What impact on image resolution does the aperture have?

Question: What is the effects on depth of field, signal to noise ratio and image resolution when reducing the aperture?
Comment: @Wilhelmsen It usually helps if you edit the question to say why other related (possible duplicate) questions didn't answer the question you're asking. Staves off the downvotes and close votes if you have a compelling reason for asking something closely related.
Comment: Possible duplicate: http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/9624/21
Comment: Not quite, I would say that this is a more specific question and I did not get my answer out of the other question, especially for image resolution...
Comment: How about: [Do smaller apertures provide more depth of field past the diffraction limit, even if peak sharpness suffers?](http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/11205/1943)
Comment: (Welcome to Photography Stack Exchange, by the way!)
Answer: Aperture is measured as a fraction, and the number given is the denominator, so we get the paradoxical situation that a "smaller" aperture means a bigger number and vice versa (e.g., for a typical camera lens the largest aperture might be f/2.8 and the smallest f/22).
Depth of field is easy to answer (and has been many times): a smaller aperture increases depth of field (and a larger aperture decreases depth of field).
The aperture has no direct effect on signal to noise ratio. Depending on how you shoot, what your camera automates, etc., a smaller aperture might indirectly lead to a change in something like the camera's ISO setting, which might (in turn) affect signal to noise, but the aperture by itself doesn't.
In most typical lenses, there two different sources of un-sharpness. Any lens has aberrations, which reduce sharpness. At least in most typical cases, these tend to get worse (reduce sharpness more) at larger apertures.
At the same time, the aperture itself causes diffraction. This works in the opposite direction -- a smaller aperture increases diffraction, limiting the sharpness possible at any given aperture.
Between the two, a typical lens will have resolution figures that are at their highest somewhere around a stop or two from the widest aperture the lens supports1. As you open the aperture further than that, the aberrations reduce your resolution. As you close the aperture further, diffraction reduces the resolution. That, however, is only considering the sharpness at the plane of best focus -- when you're taking pictures of 3D objects, increased depth of field can make the picture look sharper overall, even if if reduces sharpness at the one depth where the sharpness is truly at its best.
Although it isn't technically part of resolution, I should also add that many lenses display "veiling" (aka "veiling glare", etc.) at or close to their maximum aperture. This can (sometimes dramatically) reduce contrast. A great deal of what most people perceive as "sharp" pictures is really based on contrast, so this can reduce the appearance of sharpness even when the resolution is actually quite high.

1 I should add that that's only a general rule of thumb though -- a few lenses show their highest resolution with the aperture wide open. Others need to be stopped down even more than two stops to get to their maximum. Really fast lenses (e.g., f/1.2, f/1.4) often need to be stopped down more than two stops to get to their maximum, while really slow lenses (f/5.6, f/6.3) are often closer to their maximum resolution wide open.
Comment: Jerry, can you point to a reference for 'many lenses display "veiling" (aka "veiling glare", etc.) at or close to their maximum aperture'? I'd like to learn more.
Comment: @KAE: One of the few test sites I've seen that routinely includes shots wide open in full sunlight (the easiest way to see it) is Kurt Munger's: http://kurtmunger.com/lens_reviews_id21.html
Comment: [Here](http://kurtmunger.com/sony_35mm_f_1_4_gid271.html) is one lens example from Kurt's site where veiling flare is reduced as the aperture is decreased.
Comment: "The aperture has no direct effect on signal to noise ratio" closing the apeture reduces the amount of light, If nothing else is changed then that will mean worse SNR.
Comment: @PeterGreen: Yes, that's why I said: "a smaller aperture might indirectly lead to a change in something like the camera's ISO setting, which might (in turn) affect signal to noise".
Answer:
What is the effects on depth of field, when reducing the aperture?

Depth of field will increase with a smaller aperture.

signal to noise ratio

That depends on what if any other things you change.
If your original settings were correctly exposed and you reduce the aperture without changing anything else then you will underexpose the image, making your signal to noise ratio worse (less signal, roughly the same amount of noise).
If you compensate for the smaller aperture by using a longer shutter time then your SNR should be about the same as where you started, unless you are dealing with really long exposures.
If you compensate for the smaller aperture by raising the ISO then you will likely have a better SNR than the underexposed image, but a worse SNR than the image with the larger aperture.

and image resolution

That depends on what exactly was limiting your resolution before.
If your resolution is limited by lens aberrations or by inability to get your whole subject in focus then reducing the aperture will improve matters.
On the other hand if your resolution is limited by diffraction then a smaller aperture will make it worse.
And if your resolution is limited by motion blur then a smaller aperture may force you to a longer shutter time, again reducing the effective resoloution.


Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world)

Question: Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world).
If so give one or two names, please.
Comment: You looking for [List of Buddha claimants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants)?
Comment: There are many. I won't publicise namehere
Answer: The Pali scriptures describe 4 levels of enlightenment, which equate to 4 levels of Nibbana.
The Nakhasikha Sutta states in the 1st level of enlightenment the vast majority of the previous suffering has been ended & extinguished.
Many Buddhist practitioners have tasted Nibbana (freedom from suffering). However, I suspect those that have reached the highest Nibbana are not many.
In Thailand, monks would say Ajahn Maha Bua & Ajahn Chah (both now deceased) reached the highest Nibbana. You can watch these videos:

Ajahn Chah - Bio 43 - Talking about enlightenment
Ajahn Chah - Bio 44 - How attained was Ajahn Chah?

I think Ajahn Brahm is close to the highest Nibbana.
The Buddha said if people practise the 8 fold path in the right way, people will know Nibbana.
This article, 'Nibbana for Everyone', may be helpful.
Answer: I think this question has a great potential for misunderstanding the concept of Nibbana. Why is it important to know? There is no way to know if Nibbana is just another silly concept like God except you have experienced what this word is pointing to. If there is the claim that somebody else is 'enlightened' it doesn't really change the fact that you simply don't know if this is true.
Answer: No one would carry placards announcing that they are on the Path.  If there are any who have fulfilled the practice of the Path, then certainly even today there could be Arahants in the world.  But if any one loudly publicizes his/her attainment of Arahantship, then there arises some doubt about it.  This is because such public announcement is not in keeping with Arahants, for they are totally self-effacing. The ones who are in the Path knows, when a level of Path and Fruition is achieved, but he/she would never share it with a lesser person.  If a lay- person makes such an announcement it could be due to some sort of misunderstanding of the doctrine.
In the Pali Canon, an Arahant is one who has attained the final goal of Buddhist practice -- the Nibbāna, The term arhant is one of the epithets of a Buddha, and is used to refer to an enlightened disciple of Gautama Buddha. An Arahant is one who has completely destroyed greed, hatred and delusion. Usually the term 'enlightenment' is used to denote one who has attained arahantship. Such a person is called an enlightened person. The Path Fruition has four levels. They  are Sotapatti (Stream-Winner), Sakadagami (Once-Returner), Anagami (Never-Returner), and Arahatta (The Worthy Ones).
A sotapanna is usually referred to as a 'stream entrant'. Sotapatti is the first stage in the Path of spiritual progress to Nibbana.  The 'Sota' is used in Pali in diverse senses.  It denotes also craving, the ear, the Noble Eightfold Path etc.  In this context the term 'sota' is used to denote the Noble Path.  It is also designated as the Dhamma-sota – the stream of doctrine.  A person who reaches this dhamma-sota is called a sotapanna. When one attains sotapatti stage, Sakkaya ditthi or soul-view view gets eradicated as a sotapanna understands the true nature of the five aggregates.
A sotapanna obtains the Right view, the first feature in the Noble Eightfold Path and this is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths.  Consequently a sotapanna gets rid of both doubt and clinging to rites and rituals. A Sotapanna has to establish himself in Right View and further develop the four establishments of mindfulness.  A Sotapanna person still has craving.  If we call a sotapanna an enlightened one, how are we going to describe an Arahant? In order to understand the nature of a Sotapanna one could read the Sammaditthi sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya.
When one becomes an once-returner (sakadagami), the two fetters - sensual desire (kamaraga) and enmity (patigha) get eradicated. To attain anagamihood one has to cultivate Right Concentration and develop jhanic attainments. The Buddha very well knew that all cannot attain Arahantship.  The Buddha viewed this world as a lotus pond where there are fully blossomed lotuses as well as buds of different stages of maturity. According to their knowledge the Sotapannas and the Anagamins are divided into further categories.
The Mahaparinibbana sutta says that as long as the bhikkhus in this dispensation follow the Noble Eightfold Path, the world will not be empty of Arahants. So there are Arahants who walk this earth though we may never know.
Answer: There's nobody in the current world. The current world is one of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking. Nibbana is devoid of any of those.
Comment: Can you elaborate more please?
Comment: do you know anybody got at least Sovahan state, in the current world?
Comment: 'anybody' is a construct. When you see, the current world 'seeing'. When you hear, the current world is 'hearing' ...
Answer: The effusive fruition of the great and wonderful dhamma has become known by countless persons alive today. It is your privilege and duty to find them and test them and be affected by them in order to answer your question for yourself.
Anyone can deny and question the profundity of realization or Nibbana being present in another person, reality is up to you. Nibbana is up to you. How many may have walked casually by the Buddha without a second glance? How many submitted themselves to his presence and instruction? How many benefited?
If you must find the answer to your question it will be a solo journey, the opinions of others can only take you so far.
Warmly, NightSkySanghaGuy
Answer: "Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world). If so give one or two names, please".
The easiest answer to the above question is to say 'Not known'. However, please consider the following. The name Lord Buddha (Bhagava Buddho) gave to his teaching is Dhamma-Vinaya. Dhamma cannot be understood because it is based on: Dukkha Ariyasacca. Dukkha (dukkham) cannot be translated into English. See the following quote from the entry, Dukkha in the PED.
B. (nt.; but pl. also dukkhā, e. g. S i.23; Sn 728; Dh 202, 203, 221. Spelling dukha (after sukha) at Dh 83, 203). There is no word in English covering the same ground as Dukkha does in Pali. Our modern words are too specialised, too limited, and usually too strong. Sukha & dukkha are ease and dis-ease (but we use disease in another sense); or wealth and ilth from well & ill (but we have now lost ilth); or wellbeing and ill-ness (but illness means something else in English). We are forced, therefore, in translation to use half synonyms, no one of which is exact. Dukkha is equally mental & physical. Pain is too predominantly physical, sorrow too exclusively mental, but in some connections they have to be used in default of any more exact rendering. Discomfort, suffering, ill, and trouble can occasionally be used in certain connections. Misery, distress, agony, affliction and woe are never right. They are all much too strong & are only mental (see Mrs. Rh. D. Bud. Psy. 83 -- 86, quoting Ledi Sadaw).
Ariyasacca is usually given the English Equivalent 'Noble Truth'. The term 'noble truth' is not in Oxford Dictionaries. That means it is not an English word.
No one understands the Dukkha Ariyasacca, therefore they cannot understand Nibbana. Therefore the question is meaningless.
Answer: In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant (who does not possess psychic powers).
In addition, in the Bhikkhu Patimokkha, there is a rule forbidding monks from confessing their factual attainments to lay people:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

Hence, it is impossible to identify arahants (those who attained highest Nibbana) or draw up statistics.


If I run along the aisle of a bus traveling at (almost) the speed of light, can I travel faster than the speed of light?

Question: Let's say I fire a bus through space at (almost) the speed of light in vacuum. If I'm inside the bus (sitting on the back seat) and I run up the aisle of the bus toward the front, does that mean I'm traveling faster than the speed of light? (Relative to Earth that I just took off from.)
Comment: Related, but not quite a duplicate (I think...): http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/1557/
Answer: Your question has to do with addition of velocities in special relativity. For objects moving at low speeds, your intuition is correct: say the bus move at speed $v$ relative to earth, and you run at speed $u$ on the bus, then the combined speed is simply $u+v$.
But, when objects start to move fast, this is not quite the way things work. The reason is that time measurements start depending on the observer as well, so the way you measure time is just a bit different from the way it is measured on the bus, or on earth. Taking this into account, your speed compared to the earth will be $\frac{u+v}{1+ uv/c^2}$. where $c$ is the speed of light. This formula is derived from special relativity.
Some comments on this formula provide direct answer to your question:

If both speeds are small compared with the speed of light, they approximately add up as your intuition tells you.
If one of the speeds is the speed of light $c$, you can see that adding any other speed to it does not in fact change it: the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.
If you add up any two speeds below $c$, you end up still below the speed of light. So, any material object which has a mass (unlike light, which doesn't), moves at a speed less than $c$. Adding to it according to the correct rule makes it closer to the speed of light, but you can never exceed it, or in fact not even reach it.

I'd recommend Wheeler and Taylor's "Spacetime Physics" to read about this. Unlike the reputation of the subject it is actually pretty intuitive (I learned that formula in high school).
Comment: holy crap, awesome.
Comment: Great answer. I second the recommendation of *Spacetime Physics*.
Comment: I heard that space can expand faster than the speed of light. so what about if I am on a planet and you are on another, at opposite ends of the universe. We'd be waving goodbye to each other and disappearing into the distance at faster than the speed of light (although we'd never actually see each other as the light is not fast enough to reach each other)
Comment: That's true: once space is stretching, instead of material things moving, more general things can happen. This is the subject of general relativity, which combines the finite speed of light (but only "locally") with gravity. There are still rules, they are just not as simple.
Comment: Also in case you're confused how that can work (being much faster than the bus from the bus' viewpoint but only little faster viewed from earth), there is additionally the effect of time dilatation, i.e. time "runs" differently when you're fast
Comment: Yup. Spacetime Physics is the book. We took it as a one semester half course in first year---not hard at all.
Comment: Yes very interesting....
Comment: The expression for the addition of velocities is valid if u, $\upsilon$ are the algebraic magnitudes of **collinear** velocities vectors $\mathbf{u},\boldsymbol{\upsilon}$. What if they aren NOT collinear ???
Comment: Sir will answer of question changes frame of reference that is ground also moving with speed of light
Answer: No. Relative to Earth your bus will have (almost) zero length, so moving from back to the front of the bus will contribute nothing to your speed relative to Earth.
Comment: Doesnt the bus then have insane mass density? Why doesnt it collapse into a black hole from the observers reference?
Comment: I wonder how much [Cherenkov radiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation) that would cause.
Comment: @Anixx  If the aisle of the bus is **normal** to its rectilinear travel path on which it moves there is no length contraction. Length contraction undergoes the projection (component) of a vector parallel to the direction of motion while the length of its projection (component) normal to the line of motion remains unchanged. Think the bus as a system of coordinates and its aisle as a line oblique to the line of motion of this system to realize that your answer has no sense and is wrong.
Comment: Sir will answer of question changes frame of reference that is ground also moving with speed of light
Comment: Sir shrinkness you refer in your answer is govern by distance=speedxtime since speed is constant distance decreases time tends to infinity ,
Answer: I will have to answer this quickly, for I suspect this question will be closed.  However, this thought experiment is similar to what Einstein thought about 10 years before he published his paper on special relativity.  The problem is this.  If you were on a reference frame moving at the speed of light you would observe that light, or any electromagnetic wave, as a wave of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.  However, this would be stationary, which contradicts the Maxwell equations for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation.  Einstein worked to fix this contradiction, which lead to special relativity.  The conclusion is that you can't place yourself on a frame where light is observed to have any velocity other than the speed of light $c~\simeq~300,000km/sec$.
Comment: Why did you think this would be closed? (In general, if a question should be closed, flag it, don't answer it)
Comment: @Lawrence, You didn't actually answer the question...
Comment: Then what about [slow light](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light)?
Comment: @CeesTimmerman: You are confusing the phase velocity and the group velocity. Slow light has just the group velocity (speed of propagation of the wave envelope) slow.
Comment: @DavidZ many things will be closed which should not be
Comment: Sir will answer of question changes as  frame of reference that is ground also moving with speed of light
Answer: Hmm.
Assume that your bus is approaching the speed of light, because if it had reached it, its mass would be infinite and the question becomes metaphysical as far as the contents and passengers.
Generally, momentum conservation insures that the bus would drop back from the speed it has to compensate for your momentum,as long as you are airborn but when you hit the front glass, it will gain it back.
Comment: The gas from your rocket will hit the back wall of the bus and transfer the momentum.
Comment: so if I'm floating inside the bus and I have a rocket pack on my back and fire it, how would the bus's momentum be affected? I'm not touching the bus.
Comment: @annav You could float next to the bus and fire your rocket to pass it. I'd be worried about obstacles and oncoming traffic, though.
Answer: This answer here covers the general case where the aisle of the bus you run up, so your velocity, is not necessarily collinear (parallel) to the velocity of the bus relative to Earth.
Let define the velocities :
\begin{equation}
 \text{(1) Velocity of bus relative to Earth  :  } \qquad \mathbf{v}=\upsilon \;\mathbf{n}
\tag{A-01a}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
 \text{(2) Your Velocity relative to bus aisle :} \quad \mathbf{u}=u \;\mathbf{k}
\tag{A-01b}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
 \text{(3) Your Velocity relative to earth     :  } \quad \mathbf{u}^{\prime}=u^{\prime} \;\mathbf{k}^{\prime}
\tag{A-01c}
\end{equation}
Note that in equations (A-01) the vectors  $\:\mathbf{n},\:\mathbf{k}\:,\:\mathbf{k}^{\prime}\:$ are unit vectors and  $\:\upsilon,\:u\:,\:u^{\prime}\:$ are real numbers in the interval $\:\left(-c,+c\right)\:$ and not the non-negative numbers representing the norms of these velocity vectors.
Now, the relativistic equation connecting the velocities  $\:\mathbf{v},\:\mathbf{u}\:,\:\mathbf{u}^{\prime}\:$ is :
\begin{equation}
  \bbox[#FFFF88,12px]{\mathbf{u}^{\prime} = \dfrac{\mathbf{u}+(\gamma-1)(\mathbf{n}\circ \mathbf{u})\mathbf{n}+\gamma \mathbf{v}}{\gamma \Biggl(1+\dfrac{\mathbf{v}\circ \mathbf{u}}{c^{2}}\Biggr)} }
\tag{A-02a}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
   \gamma\  \stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv} \ \left(1-\frac{\upsilon^2}{c^{2}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1-\dfrac{\upsilon^2}{c^{2}}}}\\
\tag{A-02b}
\end{equation}
The symbol "$\:\circ\:$" refers to the usual inner product in $\:\mathbb{R}^{3}:$
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{a}\circ\mathbf{b}=\mathrm{a}_{1}\mathrm{b}_{1}+\mathrm{a}_{2}\mathrm{b}_{2}+\mathrm{a}_{3}\mathrm{b}_{3}
\tag{A-03}
\end{equation}
For $\:c\rightarrow\infty\:$ equations (A-02) yield the well known non-relativistic composition of velocities:
\begin{equation}
  \lim_{c\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{u}^{\prime} = \dfrac{\mathbf{u}+(\gamma-1)(\mathbf{n}\circ \mathbf{u})\mathbf{n}+\gamma \mathbf{v}}{\gamma \Biggl(1+\dfrac{\mathbf{v}\circ \mathbf{u}}{c^{2}}\Biggr)}= \mathbf{u}+\mathbf{v}
\tag{A-04a}
\end{equation}
since
\begin{equation}
   \lim_{c\rightarrow\infty} \gamma  = \lim_{c\rightarrow\infty} \left(1-\frac{\upsilon^2}{c^{2}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}= 1
\tag{A-04b}
\end{equation}
If the velocities $\:\mathbf{v},\:\mathbf{u}\:$ are collinear then $\:\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{n}\:$ and (A-02a) yields
\begin{equation}
 \mathbf{u}^{\prime}=u^{\prime}\mathbf{k}^{\prime}=\left(\dfrac{u+\upsilon}{1+\dfrac{u\upsilon}{c^{2}}}\right)\mathbf{n}
\tag{A-05}
\end{equation}
So with the choice $\:\mathbf{k}^{\prime}=\mathbf{n}\:$ we have
\begin{equation}
 u^{\prime}=\dfrac{u+\upsilon}{1+\dfrac{u\upsilon}{c^{2}}}
\tag{A-06}
\end{equation}
In case the bus speed is approaching the speed of light we have $\:\gamma^{-1}\longrightarrow 0\:$
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\upsilon\rightarrow c}\mathbf{u}^{\prime} = \lim_{\upsilon\rightarrow c}\dfrac{\gamma^{-1}\mathbf{u}+\left(1-\gamma^{-1}\right)(\mathbf{n}\circ \mathbf{u})\mathbf{n}+\mathbf{v}}{\Biggl(1+\dfrac{\mathbf{v}\circ \mathbf{u}}{c^{2}}\Biggr)}=\lim_{\upsilon\rightarrow c}\left[\dfrac{(\mathbf{n}\circ \mathbf{k})u+\upsilon}{1+\dfrac{(\mathbf{n}\circ \mathbf{k})u\upsilon}{c^{2}}}\right]\mathbf{n}
\tag{A-07}
\end{equation}
so
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\upsilon\rightarrow c}\mathbf{u}^{\prime} =c\;\mathbf{n}
\tag{A-08}
\end{equation}
Comment: I deleted a slightly inappropriate comment. diracpaul, please don't make trivial edits to your post.
Comment: Sir will answer of question changes frame of reference that is ground also moving with speed of light
Answer: As mentioned by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, (See the_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf, pages 26 and 27, titled as "Motion through Spacetime"), all objects are constantly on the move within space-time, and that they do so at a speed that is identical to the speed of light. For a view of Brian Greene's mathematical representation of this ongoing constant "c" motion within space-time, click on image below.

Despite the ongoing constant "c" motion of all objects located within space-time, a change in the direction of travel is still possible. The more you direct your travel across space, rather than across time, the closer to the speed of light you will be moving across space, and, concerning motion across time, the closer you will be to being at a standstill.
Thus unless a way is discovered to elevate the speed of your constant motion across space-time, the speed of light will remain as the limit. Thus no matter how fast from your point of view you move from the rear to the front of the bus, you will still not be able to surpass the speed of light.
Comment: To see the outcome of this constant "c" motion across space-time, see http://goo.gl/fz4R0I . Make sure that you watch the entirety.
Answer: According to special relativity, information can't ever travel faster than light for the reason described at https://www.quora.com/How-does-relativity-work/answer/Timothy-Bahry. The universe does obey special relativity in the absense of a gravitational field. Diamond has the highest speed of sound of any substance on Earth which is 12 km/s so if you have a super long diamond rod in outer space and you twist one end, the twisting will travel to the other end at only 12 km/s, far slower than the speed of light. There might actually be a substance whose bulk modulus is larger than its density times c^2 so the wave equation would predict that a longitudinal wave in it will travel faster than light, which is what a neutron star is made of. The reason I'm wondering that is because I read that some neutron stars have a photon sphere. Obviously, even if that is the case, if you bombard its surface, the shockwave in it will not travel faster than light because then it would be travelling backwards in time in another frame of reference and therefore it doesn't obey the wave equation. It can still be destined to obey the wave equation for any analytic initial state without information travelling faster than light. That's because given all derivatives of velocity with respect to position at one point and the fact the the function is analytic, it can be fully determined what the velocities at all the other points are. For that reason, it wouldn't break any laws for a sinusodial wave to travel through a neutron star faster than light.
Since the universe doesn't follow special relativity, it might be possible to travel faster than light. Accoriding to http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2007/0601-gravitomagnetic-field.php, gravitomagnetism has been detected so we're pretty sure the universe follows general relativity at the macroscopic level. Objects actually do get dragged faster than light by moving space beyond the event horizon of a black hole. See https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-black-hole-How-can-we-understand-it/answer/Timothy-Bahry. Also, galaxies will receed from us faster than light because of the nonzero cosmological constant and just like if they were falling into a black hole, they will appear to approach the certain finite distance away from us without ever reaching it while getting ever more red shifted. However, since our universe follows general relativity, I don't think its laws predict that anything can go from a point in space-time back to the same point without going faster than light within the space itself but I'm not absolutely sure. If an object does do so, its path is called a closed timelike curve. After all, there probably does exist a deterministic set of laws a universe could have that doesn't let information travel faster than light within the space and yet for some initial states, gives a contradictory prediction of what it will evolve into because it predicts the that a closed timelike curve will exist. There's no way a space ship could travel faster than light by bending space around it according to those laws because then the information telling the space to warp would have to travel through the unwarped space far enough ahead of the ship faster than light. Those laws do however permit you to build a track through space to faster than light where time is contracted by a factor of 21 within the track enabling things to go 20 times faster than light within the track as observed from outside. After that, those laws would then also permit another track to be built right beside it that contracts time by a factor of 21 in another frame of reference enabling a spaceship to travel into its own past light cone. If general relativity just like that other set of laws really does allow for closed time-like curves, here's one possible solution. The moment a closed light-like curve gets created, it will nucleate the disappearance of space at the speed of light before it gets a chance to evolve into a closed time-like curve. Such a nucleation may have already occurred in a black hole but never got to us destroying us because light can't escape from a black hole.


Can I alert a person defined in a list item when a new item is created without workflows?

Question: I need to alert someone when a new item is created but it wont be the same person each time. I want to pull the name from the current list item and alert them. For example if i had a column in the list called name, and I made a new list item with the name column as "bob". Could i make an alert sent to bob using the alert function? I would like to stay away from SPD.
Answer: You can try to use OOTB alerts. But in this solution the user should subscribe list on by self.
Comment: Would this just be sending the alert to a same group of people each time?
Comment: each time, it will send email to the people that are sibscribed to the alerts.
Answer: To be honest even though you said you didn't want to use sharepoint designer, that is really the direction you should go.  Having users sign up for their own alerts won't get you the result you are looking for.  It will be sending them alerts all the time when new items are created, instead of only when their name is in the 'Name' column.
In sharepoint designer, all you need to do is create a new list workflow.  Add the 'Send an Email' action.  When you click the 'these users' link in the action name, it will let you set up the email.
Click the little book icon next to the To: box.  Select the option "Worklfow Lookup for a User..." and click Add.  It will bring up the Lookup for a Person or Group dialog box.  Your Data source is the Current List and the Field from Source is the column which stores the person's name (I'm assuming that column is a people picker control).  You can 'return field as' Email address and click OK.
Then you just have to write out your email.  You can even include information from the list item in the email by using the 'Add or Change Lookup' button at the bottom of the email window.
The workflow only needs one step.  You'll just want to set the start options for the workflow to start automatically when an item is created or modified, whichever is appropriate for your needs.  Then publish the workflow.
The only other thing to consider is that this solution doesn't give people the choice to 'opt-out' of sending the email.  If you wanted people to have that ability, you could just add a checkbox column, then add a condition to the workflow that checks to see if the box was checked or not.
Answer: You could certainly do this with an event reciever on the list assuming you know how to do sharepoint development.
Comment: Though I suspect someone wanting to avoid workflows doesn't want to go there ;)
Answer: There is a way to do this OOTB and without workflows.

Create a "Person or Group" field in the list (you can't do this with names entered into an ordinary text field).
Create a view on the list called, for example, Assigned to Me, and under the Filter heading of the view's settings, choose "Show items only when the following is true:"
Assigned To
is equal to
[Me]
Create an alert on the list, but replace your own name in the Send Alerts To field with the names of each individual that should be notified in this manner (of course, if you're one of the people whose name might appear in the field, then leave yourself in the list, too).
Under Change Type, choose "Only send me alerts when:"
New items are added
Under Send Alerts for These Changes, choose "Someone changes an item that appears in the following view:"
Assigned to Me

Now each person should receive alerts when their own name is entered into the Assigned To field of an item when it is created. The only drawback is that if, for example, a new person joins the team, someone will have to remember that they won't get notified until someone sets up the alert for that person. (Actually, it might be possible to enter a SharePoint group into the Send Alerts To field, which would eliminate this problem, but I haven't tested that.)
Note: I'm pretty sure this alert will not trigger if a user's name is added to the Assigned To field through an edit made to an existing item.


In any electrical equipment having single ph 230 v ac supply ,if neutral and earth wire exchanged then what will be the consequence

Question: I am handling the supply in a locomotive coach and have noticed that the neutral and earth wires have been accidentally flipped,inside the appliance(hot case) is there a problem from the safety point of view?
Comment: Unless you are talking about a toy train running on safety extra low voltage (SELV), this question kind of worries me. On a more serious note, it's good you caught the problem and it's very good that you seem to be worried too, and are trying to fix this.
Comment: It should also be noted that deepening on the local codes internal ground wires don't have to be the same size as the neutral... ground is meant to last long enough to blow the fuse, not a replacement for the neutral.
Answer: There is a problem.
Generally the neutral and earth are connected at source. On fixed installations (e.g., your house) this may be the local transformer or at your meter-box, depending on local regulations. On your coach the generator / alternator most likely has its neutral connected to the chassis. The advantage of this is that we no longer need to fuse the neutral line as a short circuit between it and chassis will not cause high current to flow. On the other hand, a short from live to earth will cause a high current to flow and it will be detected when the fuse blows.

simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
Figure 1. Properly wired system.
Consider what happens in a correctly wired system.

If the live wire falls off the load and touches the metal case a large current will flow to earth. If the fuse is correctly rated it will quickly blow disconnecting the live supply.
If the neutral shorts to the case the fault may not be detected and the current may split between the neutral and earth wires. An RCD / ELCB will protect against this type of fault, but that's another question.
The earth wire keeps the case at the same potential as the chassis.

simulate this circuit
Figure 2. Swapped N and E on LAMP2.
Things get much more interesting and dangerous once we start mixing up N and E. In the example shown in Figure 2 all appears well to the user and even the electrician doing a voltage test.

simulate this circuit
Figure 3. Broken neutral - live equipment case.
Figure 3 shows one potential scenario.

The neutral wire has broken.
SW1 is on so the N wire is connected to mains through LAMP1.
LAMP2 is lit as it has a return path to the generator.
LAMP2's case is connected to the now live part of 'neutral' circuit.
Anyone touching LAMP2 is in danger of electrocution.

It's best to keep neutrals and earths properly connected.
See my answer to Why don't we use neutral wire for to ground devices and earth wire for closing the circuit? for answers to a similar question.
Answer: Probably nothing. However, "neutral" may not be exactly at Earth potential. In most wiring codes, the neutral goes back to the transformer feeding the immediate locale. You take a risk doing this, as "neutral" can vary in voltage, depending on the type and number of loads present. In any case, wiring the coach's ground to the neutral wire almost certainly violates electrical code.
Answer: High voltage wiring in ships, planes and trains using dedicated return (neutral) line. Earth in technically the chassis of the vehicles.
Although the neutral is also connected to the chassis around the transformer location, it doesn't mean the chassis can be considered as the neutral.
The very important reason why this is not allowed in wiring codes is because the chassis cannot be trusted as the good conductor.
When the chassis is used as neutral (return line), if the return current encounter high impedances, voltage drop will occur and resultant voltage differences in the chassis will be a very serious safety hazard.
People accidentally exposed to this voltage may died electrocuted. High current in poorly conducting joints will generate excessive heat and create fire hazard.
To put in general term, the answer for the question is, Don't Do It...!!
Answer: Of course, it's a big safety problem. The earth is to protect the electric hazard if a device malfunctions, the current may not flow trough earth wire if everything is OK.
Now let's suppose that somehow the neutral wire is diconnected (in your specific case where the earth is connected instead the neutral) the entire case will have live on it, this of course is death dangerous.


What is the texture of grilled swordfish?

Question: Purchased and grilled swordfish steaks, as usual, but the texture was very gelatinous(squishy) and raw feeling, though the color was opaque after cooking. Taste was bland and rubbery. The fish was marked Fresh, as opposed to the usual "previously frozen"
What is wrong?
Comment: To what degree did you cook it?
Comment: Cooked the swordfish @ 500degrees F on a gas grill 4-5 min. Ea. side..
It tasted maybe overdone,but the texture seemed a little rare. We have cooked Swordfish this way many times, with good results. Usually if overdone it tastes dry, this did not.
Comment: This fish was marked Fresh as opposed to "previously frozen" is that why? But shouldn't it taste better?
Comment: Hello Penny, if you use the device from which you asked your original question, you will be able to edit your own question. If you cannot do that, the system will not know it is your question, unless you registered. In this case, you should still be able to suggest an edit. This keeps the space below free for solutions only. I now converted your additions to comments (you can also leave those on your own question, or answers to it, until you get some reputation for using them everywhere).
Answer: You may have purchased mislabeled fish. Unfortunately, this is a real problem, alas!  (So at least the texture issue might well not have been your doing.)
Answer: You likely got old "fresh" fish. Fish contains protein-digestive enzymes that over time create a mushy texture. With frozen fish this is not a problem, as the enzymes are not active. Some kinds of fish and shellfish are very prone to this problem due to the high amount of enzymes in them, this is true for example for Pollack, Whiting, Lobster or Herring. They can turn out mushy even if they are really fresh. As far as I know, Swordfish does not belong to this category, so it is likely that the fish spent too much time in an inadequately cooled state (maybe already on the ship).
Answer: Grilled swordfish is often referred to as being "steak like" in its texture. I agree with the others that your fish was probably not so fresh.


What truly makes dark and morose storytelling effective?

Question: This is a fairly simple, straightforward question that I hope I can get an answer to. Where is the line of separation between an effectively dark storytelling and trying too hard to be edgy with risque or offensive subjects? There should be a clear distinction between nihilism for the purpose of story and nihilism for the sake of coming off as cool, and I'd love to know.
Comment: Welcome to Writing.SE.  I'm a bit confused by your question though.  What is an "edgelord" and what does "2Edgy" mean?  What you are asking in the body of the question does not at all match your title.   Could you please edit it to indicate if you want to know about effectiveness or about a distinction between two things?  And define those things.  You mention the catch phrases and also nihilism.  But the title is about dark and morose, which is not the same thing.
Comment: Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by "dark and morose"?
Comment: Okay, maybe I should explain: Someone who attempts to seem edgy by doing or saying risque or offensive things, and 2edgy is when a meme or a joke goes too far. Basically, it's the difference between using a dark tone to have a point and filling a story with violence and blood and swearing and guns to be "mature" and "Adult"
Comment: Neither *edgelord* nor *2edgy* are English words. It's still not clear what you mean by *edgelord*, but it seems that when you say *2edgy* you actually mean *too edgy*. It would be helpful if you didn't use slang, but actual words instead.
Comment: You want a "clear distinction" and a "clear line", but then you use subjective words like "cool" and "effective". When you can *clearly define* the distinction between a "cool" story and an "effective" story verses what isn't, you will have answered your own question.
Answer: Yes, there is a clear distinction.  Everything you put into your story should tie in with your plot.  If you are adding stuff merely for shock value then it doesn't belong.  If you want your story to be edgy, dark, morose, mature, etc., that's fine, and doable, as long as it moves your story forward.
The best way to determine whether or not you have crossed the line into writing just to be "cool" is to ask yourself these questions every time you come up with a questionable scene/event.

How does this move my story forward?  --Every scene should have an effect on the plot.  It might speed it up, slow it down or change the direction it's moving.  There maybe a learning experience needed or item discovered that will be used later.  If you can take a scene/event out of your story without changing the story, then it doesn't belong.
How does this scene effect my characters? --If a character doesn't care about someone dying, then your readers won't either, no matter how gruesome or tragic it is. If your character does care, you still need to show how it effects her motivation, and thus the plot.

As far as the interesting terms you've used, "2edgy" sounds like a great tool for a plot or plot twist, as long as it doesn't go off on a tangent.  And "edgelord"  could lend itself to some fun character development that could play into your story.


Why was Stalin surprised by the German attack in June 1941?

Question: Although he was warned by many, including Churchill, of the forthcoming German attack on 22 June, Stalin did not believe those warnings and was surprised when the attack started. I believe the question of why this happened has been researched by historians. Is there any recently published work on this question? Is there some kind of agreement among historians to explain why Stalin chose to ignore all warnings?
Comment: That's rubbish. Suvorov was caught falsifying documents every which way, and Stalin responded to German invasion warnings by executing anyone who raised them as a British spy.
Comment: The easiest answer is that Stalin himself had been "misinformed." The Red Army was forward deploying and preparing to attack on the eve of the German Invasion...so question should not be "why was Stalin surprised"(although indeed he was) but "why were the Soviet Armies?" Stalin ordered many of the Commanders shot on sight as a consequence...in particular though not exclusively surrounding the actions involving German Army Group Center.
Answer: David Glantz in his book Barbarossa: Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941 mentions several contributing factors.

Stalin wanted to believe that Hitler would hold to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This is the main one that usually gets brought out, but it's not the whole story.
When German forces started building up on the Soviet border, Germany told the Soviets that this was for staging exercises for the invasion of Britain well away from potential British observation. The German invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece also gave a plausible reason for German forces to be in the east.
Stalin believe Hitler was too rational to launch a war against the Soviet Union whilst not having finished off the British in the west. Hitler turned out to be not as rational as that.
Stalin was expecting and preparing for a war with Germany possibly in 1942, and there is a human tendency to confirmation bias: to look for evidence that supports our preconceptions and put less weight on stuff that contradicts it.
Stalin's purges had not only affected the armed forces, but also the intelligence services which were therefore institutionally less experienced and prepared. And their reports to Stalin had a tendency to be massaged to fit his preconceptions: evidence of German possible aggression were downplayed; examples of German forces showing restraint were emphasised. Telling Stalin things he didn't like wasn't a life-enhancing move, and that had the effect of distorting the intelligence to reinforce his hopes of no immediate attack.
In May 1941 Berlin and the OKW encouraged rumours that Berlin was planning to demand changes to the agreement between the Soviet Union and Germany. This encouraged the belief that there would be some kind of ultimatum before any attack to serve as a pretext.
Early, accurate warnings of German intentions had 15th May as the start date, which was indeed the German plan originally. The invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece ended up delaying Barbarossa, which had the effect of discrediting the agents who had actually provided accurate information. Several more specific dates were reported and also passed without incident, so there is a "boy who cried wolf" scenario here where repeated warnings of German attack on specific dates all prove false, again undermining the reports of imminent attack.

It is very easy after the event to pick out the bits of intelligence that should have warned the Soviet Union. It is much harder before time to identify which of the many contradictory bits of intelligence you should believe and which are misinformation or just inaccurate (or were accurate before plans changed). Looking at the information available to Stalin at the time, it is perhaps less surprising that he was taken by complete surprise in June 1941, although certainly his wishful thinking was one of the contributing factors as well.
Comment: @user14394: "All political and military objectives had been achieved by then." -- [They were not.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-A_line)
Comment: @user14394: "There was no way the Red Army was going to be launching an offensive after August, 1941." -- The Red Army launched a counteroffensive on December 5th, 1941, removing the threat to Moscow, and carried through into early January 1942, with up to 250km of territorial gain. What are you even talking about?
Comment: That is much more than a "theory", that was the whole idea. And Germany could not have waited until "having finished off the British in the west". Germany was starved for many important resources -- oil, metal, coal, food. Slugging it out with Britain while sitting still in the east (with Russia gaining strength after the purges) would have left Germany in no position to fight against Russia in the first place. I take exception at this notion (oft-repeated on the internet) that Hitler was "irrational" for attacking Russia when he did. It was indeed Germany's one and only chance to win the war.
Comment: @user14394 Given that the Red Army was bigger by the end of 1942 than it was in June '42, despite the staggering losses it had suffered, I'm not sure how you think that the Germans halting their offensive in August is going to defeat the Soviet Union.
Comment: For bullet #3, there is a theory that Hitler didn't consider Britain to be a deep-seated enemy and could be negotiated into peace, but by 1941 (or indeed late 1939) Britain's mood was too sour against him to negotiate. If those theories have a kernel of truth, it may explain why Hitler discounted Britain in strategic plans from about 1941 to 1943-ish, until the threat of a really big invasion started to look realistic from across the Channel and Italy was being knocked out.
Comment: David Glantz is simply wrong when he claims Soviet Russia didn't see the attack coming. The Red Army had an absolutely superb plan for a counteroffensive from Kiev which because of the scope, scale, speed, surprise, strategic vision and tactical superiority completely failed "in the greatest battle no one has ever heard of" namely The Battle of Brody. The German Army screwed up when unlike George HW Bush in Iraq 1 they failed to halt their own advance by mid August. All political and military objectives had been achieved by then. There was no "Red Army" anymore.
Comment: To wit, there is much laughter about "Operation Sea Lion" and how the Germans could not have conquered / occupied the whole of Britain. *That was never the plan.* All they wanted was to force Britain out of the war so they would have only the eastern front to worry about.
Comment: There was no way the Red Army was going to be launching an offensive against the 3rd Reich after August, 1941. The Strategic Pause did not happen until the Germans had in fact been defeated at the Gates of Moscow...as bad a time to stop if ever there was one as "we can go no further now" and indeed Germany never did. And never has since....
Answer: I don't know a ton about this topic, but in Molotov Remembers, a reprint of a bunch of conversations with Molotov in the 70s and 80s, the interviewer asks a lot of questions about this topic.
Molotov said that Stalin knew there would be war with Hitler, and the whole point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was to stall for time and prepare, and that Stalin felt the country needed two more years before the USSR was ready. Molotov makes clear that all of the ruling circle knew that the Nazis were enemies, and that they knew an attack was eminent. Molotov laughed at the idea that Stalin naively thought that Hitler could be trusted to keep the terms of the Pact - indeed he points out that Stalin trusted no one, even Molotov himself!
So why was the Soviet Union "caught by surprise" when the Germans attacked?  Molotov says that Stalin was primarily worried about an anti-USSR German/British alliance, and that Stalin sent orders to his troops specifically to make sure that Germany was the clear aggressor. The orders specified that there was to be no military response to anything the Germans did, except from Stalin himself.
Prior to the invasion, there was a number of border skirmishes and false alarms.  Molotov says they were worried about being baited by Hitler into escalating the war, and thus be blamed for its start. The orders helped delay the start of the war by weeks or months. He also mentioned the British intelligence report and that they felt it was something of a joke, that "how could we not know the invasion was eminent? And how could we trust the British?"
Molotov then goes on to call Stalin a genius for this tactic, because:

The delayed the start of the war allowed winter to interrupt the German invasion, ultimately preventing defeat.
That showing that Germany was the aggressor split the German/British/capitalist alliance, and even causing the counter-intuitive US/British/Soviet alliance. Molotov states that receiving material help from the US was unthinkable in the 1930s, and that only Stalin could have conceived of this plan.

Just to be clear, I have not read enough about this subject to give a full answer, having only read Molotov's biased opinion. I am not sure I fully buy his opinion, considering what he said about the Holodomor. However, I feel he is correct in stating that the USSR would have lost if the invasion had started even 1 month earlier. I also liked his point about how odd the idea of an alliance with the British was.
On another note, it was interesting to hear his first hand account of what all the major actors in WWII were like personally; he didn't like Ribbentrop very much!
Comment: Errr.... there was no "German / British / capitalist alliance" that was "split up" due to "showing that Germany was the aggressor". By that time Britain had been at war with Germany for almost two years. There are more severely weird things in these "Molotov conversations", but that one is really the topping...
Comment: It's not about "not identifying the Brits as enemies of the Soviets". It's about considering two countries that have been at war for two years to be allied...
Comment: @DevSolar It might be hard in this day and age to convince Stalin that the Brits were his friends. Probably even harder in the 1940s when they were allies. Nonetheless, I agree with you that Molotov's attitudes are wacky, as I stated in my answer.
Comment: @DevSolar The weirdest stuff in the Molotov book was his take on the Holodomor. By far. Chilling to say the least. The funniest part was how he got the Japanese foreign minister drunk to get the treaty signed with imperial Japan. The topping is certainly not identifying the Brits as enemies of the Soviets.
Comment: So, we learn that Molotov is not to be trusted and that a statesman explaining himself after a serious error is not to be trusted. Neither qualifies as new news.
Comment: I wonder if the Sumner Welles grand tour of Rome, Berlin, Paris, and London, in early 1940, while the Soviets were being whipped by the Finns, might not have given Stalin a sense of foreboding. He certainly made peace with the Finns in quick time! Not to mention that little joy flight to England by Hitler's right-hand-man, Rudolph Hess in May 1941
Answer: Stalin received a large number of contradictory puzzle pieces. He and his intelligence analysts believed the information which suggested no attack yet and disbelieved the information which suggested an immediate attack.

Stalin and his immediate circle must be blamed for creating a dysfunctional intelligence system, where analysts could not contradict the preconceived notions of the boss. Compare the recent Gulf War intelligence failure.
Germany had a rather chaotic system of making policy, which explains why it was difficult to discern. That explanation falls flat in the last days before the attack.
Answer: I have read all the interesting answers and I want to propose a somewhat different way to look at this problem. By the way, this mistake of Stalin had cost millions of lives so the question is really important.
I believe, as did Molotov who experienced it firsthand, that Stalin was a genius of the first caliber. An evil genius, surely, but a political genius like no other. He controlled everything, he saw further and deeper than everybody and he was a practical and extremely ruthless leader and organizer. Even Churchill, who hated communism deeply, spoke of Stalin in such terms.
Stalin had the best intelligence service ever. Communists and communist sympathysers were everywhere and many of them were Comintern agents. He had informers in the German foreign office and General staff of the army. He was well informed on the German economy, the size of its army, its armour, the size of its air-force (Luftwaffe). He knew very well that the German tanks are greatly inferior to the Russian tanks. And he believed, crucially, that for Hitler to attack Russia would be suicidal. In this he was right of course, but still it was close. There were moments in 1941 and the summer of 42 when many in the west and perhaps also in Russia thought that the Wehrmacht is winning.
So why did he make his awful error? Hitler's chain of successes, culminating in the easy defeat of the British and French in 1940 left an impression in Stalin's cunning and calculating mind. "Perhaps the guy is not just a fanatical ideologue and adventurous gambler. He clearly has an excellent army so one can assume that his great gambles were based on a rational calculation". If so then Hitler would surely understand that attacking Russia is too dangerous and could even be suicidal!
So, Stalin's mistake was, in my opinion, that he gave Hitler too much credit. They were both representatives of the devil on earth but Stalin was by far the more able man.
Finally I would like very much to know what you think of my suggestions. I have been pondering this for a long time and am eager to discuss the matter.
Comment: Nah.  If you read up pre-Stalingrad, the generals had a devil of a time convincing Stalin to do a defence-in-depth rather than his usual stand-in-place.  I believe it might have been Red Orchestra that told them of the plan, but as I recall reading it, this was the first time they were taken seriously.  Not to mention that lots of his activities, such as gutting the Red Army high command, nearly did get him to lose.  The man was quite competent at being an evil dictator, but to call him a genius is verrrry much stretching the point.
Comment: I'd be surprised if Stalin thought the Soviet Union was strong enough to repel a German assault. Despite two decades of intensive economic development, the USSR was still an industrial light-weight in 1941. I don't have any data though.
Answer: Suvorov, The chief culprit
(Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 248-9)

Golikov's impunity for obviously wrong intelligence had been worrying
  me personally for a long time, until I attended a lecture in the
  Academy of the GRU. Later, when I was working in the central apparatus
  of the GRU, I found confirmation to this answer.
Golikov used to report to Stalin that Hitler was not preparing for
  war against the Soviet Union. It turned out that Golikov was reporting
  the truth to Stalin, since Hitler was not making such preparations.
  Golikov knew that Stalin did not trust documents. Golikov did not
  trust them either. He therefore looked for other indicators which
  would unerringly signal the moment when Hitler began his preparations
  for war with the Soviet Union.
[sheep farming, lubricating oil]
But Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa without making any
  preparations. Stalin, therefore, had no reason to punish Golikov.
  Golikov had done all that was humanly possible to discover German
  preparations for war. He told Stalin that no preparations were taking
  place, and this was the truth. There had only been a great buildup of
  German troops. Golikov gave instructions that not all German divisions
  had to be targets of attention, but only those that were ready to
  invade; those were divisions that had 15,000 sheepskin coats in their
  depots. There were simply no such divisions ready for war in the
  entire Wehrmacht.
Comment: That strikes me as interesting, but very odd reasoning. "An Intelligence chief picked the wrong indicators of an impending attack, and missed the attack. How can you blame *him* for the enemy not doing what he expected?"  Very interesting quote, though. The Russian side of things is not an area I'm at all familiar with -- are Russian historians still trying to rationalize Stalin's errors? (It strikes me they'd do better to condemn him and his minions and celebrate the people who fought back and won in spite of Stalin.)
Comment: @MarkOlson: well, I am not at all convinced that winter clothes were that important, or that sheep was the only way of making them, but it seems clear that Stalin did not think Golikov had done anything wrong.
Comment: So it seems! I need to find the time to read more about that part of Stalin's career.
Comment: @MarkOlson - One would imagine a lot of the firsthand accounts available from that side were taken down in an era where insulting Stalin was hazardous to your health.
Answer: Stalin failed to be objective. Leaders of totalitarian regimes often seem to suffer from this defect. Stalin was the center of a system where he didn't need to be objective and that revolved around his wishes. Absolute power tends to erode one objectivity. The prevalence of yes men and a reluctance to bring evidence that the supreme leader, conclusions counter to the leader's desires are just not presented forcefully. Stalin was used to a situation where he could almost control the facts, reality for most Russians was what Stalin said it was, fear of Stalin was greater than fear of getting things wrong. Stalin didn't want to face the facts that the had got things wrong, the system he was the center of was very much an enabler of Stalin's desires.
Comment: hows that then "Absolute power tends to erode one objectivity" is this clearer?
Answer: Because he was busy attacking Romania
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina

Other priests were arrested and interrogated by the Soviet NKVD itself, then deported to the interior of the USSR, and killed. Research on this subject is still at an early stage. As of 2007, the Christian Orthodox church has granted the martyrdom to ca. 50 clergymen who died in the first year of Soviet rule (1940–1941).[86
Answer: No one knew the exact date of the attack. Intelligence gave different data.
Nevertheless, in the beginning of June, a latent mobilization began. Part of the divisions were sent to the border.
Stalin was waiting for the invasion. He was preparing the country.
Stalin believed in Hitler? No. Was ready for war? Yes.
Was the Red Army ready? No no no. Absolutely not. Rearmament was to be completed in 1942.
Stalin was surprised by the defeat of the Red Army? I think no. The "Winter war" showed the errors of military theories of Tukhachevsky. The Red Army was not ready for war. Wehrmacht was stronger.
Comment: This would be improved by expanding, with some references, the 'yes' and 'no' answers.
Comment: This is too big a topic.
Well, a small example. Wehrmacht was completely mobilized. The Red Army had only 10% of the transport. Many artillery units were without transport. Most of the "army transport" is cheap Ford trucks of 1.5 tons or Zis-5 (3 tons). No transport - no logistics.
Comment: Intelligence service. The hero Ramsay gave several dates of invasion. One date more or less is no longer important. There is no exact source.
Nevertheless, Stalin launched a mobilization. The proof is the movement of rifle divisions to the border. Incidentally, part of these divisions was met by the Wehrmacht in Minsk.
Answer: There were some letters found frm hitler not so long ago found in which he writes stalin that he just sets up his troops at the border to the udssr bc the british RAF couldn'reacht them there. Also he was informed from several high ranking soviets reports that hitler will attack but also one which said the opposite in which Stalin and some high ranked soviet minister(or something) believed in. This behavioour can be seen as part of the great purdge and stalin fear to trust anybody around him.
I have to look up the sources and names at home. So if I find time the next days I will send them.
Comment: -1: this post badly needs proofreading. Also, the OP has promised to provide with references and failed to do so.
Comment: The Red Army had planned for a German invasion and prepared for a counter offensive...and indeed attempted to execute on this Plan from Kiev. I think it still a very interesting point of conjecture as to why the Red Army's Plan failed. It did fail...not for lack of trying though.


two block are broadcast almost at same time, which will be accepted?

Question: Because miners can choose which transaction will be added in block by themselves, so what if two miners broadcast two blocks almost at the same time, one is bigger(has more transactions), another is smaller. Which of the two blocks will be accepted?
Answer: Currently the Satoshi client will simply pick the one it sees first. Since most mining pools use the Satoshi client as their connection to the Bitcoin network they will build on top of the first block that is propagated to their node. The block that is propagated the furthest is therefore most likely to be the winner, i.e., the block that is part of the longest blockchain.
As you probably may have guessed there are also other strategies to pick the block to build on top. For example it might be the case that a block with more transactions offers more transaction fees to be claimed, hence a purely selfish miner may replace an earlier block with a new block that offers a higher reward. By that time however the miner has already spent some time trying to build a new block on top of the block with fewer fees, and it might have found a successor already.
So in the end, miners always work on the block they saw first (mining on top of an old block is rarely advantageous), and if they are selfish they may chose to replace their current base for a newer block if it offers more fees. Such a higher value block might however not be propagated to all miners, but that's another story.
Comment: Note that an academic paper ([preprint](http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0243)) claims that this behavior creates a vulnerability. A mining pool could try to monopolize the network propagation by spawning many nodes, hence becoming able to greatly influence which blocks (its own ones!) more likely arrive first at some other miners, even if they initially withhold their own blocks. They propose to change miners' behavior to make a random choice on which valid block of equal maximum height to mine on.
Comment: For further information on how blocks are propagated in the network see a recent publication: Information Propagation in the Bitcoin Network (http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23fc0/P2P2013_041.pdf) (disclaimer: I am author of that paper).
Answer: If two blocks are found simultaneously (and this is not very uncommon -- see http://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks for some examples) nodes will consider whichever block they saw first to be the tip of the longest chain, and so miners will begin working on whichever block they saw first. The block that eventually becomes part of the longest chain is whichever block the next block is found on, that is, whichever block the miner who finds the next block sees first. The size of the blocks doesn't matter, besides the fact that a larger block will propagate more slowly, meaning that there's an increased chance of that block getting orphaned and not becoming part of the longest blockchain.


Should Research Associates apply for Post-Doc research positions if they want to?

Question: I live and work in the UK and my training is in Computer Science and Mathematics. I defended my PhD thesis eight years ago and since then gained work as an engineer, then a Post-doc Research Assistant, then a Teacher, and now a Research Associate. Is it fine for me to apply for another post-doc research assistant position, or is that not the done thing? I ask because in job progression terms the job title may seem to some University employers like "going backwards". I'm slightly bohemian when it comes to research positions - I'm not really concerned about fluctuations in pay, but rather whether the research is interesting.
Comment: @Buzz, Postdoctoral Researcher and Research Associate are definitely distinct titles at UT Austin.
Comment: You may want to clarify what country you are in, and what field.  I just don't understand the context of those position names.  "Post-doctoral researcher" is not usually a job title; in fact, the usual official title for a research post-doc is "research associate."
Comment: You need to read the job postings carefully. In many fields, it is not possible to get a postdoc if it is more than a certain number of years (rarely more than 5) since you obtained your PhD (this has at least been the case for all the postings I have seen in math).
Comment: I've updated the question, so hopefully it's clearer now.
Answer: There's no prohibition in most job postings against people like you applying for postdoc positions. In many cases, it will be rare, though, that someone would be selected who is 8 years past their PhD simply because most people recognize that postdoc positions are supposed to be training positions for people on their way to faculty jobs. That doesn't seem to be your trajectory, and so departments would probably pass you over. As they are training positions, postdoc positions are typically also strictly limited to 3 years which may or may not interest you.
The situation may be different if a postdoc position is paid for from grant money. In that case, the principal investigator may decide that to heck with training, I need to get this work done and this is the right person for it.
I don't think that you're doing yourself a disfavor if you apply. If it's a small enough community where people talk about each other, you may start to acquire a reputation as a bohemian without a clear career trajectory, but you already know that and so no harm done.
Comment: Thanks for the answer. All my research has involved mathematics, but mathematics has not been the main department involved. However, I now know it is on mathematics I want to focus so I would like to get a position within a maths department and stick to it. I don't think this is impossible if only I can get my foot in the door so to speak.
Comment: The claim that there is no prohibition is directly counter to what I have seen in most job postings. They almost always include a maximal "PhD age".


Who should roll the dice?

Question: Who throws the dice in your game? Do you want to see/know the numerical results? Does it impact your roleplaying? Personally, unless I'm in a formal tournament, I prefer not throwing dice and not knowing their results (i.e. the DM throws them behind the screen for me and then tells me in a "wordy" way what happens) as this helps my roleplaying, but I know other players that like to openly roll the dice. What are the pros and cons of players not rolling the dice and especially the impact on fun through roleplaying?
Comment: AS a player, I want to roll my own dice.  As a gm/dm, I want my players to roll their own dice.  But that's just my opinion.
Comment: Maybe not *exact* duplicate, but I expect some of the territory covered overlaps:  http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/910/what-are-the-players-and-the-dm-supposed-to-be-permitted-to-know-in-regards-to-r
Answer: In my experience, the driving factors in this choice are less about fun and roleplaying, and more about practicality.
Specifically, having players make their own rolls takes some of the pressure off the DM, and gives him some time to think about the consequences of the roll, the probability involved, and generally not be actively doing something for a couple seconds. It spreads the responsibility for maintaining the game (which normally tends to pool on the DM) around the table a bit.
This will vary from system to system and DM to DM, of course. D6 and roll and keep would be nightmares (so... much... counting), while old-school D&D wouldn't be a huge deal. Individual DMs will have varying tolerances as well...
Roleplaying
Regarding your actual question, let's talk about roleplaying. In my opinion, hidden rolls are a useful tool for perception, stealth, and knowledge related checks. Not knowing the result takes a lot of burden off of the player, and frees them to roleplay appropriately. I talk about this a bit in another question. Note that there are some strong dissenting opinions on this... You can find them in the comments and other answers to that question.
For more procedural rolls (attacks, damage, climbing checks, and so on) it doesn't really matter one way of the other. Knowing the roll ahead of time can help you add a bit of description before the DM starts, but this isn't a make or break kind of thing.
Fun
Ah, fun. This is where things get complicated, because everyone has a different idea of what fun is. Roleplaying in particular appeals to different people for very different reasons.
Some people show up to be told a story (that they somewhat participate in). For them, it doesn't really matter if they roll or not as long as they trust the DM to tell a good story. The ups and downs of their character, even the rules of the game themselves, aren't as important as a good narrative. In fact, having to think about numbers and rolls in general only serves to pull them out of the mood.
Some people show up to tell their story. They want to have an active part in the storytelling process, and want power to shape the narrative. They're more likely to want to roll the dice themselves, so that they know that their character isn't being "cheated" for the sake of the DM's story.
Finally, some people show up to play the game. They're more actively interested in the mechanics of the system and their characters. They'll definitely enjoy things more if they can roll their own dice (most of the time), because it lets them see the gears of the system turning in front of them.
Of course, these are broad strokes... Most people will draw from several categories, or jump from category to category over the course of a night.
Answer: My preference, as both player and GM, is to have each player roll for their character.
There are several effects to so doing:

the player is reminded that this is a game, not a cooperative story telling exercise
the player is usually more invested in the result of the die-roll by performing the roll
the game-master is less tempted to fudge the roll
fewer and less profound hurt feelings over failures
helps build a sense of tension when rolls are called for
makes the mechanical side of the rules more clear as to when they are being invoked

While breaking into "this is indeed a game" mode of thought may be a problem for some, it's an important element of the Role-playing game versus the shared story telling exercise or the improvisational acting exercise. All are fun, but a significant part of the fun of RPGs is that the dice are a player, too. Giving them their turn makes RPG's very different from simple shared storytelling and from improvisational acting.
Tension building is an important element. I often have players roll for their stealth; I then have NPC's roll against that singular stealth roll... but knowing that they've done exceptionally or poorly helps build that dynamic tension in the scenes - on an exceptional roll, they know that anyone who spots them is ready for them, and on a poor roll, they don't know how far they'll get. Tension arises from expectations of the result by knwing the roll but not the outcome.
Answer: I see this as two things.  If you throw dice, then you should throw them in front of everyone.  If you hide dice throws, then you should not bother with throws at all: just make up the result that you want (read: what enhances the story).
The former.  If you use rules to be fair to everyone, then you should have open dice rolls.  There lady luck will play her part and screw you over more times than not.  You may miss important plot lines, clues, and take the game in utterly random directions.  Throwing dices can add to the tension of an encounter and move it into unpredicted directions.  This is good.  What is bad is that most rules are badly thought out and created without much statistical knowledge.  A critical success or failure happens 10% of the time in D&D on a d20 roll.  Seriously?
The latter.  If you (as a GM or player) are going to fudge dice rolls, you may as well do so openly.  Let the story dictate what you do: "What would make a better encounter", "What would be more fun?", "What would make this a better story?" ...  Sadly, this does not work well with in a D&D "tactical combat" game -- which to be honest is closer to WOW or a war game.
Personally, I run systemless games so that whatever rolls I make are to get a statistical sample to modify what I think should happen to make the whole game more enjoyable.
Better yet, combine the two: So, here is an example mixing things.  You are about to head into an ambush.  The GM wants it to be tough fight but you will win in the end.  You roll perception.  As a GM, I would consider a failure that you spot the ambush in the nick of time to shout a warning.  A success would lead to a few details: where the ambushers are, what tactic are they using, and maybe who the leader is.  In this case, does it really matter who rules the dice?
What I would never do is make you roll perception and if you failed you would only know of the ambush when five flaming arrows with poison hit you for 7532 damage -- which I roll in front of you.  What is the point in that? </rhetorical question>.
Comment: I dunno. An ambush that starts with arrows suddenly sprouting from the ground at the heroes' feet, followed by scrambling for cover and searching for attackers sounds pretty cinematic to me.
Comment: That is one of the things that varies from system to system. In D&D, for example, the narration I mention above is a valid description for "you are hit by five flaming arrows with poison for 7532 damage" (assuming no one dies). In Cyberpunk, not so much :)
Comment: @AceCalhoon: Sure, that could the result of the "failed roll".  However, it is a little contrived to assume that ambushers will miss the first volley just to allow the PCs to not be slaughtered. Ditto with snipers in modern/futuristic games: the first thing a PC knows is that their head has just blown up in tiny pieces of gore.  Realistic but kinda boring unless you have cortical stacks and reboot from backup -- Scifi games only.
Comment: @AceCalhoon: Yeah, arrows in cyberpunk would be kinda silly... ^_~
Comment: I've had CP players take bow skill, specifically because bows are rather quiet, quite lethal, and modern breakdown bows are easily concealed.

Who should roll the dice?


Can we do an event for Starcraft 2

Question: Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm is coming out sooner than later, and I feel this game has enough reputation and prestige to easily compete with Diablo 3 or Mass Effect 3, of which both games had promotions on this website. Promotions are fun, and I'd very much like to see one for Heart of the Swarm. Is there something I can do to help this happen?
Comment: @Lyrion You mean kind of like Mists of Pandaria? http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/5197/mists-of-pandaria-beta-play-ask-answer-win
Comment: I think the real advantage Starcraft has is the thriving e-sports scene. If we don't do a site promotion, we might consider sponsoring a tourney, like we did with League of Legends. Might be a chance to grab a lot more eyeballs as more people will be checking out the new content.
Comment: 10% more points? If you mean reputation points, that's not really how the site works. It wouldn't be a good idea to artificially inflate rep from posts about a particular subject, and it wouldn't work well with the way reputation actually works.
Comment: @Lyrion You can't play Mists without the base game. Mists introduced a new race and class, and new content. Likewise, HoS introduces new units and a new campaign. Seems like a pretty apt comparison to me.
Comment: I suggest changing the title of this question to "Can we do an event for Starcraft 2?" or similar, since there will likely be a canonical meta post down the line for how to make promos happen. But this is unfortunately not that meta post, since the process isn't ready yet :)
Comment: I guess there will be a lot of questions for the single player, especially with all those ridiculous achievements and how to get them. Most of the multiplayer stuff is covered by the teamliquid forum. But you could create a mini promotion offering 10% more points for questions regarding hots.
Comment: HoS is just an expansion tho...
Comment: @bwarner I wouldn't know, I think Mists of Pandaria is more a "full" game... but I wouldn't know where to draw the line. I'm just thinking that there wouldn't be that much questions for HoS...
Comment: @murgatroid99 I know that the reputation system does not work this way. But this is a "cheap" way to do a promotion that does not harm the community that much. I mean how much points can you get during a promotion anyways? If someone contributes like 2000 points during a one month promotion then he shall get the 200 points or a free "100 point bounty". The implementation is an easy SQL script that any programmer can hack in about 30 minutes, depending on the db schema.
Comment: @ayckoster When I say that's not how the reputation system works, I am pointing to the fact that all rep comes from somewhere, and it can always be recalculated to get the same value. They can't just give people extra rep because it has to come from somewhere. Plus, bounties only go to answers, and they are attached to specific answers, which would artificially inflate the importance of those answers. And I wouldn't want to give 100 free rep to anyone who posts 100 answers that barely make it to +1.
Answer: Arqanoids! Arqadites? Arqadians. Hello, Arqadians!
Lemme address a few of the questions I see coming up here.
Q: Can we do something for Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm?
A: Possibly! Read on.
Q: How about we sponsor a team or a tournament?
A: Nope! You are correct that we've done this in the past, with League of Legends and WoW Mists of Pandaria. It's fun for the Arqade community, which is great! We like fun! Unfortunately, the sponsorship type activities are not a worthwhile investment for us. We spend a gazabajillion bucks on them and they only get us a relative handful of new users (some of whom are awesome! Hello, awesome new users!). We like spreading goodwill and happiness throughout the gaming community, but we'd rather focus on doing stuff for you guys that also attracts some good new users. (As Business Cat would put it, the ROI is much higher when we focus on our community as opposed to on somebody's cousin's Team Fortress team.)
Q: Hey, what happened to that Lauren person who used to hang around here? She used to make this stuff magically happen before we even knew we wanted it.
A: She no longer works for Stack Exchange, and we're still pretty distraught about it, but learning to live without her. She left for a position at a younger, hipper NYC startup, and we have no problem with that. This unfortunately means that we no longer have an employee whose whole job it is to plan awesome stuff for the Arqade community. We do still want to keep doing awesome stuff centered around game releases, though. We just need to figure out a good way to make them happen regularly, and that's in the works.
Q: That all sounds great. What's the outlook for Starcraft? Can we do something?
A: Possibly! It comes out March 12, 2013. We have some cool stuff planned between now and then, so it's not something we will be able to focus on until January. In the meantime, the Arqade meta community can start to generate some ideas about what we might be able to do for a Starcraft event. Or you could discuss what else is coming out in March or April that you might prefer to celebrate. The options are practically boundless.
In the meantime, watch your meta for more formalized instructions about how we can choose events to celebrate and how to decide what to do for them.
Comment: I haven't had a new tshirt for months, please run a promotion so I don't have to do laundry...
Comment: Arqadians is the more proper term.
Comment: Oh, there's no need to wrestle.  @OrigamiRobot knows he's wrong.
Comment: Arqanoids is the proper term.
Comment: @OrigamiRobot, I sit corrected.
Comment: @John, that's what I went with originally! Sounds like you guys need to wrestle for it.
Comment: @JohntheGreen If by "he" you are referring to yourself.  I'll wrestle you any day of the week!
Comment: I think I'll let you two duke it out, and decide the correct term while you're distracted.
Comment: I'm fairly certain the correct term is "Arqanauts".
Comment: It's Febuary now. *bump*

Can we do an event for Starcraft 2


Cremation rituals for cows after death?

Question: Since cow is one of the sacred animals in Hinduism, are there any cremation rituals that need to be followed when a cow dies? If yes, what is the exact process?
Answer: I am not sure how you got the idea that a cow should be cremated. To be frank I have never found (so far) a reference which says that a cow should be cremated or even buried. So, there seems to be a complete lack of references regarding this topic in the scriptures.
However, in ParAshara Smriti, there is an entire chapter dedicated to how to serve the cows. This is the 9th chapter of the text and is named " Go Seva Upadesha Varnanam" (Instructions regarding how to serve the cows).
The verses given below are all from that chapter:

On breaking a horn, a bone, or the spine about the waist, if the animal lives during the next six months, — there is no penance
  prescribed by law.
On causing a fracture or a wound, the sinner with his hand must apply some oily substance to the injured part ; fodder also must be
  given to it, till it is restored to full strength,
The man must nurse it, till its entire body is rendered whole ; and then, in a Brahman's presence, he is to make obeisance to it, and
  bid it farewell.

Verse 21 is important for us. To understand what it actually says we need to see the original Sanskrit verse:

The 2nd half of the verse is important for our purpose and which transliterates to -

Gorupam brAhmanas agre namaskritvA visarjayet ||

Now, Visarjana means to offer something unto water. So, the dead cow should be submerged in water (possibly in a river). No cremation or even burial is ordained.
NamaskritvA visarjayet -- It should be first offered respect (by doing Namaskara) and then the body should be immersed in water (Visarjayet).
And, this is actually what happens too from what I have seen. In Ganges, for example, we often see the dead bodies of cows/bulls being floating carried away by the current.
Comment: in our village (south india) we used to bury the dead cows. Calves were sometimes, in rainy season (when water levels are high), were dropped in rivers. May thats the ritual but carrying dead cow to river is a challenge and hence may be burial (near home) process started.
Comment: The question arises because Hindus don't eat beef, so if they don't then the dead body of cow must be cremated in some way to avoid letting anyone eat it as meat.
Comment: @TheLittleNaruto That is no logic IMO.. A Hindu shd not eat dog's meat too..so does tht imply tht a dog shd also be cremated? Whn it's said tht dog meat shd not be consumed it is so said not because killing a dog is a grt sin (it is a sin alright but not a grt one). But whn it's said don't eat beef tht is only because killing a cow is a grt sin. The Vedas declare cows as "Aghna" - not to be killed.
Comment: Should have added "a sacred animal" in the comment too to put my logic understandable.....
Comment: If not cremation then how a dead body of cow should be treated ?
Comment: Tht is already said in the answer - Visarjan .. the body shd be disposed in water bodies like rivers. @TheLittleNaruto
Comment: Might be burial is also a valid way but I was unable to find any reference. Quite possible that such references are found in some other scripture @Kanthri

Cremation rituals for cows after death?


What happens if I use my sourdough starter too soon?

Question: What happens if I use my sourdough starter before all of the good yeast and bacteria are fully developed? Would the bad bacteria make me sick? Or would cooking it kill all of the bad bacteria and make, whatever it was I made, safe to eat? For instance, I hear that you can make pancakes from the stater you would normally throw away during feedings. I'm not entirely sure my starter is ready for its debut, I just began growing it 5 days ago from course flour and water.
Comment: i've made plenty of starters from scratch. if you use it too soon it will just be flavourless, very glutenous gloop - it may work well from a textural point of view. I've made great pancakes with early starter - use your normal recipe with raising agent but reduce the liquid content (e.g less milk) and judge the consistency by eye. As long as your starter hasn't got a black mould on top it should be fine.
Answer: It won't be viable to leaven bread. Too soon and you'll just be using it in the leuconostoc stage which is bad bacteria and isn't good for anything. I wouldn't use the starter or discard till it becomes viable.
Answer: It will be safe to eat, as long as it isn't moldy, or has other signs of absolute 'spoiled', which for the most part, we are all aware of. If it simply doesn't 'smell tasty'...smells like turpentine, or who knows what, it is likely safe for consumption. I wondered, too, when starting my sourdough starter, how something that sits on the counter for days can be 'safe' to eat, but a sourdough starter needs to do just that.
An 'immature' or 'young' starter will probably just have no strength built up in it yet, and yes, you could use it for pancakes, but it might not help them be light and fluffy. I made some pancakes out of my 'discard', and while they were good, with a terrific flavor, then weren't quite as fluffy as other recipes or a pancake mix.
I have adapted to using the 'float test' for now, to be sure my starter is ready and able to do what I am asking of it: be the natural substitute for packaged, commercial yeast.  I'm getting to the point of knowing when it is ready, but that's taken a week or two, and I have a very young starter... meaning I initially began this starter on Jan. 12, 2017. Yes, I used it at about 2 weeks old, but there wasn't much depth of flavor in it.  Yes, it 'floated', and it made bread for us, but now I have noticed it is getting...yummy!! For your 'float' test, take out about a TB or so, and drop it into a wide mouthed glass of water. If it sinks, feed it, then recheck when it is good and bubbly again.


Does Hindu culture allow eating Hotel food?

Question: Does Hindu culture allow eating hotel food? I have heard that Swaminarayan and Brahma Kumaris say not to eat food at a hotel or restaurant. Why?
Comment: Vidya (education/knowledge), vaidyam(medicine/treatment) and ahAram (food/nourishment) must not be sold according to Hinduism. Extrapolate and you get "they must not be bought either". They should be offered freely. vidya and vaidyam however must not be received without thanks and a counter-offering. Hence the concepts of guru dakshina , bhishak dakshina etc.
Comment: For Garlic and Onion see [Why do some Hindus, especially brahmins, not eat onion or garlic?](http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/109/3500). I don't think there are restrictions for eating hotel food.
Comment: This is not a duplicate of the other question. This subsumes the other one.
Comment: I removed references to 'garlic' and 'onions' so this can be re-opened.
Comment: @moonstar2001 Where did you read that?
Answer: Yes in Hindu dharma its allowed to eat hotel food. And no restrictions for taking food outside. Hindu dharma is quite liberal  and advocates personal feelings , thoughts , interest and free will.
In Hindu culture food is considered sacred and termed as  " BHARAMA" itself ( अन्न ब्रहम). Since ancient times and even today their is
tradition (अन्न छत्रम)  of giving food to whom it is needed. A lot of temples offering such service to needy since ancient times even today and will in future . A lot of students, travellers and other  peoples were and is using this service. So its allowed to eat outside when its necessary.
Since hotels ,messes are relatively new concepts,  Where one pays for food and is a public place. Considering the harmful effects of eating regularly in hotels and outside due to  hygiene ,quality of food. In modern Hindu dharma its said to bring ill effects to health.  Otherwise their is no such barrier in Hindu Dharma.
Comment: You should cite sources.
Comment: Why sudama was poor because food medicine and education can not be sold.but dakshina was taken.
Comment: In ancient time custom was , not to evaluate the  value for service offered to people. But the will, ability of the person for it. Hence the term "dakshina".

Sudama was learned Bharhmin ,although he was poor in wealth ,but not in knowladge, wisdom . Sudama spent all of his time and effort in cultural efforts so by not doing any commercial activity   , he was financially poor.  This included teaching religion, moral duties, and spreading spirituality through society. It is for this effort that Krishna rewards Sudama's family with wealth so that Sudama may continue his work.
Answer: Eating food at a hotel itself is not considered a sin. However, I know that followers of the Swaminarayan Sect traditionally do eat eat hotel food as they do not know who has made the food. The Shikshapatri states that the devotees of Swaminarayan may not eat food prepared by people of the lower castes, therefore they avoid eating hotel food.
Comment: There is no sholk mentioned in the Shikshapatri which support your claim about food prepared by lower cast.
Comment: Infect Swaminarayan Sect is very open towards cast system: in the matter of improving their life style and accepting equally: https://goo.gl/FWZVYD


Applications Start automatically , Start again if I Force Stop them or even if I Disable them

Question: Many applications like skype , orkut, yahoo msger etc start automatically... i have already disabled and force stooped them .... I don't want to run these app and others like WiFi sleep etc to save my RAM ... I have already used Application to kill running application like Task Killer, RAM Booster etc .. but they also have limits and are unable to kill app which are installed when a new firmware is installed like Skype Yahoo msnger etc...
Comment: Possibly a duplicate of [How can I stop applications and services from running?](http://android.stackexchange.com/q/30332)
Answer: When installing you granted all of these apps an explicit permission to start when your application starts!
But for the examples you give (though I haven't ever installed Orkut myself), most of these apps offer settings internally that allows you to choose whether they start automatically.
(Recent versions of Skype have disabled launch-on-boot, have you tried updating your version?)
Comment: so it means that I should re-install the firmware after removing all apps which i don't want :/