Can there be a theocracy that also practices religious tolerance?

Question: My main character is one of 5 deities that make up the "Terram faith" The country she resides in is a theocracy of that faith; with a king and queen appointed by high priests and priestesses.
The issue I'm having is usually in theocracies people with other beliefs were at risk of persecution etc. & that doesn't align with her character.
How could a theocracy work if they are tolerant of people worshipping outside of the ruling religion?
Comment: @jamesqf when I said "relatively", I was comparing it to its less tolerant contemporaries such as medieval Europe, which was a patchwork of theocratic kingdoms where they would burn any remotely abnormal people as "witches".
Comment: @The Weasel Sagas: This was a fairly limited "tolerance", though.  Christians & Jews were tolerated because they were useful and a source of tax revenue.  Those who weren't "people of the book" might have had a different experience.
Comment: (a) What's an "MC?" (b) Are all the other faiths lead by an actual, existing diety? (c) Do any of the dieties compete/fight with one another? (d) If there are non-diety faiths, do any compete/fight with the others?  Theocracies are 100% intolerant when they beleive all other religions compete or are a threat to them.  Theocracies become tolerant when other faiths are recognized as valid and non-competitive (assuming non-faith residents adhere to all faith-related laws and never chaff against them).
Comment: @JBH Main Character?
Comment: @theRiley while you're right, the Mongols weren't a theocracy. They were super tolerant to religions and cultures, though. Much more than what popular tales about them would suggest.
Comment: yes, i didnt mean to imply they were.  in their day, though, they were the biggest thing going.  and it is telling that they, as well, found it expedient to embrace/accommodate the gods of conquered peoples.  its the grease of empire.
Comment: @Alex, works for me....
Comment: @TheWeaselSagas That's only because the God they were worshiping was __the same__ God (not quite, but you get the point).
Comment: polytheistic religions tended to be fairly tolerant, they already had a slew of gods with their own individual rituals and practices it was not hard to incorporate a few more.
Comment: Reminder to everyone: answer in answers, not in comments. Comments don't have the quality assurance mechanisms that answers do, and OP can't accept an answer in the comments.
Comment: We need more information to provide useful answers. A theocracy is rule by clerics who claim to be acting on behalf of an almost imperceptible god, but you are presumably positing a god that is visibly present and able to intervene in the world in obvious ways. What powers, knowledge and limitations does this god have? Are its people merely pets, or does it need them for something? If so what, and what can it give them in return? If it gives commandments for the benefit of followers then "Thou shalt build sewers" will probably be one of them.
Answer: First, as already covered in this answer, a theocracy can be more concerned with people following its rules than with people following its god.  Historically some Muslim rulers were like that, such as the caliphs in al-Andalus (modern-day Spain) in the 10th-11th centuries.
Second, your religion(s) might practice monolatry or henotheism rather than monotheism.  That is, they might accept the existence of other gods (and thus their worshippers), while considering them inferior to The One Important God (your deity character).  Examples of such religions from our world include Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, (some?) Hinduism, ancient Egyptian religions (where the pharaohs are gods but not the only gods), and other religions of the Ancient Near East.
Third, your religions might hold that different gods rule different geographic areas.  Your deity is the local one and most important in that place, but maybe some of the people living there came from elsewhere and maintain family traditions connected to their original gods.  So long as they're not interfering with the dominant theocrats, that might be fine.  Your theocrats might even see them as charity work -- we have to help those poor people who haven't yet come over to (insert your deity here).
Comment: The distinction between obeying and believing has been described elsewhere as the distinction between _orthodoxy_ (same belief) and _orthopraxy_ (same action).
Comment: The mongols would be a good example of the last, their relgion was tied to the land and there was no real way to convert, so there was no push to convert and no real denial of the conquered to keep their religion, although it would be hard to call them theocracy.
Comment: @John [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/128471/28) uses the Mongols as an example.
Answer: It seems like the main issue wouldn't be people who practice other religions. It would be people who refuse to follow the rules of the theocratic religion.
It's likely that there would be many laws in that nation that someone who didn't adhere to that religion would disagree with. If someone came to that country and refused to follow those laws, and was punished for it, would you consider that to be an instance of being intolerant of people worshiping outside the ruling religion? (And, perhaps more to the point: would other people in that setting consider it intolerant? Would the person being punished consider it intolerant?)
As an example, imagine if they had dietary laws that were actual political laws. Would it be intolerant to send someone to prison for eating bacon? Because that seems like the sort of thing that might happen in a setting like this.
(I'm ignoring the degenerate case where there's officially a state religion but in name only, such as the Church of England.)
Comment: The rules for "non-Jewish" residents in theocratic ancient Israel are nicely summarized here:  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/strangers-and-gentiles
Comment: Notably, kosher rules don't seem to apply to "resident aliens": Deuteronomy 14:21.
Comment: I'd love for the CoE to be in name only, but they are both an official state religion and wield political power as they have an automatic 26 seats for bishops in the House of Lords: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
Answer: Certainly you could write such a theocracy.  Judaism is believed to only pertain to people who are ethnically Jews.  A Jewish theocracy would not attempt to compel people of other ethnicities to convert.
The kingdom could view religion as tied to heritage and expect foreigners who move into the kingdom to practice the religion of the foreigner's homeland.  For that matter, many early polytheistic faiths had this point of view.  A Roman would not think it odd for a Parthian to worship the Parthian gods.  They often allowed conquered people to worship their own gods.
This works even better if ancestor worship is an aspect of the religion. In many African tribes, for example, part of the reason for practicing religion was to honor the ancestors who had passed down those beliefs.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-b-religious-tolerance-and-persecution-in-the-roman-empire
Comment: I was going to mention Judaism.  As my former boss explained it to me, the 'chosen ones' means they do the best they can to set a good example for others.  But they're not about converting.  In fact, they often needed non-jewish people to perform tasks that they were forbidden to do (eg, lighting stoves/candles/lamps on the sabbath).  Mind you, he wasn't Orthodox, so I don't know if that holds for all sects of Judaism
Comment: I'm not persuaded that "we didn't try to convert you" is sufficient as a litmus test.  Modern Judaism certainly has a more positive perspective on living with people of other faiths, but (Rahab notwithstanding) those who lived in ancient Canaan might have had a different opinion on the religious tolerance shown by Joshua and his army.
Comment: I was thinking of modern Judaism rather than Joshua.  For that matter, one can try to convert someone and still practice religious freedom.  Using violence to force someone to convert is what violates religious freedom.
Comment: @Joe - actually, getting somebody else to do something for you on the sabbath would probably still fall afoul of the sabbath rules, especially if the person is your employee or servant.
Comment: @Clockwork-Muse : like I said, different sects have different rules.  The "[Shabbos goy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy)" exist.  Maybe they just ask their neighbors like how the Amish used to do (until their neighbors got sick of them asking to use the telephone, and the Amish put in telephone shacks)
Comment: It's worth noting that *modern* Judaism is shaped by the understanding that Jews outside of Israel are *in exile* and is less "ideological" as a result.  Ideologically, Judaism does not seek out *converts* (as in, people who are supposed to keep laws like Shabbat and Kashrut), but it *does* demand that gentiles believe in a single God as well as accept certain more general laws. The Canaanites did not keep these laws and as such were not tolerated.
Answer: We have examples of theocracied both in real life and fiction, in which the ruler is appointed by priests, and which are accepting of other cultures and faiths.
In real life, the Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama, and the Vatican is ruled by the pope. As for the latter, say what you will about catholics, but the vatican has been spreading a message about peace and love for quite some time now.
In fiction, Aang from the Avatar series lived in a theocracy under the rulle of an abbot. That is based on real life Tibet.
Comment: I think Osman Empire is a good addition here. Suleiman allowed the other religions to exist in the conquered areas to avoid unrest. Another approach was taken by Roman Empire, who in turn included flavours of the religions of conquered lands into their own religion making it easier for those conquered to accept the conquerors religion.
Comment: @John Yet, the catholic church is truest to their god when they *do* spread the word of peace and love. Don't forget, it was Jesus himself who talked about loving your enemies. He reached out to the poor, the sinners, and the foreigners. The only people that he tended to have conflicts with, were the *religious hardliners*. Worldly power was never on the agenda of Jesus...
Comment: both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
Answer: I have heard the Mongols described this way—I have my doubts about that characterization being historically accurate, but it is plausible so even if the Mongols weren't actually, your people could be.
Basically, the description I have heard is that the Mongols believed that the spirits of their homelands demanded conquest from them, which they did. They conquered far and wide, and never made any attempt to convert anybody—the spirits they followed were intrinsically tied to the places they came from. People who had never been there couldn't worship them and it wouldn't make any sense for them to try. Instead, it was assumed they would just go on worshiping the spirits of their own places—which were no threat to the Mongols' spirits, obviously, seeing as the Mongols conquered the place to begin with.
So consider the possibility of a ruling class that is a theocracy, but for theological reasons has absolutely zero concern about what the non-ruling classes do or do not worship. In fact, the non-ruling classes may well be considered ineligible for worshiping the ruling class's god(s), and attempts to do so may be seen as sacrilege and/or treason.
Answer: Consider the Ottoman Empire as an historical example. Despite being a Muslim empire ruled with fairly stringent religious conditions, they permitted Jews and Christians to consider practising their faiths -- the status of "People of the Book" denoted that they were seen as similar enough to Islam to be allowed to exist.
While they were allowed to exist, they had other restrictions on them: the Patriarch of Constantinople, for instance, now had to be approved by the Sultan after his nomination; and non-Muslims were subject to an additional tax because of their faith. This is likely how religious plurality would be expressed in a fictional theocracy.
Comment: +1 That's the historical example I would have gone for too. To improve the answer still further, perhaps you could provide a citation to support your answer?
Answer: The United Kingdom is an example of a modern day theocracy. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Anglican church:

The British monarch has the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The canon law of the Church of England states, "We acknowledge that the Queen's most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil."

I daresay that the UK doesn't persecute anybody who does not follow their particular branch of christianity. This would be an example of rulers just not caring all that much about what religion their subjects practice.
In a different, more historical perspective, Muslim countries were generally tolerant of People of the Book. Anyone who was considered 'of the book' but not muslim was given specific rights and duties, and generally allowed to practice their religion in relative peace:

Dhimmi is a historical term referring to the status accorded to People of the Book living in an Islamic state. The word literally means "protected person." According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions, and it was obligatory for them to pay the jizya tax, which complemented the zakat, or alms, paid by the Muslim subjects. Dhimmis were excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.

So, how might you use this in your world? As others have suggested, you could have the rulers simply not care about what the plebeian masses believe. Alternatively, you could have your rulers be tolerant of anyone who practices the Terram Faith, whether their specific version of the religion matches that of the ruler or not.
Comment: In the united Kingdom the queen doesn't really govern the land. And even in the time when that was the case, I would argue that being the head of the church was derived from being King/Queen, not the other way around.
Comment: I'm not sure if your remarks about dhimmis having equal property rights are accurate. I've read that (Christian) dhimmis in some Muslim-majority countries were not permitted to build new churches, for instance, and in some cases were forbidden to renovate or improve even existing churches. That doesn't seem like equality under property laws to me. Of course the inequality may well have varied over time and been different in one Muslim-majority country than another. I know people who were born Iranian Jews who were miserably persecuted after the Iranian Revolution and fled the country.
Comment: The UK is in no way a theocracy. For a start, the monarch heads the Church of England, not the Church of the United Kingdom. And although she may head the church, the laws of the church are in no way the laws of the land. A theocracy requires that temporal and spiritual power are wielded together, but the monarch's secular constitutional rule over the realm and her religious authority over a church within (a part of) that realm are separate and do not meaningfully overlap.
Answer:
Theocracy is a government where a deity/religion is the source of political legitimacy.
Freedom of belief and freedom of worship (keep in mind that those are related but distinct) are the ability of individuals to hold and express other religious beliefs than those approved by the state.

Look at the history of both religious and political liberty in Europe.
First there were the Catholic church and the pope, who would at least in theory have to confirm rulers.
Then there was the principle that the ruler set the branch of christianity that was permissible, cuius regio, eius religio.
After some bloody wars, there was the Peace of Westphalia which, among other things, allowed christians to believe and practice other branches of christianity.
This did not yet abolish the role of bishops as temporal rulers, e.g. in Electorate of Trier, which only happened by the Napoleonic wars.
The religious Electorates were no clear-cut example of a theocracy because their rulers "wore two hats," so to speak, but you can look at them as a pattern.
Answer: A small but relevant historical example:
During the First Crusade, one Crusader army decided that, hey, why go all the way to Jerusalem to kill armed Muslims when we have defenseless Jews right here? Which is described in this video as the first large-scale antisemitic pogrom of Europe.
Which the Catholic Church apparently really, really didn't like. To the point that some bishops - which, having temporal powers, were basically local theocratic lords - went to great lengths to try and protect their Jewish populations, including military action.
So yes, a theocracy can indeed be tolerant of other faiths, and go pretty far to defend said tolerance.
Answer: Certain nations consisted primarily of people persecuted for their faith, thus making them less eager to persecute others in the same way. Examples of this to various extents are for example the united states and the Netherlands.

Because the Netherlands had ceded from Spain over both political and religious issues, it practiced certain forms of tolerance towards people of certain other religions and opened its borders for religious dissenters (Protestants and Jews) from elsewhere, while maintaining its persecution and later discrimination against native Catholics. Descartes for instance lived in the Netherlands for most of his adult life.

Source: Wikipedia article about History of Religion in the Netherlands
I picked the above quote specifically because it also highlights that this freedom wasn't in any way absolute. Especially Catholicism had it hard in certain parts of the Netherlands - the parts that were hurt most under the Spanish catholic persecution - , but at the same time it was primarily "just" discrimination. Anyway, the end result was a society which created a culture of "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect others and isn't too different morally". What was "too" different was a bit flexible though, but as far as my limited knowledge goes atheists, Jews, Muslims and most of the different Christian denominations had it fairly "well", but Catholics and some of the more extreme "Christian" sects had it harder. Although the Dutch traded a lot with the far east I have no idea how Asian religions were treated in the Netherlands as I think few people traveled from those parts to Europe.
Anyway, leaving the history of our world aside, from a world building point of view this is an easy motivation you can give a nation to be comparatively tolerant towards other religions and it also allows you to balance how far this will go. If your MC is a deity of flowers and there is another deity of plainness that is all about trampling all flowers in the world then it's going to be incredibly hard to justify that those would live together, but as long as the "let us both do our own thing as long as we don't interfere with each other" can be upheld it's quite possible to have a strong theocracy which still welcomes other religions.
Answer: You should take a look at the questionable burdens of leadership of a troll emperor. This is an example of a successful theocracy with freedom of religion.
This works because the ruling deity is actually a real god, and as they would put it, their divinity does not depend on whether people believe they are god; whether people believe or not, they will continue to exist and be divine regardless. As a result of their divinity being a clear brute fact, their people tend to just accept them as a fact of life. If anyone was to try and worship a different god, they would be allowed to, but consider to be a little bit strange; maybe even mentally unstable. Like people in our world believing the earth is flat - there's no law against believing in, but it's a bit weird.
Since your question suggests the gods in your world area also real, you can quite easily just make it a background fact that they are the only ones worshipped. Like how google is the only search engine most people use - yes, hypothetically askjeeves might be around somewhere, but it doesn't matter; people don't 'askjeeves' things, they 'google' them. So in your world, people don't 'pray to zeus', they just 'pray'. The 'to zeus' but is taken for granted, because who else would they be praying to? Thor? Oh yeah, I heard he's one of those gods those weird foreigners worship...
TL;DR: People of other faiths only get persecuted if those faiths are equally valid. If heretics get struck by lightning, there will very quickly not be any heretics left. No need to break out the toches and pitchforks when you can just sit back and watch the show.
Answer: The answer to this question differs between "true" theocracies where the religious leaders are also the secular leaders and theocracies which just legitimizte the secular leaders.
A "true" theocracy, like the historical Muslim Iqta' system where the religious leaders were also the secular leaders, can actually get around with not everyone following them. Their power comes from their armies, not their moral authority. They don't care if people believe in them, because those who do not believe that it is God's will that they follow the Caliph can be convinced by force.
On the other hand, a theocracy which just legitimizes the kings or queens but doesn't wield any direct power, like the Catholic church in the medieval age for example, is much more dependent on faith. Their whole authority is derived from the fact that the majority of the population believes in them. When they are no longer the majority religion, the church no longer has the authority to appoint rulers. Also, the rulers have no longer a reason to seek the approval from the church, because the majority of their underlings wouldn't care about the opinion of the church anyway.
For example, consider the following scenario:
The king gets into an argument with the priests. So the king declares that he decided to convert to a different religion. The priests have no power over him anymore. He tells his guards (who aren't Terram faithful) to throw the priests out of the castle. How would the Terram priesthood react to this situation?
The first reaction would likely be to declare that the king is no longer the king and that they appointed a new one. But then what? How do they put their new king in power when the old one controls the army? Tell the peasants that the king is no longer the king, that they should to take up arms, slay the heathen and enforce the divine right of the new king? Good luck with that if most peasants have a completely different religion and thus no reason to listen to the Terram church at all.
So if you want a theocracy with true power, either put it in control of the peasants or put it in control of the army.
One thing you could try which wasn't (afaik) ever done in real-world history would be a combination of theocracy and military shadow-dictatorship. Put the priesthood in control of the army. Have them turn all soldiers into religious fanatics. Let the soldiers swear allegiance to the gods and their priests, not to the king. Now even the king doesn't need to be all that religious, because if he ever acts up against the will of the priests, his own soldiers will turn against him.
Answer: Similarly to other answers, I think the main solution surrounds what, exactly, your theocracy stands for. However, the other answers gloss over the heart of the matter, which is what, exactly, you mean by 'tolerance', and what the goals of your theocracy are.

TLDR: Your theocracy must stand for some set of beliefs that no one (or almost no one) in the kingdom is actually willing to disagree with - it'd probably be best if it's something that isn't even taught, or codified, but just how things are. It can then proclaim tolerance by not caring about anything anyone believes, so long as it doesn't contradict those unspoken base beliefs. It will look tolerant, so long as most people don't disagree with its core principles. To be tolerant of disagreement with your core principles, however, is to show that those aren't actually your core principles.

At some level, I strongly submit that every person has a set of beliefs that they believe are true for them, but not necessarily something that others should be forced to follow, and also a set of beliefs that they consider universal, that can't be compromised on, and that others should be compelled to adhere to. I will define the first set of things as "disagreements a person is willing to be tolerant of", and the second set as "disagreements a person is not willing to tolerant of". There is always something in that second set.
For most of the west, I think that core moral belief can be boiled down to "don't hurt innocent people", and/or "try to make everyone who matters to you happy". People proclaim tolerance towards anyone who follows those principles, and generally refuses to tolerate any actions that go contrary to them. There aren't really any cries for 'tolerance' towards people who thinks beating their spouse is OK, regardless of whether or not the spouse complains. Nor does anyone proclaim tolerance for people who think murder is OK, or rape, or animal abuse. Most tolerance, is merely the state of holding moral views whose core beliefs don't conflict. The only way a person, being, or government, can truly tolerate everyone, is if they don't believe any actions to be fundamentally wrong, and worth preventing or fighting against. Therefore, your deity's tolerance must be limited.
At some level, if two people have beliefs, and those beliefs contradict, then each person must decide whether or not the issue is important enough to try to force the other person to change their behavior.
Tolerance is saying "this isn't important enough to force".
A theocracy, though, which doesn't believe that there's anything important enough to compel or force, is not* a theocracy.

*Perhaps you could get around this with a religion that expressly disbelieves in the concept of 'right' and 'wrong'. Not moral relativism, but the actual absence of those concepts. If you take that path, I'd advise avoiding contact with anything your reader might feel strongly about. The rest of this answer ignores theocracies that don't believe in the concepts of right and wrong.

If you want a theocracy that can proclaim tolerance, then, you'll have to make the things it really cares about something that most people never interact with, or are at least all willing to submit to, and that doesn't touch the things people could actually disagree with.
Note, however, that tolerance can only be proclaimed by contrast - it isn't "tolerance" to let people do things you don't care about. It's only tolerance if you're letting people doing things you disagree with. Your theocracy therefore needs to assert two classes of beliefs: one that it doesn't really care whether the people believe or not, which it can claim to be tolerant about, and another (possibly hidden) that it does care about, which doesn't really impact anyone.
You may find the concept of doublethink necessary.

Other answers brought up conquering nations that allowed their subjects to continue practicing whatever they wanted. That's an example of a group being 'tolerant' about things they don't care enough about to force, so long as the subjects do the thing the conquerors actually care about - paying tribute, or not taking up arms against them, etc.
Answer: The best way to make your theocracy reign while having freedom of religion is to consider your religion to not be a religion. If you treat your religion as a proven fact, and define religions as beliefs contrary to or alongside the truth that is your god(s), you make it into a matter of accepting the truth. In this way, you relegate other religions to a conspiracy theory, an unproven or untrue belief.
If your religion is actually not a religion, and religions are actually just fake news, you can easily have freedom of religion. You have no state sponsored religion, so the priests are just state workers, who are responsible for appeasing the god(s). You can set up religious freedom as a first amendment right.
If you want to go even farther, you might want to see this question about limiting religion. The question asks how to limit religion in the society, and there are some really interesting answers there. You can actually exclude followers of any other religion from becoming a leader on the basis of freedom of religion. Political leaders are undoubtedly influenced by religion, which makes them a puppet of their gods and religious leaders. In your state it is necessary to have leaders with no religious ties so the leader focuses on the common good.
You can use the above point to get rid of anyone the religion doesn't like. All that you have to do is spread rumors that the candidate was observed praying to a false god. Then you launch a fake investigation, conclude that the candidate was in fact lying about their religious affiliations, and throw them in jail for collusion. You can get rid of leaders in other religions in this way too. Just claim that they tried to manipulate a candidate and you can lock them up too.
Answer: The kind of theocracy you're thinking of is a country ruled by priests, with "a king and queen appointed by high priests and priestesses."  That kind of government can easily tolerate things like people worshiping on a different day of the week, celebrating different holidays, or following different family laws.
Although the Abrahamic religions teach that it is morally wrong to practice "idolatry," the religions of East and South Asia traditionally don't, and you might take inspiration from the relationship between priests and rulers in Hinduism or Buddhism.
Some things that might test the limits of tolerance, even there:

Do other religions have formal rights granted by the theocracy?
Does the state actively intervene to protect them when someone else persecutes them?
Does the theocracy have client states with a different religion, like ancient Judea under the Persians or Romans?
Is there a list of tolerated religions, as traditionally was the case in Islam, or a broad principle of universal religious tolerance?
Can the same person have multiple religious identities at once (the way a Buddhist might also practice some other religion), or are they exclusive?
Does the state religion make a strong claim that other religions are false or evil?  Is it basically compatible with some of them, but not others?
Are there any minority religions that just don't get along?
Would it make sense to someone from this culture for a bride and groom to have different religions?  Is there even such a thing as civil marriage, or would they need to find some priest willing to marry them?
Are important community events (like coming-of-age, marriage, funerals, holidays and charity) considered religious in this culture?  Could someone participate in their community without participating in some "religion?"
Is a "religion" a community, or a personal opinion?  If you attend all the major events at the Temple of Alice with your family and have for your whole life, but say, "I don't think the priests of Alice know what they're talking about," do you count as belonging to the religion or not?
What form of discipline is there for heretical priests of the state religion?
If laity of the dominant religion reject the authority of the hierarchy, what happens to them?  What if they reject the entire government?
Are there any "religious" duties that are not optional, such as swearing an oath to the King and Queen, serving in the army, or paying taxes?
Do any religions tell their followers to do things that cause problems?
Were there any exceptions made for what were originally just a few people, but which have become unsustainable?  Is it possible to change them?
Are there a lot of people willing to take advantage of the principle of religious tolerance manipulatively, or is there strong social pressure against that?
Do only long-standing traditions have protection, or can a religious leader make a new rule that exempts his followers from royal law?
Are the existing Temples of Alice only allowed to keep going  in Alicetopia, or can Alicetopian migrants build a new one elsewhere?
If there's a schism in the Temple of Alice, who decides which Priestess of Alice gets the Temple?
Can Bob say, "Hey, I just talked to an angel, so now I'm the Prophet of the Church of Bob," and be recognized as in some sense equal to a religion that's existed for thousands of years?
Are people allowed to leave the state religion?  Are other religions allowed to actively proselytize?  Is conversion only allowed in a few special cases, such as marriages?
Do people believe that witches or evil cultists are committing crimes and must be stopped?
Are any foreign religions perceived as agents of a hostile power?
Is religion ever a proxy for an ethnic group or political faction?
Answer: Practical example:
Brigham Young hired nuns and priests to set up schools in Salt Lake. While Utah was not legally a theocracy, in fact the elders of the church had a lot of say in government.  Salt Lake had almost as many Roman Catholics as Mormons at one pont.
I went to school for a semester at Brigham Young University in Provo.  Provo is 95+% Mormon.  (In a city of 100,000 people there are two churches -- one catholic, one methodist that aren't mormon)  The influence of the church is such that there are no restaurants, only a few drug stores and one grocery store open on Sunday.  I didn't drive, so I don't recall about gas stations.
If one religion dominates in numbers, then there customs will affect the entire culture.
Answer:
The Druze still do not permit conversion, either away from or to their
  religion. Marriage outside the Druze faith is rare and is strongly
  discouraged. Many Druze religious practices are kept secret, even from
  the community as a whole. Only an elite of initiates, known as ʿuqqāl
  ("knowers"), participate fully in their religious services and have
  access to the secret teachings of the scriptures...

Source
Neither Druze nor Zoroastrianism accept converts, you have to be born to a worshiper in order to join (in the case of Zoroastrianism, both parents must be members). It might be possible for your theocracy to be similar - they run the country and perhaps a large amount of the population is of the same faith, but foreigners cannot join. They neither hate nor disparage those of other faiths.
Prior to the Age of Enlightenment, cuius regio, eius religio (whose realm, his religion; meaning "I'm the boss, you worship my way") was the predominant view. If the Monarch was a Catholic, you better convert. The first treaty to change that was the Augsburg Settlement. This treaty allowed for a modest freedom of religion in the Holy Roman Empire, now you have both kinds: Catholic and Lutheran. A later treaty, ending the Thirty Years War allowed for more choices and created the major principles behind "what is a country", international justice and order. Perhaps your world has had similar wars of religion settled by treaties.
Answer: The Roman Empire was pretty much that. Romans believed they had a deal with their gods: the Romans would build temples and make sacrifices, and in return the gods would look after Rome. Individual citizens were pretty much free to believe and worship as they wished. It was only towards the end that the bureaucracy started imposing sacrifice quotas and the early Christians refused to play along.
Answer: It can but probably won't.
All"-cracies" are political entities. The basis of politics is to maximise one's own influence, while minimising that of competitors. Religious institutions, especially political ones, only peacefully coexist when:

there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and
there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.
Answer: Your realm is different from real world theocracies in that your deity is actually present and active.
Governments generally become oppressive when they feel threatened.  Rulers backed by a active deity has very little to feel threatened by, unless another deity is trying to take over.
The ruling class will come from the priesthood of the deity in control.  As long as people of other religions accept that, they can worship whoever they want.
There is likely to be some friction.  The ruling religion will have some rules of conduct.  Breaking these rules IN PUBLIC might be considered indecent behaviour, even if the person follow another religion.  In private things should be more relaxed.
Again, a ruling deity can decide what they want.  They can choose to say "Beards are icky, I don't want to see them on anyone."  OR they can choose to say "MY followers should shave, but others can do what they want." Either way, the priesthood will have to go along.


Why can't people talk while inhaling?

Question: Why do we have to exhale in order to talk? From looking on Wikipedia, it seems like it has something to do with the glottis, but I'm not clear on the mechanism that makes speech sound so different when air is coming in.
Comment: As I understand it, speaking requires exhaling because air must pass in a forward motion across the vocal chords.
Answer: Via deep scientific analysis (i.e. trying it myself 5 seconds ago), I have determined that you can in fact speak while breathing in, it just sounds funny.
Think of the vocal chords as being like the body of a flute. As air passes by them, they vibrate and make sounds. Through careful modulation of their shape, specific sounds can be reproducibly made (this is equivalent to opening and closing the stops on the metaphorical flute). The way the pressure in your throat changes when you inspire (breathe in) is very different from the way in which the pressure changes when you expire (breathe out). These pressure differences are a large part of the reason why you sound different when you speak during inspiration as opposed to expiration, just like breathing into a flute differently would produce different sounds (although potentially the same notes).
Other physiological, neurological, etc. effects probably also cause differences in the vocal cords during expiration/inspiration and thus also contribute somewhat to the differences in the sound.
Comment: I agree. I knew someone who spoke on inhalation *most of the time*. It was disconcerting.

Why can't people talk while inhaling?


Does a gene that regulates itself necessarily be a transcription factor?

Question: I am not a biologist, so please pardon the overly noob question. Some genes are transcription factors (TF) and regulate other genes. My question is: if a gene is NOT a TF gene, can it regulate itself? E.g. given a system of 3 genes {g1,g2,g3} where only g1 and g2 are TF, then in a gene regulatory network, what are ALL possible parental sets of g3 (where in this GRN, you put a directed edge from the regulating gene to the regulated gene)? Will it be {{g1},{g1,g2},{g2},{}} or {{g3,g1},{g3,g1,g2},{g3,g2},{g3}}
Comment: There is no one answer to this question. Some non-TF proteins signal through negative feedback loops to eventually downregulate their expression when they're no longer needed/there is a lack of substrate/etc. Others don't, and are regulated through other means.
Answer: First of all you need to clarify what exactly is the output that needs to be regulated. We often say regulation of expression of a gene but what expression ultimately leads to is the activity of the gene (whatever it might be: enzyme based catalysis, cytoskeletal rearrangement, response to an extracellular signal). Activity of course depends on the expression level of the gene but it also depends on other factors such as covalent modifications, interactions with other genes (like dimerization) etc. Moreover, for genes which code for proteins, expression also has two stages.
Coming back to your question:

If a gene is NOT a TF gene, can it regulate itself?

Yes it can. There are many modes of gene activity regulation as I already mentioned. Examples where a non-TF gene can regulate itself:

Feedbacks in cell signalling which happen via activity modulation by protein phosphorylation [1].
Regulation via post-transcriptional regulation via RNA binding proteins (RBP) or regulatory RNAs such as miRNA. MAPK signalling pathway has a feedback via the RBP, Rnc1, which upon phosphorylation binds to and stabilizes the Pmp1 mRNA. Pmp1 is a phosphatase which dephosphorylates Rnc1[2]. This loop contains regulation by both post-translational modification and post-transcriptional mRNA stabilization. There are many other examples involving RBPs. An miRNA, let-7 is post-transcriptionally regulated by Lin28 (promotes degradation) which in-turn is post-transcriptionally repressed by let-7 [3].

There are many examples of metabolic feedbacks too which operate via allosteric regulation of the enzyme activity.
If you are only interested in regulation of gene expression then you can ignore phosphorylations and allosteric regulation but there are several examples of post-transcriptional regulatory interactions which also contain feedbacks.

References

Dougherty, Michele K., et al. "Regulation of Raf-1 by direct feedback phosphorylation." Molecular Cell 17.2 (2005): 215-224.
Sugiura, Reiko, et al. "Feedback regulation of MAPK signalling by an RNA-binding protein." Nature 424.6951 (2003): 961-965.
Rybak, Agnieszka, et al. "A feedback loop comprising lin-28 and let-7 controls pre-let-7 maturation during neural stem-cell commitment." Nature Cell Biology 10.8 (2008): 987-993.
Answer: I don't understand your system of 3 genes regulatory network question, but I can answer your general question regarding transcription factor self-regulation of transcription/gene expression.
Yes, in biology, there are transcription factors that bind to their own gene's promoter-proximal region (on DNA) and regulate their own gene's transcription. There are examples of positive feedback loop transcription factors (e.g. FOXL2) and negative feedback loop transcription factors (e.g. Oct4, Nanog, & FoxD3; also Irf8 with Cebpb).


append-only databases?

Question: i need to log some data from multiple processes concurrently (on Windows), to be plotted and whatnot later.  rrdtool is great, but i don't have data at regular intervals.  what else is there?
edit:
basically, i don't have "time-series data", so the rrdtool tag may be a red herring.
the data i want to log is tuples (url, requested at, processing time) and (sql query, issued at, processing time), for the purposes of monitoring and analysis of a web application.  a popular URL may be requested by several users at the same time, other URLs will have few accesses over unpredictable periods of time.  there's no sampling frequency i could apply this early in the processing pipeline.
i already log this data, into a SQL database.  which is kinda stupid because its features inapplicable to my situation make it needlessly slow and increase the risk of the log missing an entry here or there.  so i was hoping to find something like rrdtool, only without this feature (rrd-beginners):

Other databases get updated when values are supplied. The RRDtool database is structured in such a way that it needs data at predefined time intervals. If it does not get a new value during the interval, it stores an UNKNOWN value for that interval. So, when using the RRDtool database, it is imperative to use scripts that run at regular intervals to ensure a constant data flow to update the RRDtool database.
Answer: There is no requirement for regular intervals in rrdtool. The data must just be continuous. RRDtool will see to the re-sampling internally.
Comment: thx for chiming in.  see the edited question for clarifications.

append-only databases?


What flaps and throttle settings are used on takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing?

Question: What degree of flaps and throttle setting are used on takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing? This question is for private and general aviation aircraft. I have looked everywhere for FAA manuals on this but I can't find anything, if there is a manual please link it.
Comment: Welcome to aviation.SE! This information is different for different aircraft, and also for the type of takeoff, e.g. from a short runway. If you can tell us a specific model of aircraft that you're interested in, that would help to make this more answerable. You can also search the site for previous questions that might be useful, like [this one](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/1449/62). And if you're new here, the [tour] may be interesting to understand how the site works.
Comment: Adding to Pondlife's comment, please note that there is no such thing as "private and general aviation aircraft". General Aviation (GA) is a class of *operations*, not a class of *aircraft*. Provided that you have enough money (and the appropriate ratings), nothing really prevents you from using an Airbus A380 or a Boeing 747 for GA, just like that there's little preventing you from running (especially nonscheduled) air service in something like a Cessna 172 for moving one or two people into a small outback field in the middle of nowhere.
Answer: The exact numbers vary for each model of aircraft, so the FAA et al can't provide direct guidance; regulations just say to operate according to the manufacturer's specifications and procedures.
Still, that's not too helpful, so I'll give answers for the C172, which is one of the most common light planes. Other models will vary somewhat but likely follow the same general theme.

Short takeoff: 10° flaps, full throttle
Normal takeoff: no flaps, full throttle
Climb: no flaps, high-full throttle
Cruise: no flaps, mid-high throttle
Descent: no flaps, low-mid throttle
Landing: 30°/40° flaps, idle throttle

For the ranges, it's important to note that the pilot doesn't set the throttle to a particular position per se; he/she adjusts it as needed until the desired performance (or for cruise, economy) is achieved.
Answer: Consult your aircraft's POH or AFM! They are designed by the manufacturer specifically to guide the pilot in operating the aircraft confidently. Most POH's/AFM's are laid out in a similar format:

General
Limitations
Emergency Procedures
Normal Procedures
Performance
Weight & Balance
Aircraft Systems Description
Supplemental Information

Your training airplane is required to have a copy on board for flight. Go to the airport and read your aircraft's POH to best become familiar with your airplane.


Replacing a dimmer switch

Question: I wanted to replace a dimmer switch on a wall outlet that had 3 switches next to each other. The dimmer was in the middle. There were 3 wires I disconnected from the old switch - green for the ground, a red wire T'd with wire nut with a black wire attached, and a black wire T'd with wire nut with a black wire attached. The dimmer I bought had no wires attached only color labels to tell u where which wire is suppose to go. I put the black wire from the wall to the black label on the dimmer. I put the other wire (red) to the yellow label on the dimmer. Green to green. When I turned on the power and tried the light the fixture to the left shorted out. What did I do wrong?
Comment: Is the photo of the old dimmer, or the new one?
Answer: I can't be certain what you've actually done here but I do know what you have there, whether it's the new or old one, is a 3-way dimmer. Sounds like it'd be the new one because the old one doesn't sound like it was wired as a 3-way is done having only 3 wires (g,r, blk).
A grounded 3-way switch has 4 wires: a ground, a feed from the source or return to the light, and two travelers. What you had originally doesn't look like a good fit for the new one.
Why is it shorting out? Could be a number of reasons. But you'll probably have to clarify what you mean by the fixture to the left as we have no clue of where/what that is. It's most likely either the way you've wired it or contact between metal parts and wires in the box seeing as it looks pretty full. It may not be anything you've changed as far as the wiring and may be the shifting of the wires. Perhaps the bare ground is now sitting on a wire that has a bit of wire exposed out of the wire nut.
A couple things you could try:

If you're installing a device in a packed box, put a wrap of electrical tape around the back side covering the terminal screws.
Use a continuity tester to see if you have some unwanted contact between the ground/neutral/hot, or metal.

In the end, if I'm correct in assuming you have the wrong type of switch, I'd return it for the correct one, it should be cheaper and then it will be a correct match.
Comment: How can a dimmer with only two connection points (ignoring the ground) be a 3-way dimmer?
Comment: @SpeedyPetey, well to be fair the connections are not shown in the pic; we're looking at the opposite side. But if you'd like to confirm my belief, simply zoom in close. You'll see "1 pole/ 3-way Dimmer" on the label. You'll also be able to see there are 2 "yellow" terminals.
Answer: If the switch on the left shorted out you must have made the bare ground touch one of the screws on the switch.
Is it safe to assume you tried it with the dimmer hanging out as in the picture?
Answer: look at instructions carefully. one wire goes to "line" (main power) and and another to "load" ---this goes to the fixture. the way you tell is switch the fixtures to "OFF". when the lines in the the box are exposed use a hand held current detector (Klein makes a good one), the wire that has power will beep and blink red, the load will stay green (no current). carefully put switch on, then the load line will now beep and blink red.

Replacing a dimmer switch


Wrist pain in advanced pianists

Question: I've been playing piano for ten years now. I am preparing about 40 min of music for a recital and camp, and I've been practicing between an hour and 4.5 hours a day. I made a jump in practice time from 2 hours to around 3 on average about four weeks ago.
My left wrist was fractured (the distal radius or something- the bone on the left side of my left forearm, very close to the wrist. That happened a couple years ago, but my wrist started hurting suddenly on the left did last week, actually while I was just going about daily life and I wasn't doing anything that put strain on my wrist.
It hurts to twist my wrist or move it to either side, so playing piano is uncomfortable sometimes.
I'm not sure if this pain is related to the fracture, my increase in practice time, a new injury, my technique, something else, or a combination of the above. It only really bothers me when I have octaves or treble clef in my left hand, or ostinato octaves for several measures.
Here are my current pieces:
Moonlight Sonata (all three mvmts)
Mendelssohn Rondo Capriccioso
Bach Partita I
Liszt Waldesrauschen
Chopin Nocturne op 9 no 1
Comment: I would recommend you get some professional medical advice about this. FWIW I know someone who had a fall and fractured a wrist, and ended up with all the fingers of that hand paralysed. Not trying to scare you - but this isn't something to treat with a few painkillers and "hope it goes away."
Comment: Yes, it is impossible for us to know what is causing your pain. But wrist injuries are particularly serious because the bones are so small. Get seen by an orthopedic hand specialist.
Answer: This doesn't sound like something one can "play through" and reasonably expect to go away with time. I'm guessing that if your wrist healed from the earlier fracture, this pain is more the result of the additional load you are putting on your hands with the extra practicing than the previous injury. Regardless, one has to be careful, and a doctor's opinion probably would be a good thing.
It is possible that there are some aspects of your technique that can be adjusted as a way to put less stress on your wrists. But chances are you will still need to give it some rest and healing time, as well.
How to figure out if there are technical things that can be adjusted? The usual approaches are to consult with a high-level teacher, and/or a physical therapist acquainted with music-related problems, such as an Alexander Technique or Feldenkrais practitioner. Sometimes it can take a long time to figure out the root cause and a solution.
Sometimes the answer is easy to spot, but is rejected or only adopted reluctantly. We ignore advice about proper posture or technique, thinking it's not really all that important. Or we tell ourselves that the effort to rethink and retrain fundamentals would be too onerous or more fallaciously, too big a step backwards.
Examining what you do in a very analytical way, making finer distinctions, emphasizing awareness of sensation, will be key. No doctor, teacher or practitioner can tell you what you are feeling. It is a very different kind of practice and work, to heighten sensation and awareness. But heightened awareness will be crucial for the successful refinement of technique.
Answer: The internet is no place for medical advice so definitely find a doctor who works with musicians - not just a doctor. You may have to go to a large city like NY to find one who specializes in the unique yet natural movements of a pianist. Find a doctor who sleuths out problems, not one who treats symptoms.
First, know that all injuries are forever.  Sure, the body heals but never 100%.  Ask any old person with aches and pains and chances are they can reference an injury to every body part that aches. Although, sometimes something like a shoulder injury can affect the knees because our bodies are designed to move with equal and opposite motions (shoulders move opposite hips which affects torque in the knees (the same is true for the arm but most piano teachers don't know this stuff)). Pain in the wrist is often an elbow alignment problem.
A friend of mine developed aches on two toes, her coccyx, shoulder, knee and pinky.  She eventually went to her doctor who realized that these aches are all locations of previous injuries and he immediately ran a test for Lymme Disease and she tested positive.  Lymme first attacks areas that are already compromised which in her case was every place she has had previous injuries. Injuries heal, but not 100%. Lymme attacked these weaknesses.
I personally beleive that proper movement promotes healing. At the very least, it allows us to move without further vector force strains on our body parts. I fell and sprained my wrist a few years ago and every movement was very painful.  However, I could play the piano with no discomfort.
If an electrical current was traveling through a wire from A to B, all is fine and the current flows effortlessly.  However, if you touch the wire between the two points, that is where the current stops and you will be in big trouble.
The same is true with your wrist. The weight and power of the arm, radius, ulna and all muscles and tendons, all that energy wants to pass through the fulcrum of the wrist, knuckles, phalanx and into the key.  If you have a break in any fulcrum, that is where our power stops and does its worse.
Have you seen those talent shows where an acrobat will stack ten chairs one on top of the other and he does a hand stand at the top?  It works because everything is perfectly aligned and balanced.  The slightest imbalance will cause everything to topple.  The same is true with our piano technique.  The slightest imbalance, vector force, dual muscular pull . . . can cripple us because our power isn't going into the keybed but, getting snagged within our fulcrum.
The anatomy of your arm is the same.  If there is the slightest imbalance in any fulcrum, it will manifest itself in sloppy or uneven playing or, in your case, pain where there is an injury.
These movements can be dorsiflexion, ulnar or radial deviation, pressing into the keybed, poor alignment of the forearm, not using the pronator and supinator muscles, etcetera.
So, find a doctor who specializes in injured musicians.  He may not be able to heal your injury but he may be able to educate you on the true mechanics of your arm so that you can move effortlessly and painlessly. Study the physics of a fishing pole or crane and it will all make sense. A pyramid can only go as high as the size of its base. So, a pianist who plays from the arm and elbow will fare much better than one who plays from the fingers (which have no muscle).
Who knows, this injury could be the best thing to ever happen to your musical career.   I had bilateral tendonitis from building a deck on the back of my house and for two years sought help from dozens of doctors.  I finally found a woman who was not a doctor who showed me how to move and I was pain free in less than an hour.  Totally healed in six months.  The added bonus is my technique improved.  I still have bad habits to eradicate so I still have work to do.  I just played a concert and while studying the video I made, I still have rotation and ulnar deviation issues to fix.
Good luck. It ain't over until . . . who is this fat lady?

Wrist pain in advanced pianists


What can I do to make a Bartering system stable?

Question: The Bartering system is a means of trading goods for other other goods, very similar to the Currency system except minus the money. The problem is that as the population of a location increases people begin to disagree on the value of the items; what use is a goat to a sailor compared to a baker? So the simplest solution is to create a currency system. It just becomes to unstable to depend on a barter system, so what can I do to make a barter system stable in a modern American society?
Comment: I think they would quickly develop their own commodity money. An excellent example would be how in prisons trade works with cigarettes - that is even in modern day america and seems to work.
Comment: Another good example is scrap metals in the game Team Fortress 2. Every 2 items can be turned to 1 scrap, and you can buy/sell (well, barter/trade) any items with scraps (well, prices of items vary from 1 to 1000+ scraps). Not every item is wanted by everyone, but nearly everyone will buy/sell with/for scraps. Games are good experiments (they are literally new worlds, with set rules), whether be social or economical.
Answer: First some background about why currency tends to replace barter in economies. In general, a currency acts as a lubricant between trading partners, resulting in less complexity when used to trade or purchase any desired item.
Simple example with three people:
 person 'A' has a sword and wants a massive block of marble.
 person 'B' has a massive block of marble and wants a wheel of cheese.
 person 'C' has a wheel of cheese and wants a sword.
Barter solution: they all meet in one place and trade items.

Possible problems with barter shown using this example:
1) Lack of information: How do the three discover that collectively
   they have the items they want so they can agree to the barter?

2) Inequality of value: 'A' thinks his sword is worth more than the
   crappy block of marble offered by 'B'. How do you trade half
   a sword?

3) Non-portability of items: transporting the marble block to the
   barter is difficult.

4) Non durability of items: The wheel of cheese will go bad over
   time, requiring the barter to be completed quickly.

Currency fixes all four of these problems:
1) No need to match what you have to what someone else has;
   make a currency sale and then a currency purchase instead.

2) If your item is worth more than an item you want, you end up
   with extra currency to use later.

3) currency is portable, unlike a block of marble.

4) currency hold value over time, unlike cheese (ignoring
   the whole fiat money/inflation issue here).

Currency also tends to be divisible into small enough values (no selling a single item for 1/2 penny) and be acceptable by everyone in the economy.
I don't think the efficiency of currency over barter will allow you to create a realistic complex society that uses ONLY barter, at least as long as your world rewards economic efficiency. Simple or small economies can get away with barter.
Now to answer your question.
If your world has cultural values that totally ignore economic efficiency, then that society might avoid currency and only use barter. "Our religion has banned money/coins".
If your world has a has an efficient way of discovering possible barters, ala internet matching of potential barters, then two of the problems of barter, lack of information and non-portability of items can be greatly reduced. You will still have problems of inequality of trades and non-durability of items though.
My final answer is that you might want to consider a world with multiple non-traditional forms of currency. This would somewhat resemble a barter economy where you bartered (using non traditional currencies such as grain, crude oil, or other evenly divisible and value holding "things" like that). Your exchange rate between your non-traditional currencies (grain vs. crude oil) could be published so as to help potential buyers or traders decide on what form of 'currency' they wanted to use for the transaction.
Comment: There is at least [one example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter_Kings) of bartering in modern American society. But you're right, you really just have to hand wave and say, "money is immoral/anti-"
Comment: That wont help. The society will define away money - it isn't money, its, um... something else (which oddly fulfils the function money fulfills). This is what happens when an genuinely near-unavoidable matter meets a religious prohibition.
Comment: @Stilez: Exactly. Because of the way humans do economics, money is too useful a tool to allow complete abolition. I suggested religion as one possible reason why a society might want to attempt to banish money, but that doesn't mean it won't spring up in some other form. The only way to get rid of money in all of its forms is to change the nature of humanity. If the society consisted of aliens or brainwashed humans or for whatever reason didn't act like humans do, a lack of money might be possible.
Comment: You make a good point but there's one place you're wrong. The [half farthing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_farthing) 1/8 of a penny
Comment: @separatrix: If physical denominations are so small as to not be usable when buying things, they tend to be dropped like the half farthing was in 1870. Just try to buy a $5 coffee using 500 pennies; it may be legal but expect dirty looks from both coffee seller and people in line behind you. Part of my answer was 'currency is portable'. 20 pounds of coins works against portability.
Answer: Currency is not just about setting value for bartered goods. Money is a common yardstick for different goods.

Currency is a shortcut for multi-partner deals. Say Alice needs charcoal to forge a plowshare. Bob needs a plowshare to grow grain. Charles produces charcoal, but he'd rather have fish and not grain. So the deal has to involve Drew who takes Bob's grain for some fish.
Alice needs the coal now, but Bob won't produce grain for quite some time. Will Drew be prepared to hand over fish for a promise of future grain?
Alice produces relatively high-value objects, but she won't make all that many. If she made a plow this week, how can she get fresh food next week?

Follow-up:
How about tax incentives to barter? Get some precedents that cash transactions are taxed but barter is not, or at least that those who do barter can try and argue that the cash value of their transaction is very low.
How about a move in your story to make most cash digital (a rider on one of those if-you-don't-vote-for-this-you're-no-patriot-acts to combat money laundering) coupled with a society which effectively denies bank accounts to poor people?
Comment: Good analysis of the problem, but somehow lacks an actual answer.
Comment: @Mołot, yes, I've added some ways.
Answer: …what can I do to make a barter system stable in a modern American society?
Make the society itself massively unstable.
Simply positing a catastrophe, either physical catastrophe or an economic one such as hyperinflation, that makes trade outside a local area is impossible will not be enough. For the reasons already stated by Mark Ripley and o.m., some alternative form of currency will reassert itself quite quickly. The catastrophe has to be ongoing and make it impossible to predict what anything will be worth next week. Then barter will be the only means left to people to survive. Not many of them will. Such instability would also make agriculture or animal husbandry very difficult.
If you want to write a less depressing story, how about a technological society that for some reason (e.g. a political or religious prohibition on profit) feels the need to pretend to operate by barter. That society's version of eBay would operate with an underlying structure that placed a numerical value on whatever you had to sell, but this would be concealed and denied. Ostensibly it would be a complex chain of swaps such that everyone got approximately what they wanted in the end. This would be extremely inconvenient and could only be enforced by repression but that is no bar to it happening in real life or in fiction.
Comment: This is a side comment to my second scenario above. In the Soviet Union factories often had trouble making their quota for the Five Year Plan because the raw materials or components they needed weren't available from the official suppliers. Failing to make quota could be dangerous, so what they would do is secretly barter with other factories, collective farms and so on. Barter had all the problems described in other answers, so these deals were often very complicated  involving multiple participating organisations, and often fell through. But they did happen and kept the system going.
Answer:
Create a barter system in modern American society

Currency provides at least two major benefits over barter:

Storing value.
Making change.

To replace these, you could have a place like Ebay - where you can offer a goat and the system takes the goat "in". Later, you want a dozen eggs and the "system" would determine that the "trade" is 1 goat for 100 dozen eggs. So it could "debit" your goat by 1/100.
This is borderline ridiculous because the "system" would essentially create a currency. I use eBay as an example because a larger, barter based eBay would involve not just selling, but also "buying" at auction. In other words, people could offer to sell a goat, and someone "buying" the goat would need to already have "sold" something or else "sell" something of equal or greater value - and the system would handle "making change" and "storing value" for the inequity of the trade.
However, the reason currency exists is because barter is terribly inefficient by comparison. With today's technology, this may work to some extent. However, it would likely fail for trades like rare artwork, intellectual property, private musical performances, etc. And it would struggle to handle selling tickets for a cruise ship, construction of a national monument, donating land for natural resource preservation, etc. And then there are things like credit/lending, insurance, taxation, utilities, medical services, education... it's a pretty long list of things we enjoy in today's world because currency makes the "trade" efficient.
Answer: To the Q of "what can I do to make a barter system stable in a modern American society?"
Think of currency transactions in the time/quality/cost frame:

currency is very fast (credit card swipes, stock exchanges etc.)
currency gives high quality (it's very granular from cents to billions, so it is a good language to discuss value in, it also allows a common language to compare different transactions over time)
transaction cost is very low (most by computer, some by physical currency)

How can you replicate those qualities in barter market?
Time:

you could use computer networks as a place to advertise your goods and look for goods that you want. This record of past barters would help during the haggling process.
same network can can be the permanent record of a barter agreement

Quality:

the network can have a searchable history of similar barters that you can use as a yardstick when judging a proposed barter
the network could have middlemen (or artificial intelligence) who put together baskets of goods and propose those baskets to parties

Transaction Cost:

the network will electronic record the agreement

It sounds like a hybrid of eBay. There are websites attempting barter exchanges today. It hasn't caught on yet. One problem, there are several companies doing this, which makes one stop bartering impossible and reduces the probability of a match because buyers and sellers are in different non-connected markets. You'd have to create some kind of incentive that would cause people use one particular exchange.
I agree with others, that currency is best. But I wanted to answer the Q you asked.
And a semi-serious proposal: Tinder should copy their software to a new server called Bartr. Take a picture of the item for sale and Bartr broadcasts it. Consider items from others for your item, swipe left for No, right for Yes. It actually could work in a flea market environment.
Answer: There is an interesting halfway house in which any individual or group can issue it's own currency. This is how money starts in a barter society: as IOU notes. "I'll give you a day's carpentry when you need it in exchange for these groceries today". And you can in turn trade the carpentry promise for, say, some clothing.
At a certain point in the development of society the rulers see the advantages of giving themselves a monopoly over creating currency.  If the nation collapses into anarchy, local currencies and IOUs again appear, only to be killed off when a new nation is formed.
Money is power.
So what you need is stable anarchy or libertarianism. Human nature means that anarchy or extreme libertarianism is unstable. But if humans had been made part of some alien society which stabilised that form  of near-anarchy?  Perhaps omnipresent robotic enforcement of "an eye for an eye" unless the victim offers mercy, plus termination with extreme prejudice of anyone wielding a lethal weapon in anger. No rulers,  no coercion, just voluntary associations. Could it work?
Answer: Change the scale, might be one solution. As several people point out, currency allows transactions over time and at a distance (unknown parties). Suppose individuals in some rural isolated area could only transact with those in their town, that would be plausibly sustainable (somewhat anyway). Then towns can barter with other towns, and towns in a region leads to regions bartering with regions. Since at each level of this barter hierarchy, the distance is not unreasonable for the parties concerned, and the trade is larger and focuses on different kinds of needs, perhaps it is sustainable.


What types of pawns are there?

Question: I have heard of a few types of of pawns, such as passed pawns, thorn/fawn pawns, promoted pawns, and en passant pawns. But that is all I can remember. What other types of pawns are there?
Answer: Backward pawn: a pawn that is behind its colleagues on a pawn chain. It cannot safely advance because it will be captured. These pawns are often a liability because they can be attacked. Example:
8/8/8/3p4/3P1P2/4P3/8/8 w - - 0 1

The pawn on e3 is backward. If Black e.g. places rooks on the e-file, White will have to guard the pawn with pieces, which is passive. Black also has a "captured square" on e4 where he can station his pieces and they cannot be pushed away by White's pawns.
Central pawn: a pawn on the two central files (d- and e-files). Compare "flank pawn".
Connected passed pawns: see passed pawn. Being connected means there are two passed pawns of the same color on two adjacent files. This is almost always a very strong trump.
Doubled pawns: two pawns on the same file. This is sometimes bad because they are inflexible. They can, however, guard key squares in the middlegame. Compare "tripled pawns".
Flank pawn: a pawn on the sides of the board (the a-c files and the f-h files). During the middlegame they usually less valuable than a central pawn because central control is an important tenet of chess strategy. Compare "central pawn".
Hanging pawns: two adjacent pawns side-by-side, with no other pawns on the adjacent files. They guard squares and mark out space. Example:
8/8/8/2pp4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

Black's two pawns (note no pawns on b- and e- files) are hanging pawns. Black will try to keep them in place since they control squares, while White will try to force one of them to  advance. If White succeeds, then the Black pawns leave behind a hole, e.g. if Black is forced to play ...d4, then the c4-square becomes a weak square White can occupy.
Isolated pawns: a pawn without a friendly pawn on its adjacent files. These are usually a liability because if they are attacked, they have to be defended by pieces, not pawns.
Outside passed pawn: see also "passed pawn". This refers to a passed pawn that is far away from the action. For example, if there's an ongoing Kingside attack, then any passed pawn on the queenside would be extra valuable, because the defender needs to balance between using its pieces on the kingside and using them to restrain the pawn.
Passed pawn: a pawn that has no enemy pawns that are in front of it on its same file as well as on files to its left and right. These are generally trumps because the opponent needs to use pieces to stop them from queening.
Thorn (fawn) pawns: as far as I know, this terminology only exists in the computer chess community. They refer to protected pawns on the 6th rank that are blocked by another pawn. Example:
6k1/5p2/4pPp1/4P3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

The White pawn on f6 is a "fawn". It attacks an important square around Black's king, and also makes e7 (usually an important square for Black's pieces to maneuver) inhospitable. Black would love to be rid of it, but it's protected by the pawn on e5. That makes it a "thorn" in Black's position. As far as I know, "fawn" came about as a mispronunciation of "thorn".
Tripled pawns: three pawns on the same file. This is almost always bad because they can be easily attacked and none of the pawns can defend each other. Compare "doubled pawns".
Comment: Indeed, edited.
Comment: Fawn means young deer, or any young animal. With a similarity to an advanced pawn near promotion. So the phonetical confusion is somewhat supported by meaning. One could add to the list with the Rooks' pawns being protected and restricted by the edge of the board, and with a different outlook for stalemate in King vs King+Pawn endings. The f2 and f7 pawns are especially important for the King's protection. And so on, they all have individual personalities. Devoted chess players even Christian their children "Efftopawn", although I have no evidence of that :-)
Comment: tripled pawns are often referred to as "Irish pawns".
Answer: passed pawns: When there is no enemy pawn on the adjacent file(s), it's called a passed pawn.

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

Promoted Pawn is when one player's pawn goes to the end of the enemy camp and you can choose a piece (Queen, bishop, rook, knight) you wish (except the king or a pawn itself)
en passant: Better to show with an example

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

Isolated pawn: When you don't have any pawns in the adjacent file but there are enemy pawns either on the same file or on the adjacent ones.

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

There are more pawn types i.e. Isolated queen pawn, hanging pawns but for a beginner it's hard to explain and it's not too relevant if you play chess for fun.
Comment: Could add "doubled/tripled/quadrupled pawns", backward pawn, isolated queen pawn, connected pawns, and (referring to pawns on different files) rook/knight/.... pawn.

What types of pawns are there?


What temperature should a crock pot slow cooker cook at?

Question: I have a crock pot that will generate a low boil on the "Low" setting and dries out anything that is cooked for a long period. I'm wondering if the temperature regulator is too high, but I can't know that unless I know what the temperature is supposed to be.
Comment: Temperature of what? The liquid inside won't go past the boiling point. What really matters is the *power*, which determines how much water it's able to boil away in a given amount of time.
Comment: @Jefromi, good point! I suppose I could fill it with oil to take a temperature, but that doesn't seem productive. Do you have any alternate measuring techniques?
Comment: @Jefromi Should a slow cooker boil at all?  Would it negate the "slow" aspect if it did?
Comment: @event_jr Yes, slow cookers boil, just not too vigorously.
Answer: I, like you, assumed that a slow cooker would have a temperature regulator. I took mine apart, in a bid to find the thermostat and adjust it -- and discovered that it does not have one.
Cheap slow cookers contain an heating element which delivers a constant low heat, and all you can do is choose between two or three levels of power. It does not stop supplying that heat when the contents reach a particular temperature. It just keeps pumping that heat into your food.
This means that -- as long as less heat is lost out of the cooker walls/lid than the element is putting in, the contents will keep getting hotter until they reach boiling point, whereupon  the energy will instead go into turning liquid into steam.
I don't know whether more expensive slow cookers have a proper thermostat. It would be good to know.
Comment: This is pretty much the answer. As far as I know, no slow cookers have "proper" thermostats; they don't need them. In this context, with respect to the OP's question, well, if it's boiling dry with a reasonable quantity of liquid and the lid on, it's too hot or the lid doesn't fit well enough. Perhaps you could edit your answer to include something along those lines; otherwise I might do it for you. (No reason to split the good stuff into two answers.)


Subdivision Surface Causes Spaces

Question: So I am having a problem with subdivision surface, it causes some space on my model, I am new to blender any advices?
Comment: There are actually 3 vertices in that corner...you probably need to enter edit mode and remove doubles. However, this is probably a duplicate question...
Comment: Related: https://blender.stackexchange.com/a/62467/28015 https://blender.stackexchange.com/a/72255/28015 https://blender.stackexchange.com/a/68711/28015
Answer: Go into edit mode with tab, and then press W, and select remove doubles. The reason this is happening is that the differnet faces of the mesh are not actually connected, so by removing the vertecies in the same position you connect them.
If it doesn't instantly work, try increasing the distance in the right hand toolbar.
Also, it looks like you need to press ctrl+n to recalculate normals.

Subdivision Surface Causes Spaces


Do grandmasters practice blindfold chess or does it come naturally with practice?

Question: Since grandmasters are good at calculation, do they practice blindfold for improving calculations, or does it come naturally over time by solving a lot of  complex calculations?
Comment: Does this answer your question? [Can playing blindfold chess be learned or is it a natural skill?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/5022/can-playing-blindfold-chess-be-learned-or-is-it-a-natural-skill)
Answer: Your question is quite interesting. If you are new to blindfold, I think this thread will help you: Can playing blindfold chess be learned or is it a natural skill?
Now, back to your query. I have discussed this topic with a GM, who is one year senior at my college. According to him, playing blindfold is "NOT impossible", but it's fairly difficult. As they participate in lots of classical tournaments where they have to write the scoresheet by hand, it is easy for them to quickly visualize the board. Also, their training process helps them to calculate from certain positions without playing the moves. But, on the other hand, it is fairly difficult to keep up every possible move, visualize every possible position and that needs intense focus and concentration. But, since they are calculating and visualizing chess more often than normal people, it is comparatively easy for them to play blindfold chess after practising for some time.
In a nutshell: it doesn't come naturally over time without practice, even if you are a GM.
Comment: Good answer but I don't see how having to write the scoresheet by hand helps. Even 1300 FIDE players have to do it and I don't think many of them can play blindfolded
Comment: @David, writing scoresheet by hand only helps to visualize the board quicker. But, in the blindfold, you have to move pieces, remembering the position. Just visualizing the board doesn't imply that you can play blindfold. It's just the first step of a long journey.
Answer: I discovered I could play blindfold by accident. I was playing a game online and the pieces didn't load onto the screen but I could still play. I (surprisingly) won the game fairly easily. I've played quite a few blindfold games since then. I still make some dumb mistakes but I can follow the game for the most part. I'm probably 1500-1600 blindfolded.
The longer the lines you can visualize and the more opening theory you know the easier it is. I like to sit quietly with my eyes closed and cut off all external stimuli as much as possible. To me, maintaining concentration is the hardest part.
If you pay long enough and get good enough you'll probably reach the point where you can play blindfold without much effort. On the other hand, you can practice it and get better too though just like anything else, although you'll always have a ceiling of where your normal chess ability is.
Answer: My answer is, it comes naturally.
The more often you see the chessboard, the more it will internalize at some point. Even though I am only an IM, the ability to play blindfold came naturally to me at some point.
Often players who participate in a lot of tournaments write down the moves on a scoresheet at mentioned earlier. But also, in analysis with others we are constantly mentioning moves and internalizing the coordinates of the chessboard. It is hard to say though at which point it happens, but it does happen.
I am not sure how to explicitly practice this skill though. Reading chess games without a board will definitely increase the ability.
One other thing I have noticed is that an absolute topGM like Gelfand does not even look at the board anymore. He is often sitting with his head down, and flipping a pawn while contemplating. This has led me to believe that the actual position is can be unwanted background noise for some!
Comment: Thanks very much@David Miedema.I have also noticed Nakamura always looking sideways during calculations.Well,since you're an IM,can i please ask you for some advice on improving tactics?My tactics rating is about 1570.Can't seem to get past this.Its been a month.
Comment: You can use several tactic trainers online:
There is also the Step by Step method,
Woodpecker method,
And many others.

The real key is perseverance and doing them every day.


Is Real Estate ever a BAD investment? If so, when?

Question: Even in a bad market, over 30 years won't the value of Real Estate always go up? Is it always a sure bet?  If not, what should an investor or buyer consider?
Comment: There are real estate scams that also exist.
Answer: No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold.
Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn.
A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell.
In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare.
Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of "Is it worth it to own my own home?") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc.
It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence.
Comment: Interesting question, I looked here: http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=216&Type=compare&Area1=19804&Area2=&Area3=. The geometric average per quarter return was 2.27% from 1982 to the end of 2011. So it didn't actually lose money, but kind of close.
Comment: Are there really homes even in Detroit which are worth less than they were 30 years ago? I'd be very surprised.
Comment: "It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence." Amen. Any investment can be a good or bad investment. Goodness or badness has more to do with the knowledge and skill of the investor than the investment.
Comment: Thinking further about Detroit, some housing there is considered worth zero. So Detroit generally may have at least held value, it would have depended which neighborhood in Detroit.
Answer: Real estate is a lousy investment because:

it's illiquid (not all that easy to sell)
it's indivisible (you can't sell off your garage if you need emergency cash for a medical bill)
it's often tied to risks in the local economy which affect your job, which means that if you have a place in Michigan and the auto industry goes under then you've lost money on your house as well as losing your job. (investing the money lets you diversify)
the down payments have opportunity costs (you could invest them in relatively risk-free locations and earn similar rates of return)
you don't enjoy tax-deductible maintenance costs, so upkeep can be more expensive

Renting a home and buying a home, all else being equal, are pretty similar in costs in the long term (if you can force yourself to invest the would-be down payment). So, buy a home if you want to enjoy the benefits of home ownership. Buy a home if you need to hedge against rising housing prices (e.g. you're on a fixed income and couldn't cope if rent increased a bunch when the economy heated up). Maybe buy a home if you're in a high tax bracket to save yourself from being taxed on your imputed rent, if it works out that way (consult your financial advisor).
But don't consider it a really great investment vehicle. Returns are average and the risk profile isn't that attractive.
Comment: These are all true, however property gives you greater leverage (e.g. purchasing a property with only a small (5 or 10 percent) deposit. In Australia the interest on your mortgage and the maintenance costs are tax-deductible, so the tax issues are relevant depending on the investors location.
Comment: I'd add that it also has high carry costs, such as property taxes and maintenance.
Answer: Real estate is always an interesting dynamic.  In most cases prices have always gone up.
Price is mainly a function of demand.  Sometimes demand is artificially inflated over a short term period and can come down quickly due to corrections.  During recessions the housing market will usually slow down.  There are some rare instances where certain areas never recover (see Subprime Mortgage Crisis Savings & Loans Crisis where scores of unwanted properties exist).  Things to consider:

Principle residence:  This matters since most people are not in the habit of buying and selling frequently their main residence since there are costs such as moving expenses, taxes, commissions involved.  Most owners will hold this investment over a longer period and will not be affected as much in a bad market.
Location:  The old adage that about where the property is.  Is it close to schools, recreation facilities, shopping centres, public transit?  These things increase demand and affect the eventual sell price.
Speculation: If the property is solely for investment, owner's typically want to hold over shorter periods.  In a bad market one may need to be prepared to hold the property longer than anticipated which can incur more costs.
Buyers:  If there is a steady stream of new home owners demand will increase.  Where are the potential buyers coming from?  Are these people who are starting out for the first time?  Are they due to immigration?
Availability of Money: If borrowing costs are low this can increase the demand.
Comment: Yes, during in upswing, desirable homes in desirable communities always increase more than undesirable properties.  The level in increase simply is not across the board.

I would also like to point out that the long term appreciation of real estate is around 2.5% per annum, i.e. near the level of inflation.  Sustaining much more than that for a long period of time would have dire economic consequences.  We have been way over that in the last 5 years in Canada.  People think of real estate is this indestructable investment.
Comment: Good point.  Real estate should not be the only investment that one holds.  Also your point on the other answer is true.  The HST is creating an artificial demand since most are trying to avoid it by getting in now.
Comment: As a real asset, good real estate weathers inflation better than cash and bonds. Given the focus on printing and lending money by North American governments, real estate can be a great hedge against inflation.

That said, buy much less house than banks claim you can afford. Buy a quality home. Make sure your payment is 25% of your income or less. Go for a shorter term 15 or 20 year fixed rate mortgage. Pre-pay on your mortgage to lower the term and total payments. Homes are depreciating assets and are rarely used as profitable investments, so diversify into different asset classes as well.
Answer: I'm surprised to even hear this question with the current state of devaluation of real estate.
One thing I'll add to the other answers is to make sure you are doing a true apples/apples comparison to other investments when considering real estate. You can't just take subtract the purchase price from the sales price to get your ROI.
Real estate has very heavy carry costs that you need to factor into any ROI calculation including:

Debt servicing such as mortgage
interest (if any)
Annual Property Taxes
Repair and maintenance costs
Homeowner's association fees
Periodic Renovation/Remodeling (It takes about 20 years for a house to go from Architectural digest to Brady-Bunch)

One more point: A house that you live in shouldn't be considered an investment, but rather an expense. You have to be able to liquidate an investment and collect your return. Unless you plan to move back in with your parents, you are always going to need a place to live so you can never really cash out on that investment, except perhaps by downgrading your lifestyle or a reverse mortgage.
Answer: All other factors being equal, owning your primary residence is almost always a good investment over the long haul.
Why? Because you have to live somewhere, and rentals, especially long-term leases that are important when you have kids in school, etc.,  are generally in the same ballpark as a mortgage in most markets. Giving $1,500 to a landlord gets me 30 days of living somewhere. Giving $1,500 to the bank gets me a place to live and equity in an asset which requires maintenance, but always has intrinsic value.
Detroit is one extreme, Manhattan or Silicon Valley is another real estate extreme... everywhere else is somewhere in the middle.
What isn't always a good investment is speculating in highly elastic "investment property" like vacation condos as an amateur. It's a cyclical market, but our attention spans are too short to realize that. As most of the other answers to this question indicate, people tend to be down in the dumps and see all of the problems with real estate when the market is not very good. Conversely people only see the upside and are oblivious to problems when the market is high.
Comment: This answer: http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/388/is-real-estate-ever-a-bad-investment-if-so-when/2069#2069 provides a counter-balance to your answer, which contains good points.  In many markets, renting and buying result in "throwing away" an equal amount of money (in lost opportunity cost in the owning case, but few real estate professionals will tell you that).  Rent-versus-buy calculators are the only thing that can tell you if the rent ratios in any given market are in favor of owning.
Comment: I think both answers are right for different people. There's no magic answer. If you are single and/or young, there is an opportunity cost because you're stuck with a house and may miss opportunities elsewhere. But if you're married with kids and are established in your career, most folks want a stable work and school environment, and the benefit of being able to pick up an move is balanced against the cost of potentially disrupting your 2nd grader's life when the lease runs out.
Comment: duff - the OP asked if it's ever a bad investment, would you find it fair to say "when your holding period is too short or when you've bought at such a bad price there's no chance of catching up from that point"?  Can't I look at the long term charts and pick off the points that are far far above the long term average they were simply bad times to buy? Conversely, the points so far below the average were good/great times.
Comment: @JoeTaxpayer: I look at housing as an expense that you can handle a few different ways. Rent, buy to flip, buy for a long term home. The cases where buying your primary residence as a long term home is a poor investment are rare. If your primary objective is to flip the property to make money on appreciating value, than it is just another commodity, except that real property has some inherent inflation protection.
Answer: As Yishani points out, you always have to do due diligence in buying a house. As I mentioned in this earlier post

I'd highly recommend reading this
  book on buying a house associated
  with the Wall Street Journal - it
  clearly describes the benefits and
  challenges of owning a house. One key
  takeaway I had was - on average houses
  have a "rate of return" on par with
  treasury bills.

Its best to buy a house if you want to live in a house, not as thinking about it as a "great investment". And its certainly worth the 4-6 hours it takes to read the book cover to cover.
Answer: There's an aspect to real estate that's under-discussed. When you take all factors into account, it just about keeps up with inflation over the long term.
Three factors:

adjust for size. i.e. don't let the fact that in the last 30 or so years the median home has grown in size by about 1.5%/yr. The house measured is not the same house year to year, obviously.
Income tends to rise a bit faster than inflation over the long term.
A payment of say, $1000/mo will support a $136K mortgage at 8%, but $197K at 4.5%. So, with no change in payment, a buyer sees his potential for borrowing jump by 50% based on rate.

Now - when you normalize all of this, calculating the "hours worked" needed to pay for the median home, you find a nearly flat line at just over 40 or so hours of pay per month.


Should any theory of physics respect the principle of conservation of angular momentum or linear momentum?

Question: Is it possible that a theory that can describe the universe at the planck scale  can violate things that we now consider fundamental in nature?For example can it violate rotational and translational invariance and subsequently momentum wouldn't be conserved ?Should one consider these invariance principles to be fundamental that we must choose the lagrangian to respect them ?
Answer: In once sense, the quantities you mention get violated all the time in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it happens at levels that are far less ferocious, inaccessible, and hypothetical (if you can't get there it's hypothetical, by definition) than the Planck scale. Such violations rely on quantum uncertainty and result in various forms and combinations of virtual particles, that is, particles that "sort of" exist if you look at the world using sufficiently short time scales. Virtual particles have real, measurable impacts on everyday physics, e.g. screening or "blurring" of nuclear charge in atoms, which impacts chemistry. But on the average, such violations cannot endure in the face of the absolute conservation laws of physics.
Answer: Conservation laws in theory  are valid because they rest on solid and innumerable data. An experiment  finding non-conservation of a law supported by theory would immediately invalidate the theory.
Our experimental experience is that the two laws you mention, conservation of angular momentum and momentum are such universal laws within the data we can access.
Theories are a different matter. Theories can be extended to variable and parameter regions where experiments cannot go at present or possibly ever. This does not necessarily mean that the extension of these theories will hold willy nilly in the unexplorable experimentally regions,( i.e. the conservation laws should also hold there experimentally). It is only necessary that at the limit where we know from the data that the conservation laws hold, the theories for the extended region reproduce the behavior of the standard theories, i.e. conserve these laws  .
Answer: Yeah, they should do to start with, unless their abandonment simplifies the theory while still predicting experimental observation. Bohr was prepared to abandon the conservation of energy principle at the quantum level to account for the apparent loss of energy in some interactions. Pauli on the other hand came up with the idea of a weakly interacting particle, the neutrino, carrying away excess energy - and he was right in the end.
Comment: But Why should nature respect These Symmetries at a fundamental level ?
Comment: @nabil physicists don't know why, they just record what is.