Calculating area of visible sky

Question: Can we calculate the area of sky visible to us from the point we are standing?I mean is there any idea or experiment to calculate it?
Answer: Approximating the Earth as a sphere with radius $R$, then when viewing from a height $h$ above the surface, the Earth blocks out a cone of some opening angle $2\vartheta$, where $\csc\vartheta = 1+\frac{h}{R}$. Thus, the visible portion has a solid angle of
$$\Omega = 2\pi\left(1+\cos\vartheta\right) = 2\pi\left(1+\frac{\sqrt{h^2+2Rh}}{R+h}\right)$$
steradians. Divide this by $4\pi$ to obtain the fractional area of the the visible sky, compared to what you could have if the Earth wasn't blocking your view, since a full sphere subtends a solid angle of $4\pi$ steradians. That is probably a more natural measure of the visible sky than a literal area.
For an actual area, you need some sort of reference distance $r$ to measure from, with the visible sky a distance $r$ away having area $A = \Omega r^2$.
Answer: For the area of sky as defined by "areas visible above your head inside Earth's atmosphere" then the answer depends on the height of the objects that you would like to observe. I like to observe airplanes, so without loss of generality I'll use ~10,000 meters as my "sky".
We can see airplanes up to about 40 KM away.
π * (40)^2 ~= 5000 KM^2

The altitude:area relationship is a squared relationship, therefore if you decide that you are interested in only 1000 meters as your "sky" (maybe you like to photograph birds) then you have about 3 KM^2 of sky available to you.

Calculating area of visible sky


How can I use Skype in Ubuntu?

Question: What are the options to install Skype in Ubuntu 11.04?
Answer: If you enable (this link tells you how) the partner repository within your software sources (and reload the list).

Now you should be able to install Skype in 11.04 from the Software Centre.

Screenshot, it happened.
Answer: Have you tried the packages for Ubuntu 10.04 or more that are available on the Skype Linux download page ? I would think they will also work on 11.04. And make sure to use the right package for your Ubuntu version, either 32 bits or 64 bits.
Answer: To get Skype just go to the Ubuntu Software Center and search for "skype", then it will return the Skype software, select it and click on the Install button, it's supposed to install the latest Skype client for Linux. To start Skype just search for it in the Unity Dash or if you're using Classic Gnome go to Applications > Internet > Skype.
Answer: The easiest way, in 12.04, download the .deb file from www.skype.com/intl/es/get-skype/ , and simply open it. It should open your Ubuntu software center. So it will check if you have already installed it in your computer, in this case it will offer you to upgrade or install it directly from the Software Center window !

How can I use Skype in Ubuntu?


Piano bank healthy for computer work?

Question: When playing piano on a piano bank I feel really comfortable but when I write at the computer using my old revolving chair I very quickly get tense in my back, shoulders, arms and hands, probably because it doesn't go as high as I would like. Seeing that a piano bank can be had for much less than a good new chair and that such a bank guarantees an upright posture it seems a better alternative to me, especially as there seem to be many old piano players in great health. Am I right in this estimation or is there some problem I can't see about the ergonomics of long term piano bank use for the computer?
Answer: First, congrats on actually being more comfortable sitting up-right.  I've yet to master the talent.
In short, I can't say the relation between old piano players in great health is directly related to or, is the result of a piano bank and an upright posture.
That being said, a majority of the money spent on office chairs are for those ergonomic adjustable features for lazy sitters (myself included).  If I can buy a chair that will posture me for me, count me in.
Now, a backed chair I'm sure was purposed to keep people from falling off the back end but for today's office oriented purpose of keeping you upright, you're able to do without.
Use whatever makes you comfortable and doesn't pull you out of the correct posture.
Just out of curiosity though, does your as* ever start to hurt? That's the only concern I see from using a piano bank at my desk!

Piano bank healthy for computer work?


SPFx Web Parts on Classic Pages

Question: I have discovered that some SPFx client web parts don't work the same on classic pages as they do on modern pages. I'm currently working with the SPFx Fantastic 40 WebParts. If you try to use the Accordion web part on a classic page, you cannot edit the text, but if you deploy the same web part to a modern page, it works without issues. Is there any MS guidance on what works with the classic pages versus what works with the modern pages?
Comment: hi,
spfx webparts that use office ii fabric can work differently on classic apes than they do on modern pages. fabric components that render a button will post back on classic pages, but not modern.
Comment: ha, just checked out of curiosity. that webpart uses  ckeditor (ckeditor.com)  as a text editor.
Comment: interesting, maft employee using ckeditor. perhaps the need to document how their editor works.
Answer: There is nothing particular.  Most parts should work fine, but need to be tested and validated.  The SPFx Fantastic 40 isn't developed by the product team.  There might be some assumptions made in the F40 code around modern pages that don't translate cleanly.
Are you seeing any errors in the console or the network tab?  Might be worth logging an issue in the fantastic 40 github issues list.

SPFx Web Parts on Classic Pages


How can one differentiate nonexistent entities?

Question: How is it possible for things that do not exist to not be the same? How can one differentiate nonexistent entities? How can I know the difference between ghosts and werewolves if neither exist?
Comment: As a flagrantly non-constructive comment. That question is awesome.
Comment: They didn't exist seperately, until the **Word** seperated them. To name something (even a fictional no-thing) is a partly magical act.
Comment: A related question would be how to discern if an entity exists or not. Think gravity for example.
Comment: As an aside, there's an analogy here in computing: If two values aren't defined, are they the same? Eg if an employee record and a sales invoice are both null (ie neither exist), are they the same value? Answer: not generally, because they have different Types. Comparing the two is probably meaningless. The comparison (Employee_record==null AND sales_invoice==null) may be true, but the comparison (Employee_record==Sales_invoice) will be false, or give an error. You know enough meta info about the nature of the items to determine their non-equivalence even if they have no value.
Answer: Ultimately, it all comes down to what you mean by "exist".  Werewolves and ghosts do indeed exist, as fictional objects.  And thus they can be distinguished from each other within the fiction, even though neither one exists in the real world.
If you wish to pursue this, I'd recommend you look into Husserl's notion of "regional ontologies", which attempts to capture the different types of existence from a phenomenological perspective.
EDIT:
I just want to add the SEP links to Non-Existent Objects and Fictionalism, for further reference.
Answer: I have to disagree with the "it depends on what it means to exist" answer on two points: The original question does not come down to what it means to exist, and werewolves and ghosts do not exist. Existence may not be a simple fact of the matter, nor easy to elucidate property, but it is manifestly true there are no werewolves or ghosts. If there were, by which I mean if being part of some universe of discourse were sufficient to establish existence, then among other things, the original question would be un-askable.
I think that what OP is asking is: is it possible for one thing with no properties to be different than another thing with no properties? The use of "possible" here is left wide open: If OP is asking this question metaphysically, conceptually, physically, inherently, relationally, etc., then there are going to be different approaches to answering it.
We might get some insight on the question if we keep Leibniz's Identity Laws (the Identity of Indiscernibles and the Indiscernibility of Identicals) in mind. If werewolves and ghosts have all their intrinsic properties in common, they are the same thing, and being that they both have 0 properties, they have all their properties in common. However, being that they also have none of their properties in common, because all of their properties are a sum of zero properties, and having no properties in common means having a sum of zero properties in common, I'd have to say they belong to the empty set.
A way to possibly undermine my conclusion above would be to argue that they are different insofar as I have been able to count two instances of them, so they must have some properties that they don't share. If you're inclined, I recommend looking to Georges Rey's work on intentional inexistence (2003, 2005, 2008) and Sainsbury (2008) on "reference without referents".
Comment: I disagree with your interpretation of the question; the OP seems to be operating under the assumption that anything lacking existence is thereby lacking all properties.  Ghosts and werewolves *have* properties, stipulated in the fictions in which they exist, and thus can be distinguished on the basis of those properties.
Comment: They have properties *within the fiction*.  Thus we can distinguish between them when talking about them in the context of the fiction, even though we are not going to meet either one in reality.  There is a large (and growing) literature on fictionalism; you can find an overview in the SEP article on the subject (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/)
Comment: If you want to get technical, you will find it difficult to really prove *anything* exists outside of your own mind. We wade through a world of ideas, and these ideas we ascribe properties to. Unicorns and pizzas and ghosts and the concept of pi all share in that they are ideas and with properties, capable of existing and not existing. However, the fact that something exists or not does not automatically nullify it's other properties. In fact, existence itself is not a property; it describes a relationship between the subject (me, the thinker) and the idea (unicorns/pizza/etc).
Comment: Fortunately, my argument doesn't rest on positing the existence of anything. On the contrary, I say that they specifically don't exist, so my position is not going to be particularly susceptible to generalized appeals to idealism.
Comment: To "exist in fiction" is to "be real in non reality". This is a self-contradicting proposition, and thus werewolves and ghosts are members of the empty set (aka, the law of the excluded middle need not apply). The fictions in which we engage may have properties, but the things described in them do not. If they did, they wouldn't be fictions (barring lies).
Answer: I tend to agree with Michael on this one. An analogy might be helpful.
Take numbers. Does the number 1 exist? Can you find and show me 1? How do you know 1 is different from 0? Different from 2? I've never encountered a 1 or a 0 in real life. I've seen a representation of it, perhaps, but never the thing itself.
We take these things to be different from each other by virtue of their properties. For example,
<code>1 > 0
</code>
But how can we prove it? The law of trichotomy is that for two entities a and b , a is either less than b, greater than b, or equal to b. This law does not hold for all sets of numbers. For the sets of real numbers, integers and rational numbers it is taken as an axiom. It cannot be proven unless under certain conditions without falling into circular reasoning.
So how does a mathematician differentiate these nonexistent entities? The example I use here are a certain group of numbers and the operations that can be performed upon them. Michael has called this a "context" and in math we call them groups, fields, and rings. Such differentiation is done very carefully. A mathematician will commonly attempt to prove (1) existence and (2) uniqueness for this very reason. Both are necessary to make distinctions between these abstract entities.
Now that we might see a way to differentiate between entities that don't exist in the real world but can still be thought of, the question for me is are there entities that neither exist nor can be thought of? And how would we ever know?
Answer: Obviously you can't differentiate things that do not exist, given that there is nothing to differentiate. However you can differentiate descriptions.
(1) "Ectoplasm" was supposed to be a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by mediums.
(2) "Phlogiston" was supposed to be a fire-like element called phlogiston, contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion, which has negative weight.
Clearly if there were such things as ectoplasm and phlogiston, we could differentiate them. There aren't, but we can still differentiate their descriptions.
Answer: Question 1.
"How's it possible for things that don't exist to not be the same?"
Simple. Upon reading a fictional novel, can you not make a separation of the figures within?
And since you cannot prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the existence of those human constructs also means that all of them can be put in the same classification of fictional characters.
Question 2.
"How can one differentiate nonexistent entities? "
See my statement above.
Question 3.
"How can I know the difference between ghosts and werewolves if neither exist?"
Can you not notice a clear separation between the actual objects of reality, and those from a fictional narrative?
Because if you can't ... then you're truly lost. And I'd seek help if I were you.
Good day
Answer: Reasoning/judging rely on language rather than on physical existence of objects (something you can see/touch/smell etc). That is why you can talk about ghosts, elves or even microbes that maybe you have never seen. Same thing about simple expressions as "hi" and "bye". All of theses expressions are elements in your communication system, signifiers that correspond to concepts and have different values. Actually this linguistic organization is determinant of the delimitation of objects of thought, so that in some culture there may be no difference between green and blue and both are considered the same color.
I guess there's a problem with the lack of definition of existence in your question.
Answer: I think this goes back as far as Russell and his theory of definite descriptions ("On Denoting" 1905) which in part tried to deal with non-existent entities and to preserve the law of the excluded middle (vis. statements about non-existent entities seem to be neither true of false). If you have a concept to which nothing existent corresponds then that concepts extension is said to be the null set. So the extension of the concepts ghost and werewolves are equivalent- they are both "non-differentiable"  members of the same null set.
Comment: Well, considering non-real entities goes back significantly further than Russell. And staying in the phil. language domain, the extension may be identically empty but the intension is different.
Comment: @virmaior. You could not have put the point more clearly or concisely. GT
Answer: Q. How can I know the difference between ghosts and werewolves if neither exist?
Because knowing is something that takes place in either the brain or mind, and the brain/mind is capable of creative thinking about imaginary things that do not materially exist.
Q. How is it possible for things that do not exist to not be the same?
Because imaginary or real, all things have properties that are universals rather than particulars (sometimes called the essence)- so a man may be tall in relation to a child, but short compared to a giraffe. Tallness is not to be found in the man himself.
Unicorns, though imaginary share universals with horses, and partly with antelopes, or similar horned animals. Werewolves share universals with men and wolves.
Sameness is yet another universal, maybe equal to a set of universals denoting similarity, so it can fail to apply to any pair of particulars, real or imaginary, or even particular types.
Q. How can one differentiate nonexistent entities?
Either by an act of pure imagination, or by real world modelling, which also requires some imagination. For example one might model the Three Billy Goats Gruff with real life goats of various sizes and attempt to sieve them to find the largest.
Even coding a virtual reality to model the nonexistent entities could work, in principle, but someone needs to imagine their properties first.
And as for impossible entities, as opposed to imaginary entities, such as the 3 sided square mentioned in earlier answers, we just have to think of the illusions in pictures by Escher to see that there are ways in which the impossible becomes imaginable.
Comment: Welcome to Philosophy SE! Must say I liked this answer, but it would be great if you could add some references; people appreciate the "further reading" opportunities.
Comment: @christo183 Thankyou, but I am not a philosopher as such, So I don't necessarily know where this fits in standard philosophy. But I take your point and will bear that in mind in future.
Answer: In set theory, we can define our sets with any arbitrary characteristics. Any entity that has those characteristics is, indeed, in our set. If I define a werewolf as:

Large teeth
Claws
Human by day
Wolf by night
Changes during a full moon

I would not be unjustified in saying that werewolves, by definition, have all of these characteristics. That's not to say that there are any entities in reality that exist with these characteristics, but nonetheless werewolves are still defines by these tenets. Also, I'm certainly not a Platonist, so I don't believe that werewolves exist in another 'realm' simply because they have a concept, but they do, indeed, have defined characteristics, despite not existing in nature.
TL;DR
All things, not limited to physical items but conceptual models as well, have definite characteristics even if they do not or can not exist within reality. For example, a square with three sides has definite characteristics, namely it is square and has only three sides, yet it is inherently contradictory and cannot manifest in reality. We differentiate them based on these characteristics, and existence becomes irrelevant.
Comment: I think you're using "all things" in a confused way in your TL;DR. Wouldn't it be better just to say that concepts can also have categories?
Comment: I think you're just misunderstanding set theory there. The problem is that the determinant of whether something falls in the set of triangles is whether it has three sides and whether it falls in the set of squares is whether it has four sides of equal lengths and 90 corners. No object can fall within both sets because membership in each set excludes membership in the other set.
Comment: Would you agree with the edit I made? Particularly, the "square triangle" analogy?
Comment: I don't see how something with three sides is a square. While I agree such a thing can never be instantiated, I think it cannot even be a coherent concept, because square as a concept contains four-sidedness.
Comment: It surely isn't coherent, but that isn't the goal. We have two sets: a set in which all elements are squares and a set in which all elements are triangles. This object can be described as being in both sets, but that limits it from being within a set of 'possible objects' or 'coherent concepts.' It's quite likely that I'm merely misunderstanding set theory.
Comment: I also think I'm not conveying myself. I don't mean that the object is in both sets. That isn't possible. I mean that it can be described as being in both sets. The description is merely a result of language, not of set theory itself, as it simply cannot be in both sets, logically. What I'm saying is that, if you were to describe it to a friend, you would say that it is both a triangle and a square.
Comment: In other words, your point is that people can misspeak?
Answer: do 'thing's exist if an individual thinks they exist? Ghosts and werewolves have a substance and a form  but this may be socially constructed to be deemed to be real if an individual beleives this form to exsit. Similar to if god exists?
Comment: This is an interesting point -- is there any chance I could encourage you to unpack it a bit?
Comment: It reminds me of the difference between "exists" and "exists in the mind/consciousness"
Comment: I guess the concept of werewolf/vampires exist, even if none have been discovered (yet, muahahaa)
Answer: I think the fictional entities line of thought is helpful, on a general level, but if you look too closely things start to get confused, and you suddenly have to develop an entire ontology.
Part of the answer that hasn't been mentioned yet in precisely this form, is that it is possible for us to have different propositional attitudes to fictional entities, in the actual world. I believe and know different things about Achilles than I do about Superman.
Answer: There are many formulations of ontology, but specifically to categorize "unseen" objects you may find Alexius Meinong usefull:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong

Briefly, he held the being (having the capacity to be thought of), of an object, was prior to it having existence. He categorized objects into three types of being:
Absistence - Impossible objects like square circles. Having a subset that has:
Subsistence - non-temporal entities such as mathematical objects. Of which an even smaller subset having:
Existence - material and temporal expression, those things you can actually shake a stick at.
Comment: Valuable comment but shouldn't 'subsistance' be 'subsistence' (as in the standard translations) ? Also 'absistance' (='absistence'') is new to me. I can't find it in Routley's Meinong's Jungle or in the Stanford article. This is probably just my ignorance but can you point me to a source for 'absistence' ? Best - GT
Comment: @GeoffreyThomas corrected spelling, thanks. The wikipedia article cited explains absistence nicely. It may be omitted some places because it refers to objects outside of immanent ontology. I believe Meinong held that since, for example a square circle, can be named or spoken of, there should be a type of (non)being to categorize it.
Comment: Thanks - I see the 'English' term, 'absistence',  was coined by JN Findlay. It doesn't strike me as particularly apt but at least I now know where it comes from. Findlay did useful work on Meinong decades back - I don't think his interpretation and terminology are quite leading edge nowadays. Thanks. Best - GT


What is the significance of 591657550.5 as it relates to google maps scaling factor?

Question: According to this gis stackexchange answer and this stackoverflow question the scale ratio for google maps at any given zoom level is 591657550.500000 / 2^(level-1). That's not the circumference of the earth in meters, miles or kilometers. What is that number? Just curious how the calculations came about.
Answer: The number comes from the tile resolution being set at a multiple of 256 pixels, and from the screen resolution (96dpi). Per Bing's page about their map tile system:

The map scale indicates the ratio between map distance and ground
  distance, when measured in the same units. For instance, at a map
  scale of 1 : 100,000, each inch on the map represents a ground
  distance of 100,000 inches. Like the ground resolution, the map scale
  varies with the level of detail and the latitude of measurement. It
  can be calculated from the ground resolution as follows, given the
  screen resolution in dots per inch, typically 96 dpi:
map scale = 1 : ground resolution * screen dpi / 0.0254 meters/inch
           = 1 : (cos(latitude * pi/180) * 2 * pi * 6378137 * screen dpi) / (256 * 2 level * 0.0254)

At the most zoomed in, that works out to ~591,658,711. That's slightly off from the 591,657,550.5 value for Google maps, but I think the error can be attributed to different decisions about how to do rounding.
Answer: I believe it has to do with raster tiles,  take a look at this answer (currently ranked 6th) to What ratio scales do Google Maps zoom levels correspond to?
Comment: Welcome to GIS SE!  I added a direct link to what I think was the answer that you intended.  If I got it wrong just edit your answer to correct me.  I did this because the "6th post" could change as voting on the answers there occur.  It may also be worth quoting some of the information from that answer here to remove all risk of ambiguity.


Stopped from asking questions

Question: I posted some questions on main website of Ask Ubuntu and was rated -4.The reason was grammatical mistakes and lack of details (as per my views) so I was stopped from asking questions for three days. Again when I posted a question I was stopped  for two days, but the problem is that this time neither I have negative rating nor any grammatical mistakes. It would be really helpful to me someone could point out my mistakes.
Comment: A.B. you I did not understand what you did with "Again" and "but" while editing.Please try to clear.
Comment: He added a space before them. You omitted spaces in between of the full stops and these words.
Comment: @ByteCommander thanks,I really didn't noticed that.
Answer: I think part of the problems you have are well... cause you don't quite get how stack exchange works. Have a look at the tour and the [help] pages.
While its a bit daunting, how to ask questions the smart way is a great resource on asking better questions and actually learning and researching more productively.
In essence, a good question is a hard or at least interesting question. It should also reflect your own research efforts.
Amusingly, I'm a low rep user on AU, and cannot see deleted posts. Of the ones I see here...
How to install wine?
We don't know what the broken/held packages are. We don't know what unspeakable horrors you have inflicted on your system, or what needs to be done. While spamming error logs are bad, essential information helps others solve issues for you.
Wine crashed on playonlinux
Unclear what your problem is
It froze. We can't troubleshoot that for you. It would help to wait for a crash, or see if your processor or ram is overused or something. OP's answer is a starting point but it could be anything from a blotched install to solar flares.
https://askubuntu.com/a/690026/17681
Don't repeat answers, and post 'me too' answers. Post substantial answers that are unique and cover the problem in the question specifically - least at first. Eventually once you're familiar enough you COULD sneak in a clever one liner.
Comment: "The irony of the thing that Eric Raymond wrote is that the type of people that ask bad questions are not going to read this giant "Treatise on how to ask questions." If I get someone to read it, its a victory, no? ;p
Comment: It seems that Ubuntu Community wants a quality research on the question before asking it.And would try to do so.
Comment: @Journeyman *How To Ask Questions The Smart Way* recommends StackOverflow/StackExchange, but the following should also be noted: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/1796/237803 :)
Comment: That depends on how the knowledge is used or if at all. ;P
Answer:
I am a newbie

This is a completely superfluous statement and it doesn't entitle anyone to special treatment.

The reason was grammatical mistakes and lack of details (as per my views)

Lack of details is probably correct, "grammatical mistakes" is absolutely not.
To earn reputation points and gain more privileges users with low reputation are actually encouraged to proof read and improve things like spelling and formatting, which also teaches them that most things can be fixed and improved instead of ignored (locking up into your own filter bubble) or spewing hate.

It would be really helpful to me if they also give me reasons to stopped from asking questions.

That was exactly what I was trying to do. Note that I was never banned from asking questions, so I don't have any personal experience how that situation is.
Your deleted question received a down vote from me because you simply pasted the command from an answer to another question without checking if you pasted and executed it correctly. You also didn't provide the error message in your question or the context (that you have been given this command by a user in another answer [link!], N.B. who was also a beginner). You have been carelessly posting across the board, ignoring every hint that the site gave you to solve your problem efficiently, like this for example when composing your question:

Contrary to the model of other sites on the web, this is not advertising, promotion or to just nag you. It's meant to help you, but you chose to ignore it. You say most of these are marked as duplicates? Correct! That means users around here took extra effort to look around if a similar question has been asked before and decide if there is an even better answer to this question. Remember: most things can be fixed and improved.
This is an efficient approach working towards getting better answers to individual questions. If you look at these and find that you still can't solve your problem reasonably quick, then you should ask a new question and provide enough details so that someone else has a chance to reproduce your particular issue and at least help to take it further. Otherwise you are wasting resources, like my time just now, or causing more confusion.
The way you did it, you wasted the time of the user answering your first question; the users who read, rated and commented on your second question; to then finally delete it, which probably didn't help to correct the negative balance caused by the amount of collected down votes but made it harder to retract votes for the other users.
There also is no "THEY", the ban is implemented by an automatism.

It seems that Ubuntu Community wants a quality research on the question before asking it.

No, you are still making false assumptions and are overgeneralizing. AskUbuntu is a site of the StackExchange network (SE), meaning some Ubuntu users are active around here, but also other users from the network and even unregistered anonymous users.
Summary:

You're not being harassed, especially not for grammatical mistakes, that's not a functional model of SE. If you experience harassment, report it.
You're not supposed to do research for asking a question, but spend a reasonable amount of time and effort to compose a question that might solve a reproducible issue that someone else can solve.
Questions and answers can be improved(, edited, rated, linked…). A question is not a filed/dead interaction/ticket hidden in your helpdesk's ticket system.
Resources (people with enough knowledge who can actually answer your question and explain why instead of just pasting canned solutions with trial and error) are limited, therefore try to be as efficient as possible. It will benefit you too.
Comment: Thanks ,You provided me a lot of information like ban  is implemented by an automatism,but does adding that I am a newbie lets anyone to answer in detail and simple but not technical words.

Stopped from asking questions


SGS2 running ICS 4.0.3 can't connect to home wifi

Question: I have a Samsung Galaxy S II 9100. I had no problem connecting to wifi while it was running 2.3.4 or 2.3.6 official firmware. 2 days ago I upgraded to official 4.0.3 and now it connects to all other wifi networks except my home wireless. I did a clean flash, wiped data, cache, dalvik cache etc. I'm using a Linksys WRT300N wireless-N router and all other devices are able to connect (my laptop, other Android phones). Also, before I installed ICS I tried MIUI 2.3.16 which is based on Android 4.0.3 and had the same problem. Can anybody help me?
Answer: I was having the same problem with this router + phone + firmware combo, I found that setting up a DHCP Reservation (using the mac address of your phone) on the router (Setup/Basic Setup/DHCP Server/DHCP Reservation) allowed my phone to connect successfully.
Answer: Try reloading the wifi driver dial <code>*#*#526#*#*</code> (or) install the "wifi-fixer" app from the market.
Answer: Here's an issue I had forever!
I fixed it by adjusting the router to use WPA2 only instead of WPA/WPA2.  Now all my Android devices connect without problems.


Driving in a EU country with an International Driving Permit of a Non EU country as EU resident

Question: I have a question regarding an International Driving Permit. Currently I live in Belgium as a resident. I still have a valid driver's license from my native country with a valid international driving permit. I will be travelling to Norway and was wondering if I can use it to drive there. I understand I cannot drive in Belgium with it as I am a resident, but does this apply to another EU member state which I will visit as a tourist?
Comment: EU law applies to European driving licenses and define many rules regarding mutual recognition but says nothing about licenses from outside the EEA. It's still up to each state to define the rules regarding their recognition, the need to hold an international driving permit, etc. Rules like the one forbidding you to drive in Belgium with your license therefore generally refer to residence in a specific country, not in the EU as a whole. Beyond that, whether you are allowed to drive in Norway would depend on their rules regarding licenses from your country of origin.
Comment: Also note that Norway is not an EU country as well (it's part of the EEA though)
Answer: As is noted by @Gala, EU driving licences are recognised throughout the EU. Norway is EEA, not EU.
According to the Statens Vegvesen, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration

Driving with driving licences issued in non-EU/EEA countries
You may use your driving licence from any country for up to three months, during both temporary and permanent stays in Norway. The driving licence must be valid, and the Norwegian age requirements must be met.
An international driving licence is required as a supplement to some driving licences. If you are not sure if your driving licence can be used in Norway without additional documentation, we recommend that you get an international driving licence pursuant to the Geneva or Vienna conventions (grey booklet with white pages) before you come to Norway.
Persons who work for travelling circuses or fun fairs, and who have valid work permits, may use their national driving licence in Norway for up to six months.

Refer to Foreign driving licences in Norway as to how it applies to those with EU/EEA licences.

In Norway, separate rules apply for driving licences issued in EU/EEA countries and driving licences issued in non-EU/EEA countries. There is also a difference between the right to drive in Norway with the foreign driving licence, and the right to exchange it for a Norwegian driving licence.


Newbie Questions About Etiquette

Question:
How do accept a comment as the correct answer to my question? As a newbie, I can't vote, and existing posts about this issue tell me I should click on the grayed out check mark next to the answer. But in the case of comments there's no such grayed out check mark. And if I 'Answer my own question', I would merely be repeating what the comment says.
Suppose an answer (or comment!) offers a partial answer, but I want to continue the dialog, saying 'yes, but...'. Or suppose an offered answer (or comment!) simply didn't work and I want to report that fact? To the extent I've understood your etiquette so far, I should do so by editing my question itself. Is that right? So should I start this by saying something like 'According to one of the comments below...'?
Answer:
Leave a comment requesting the user convert it to an answer. See Why do people answer in comments? and  Adding the "accepted" mark to a question or to a comment.
Typically a "discussion" ensues within comments to the answer. This brings attention to the answerer to possibly update it to suit the new requirements. On the other hand. If the question is solved in this way, some users tend to leave their original question as-is. Others tend to feel that a modified question more adequately reflects their (original) intent, and therefore do exactly that.
I always think that it's best to leave the post in a very general format, as it serves a purpose on its own. Explicitly stating "Edit 1" or "Edit 2", or mentioning that "some new request is as a result of some comment" makes people have to find and read the related comments to fully understand what went on. And that isn't always necessary in my opinion. You can identify post edits by looking at the revision history, and comments vary in their usefulness and shouldn't always be referred to as being part of a question/answer.
What is important though is asking a good question to start with. Yes, this is not always easy. Do your research before "throwing in the towel"... One thing that has shown to help time-and-time again is the construction of a minimal (working) example (or MWE). Very often, when breaking down a problem into its minimal components, it reveals clues as to what the solution might hold. Moreover, it shows that you care and would serve the community a problem on a silver platter... rather than just dumping your question using a fix-this-for-me approach. Never under-estimate the power of a minimal (working) example.
Comment: Maybe point out that if the comments are asking for *clarification*, editing the original question is usually a good idea?
Comment: Also point out that editing the question in a way that changes its meaning (if invalidating existing answers) is not allowed. New doubts = new question. If the doubts are "accessory" to the question, then they can be posted as comments.
Comment: Sorry, but I had to un-check the answer. Re-reading it, I find that I still don't understand what to do. The response 'Typically a "discussion" ensues within comments to the answer.' suggests to me that when a suggested answer is tried but doesn't work, or works only partially and I want to continue the dialog, I should do so in a comment. But earlier someone told me that's not what comments are for. So I still don't know whether to continue the dialog by adding a comment reporting results so far vs. editing the answer to describe attempts up to this point.
Comment: @PeytonTodd: There's nothing that prevents one from using comments to pursue a dialog. The system will automatically suggest "continuation of the discussion in a [separate] chat room", if it gets too long. And that "too long" is actually not really that long... However, since comments tend to distract from the answers, they are cleared up (deleted by the owners) after things have been sorted out.
Comment: @Werner: Just for clarification, by "owners" I assume you mean the people making the comment, right? Also, in the event the system suggests "continuation in a chat room", will it tell me how to get to this chat room? Thanks.
Comment: @PeytonTodd: Yes, owners = those who wrote the original comment. However, some people who read the comments may find their existence obsolete and flag it as such (which may cause deletion by a moderator). When the systems suggests continuation of some comment-discussion in chat, a visible bar will be displayed. In fact, there's actually been an old [feature request](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/100967/168244) to make this available as an option by default, not just when comment-discussions become lengthy.
Comment: @PeytonTodd: I am barely above the level of newbie myself. My observations: Comments are best, unless the question is narrowly defined, and has a narrowly defined answer. Most of those involve a MWE (minimal working example) with a problem, and a TeX code answer as a solution. Generalities are best as comments, which are more by way of discussion. As others note, if your problem is solved in the comments, then request that the comment be promoted to answer, and be sure to mark it as the answer.

Newbie Questions About Etiquette


Connecting Sound Module (no USB option) to Audio Interface/DAW for recording and playback in MIDI

Question: I currently record midi tracks in my DAW (Reaper) by using a midi controller (NI S61)and software instruments (VST´s). I would like to add an older Kurzweil K2600r sound module to my set up. I want to be able to record and playback instruments from the Kurzweil using midi "notes", not audio WAV forms. Yes, I have an audio interface that has midi in/out options. The Kurzweil also has midi in/out/thru but not a USB connection. If this is possible can someone give me a straight forward, "connect this to that, and that to this" type of explanation on how this can be achieved? Thank you in advance for any enlightenment on this matter!
Comment: You mean you want to play MIDI out of the computer, to make the Kurzweil play sounds, then record those sounds back into the computer? or...
Comment: Well, yes.... I can "play"  and record the Kurzweil now, into my DAW, but it's audio, not midi. I was hoping there is a method that, as I am playing a Kurzweil instrument, it is recording the track in midi notes...(because the midi notes are highly editable) then when I press play in my DAW it plays back the same Kurzweil instrument. Basically I would hope to play and record the Kurzweil exactly as I can play and record (and playback) the VST´s.
Answer: The K2600r has standard 5-pin MIDI connections (in/out/thru). You should use these on your audio interface (most audio interfaces have MIDI connections as well as USB).
Connect a MIDI cable from the 'Out' of your interface to the 'In' of the K2600r, and another from the 'In' of your interface to the 'Out' of the K2600r.
In your DAW, send the MIDI information on the MIDI channel that the K2600r is listening on, and you should be fine.
Comment: Perfect...yes, just at home with the DAW...I'm switching out the S61 for a S88 this week plus a new audio interface. When I re-connect everything I'll try it your way and post the feedback. I appreciate the help!!
Comment: I will try these suggestions and post the results...I am wondering if it would be easier (or even work) f I had a separate midi keyboard controller (with USB) JUST for the Kurzweil module?
Comment: It depends on how you want to use the K2600r. If you want to play live, and have other stuff going on with the other controlller, then yes - but in a playback situation at home, you don't need it - the NI S61 can work. You just need to make sure you know what MIDI channels are going where.
Answer: a midi keyboard without USB can be imported by a USB midi interface (as Roland UM-ONE or an older product as midiman:
http://tr.roland.com/products/um-one/
the connection is no problem: USB to USB and midi in/out to midi in/out
Comment: Not quite.  MIDI in/out to MIDI out/in.    The MIDI OUTput of the module goes to the MIDI INput of the computer, and vice versa.
Comment: Sorry: I mean of course the two 5pin ends of the interface cable. They are signed as midi in and midi out. The other end is an USB that has to be stuck at the USB plug of the computer.
Comment: It can be confusing!  On the UM-ONE, the flying lead marked MIDI OUT needs to go to the socket on the device marked MIDI IN.     Fortunately, if you get it the wrong way round, nothing breaks.  It just won't work!
Answer: You can connect your Kurzweil by MIDI so that it can be controlled by a MIDI track in Reaper.  It makes no difference whether the MIDI connection is direct USB or via the older 5-pin cables.
But neither way will transfer the SOUND of the Kurzweil into Reaper.  If you want to include the Kurzweil's sound in your Reaper mixes, you'll need to connect audio out of the Kurzweil to the audio input of your computer's audio interface, and record it as an audio track.
This can, of course, be done while 'playing' the Kurzweil from a MIDI track in the same Reaper project.   But you'll have to treat it in the same way as adding another live vocal track.


What is the difference between a linear and a circular polarizer?

Question: When I bought my polarizer, a friend told me that I should get a circular one, because the linear ones can mess with the autofocus. Is this true? What should each be used for?
Answer: A polarizer works in the way that it will let through only the light that is polarized in the same direction as the filter is currently turned. It is true that many AF systems have problems with this. To solve this, circular polarizers have a layer behind the linear polarizing filter that "re-polarizes" the polarized light in a different way so that the AF can function properly. The linear polarizer does not have this extra layer. The wikipedia article explains this quite well, I think.
As far as I know, there are no cases when you would want a linear polarizer instead of a circular one within the context of placing it on a camera lens. On any camera that a linear polarizer will do the job, the circular one will work just as well, but not the other way around.
Comment: The inside layer doesn't unpolarize the light — it just polarizes it in a strange, non-intuitive way.
Comment: The terminology used on photo sites is all messed up.  What they call a "circular polarizer" is in fact a linear polarizer stacked with a circular polarizer.  The second layer is *not* a [de-polarizer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depolarizer_%28optics%29) as your post would suggest.
Comment: @Szabolcs What they call a "circular polarizer" is in fact a linear polarizer stacked with a quarter-wave retarder. A linear polarizer stacked with a circular polarizer (another linear polarizer + a 1/4wave retarder) is what the photo sites call a "variable neutral density filter".
Comment: @Gnudiff There is no difference in that functionality between circular and linear, both can be adjusted by rotating the filter.
Comment: Is it then also that circular polarizer can be turned to adjust polarising effect? I thought only linear did that?
Comment: For the quarter-wave plate to work properly, it must be *behind* the linear polarizer. It's not somehow sandwiched *inside* the polarizing filter, it act on the light that has been allowed to pass completely through the polarizing filter.
Answer: Yes, it's true - sometimes. Some AF systems work OK with a linear polarizer under some or all conditions, and others fail all the time. You'd have to try it and see.
When would you want a linear polarizer?

They are often cheaper.
Since there's only one polarizing layer, not two, light transmission is often greater.
Answer: Because many AF and metering systems have problems with polarized light, circular polarizer has an added layer which "re-polarizes" the light by transforming the the polarization of the light wave into a sort of helix shape. Therefore you should only get circular polarizers in usual cases.
The exception is when you want to use two polarizers to create a tunable ND filter. In that case, the front polarizer has to be linear, and then you can control the darkening effect by adjusting relative position of the two polarizers.
Comment: yeah, there's a quarter-wave plate which transforms the polarization of the light wave into a sort of helix shape. It's not another filter layer, so there's no more light loss (other than the addition of more optics).
Comment: The inside layer doesn't unpolarize the light — it just polarizes it in a strange, non-intuitive way.
Comment: @mattdm: So it like rotates polarization of the light? Because if it did another "round" of polarization, it would further reduce light transmission, wouldn't it?
Answer: A 'circular' polarizer is just a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate behind it that repolarizes the light in a circular kind of way. But the polarized light removed by passing through the linear polarizer is gone, and thus is not reintroduced by the "re-polarization" of the remaining light.
A quarter-wave plate is not another linear polarizer. It is arranged 45° with respect to the linear axis of the polarizer. As the polarizer is rotated to alter the effect of the filter with regard to light from a particular direction, the quarter-wave plate is attached (bonded) to the linear polarizer and rotated as well. The quarter-wave plate is always turned 45° with respect to the polarizer's linear axis.
The polarization of the light by the quarter-wave plate allows phase detection autofocus (PDAF) systems and light meters to function properly. PDAF systems often fail when trying to focus light that has passed through a  linear polarizer alone. Light meters placed past the viewscreen in reflex¹ cameras are also affected by linearly polarized light.
There is no effect of the quarter-wave plate on the appearance of the photo compared to a linear polarizer without a quarter-wave plate. Neither film nor digital cameras record in which direction light is polarized when it strikes the sensor or film. The linear polarizer allows light polarized in one direction to pass through it. The light that is not allowed to pass through is gone. The quarter-wave plate can only act on the light that has been allowed to pass through the linear polarizer in front of it. It can't recreate the light that the linear polarizer blocked. So the light striking the film or sensor is the exact same light either with or without a quarter-wave plate behind the linear polarizer (other than the minimal amount of light lost due to transmission through a refractive medium as happens with every lens element in the optical path).
Two linear polarizer filters arranged 90° out-of-phase with one another will (theoretically) block all light from passing through (with or without a quarter-wave plate behind the second one). So-called 'Variable Neutral Density' filters are actually two stacked polarizers. As one is rotated with respect to the other, the varying angle between them blocks more or less of the light striking them.
¹ 'Reflex' is the 'R' in SLR and DSLR and refers to the reflex mirror used to divert light from the lens to the viewfinder.
Answer: Circular polarisers have an additional layer creating "unpolarised" light from the polorised light the first layer admits.  If you have any kind of beam splitter (like an optical viewfinder) or phase detector autofocus afterwards or TTL sensor working from light reflected back from film, this may make a difference.  With most digital cameras these days, it doesn't.  This may change when the usual contrast-based autofocus systems these days get replaced or supplanted by phase-based ones on higher-end cameras.
Comment: To say that circ. pols. created "unpolarised" light is incorrect. The additional layer in circ. pols. (the quarter-wave plate, QWP) introduces a phase change between the transverse waves, inducing a _circular polarization_. Circularly polarized light is still definitely polarized, and can be circularly unpolarized with another QWP, resulting linearly polarized light.


Do disconnected pickups alter sound in noticeable way?

Question: There are many artists performing with single pickup guitars, playing various genres. Some even remove two pickups from HSS guitar and leave only bridge one. When it beneficial to do this?
Update:
This might be worth checking
Comment: Inactive pickups may lead to some confusion. Some people may think you are talking about passive pickups.
Answer: If you know what sound you require, and it is from one pickup (ie if you always keep your pickup selector in the same place) then there is really no need to have other pickups. Every pickup can be a source of interference and noise, so removing them reduces the potential for noise.
Some also do it for the look, and in the past some have definitely done it because a pickup broke and they didn't get around to fixing it :-)
If you want the flexibility a multi-pickup configuration gives you, don't do this.
Comment: If they are fully switched out, then yes, they will not introduce interference to the signal pathway, however in many guitar circuits there is not full disconnection - just disconnection of one leg of the circuit. So the component can still pick up interference.
Comment: When would a pickup whose output is not 'selected' add noise? (in the absence of a more fundamental wiring problem)
Comment: Every component adds the potential for noise, topo. The wires to each pickup, the pickups themselves etc.
Comment: Through what mechanisms do you mean though? I'm not at all contradicting you, just wondering exactly what you mean, as generally I was taught that once something's switched out of the circuit, it's out of the circuit along with any signal - or noise - that it generates. Do you mean that metal components may radiate or reflect electromagnetic radiation, for example?
Comment: Yes, I suppose even an unselected pickup can still pick up interference in its ground wire, which adds to the general RF noise in the guitar (as the earth connection is never perfect). Something I hadn't thought of!
Comment: Hmm, so it kind of makes your earth 'worse'... I kind of get it (http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/207345/is-it-possible-to-pick-up-noise-in-an-audio-circuit-through-the-ground-earth-w)
Answer: Electric guitars have a long sustain (and can be used for acoustic feedback for that reason) because the string does not lose significant amounts of acoustic energy.  If you have good bridge and nut, the main loss of energy might be through the magnetic fields of the pickups, through magnetization losses of the string even if the pickup is switched off (if it's on, losses might be more complex).  So it's conceivable that reducing the number of pickups will lead to longer sustain and easier acoustic feedback if that's part of your playing style.
"conceivable" means that if people do quantifiable experiments which show a noticeable difference, I won't cross this off as fantasy.  But without such experiments, I remain rather skeptical.
Of course what may very well be the case that with heavy play some of the pickups might be a problem mechanically, being hit by the string.
Answer: Even pickups that are not wired in to the circuit at all can have an influence on the vibration of metal strings due to the magnets used in the pickups. However, this is only likely to be noticeable when the pickup's height is such that it is very close to the strings. This video

 (start at about 1 minute) suggests that the 'warble' that this creates is much more noticeable when it's the pickup being listened to that is too close to the strings, but if you had two pickups in close proximity (with one of them being disconnected but too high) it's also likely that the effect could be heard easily.
(It should be noted that just because the effect is easily audible, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's all due to the effect on the string's vibration - it is also likely also because the added proximity alters the relative balance between the modes of vibration picked up by the pickup.)
Comment: Having a pickup magnet close to the string affects the pitches of vertical and horizontal vibration modes differently.  When the effect is slight, it can create a pleasant "chorusing" effect, but if it's pleasant when playing on e.g. the fifth fret, it will become unpleasant when playing above the twelfth.
Answer: Since electric guitar strings are made of metal and magnets inside the pickups are attracted to metal strings, they will have an effect on each other.
The more pickups you have in a guitar, the more the magnets in the pickups are affecting the free vibration of the strings.
When pickups are properly height-adjusted this "pull" is minuscule, though I'm sure measurable in some way (it is hard to find tests out there in the real-world of this, though, like Tubes, it just "sounds" difference to "trained ears" - there's a perceived sustain increase).  The only real evidence (something you can test yourself) is when pickups get too close to the strings.  Amplified you'll notice the sustain is cut off a bit, and there's a "warble" (as mentioned in other answers) to the sound where the magnetic pull is greatest on the string and weird science takes over.
So generally, the fewer pickups in the guitar, the less magnetic pull and more free-string vibration you have.  Also, the closer the pickups are to the strings, the more magnetic pull they have (since they're stronger and closer).  The more magnetic pull, the harder it is for the string to vibrate freely without restriction.

There are other small factors with more or less pickups; the most relative probably being that the less-routed guitar body has more mass to affect the sustain of said strings.  This is really only apparent though in top-mounted guitars.  Generally, modern Strat-style guitars come with H-S-H routes (or even boat routes!) under the pickups for universal fits regardless of whether the guitar only has a single humbucker or is truely H-S-H.
Another relative factor has more to do with the tone-circuit.  Most people who use just one humbucker generally have no tone pot in the circuit.  They often just have a volume pot going straight to the output jack.  This simplification of the circuit leads to a no-load configuration that will increase the output a bit, as well as preserve some high-end otherwise not perceivable in a traditional volume-tone circuit.  ...Judging by how common this particular configuration is to single-humbucker guitars (and you asking specifically about people who remove all but one humbucker), I thought I'd include this as well.
EDIT: Check out this link on Music: Stack Exchange.  It goes more into the physics of this.
Answer: Since pickups have permanent magnets, it doesn't matter if there switched out of the circuit, they still have the same influence on the vibrating properties of the string unless you physically remove then from the guitar. The input load into the guitar amp is very high, so it probably won't make much difference if it's in or out of the circuit.
If you want to know if the magnetic field from a disconnected pickup alters or dampens the string vibration - try this test, take a pickup unit that has been removed from a guitar, and move it close to the strings just like a normal PU except from the top. Play an open string slowly with the pickup close to the strings, and then move it away, and see if there is a difference in the sound.
Answer: I would like to add to these answers another thing.
Well two actually.
1. Having open space below the strings can sound better than to close them in with pups. Giving them room to breath. Try listening to your sound unplugged closely. Then lower the pick up as low as can go, and listen again while still unplugged. You can here a difference. More so if the guitar lacks body sound. And is why they sometimes sound better lowered. And not because of the commonly thought reason. Guitars vary in this. So being close may get better sound in one way. And worse in the other. Finding the happy medium is the trick.
2. Some folks like me pick rather deeply. And the pups get in the way of the pick! Having the pick strike the pups is rather rough at times. Especially if one was only used to playing the acoustic which has nothing close to the strings. Some can't get used to playing around the pups. Which is why I would take out the ones I was not using, or could get by without.


Why is the Septuagint (LXX) significant?

Question: What is the LXX and why is it so noteworthy that there is a Greek translation of the OT? Wouldn't it be better to directly reference manuscripts in the original languages?
Comment: Related [Can we trust the Septuagint?](http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2248/can-we-trust-the-septuagint)
Comment: This appears to be a duplicate of the linked
Comment: No, I completely disagree @JamesShewey. The linked question is ⓐ closed and ⓑ asks for a completely different judgement call. Both require some level of expert opinion on the same topic, but this one can be answered without making a judgement call about whether it should be authoritative or not. This one only requires some documentation on how (whether rightly or wrongly) it has affected historical interpretations.
Comment: Thanks @Caleb, this one showed up in the review queue for some reason. Should have looked closer at it.
Answer: Before 1947, a good case could be made that the Septuagint represented a more ancient tradition than the Masoretic versions of the Tanakh.  Since the Septuagint was produced before 132 BCE (and probably in the 3rd century BCE) and the earliest known Masoretic manuscripts date to the 10th century CE, the Greek translation might have fossilized an early rendering of the Scriptures while the Hebrew continued to be copied and potentially altered.  To further support the primacy of the Septuagint, the early Christian and Hellenistic Jewish texts, tended to use that translation rather go back to Hebrew sources.
An interesting counter-argument arises from the observation that during the 600 years from Jerome's translation into Latin (the Vulgate) to the earliest Masoretic manuscripts, the Hebrew seems to have been faithfully copied.  That suggests that Jewish scribes were exceptionally careful to duplicate their scriptures.
After 1947, the evidence changed.  According to Wikipedia:

[Most] of the Qumran fragments can be classified as being closer to the Masoretic text than to any other text group that has survived. According to Lawrence Schiffman, 60% can be classed as being of proto-Masoretic type, and a further 20% Qumran style with bases in proto-Masoretic texts, compared to 5% proto-Samaritan type, 5% Septuagintal type, and 10% non-aligned. Joseph Fitzmyer noted the following regarding the findings at Qumran Cave 4 in particular: "Such ancient recensional forms of Old Testament books bear witness to an unsuspected textual diversity that once existed; these texts merit far greater study and attention than they have been accorded till now. Thus, the differences in the Septuagint are no longer considered the result of a poor or tendentious attempt to translate the Hebrew into the Greek; rather they testify to a different pre-Christian form of the Hebrew text".

Another another article describes the meaning of the categories in detail.
A few caveats are in order:

Surveying the Qumran about religious texts seems something akin to surveying a hippie commune about political issues—you're likely to experience some bias.  If we could obtain a similar collection from Jerusalem, we'd likely find more agreement and likely the side of MT.  Given the diversity in non-Scriptural texts, 60% seems quite solid support.
While it's unlikely, there exists a chronological possibility the scrolls associated with the Septuagint-aligned Hebrew were influenced by the Greek.  (Any references one way or the other would be appreciated.)

What remains therefore is a window into the community of Alexandrian Jews that produced the translation.  For those who are interested in the development of Jewish belief, that can be extremely useful.  N. T. Wright's book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, shows that the LXX translators chose to interpret key texts from Daniel and Ezekiel about the resurrection as literal rather than metaphorical.  He argues from this that belief in bodily resurrection was more common in Jesus' day than other scholars assert.
Comment: I'm not sure where you are getting the numbers you quote.  They're not in the Wikipedia article anymore.  A more primary source would be Abegg et. al. translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  They go through each verse and show what manuscripts it agrees with.  I don't see any summary statistics, but just skimming it seems a very large number agree with the Septuagint and not MT.  Also the lists of percentages don't account for verses that agree with the MT, LXX, and SP - It can't be 0% as the old article implies.  A revisit would seem to be in order.
Comment: @TheNonTheologian It is generally accepted that these mss fall into "families" that can be classed as M-like, G-like, etc.; they're counting manuscripts, not verses.  You may also appreciate [the oft' quoted numbers from Emanuel Tov](https://books.google.com/books?id=5Sh7dBDD7ykC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false): "in the 46 Torah texts that are sufficiently extensive for analysis, 22 (48%) are -like (or, in a few cases, are equally close to  and ⅏), 5 exclusively reflect ⅏ (11%), one reflects  (2%), and 18 are non-aligned+ (39%)..."
Comment: @TheNonTheologian: Thank you for pointing out the missing quote. I found another source (which matches the summary on Wikipedia's "Septuagint" article) that quotes [Lawrence Schiffman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Schiffman)'s estimation. My guess is the statistics only look at verses that actually differ. In any case, the DSS evidence suggests more textual traditions were in circulation during the Second Temple period than just the LXX and MT. Therefore, it's gotten a lot harder to say that any one source can claim priority.
Comment: (See the link for non-Torah numbers and note #184 on p. 154 for methodology.)
Answer: Excellent question!
The Septuagint (LXX) was the version of the Bible used by the authors of the New Testament.  Therefore, the authors sometimes quote the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic (Hebrew) text.
One example:

Matthew 1:23 NRSV "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

The Masoretic Text of this quoted verse in Isaiah:

Isaiah 7:14 NRSV
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The difference is pretty striking.
Because of this, the translators of some versions of the Bible tend to use the Septuagint in the Old Testament.
The Septuagint text from that same verse:

Isaiah 7:14 ESV
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Summary
Ultimately, the Septuagint is useful to help gain an understanding of why the authors of the New Testament used quotes that they used.  It helps clarify understanding of how the Greek was used.
Comment: The quotation of Psalm 40:6 in Hebrews 10:5 is another striking example.
Comment: This is the best answer that I've read yet.
Comment: @swasheck: Yes.  We miss Richard!
Answer: One of the most important aspects of the Septuagint is that it helps us understand how Greek was used by Jews in the 3rd century BC to talk about God and the Scriptures. This turns it into a valuable tool to look at the Greek of the NT and understand how to translate and examine it.
Here is an excerpt from a Christianity.SE answer that I provided to illustrate one use of the Septuagint in this manner:

This document should shed some light on the usage of the word porneia
  and the Greek word family it belongs to.
Here is an excerpt from the conclusion: "In this study we have looked
  at the word family -porn- in extra-biblical Greek literature, in the
  OT, and in the NT. In all sources, porneia and the related terms refer
  to sexual acts only. Both OT and NT correspond largely when it comes
  to the word family. Though the OT favors the figurative sense and the
  NT the literal meaning, the different aspects of porneia are found in
  both testaments. They include prostitution, premarital sexual
  relations, adultery, incest, and homosexuality, in short, sexual
  relations outside of the marriage. Thus, OT and NT enlarge the
  understanding of fornication as found in the Greek world."
The bottom line is that the Septuagint and the NT have close agreement
  on the term. If you recall that the Septuagint dates back to the 3rd
  century BC, giving us an idea of how Greek was used and translated in
  relation to Hebrew. The agreement between the usage of this word in
  the NT and the Septuagint provides strong evidence to the colloquial
  use in those times.
Answer: The reason I most often use the LXX is to find the concept the NT authors were using.  Yes, they wrote in Greek, but they were thinking Jewish thoughts.  Many times, you can take the Greek words in the NT, find them in the LXX, and see what Hebrew words they translated.
For example, the word ecclesia is used in the NT in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17.  Some argue that this means Matthew is written late because Jews in the time of Jesus would not use the concept of ecclesia.  Patently false.  If you check the LXX, you find the word ecclesia commonly translates qhl, which means "sacred assembly."  And that means 2 things.  1) As the LXX was translated centuries before Christ, Jews were familiar with the concept of ecclesia and used it.  2) Matthew's use of ecclesia does not mean it is late.
Answer: One should not dismiss the Septuagint simply because it's a translation, although all translations are imperfect. Languages simply can't be mapped one-to-one.
The project was undertaken by 72 Jewish scholars with the approval of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest in Jerusalem. There were about a million Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria alone at that time, so creating a reliable Greek translation would have been a high priority in the Jewish community. Note that the project took about 100 years to complete, and as in all documents, there are variations as well.
As mentioned, the New Testament quotes of the Tanakh come from the Septuagint, and we can trace some of the disparities, and there are disparities between the Masoretic text and earlier texts. The primary checkpoints for variants and translations are the Greek Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Latin Vulgate, and the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Syriac Peshitta should also be taken into account.
Emanuel Tov, emeritus Professor in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Editor-in-Chief, International Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project, made this point clear in his 2006 lecture, "Exploring the Origins of the Bible." In this presentation, Dr. Tov compared several selected passages in the Masoretic text, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, he notes that in Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 29, and Psalm 82, references to "the sons of God" and the "divine assembly" are present in the Septuagint and the Qumran scrolls, but were, in his words, "probably removed from the Masoretic text in an act of theological editing."
The Hebrew scripture that Jesus quoted as recorded in John 10:31-39 was later revised to read "godlike beings" in the Hebrew version.
Rabbi Simeon ben Pazi, who lived in the third century CE calls the variant readings of his time "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7). Christian scholars made similar observations. Here's the earliest example.

"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy . . ."
  – Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, Chapter 71, ~150 CE

Around 130 CE, the Septuagint was renounced by the Jewish religious leadership in favor of other versions. The evidence seems to indicate that this was because the Septuagint had become widely used by Jewish and Gentile Christians to argue that Y'shua min Natzaret was the promised Messiah of prophecy after all.
Answer: IMO it is a mistake to consider the LXX too noteworthy. The NT authors quote from it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however that should not be taken to imply that the LXX translation as a whole is inspired.

Wouldn't it be better to reference the Hebrew original?

Yes, except when dealing with the NT quotations in question. And translators are making a mistake if they use the LXX as an authoritative basis for translating the old testament even for those passages quoted in the NT
Of course none of this is to say the LXX is not useful as it may shed light on translation issues, as mentioned in other answers.
Comment: I don't know why this answer was downvoted.  It's a legitimate stance.
Comment: The first paragraph is conjecture. What is meant by "too noteworthy"? Then, if the Holy Spirit inspires apostles to quote from the Septuagint, what argument can be made that the Hebrew or Aramaic text would actually have been better? It was certainly available to the Holy Spirit. The visions and speech reported by John the Revelator, also quote the Septuagint--see *rhomphaia*.
Comment: @H3br3wHamm3r81 This is how I interpret 2 Peter 1:20-21: "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy *of Scripture* comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Do you read that differently to me? It'd be great to say hello in [The Library](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/1505/the-library) if you'd be willing to share your thoughts with me in there?
Answer: I will deal with one of the most important points is that The LXX writers preserved God's personal "name Jehovah in the Greek text:-

Mugridge concludes that early Gentile Christians could write the tetragrammaton in their homemade copies, but that later Christians "replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more."[24] According to Edmon Gallagher, a faculty member of Heritage Christian University, some Christian scribes "would have produced a paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton", concluding that "if the scribe copied poorly the paleo-Hebrew script... as πιπι, which can be a corruption only of the Tetragrammaton in square script."[25] Jerome wrote that by 384CE, some ignorant readers of the LXX assumed the tetragrammaton to be a Greek word, πιπι (pipi), suggesting its pronunciation had been forgotten, but affirming its existence at the end of the 4th century.[26] Professor Robert J. Wilkinson suggests that Jews in mixed communities would not tolerate articulations of the tetragrammaton, and that Gentiles would have trouble pronouncing it if it were not ΙΑΩ or Κύριος.[27] Some Jews may have continued to pronounce YHWH in one form or another, (e.g., ιαω in Greek) until the late of Second Temple Period.[28] According to Pavlos Vasileiadis, a Doctor of Theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, "The indications denote that it was 'still being pronounced by some Hellenistic Jews' and also by non-Jews as late as the third century C.E."
Sidney Jellicoe concluded, "Kahle is right in holding that LXX [Septuagint] texts, written by Jews for Jews, retained the divine name in Hebrew Letters (paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic) or in the Greek-letters imitative form ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κύριος was a Christian innovation".[30] Jellicoe cites various scholars (B. J. Roberts, Baudissin, Kahle and C. H. Roberts) and various segments of the Septuagint, concluding that the absence of Adonai from the text suggests that the insertion of the term Κύριος was a later practice;[30] that the Septuagint Κύριος is used to substitute YHWH; and that the tetragrammaton appeared in the original text, but Christian copyists removed it."-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and_titles_of_God_in_the_New_Testament
PROOF THE NAME JEHOVAH WAS IN THE 1ST CENTURY SEPTUAGINT LXX
  Was God's personal name JEHOVAH in the first Century Septuagint?
Swete's Intro to the OT in Greek, chapter 2.6.5:
  "The Tetragrammaton is not transliterated, but written in Hebrew letters, and the characters are of the archaic type , not יהזה cf. Orig. in Ps. ii., καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων Ἐβραίοις χαρακτῆρσιν κεῖται τὸ ὄνομα, Ἐβραικοῖς δὲ οὐ τοῖς νῦν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀρχαιοτάτοις —where the 'most exact copies' are doubtless those of Aquila's version, for there is no reason to suppose that any copyists of the Alexandrian version hesitated to write Ο ΚΣ or ΚΕ for (יהזה)"
  HERES THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT!
  Foead 266
  1st century B.C.
  The Foead-papyrus collection (Foead; inv. n° 266) is in possession of the Société Egyptienne de Papyrologie in Caïro. This collection is dated from the 1st century B.C.
  The collection was discovered in Egypt in 1939 and includes parts from the Bible books of Genesis and Deuteronomy. The Name cannot be found in the Genesis fragments, because the text is incomplete. But, in the book of Deuteronomy, in the midst of the Greek text, it is written 49 times in Hebrew characters. The Tetragrammaton can be found three more times in fragments that are not identified (fragments 116, 117 and 123).
  IIn a commentary on this papyrus collection Paul Kahle wrote in 'Studia Evangelica', edited by Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld and W. C. van Unnik, Berlin 1959, page 614:
  "A distinguishing characteristic of the papyrus is the fact that the name of God is written as the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square-shape [(יהזה)]. Upon my request made for an examination by father Vaccari in regards to the published fragments of the papyrus, he came to the conclusion that the papyrus must be written 400 years before the codex B, probably the most perfect text of the Septuagint that has reached us".
Answer: There are some significant reasons why one should care about the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.

The Greek manuscripts are hundreds of years closer to writing than the Hebrew manuscripts.
Building upon the above, the Greek provide some reading not preserved in the later Hebrew.
The Greek manuscripts provide translations and interpretations of words that appear only a couple times in Hebrew.
The Greek provide the vocabulary and background for the Greek NT.
New Testament authors usually quote from one of the Greek translations.

Edit:
Let me provide some examples of point 2, from my research. In Zechariah 11:14, the broken staff annuls the κατάσχεσιν in the Greek. This corresponds to the Hebrew הָאְַחֻזַּה, "possession," while the Hebrew manuscripts only attest to הָֽאַחֲוָה, "brotherhood."
Another example can be seen in Zechariah 12:3, which reads καταπατούμενον, in the Greek. This corresponds to the Hebrew, מִרְמָסָה, "a stone which is stepped on." However, Hebrew manuscripts only provide the reading, מַֽעֲמָסָה, "a burdensome stone."
Finally, in Zechariah 13:1, the Greek reads "a place (τόπος) will be opened." The Hebrew reads "a fountain will be opened." The difference in Hebrew is a mere letter between מָקוֹם and מָקוֹר.
Overall, there are many instances like the ones I have cited. While the readings exist in Greek, that doesn't mean that a Hebrew text accompanied it. There may have been a mistake in reading the letters. It is thus the scholars role to evaluate each reading in context, to see which reading is likely original.
Comment: Can you cite some evidence for these claims? For example where is the research and textual criticism to support the idea that some things were not preserved in Hebrew manuscripts?
Comment: It is difficult to provide citations. I hope you find them helpful. If you would like examples of the other reasons, let me know.


How can I skip strike force missions like FOB Spectre?

Question: I finished "Old Wounds" and see that the next mission is "Time and Fate" but I'm forced into "FOB Spectre," a strike force mission. I'd like to finish my Veteran run without doing these strike force side-missions. Is there a way to bypass them and get back to the campaign?
Answer: Not directly that I am aware of. They are quite quick to bypass, since you only get a certain number of tries based on the number of campaigns you completed. I failed 3 times completing mine, and then ran out of "credit" but from then on forward you don't have to do them at all even if you have credit since the rest of the campaign doesn't include any.
It seems that the idea is that the FOB Spectra has to be played once as part of a campaign run through. I am guessing the purposes is to introduce everyone to the format and make players aware of it's existence.
I did try various ways to skip doing the one but it seems that you have to try it at a minimum once.
Comment: So start mission, grab a cuppa, repeat 2 more times and you're off on your merry murderous way?
Comment: @kotekzot Pretty much yeah


Shrinking image file I cant open

Question: I have a certain custom Raspbian image downloaded from the internet for a project which I need to use. The file is a little less than 32 GB and I am having issues getting a card which can fit that size. I know that the image definitely does not use all the space and it is probably the OS filling up the space of the SD card it was made on. I tried looking up how to shrink the size of the image but all the methods I saw involved booting the image on a pi which I cannot do since I downloaded the image online. I even got ahold of a 32 GB card to solve the issue but then discovered that the card's true capacity is 31.9 GB, and so my image burning software says I have too little space. Does anyone know how I could shrink the size of this image to 16 GB?
Comment: It is possible to modify images on a Linux machine, although this requires some expertise. You could just buy a 64GB card. If someone is supplying 32GB images I wonder if it is worthwhile - it isn't hard to make a proper image.
Comment: Balena Etcher has some options for resizing partitions - not tried it explored but maybe that's a way to look into?I guess the image was pulled from a 32Gb card after the partition was expanded and is full of blank space - whose was the image? Maybe its worth asking them for a higher one???
Comment: You have to use a Linux machine where you saved the raw uncompressed image. Then execute this command and copy/paste its output to your question: `sudo parted your-32gb.img print`. If `parted` isn't available then install it.
Comment: @Andyroo Are you sure that Balena can/will resize the ext4 filesystem in the root partition before it shrinks the partition itself?  I suspect it doesn't have such a feature.  If you use it just to shrink the partition and not the fs, the card probably won't work (and shouldn't be used that way even if it does, initially).
Comment: @goldilocks As I tried (and obviously failed) to explain I have no idea - I noticed it in passing the last time I created a card and if you are desperate it may be worth exploring.  Worse case it's 15 mins wasted.
Answer: Assuming this is an image of an ext-formatted partition you can simply use resize2fs - as available on the pi itself or typical linux installations. So either you have a running linux somewhere, can put the image on an external USB-storage and access it via the pi, or can share it via network (including write premission) and use the pi. If this is given run
fsck name_of_image
resize2fs -M name_of_image

The first command runs a sanity check on the image, the second one resizes it to the minimum possible (i.e. skips empty parts).
Once the image is burnt to the SD, you may want to increase the size of the system to the maximum of the SD. Again resize will help in that case, however this is only possible when booted from the image or when the SD is directly connected to a pi/linux system. Alternatively windows tools for growing the partition should be available.

EDIT/UPDATE:
As stated in the comments resize2fs works on images of partitions only. So you would need to create separate images for the partitions.
In the following we'll thus
a) mount the big image you downloaded
b) extract the image of the rootfs partition & resize
Furthermore:
c) prepare a partition table for the new SD
d) copy the old boot and the new, smaller rottfs partitions & extend rootfs to the maximum
a) Mounting a multi-partition disk image
losetup will do the trick here and create /dev entries for the  disk and partitions on the image:
losetup -Pf big.img

List them with just losetup (no options). In my example I took one of the official RasPi OS images and got it on loop10:
losetup
/dev/loop10  0  0  0  0 /data/downloads/2020-12-02-raspios-buster-armhf-lite.img  0  512

Now /dev will also have the two partitions ready:
ls /dev/loop10*
/dev/loop10  /dev/loop10p1  /dev/loop10p2

Use lsblk for some more info:
lsblk -o NAME,FSTYPE,LABEL,SIZE /dev/loop10
NAME       FSTYPE LABEL   SIZE
loop10                    1.7G
├─loop10p1 vfat   boot    256M
└─loop10p2 ext4   rootfs  1.5G

All as expected. Note that the downloaded file for the light image is ~440MB, yet the image shows 1.7GB. This is due to the partition table.
We'll make a quick trick by writing zeros to empty spaces of the partition image, this will make copying the image faster. Mount the image, create a dummy file, write zeros to it to fill up empty space, remove the dummy file and unmount the device. (Please note that this is only necessary if the image was not created with zeroed empty space). Be aware of dd-dangers and make sure you have no typos!
mount /dev/loop10p2 /mnt
touch /mnt/dummy
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/dummy
rm /mnt/dummy
umount /mnt

b) Extracting the image of rootfs
dd is the best tool here, please again be aware of the dangers of dd and triple check each dd-command you execute. boot is no issue, the size should be around 250MB. Yet the big image must be copied once on the hard drive, say under your home:
dd if=/dev/loop10p2 of=/home/joe/local_rootfs.img bs=4M conv=sparce

A bytesize (bs) of 4M should be reasonably fast, conv=sparce will quickly skip empty parts - including the zeros we created in the last step of the previous section.
Now shrink the image to the minimum available:
fsck /home/joe/local_rootfs.img
resize2fs -M /home/joe/local_rootfs.img

It will now be the size of the data only.
c) Preparing the new SD
First of all, we will just copy the master boot record (MBR). Put your SD in and check which device it is with lsblk. Say it is /dev/sdb. AGAIN: Make sure you get the right device and be careful with dd!
We will copy the partition table of the image to the SD:
dd if=/path/to/big.img of=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1

and delete the second partition in the table, while creating a new one. Example:
cfdisk /dev/sdb

    Device     Boot  Start    End      Sectors   Size   Id Type
    /dev/sdb1        2048     526335   524288    256M   83 Linux
>>  /dev/sdb2        526336   4095999  3569664   1.7G   83 Linux

Navigate to the second partition and delete it, then create a new one with the maximum possible size (default value for new partition), write it and confirm with "yes", then quit. No need to care about which FS-type - this will come from the rootfs partition image.
d) Copy old boot and shrunk rootfs + expand it to SD size
Boot contents may just be copied, thus
dd if=/loop12p1 of=/dev/sdb1 bs=4M

As we copied the partition table, the size will fit exactly. Analogous we copy the content of the now smaller rootfs to the new SD partition:
dd if=/home/joe/local_rootfs.img of=/dev/sdb2 bs=4M

Resize the file system of the rootfs to fill up to the maximum available on the new SD:
resize2fs /dev/sdb2

(Maybe you need to run a fsck beforehand as above).
Final checks
It might have happened, that the UUIDs of your new partitions have changed. Mount the new rootfs and compare fstab with the PARTUUIDs of the partitions. Example:
mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt
cat /mnt/etc/fstab

proc    /proc    proc   defaults    0    0
PARTUUID=067e19d7-01    /boot    vfat    defaults    0    2
PARTUUID=067e19d7-02    /    ext4    defaults,noatime    0    1

versus results of blkid for sdb1 & sdb2 - if need be, update the fstab file - AND be sure to do it on the mount not your local /etc!!
Finally run sync and unmount just to be sure that all got written to the SD card properly before you remove it.
Comment: 1.  The command is `resize2fs`.  2.  It **does not** shrink a partition.  It shrinks a filesystem in the partition, meaning even if this worked, afterward the image file will still be exactly the same size. 3.  **It will not work anyway** because *device* images for the Raspberry Pi have *two fs partitions in them*, and `resize2fs` only works on a *filesystem* image.  The same it true WRT your `fsck` invocation.
Comment: @goldilocks Ah yes, good point, indeed. Updated with proper way and corrected typo.

Shrinking image file I cant open


Laptop lid close does not restart

Question: When I close the lid, Elementary suspends the system. However, when I try to restart, it keeps flashing the screen with junk without ever recovering. The only option I have is to do a hard reset. Is there a fix for this?
Comment: Have a look in your log via 'less /var/log/pm-suspend.log'. There might be some clues as to what driver is failing to resume from suspend.
Comment: There's no such file in /var/log. I should have clarified, though, that this was happening on a Live CD version. After installation on my hard disk (dual boot), I don't have the problem. But I have a new one. When waking back after suspend, only my external monitor works. My laptop monitor is blank/black and I receive an error message on the other screen that the system has encountered a problem detecting my laptop monitor. Only way to resolve is a reboot. Any suggestions?
Comment: It's better to ask a new question when you have another problem.
Answer: As already said in the comment, using a live-system suspend won't resume. The cause is the missing swap partition (or file) with an appropriate filesystem (i.e. not tmpfs). If you insist on using a live-system, you may:

config your live-system to never go to sleep and to not suspend when closing the lid, or
add another writeable drive (USB, SDHC), format with e.g. ext2 and create a swap file there.

Laptop lid close does not restart


Negotiating 1-year delay to my Assistant Professor Offer

Question: Recently I was offered an assistant professor position at a major R1 university. My problem is that I need to stay one more year in my home country due to Fulbright 2-year home residency requirement. I will apply for a waiver but just in case I'd like to negotiate the possibility of one year later start date. The department head is aware that there might be some delays due to legal issues, but I did not want to bring these procedures before signing the contract. It is my dream job at my dream college and I can be of a good asset to the department. How do you think I should approach negotiating and communicating this situation in a respective manner? Thanks!
Comment: You might be able lift the residency requirement if certain conditions are met; it is an option to consider.
Comment: What are the ramifications of breaking your Fulbright agreement?
Comment: Congratulations on the job offer—great work!
Comment: By the way, I would very much like to ask you a couple of questions about Fulbright; is it possible that we can talk a chat room ?
Comment: I am not breaking the agreement, I would like to legally get a waiver to be able to come back to the U.S. just like any other J-visa holders who are subject to this requirement. It is easier to get a waiver for a J visa sponsored by the university or home-country organizations. Agencies like Fulbright makes it harder so the philosophy of the program is fulfilled, which is a cultural exchange.
Comment: Thank you so much! I am really happy about it too!
Answer: Well, as a department head, I would be slightly annoyed that (i) you applied for a position you knew you couldn't take, and (ii) you didn't mention this earlier.
But it is what it is: You have no other option than coming clean, and so being honest should be your first priority. The people you're going to talk to are going to be your future colleagues and you will rely on their good will for the next many years. So playing games is not a useful strategy and all you can do is be forthcoming in explaining your situation, and ask whether there is a way to delay your starting date by one year. There is really no negotiating in this case: You need the department to agree to your demands, because if they don't you have a contract you can't keep (because you can't show up in person) and will likely lose your job. In other words, you're completely at the mercy of the department, and that's how you should treat it: With honesty and humility.
Comment: This should go without saying, but a department head at a R1 university is no one to mess around with, and not someone you want to annoy if you know what's good for your academic career.
Comment: I would add: the department has already indicated that they agree you would be a good asset, so you can and should approach them (collegially) from the perspective that they want you to accept and they want you to be happy. In the end, delaying a new assistant professor's start date by one year is typically not a big hassle for a reasonably-sized department, so once everybody is convinced that you're all on the same side, I find it pretty likely that they will agree to the delay.
Comment: i would add: *immediately* write to department head all the details.
Comment: Thank you for all the comments. The reason I am asking this is because I'd like to stay within ethical principles and how to communicate this worst-case scenario effectively. I was graduated from that very department and the everyone in faculty knows me and they know that I left the US just because of this requirement one year ago. And I have told them that I will have to apply for a waiver. During the interview process, they did not bring this to the table. And I did not want to be the one who brought this up before everything is official.
Comment: Seems a bit too late for the honesty, so maybe a double helping of humility?
Comment: "You have no other option than coming clean" Exactly. Regardless of how you fill in the details, you can either come clean or burn a bridge you really don't want to burn. This is one of those situations where there is no third option.
Comment: Thank you for your response, I am a little less worried now. I will communicate with collegiality principles definitely. Let's hope for the best!