understanding is that saddle wyes are prohibited under most codes, but you should check with your local jurisdiction to be sure.
The usual way is to support the pipe top and bottom, cut out a section, and then put in the new wye with hubless rubber connectors.
Comment: Thanks for your help. That was the answer I expected, and after a little more research, it seems not that much more difficult to do it right, since both methods involve cutting into the cast iron stack. In the unlikely event I would totally screw-up, I would be able to get a professional plumber to save the day.
Answer:
I've included a picture of the stack below. After more research, and the help given here, tt is my intention to remove enough of the the stack to insert a 3" PVC wye, using a two short pieces of PVC, glued to the wye, and using two Fernco no hub couplings.


When is runway slope most important?

Question: Based on this other answer, a new question arose.
When is runway slope most important, at take-off or at landing? Or is it equally important in both flight phases?
Comment: OP, I will not vote to close, but for the future, this question matches more than one shown on the [help] pages as 'what not to ask' StackExchange is not a place to argue/convince/discuss. Ask a question and reader vote on whether they agree or not. We do not, should not, **invite** discussion a la forums.
Comment: It's most important when you're coming up on the far end of the runway.
Answer: I would argue that it is most important on takeoff. The reason is that most planes require more distance for takeoff than for landing (partially due to higher weight). Also, it is generally easier to abort a takeoff than a landing (when on the ground at least).
Both landing and takeoff distance calculations are performed (which should take slope into account) to ensure that there is sufficient distance for the aircraft. However, in addition to aborting a takeoff being easier, more can go wrong in a landing. Windshear or improper approach settings can cause an airplane to touch down later or faster, which risks an overrun. During takeoff, the plane has until V1 (takeoff decision speed) to abort if any issues arise.
However, this certainly depends on conditions. Aircraft condition, wind and runway surface condition can increase the distance needed for landing (or aborting a takeoff). If reverse thrust is not available, there is a tailwind, and the runway is wet, that could change the situation.
Answer: I would rather land downhill than takeoff uphill because taking off uphill you have just one thing to get you off the ground: thrust (ok, maybe a little flaps helps in some airplanes). On landing, I have a lot of things I can control: approach speed (slow), approach angle (steep), approach power (none), flaps (full), flaring before the threshold, aerodynamic braking with the elevator, pulling the flaps, full braking. some of it is admittedly pretty gutsy, but you can stop even a slippery airplane quite quickly.
Answer: I am going to introduce another perspective. We are talking about a road of 3km length with a potential difference of 1% (30m!!!!) between the highest and lowest place.
Runaways are always thought to have enough visibility for the pilot when trying to land of take-off. Limitations of the slope in airports are not related to performance of the airplane, instead is a safety and visibility constrain.
So, either I am taking off or I am landing I prefer in both to be running uphill where my airplane at the fastest speeds, so I will be able to see any object really far from where I am. No matter the performance I lost.
Notice, that we need to consider also the visual range of the pilot (which is several meters above the road) which is not 3km for small objects, but, I prefer the safest condition: Uphill.
Answer: The only time you would worry about runway slope is insufficient runway. So let's consider a runway overrun:
On takeoff, there's a period where you should no longer abort takeoff, as there is likely insufficient room for stopping. That happens as the plane accelerates pass V1. At that point the aircraft is quite some way down the runway travelling fast. It's heavy as well. If a late rejected take off is initiated, you'll likely hit the fence at a very high speed.
On landing, you plan to stop the plane anyway. If things go awry, you can always step on the brakes. Landing distances are never computed at max braking so you got some room. If you overrun, you'll hit at a much slower speed, since the plane is slowing down in the first place.
Therefore I'd argue it is more important on takeoff.
Comment: For airline ops the runway slope is taken into account for the performance charts for that specific runway, so when calculating V1, V2, stopping distances, etc, this is all taken into account.  Also note that some airplanes have a maximum runway slope limitation that must be considered.

When is runway slope most important?


Dual Video Cards (Primary, Secondary with HDMI) to Provide HDMI Out Signal to TV

Question: My computer is currently running Windows 7 Professional x64 and the computer has an nVidia GTX 260 graphics card with dual DVI output (only), which is hooked up to my dual monitors.
I just recently bought a television has supports HDMI in and would like to watch movies that currently reside on my hard drive.
Would it be possible to have both this card and my GTX 260 installed at the same time (in non-SLI obviously) and switch between them for the purposes of watching movies on my TV?
If so, is this something I have to set up within Windows, or is this something I have to setup through the BIOS (set the default PCI bus to have a primary/secondary output and switch between them?).
If not, what are some of the ways to get a high definition signal from my computer, which only supports DVI out, to my TV? Am I out of luck?
EDIT: I forgot to mention. I do not have a speaker system (only headphones) so I need to send audio as well as video. Is a simple HDMI->DVI converter enough to do this? I thought DVI does not transport audio as well.
Thanks for your help!
Answer: DVI-D and HDMI have the same video signaling. Get yourself a cheap adapter and use that.
Comment: I've updated my original question. I need to send audio as well. Sorry for the confusion.
Comment: There are DVI+audio-to-HDMI adapters as well, but they're more expensive and require digital audio.


What's the best UK malt to use instead of 'US 2-row pale ale malt'

Question: So I know this question has been asked the other way round, but I'm in the UK and I'd like to make a solid American IPA, and I'm wondering what the best UK malt would be to replace US pale ale malt for this purpose.  I've heard that staple UK varieties like Maris Otter don't quite work well.  Does anyone have any suggestions? I should also add that I don't know of any means to get US malt in the UK, so import over the Atlantic probably isn't possible, even if I wanted to...
Comment: well, based on a suggestion I just got on twitter (thx [@PhilLowry](http://twitter.com/PhilLowry) ) I'm going to get some Mutons Optic.  I'll report back as to how that turns out.
Comment: Optic would have been my answer as well. A solid, flavorful grain but not as in-your-face as Maris Otter or Golden Promise.
Comment: Just wanted to report back, the optic worked great. Obviously just one beer is hardly a generalized experiment, but anecdotally, I'll confirm that Optic is a good sub for 'American 2 row'
Comment: I am not sure what you mean by "solid American IPA" - there are so many different examples of American IPA that bear very little similarity to each other that I am not sure this description is enough. It is a little like the description "English bitter". This coupled with the reality that many American IPAs are being brewed by craft brewers who have torn up any style rules that may have existed.
The range of malts available in the UK made from UK barley is surely big enough to produce most beer styles without resorting to imported malts. However, some brewers will insist on a particular subtle
Answer: You can try Muntons Pale Ale malt - it's a good solid base that's fairly clean and doesn't bring oodles of that soft biscuit maltiness and complexity that you get with the Maris Otter malt. It's highly modified, so well suited to single infusions and has good diastatic power so you can add adjuncts to the mash also.
Being a pale malt rather than a lager/pilsner malt, you'll still get some malt backbone, just not so "in your face" as with the MO. However, since US 2-row is quite "dry/grainy", and you might want your IPA to be "just hops" then you could try using a good pilsner malt, which will contribute the least flavour from the malt. Personally, I'd go with the pale, since you need a little malt to stack the hops up against.
FWIW, all these malts are "2-row" - although barley strain does contribute something, the primary difference between the US and UK malts in how they are handled by the maltster.
I've brewed with US 2-row and Muntons, and to be honest, unless you're comparing them side by side, it's going to be difficult to discern any difference in something as hoppy as a IPA. (EDIT: My LHBS just stocks it as Muntons Pale malt - when I got the 25kg sack, I remember now it was Optic. So the suggestion you have to use Optic seems on the mark.)
For more anecdotal evidence comparing grain flavours, (source)

We did:
English 2-row pale | Briess 2-row pale | Marris Otter | Belgian Pale Ale
Generally, "flavor" increased as you moved down the list I put above.
  There were subtle differences in all of them. The English and American
  2-row pale were nearly indistinguishable except the american had a
  slight "grainy" flavor.

base malt experiment: tasting [Youtube]
base malt experiment - blog entry comparing 5 different base malts


Illustrator: how to achieve a conical gradient effect

Question: Is there a way to get this effect on circles in Illustrator?
Answer:
Create a circle.
Stroke it and make sure the stroke weight is the same as the circle diameter. A fill on the circle is not necessary for this purpose.
Apply a linear gradient to the stroke and hit this button marked in green.
Duplicate, rotate and play with opacity to add more cones and compose a similar image.
Answer: Your original title before a 3rd party edit was about "How do I get this effect in Illustrator". Here's my answer:
You need circles with conical gradients. That subject is discussed in earlier posts, for example in this How to create a simple grayscale image with conical gradient?
You need also a texture which makes the surface to look out like stained metal. It can be a photo of an old concrete wall, but using a photo limits the possiblities to enlarge the image. A vector shape is better. Here's a screenshot of one:

This is quite poor attempt when compared side by side with a real photo. The contrast and the richness of details are low, but they are enough just for this case. The next screenshot shows the difference between pure and textured conical gradients

The texture has got circular clipping mask and it's placed onto the gradient with reduced opacity. The opacity and the used blending mode affect radically to the result. Both of them are accessible easiest in the appearance panel.
Here are 3 different blendings:

In your image some of the circles are made quite dark. In illustrator the brightness can be reduced by adding a grey circle with blending mode multiply. Adjustment is possible with the greyshade selection and also by adjusting the opacity. Blending mode normal reduces the contrast.
There's played with gradual opacity, too. In Illustrator we have opacity masks. One can add a greyshade shape over another shape and define the uppermost to be the opacity mask (and a clipping mask, too, if needed). Normally black on the top means full transparency and white means fully opaque. That can be inverted and so is done in my examples,
The opacity mask can be defined in the top right corner menu of the transparency panel. In the following example the rightmost gradient+texture circle has got an opacity mask, The blue shape is only for showing the effect. Note: the opacity makes the texture weaker, but it can be compensated beforehand by increasing its own opacity:

The background of your image is grey. Actually it's a gradient.Near the center the brightbess is about 75%, but in the corners it's 90%. The grey makes the white extreme of the gradient better visible. In the last example there's a grey background and the bigger shape (on the top) has gradual transparency:

Finally: Your example is a fine composition. It's not made by the technical effects. It's made by an artist.