I have a Chinese F visa, and I want to apply for an Australian eVisitor visa - is this possible?

Question: This may sound silly, but I have noticed on the Australian government website that if you already have a valid visa, getting an Australian evisitor visa will make your current visa invalid. Is this correct? I want to apply for one, but I'm afraid it will invalidate my Chinese visa. Im currently in China on an F-visa.
Answer: they refer to Australian visas, not to visas of other countries, your Chinese visa will not be invalidated.
Answer: One country can not invalidate a visa for another country.
The section you're referencing almost certainly refers to the fact that any another Australian visas will be canceled when you apply for an Australian eVisitor visa - not a visa from another country.


Why do junglers use Dorans Blade?

Question: I'm new to jungling and was watching a few streams and saw that some junglers (Lee Sin is the one that comes to mind right now) would go boots first and then 2-3 Dorans Blade. Why do they do this? I didn't know if it was just a preference or something that I didn't understand because I'm new to jungling.
Comment: This is very out of date, and I have not seen anybody using this strategy in season 3.  A new item was added this season specifically for junglers, and its proven very effective.
Answer: Jungle used to be my main. Basically, everything depends on what your intensions are. Doran blade as the very first jungling item is viable only with a few junglers, since with doran blade you dont have such a jungle sustain and when farming longer you get to low on your hp. Doran blade increases your early level damage output significantly, so I choose doran blade when I want to gank very early.
Example - my jungle pantheon:
I run pantheon with doran blade, 9-21-0 masteries and flat ad marks and quints. On level one I take spear and clear out wovles and blue. My spear on lvl one has 105 dmg thanks to the setup. After blue I am level 2, I take the leap stun and I go for either to mid/side lane or I choose to counter-gank. I usually risk and take exhaust/smite as my summoner spells. With this setup I have scored first blood in 90% of all cases.
Taking doran blade later on in jungle means that your farm / ganks werent too successful, but again you want to increase your early game damage output.
Lee sin: I start with armor/pots item combination. I have cleared jungle, tried ganking bot lane, but I havent been successful. I tp back and probably buy boots. I clear jungle, maybe I get one successful gank. My progress seems quite slow. I would probably finish my lantern and then buy fast doran blade or two just to increase my damage/sustain/hp at the moment.
Three very important jungling things

you have to estimate the game progress well to decide which items to buy
doran blade gives your bruiser jungler 3 stats you actually want: lifesteal, damage, health
if you do not start with boots (which is quite common), get boots as soon as possible, that will highly increase your jungle presence (in a sense of ganks)
Comment: surprised no one corrected you since the word is gank, never heard it called "gang" before.
Comment: Honestly, I have never been sure which one to use.
Answer: Dorans blade is a very strong and cheap early game item for any ad.  They get it for the same reason that an ad top or ad ranged carry would get it.  It's most useful on ad bruiser junglers who need to have items to output damage (like lee sin).
Comment: o ok i just assumed that it would take more time to get your build going if you start with dorans since as a jungle id get a lot less farm then your ad bot and solo top ..but thank you : )
Answer: It really depends on what you want to do.  Buying dorans will slow you down in terms of your late game build.  However, dorans give you a lot of early game power for amazingly cheap cost.  All the stats of dorans help you beat an opponent, especially in a gank situation where Lee Sin excels for early game ganks.  You now would have 20-30 extra damage from 2-3 dorans, which can be the difference of landing a kill or letting someone escape with a sliver of health.  You also have 200-300 more health to tank 2-3 more turret shots if you tower dive.  The sustain is nothing to sneeze at especially with the nerf to wriggles sustain.  Before Lee Sin jungles always took wriggles, now with Wriggles nerf, the bonus health in exchange for the armor wriggles give, may be a good alternative build.
Answer: While jungling fighting monsters early in the game drains your health a lot.
So to maintain health in case someone ambushes you, Summoners prefer to keep a few Doran's Blade as it give life steal
(For those who don't know, life steal gives health on each basic attack)
Plus it is very cheap and a lot of money is not made out of jungling early in game
Comment: This was true in Season 2, however Doran's Blade no longer gives true lifesteal (it gives +5hp/attack now).  It's much more common to see a jungler start with a Hunter's Machete now.

Why do junglers use Dorans Blade?


Specify UTF-8 encoding in Vimrc

Question: Since Vim and NeoVIM defaults to UTF-8, does it make any sense to specify the same option explicitly in vimrc? set encoding="utf-8"
Answer: It would be set encoding=utf-8, no quotes.  set encoding="utf-8" would be an error because "utf-8" would be considered a comment, thus it would be the same as set encoding=.

Vim does not actually default 'encoding' to UTF-8.  It defaults to latin1, but will change based on the locale of your environment.
However, since changing 'encoding' at runtime is dangerous (as in, it can cause a crash -- see below), Neovim decided to only support encoding=utf-8.  This vastly simplifies the code, since now everything is working with UTF-8 internally, and only has to encode/decode when interfacing with the outside world (saving files in specific encodings, converting input from the locale's encoding, etc.).
IMHO, it's a good idea to always put set encoding=utf-8 in your vimrc.  It automatically enables saner encoding detection settings for 'fileencodings' and supports any characters that you'll need to store.

The crash example I gave in 2009 when I suggested changing Vim's default value for 'encoding':
vim -u NONE --cmd 'set enc=utf8 list' -c 'let &lcs="nbsp:".nr2char("8215")'
:put =nr2char("160")
:set enc=latin1

Comment: What about "vim --help"? That's probably terminal settings that need changing but I only managed to output help contents with all language specific characters cut out. For example 'ŻÓŁTY' => 'TY'

Specify UTF-8 encoding in Vimrc


Positive semi-definiteness of a (symmetric) matrix

Question: Suppose a matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is given. Faced with a proof for $$x^TAx>0,$$
for a non-zero vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, I was thinking to use the information of the spectrum of $A$ (note that the proof of the above is the proof of positive definiteness of $A$). Namely, it is known that the spectrum of $A$ is strictly positive. Does that mean that $A$ is positive definite? Or, does that mean that only for symmetric $A$, $A$ is positive definite if and only if the spectrum of $A$ is positive?
Comment: I don't know that this question is appropriate for SciComp because it's really more of a proof-based math question usually seen on Math.SE, but it's easy to answer here. If you want me to migrate it, let me know.
Comment: What do you want prove? $x^T A x$ ?
Comment: I suppose you meant to write that you want to prove that $x^T Ax > 0$?
Answer: According to MathWorld a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is positive definite iff
$$
(x^T A x) > 0
$$
for all non zero vectors $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$. It is trivial to obtain that
$$
x^T\,A\,x = x^T\, \left [ \frac12(A+A^T) \right ]\, x
$$
and to recognize that positive definiteness is linked to the spectrum of the symmetric part of matrix $A$.
A general real square matrix $A$ is positive definite iff its symmetric part $\frac12(A+A^T)$ has all positive eigenvalues.
A positive spectrum for $A$ does not implies that $\frac12 (A+A^T)$ has positive spectrum, as it can seen for
$$
A = \begin{pmatrix}a & 1\\ 0 &b\end{pmatrix}
$$
If we assume $a>0$ and $b>0$ this matrix has positive spectrum, but
$$
\mathrm{det} \frac12 (A+A^T) = ab-\frac14
$$
now if $ab < 1/4$, $\mathrm{det} \frac12(A+A^T)<0$ and $A$ is not positive definite.
Bottom line: for unsymmetric matrices $A$, if you are interested in the sign of $x^TAx$ you have to study the eigenvalues of $(A+A^T)/2$.
Answer: Usually, the term "positive definite" refers to any square, Hermitian matrix $A$ such that $x^{H}Ax > 0$ for all nonzero vectors $x$, where the superscript $H$ denotes the Hermitian transpose. An equivalent definition states that a positive definite matrix $A$ is Hermitian and has strictly positive spectrum (this statement is well-posed because Hermitian matrices have real spectra); see Wikipedia.
This definition is sometimes extended to include matrices that are not Hermitian, but such extended definitions may be inappropriate for the applications you're considering. It's probably safer to require that $A$ be Hermitian.
Comment: But your relation only involves the "if" direction. Does it hold that a Hermitian matrix $A$ is positive-definite if and only if it has a positive spectrum?
Comment: Yes. I chose to use the verb "is" rather than "if and only if" for brevity, since I also indicated that I was stating a definition. Adding the phrase "if and only if" seems redundant.
Comment: I disagree: the statement _"a complex matrix is pos. def. iff $\Re[x^H A x] > 0$"_ is not an extended definition. I would rather say that your $x^HAx>0$ for hermitian matrices is a special case.
Comment: According to the source you cite: "Confusingly, the discussion of positive definite matrices is often restricted to only Hermitian matrices, or symmetric matrices in the case of real matrices (Pease 1965, Johnson 1970, Marcus and Minc 1988, p. 182; Marcus and Minc 1992, p. 69; Golub and Van Loan 1996, p. 140)." These are standard sources; Artin's algebra textbook and Strang's linear algebra textbooks also state the same definition. You're free to disagree, but semantically, saying that the Hermitian case is "special" is the same as saying that the non-Hermitian case is "extended".
Comment: It is not my intention to start a war on definitions. The point for me is that $x^TAx \lesseqgtr 0$ for real matrices nicely maps to $\Re [ x^HAx] \lesseqgtr 0$ for the complex case. On the contrary $x^HAx \in \mathbb{R}$, $x^HAx \lesseqgtr 0$, since it implies Hermitian $A$, chokes the discussion on $x^TAx \lesseqgtr 0$ for real general matrices, which is actually the subject of this question. But you are right: my previous comment on extended/special was rather silly, it is like arguing about an half empty/half full glass...


Caliper guide pin position on 2001 Mitsubishi Eclipse Sdyder GT Conv

Question: I recently replaced the rotors and pads on my Mitsubishi Spyder GT conv. My question is about the position of the caliper guide pins. 2 of the pins have a recess on the end for new seal rings and two of the pins are solid with no recess. I kept track of their position so I could put them back the same way. But, the ones with the recess on the front calipers were in the top position and the rear ones were in the bottom position. The pins are exactly the same diameter and length.
This seems odd, but when I put the new seal ring on them none of them would fit back into the guide holes. I did not want to force them so I left them off for now. (The old ones were pretty mashed up to the point where I had to dig what was left of them out with a curved pick). I doubt they were actually in place prior to dis-assembly.
Can anyone tell me which position the pins with the recess should be in? (Top or bottom) Should they be the same for the front and rear? Lastly, should I force them in with the new seals in-place?
Thanks in advance.
Answer: This video will show you a pad replacement on the Eclipse. You will see the fitment of the pins and boots.


What can I do with an arm roast?

Question: I have not had good luck with this tough lean cut so far. I usually get it when I buy in on a grass-fed cow. Braising it they way I normally braise cuts of beef in wine makes a very dry unappetizing roast. Maybe try a heavier tenderizing marinade? Grind it? Jerky?
Comment: Braising would be the way to go for that cut. Can you give us more detail on your equipment and technique? Are you covering the braising dish for example?
Answer: Even though this thread is old, it's the first thing that comes up when you search "arm roast" at the moment, so I thought I would comment with what I ended doing after googling arm roasts two days ago! I also had a totally grass fed 4 lb. arm roast and it turned out amazing. Most importantly, I cooked it very long and slow, about 5 hours at 300F.

Chop 1 carrot, 1 celery stalk, half an onion and a slice or two of bacon and saute them together in a large pot until lightly browned. Remove from pot.
Salt and pepper the arm roast and then brown it on both sides in that same pot. Remove.
Deglaze pan with red wine, I had the tail end of a bottle of super cheap stuff.
Then throw back in the veggies, the roast, a large can of tomatoes (I used San Marzano), and a few sprigs of fresh rosemary (I really recommend not skimping with dry on that part because it's the main flavor that gets infused). I also put marjoram in because I have that growing, but I don't think it's as important. The top of the roast will be sticking out of the tomato/wine concoction so I studded it with numerous garlic cloves so they would roast.
Put the pot in a 300 degree oven for as long as it takes for the meat to just be falling apart. It was like, 5 hours for me, and I turned the roast over about 2 hours in. Add more liquid if needed; I didn't. When it was done I took the roast out and pulled out the bone and picked off the fat and threw it back in--it was semi-shredded by then--and served it on egg noodles.

It was the best roast I've ever made!
Comment: Sounds a lot like how my dad would make potroast ... only he'd add in potatoes towards the end, instead of the noodles.
Answer: Arm roast is part of the chuck, and so is a cut suited for low and slow techniques that create tenderness by converting collagen into gelatin such as:

Braising
Slow barbecue
Slow roasting

Some folks also find that it makes very good ground beef or hamburger which of course mechanically disrupts the connective tissue.
Since braising is one of the best techniques for it, you may be having other issues with your braise or cut.
The first one that comes to mind as a grass fed cut, is that it may be exceptionally lean.  If that is the case, grinding may be an excellent option as you can supplement with additional beef fat or pork fat to get a good fat percentage, according to your preference.
If the problem is the braise itself, the two most likely culprits (and I am not saying these are terribly likely) is not braising at a hot enough temperature (you want a slow simmer, or if in the oven, a moderate oven about 350 F / 180 C), and not braising it long enough (depending on how it is cut, perhaps 2-4 hours).
Comment: Could a braise also be too hot and too long?
Comment: It is actually possible, yes, but extremely unlikely.
Answer: i love arm roasts! when i get them i put them in the crockpot with 1/2 cup of water and cook on low for 6 hours. then i pull it out, shred it with forks, put it back in the crockpot, cover it with a bottle of barbeque sauce, and let it rewarm for about 30 minutes. serve on buns. awesome bbq beef sandwiches, restaurant quality!
Answer: I found this perfect recipe for it yesterday. Unfortunately, it's a bit time consuming. And it's was such a crazy concept to me that it was a challenge to buckle down and follow all the instructions, but the result was worth it.
It is "Hot and Numbing Dried Beef" from Fuschia Dunlop's Sichuan cookbook. It makes sense because historically the type of beef in this region would have probably from cattle used for labor too, so the meat would have been a bit tough and lean like my arm roasts from cows.
The beef is boiled, marinated in rice wine, deep fried, and braised, then heavily spiced. The texture and flavor were spot-on great- juicy and tender. I made it for a party and had absolutely no leftovers. The recipe did take a long time though and I might try subbing a pan fry for the deep fry next time.
Answer: This meat is great in making truly great spegetti sauce. Cut into 3 inch chunks. Dredge in floor and brown on all sides in olive oil. Remove once brown, about 5 to 7 minutes, and set aside. Deglaze the pan/pot with red wine. Add canned tomatoes to pot, add Italian seasonings and bring to a boil. Add browned chunks of arm roast to boiling sauce along with meatballs, and Italian sausage, and bring to boil then lower to a simmer for several hours until the arm meat falls apart. Serve with your favorite pasta...oh my God, you will never experience anything like this, heavenly! You could add a bit of wine during the cooking stage as an addition. Let me know what you think.
Answer: I have been making pot roast with either a chuck or arm roast (whichever the butcher recommends that day)(from a steer..not a cow) for nigh on 50 years. I  season the meat with salt and pepper....dredge it through a little flour (shake off excess) and sear both sides (I even sear the edges too...just hold it up with a good pair of tongs) in a little bacon fat (just enough to cover the bottom of the roaster...probably about 2 tbsps). Sear until you start seeing a nice light caramel color. Remember, you are not cooking it, you are just adding a layer of flavor by searing. I put the roast on a platter, deglaze the pan with probably about 2 cups of beef stock. I then put in the prepared onions (just ends trimmed, peeled and whole or cut in half..doesn't matter) and lay the roast and it's juices from the platter on top of the onions. Make sure you have enough beef stock to cover the onions or at least come up to the top of the onion. If the beef stock comes up on the roast, that's fine, but don't cover the roast with stock. It's a pot roast, not stew or soup. Put that in the preheated oven (I do 325 degrees) for about 3 hours. If your oven cooks hotter, then knock it down to 300 degrees. The key is low and slow. After about 3 hours, I add my prepped potatoes (peeled, halved and seasoned). Just throw the potatoes on top. Take a baster or ladle and get those potatoes wet with the juices. Put the lid back on and place back in the oven. While they are cooking...at least another hour, prepare your carrots and parsnips.
Ok...I'm going to give away a family secret here! We cook our carrots and parsnips in a big skillet with about 2 cups beef stock, 2 tablespoons of butter, salt, pepper and probably a quarter to half cup of brown sugar. Yes, brown sugar! We peel the carrots and parsnips, but keep them whole. Get your skillet going with the above mentioned ingredients...lay in your carrots and parsnips, cover with a lid and let cook until a knife gets very little resistance when pierced (like almost done). Don't cook it so fast or hard that the stock/broth cooks off because you want some of that to add to the roast. If you start losing the stock/broth, just add a little more. Once you get those done, throw them in the roaster on top of the potatoes and roast...juices/broth and all...and cook for another 30 minutes...if you go to 45 minutes, no big deal. During the last hour and a half of roasting, I usually lift the lid and baste the potatoes, and later the carrots, parsnips and potatoes...maybe about every 20 minutes.
Here is another tip. If you can afford an enameled cast iron roasting pan, buy it! The Le Creuset is really expensive, but you can check Macy's online and they will offer the Martha Stewart enameled roasting pan at sale prices. It will work pretty much the same and they really do make a difference! I love mine, although, the older I get the harder it is to lift out of the oven...they are heavy (that's why they work so great)! I have the 7 quart size and it's perfect for my pot roast...and roasted chicken...pork roast..Cornish hens, etc. They are easy to clean up afterwards, and over the years the cream colored enamel on the inside of the pot develops this beautiful golden patina.
Give it a try. Even if you don't, be brave in your cooking...don't be afraid to experiment! I got married in 1966 at the age of 16 and the only thing I knew how to make was canned pork n' beans and hot dogs..lol. I had to teach myself everything...with the help of a couple good cookbooks. Now, my family/friends come from miles around to eat my meals! So, experiment with your favorite foods and flavors...what's the worst that could happen?...you might have to order Chinese take-out! Yep, been there, done that! lol
Answer: Chili, If you are 'buying in on a grass fed cow' (hopefully you actually mean 'steer' or at least a heifer as 'Cows' do not produce good beef) then you are able to direct how the beef will be prepared by the butcher. If so, direct them to include the arm roast into the ground beef (hamburger) or (preferably) into a chili grind. This is more course than normal ground beef, because it is lower in fat it is an excellent choice for chili meat.. Alternatively you may have (or acquire) your own grinder and 'do it yourself'.
Comment: It was definitely a cow. The rest of the meat from beef cows IMHO is perfectly fine and even good. It is prized in some countries.
Comment: We raise cattle too and this is our cow. A lot of it is truly excellent, esp since we dry age. If you want to know more about appreciating cow I suggest Magnus Nilsson's Faviken cookbook.
Comment: @Melissa, As someone who has raised beef cattle I know that "Cow" [Cow, female which has delivered at least one calf] is inferior quality beef to either the meat from a steer [a castrated male, never allowed to breed] or a heifer [female, never delivered a calf]. Mostly due to age of the animal, most steers and heifers are sent to butcher younger than it would be possible for a cow to be when she would drop her first calf. Most 'Cow' meat is dedicated to lower end usage: Schools, Prisons, McD's etc.
Answer: I have used this cut of meat for several new recipes lately. I have sliced it -very- thinly and used it to make Broccoli Beef or Steak sandwiches. Or it is very good in the slow cooker.
For the slow cooker, put your arm roast in. Then take 1 cup water or beef broth and mix in 1 package of aus jus mix and 1 package of italian dressing mix. Once combined poor over your roast, stick it on low and let it go. I normally go home on my lunch break and toss in some wedges of onion and sliced mushrooms. When i get home, I do a mixture of cornstarch and water and mix it in to thicken the sauce into a gravy. I really like to serve this over mashed potatoes.
Here is the broccoli beef recipe that I base mine off of. I sorry I kinda wing it more or less each time and go by flavor as I am cooking. but this would give you a starting place: I use light brown sugar, and less then it suggests. I also add a little Worcestershire sauce to make it a little less sweet and play with the seasonings. And I don't crockpot it. I just cook it on the stove-top while my rice is cooking in my rice cooker.
http://www.tablefortwoblog.com/take-out-fake-out-beef-broccoli-crockpot/
I hope this helps some!
Answer: Smoke that bad boy -- arm roasts are AWESOME on the smoker !!!
Answer: Actually, go the other way around.  Go with less to no marinades at all.
Wine and other acidic marinades actually make the meat tougher (the acid makes the proteins curl tighter and squeeze juice out).  This effect is far greater than the old-school thinking of acid will slowly cook the meat. (from Jack Bishop and his crew at America's Test Kitchen and Cooks Illustrated).
Consider using a simple brine or sprinkling salt on it (rest for 12hrs) and cook to a internal temperature according to your desire.  An in oven digital temperature like this will take the time guessing out.
Also, grass-fed cows tend to have more room and they may actually use their muscles (heaven forbid).  They tend to be tougher (and leaner) for that reason.  It would take a little longer to cook which means you should reduce the temperature.  Here is the note from Cook's Illustrated:

we transformed a bargain cut into a tender, juicy roast by salting the
  meat a full 24 hours before roasting and then cooking it at a very low
  temperature, which allowed the meat's enzymes to act as natural
  tenderizers, breaking down its tough connective tissue.

They (and I agree) recommend oven temperature of 225°F and roast until the center of the meat is 125°F, then turn off the oven (keep door closed) and let it coast until the center temperature is 130°F for medium-rare and 140°F for medium.
You can use your favourite delicious sauce to go with it.
Comment: Given the number of incredibly famous, tender and classic wine braises including coque au vin, osso bucco, and others, I just cannot buy the idea that you cannot have a successful braise with wine.
Comment: @SAJ14SAJ You don't have to buy the idea, it's not for sale.  But science has come through and proved that the acid hinders.  Ask Jack Bishop and he'll tell you what he thinks of marinades.
Comment: I am a member of the CI website, but I cannot find the passage you are talking about, where wine increases toughness, so I cannot "ask Jack Bishop."  I did find the eye of round recipe the quote comes from.
Comment: The quote (which would be nice if it were formatted as such, instead of as computer code) is instructions for *roasting*, not braising.

What can I do with an arm roast?


Can "товарищ" be used with the first name only?

Question: The title "товарищ" can be used to address or refer to someone, though given its ideological implications, the term has fallen out of use since the end of the USSR.  I've heard the title used alone, or followed by the surname, or followed by the first name and patronymic.  Was/is it ever permissible to use "товарищ" with the first name alone, perhaps if only as a jocular usage?  Or would this construction be unambiguously wrong, no matter the context?
Comment: It sounds acceptable only when the first name is used as a "party nickname" (kind of undercover alias name).
Comment: @Artemix What about "товарищ Серго" (in reality Grigory Ordzhonikidze)?
Comment: Согласен, нашел еще товарища Кобу и товарища Аню.
Comment: "Товарищ Шурик" (фильм "Кавказская пленница") - попытка вежливого обращения к малознакомому человеку, об имени которого известно только то, что знакомые называли его "Шуриком". Для посвящённых это звучит комично, поскольку Шурик - крайне фамильярная трактовка имени. Но со стороны персонажа это было практично.
Comment: In general, it cannot, other than when meant as a (stupid) joke.
Comment: In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Adventures_of_the_Elusive_Avengers one can hear "Товарищ Андрей" at some minor plot twist moment.
Comment: «Вот полюбуйтесь, товарищ Василий, как эти святоши, эти политические проститутки нас предали. Предали партию, выдали планы ЦК!»
Answer: In modern Russian language the title "Товарищ" may be used in such variants:

just "товарищ" - may be used for addressing a stranger. ("Эй, товарищ! Куда вы пошли?" - "Hey sir! Where did you go?"). It's somewhat outdated and less ceremonious than English "sir".
"товарищи" (in plural) - used for addressing to audience. Sounds more crony and isn't official.
товарищ with a surname: "Товарищ Иванов" - Widely used only in military and power structures as a title when it's needed to specify the one of same rank ("Товарищ Иванов, выйти из строя!"). Calling to a civil person or by civil person to a soldier this way is outdated.
товарищ with a first name: "Товарищ Иван" - sounds very familiar and jokingly, and may be used only in a friendly chat ("Товарищ Иван, что ты об этом думаешь?")
товарищ with a civil position: "Товарищ доктор", "товарищ вахтёр" - sounds somewhat familiar and outdated and rarely used to show respect (but remember about familiarity!) Notice that in the Russian Empire there was a position "товарищ министра" ("undersecretary").
товарищ with a military rank or position: "Товарищ рядовой", "товарищ генерал", "товарищ командир" - used in military and power structures as a common title. May be used by civilians to officers to show respect. Also in speech addressing to many militants with various ranks it sounds as "товарищи" ("Здравствуйте, товарищи!")

Using "товарищ" with a patronymic or with first name and patronymic is very strange and never used.
Comment: I would translate "*Эй, товарищ! Куда вы пошли?*" better as "*Hey buddy, where are you going?*" In any case you wouldn't say "*Эй, товарищ*" to a policeman, because you risk being viewed as drunk.
Comment: In **modern Russian** language the title "Товарищ" may be used in such variants...Are you joking or do you really mean it? It has already gone,
Comment: Last month I heard it used, entirely unironically, by people in Transnistria.  So yes, I think it's still used in modern Russian, at least by some people.
Comment: I said that many of these cases are quite outdated. But in informal situations it rarely used. I had heard it sometimes. And in the Army, Police, etc. the "товарищ" title is unchanged and still used.
Comment: I'm not sure if "Товарищ Иванов" can be used in military (or any similar structure), it would be then "Рядовой Иванов" (rank may be different).
Comment: @Alissa: it would be *товарищ рядовой* (or any other rank). You don't call a higher rank officer by name in their presence, unless asking for a permission to address from an even higher ranked officer (*товарищ генерал, разрешите обратиться к полковнику Петрову*).
Answer: Yes, it's permissible. It sounds not official then, could be used between friends in a jocular way: "Товарищ Петя, пойдём гулять".
Answer: In this case you mix both more formal greeting with less formal name form. It makes sense when situation implies the same mixture of relations. E.g. a formal meeting held at work between ppl knowing each other for decades. They call each other with just names outside of the office, but they have to make a semi-formal appearance, though not to formal to use surnames. In earlier Soviet times (1920s) they had a tendency to use Tovarisch more often as it was a recent reform, so they exaggerated this usage in the sense of more mature Soviet Union, e.g. one could call his girlfriend Tovarisch Anna at the dinner table. The next case for this combination is possible post-USSR usage, slightly in the late USSR (1980s) and heavily during Perestroika (1990s). People diminished the value of this greeting (Гусь свинье не товарищ. Goose is not a comrade to a pig - could be a reply to it). So it could be quite often used as ironic or even offensive, in the sense that you are still (a sovetic) Tovarisch while I'm already a (capitalistic) Sir.
Today Tovarisch is not in use as a greeting, except nostalgic usage (which is also the case for the question as it is a mixture of formal and informal, e.g. memories of two party members regarding their activities in the past) or in its initial meaning which is "someone not so close as a friend". In this case joint usage makes sense in the same way we use "friend". My friend Peter - is OK. Friend Peter, please pick this up – ridiculous.
P.S. Just to mention that all above is about Tovarisch+Name combination. Tovarisch without name it's just "excuse me Sir" pattern, could be in use anywhere in similar situations during the USSR, now this usage is impossible unless you just escaped a time capsule. Actually there is no any substitution now for Sir or Ma'am, so it's safer to say just "excuse me".
Answer: the use of 'comrade' with the personal name (or a party alias as noted above) was not uncommon prior to and around the time of the bolshevik revolution of 1917, but it fell out of use with time
'comrade' with the personal name and patronimic i've never heard being used
nowadays the word by itself as a form of address has disdainful or patronizing connotation depending on the intonation, not in a sense of implied communist affiliation of a person, but as an expression of alienation and cold shoulder
in fact it was so in the later Soviet period as well
Answer: It can, but only with familiar, but so seldom. In official situations we use it only with lastname ("Товарищ Иванов") or with titles ("Товарищ рядовой"). And we don't use with a patronymics.
Keep in mind, that this address is used very seldom today.


Prior art after patent granted

Question: Can you submit a claim for prior art after a patent is issued or can prior art be used to protect a business against patent infringement ?
Comment: What do you mean with prior art. I get the impression you use the word differently than common use for patents, i. e. publications that were availeble to the public before a certain patent application was filed. Could you clarify your question please?
Answer: In the United States, anyone can place a written statement in the file of a patent at any time, even after the issuance of the patent, that discloses prior art that may be relevant to the enforceability of the patent.  The written statement is merely placed in the file, the patent itself will not be directly affected.

37 CFR 1.501  Citation of prior art and written statements in patent files.
  (a) Information content of submission: At any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, any person may file a written submission with the Office under this section, which is directed to the following information:
  (1) Prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which the person making the submission believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of the patent; or
  (2) Statements of the patent owner filed by the patent owner in a proceeding before a Federal court or the Office in which the patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim of the patent. Any statement submitted under this paragraph must be accompanied by any other documents, pleadings, or evidence from the proceeding in which the statement was filed that address the written statement, and such statement and accompanying information under this paragraph must be submitted in redacted form to exclude information subject to an applicable protective order.
  (3) Submissions under paragraph (a)(2) of this section must identify:
  (i) The forum and proceeding in which patent owner filed each statement;
  (ii) The specific papers and portions of the papers submitted that contain the statements; and
  (iii) How each statement submitted is a statement in which patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim in the patent.

However the US Patent Office will not make any finding of validity of the patent based on the written statement unless someone files for a reexamination of the patent, which requires additional paperwork and a fee.  The written statement may be sufficient to discourage the enforcement of the patent, or provide evidence for someone else to reexamine or challenge the validity.   Maybe.  The Patent Office will consider reexamining the patent if someone files a request for reexamination and pays the appropriate fee.  If the reexamination is successful then one or more the claims of the patent may be withdrawn.

37 CFR 1.510  Request for ex parte reexamination.
  (a) Any person may, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, file a request for an ex parte reexamination by the Office of any claim of the patent on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications cited under § 1.501, unless prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1). The request must be accompanied by the fee for requesting reexamination set in § 1.20(c)(1).
  (b) Any request for reexamination must include the following parts:
  (1) A statement pointing out each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications.
  (2) An identification of every claim for which reexamination is requested, and a detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. For each statement of the patent owner and accompanying information submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) which is relied upon in the detailed explanation, the request must explain how that statement is being used to determine the proper meaning of a patent claim in connection with the prior art applied to that claim and how each relevant claim is being interpreted. If appropriate, the party requesting reexamination may also point out how claims distinguish over cited prior art.
  (3) A copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon or referred to in paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this section accompanied by an English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or printed publication.
  (4) A copy of the entire patent including the front face, drawings, and specification/claims (in double column format) for which reexamination is requested, and a copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or reexamination certificate issued in the patent. All copies must have each page plainly written on only one side of a sheet of paper.
  (5) A certification that a copy of the request filed by a person other than the patent owner has been served in its entirety on the patent owner at the address as provided for in § 1.33(c). The name and address of the party served must be indicated. If service was not possible, a duplicate copy must be supplied to the Office.
  (6) A certification by the third party requester that the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) do not prohibit the requester from filing the ex parte reexamination request.

The fees for filing a request for reexamination range from $3000 to over $12,000.   expensive but much less than litigation.
Answer: It is my understanding that once the patent is issued prior art can only be used in a court of law to invalidate an existing patent through due process of law.
Answer: If your business has used the patented method before the priority date of the patent, you can use this to protect yourself from infringement claims.
If that is not the case, several ways to attack a patent exist (opposition, ex-parte reexamination, inter parte reexamination, invalidity lawsuits).
Please clarify your question as to what you want to know about or ask a new question.

Prior art after patent granted


How do you come up with non-fiction story ideas?

Question: My biggest problem is that I'm often at a dearth of ideas. I can target a publication or radio show or whatnot once I've got it, but I'm just not good at coming up with them. Tips?
Answer: One thing you can try (something I have just started trying), is the "fieldstone" method (cf. Weinberg on Writing: The Fieldstone Method). The analogy goes that when you are building a wall, as you walk in the field if you find a good stone, you put it in your pocket. Writing kind of works the same way: as you go about your day, you read things, you find something that interests you or bothers you, you take note of it, and over time you will see the idea for the next idea form.
Comment: Yes - carry a notebook everywhere you go. After even one year of jotting down one thing per week, there's bound to be a dozen decent ideas and at least one great one. And, hopefully, you can jot down closer to two or three things a day.
Comment: The best thing I've found about this method is that eventually I started seeing patterns emerge; as ideas coalesce around a theme, I've been drawn to do more research on the subject, which has led to further ideas.
Answer: One way to start coming up with creative non-fiction stories that are from your own life is by finding lists of journaling questions.  For example the author of the blog Live with Flair (who was interviewed not too long ago by NPR) is posting a journaling question at the bottom of her posts daily.  These questions can help you think of an event in your own life that you can spin out into a story.
Dig through old family letters.  I've been amazed at the stories within my own genealogy that sound like they ought to be in a book.
For stories that are not from your own life, look at what is currently in the news.  Find a story that relates - can you interview people connected with the story or who might have similar stories.
Also think of things that are currently catching your interest.  Did you recently see a shooting star?  Find a story within the astronomy community today.  Did you recently watch an awesome sports game?  Start there.  Read a great book?  See if the storyline of a fiction book can suggest a real-life story that might be out there.
Answer: I have found Google Reader to be a useful source for non-fiction story ideas.
I've created an account which is subscribed to a large number of feeds – news feeds, interesting blogs, cutting edge research feeds, and local information/events info. When I lack for inspiration, I'll go through the feeds, and through their recommendation engine, and have a long stream of fairly random potential nudges to my creativity.
Answer: The most important aspect for creativity is, as others have suggested here, the "raw material" that is critical to coming up with new ideas. Creativity and innovation are not a process of coming up with something completely new out of a vacuum - they occur when our brains combine two ideas together to form a third (our brains our exclusively binary operators). This can occur at any time and is usually a subconscious process that leads to those "Eureka!" moments. I scan about 800 - 1200 articles every day in my RSS reader.
So it's critical that in addition to reading A LOT, you have a collection system for your ideas. It's a mindset that I call "Always Be Collecting." Make sure you have a system in place to collect the raw materials (blog posts, pictures, new articles, presentations, etc...) and (most importantly) to record those ideas as soon as they occur to you.
It's also important to write - whether or not you have anything to say. You should be writing at least 300 words per day. It can be meaningless blather that nobody but you will ever read. If you have absolutely nothing to write about, just do a diary-like recount of your previous day with some commentary or forward-looking ideas.
Comment: George Carlin had a huge filing system. Any article that caught his eye, or a note of a thought, went into his filing system. Once a folder had "enough" (whatever enough was for him), he would work with the contents and write a routine about it. As @JonDiPietro says, you have to organize your thoughts. There are a lot of ways to do that, find the way that works for you.
Answer: You can try to use the Top-down or Bottom-up approaches:

Top-down: think about the big picture and worry about details later. For example, you can say that your story is about a lawyer that was offered a great deal of money to lose a case. Now you can refine and think about questions like: what case, how much money, why lose it etc. Those question will lead you further, and will probably help come up with new ideas and plot elements.
Bottom-up: come up with one very fine detail, and build up. For example, Mr. Abraham Jonas, a lawyer, finds an anonymous letter on his desk with the words "drop it" and a photo of his wife and children. Now, you can think about his reaction. Does he call the police? his wife? talk with his secretary and ask her who came into his office in his absence? Detailing his actions, you can then come up with more ideas, until the entire plot comes to life.

As you can see, each approach has its own pros and cons. One approach lets you think big now and work the details later, while the other lets you focus on one fine element now and worry about the bigger picture later.
The best is to combine those approaches. Think about a theme, and work the details to match that theme. But focusing on one approach is probably easier.


Did Luther really use bar tunes for his hymns?

Question: The title sums it up: I often hear it said during the debates on liturgy and music styles that are appropriate for worship that even Luther used common bar tunes (equivalent to days pop songs) for his hymns. Is this true?
Comment: Thank you for asking this.  My sister-in-law made the statement once that he did, and I never thought to ask here.
Comment: @DavidStratton yw. It'd been bugging me 'till I found that article by T. D Gordon (below) and i thought i'd post it here. (unrelated, but being a stalkish type of person, i am now following your blog. cool stuff you've got there!)
Answer: Nope, it's not, actually. Luther used a form of music "bar form", but he was actually opposed to use of common tunes (like Calvin) for his hymns. The following is from an essay called "Major Forms of BS" by T. David Gordon:

I cannot count the number of times I have heard the common myth about
  Martin Luther employing the tunes of familiar "bar songs" in his
  hymns.  This is entirely false, and its utter falsehood is only
  partially explained by confusion, because Luther did indeed, at times,
  employ what musicians call "bar form" (an AAB structure), a common
  musical form in classical and sacred music.  Luther wrote many of his
  own tunes, and borrowed others from Gregorian chant and elsewhere, but
  not from taverns.  Here's what the good friar actually said:

"I too, with the help of others, have brought together some sacred songs, in
    order to make a good beginning and to give an incentive to those who
    can better carry on the Gospel and bring it to the people…And these
    songs were arranged in four parts for no other reason than that I
    wanted to attract the youth (who should and must be trained in music
    and other fine arts) away from love songs and carnal pieces and to
    give them something wholesome to learn instead."

[Emphasis mine, from
  the Forward, first edition, of Johann Walter's Wittenberg Geistliche
  Gesangbüchen, 1524.  Cf. also the discussion of this matter in "Luther
  and Bar Song:  The Truth, Please!", chapter 21 in Paul S. Jones,
  Singing and Making Music:  Issues in Church Music Today (P&R, 2006),
  pp. 171-178].
Answer: Luther did not, but William Booth did. He said, "Why should the devil have all the good music." 1
Additionally, one of the most famous songs set to a drinking song is "The Star Spangled Banner."
Finally, back to Luther. While he did not set sacred music to drinking songs, he is credited with saying, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Update:  At least according to this source I appear to have fallen for a popular mis-attribution.  That said, it is a fairly common one.
Comment: fwiw - I always thought it was Ben Franklin who said that about beer :)
Comment: aha, interesting. Thanks! (Also, gotta love that Luther quote on beer!)


Empirical estimates of CRRA and CARA utility

Question: I am working on macroeconomic model and I need to calibrate it.
I am looking primarily for a statistically-founded estimate for the
coefficient of relative risk aversion in the CRRA utility
function based on macroeconomic US data (but also for the coefficient of absolute risk aversion for the case of a CARA utility function). Cannot seem to find it anywhere.
Can anybody help?
Comment: Is there a particular reason why you want to use CARA and not CRRA utility?
Comment: u(c)=(c^(1-σ))/(1-σ); I need an estimate for sigma
Comment: sorry, I ment CRRA
Comment: You just made my answer irrelevant. But since CRRA estimates are all over the place, maybe I will find something about it also.
Answer: There are many estimates in the literature. For example, Havranek (2013) does a meta-analysis of avalible results and argues for a value of intertemporal elasticity (inverse of sigma in your notation) around 0.3-0.4. But it might also depend on what your goal is - the single parameter in CRRA utility controls both risk aversion and intertemporal smoothing motive, so a calibration for asset-pricing model might need to differ from let's say a deterministic growth model.
Comment: that Havranek paper is great. Lots of upward publication bias in the empirical EIS literature - which makes the contrast between the low estimates there and the high ones that Epstein-Zin finance guys need even more striking.
Answer: In Babcock, B. A., Choi, E. K., & Feinerman, E. (1993). Risk and probability premiums for CARA utility functions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 17-24. (downloadable) we find the following table (the first column is the coefficient of absolute risk aversion)

You can download the paper and trace the papers which it summarizes in the table.
Comment: This is micro data based on lottery picks, this is useful, but not exactly what I need, I need some estimates based on macro US data.


What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

Question: What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?
Comment: Are you interested in all Eastern Orthodox perspectives, or only from those Eastern Orthodox Christians of Greek descent? (This is sort of like asking about the difference between American Protestants vs. Roman Catholics - you are excluding other nationalities from responding).
Comment: I don't think the question is too broad. The differences on major points is obviously what the question is looking for.
Answer: The differences are almost too great to list in an answer like this! The real problem in answering your question is that it isn't just a list of "things Roman Catholics believe" and "things Greek Orthodox believe". (NB that "Greek" Orthodox probably isn't accurate here: it's more accurate to talk in terms of "Eastern" Orthodox.) The problems are much more fundamental and enormous than that, and ultimately amount to entirely different methods of theology, theological reasoning, ecclesiological assumptions, thinkings about authority, worship, etc. A major factor is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek. Translation (particularly of theology) is hard.
But here are some headlines:
Authority The Roman Catholic Church believes in the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This most famously means the doctrine of papal infallibility, though the concept of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (teaching office of the church) is also stated. This is a concept foreign to the Eastern Orthodox, who see the authority of the Church as stemming from the Holy Tradition, seen most fully in the Ecumenical Councils. But the Orthodox would be careful not to pin the question of "infallibility" down: it's not a concept that really works in Eastern thought.
Papacy For the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has universal jurisdiction over all the Church. This is not true in Eastern Orthodoxy. They recognise the Bishop of Rome as being primus inter pares, first among equals, but as essentially equal to the other major patriarchs (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem).
The filioque clause The famous cause of the Great Schism of 1054. This was a modification to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The question was whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son. (filioque means "and from the Son".) For the Catholics, it is important that the phrase is used; for the Orthodox, it is breaking with tradition and perverting the doctrine of the Trinity. This problem is closely related to the above problems.
Church unity What is necessary for the Church to be one? For Roman Catholics, it means participation in the organisation headed by the Pope. For the Orthodox, it means membership in one of the Orthodox churches, which are fully in communion with one another.
These are all "dividing" issues, which contribute to the continuing division between the Orthodox and the Catholics. There are other differences as well, which aren't divisive in the same way:

Liturgy The Roman Catholic Mass is very different to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Married clergy In the Roman Catholic Church, priests may not be married (except in some narrow circumstances, and in some Eastern Catholic Churches). For the Eastern Orthodox, married men may become priests, but not bishops.
Bread and the Eucharist Roman Catholics typically use unleavened bread (wafers) whereas the Orthodox use leavened bread. This is due to a very old dispute about the precise date of Easter, and whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

And, moreover, culturally there are very different attitudes. A summary would be that Catholics tend to systematise things (e.g. the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas) whereas the Orthodox tend to prefer a more discursive, poetic, less precise way of doing theology.
Answer: I would like to recommend what lonesomeday wrote, but with a few minor adjustments.
Authority Part of the reason Orthodox do not like to pin down the question of infallibility is because it is understood among them that we live in a broken, sinful world. But the question of infallibility does not concern the Pope of Rome alone. A certain type of infallibility and incorruptibility is placed on the scriptures by many modern Christians. The Orthodox have maintained a stance on the scriptures that continues the thought of the early church on them. While the scriptures were seen as the infallible word of God expressed through fallible men,
it was believed that, were they all to be burned, the Holy Spirit would simply reveal them again, even if they appeared with different wording. (This thought has been expressed in various ways by many different authors over the centuries.) This idea sheds light on just how foreign the idea of infallibility is to eastern sensibilities. Language itself is viewed as part of the corrupt experience of mankind. We must grapple with it in trying to express ourselves. The very fact that numerous interpretations have been made of the same words bears out the wisdom of this understanding. This is also part of the reason why councils are so important to Orthodox. Language is used and its interpretation is agreed upon. So, as lonesomeday suggested, it's not simply that Orthodox reject the infallibility of the Pope: infallibility is completely foreign to Orthodox thought.
Papacy The Bishop of Rome was seen not simply as first among equals and "essentially equal to the other major patriarchs"; rather, an equality in terms of vote existed at all councils. Each bishop had one vote (except in cases where one bishop was voting on behalf of another). Even so-called "country bishops" had the same voting power as a patriarch. Then, what is a patriarch or pope? The term patriarch refers to pockets of centrality of administration, not centrality of spiritual power. From a practical point of view, bishops holding sees with a great flux of people and thought were in a better position to distribute and hear teaching, tradition, and practice. As such, patriarchs presided at their respective local councils, but they still had the same voting power as the last bishop to vote.
The term pope is one of endearment. It was first applied not to a bishop of Rome but rather to the thirteenth bishop of Alexandria, Heraklas (232-248) in a letter from his successor, Dionysios, to Philemon. About three centuries later, it was used by the bishop of Rome, John (523-526). The term is obviously still in use for Rome, but many do not realize that to this day, the bishop of Alexandria is referred to as "The Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."
But as to the current meaning of pope among western Christians, there is a great difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic thought. Strangely, the Orthodox thought on this is best expressed by St. Gregory the Dialogist (or St. Gregory the Great), who was a bishop of Rome (540-604). During his time, a controversy arose over the term ecumenical. Many clerics and courtesans urged the then patriarch of Constantinople, John, to begin using the term ecumenical (oikoumenikos). The term has two distinct meanings, depending on its usage. John was urged to use it as meaning "imperial." The imperial patriarch made sense, since Constantinople was, after all, the imperial capital.
But the other meaning of ecumenical is universal, and this is how it was understood by Gregory. He immediately wrote to several other bishops denouncing the title. He described Christ as the head of the church and decried the idea of one bishop being universal, or one bishop being greater than another. His language is quite strong on this: "Who is he who calls himself a bishop of bishops? He is an antichrist." It is also interesting that he appealed to other bishops to help resolve the dispute. Like St. Gregory, Orthodox reject the idea of a bishop of bishops.
The filioque Clause The phrase was first used in the west in an attempt to fight particular heresies. The objection to its use in the East was not to its application in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e., during the life of Christ) but rather to its application in the eternal procession. All this probably sounds like splitting hairs, but it actually makes the Holy Spirit a creature from the eastern perspective. The most thorough argument in this regard was given by Photios the Great in his reply to Pope Nicolas, entitled, "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit." (Forewarning to anyone attempting to read it: its incredibly difficult language frustrated the scholars of the papal court immensely, so don't be too freaked out if you can't comprehend what it's even trying to say on the first attempt.) The Roman church has at various times recanted its use of the filioque. Pope Leo was so against its use that he actually had silver plaques made to be placed in St. Peter's Cathedral without the filioque in the creed. More recently, the just retired Pope Benedict XVI declared that the creed containing the filioque would no longer be taught to catechumens.
Liturgy One interesting difference is the proscription of the celebration of the full liturgy during the weekdays of Great Lent. This was the tradition of the early church. There are even somewhat later canons that forbid it, though the Roman Catholic acceptance of the Pendecti (or Quinisext) Council has not been consistent over the years. The same St. Gregory, Pope of Rome, referred to above is credited with recognizing a need among the faithful to commune regularly during Great Lent and therefore writing the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. This liturgy is still used by the Orthodox during Great Lent, while among Roman Catholics the proscription of the regular mass is no longer observed.
I would also like to add that good source material for understanding common differences would be any primary source surrounding the Council of Florence, during which Mark of Ephesus on the Orthodox side was able to show that the very manuscripts of many church fathers found in the west did not match any of those found in the east on several important doctrinal issues. This is important, as it sheds light on why at least some doctrinal differences may have started.
Finally, it is common to list 1054 as the date of the rift between the Roman Patriarchate and the other four in the east. While this is handy, it isn't accurate. The Roman patriarchate was in and out of communion with the east just prior to this date and for about a century after. Differences in practice extended much further back, as well.
Comment: Just an observation that many, if not most, of the Eastern Catholic Churches have a liturgy nearly identical to the Eastern Orthodox liturgies.
Answer: The problem with all these analyses is that they erroneously conflate the fundamentals of the orthodox faith with theological systems, theological opinions, ecclesiology and rules of the Church. The fundamentals of the orthodox faith as proclaimed by the first seven ecumenical councils are fundamentally the same as the fundamentals of the Latin Church (Roman Catholic Church). The two churches have different viewpoints with respect to theological systems, theological opinions, ecclesiology, and rules of the church.
With respect to the filioque controversy, one prominent orthodox theologian (Metropolitan Kallistos aka Timothy Ware) believes that this controversy is over linguistics and not over doctrine. In latin, there is a distinction between "filioque" and "et ex filio". "Filioque" means through the Son as from One Principle. The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as from One Principle.
The real difference involves the role of the Pope. We orthodox believe that the Pope is the first among equals and that he has no authority to over-rule an ecumenical council.
Comment: Nice first post. Can you define "theological systems, theological opinions, ecclesiology and rules of the Church" and explain how they are not part of the fundamentals of Orthodoxy? Also, your last statement would hold much better if you had a quote or citation that the orthodox do indeed believe that the Pope oversteps by over-ruling a council.
Answer: Robert Haas really nailed it. Much of the reported theological differences concern language and not reality. Catholics do believe that the Pope may speak infallibility under certain and very specific conditions. Although even here when we start to get into the theological specifics the conflict with Orthodox theology is arguably still only a question of semantics.
Anyway since Haas' answer was so good the only reason I am really posting is to point out that the Catholic Church is actually comprised of 23 separate Church traditions. The Latin Church is merely one of these traditions. Among the others are the Greek Catholics, Byzantine rites of various national Catholic Churches and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (which is the same in all respects to the Antiochian Orthodox Church except in matters concerning Church authority and as a consequence of that is in communion with Rome).
In other words what I am saying is that the theological and cultural distinctions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church are already contained within the Catholic Church as a whole through her Eastern Rite Churches, and often when people try to contrast Orthodox theology with Catholic theology they are actually making a false dichotomy.
In the end I am tempted to say that only real difference is that Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome, but when we look at the situation historically even this is seldom true. In fact finding a moment of actual schism between the two traditions has been impossible to locate definitely.
Having said that let me revise my answer. I am not sure what you mean by the Greek Orthodox Church. For example did you actually mean the actual National Orthodox Church of Greece or were you simply speaking of an Orthodox Church in the Greek tradition such as the Antiochian Orthodox Church? In an case you can contrast the difference between those Churches culturally, theologically and liturgically with the same differences you will find between various Catholic Churches, for example the Roman Catholic Church with the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
What remains then is this belief that we are not in communion with each other, although when and where this actually took place specifically neither of us can say for sure. So even this confusion we share. We share everything except for the communion meal.
As for the more pragmatic differences in case your question was more pedestrian, they comprise things such as the use of Holy Water in the Roman Church and kissing of icons in the Byzantine Church. Romans cross themselves right to left with their middle finger while Byzantines marry the thumb to the index and middle finger and cross themselves left to right. Byzantines call the Mass the Divine Liturgy and use a variety of forms through out the year such as the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. Basil, these involve different liturgical action than does the Latin Mass Rite and are usually longer. We have different Feast days and may celebrate Easter on different days. Byzantines Baptize and Christmate their children at the same time, ideally 40 days after birth and offer them the Eucharist from that point on. Catholics sometimes Baptize their children eight days after birth (and sometimes sadly, at the other extreme, not at all), but defer the Eucharist, which we call Communion, until after the age of reason. I believe this currently 7 years old. Chrismation comes later and we call it Confirmation, except for adult converts who may receive Baptism, Confirmation and Communion all on the same day, usually at the Easter Vigil Mass.
The list in fact is quite long but this gives you a sample of the types of distinctions. That is they are myriad distinctions stemming from different codes of canon law, and different cultural norms that really for a more precise answer must be addressed by more specific questions. And again, these differences hold between Catholic Churches of different Rites as much as they do for Orthodox and Catholic Churches of different Rites.
Answer: "less precise" is not a good term to use. For example:
Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit stem from the  "Father through the Son", whereas Catholics say that the Holy Spirit stem from the "Father and the Son", but with the same meaning like Orthodox.
For your info, Pope John Paul II accepted the lack of accuracy in this expresion, which was the main issue why Catholics split from Orthodox in 1054. The Pope said this expression exactly like Orthodox in 1995 together with the Orthodox patriarch. Because of this correction, Catholics and Orthodox should be already the same church.
Sir/Madam, please don't disinform people for what is precise in saying in regard to God. God wants all Christians to be united, and all Christians should contribute  for this goal.
Comment: There are significant more differences than from whom the Spirit proceeds.
Comment: Welcome to the site!  This doesn't really have much to do with your answer, but I find that sharing the following tends to help new visitors avoid mistaking the purpose of this site. I do hope to see more from you!  When you get a chance, please see [How we are different than other sites?](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/how-we-are-different-than-other-sites) and [What makes a good supported answer?](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-makes-a-good-supported-answer)


Source for Rabbis being able to say not to do a Deoriata

Question: What is the source for Rabbis being able to say that one is not allowed to do a mitzvah deorita?
Examples that come to mind are blowing shofar on Rosh Hashana on Shabbat, lulav on Sukkot (at least first day) on Shabbat, and more.
Ideas?
Answer: In all the examples in your question, Tosafot points to the Gemara in Yavomat 89b which brings various examples and counter examples.
But at no point does the Gemara seem to bring a Pasuk to support the concept.
2 conclusions of that Gemara - and an answer to your question:

Their power comes - in monetary issues - from the ability of Beth Din to disown property from its owner.
They have the power of Shev V'al Ta'aaseh; rather sit and do nothing, (than actively do a Mitzva and risk doing a sin as a result of the Mitzva).

E.g.: Don't blow the shofar nor take a Lulav on Shabbat, as somebody may - as a result - carry it into the street, in a place without an Eruv.

All other examples - like Eliyahu bringing a Korban outside the Mikdash - are ascribed to one-time dispensations from which we cannot infer anything.
Comment: But from where do we know that they have the power of shev v'al ta'aseh?
Comment: As I already wrote "But at no point does the Gemara seem to bring a Pasuk to support the concept." I find it fascinating that it's taken for granted. R' Micha's answer (http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/64482/501) tries to explain a reason for this.
Answer: This authortiy only exists in legislating gezeiros, ie laws legislated to protect the accidental violation of a deOraisa whether through error or habit. (And, the Taz adds, if the mitzvah will still usually be performed.) Such as not blowing shofar when Rosh haShanah is on Shabbos so as to avoid the possibility that someone caught up in finding someone to blow for them carrying in a reshus harabbim deOraisa.
This cannot be done for other forms of rabbinic legislation, such as to implement some broader deOraisa idea (the way reading the megillah implements pirsumei nisa -- the mitzvah to publicize a miracle).
If the prohibition comes first in time, such as the example I gave of carrying the shofar to get it to someone who can blow for you or teach you to do so, then the authority of rabbis to make such legislation is a variant of the concept of mitzvah hava'ah ba'aveirah -- one gets no credit for doing a mitzvah that was only possible because of a sin.
(The above was learned from R' Yonatan Sacks, then a rosh yeshiva at REITS, now of Lander College, in a shiur given at the Agudas Israel of Passaic Clifton. The shiur was on Shabbos, so I was unable to take notes and record sources.)


How does one get closer to Buddha?

Question: Buddha being one of the three jewels, how am I supposed to take refuge in him?
Is it through meditation? The only meditation I know is 'mindfulness', and I think that it isn't enough. That being so so, how do I reach out for him?
Answer: In the Vakkali Sutta – SN 22.87 Supreme Buddha said:

He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

The Buddha is rightly described as a teacher par excellence. He attempts only two things: (a) make you think and (b) gradually train you in an orderly way to lead onwards to realize immediately this truth [sandittiko, opanaiyko]. The truth and meaning of Dhamma becomes a private experience by the wise only when there is INSIGHT or vipassana. But insight (vipassana) depends on samadhi or CONCENTRATION. And concentration (samadhi) depends on Sammaditthi or RIGHT VIEW.
To make Dhamma easy is a travesty. Always learn to ask: Why is the Buddha saying this and not that?
Some statements that you do not understand right now, you must put aside, till you have understood thoroughly the fundaments. Later, when you detect the structural principle of the arising and cessation of dukkha, and the principles of paticcasamuppada, in the entirety of the teaching, then you would find the answers all your questions.  Let us first know the Noble Qualities of the Dhamma, as one who  truly seeing Dhamma, one sees Buddha.
The Teaching of the Buddha also has six supreme qualities:
Svâkkhato  ~ Perfectly explained and taught with great compassion
Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed"). The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom),
Sanditthiko  ~  The benefit of the Dhamma can be seen in this lifetime, Here and Now
Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dhamma can be tested by practice and therefore he who follows it will see the result by himself through his own experience in this very lifetime.
Akâliko   ~ The timeless truth that is immediately effective
Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "immediate") The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
Ehi-passiko ~  Inviting any wise person to come and see
Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test by applying it to their own lives and seeing its effects.
Opanâyiko ~  Each person must practice the teachings and realize their value within one's own experience
Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
Paccattam veditabbo viññuhiti. ~  To be realized by the wise, each for himself.
Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be personally known by the wise"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Ariyas) who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.
To get closer to Buddha, you will have to know His nine supreme qualities. You will find a detailed description of these nine supreme qualities HERE.
In going for refuge, when we say, "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi." (i.e. "I go for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) it is important that we know of the Supreme Qualities of the Three Jewels: so we have to have a good knowledge of the Ariya Sangha too. You will find a detailed description of the supreme qualities of the Sangha HERE.
Answer: You can do Buddhanusathi Bawana. You take each quality of the Buddha and recite the quality mentally:

Buddho – Awakened
Sammasambuddho – Perfectly self-awakened
Vijja-carana-sampano – Endowed with higher knowledge and ideal conduct.
Sugato – Well-gone or Well-spoken.
Lokavidu – Wise in the knowledge of the many worlds.
Anuttaro Purisa-damma-sarathi – Unexcelled trainer of untrained people.
Satthadeva-Manussanam – Teacher of gods and humans.
Bhagavathi – The Blessed one
Araham – Worthy of homage. An Arahant is "one with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge."

(Sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Nine_virtues)
This is one of the 4 Protective Mentations, which are done before the main Kammaṭṭhāna you practice. Say if you main Kammaṭṭhāna is Anapana, you start by Loving Kindness, Recollection of the Buddha (sometimes the Noble Triple Gem), Meditation on Foulness, Meditation on Death in brief and then do your Anapana.
Like with Buddhist meditation activity it is necessary to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and also take the 5 precepts beforehand. If you are learning under a meditation master, depending on the tradition, you will have to make a formal request to the teacher / preceptor that you be given this particular meditation subject or any general mediation subject with a view to realise Nirvana. Some teachers do not give Kammaṭṭhāna without being asked formally, perhaps due to a Vinaya rule.
Buddhanusathi Bawana as a meditation where recollect the qualities of the Buddha. In taking refuge, you take the Noble Triple Gem as your teacher, guide and protector.
Also Buddha has said, you see him when you see the Dhamma. Hence if you realise the Dhamma you see the Buddha. So for this matter mindfulness will suffice to see the Buddha or to reach out to him, by realising the true Dhamma. Or you can do Buddhanusathi Bawana.
Answer: Buddha being one of the three jewels, how am I supposed to take refuge in him
I think that refuge-going can be (initially) an expression of gratitude, when (after) you understand dharma and find it helpful.
There's a formula at the end of some of the suttas, for example the Kalama Sutta:

Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today.

I interpret that as an expression of gratitude: gratitude for being saved or freed (liberated), "point the way to one who is lost".
Also as an expression of agreement, and acceptance.
It's also an expression of respect, or reverence, for example as told in the Garava sutta: which says that the newly Self-awakened Buddha thought he would suffer if he couldn't respect a teacher (and, lacking a teacher, he decided to respect the teaching, the dharma). That sutta (e.g. "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of virtue that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or contemplative, honoring and respecting him") also reminds me of the Upaddha Sutta (e.g. "When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path" -- and, "It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth", so "admiration" too). Perhaps analogous to a doctor and medicine, too: out of respect for the doctor you use the medicine as prescribed.
In my mind (in my 'personal practice'), the Buddha and the dharma have overlapped. If I remember dharma, my thought might be like, "Oh yes, the Buddha told me (or, the Buddha said) such-and-such. He was right!"
Further to that (overlap) is the Buddha's statement in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha:

Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

See also Dhammakāya .
By the way the very next paragraph after that in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta is:

"And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend,' let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir' or 'your reverence.'

... which goes to the "reverence" mentioned earlier.
But, getting back to the Buddha, I find it helps to consider not only the abstract, impersonal Dharma but the fact that it was conceived, improved, experienced, spoken, practiced, and proven -- by the Buddha who was born human.
Because of that humanity, human relationship, additional human factors happen, for example "faith": when you're learning something, you might have faith in the teaching, because you have faith in the teacher.
And, for example, "conceit": i.e. comparing yourself with the man, telling yourself that what was true for him could be true for you too if you apply yourself and learn to understand, experience, practice.
But the Tathagata transcends various human limitations -- defilements, and knowledge-obscurations -- so there's attempting to follow the Buddha (not as a human but as one who has "gone" before or "arrived" before).

I'm not sure why the triple jewel is listed as "Buddha, Dharma, Sangha" in that order -- whether the order (Buddha first) is meant to be significant. Respect.
There's an Uruvelā sutta, which is like the Garava sutta but with a different ending - the Buddha says:

Then, having acknowledged Brahmā's request and what was proper for myself, I honored, respected, and dwelled in dependence only on the Dhamma to which I had become fully enlightened. And now that the Saṅgha has acquired greatness, I have respect for the Saṅgha, too.

So you might respect the Buddha at least no less that respecting the "arya Sangha".
But actually there's part of the Maha-parinibbana Sutta which says,

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
"And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?
"When he dwells contemplating [etc.]

Incidentally, apparently the word Saraṇa means not only refuge and protection but also house.

Is it through meditation?
I think it's through the whole practice: the "noble eightfold way" for example.
A lot of the suttas contain what seem to be instructions for "meditation", but that might be a partial or advanced doctrine for monks who already have a lot of other lessons.

Monks have the Vinaya (the Buddha is said to have taught "the Dharma and the Discipline").
For lay people that might start with the precepts, which you might (formally) undertake soon after a (formal) refuge ceremony.

It's quite a broad question, I suppose the whole of Buddhism is about taking refuge, reaching out (and there do seem to be many Buddhist practices, if you look at different traditions and countries; including meditation[s], but also for example dharma lessons, prostrations, tantra, mantra, remembering, etc.).
Answer: I think this is a good answer:

To take refuge in the Buddha means, not taking refuge in him as a person, but taking refuge in the fact of his Awakening: placing trust in the belief that he did awaken to the truth, that he did so by developing qualities that we too can develop, and that the truths to which he awoke provide the best perspective for the conduct of our life.

Full text here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html

How does one get closer to Buddha?


How can chromatic aberration be corrected within Photoshop?

Question: I know there are many tools that correct chromatic aberration like Lightroom, Capture One and even Photoshop camera raw, but I would like to remove it manually  within Photoshop (no plug ins etc) -how can it be done?
Comment: although simple edits are always the best, complex editing is very welcomed as long as it really does the trick   -I like to put a strain on Photoshop...
Comment: Why wouldn't you use the lens correction filter in PS? It's built-in and does both forms according to lens profile information (depending on version).
Comment: I haven't done it manually since the days when I still used scanned Velvia; lens profile information isn't available for such images.
Comment: JoanneC: not every image I get/use has lens profile info -when I can I try to do things the easy way but its not always an option
Comment: It still offers the option of manually adjusting without the profile information. To me, that's the easy way...
Comment: JoanneC: i got some images (PSDs) that were already 'edited' (cut out, adjustment layers etc) & just messing with the channels is actually easier then editing the original images again from scratch
Answer: I've done this myself in the past. If you look at the nature of the CA you should be able to work out an effective way to correct it.
If you see red/cyan fringing, e.g. black objects are fringed with red on the outside and cyan on the inside, then you can increase the size of the red channel slightly; it takes trial and error but it does work to some extent.
Equally, if the CA is green/magenta then you can try with the green channel instead.
To correct an individual channel, select the relevant channel in the Channels window so that it is the only one showing. Choose Edit > Select All, then Edit > Transform > Scale. Lock the aspect ratio of the image with the 'chain' icon, and enter a value such as 100.2% in the W or H field.
It's not the most accurate way to correct CA as it assumes the three colours are affected in isolation rather than as a continuum, but it can result in visible improvements.
Here is an example of CA at 100%:

By increasing the size of the red and green channels by a fraction of a %, I get this result:

After you do it a few times, you'll get the hang of which channels you should adjust, and how much.
Note: this will only work for lateral chromatic aberration, and where the image is uncropped, so ensure you do this corrective step before cropping the image.
The reason it only works on uncropped images is that when scaling a channel, the centre of scaling is (by default) the centre of the image. In order to correct this form of CA accurately, the centre would need to be coincident with the axis of the lens, which will not be in the centre of the image if you have cropped it (unless you've cropped all edges by the same amount). You can try and work out where to scale from in a cropped image, but it won't be as accurate.
The other type of CA is longitudinal CA, which occurs when different frequencies of light have slightly different focal lengths, resulting in purple and/or green fringing. This effect can happen anywhere in an image, and is harder to correct as simply as lateral CA. See this question for more about longitudinal CA.
Comment: (some j scripts were blocked before so I wasn't able to do many things including up voting & commenting etc)  I like this idea a lot, it helps me better understand how channels work in general. you mentioned that it will only work for lateral chromatic aberration, and where the image is uncropped -1st why does it make a diff if i cropped the image already & 2nd what other types of CA exist?
Comment: @Pastel I've edited the question to answer your two follow-up comments - hope that helps.
Comment: thanks that really helps. maybe my next question should be how to fix longitudinal CA (btw i didn't even know different types of CA exist -thought it was all one rule, thanx for the tip)
Answer: I created a little action in Photoshop which does the following:

converts channels into monochrome layers
locks the green channel's layer (to preserve sharpness)
auto-aligns the three layers
merges the layers back into a color image.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work but when it does:
Before:
After:
You can download the <code>.atn</code> file here:
FixChromaticAberration.atn


Why some people high pass and low pass in final mixing? And why some don't?

Question: I am very new at mixing stuff.
Some tutorials show that they high pass about 30 hz the final mixing, but some don't do that.
My question is - Is it good to high pass and low pass the final mixing?
Thanks in advance
Comment: I think I'm newer.  Where are the tutorials you were looking at?  As for 30Hz, Even subwoofers cut out at that point, so it's not reproduced. If not filtered out by the crossovers, it looks like a DC bias to the regular speakers which reduces performance.  I looked at Paradigm specs real quick (That's what I have) and the 12″ subs get down to 22Hz and the 10″ only to 29Hz.
Comment: I am not 100% sure about this but I think it can provide more clarity and less muddy for some things. Even if subs/speakers can't produce those frequencies they are still trying to process it in some way.
Answer: Back in the days of analog & vinyl, rolling off the extreme bass frequencies had three primary reasons .

No-one would ever hear it
the needle would tend to get thrown out of the groove with extremely low frequencies, especially if it wasn't centred, or was out of phase.
There is far more energy needed to shift bass than treble, so the overall volume that could be cut into the lacquer, or even the playback length of the record side could be improved by removing the extreme lows.

I would say in a modern digital setup, the first of those still stands as a valid reason, & a modified version of the third - that digital has an absolute maximum level, which is easier to stay inside if you remove some of the higher energy data [ignoring extreme brick-wall compressing as a workaround]
Answer: In addition to jdlugosz's comment about its effect when the sound is reproduced (which should be an answer) it also provides additional headroom in the (digital) recording itself.  The sub 30Hz content could push higher frequency content above the top of the scale.  Since it's not going to get reproduced, there is no harm in removing it, and there is the benefit of added headroom.
Answer: Dave and Tetsujin are right. Cut out what you don't need. Except for cinema and maybe (!) for CD chances are very rare that you might need sometimes something below 30 Hz. Additionally and maybe most important: the mix will go through measuring-equipment - at your place and maybe at the broadcaster/station... and you/they may get "wrong" results because of this "loud sound at 15 Hz nobody can hear - and maybe some people might lower the volume because of the wrong measurements... i am sure you get the point... so a cut below 30Hz makes a lot of sense - use your analyzer... a cut above 15,8 kHz makes sense too for TV-mixes. Why? Quite often you have quite a loud "noise" at 16 kHz in the original dialogs or in the ADR... So a cut above 15,8 kHz makes sense just to get the job done a bit faster - and on a TV you cannot tell the difference anyway... most broadcasters cannot/do not transmit frequencies above 15 kHz anyway...
Answer: It does however not apply to all music, my buddy asked the same question to one of the grandmasters in our genre (Hardstyle) during a private workshop, and he responded with:
"Well, it's there, and it was there when you created the track, so you build the track with those frequencies in mind right? Then why remove them, causing you to revaluate the whole mixing process again?"
I've found that this rule still applies to most of my tracks; once I start removing sub-bass frequencies, more often than not it starts to reshape the low end, something I do not wish to happen since I build the track with a specific low-end movement in mind.
I can, however, recommend the use of a lowcut at 20Hz with a slope of, let's say anything below 24dB/oct, or maybe higher as long as it doesn't change the way your low end rolls, unless that is what you're trying to achieve.
Also, instead of a lowcut, you could also check out the inverted (/negative gain) lowshelf with a Q of 1.00, see how that goes.
But, in the end, if your individual elements are right (specifically your bass) you shouldn't even have to utilize a lowcut in the end.
On the high end, however, I usually set up a highcut (24-48dB/oct) at 17,5kHz, and another one (96dB/oct) at 20kHz. Same rule applies to TV related content with the arrival of digital television.
P.S.
 All of the above applies to the post-mixing stage, during mixing you should do whatever needed to clean up sounds.


Is eating beef unsustainable?

Question: I recently saw a poster somewhere saying that some type of emission or byproduct that comes out of cattle production is extremely wasteful and harmful to the environment. What exactly is this byproduct and how can we find alternatives and more efficient ways to handle this unfortunately undermined issue?
Comment: The main problem in many western countries is that cattle are fed things that humans could eat, or fodder crops for cattle are grown on land that could grow food for people. In countries like Australia and Brazil there's also a lot of land clearing and land degradation associated with "grass fed" cattle. So it's not just emissions and byproducts (New Zeland's "rivers of shit" are mostly from dairy farming)
Comment: The answer is here in this great documentary . [Home](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU) It is one hour long.
Answer: There are two relevant disadvantages to beef:

Cattle produce a lot of methane, which is a greenhouse gas.
The amount of land (and energy, and fertiliser) needed to grow enough grass to feed enough cattle to provide enough beef to feed a human is many times more than that required to grow crops to feed the human directly. This is generally true for eating animals, but is worse for cows than for sheep or pigs. However, this is not to say that it is best to eat no meat - for there is some land that is unsuitable for crops, but fine for grazing sheep on.
Comment: I'd add a 3rd major one to the list: loss of usable land to grazing. Lots of land that would be better for growing crops (or forrest) is lost to allow for beef grazing (Brazil's Rainforest being a major victim).
Comment: @da isn't that part of my second point? Or am I missing something?
Comment: It could be part of that. I just happen to think it's different enough that it's worth pointing out separately. I'd suggest point #2 refers more to 'growing animal feed (corn being popular). The issue there is we could feed more people with those crops than processing it through cattle. Another issue is clearing land to create grazing lands. The issue there is we're destroying the rain forrest. Whether those are the 'same issue' is a matter of semantics and opinion, I suppose.
Comment: @DA. hmm, I hadn't even considered corn-fed cattle (we don't have that here). You make a fair point about forest destruction. I suggest putting that into an answer, I'd certainly vote for it.
Answer: It's not an all-or-nothing scenario.  It depends on how beef is raised.  Poorly fed (e.g., corn fed) cattle and cattle on an open range will have negative effects on greenhouse gas levels and land quality.  In contrast, managed grazing of cattle can have a positive effect in both regards.  Here is a starter link for more info on why beef production can help the environment if managed wisely.
A search on the topics of sustainable grazing or management-intensive grazing should yield even more helpful insights.
Comment: Here is an example of grazing being used intentionally to improve the land: [http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/southamerica/argentina/howwework/sustainable-grazing-1.xml]
Comment: @200_success - Thanks for pointing that out.  Looks like a poorly copied link.  Should be: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/southamerica/argentina/howwework/sustainable-grazing-1.xml
Comment: The nature.org link is dead.
Answer: Methane emissions from livestock make up about 50% of the greenhouse gases (weighted by severity of the impact that each type of greenhouse gas makes) from New Zealand, so it's a big problem. For those interested, it seems it's mainly burped out of cows.
The link in the previous sentence also discussed measurement technology so that a better understanding can be gained on what causes higher levels to be emitted from some animals. It may be possible to solve, or reduce, the problem by using different feed.
Comment: The problem can also be balanced out by using methods of grazing that sequester carbon in the soil.  Examples:
http://soilcarboncoalition.org/holdridge and
http://www.grazingamazing.com/mob-grazing.html .

Is eating beef unsustainable?


Is only believing in one God enough?

Question: Will people that only believe that there is one God and no one is equal to him eventually go to heaven?  After experiencing hell, of course.  As there are many people that I know that don't follow a specific religion (but are not atheists), but believe in the oneness of God.  Basically tawhid!  And compare him with no other.  Also there are some people who were born in Christian families, but they do not compare Jeus to God. What about them!?
Comment: Is the question whether monotheism is enough to be promised paradise in Islam?
Answer: Belief in Allah is not sufficient to bring you into the fold of Islam. It must also be accompanied by the worship of Allah alone.
The disbelievers from the Quraish believed in Allah, but they were still coined disbelievers because they used to worship idols along with Allah:

قُلْ مَن يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء وَالأَرْضِ أَمَّن يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ والأَبْصَارَ وَمَن يُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَيُخْرِجُ الْمَيَّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الأَمْرَ فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللّهُ فَقُلْ أَفَلاَ تَتَّقُونَ
  Say (O Muhammad), "Who provides for you from the sky and from the earth? Or who owns hearing and sight? And who brings out the living from the dead and brings out the dead from the living? And who disposes the affairs?" They will say: "Allah." Say: "Will you not then be afraid of Allah's Punishment (for setting up rivals in worship with Allah)?"
  Surah Yunus (10) ayah 31

So we must also worship him alone along with believing in Him. The disbelievers affirmed Tawhid Al Rububiyyah (Oneness of Allah's lordship) but they denied Tawhid al Uloohiyyah (Oneness of Allah's worship)
As for non-Muslims who believe in Allah alone:

وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلاَمِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
  And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
  Surah Al Imran (3) ayah 85

This means that they would also have to affirm Tawhid al Uloohiyyah according to how Islam teaches us to worship Allah otherwise they may be of the losers in the hereafter.
Answer: Heaven and Hell are to be decided by Allah and we should let Him do that.
Regarding the fact that what's enough and what's not? In my humble opinion, doing your best is what's required. If you think you're capable of doing more and intentionally avoid from doing so, then you have to answer that too to Allah.

Is only believing in one God enough?


removing robots.txt

Question: Will removing robots.txt make the website 'searchable' again.
Curious if you had a robots.txt to avoid indexing, but changed your mind and wanted to get indexed.
Answer: Yes. The search engines don't permanently save your robots.txt file. However, you may have to wait a short while for your site to be crawled again.
Answer: Yes. It will start showing whenever the spider for the particular site next hits the site and doesn't find robots.txt. Different sites may have different intervals...I know in particular Yahoo has some set of arcane rules it follows, but it does eventually show up again.
Answer: The Robots.txt serves as a guide for search engines when they arrive at your site and begin their crawl. If you are suggesting that you've disallowed search engines from crawling your site and decide you wanted it index thereafter, you may want to expedite the process.
Googlebot (Google's crawler), for instance, engages site depending on a number of factors, including "PageRank, links to a page, and crawling constraints such as the number of parameters in a URL", which are all based on a super secret computer algorithm.
One way to expedite the process of indexation is setting up a Webmaster Tools account (for both Google and Bing), and submitting your Robots.txt (which includes permission to crawl the site) and an XML sitemap. This suggests to search engines that your site exists and is operational.
Answer: You can always use Google Webmaster Tools to request reindexing of your website.
Resubmit the sitemap and Google will know that it have to check your site soon.
Answer: simply delete robots.txt and generate few backlinks so crawl comes to your site again ASAP and submit your sitemap to webmaster tools and you're done.

removing robots.txt