Example of not so simple group ??

Question: Help me with an example of a group having subgroups but it doesn't admit a normal subgroup.. ??
The alternate definition of simple groups using non trivial homomorphic image. Searching for a map that doesn't have a non trivial kernal ??
Comment: *Every* group admits two normal subgroups, $1$ and itself. Now, as nontrivial normal subgroups goes, that's another story.
Comment: Better to not try to be clever in the title - I expected that you wanted something other than a simple group. BE direct, particular in forums where there are lots of foreign readers.
Answer: One classic example is $A_5$, which has plenty of non-trivial subgroups, none of which are normal.  In fact, this is the smallest suitable example.
Answer: All the other examples are of finite simple groups. However, there do exist infinite simple groups. One of the best known is Richard Thompson's group $T$. It contains a very interesting group, called $F$, as a subgroup. I'll just define these groups here. If you want a more complete introduction then look at this ams "What is..." article by J. W. Cannon and W. J. Floyd. If you want a proof that this group is simple then you should look up the article "Introductory notes on Richard Thompson's groups" by Cannon, Floyd and Parry. These notes of Cannon, Floyd and Parry are the standard reference for Richard Thompson's groups $F$, $T$ and $V$.
There are three groups introduced by Thompson in 1965, $F<T<V$, and I believe he did not publish his constructions although he did prove that $T$ and $V$ are both simple. I'll define $F$, and use this to define $T$. The definition of $V$ is more complicated so I'll leave you to look it up in one of the above references.
The group $F$: The group $F$ is the set consisting of piecewise linear homeomorphisms from the closed unit interval to itself which are differentiable at all but finitely many dyadic rational numbers $\frac{a}{2^b}$, and such that at intervals of differentiability the derivatives are powers of two.
This means that every element of $F$ has the following form. Note that there are only finitely many intervals, each of whose maximum and minimum is a dyadic rational number. The function on each interval has the form $2^ax+\frac{b}{2^c}$, $a, b, c\in\mathbb{Z}$, $c>0$.
$$f(x)=\begin{cases}
x+\frac12&1\leq x\leq \frac14\\
\frac{x}{2}+\frac18&\frac14\leq x\leq \frac12\\
\frac{x}{4}+\frac{1}{16}&\frac14\leq x\leq \frac12\\
2x+\frac12&\frac34\leq x\leq \frac78\\
x+1&\frac{29}{32}\leq x\leq 1
\end{cases}$$
One useful way of thinking about $F$ is as a subgroup of automorphisms of the circle, but where we fix a common point. This works because when you pin together the ends of the unit interval you get a circle, and the elements of $F$ fix this pinning point.
The group $T$: The group $T$ is the analogue of $F$ to the circle, so if you additionally allow $F$ to move the pinning point $0=1$. So $T$ is $F$ with rotation. More formally, consider $S^1$ as the unit interval $[0, 1]$, then the group $T$ is the set consisting of piecewise linear homeomorphisms from $S^1$ to itself which are differentiable at all but finitely many dyadic rational numbers $\frac{a}{2^b}$, and such that at intervals of differentiability the derivatives are powers of two.
View $F$ as automorphisms of the circle. Then the group $T$ is simply the group generated by $F$ along with the half-rotation map $x\mapsto x+\frac12\pmod1$, which can be described as follows,
$$g(x)=\begin{cases}
x+\frac12&1\leq x\leq \frac12\\
x-\frac12&\frac12\leq x\leq 1
\end{cases}$$
Theorem 5.8 and Corollary 5.9 of Cannon, Floyd and Parry's notes combine to prove that $T$ is simple (although this proof uses a different additional generator for $T$ from the one I state, above).
Some more on $F$: These three groups, of which I have defined two, are interesting and much studied. Indeed, I have heard people referred to as "Thompson's group people", and and career's have been built on these groups! Perhaps the most studied of all though if $F$, the only one which is not simple. From the ams article, The group F does not fit easily into standard categories. It is non-Abelian and torsion-free and contains a free semigroup on two generators, yet it contains no non-Abelian free subgroup. It is not a matrix group. Every subgroup of F is either finite rank free Abelian or contains an infinite-rank free Abelian subgroup.
One of the current open problems on $F$ is its amenability. See this old MO question and its answers. I have been led to believe that this question is really only interesting because it has garnered so many incorrect answers!
Answer: An example of a group $G$ that has lots of subgroups (15 conjugacy classes of subgroups, 179 total subgroups), but with only the two obvious normal subgroups $1$ and $G$, is the group $G$ of three by three invertible matrices with 0-1 entries and arithmetic operations done mod 2. $G$ has order $(2^3-1)(2^3-2)(2^3-4) = 168$.
Answer: We must look to nonabelian groups since every subgroup of an abelian group will be normal.  The example that comes to mind quickly is the alternating group $A_n$ for all $n \geq 5$.
$PSL(3, 2)$ is the second smallest example behind $A_5$ of a group with subgroups, none of whom are normal.
http://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Projective_special_linear_group:PSL(3,2)
Comment: $C_2$ is a perfectly good example of a simple group. In fact, $C_p$ is for every prime $p$.
Comment: Certainly.  I am adding the restriction that nontrivial subgroups actually exist.
Comment: Well, you did say "Note that cyclic groups are no good."
Comment: Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is coming from.  The OP had added the restriction that nontrivial subgroups exist.  I'll edit my post to clear that up.
Answer: A cyclic group of prime order has no subgroups except itself and the group with only one element.
Answer: Hint: Any subgroup of a commutative group is normal. What noncommutative groups do you know.
Bigger Hint: Think about subgroups of $S_5$.
Even Bigger Hint: What about the subgroup of the simple group $A_5$ generated by a product transpositions?
SUPER OMEGA HINT: What is $(12)(45)(12)(34)(12)(45)$?

Example of not so simple group ??


Does a band logo define their music?

Question: I'm wondering, every band got logo. Even some bands that I recently see have more than one logo. Do they (the logo) represent/define their styles or character when playing their music? And what're the ideas (or what for) of more than one logo for one band?
Comment: A band's logo would only *define* their music if they thought of the logo first and then tried to write music around the logo, which I imagine is an unusual approach. I think you need to reword this a bit.
Comment: Maybe you want to ask if the logo gives us a hint about the music genre ? Like unreadable logos from black metal bands...
Answer: The logo is an intrical part of the band.  Some bands, in the beginning, spend almost as much time designing their logo as they do creating the music.  It's got to be right.  It's got to define who they are, or project an image of who they want to be.

You see this, and you know exactly who that band is, right?  That is how important a logo is, particularly for branding.

Other bands want to create a certain "atmosphere" with their logo.  This is the logo for Thou Art Lord, a Black Metal band.
As you can see, logos are definitely important for branding purposes, as well as instant identification by fans and even with fans.
Comment: You should see some of the "extreme" Black metal bands.  They're completely indecipherable, but they usually look like the branches of mangled trees or something.  Again, though, they're conveying more of an atmosphere by doing that.  For my answer, I picked one that was at least *somewhat* easy to read, though I didn't expect everyone would know it.
Comment: A logo is good for marketing, but there are plenty of successful bands that have no logo.
Comment: Interestingly, though I immediately knew who the first band was, the second one I couldn't even read ;)
Comment: I think you mean "integral" rather than "intrical."

Does a band logo define their music?


Why have prices fallen so drastically around October 2011?

Question: Any idea why bitcoin prices have fallen so in September and October of 2011?  It seems like back in August, one bitcoin cost about US$17, whereas in late October, it's just somewhat over US$2.
Comment: @nmat, Yes there is that slight difference. I suggest then that we keep both but that we edit the other one so that it's more clearly about just about the manipulating bot. Good?
Comment: @D.H. I agree that these could be duplicates, but the other question seems to be more related to a manipulating bot while this is strictly about the price drop itself.
Comment: Possible duplicate of http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1613/is-it-possible-to-pinpoint-what-caused-the-drop-in-value-between-july-and-septem
Comment: @Thilo, I agree that this is a duplicate but since there is just one close-vote I won't close it just yet. People who want to keep it, please add a comment here explaining why you *don't* think that it should be closed.
Comment: Works for me @D.H.!
Answer: One thing a lot of people fail to notice is the decreasing volume at the exchanges. If we look at the USD volume - and not at the bitcoin volume, which is misleading because bitcoins are now worth much less - we can see a spike in June and a decrease afterwards:

The news reports in June attracted lots of people who were curious about bitcoin. A part of these people left and the market size is now coming back to April/May levels. As a consequence, there is much less money being traded. However, we still have 5 new coins being produced every minute and lots of miners who want their invested money back.
The current price is a natural consequence of high supply and low demand.
Answer: People are not holding their bitcoins as long.
I've speculated elsewhere that this might have something to do with the hedging mechanism implemented by Silk Road.
We all want people to use bitcoins for transactions; unfortunately they only have value in proportion to the length of time for which people hold them.  If everybody bought bitcoins (using fiat) the instant before they needed to use them to buy something with BTC and sold bitcoins (for fiat) the instant after they had sold something via BTC the demand for BTC at any given instant in time would be both (a) incredibly small and (b) very unstable, causing the price to crash and then fluctuate wildly (in percentage terms).
In one explanation, money has three roles: (1) store of value, (2) unit of account, and (3) mechanism for transmitting value.  People talk a lot about promoting the "bitcoin economy" (#3) but unfortunately without enough people using it as a store of value (#1) the price will crash and then fluctuate wildly, causing it to no longer be viable as a mechanism for transmitting value (#3).
Comment: -1. Is there some reason you can't mention SilkRoad?  Many users would not know what "certain taboo website" refers to.  Silk Road is a reaility.  While questions on SR are offtopic for this board it can be mentioned in an answer especially when it is a central part of your theory.
Comment: Nice logic... +1'ed. I still think though that speculators that were in the game for short term profits were largely responsible for the movement over this period, so "Speculation" might be a more accurate answer to the question. Hopefully my answer will still be of value to some people anyway!
Comment: +1 for the analysis. Please edit to include a reference to Silk Road (if that is what you mean) to avoid doubt.
Comment: theUnhandledException, feel free to edit my answer.
Answer: The answer to this other question summarises the factors that affect the price of bitcoins in a general sense. However, your question covers a specific period. According to Bitcoin Charts the price peaked at around US$30 around Jun 8th 2011, and was around the $17 mark in mid-July. It's certainly a substantial drop to now (Oct 20th) be under the $2.50 mark.
Speculators appear to be the primary driver for the peak at US$30. The purposes that bitcoins were created for are mainly for trade, but the growth in trade has been modest and couldn't explain the big spike in price prior to the peak. You could say that the underlying value of bitcoins as a currency (based on the number of people/retailers using it for trade) was exceeded and is resettling.
Though bitcoins are also intended to be useful as a store of value (which is why there will only ever be a limited number in circulation), most people probably don't have enough faith yet to put their life savings into Bitcoins, so I don't think that is affecting the price substantially.
The constant supply of 50 bitcoins per block to miners may help explain the steady decline since the peak, as many miners probably sell off their bitcoins regularly to pay for the investment in hardware. There have also been a couple of very large sell-offs of bitcoins on MtGox (9th Sep, 17th Oct in particular) which could potentially have been holdings of early adopters, or speculators that chose to reduce their investment.
As the price drops different factors come into play - less efficient mining hardware gets switched off, and perhaps increases the proportion of active miners who have faith in the future of bitcoins (and will hold on to them). If the price starts to trend upwards again, you might see speculation driving another high peak - this is normal for speculative markets and is likely to keep happening.
This question has some great comments on speculation.
Comment: Unfortunately "using bitcoins for trade" does not lead people to hold bitcoins; they exchange them for fiat, send the BTC, then exchange them back for fiat.  **Net effect is that the number of BTC demanded at any instant in time is very, very small and very volatile.**
Comment: You're right, but they do hold them for a short time. I wonder how long it will take until it become a major factor in the value?
Comment: @eldentyrell the length of time a person keeps wealth in bitcoins is directly linked to the utility of the Bitcoin currency.  Currently there are limited uses for Bitcoin and high volatility so people hold them for short periods of time.  There are costs to doing that.  Exchange fees can be 1% to 2% round trip and the fiat -> bitcoin -> fiat trip can be rather slow.  There will need to be more utility in holding bitcoins longer such as more merchants accepting bitcoin for that to change.
Answer: Speculative Bubble.
Simple like this:
I watch a lot of markets charts for years and the Bitcoin chart looks pretty normal to me. Oh, and the trend is continue going down right now.
And this blog have Bitcoin chart analysis that confirm what I am saying, just to give a second opinion. (I found this right now)
Comment: There's no information here, especially not anything that's not already in one of the other answers.
Comment: I disagree. Lots of information here, and the answer is focused. One image worst million words. No problem. I respect others opinions. =) Anyway, I tryed to improve a little my answer. Thanks for the comment and votes.
Answer: The BitCoin is made up currency and thus there is no trust in it.  The value will bop up and down based on whims and popularity.
Comment: Hello DarthDiggler and welcome to the StackExchange. Please try making your answers objective and related to the question asked.


How do I retrieve the RSS feed URL from an RSS feed item in Outlook 2007?

Question: If I right click and get "properties" on an RSS item in Outlook 2007 after I've created it, there doesn't seem any place that shows me the RSS feed URL that it is using.  How do I find it out?
Answer: It's under menu Tools -> Account Settings -> RSS Feeds. Under the one you want, choose it and then click the Change button. The RSS URL is the Location.
Comment: D'oh - of course! Well deserved bounty for spotting that.
Comment: no problem. it's hidden pretty well, isn't it? :)
Answer: It's annoying that you can't get to this in the properties.
The easiest way to get to the URL would probably be to export the RSS feeds to an OPML file and you can find them all in there.
I'm using 2010, but I think in 2007 you start from File > Import and Export (in 2010 it is now in File > Options > Advanced > Export).
One of the export options is to export your RSS feeds to an OPML file. You can do this for all at once (which is handy for transferring to another machine, or backing up), or just the specific ones you are interested in.
Choose a filename and location you can remember.
Open the OPML file from a text editor such as Notepad and you can see the URL for the feed XML


How to test if oil is leaking into combustion chambers?

Question: How can I test whether oil is leaking into cylinder combustion chambers and getting burnt in case of oil level loss? As opposed to, for example, leaking through the oil pan or the timing chain cover.
Comment: Fastest way is using an exhaust gas analyzer, if oil is burning in the combustion chamber it will cause really high hydrocarbons in the exhaust.
Answer: Pull the spark plugs and inspect them.
Oil-fouled spark plugs will look wet and black.
Comment: @Moab   While it is true that some of these conditions have become quite rare in modern computer controlled fuel management systems. They are all still valid. Oil ash on the plugs is still a good clue to oil burn and we see it often enough.
Comment: That is a really old poster, today's modern lean burning engines will not show those types of deposits.
Answer: You can test your rings and head gasket with a leak down tester
Checking your spark plugs as shown in @Zaid's post is the first order of business.  You will see it on the plugs.
Now, if you do see an oil fouled plug, you will need to identify the source of the oil.
Possible Sources of Oil

Intake valve guide seal
Rings
Head gasket
PCV valve

Any of the above can be a source of oil into your engine where it can be burned.
To test the integrity of the combustion chamber you can use a leak down tester.  A leak down tester will pressurize your combustion chambers and allow you to listen at your intake and exhaust valves for leaks as well as your crankcase ventilation for head gasket and ring leaks.
Here is post regarding how to use a leak down tester.

What is a leak down tester and what can I do with it?


Nfl overtime rules

Question: What happens if the team receiving the kickoff in overtime drives the ball for almost 10 minutes (unlikely but possible) and then kicks a field goal as the 10 minutes run out? Do they win?
Answer: According to this article, the Field Goal would be winning the game. It covers pretty much what you have asked.
The rules also cover this situation:

There shall be a maximum of one 10-minute period, even if the second
  team has not had an opportunity to possess the ball or if its initial
  possession has not ended. If the score is tied at the end of the
  period, the game shall result in a tie.

So if the time runs out the game is over.

Nfl overtime rules


Manage links in Sharepoint

Question: I've a big Sharepoint Publishing site with many pages and sites. There are many external list that should be managed. My problem here is when a external link (to a specific website or resource) changes the address, I should go in every page where this link is located and make the correction. Is there any out of the box feature or other possibility to manage all links from one page?
Answer: I understand your pain point here. But it is a tough choice here. If you have page layouts based on which these pages are created, and if these links are static on these page layouts you can change these links on the page layouts from which the page derive from.
But there is no straight forward to change the links all at once, if you have links on different pages and sites. Hope this helps.

Manage links in Sharepoint


Is the set of all true contingent propositions equal to the set of all true propositions?

Question: Since the conjunct of a true contingent proposition and a necessary proposition is contingent and hence it is contained in the set of all contingent propositions. Does that mean that the set of all contingent propositions the same set as the set of all true propositions?
Comment: I wouldn't have thought so.
Comment: "True" where? Truth is relative to the possible world the proposition is evaluated on. Only necessary propositions are true in every possible world, contingent ones are true somewhere and false somewhere, impossible ones are false everywhere.
Comment: Truth is not relative. Something True may be relative. Truth is an universally objective thing. If it's not like that, it's not the truth, but at most something true.
Comment: @overmind, you are committing a hasty generalization. There are clear distinct TYPES of truth. Some truths are forever true which are objective truths; some truths about claims are NOT constants. That is, sometimes the claim is true & sometimes it is false: i.e., it is raining right now where I am. It is not always raining where I am now. There are semantic truths such as triangles have three sides or a bachelor is an unmarried male. There are necessary truths such as all women are human beings. You need to be clear which type of TRUTH you mean. Do not lump them together as this is confusion.
Comment: A truth that is not objectively universally true is not a truth.
Comment: @Overmind surely you'd like to say that there some "truths" that are not universal, but they can be loca.
Answer: No. Call T the set of true propositions and T* the set of true contingent propositions. Let P be a necessary proposition.
All necessary propositions are true, so P in T.
But no necessary proposition is contingent, because contingent just means neither necessary nor impossible. So P not in T*. Then T /= T*.
I have a guess about where your confusion comes from.
Let Q be a true contingent proposition. Obviously Q in T, Q in T*. Now consider the proposition "P and Q". Now "P and Q" is a true contingent proposition. So "P and Q" in T, "P and Q" in T*.
But "P and Q" is not the same as P, nor as Q. (The use of "the sky is blue and a = a" is nothing like the use of either "the sky is blue" nor "a = a".) So saying "P and Q" in T* does not imply P in T*.
Answer: So, in short, the answer is no, but I can understand the intuition behind this. The issue comes from the nature of each of these things; truth and possibly.
What is possible to tends to be divided into three branches:
1) that which is logically possible
2) that which is metaphysically possible
3) that which is physically possible
Whilst, on the other hand, truth is generally taken as a relation between language (or propositions) and reality, depending on which view you're taking. The more popular views on truth tend to be correspondence or deflationary views which equate the truth of a truth-bearer with that truth-bearing expressing something and that thing is the case. In each possible world, the set of true propositions will be specific to that world; each proposition will be true with respect to the reality that is the case in that possible world.
The sets of each of these things will be distinct, as the set of all possible propositions is far greater than the set of all true propositions. This is because the set of all contingent/possible propositions contains all the true propositions, as they must be possible if they are true. But the set also contains non-true propositions; i.e. "the Eiffel tower is in London" is possible on all three versions of possiblity mentioned above, yet it fails to fall into the set of true propositions.
It would be correct, concerning conjunction with necessary propositions, to claim that the set of all contingent propositions contains the set of all necessary propositions. But it wouldn't be the case that the set of all true propositions is identical to the set of all contingent propositions - the latter set is far greater.


Origin of "to have an axe to grind"

Question: Where does the idiom to have an axe to grind come from? To have personal, selfish reasons to do or say something.
Comment: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/174000.html
Comment: I feel this source is the best answer.
Comment: None of the answers that attribute to Benjamin Franklin the story that seems to have led to the popularization of the expression "have an axe to grind" cites a source earlier than 1836 that credits the story to Franklin. In contrast, very strong evidence indicates that Charles Miner published the story under his name in 1810. Consequently, I urge any answerer who thinks that Franklin deserves credit for the origin of the phrase to support that view with documentary evidence (from a source no later than 1810) of Franklin's authorship of the story or pertinent use of the phrase.
Answer:
An Ax To Grind
By Benjamin Franklin (1706 to 1790)
When I was a little boy, I remember, one cold winter morning, I was accosted by a smiling man with an ax on his shoulder. "My pretty boy," said he, "has your father a grindstone?"
  "Yes sir," said I. "You are a find little fellow!" said he. "Will you let me grind my ax on it?"
Pleased with the compliment of "fine little fellow," "Oh, Yes, sir," I answered. "It is down in the shop." "And will you, my man," said he, patting me on the head, "get me a little hot water?" How could I refuse? I ran, and soon brought a kettleful.
"How old are you-and what's your name?" continued he, without waiting for a reply. "I'm sure you are one of the finest lads that I have ever seen. Will you just turn a few minutes for me?"
Tickled with the flattery, like a little fool, I went to work, and bitterly did I rue the day. It was a new ax, and I toiled and tugged till I was almost tired to death. The school bell rang, and I could not get away. My hands were blistered, and the ax was not half ground. At length, however, it was sharpened, and the man turned to me with, "Now, you little rascal, you've played truant! Seud to school, or you'll rue it!" "Alas!" thought I, "it was hard enough to turn a grindstone this cold day, but now to be called a little rascal is too much."
It sank deep into my mind, and often have I thought of it since.
Source: The Elson Readers, Book Five, pp.295, Copyright©1911

EDITOR'S NOTE: The moral behind Benjamin Franklin's story is this, don't be sucked in by those who work to flatter you so to gain some advantage. Such selfish intentions do not deserve your attention. (2002)
Allan B. Colombo, publisher
GiantKillers.Org
Comment: Do you have some explanation for how this story is the source of the phrase, or how the title came to acquire its idiomatic meaning?
Comment: This does likely explain the idiom.  An "axe to grind" means that there is some hidden reason that is motivating a person to flatter another person or support some cause.  This story illustrates that situation.
Answer: As others have observed, an "axe to grind" is simply an ulterior motive—often, but not always, a concealed one.
Most authorities cite as the source of the phrase the cautionary tale of the boy, the stranger, the axe, and the grindstone, which they generally attribute either to Charles Miner (1780–1865) or to Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790). As I've noted on other occasions, Benjamin Franklin is part of a troika of historical figures—the other two are Abraham Lincoln and Confucius—whom Americans tend to credit with authorship of any piece of homespun wisdom that has been around for a while and isn't firmly nailed down to someone else's floor.

Early anonymous instances of the phrase and the first Franklin attribution
I ran Google Books searches for "axe to grind" and "ax to grind" for the years 1700 through 1900. The earliest match for the phrase that these searches found is to a copy of the story reproduced in ron grimes's answer above, but titled "Who'll Turn the Grindstone?" from The [Charleston, South Carolina] Sunday Visitant, or Weekly Repository of Christian Knowledge (February 6, 1819). On the same page of that newspaper are items attributed to [Jeremy] Taylor's Holy Living, Bishop [Thomas] Wilson, and Senex [that is, "sage"]; but the authorship of "Who'll Turn the Grindstone?" goes uncredited—a rather surprising omission if Franklin was known to be the author.
The story reappears (under the same title) in The [Hudson, New York] Rural Repository (February 1, 1834). It also appears with ax in place of axe in The [Philadelphia] Visiter (March 1836), this time with no title and no named author.
The earliest attribution of the vignette to Franklin in a Google Books match is from The [Charleston, South Carolina] Southern Agriculturist and Register of Rural Affairs (March 1836), this time under the title "Who'll turn the Grindstone."

Miner v. Franklin
According to the Wikipedia article on Charles Miner, Miner was a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives during 1807–1808 and later served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Outside his political career, he worked as a writer and publisher. The article then states

Miner's essay "Who'll turn Grindstone?" published in The Centinel 1810 coined the phrase "an axe to grind" as a metaphor for having ulterior personal motives.

The Library of Congress Chronicling America site confirms that The Centinel was a newspaper published in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, from 1805 to 1813, but unfortunately it does not offer searchable copies of newspapers from before 1832, so I can't confirm the claim that the article appeared in The Centinel in 1810 and that Miner wrote it. However, Miner was already involved in newspaper work in the early 1800s as publisher of the [Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania] Luzerne County Federalist, according to Wikipedia, and he was 30 years old in 1810.
Franklin, meanwhile, had been dead for 20 years when 1810 rolled around. And none of the Google Books matches that associate "axe to grind" with Franklin identify where it appears in his writings. This is a frequent—and one may say tell-tale—sign of false attribution of a particular quotation to a famous and prolific source.
The strongest evidence that Miner is the original source of the phrase is provided by Charles Richardson & Elizabeth Richardson, Charles Miner, a Pennsylvania Pioneer (1916), which prefaces its reproduction of the text of "Who'll Turn Grindstone" with this background information:

To the Luzerne Federalist for September 7, 1810, when still "printed by Tracy and Butler," Charles Miner contributed a little story which was destined to be copied from one end of the country to the other, to reappear in school reading-books down to the present year, 1913, and to furnish America, as has been said, with its most frequently used familiar quotation—"to have an axe to grind." The story—"Who'll Turn Grindstone?" afterwards became the first in the series entitled "Essays from the Desk of Poor Robert the Scribe," the title of which so closely resembled Franklin's Poor Richard that the famous quotation has sometimes been assigned to the elder philosopher.

Corroborating this account is the fact that Charles Miner, Essays from the Desk of Poor Robert the Scribe, containing Lessons in Manners, Morals, and Domestic Economy. Originally Published in the Gleaner (reprinted 1980) finds matches for "Who'll Turn Grindstone?" and for the opening sentence of the story that appears in ron grimes's answer—as does a 1930 reprint of the same  collection of newspaper pieces.
So we have an exact date of publication for the story attributed to Miner, a date of publication that matches his early years in publishing, and an explanation of why people might have mistakenly begun to think that Franklin was the author. In contrast, we have a first attribution of the story to Franklin in 1836, and no suggestion of where the tale is to be found among Franklin's writings. I think that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the inspiration for "axe to grind" was Miner's story published on September 7, 1810, in The [Gettysburg, Pennsylvania] Centinel.

The Phrase Finder's argument for Franklin
The Phrase Finder's article on "axe to grind" (cited in Canis Lupus's comment above) offers these details about Benjamin Franklin's possible influence on the phrase:

Franklin sent a story called 'The Whistle' to a friend in 1779. This concerns a child who paid more than he should have for a whistle and later regretted his lack of caution. Franklin's autobiography, which was written between 1771 and his death in 1790 and first published in 1791, also contains an anecdote concerning a man who asked a smith to sharpen his ax especially well and ended up doing the work of turning the grindstone himself. Neither story mentions the phrase an ax to grind.

But more serious than the omission of the phrase itself is the poor fit between the two cited anecdotes and the sense of the popular saying. "The Whistle" doesn't involve an axe at all, which makes bringing it up relevant only if we are to suppose that it inspired Miner to make a connection that Franklin hadn't.
As for the man who brings an axe to be sharpened and ends up doing the work himself, it unfolds at cross purposes to the narrative in Miner's story. If your point is to tell a cautionary tale about people who have ulterior motives, why would you set up the story so that the person who introduces the task to be done becomes the dupe who does the task? In Franklin's presentation, the man who has the axe to grind is the one who doesn't try to take advantage of someone else. That anecdote doesn't make sense as the source of an idiom centrally about hidden agendas.

Update (July 31, 2016)
In conducting an Elephind search of early U.S. newspapers, I turned up an article in the [Montrose, Pennsylvania] Independent Republican (December 9, 1858) that addresses the disagreement over the original source of "an ax to grind":

"AN AX TO GRIND."—A late number of the Bucks County [Pennsylvania] Intelligencer enters the name of another claimant to the honor of having first given currency to this common colloquial phrase. That journal says:
"It was not Dr. Franklin who gave to the world this convenient and expressive phrase. It would be a grievous wrong to attempt to rob him of any of his honors, or to call in question his authorship of any of the sayings of 'Poor Richard,' but the story of the man who had the ax to grind, from which the present story in garbled, was written by Charles Miner, under the nom de plume of 'Poor Robert the Scribe.' Those articles were afterward published in a small volume, and were printed at 'Miner's Press, Doylestown.' The book was entitled 'Essays from the Desk of Poor Robert the Scribe.' The first piece was headed, 'Who'll Turn Grindstone?' And from this the phrase 'an ax to grind' has obtained more than a land-wide circulation."

The Boston Weekly Messenger (July 30, 1818) includes a full version of "Who'll Turn Grindstone?" which it credits as coming originally from the Luzerne Federalist. A note on the phrase "an axe to grind" in American Notes and Queries (June 2, 1888) likewise credits the phrase to Charles Miner in "Who'll Turn the Grindstone?" and then concludes with this remark:

But the whole story has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin and may be found, so attributed, in Sergeant and May's and other Readers. It would be interesting to know on what authority this is done.

Further update (April 6, 2019)
The punchline about "having an axe to grind" arises in somewhat different contexts in two very early print occurrences of the anecdote. In the version that appears in the Boston Weekly Messenger (July 30, 1818), the conclusion appears as follows:

When I see a merchant overpolite to his customers, begging them to taste a little brandy and throwing half his goods on the counter—thinks I, that man has an axe to grind.
When I have seen a young man of doubtful character, patting a girl on her cheek, praising her sparkling eye and ruby lip, and giving her a sly squeeze—Beware my girl, thought I, or you will find find to your sorrow that you have been turning grindstone for a villain.

The ulterior motives in these instances are commercial and sexual. But in the version of the story that appears in the [Richmond, Virginia] Genius of Liberty (September 9, 1823), the objectives of cited axe grinders go in a somewhat different direction:

When I have saw a man of doubtful character, patting a girl on the cheek, praising her sparkling eye and ruby lip, and giving her a sly squeeze—beware my girl, thinks I, or you will find find to your sorrow, that you have been turning a grindstone for a villain.
When I see a man flattering the people, making great profession of attachment to liberty, who is in private life a tyrant, methinks, look out out good people, that fellow would set you to turning grind stones.
When I see a man holding a fat office 'sounding the horn on the borders' to call the people to support the man on whom he depends for his office, well thinks I, no wonder the man i zealous in this case, he evidently has an axe to grind.

Here the axe grinders are a sexual seducer (as in the earlier version), a political hypocrite, and a sycophantic sinecure holder. The sweet-talking commercial salesman in the Boston Weekly Messenger version of the anecdote is supplanted by two types of political deceivers. Both versions of the anecdote appear multiple times in newspapers in ensuing decades.
Comment: I managed to find the link to the story, An Axe to Grind, attributed to Franklin, and where:  The Elson Readers, Book Five, pp.295, a source which was *not* cited by ron grimes but is cited on the defunct (?) website *Giant Killers Organisation*.
Comment: It should be noted that Franklin was a printer and publisher, and (well prior to any copyright laws), likely plagiarized a lot of the stuff attributed to him.  (This is in no way casting aspersions on Franklin, as he was only doing what was "normal" for the time and was quite prolific in his own right.)
Comment: @Mari-Lou A: You can find examples of the story attributed to Franklin and titled "An Axe to Grind" going back at least as far as [_The Guardian_ (February 1859)](https://books.google.com/books?id=oRwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=%22Axe+to+Grind%22+Franklin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwjM7unso_nGAhWHl4gKHd25D8U#v=onepage&q=%22Axe%20to%20Grind%22%20Franklin&f=false). It was a very popular story in the 1800s. But I don't think Franklin had anything to do with its authorship. I note, too, that the real impetus for the idiom isn't the story itself but the coda (which ron grimes omits)...
Comment: ...in which the author switches from reminiscence to present-day insight: "When I see a merchant overpolite to his customers, begging them to taste a little brandy and throwing half his goods on the counter—thinks I, **that man has an axe to grind**." Oscar Harvey, [_A History of Lodge No. 61, F. and A. M., Wilkesbarre, Pa._](https://books.google.com/books?id=Pr84AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA434&dq=%22Axe+to+Grind%22+Franklin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBjg8ahUKEwiSiqLupfnGAhVSLIgKHdgkD2Y#v=onepage&q=%22Axe%20to%20Grind%22%20Franklin&f=false) (1897) discusses the story and Miner's authorship at some length.
Comment: I thought maybe you'd be interested in knowing the actual source of the story cited by @ron grimes, he cited the website, not the book title. And the editorial comment is Allan B. Colombo's, it is not included in the story, as it might have seemed.
Comment: @Mari-LouA: I see now—thanks. Many instances of the story seem to have been published especially for the edification of children. In the 1890s someone even dramatized "[An Axe to Grind](https://books.google.com/books?id=GPFDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA72&dq=%22Axe+to+Grind%22+Franklin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBWoVChMIlujLwqP5xgIVETiICh07eQ5w#v=onepage&q=%22Axe%20to%20Grind%22%20Franklin&f=false)" as a dialogue between "Ben Franklin" and "Hiram Sneak," published in the "Little Folks' Department" ("Choice Selections for Children Between the Ages of Five and Twelve Years") of _The Progressive Speaker_ (1897).
Answer: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/have-an-axe-to-grind

to have a strong personal opinion about something that you want people
  to accept and that is the reason why you do something

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+an+axe+to+grind

to have a strong opinion about something, which you are often trying
  to persuade other people is correct

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/an-axe-to-grind

an ulterior motive
a grievance
a pet subject

Note that only Collins refers to a grievance, and that is only one of three definitions.  And "ulterior motive" probably best captures the meaning as commonly used in the US.
The Benjamin Franklin story discussed here (and in Ron Grimes' answer) is a likely source of the idiom.
Answer: The Urban Dictionary explains it thus:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=axe%20to%20grind&defid=2289234

Axe to Grind
To have a grievance with someone, especially where one feels the need to seek damaging retribution.

The phrase probably originates from the act of sharpening an axe with a grinding wheel, with the intent (in this definition) to get revenge on someone by maiming or killing them. ;)
"Five years ago that guy stole my idea for an invention and made tons of money off it! I've had an axe to grind with him ever since. My latest invention will put him out of business for sure, you'll see! Muwahahahaha!!"
Edit 26/7/15. Following a comment from @Hot Licks, I checked the OED, which does confirm the idea that having an axe to grind, means having a hidden agenda. There is no suggestion of it being the result of a grievance. However, my personal impression from the way the term is used in Britain is that the Urban Dictionary is right when it says that it frequently suggests the satisfaction of a grievance.
OED

P2.  to have axes to grind          (orig. U.S. Polit.): to have
private ends to serve  [in reference to a story told by Franklin] ;
now more commonly to have an axe to grind           .
Comment: @HotLicks However the Urban Dictionary's meaning seems to me closer to the way the expression is used in Britain.
Comment: That definition is just plain wrong!  "An axe to grind" means that the person is motivated by some hidden agenda.  May or may not have anything to do with a grievance.
Comment: And if there is still some unresolved disagreement, you might grind your tomahawk, before sending it to the opponent.
Comment: And what if he then **buries the hatchet**?
Comment: @HotLicks I don't know where you got that from - but it is supported by the OED. I apologise for having relied on an urban dictionary and will edit my answer accordingly.
Comment: @WS2 - The original idiom is so deeply buried in the mists of history (who even knows what grinding an axe is any more) that likely it is undergoing some "idiom shift".  But the OED version, more or less, is what I've understood since I first heard the expression, probably in the 50s.
Comment: @HotLicks That's funny – the UD definition is the only one I've ever heard as well. To me, it's essentially somewhere between having a chip on one's shoulder and having a bone to pick with someone.
Answer: "I've got an axe to grind" (with you/him). Means you have a problem to work out with someone, or you need to 'set someone straight' as in put a fine edge on an axe when sharpening it. It takes some time to sharpen the edge of an axe, and it used to require two people working together, one to spin the grinding stone, one to hold the axe. It creates friction, and heat, but the end result is a sharp axe. Both parties understand where the other stands.
Comment: Wrong, wrong, wrong!!  "An axe to grind" means that someone has some hidden motivation.  It may have nothing at all to do with a "problem" that needs to be "worked out".
Comment: The phrase "I've got an axe to grind with you" sounds very similar to "I've got a bone to pick with you"—and the meaning you attribute to it seems very similar. too. Can you include a citation to a reference work that corroborates your view of what "I've got an axe to grind [with you]" means?

Origin of "to have an axe to grind"


Is the social relationship between listener and referent grammatically realized in japanese or korean?

Question: I know that the social relationship between speaker, listener and referent are grammatically realized in japanese and korean. I know there are different levels for the relation between speaker and listener, and between speaker and referent.
Yet I do not know if the relationship between listener and referent is expressed this way.
Answer: With regard to the modern Korean language, my answer would be "not quite but sometimes". Rather, speaker-listener and speaker-referent relationships are encoded separately and combined in the verbal inflection. However, listener-referent relationship might have an influence.
The standard situation to test this is when the speaker is of higher social rank, the listener of lower social rank, and the referent is of intermediate social rank (e.g. the 선생님 seonsaengnim speaking to a 후배 hubae about a 선배 seonbae, equivalent to musicallinguist's example).
In this case, depending on the closeness of the speaker-listener relationship, either polite informal 해요체 haeyo-che or a rather usual mixture of non-polite informal 해라체 haera-che (often called "plain style") and 해체 hae-che (often called "intimate style"), referred to as 반말 banmal, would be used.
The encoding of the speaker-referent relationship is generally done by the use of the -시- -si- verbal infix. In this case, as the 선배 seonbae is of lower status than the speaker, there is no use of this infix. Thus the listener-referent relationship, where the -시- infix would be used, is therefore lost. The resultant verbal form would be therefore indistinguishable from a case where the listener-referent relationship where the referent had lower social status, e.g. the 선생님 seonsaengnim speaking to a 후배 hubae about one of his/her 동생 dongsaeng (a younger sibling).
However, the reverse polarity may be influenced by the listener-referent relationship; the most common is dubbed 압존법 (Sino-Korean: 壓尊法) abjonbeob, literally "respect restriction". For example, if a person is talking to his grandfather about his father, the speaker-listener relationship would generally mean either the polite informal 해요체 haeyo-che and/or the polite formal deferential style 합쇼체 hapsyo-che.  Whilst the speaker-referent relationship would usually require use of the -시- -si- infix, as the listener has higher social status than the referent, the listener-referent relationship traditionally overrules the speaker-listener one and the -시- -si- infix is omitted. It is also noted that this is dying out amongst "younger speakers". There is a related question on Korean Language StackExchange.
There are other phenomena, for example when parents talk to their own children in referring to relatives who would require honorifics from the children but not the parent ("stance shifting" in child-directed speech). The listener-referent relationship overrules the speaker-referent relationship and the parent uses the honorific infix.
Though my familiarity with Japanese is much lower, one could see the 内外 uchi-soto distinction as an example of how listener-referent relationships can affect the speech levels used. I'm led to believe that the effect of 内外 uchi-soto means listener-referent considerations are taken into account more often in Japanese than in Korean, and that this is reflected in a greater range and productivity of non-subject referent honorifics.
Answer: I'm not sure if I understand the question, but the following example from Genji expresses grammatically the relationship between listener/referent in the speaker's mind.

https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/25232/how-does-a-single-verb-construct-work-when-it-has-both-honorific-and-humble-auxi
(僧都が尼君に)「この世にののしり給ふ光源氏、かかるついでに見たてまつり給はむや」 (源氏物語)

The referent (Genji) is socially higher than the listener, and this is explicit in the  たてまつる .
It'd be easy to find similar examples in modern Jp.
Comment: This is a bit dubious. It would be more natural to assume that the "tatematsur-" represents the speaker's conception of their own relationship with with the referent, rather than the speaker's conception of the hearer's. To unambiguously demonstrate this pattern you would need a speaker of high status talking to someone of low status about someone of medium status.
Answer: In Japanese, I think for most relevant situations in which this question could be tested, the answer is no.
For example, I was on the judo team at a Japanese high school, and there were very clear status rankings among the coaches (sensei), senior team members (sempai), and junior team members (kouhai). If a kouhai were talking to or about a sempai, the kouhai would be expected to use a respectful register. But if a sensei were talking to a kouhai about one of that kouhai's sempai, the register would not be as respectful, so the sempai-kouhai (i.e., referent-listener) relationship would not be encoded.
I can't speak to how things work in Korean.


New installation of Windows XP on new hard drive does not recognize 2 previously installed sata drives with Ubuntu

Question: Drives are recognized in hardware manager but are not recognized in MyComputer so can not be accessed from Windows. Disks are shown with a primary partition and a 7.5g logical drive'
Comment: Can you assing a drive letter to them on hardware manager or disc management on windows?
Answer: Windows can't see hard drives that are formatted with Ubuntu usually.  If you want to share files between them you are going to need to either login to your Ubuntu and save them to the Windows drive or make an NTFS partition that is your share for both OSes.
If you can't login to your ubuntu then you probably need to repair grub.  http://www.howopensource.com/2012/05/reinstall-recover-grub-from-ubuntu-12-04-live-cd-usb/
Hope this helps.


Am I doing too much cardio for losing weight?

Question: I am a 270 pound male that would like to lose weight and body fat. I am doing cardio every day twice a day for 45 minutes each session. I am also using weight lifting machines three times a week. Am I doing too much cardio?
Comment: That seems like a good amount of cardio and doesn't seem like too much to me, depending on what it is and how quickly you ramped up to doing 1.5 hours a day. What makes you think it may be too much?
Comment: Thanks, I just wasn't sure how much is too much. I usually spend thirty minutes on the bike, treadmill or eliptical and then fifteen on the stairclimber.
Comment: If you are interested in losing weight, you should join this site to help us get it started:  http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44550/nutrition
Answer: If you are doing your cardio in such a way to be burning fat, you're probably not giving your body enough time to recover from each session. I don't know that this will prevent fat loss, but it's certainly not good for your physical fitness.
However, it seems like you may be putting too much focus on the cardio and not enough on the more important component of health & fitness with regards to fat loss: your diet. If you cut out your second 45 minute cardio session each day and dedicate your extra 45 minutes to educating yourself on proper nutrition, you'll be much better off in the long run.
Answer: I think that what im about to say was already said before in one of the other answers, but i think there is room for clarification. When you asked if you are doing to much you were basically asking if you are over training, which can lead to hindered weight loss, so then to answer your question we simply need to know if you are over training. In order to determine if you are doing to much you simply need to listen to your body. In some cases you may feel theat your performance is slowing down as in you may not be able to keep up your usual tempo, or with the weightlifting you may find it hard to lift the same 25 pounds you lifted last time. This can happen even if the source of the over training is from the cardio and not the strength training. Another symptom can be your mood. You may find yourself being more irritable. My best suggestion for you is to Google symptoms of over training because you will find several articles that will list almost 10 symptoms that your body is telling you that it's tired.
Hope this was helpful.
Answer: How much weight are you losing?  How sore are you getting?  If you are losing weight, and not too sore, you're not overtraining, and "Total time" is what's important for your goal.  (2 x 45 minutes is the same as 90 minutes)  If you're getting fatigued, you could be overtraining for your fitness level, and cutting back to an hour total per day spanning all activities should be enough to support weight loss.


Why did "versus populum" (instead of "ad orientem") become commonplace after Vatican II?

Question: Why did versus populum (the priest facing the congregation) become commonplace after Vatican II, when ad orientem ("facing east," with the priest's back to the congregation) was the norm before Vatican II? Did a Vatican II document prescribe versus populum?
Comment: In many older churches, especially in Europe there are altars that make it an obligation for a priest to say the New Mass  "ad orientem", facing east. Visit St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican for example.
Answer: No Vatican II document said that priests must face "toward the people" (versus populum). In fact, all Masses today can be celebrated ad orientem ("toward the east," the same direction the people face, which is toward the tabernacle).
During the aftermath of Vatican II, Otto Nussbaum's study, which concluded that versus populum was the norm in the first four centuries of Christianity (although this is disputed), influenced many modernists today who want to return Christianity to its "primitive roots." Versus populum is also in accord with Vatican II's relative anthropocentrism.
From the FIUV position paper "4: Liturgical Orientation":

Missale Romanum (2002), Institutio Generalis no 299:

'Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebration versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.' ('Let the main altar be constructed separate from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people—which is desirable wherever possible.'

'Quod' ('which is') naturally refers to the first clause of the sentence, not the second, which is subordinate to it. See C.M. Cullen and J.W.  Koterski 'The New IGMR and Mass versus populum' Homiletic and Pastoral Review June 2001 pp51-54.
Comment: Would you mind altering "with the priest's back to the people" to the less disapproving "facing the same way as the people"? The priest isn't turning his back on the people; he's facing east as they are.
Comment: Of course, at St Peter's Basilica and some other Roman churches of ancient foundation, the celebrant is both *ad orientem* **and** *versus populum* at the same time.
Comment: The gospel is clear in Matthew chapter 26, Jesus is facing the Apostles the chosen Bishops when He instituted the "First Sacramental Mass", and at Calvary, Jesus the High Priest became the "real sacrifice" and He is facing the People of God at the foot of the Cross, in both Sacramental and Real Mass, Jesus the High Priest is facing the People of God. So, Jesus had shown "versus populum" and not "ad orientem". The "ad orientem" was seen when Mary the Virgin Priest was described by St.Luke as "standing" at the foot of the Cross contrary to Jesus who is sitting at the Last Supper.
Answer: Why did "versus populum" (instead of "ad orientem") become commonplace after Vatican II?
Before getting into the crux of this question, let us see what the origin's of this tradition might be. We can not truly understand this issue unless we can understand its' origin.

Early evidence of Christian praying towards the east
Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220) says that, because Christians faced towards the east at prayer, some non-Christians thought they worshipped the sun.
Clement of Alexandria ( c. 150 – c. 215) says: "Since the dawn is an image of the day of birth, and from that point the light which has shone forth at first from the darkness increases, there has also dawned on those involved in darkness a day of the knowledge of truth. In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east."
Origen (c. 185 – 253) says: "The fact that [...] of all the quarters of the heavens, the east is the only direction we turn to when we pour out prayer, the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone."
Later on, Fathers of the Church such as John of Damascus advanced mystical reasons for the custom.
Origin of the practice
The primitive Church had no knowledge of the origin of the practice. Origen says: "The reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone." Although the general custom among Jews was to pray towards the temple in Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Origen's older contemporary, says that the custom of praying eastward was general even among non-Christians: "In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east. Whence also the most ancient temples looked towards the west, that people might be taught to turn to the east when facing the images."
In 1971, Georg Kretschmar proposed a connection between the Christian custom of praying towards the east and a practice of the earliest Christians in Jerusalem of praying towards the Mount of Olives, to the east of the city, which they saw as the locus of key eschatological events and especially of the awaited Second Coming of Christ. In his view, the localization of the Second Coming on the Mount of Olives was abandoned after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the eastward direction of Christian prayer was retained and became general. Stefan Heid rejects his theory, but Lang holds that it is not without reasons to support it.
Martin Wallraff held that at the time of the formation of Christianity Jews prayed as commonly towards the east as towards the Jerusalem temple, but Lang considers that the eastward posture was rare among Jews. It was the practice, Paul F. Bradshaw says, of the Jewish sects of the Essenes and the Therapeutae, for whom "the eastward prayer had acquired an eschatological dimension, the 'fine bright day' for which the Therapeutae prayed being apparently the messianic age and the Essene prayer towards the sun 'as though beseeching him to rise' being a petition for the coming of the priestly Messiah." - Ad orientem (Wikipedia)

Celebrating the Mass facing the people is a centuries-old practice, although the vast majority historically said the Mass facing east.

After the Council, detailed directions for the celebration of the revised form of Mass were drawn up, including an instruction that the priest should celebrate Mass facing the people.
No, I am not referring to the Second Vatican Council or Inter Oecumenici or the GIRM. This was the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563), and the relevant documents were prepared under the leadership of St Charles Borromeo, the archbishop of Milan. He had not attended the Council, but he became a major implementer of the disciplinary reforms that the Council promulgated. Many of these were about removing superstitious ceremonial from the Mass; others spoke directly to the conduct of bishops and priests. The former were to avoid silken vestments, expensive furs, rings other than the episcopal ring; the latter were to exhibit restraint in their clothing and personal furnishings. Both were expected to exercise simplicity and moderation in every aspect of their lives. The splendor of faith was to be preferred to ornate display. You might say that St Charles anticipated the call for 'noble simplicity' of a later Council.
He also wrote extensively about the construction and furnishings of churches, in a document published in 1577, Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae. Chapter 10 speaks about the principal chapel of any church:

The site of this chapel must be chosen at the head of the church, in a prominent place and on an axis with the main entrance. The back part should face east, even if there are houses behind it. It must not face to the east of the summer solstice, but towards that of the equinox.
If this is not possible, the Bishop can decide and permit that it be built facing another direction, but in this case care must be taken at least that if possible it does not face north, but south. In any case the chapel in which the priest celebrates Mass from the high altar facing the people, in accordance with the rites of the Church, must face west.

In other words, orientem means simply "east". When the priest celebrates at the main altar, facing the people, "in accordance with the rites of the Church", he is to face east.
The historian John O'Malley asserts that Borromeo sought to standardize and promote a number of liturgical practices. Some were broadly adopted – for instance, placing the tabernacle in the center of the main altar. Others, which Borromeo had advocated, were not – O'Malley cites celebration with the priest facing the people as an example.
Uwe Lang speaks about Borromeo in his book about the orientation of liturgical prayer:

… the archbishop of Milan says that the capella major must be oriented, with the main altar facing east.  Where this is impossible, it can be directed towards another cardinal point (except north) but preferable toward the west, 'as, in accordance with the rite of the Church (pro ritu Ecclesiae) the sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated at the main altar by the priest with his face turned towards the people.'

But Lang airily dismisses this as an exception:

Borromeo must have had in mind those Roman basilicas with a westward apse and an eastward entrance, where Mass was celebrated facing the people; this practice was no doubt familiar to him. Still, for Borromeo, the eastward direction was the paramount principle for liturgy and church architecture.

Celebration facing the people did not become normative, as (per O'Malley), St Charles Borromeo had wished it would. But this bit of history seems to give the lie to claims that celebration facing the people was a fabrication of the 20th century liturgical movement, or of misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. - Celebration facing the people: a centuries-old practice

While the current edition of the Roman Missal assumes that Masses are to be celebrated "ad orientem," it is also permitted to celebrate "facing the people". So, both ways are allowed.
No Vatican II document said that priests must face "toward the people" (versus populum). In fact, all Masses today can be celebrated ad orientem ("toward the east," the same direction the people face, which is toward the tabernacle). However, modern church architecture has made all but impossible to do so in many regions.
In many older churches, especially in Europe there are altars that make it an obligation for a priest to say the New Mass "ad orientem", facing east. Visit St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican for example.
There is no one correct answer as to why so many priests celebrate Mass facing the people. But some hints do exist.

The Mass versus populum is completely liturgically permitted by Rome.
Sadly, almost every church built or renovated since 1965 has significant design impediments to celebrating the Mass ad orientem. Because of confusion about what exactly the Second Vatican Council's reform of the Mass required of sacred architecture, the traditional design of a church was radically altered in such a way that a return to the traditional posture of the priest facing liturgical East is difficult, if not impossible, in many churches. (Source)
Non-traditional Catholic seminaries do not teach their students the significance of saying the Mass "ad orientem". Traditional gestures within the Mass need to be instilled into seminarians studying for the priesthood. Sadly this not being done in any great degree.
The faithful also are not taught the significance of the gesture of saying the Mass "ad orientem" so that the true symbolism of this gesture would be more easily accepted.
Comment: @marianagustin Comment are for asking for clarity and not mini answers. Now you can delete your mini answer!
Answer: Why did "versus populum" (instead of "ad orientem") become commonplace after Vatican II?
There are three major things that greatly contributes to celebrating the Holy Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass in "versus populum".
1. The new understanding & teachings of the Church of the word "People of God".

The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" reflects the attempt of the council fathers to utilize biblical terms rather than juridical categories to describe the church. The treatment of the hierarchical structure of the church counterbalances somewhat the monarchical emphasis of the First Vatican Council's teaching on the papacy by giving weight to the role of the bishops. The teaching of the constitution on the nature of the laity (those not in holy orders) was intended to provide the basis for the call of lay people to holiness and to share in the missionary vocation of the church. By describing the church as the people of God, a pilgrim people, the council fathers provided the theological justification for changing the defensive and inflexible stance that had characterized much of Catholic thought and practice since the Protestant Reformation.

The word "the council fathers provided the theological justification for changing the defensive and inflexible stance that had characterized much of Catholic thought and practice since the Protestant Reformation."
Evidently, the change was forthcoming and the change is geared towards empowering the People of God and defining the role of laity as not just an ordinary member but as baptized Catholic they share a common priesthood or a royal priesthood. Before Vatican II , the understanding is only an Ordained Priest can offer a sacrifice. But the Council Fathers was inspired to fortify the role of ordinary laity and the Church was inspired to implore a greater call to holiness not only to Clergy but extend it to all the ordinary laity by way of their participation in the celebration of the Holy Mass.
By revisiting the Sacred Word of God and Sacred Traditions, the Vatican II Council Fathers understood that the People of God as St.Peter teaches is also a royal priesthood and can greatly participates in the "sacramental offering" of the body,blood, soul & divinity of Jesus Christ during the celebration of the Holy Mass particularly in the "consecration prayer in lifting up the sacramental host".

New American Standard Bible
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;(1Peter2:9)

The fullness of understanding of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy also contributed to the changes.

The "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" establishes the principle of greater participation by the laity in the celebration of mass and authorizes significant changes in the texts, forms, and language used in the celebration of mass and the administration of the sacraments.
The "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today" acknowledges the profound changes humanity is experiencing and attempts to relate the church's concept of itself and of revelation to the needs and values of contemporary culture.
The council also promulgated decrees (documents on practical questions) on the pastoral duties of bishops, ecumenism, the Eastern-rite churches, the ministry and life of priests, the education for the priesthood, the religious life, the missionary activity of the church, the apostolate of the laity, and the media of social communication. Furthermore, declarations (documents on particular issues) on religious freedom, the church's attitude toward non-Christian religions, and on Christian education were produced. These documents reflected the renewal in various areas of church life begun decades before Pope John—biblical, ecumenical, liturgical, lay apostolate. The impulse of the documents and the council deliberations in general had by the early 1970s been felt in nearly every area of church life and had set in motion many changes that may not have been foreseen by the council fathers.

Since the Council Fathers had seen the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy in light of empowering the People of God and teaching them that they also share in the common priesthood, a greater participation of the laity was permitted and can be seen in the Novus Ordo Masses after the St.Pope Paul VI Mass started to be celebrated. We can see the participation of the laity both man and woman in the celebration of the Holy Mass, and the People of God was implore to participates in "lifting up" or join in the consecration prayer in a much fuller way and not just expectator like the old, but more emphasis on their participatory role as royal priesthood.

Where does the Church leads the People of God the sharer of the royal priesthood of Christ? The Vatican II Church was inspired by the Holy Spirit to preach & magnify the Mercy of God.

Since the People of God shares in the common or royal priesthood of Christ as God explicitly said what kind of Kingdom does He wished to established by the People of God thru Moses one of the pre-figured Christ;
New American Standard Bible

"and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." (Exodus19:6)
  Source:

The Vatican II Council Fathers was inspired by the Holy Spirit to celebrate "versus populum" to treat the People of God as priest too like the Apostles in the Last Supper, wherein Jesus was facing them when He instituted the First Sacramental Mass.
But, since the Calvary is the continuation of the Sacramental Holy Mass instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. The Theotokos, whom the Church acknowledge as a royal priest and the Mother of all Priest in the order of grace, and even St.Pius X papacy recognized and proclaimed Mary as Virgin Priest by granting 300 days indulgences, where does this inspiration & teachings leads the People of God?
The Holy Spirit leads the People of God to finally fulfilled what Jesus Christ had said;

Jesus Predicts His Death
  …31*Now judgment is upon this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out. 32And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." 33He said this to indicate the kind of death He was going to die*(John12:31-33)

Jesus although offered freely His life as a pleasing sacrifice to Eternal Father, needs to be lifted up by the People of God.
At the Foot of the Cross, the Theotokos and St.John and the other Mary's represents the People of God "lifting up Jesus to the Eternal Father". This is where the "ad orientem" Mass originated, it was shown by Mary the Virgin Priest and St. Luke described "ad orientem" as "Mary standing at the Foot of the Cross".
Mary is "Beholding or Gazing" at the Foot of the Cross, why? Mary is honoring and offering to the Eternal Father the meaning of His revealed name YHVH or YHWH. Moses had seen in the "burning bush" the image of a Crucified Man and God revealed His name to Moses which according to Jewish scholars are not a name but a desccription. In Hebrew the meaning of YHVH or YHWH is;

"Behold the Hand, Behold the Nails".http://the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you.blogspot.com/2012/02/behold-nail-behold-hand-exodus-314-this.html

Mary the Theotokos the Virgin Priest, the Mother of all Sacramentally Ordained Priests and the Mother of all the redeemed also a sharer in the common priesthood of Christ is leading all the People of God to one united prayer offering. And this prayer offering to Eternal Father was revealed by Jesus Christ to St.Faustina;
All the People of God united to the Pope the Head of the Church and fully consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary the Mother of the Church must joined together in imploring the Mercy of God thru this "prayer offering" thru "ad orientem";

"Eternal Father I offer thee the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world."

In closing, Jesus taught "versus populum" because He celebrated the First Sacramental Mass to the Apostles an ordained priest or Bishops, and Mary the Virgin Priest had shown "ad orientem" in offering or lifting up Jesus the victim or sacrifice to implore all the People of God to invoke the Mercy of God on all sinners.
Jesus the Eternal High Priest and the King og Kings celebrated the "First Sacramental Mass" and the Theotokos the Virgin Priest the Sovereign Queen of all things continued the offering and lifting up of Jesus at the Foot of the Cross, thereby elevating the "Sacramental Mass" to a "Real Mass or a Real Sacrifice" of the "body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
Jesus the Redeemer and Eternal High Priest in the order of grace celebrated the First Sacramental Mass in "versus populum",and Mary the Co-Redemptrix and Virgin Priest, a royal priesthood in the order of grace too elevated the sacrificial offering to the First Real Mass "ad orientem".
SOURCE:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Second-Vatican-Council


Sending text from Android to PC

Question: I'm looking for the inverse of this.
I want to quickly transfer a piece of text from android to my computer. One way to do is chat with myself using gtalk or fb. But I'm looking for some better way preferably without using Internet and using wifi only. It would be nice if I have a "People nearby app" that can talk with empathy client.
Comment: "Without using Internet and using wifi" doesn't make sense to me.  Can you clarify?
Comment: @Matthew Read: Strange as it may seem in this age of "cloud", it is quite possible to have a local IP network without any Internet access. For example, if your ISP has a service outage, this is unlikely to affect communication between devices on your home (internal) network - e.g. your media center, the gaming console, the desktop computer and the droid will still "see" each other. (See my answer for an example of a LAN app)
Comment: @Matthew I think he means over wifi (or bluetooth?) only
Comment: Yes, by means of wifi or bluetooth only.
Comment: @Piskvor Yeah, I know. I was hoping for clarification on the situation, since he doesn't specify he wants it only to work when the devices are on the same network.
Answer: There's an app called Remote Web Desktop by SmartDog Studio. It enables access to your phone through your desktop's browser, over the local network (i.e. no connection to the Internet is necessary (I use it with both phone and desktop on the same WiFi AP); phone acts as HTTP(S) server on non-standard port (configurable)).
The simplest method is "shared clipboard": select the text on your phone, copy to clipboard, and it's immediately accessible from the desktop computer.
The app has a free (ad-supported) and paid (~$4 USD) version; the free version allows connection over HTTP, paid also offers HTTPS.

Full disclosure: I'm a (happy) user of this app, no other connection.
Answer: Catch synchronizes notes from various sources (PC or phone) automatically.  Unfortunately it requires an internet connection, but that can be via wifi and not the phone's data plan.  So, while not ideal, I think it's better than sending yourself FB chat messages.
Answer: If your PC and phone both support blue tooth you should be able to tether the two together.
Alternatively you should be able to use a USB chord to attach your phone as a USB device and drag and drop from your phone's data to your PC; I can do this with my HTC EVO 4G.
Comment: How does this answer the question?  Bluetooth tethering in and of itself doesn't provide a way to quickly transfer text, and creating text files and moving them via USB seems like a really clunky method.
Comment: I agree with Maththew...
Comment: Yes, I don't want to transfer text files. I just want to transfer clipboard contents - a phone number or sms or bookmark or a memo etc.,
Answer: You can use https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.watchbird.scaan
This works perfectly fine for sharing text or link between your android and computer browser.
More info at http://www.scaan.in/
Note: I am the developer of this app. It is new to Play Store, but you can trust that this app is a final product, that has undergone thorough testing
Comment: Note that our policy on promotion requires disclosure in every single post where affiliated product is mentioned. Furthermore, don't just mention the links. Explain how to use the app to achieve the objective in question.

Sending text from Android to PC


Shield IMU from magnetic interferences

Question: I experienced some drifting when coming near to magnetic fields with my IMU, so I wondered if it is possible to completely shield the IMU from external influences. Would this be theoretically possible or does the IMU rely on external fields like the earth magnetic field? Are there maybe alternatives to IMUs that are less susceptible to magnetic interferences? I only need the rotational data of the sensor and don't use translational output.
Comment: In some magnetometer IC's there are matrix calculations that are needed for sensor calibration as well as sometimes requiring the user the "run" around with the sensor. The calibration process can be found if available on the IC's datasheet or appnote if not available on the datasheet :)
Comment: Do you need to measure orientation during (translational) motion, or only when your contraption is static (or moving very slowly)? This affects your choices.
Comment: I have translational movement. I found out that my sensor (Bosch BNO055) has a mode that only uses its accelerometer and gyro to measure the relative orientation. In this mode it shouldn't be interfered by magnetic fields, right?
Answer: Nope. Magnetometers measure the magnetic field. The field it's measuring is going to be the sum of fields from a variety of sources. The field you're interested in is the earth's. But it is not possible to separate the earth's nominal field from the field near an I-beam in your building.
You can calibrate the magnetometer to remove any biases that are being picked up from your vehicle. Also, I would recommend twisting all wires that carry lots of current that run near the mag.
If you aren't interested in heading, switching to an accelerometer would be a simple. You can measure gravity (+other accelerations) and pull out roll and pitch data. You could use a camera to track the environment though this may be overkill. If you are interested in keeping inertial heading and you want the solution to fit in a shoe box it's unlikely you'll be able to do better than a magnetometer.
Answer: I am not allowed to comment, so I answer, but it is not really an answer.
Also try to put your magnetometer as far as you can from your electrical motors.
Answer: You can actually shield it with a magnetic shielding foils. You can try to search for them online. Also, try to position it as far away from ferrous metal like mild steel, any wires and motors which may cause interference.
Comment: By doing so don't you isolate the magnetometer from the Earth magnetic field too ? Making it pointless ?
Answer: The short answer, as the others already commented is no for external (buildings) or dynamic (moving magnet on your robot) influences.
One technique we used to account for the buildings is to estimate the building-induced bias in the position filter, based on the idea that the bias would change "slowly" w.r.t. the travel of the system (i.e. within meters, not centimeters).
Answer: Yes, this person, who experimented with the BNO055 IMU and reported a lot of problems getting reliable readings from the magnetometer, said these problems were partially fixed by:

surrounding the sensor in a Faraday cage (i.e. metal shielding)
shortening the wires connecting the sensor to the other electronics

Shield IMU from magnetic interferences


Why is misusing God's name so bad?

Question: One is not allowed to take God's name in vain, and certainly not allowed to curse the name of God (chas v'shalom). I'd like to understand conceptually why these things are considered such grievous sins. Why is misusing God's name so bad?
Comment: @IsaacMoses, *that*'s the one I was thinking of! Thanks.
Comment: @IsaacMoses the tag wiki on that one limits it to the written form. if you want to edit it I suppose that could be acceptable.
Answer: With regard to taking God's name in vain, the Chinuch (Mitzva 30) goes into great detail why it's forbidden, but basically
1) swearing unnecessarily in God's name shows that you have no respect or fear for the Master of the universe (and all the other attributes the Names of God encompass)
2) swearing falsely in God's name is forbidden because God is Emes and by doing that you imply that something related to God can be false chas v'shalom
edit: Hey turns out I have the volume of Artscroll Sefer Hachinuch that covers "blessing" God as well:
Says the Chinuch (Mitzvah 70),

And, among the underlying purposes of the mitzvah, with regard to "blessing" Hashem, because by way of this evil utterance, a person becomes emptied of all goodness, and the very glory of his soul is transformed to destructiveness. Indeed, he is comparable to animals; because with that very thing through which Hashem, blessed is He, distinguished him for goodness, and by which he becomes human, namely, the speech through which he is distinguished from the species of animals, he distinguishes himself for evil! Moreover, he completely removes himself from any framework of intelligence, and becomes comparable to a loathsome and detestable vermin, and lower than that. Therefore, the Torah warns us against such speech; for the Almighty, Who is Good, desires our benefit, and each and every utterance that brings about the withholding of benefit from us comes in conflict with His desire, blessed is He.

Both this and Mitzvah 69 (the prohibition to curse a judge) are derived from Shemos 22:27, אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל.
Comment: Just to clarify, is your quote directly from Artscroll's English translation?
Comment: @DoubleAA yeah, without the interstitial words they put in to clarify the text, similar to the way the translation is written in their Gemaras.

Why is misusing God's name so bad?


Reducing laundry

Question: I'm in a training regimen at the moment and have very limited time after work & gym for laundry. I had a similar problem with washing up but managed to find disposable plates & bowls; that means I don't need to do washing up anymore. Is there anything similar I can be doing with laundry? I stopped using towels for showering and now use disposable single use towels in that respect. But still have of course shirts & jeans etc. that need washing. Is there a cheap disposable thing I can be doing here? Or any other ideas so I can reduce the time spent doing laundry saving myself the time & energy.
Comment: Hi David, Welcome to Lifehacks. Too bad that you're coming into a world newly motivated to do exactly the opposite to your chosen lifestyle. Reconsider your priorities… or get a valet service.
Comment: Not to mention that your way of time management is actually quite highly non-ecologic - creating a lot of garbage in the process.
Comment: You can buy disposable underwear ;) But actually laundry takes rather less time than washing up – if you have a washing machine. A couple of minutes to load it, and couple+ to hang the clothes on a horse. But the question doesn't make sense: although you are on a training regime you can't do the laundry "because it takes energy". Perhaps you should try to solve the cause of a problem, and not its sympton. Is this an [X-Y problem](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem)?
Comment: You're well on your way to becoming burnt out. Your regimen should include physical as well as mental downtime. Washing clothes and even dishes are low mental and physical strain tasks. If you aren't resting your muscles, you aren't letting them heal properly. If you aren't letting your mind rest, it's racking up on stress. Do yourself a favor and make yourself some more free time. If you don't, your body will forcefully do it for you, likely whenever it's least beneficial to you.
Comment: What about sharing your life with a partner, then these jobs can be added together and done by one person, alternating weeks etc- halve the time you spend doing laundry/dishes because your partner is going them the other half of the time. This said, I'm not entirely sure this question qualifies as being an a life hack target - it seems less of a "application of an ingenious process or product for which it was not originally designed, to solve a seemingly intractable problem" and more of a time management issue
Answer: If you have the money, you can hire a service to do your laundry for you. This may be a local dry cleaner / laundry service; it may be a neighbor who needs extra money and has a washer-dryer; it may be someone who comes to your home just for that purpose; or it may be something else.
This would still take a little bit of time. You have to drop off your laundry with the service, and later you have to pick up your clothes when they're clean. Plus, that will take some of the money you made, which usually equates to time if you have a typical job: "I make $25 an hour, and laundry is $50 a batch, so I'm 'spending' 2 hours per load of laundry".
.
(I want to acknowledge Stan because he mentioned a "valet service" in his comment. This is basically the same idea, though I was thinking this already when I first read the question.)
Comment: @David That's it. Your clothes - their care. The down side is that they usually don't do dishes, too.
Answer: I propose a change in your general approach.
You write you use disposable plates and towels to reduce the time expended to wash them. How much time are you expending to go shopping for those in turn? How much time does it cost you to take out the garbage bags? How much time do you need to work to earn the money for those?
Looking at the great picture, you might be able to save time by not washing your dishes by hand. The next best alternative is a dish washer. Instead of putting your used dishes in a trash bag, you put them into the washer. Once it's filled, you push a few buttons and are done.
There's even less time to be saved by disposing of dirty clothes. One set of clothes almost fills up one trash bag (depending on the season and the size of your bags). You'd have to take out the trash daily to get rid of all your plates, towels and clothes of the day. Or you throw the entire outfit into the washing machine and be done with it. Once it's full, add detergent, push some buttons, and you're done again.
The only thing that' actually time consuming is clearing out the dish washer and the washing machine. But you can save time there, too.
You can have a rotation system going:

Wash your laundry
Put it on a drying rack or line
In the next morning, take your clothes directly from the line
Put your dirty clothes directly back into the machine
Start the machine when it's full or there aren't enough clean clothes left on the line

You can hang the new load of washed clothes next to some already dried once to make sure you have a dry set next morning.
You can do the same with your dishes. 80% of the time we use the same type of dishes and utensils again and again. Instead of taking a clean plate from the cupboard, take one from the dish washer. Once it's dirty, pile it up in the sink. If the sink gets too full or the dishwasher is empty, put everything from the sink into the washer.
In the end, the only real time expenditure for doing your laundry is hanging the washed clothes on a line. It takes about 30 minutes for a full load. The rest is pushing a few buttons and waiting for the machine to be done.
Buying new clothes every time and disposing of the old ones might seem to require less time, but going shopping or ordering online and taking heaping piles of trash out adds up to more time spent.
Comment: And even better, if he wants to get a load of plastic cutlery and crockery, they can go in the washing machine along with the clothes rather than taking lots of time to stack nicely in the dishwasher :)
Comment: Tumble dryer takes care of most of the time needed to hang clothes. Pick cleans out of dryers, dump them in washer and to the laundry when you pick out  the last set from the dryer.
Answer: You can reuse clothes more often. As an example, I go running for 10-20 km twice or three times a week, and after the first run I often just hang my clothes to air/dry instead of washing them. Yes, they'll still smell a bit when I put them on before the second run, but a new pair of clothes would do too after 10 minutes.
Comment: @David Ultimately everything is disposable. The expense is relative to your financial situation. Yeah it's a shame that cheap for some is more of a cost to our ecosystem. The ultimate cost of consumables is far beyond their price.
Comment: Yeah it's a shame there isn't some really cheap wholesale shirts that would make it easier to just dispose & switch
Comment: I do this also. It may be a bit uncomfortable for others if you go to a gmy, but as long as you are just runnning alone outside this is fine.
Answer: To reduce the time spent on laundry, buy more clothes. Instead of having one set and washing them after every use: get enough sets of gym clothes to do laundry once a month. Consider wearing clothes more than once before washing them. It won't hurt you, and when you're working out you smell anyway so there's no downside. The same goes for towels. There's no need to wash them after a single use.
And you can use the same strategy for everyday clothing: buy a month's worth of underpants, t-shirts, socks, etc.
This helps you in two ways:

you reduce the number of times you have to do laundry
when you do, you can fill up the washing machine instead of running a cycle for only one set of clothes. This means the machine runs more efficiently, reducing the amount of energy, water and detergent you use.
Answer: Get rid of anything labeled "dry clean only" or "do not tumble dry". Important, move into a place with your own washer and dryer. Only buy grey or dark colored clothing. No whites or bright colors.
Undress and dress in the laundry room. Immediately toss used clothing in the washer. When it gets near full, add some detergent and turn on (cold water only). Carry on with the rest of your day. When you come back and a wash is done, chuck in dryer, and tumble dry on low heat. Leave and carry on some more. When the dryer is done, take your clothes out and throw in closet/wardrobe. You'll probably want to stick to buying wrinkle-free clothing too, because then you don't have to fold anything.
You now spend barely five minutes doing laundry.
Comment: Consider a washer dryer too
Answer: There's a whole technology that has come to your aid.
While it's not disposable, it doesn't need to be washed which is almost close enough to be a hack. I'm happy to say that it fulfils all kinds of green environmental objectives as well
New apparel can go for as long as 100 days without washing. Fast Company, Wool&Prince, ODO, and Unbound Merino have developed fabrics and weaves to keep you comfortable, odour free (that's the trick), and relatively free from sweat.
More and more products are being brought to market every day. Start your search with "no wash clothing."
Great timing. You're a  lazy um, lucky guy.
Continued Good Luck.
Answer: If the clothes do not get dirty because of the outside world (dirt, grease...), then your biggest enemy is odors.
As long as your sweat does not stink, you can reuse the clothes many times.
Tried and tested successfully: apply baking soda on your body:

as a layer, rubbing it on your wet body, if you take a shower; let it stay on your body for at least 30-60 seconds; rinse afterwards;
dissolved in the water, if you take baths.

Do it at least once a week. You need to "adjust" the frequency of using the baking soda according to your exact life details.

Why it works? The baking soda kills the micro-organisms living on the surface of your skin, which make your sweat stinky.

If your sweat carries a lot of minerals / salts, which in turn spot your clothes white (or some other colors), then washing your clothes is quite a must.

Have many clothes. Use a big(ger) washing machine. Washing less times reduces the overall time spent with washing.
This is pretty much my strategy. My big problem is that I am at home only late in the evening, and I do not want to bother my neighbors with the noise of washing. So I can only use the weekends for that purpose.If I cannot wash during one weekend, for whatever purpose, it means that I cannot wash clothes for 2 weeks.
But having enough clothes for changing, that is not a problem. One "big" wash and everything is clean. "Big" is actually a joke, because the washing machine is a standard slim, nothing industrial, but I fill it properly, and use good detergent.

From the Wikipedia article on baking soda
(relevant selections only)

Pest control
Sodium bicarbonate can be an effective way of controlling fungal growth, and in the United States is registered by the Environmental Protection Agency as a biopesticide.
Mild disinfectant
It has weak disinfectant properties, and it may be an effective fungicide against some organisms. Because baking soda will absorb musty smells, it has become a reliable method for used book sellers when making books less malodorous.
Personal hygiene
Sodium bicarbonate is also used as an ingredient in some mouthwashes. It works as a mechanical cleanser on the teeth and gums, neutralizes the production of acid in the mouth, and also acts as an antiseptic to help prevent infections. Sodium bicarbonate in combination with other ingredients can be used to make a dry or wet deodorant.
Cleaning agent
Baking soda is commonly added to washing machines as a replacement for water softener and to remove odors from clothes. It is also effective in removing heavy tea and coffee stains from cups when diluted with warm water. Also, baking soda can be used as a multipurpose odor remover.
Comment: Most of the microorganisms on you skin are symbiotic. Killing them on a regular basis may not be healthy.
Comment: @Stan: I have fact cheks of my own. Fact check 1) I said "micro-organisms" not "bacteria". Fact check 2) Baking soda is well known in fighting candida albicans, especially if localized orally (just google it). Fact check 3) As I said, I tested the baking soda stuff on my own body, after getting the advice from others, and it is guaranteed to work. It also works in removing the stink from the inside of winter boots - also experimented by myself. Fact check 4) I am not a chemist or a biologist, but fortunately baking soda works despite my "ignorance".
Comment: @Hobbes: you are right. It is already known that excessive "hygiene" is unhealthy. The main difference between soap and baking soda is that soap will target everything, while the baking soda will focus on the stinky stuff - although this is mostly speculation.
Comment: Mechanism (how it works): Baking soda does not kill bacteria. Baking soda NaHCO3 (a base) neutralizes acid in acidic odour compounds. It does not affect odourous compounds which are basic. For that stuff, you need an acid (such as vinegar which has its own odour which may not be desirable.) – Stan 2 days ago
Comment: @Stan: I rest my case. Please continue advertising your brands, as you did in your answer.

Reducing laundry