Does black hole formation contradict the Pauli exclusion principle?

Question: A star's collapse can be halted by the degeneracy pressure of electrons or neutrons due to the Pauli exclusion principle. In extreme relativistic conditions, a star will continue to collapse regardless of the degeneracy pressure to form a black hole. Does this violate the Pauli exclusion principle? If so, are theorists ok with that? And if it doesn't violate the Pauli exclusion principle, why not?
Comment: Take the case of a star -> neutron star first.  There is enough pressure (energy density) to convert protons into neutrons and radiate the leptons away as neutrinos.  I'm not sure what happens in a collapse to a black hole but my guess is that something similar happens with the quarks.  Good question!
Comment: Quantum tunneling!!  Supposedly.... Matthew O'Dowd of PBS SpaceTime has explained it this way.....
Comment: Then perhaps analogously to your example of $e + p \rightarrow n + \nu$ there could be some unknown process that allows $u + d \rightarrow X$ where $X$ is either bosonic or somehow free to propagate away.
Comment: There are probably lots of other options besides that.  I really don't know.
Comment: related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/354614/
Answer: I don't have a very satisfactory description of the microscopic picture, but let me share my thoughts.
The Pauli exclusion doesn't quite say that fermions can't be squeezed together in space. It says that two fermions can't share the same quantum state (spin included). A black hole has an enormous amount of entropy (proportional to its area, from the famous Bekenstein-Hawking formula $S = \frac{A}{4}$) and hence, its state count is  $\sim e^A$.
Now, this might not seem like a big deal since usual matter has entropy proportional to volume. However, volume of such collections is also proportional to the mass. This means that a counting of the number of states goes as $e^M$
For a black hole, it's Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass, hence $A \sim M^2$. So, the number of states scales as $e^{M^2}$ which is much much more than ordinary matter, especially if the mass is "not small". So there seem to be a lot of quantum states into which one can shove the fermions.
So it seems like the fermions should have an easier time in a black hole than in (say) a neutron star.
Comment: *So it seems like the fermions should have an easier time in a black hole than in (say) a neutron star.* The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy doesn't represent the microstates of the infalling matter, since, e.g., an eternal black hole has the same entropy. AFAICT semiclassical gravity doesn't give a satisfactory answer as to what microscopic degrees of freedom are represented by black hole entropy, but presumably they would be gravitational in nature.
Comment: There may be two different reasons why people would imagine the exclusion principle to be violated in gravitational collapse. One is the one given in the question, and other has to do with what happens below the Planck scale, at the formation of the singularity. This answer is interesting, but it seems to have more to do with the latter question, not the one asked by the OP.
Comment: "an easier time" from outside observers, which is (at least partially) what matters for answering this question. I don't think the infalling fermions share this point of view...
Comment: @ Ben Crowell-I had thought the NON-eternality of ANY black hole was why Hawking radiation (whose existence seems to be very widely accepted, in spite of the trans-Planckian problem you mention) had been hypothesized, so please correct me if I'm wrong.  Among cosmologies, the trans-Planckian problem is dodged by Nikodem J. Poplawski's "Cosmology with torsion" (the subject of many papers by him between 2010 and 2019), because it uses fermionic interactions of Einstein-Cartan gravity, whose Cartan radius is much larger than the Planck length.
Answer: All the known laws of physics, including the exclusion principle, are believed to be valid at all times during the collapse, up until the matter that you're talking is just about to hit the singularity. ("Just about to hit" may mean when the density reaches the Planck density, so that quantum gravity effects become important, or it may be a little earlier, if there is other physics beyond the standard model that we don't know about.)
Note that just because an event horizon has formed, and some matter has fallen past the event horizon, that doesn't mean that the conditions experienced by that matter are extreme. They needn't be extreme at all. The equivalence principle says that the laws of physics are always locally the same, because spacetime can always locally be approximated as flat, so that special relativity applies. Actually the conditions at the formation of the event horizon are pretty solidly within the range of conditions (temperature, pressure) that can be described by the standard model of particle physics.
Degenerate matter is simply matter in a state where the degeneracy pressure is significant. In a white dwarf or neutron star, for example, the degeneracy pressure happens to be in equilibrium with gravity. The matter can be compressed further without violating the exclusion principle. The exclusion principle essentially has the effect of imposing a maximum wavelength on each particle, which goes roughly like $\lambda \sim (V/N)^{1/3}$, where $V$ is the total volume and $N$ is the number of identical fermions. If $V$ gets smaller, you get a smaller wavelength, therefore bigger momenta and higher pressure.
In stars that aren't massive enough to form black holes, you reach a point where this higher pressure gets big enough to give an equilibrium with gravity. If the star is more massive, so that we are going to form a black hole, then we just don't reach such an equilibrium. The wavelengths of the fermions simply get very short, and their momenta very high, as we approach the formation of the singularity.
We don't try to say anything about the singularity itself using the presently known laws of physics. In pure classical general relativity, the singularity is not even considered to be part of the spacetime.
Comment: Does it mean that Pauli's principle does not prohibit particles occupying the same state, but rather it says that  there will be a resistance when this is forced upon the particles (a kind of repulsion/pressure).
Comment: "singularity is not even considered to be part of the spacetime." - Can you elaborate further on this?
Comment: @SurpriseDog An good introduction to the challenge of defining and understanding GR singularities can be found at http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Geroch_1968.pdf
Answer:
Does this violate the Pauli exclusion principle? If so, are theorists
  ok with that?

The short answers are "yes" and "yes".
Recall that we are talking about what happens inside the event horizon ...
Perhaps the density of states diverges as volume decreases.
However iirc most thinking is around the idea that there is a quark degeneracy limit that has to be overcome like the neutron degeneracy limit.
i.e. those people speculating some process that combines quarks into some boson can pat themselves on the back.
The bottom line is that we don't know enough about how matter/energy behaves in such extreme conditions to be able to do more than speculate.
Also see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=600360
Comment: +1 for pointing out that "what happens in the event horizon stays in the event horizon"
Comment: *Recall that we are talking about what happens inside the event horizon ...* That's irrelevant. The equivalence principle says that the laws of physics are always locally the same, because spacetime can always locally be approximated as flat, so that special relativity applies. *The bottom line is that we don't know enough about how matter/energy behaves in such extreme conditions to be able to do more than speculate.* What extreme conditions do you have in mind? The conditions are *not* necessarily extreme just because you're inside the event horizon. Do you mean at the singularity?
Comment: Would it be possible as gravity curves spacetime, that spacetime within the event horizon is no longer locally flat?


Why should one develop compassion?

Question: Maybe a strange question, because for some people it's obvious that you should be compassionate. I'm just interested in knowing why.
Hatred is unskillful, but why should one develop compassion instead? Why is "not hating" not enough?
Comment: Compassion and loving-kindness replaces anger well.
Comment: Not at all a strange question -- in fact a very natural and important one.
Comment: Best question I have read on this site in a while. :)
Answer: One reason is that compassion softens self-boundaries the most.
Hatred strengthens boundaries of the self.  Someone does something contrary to what we value, and our emotional reaction not only strengthens our attachment to this value, but our attachment to ourselves, as we identify more strongly with us vs. the other (exemplified by that person).
Not hating (letting go) softens this for obvious reasons.
Compassion goes further, for to positively work towards the benefits of others (especially those we would normally hate) is to further soften our self-boundaries, by putting our time and energy into their welfare, and in a way, to start thinking of their welfare as our welfare (in a way, this is what caring is).
I think the best explanation for compassion's role in softening the boundaries of the self doesn't come from Buddhism but from... Einstein.  Here's a very nice quote of his:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part
  limited in time and space.  He experiences himself, his thoughts and
  feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical
  delusion of his consciousness.  This delusion is a kind of prison for
  us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
  persons nearest to us.  Our task must be to free ourselves from this
  prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
  creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.  Nobody is able to
  achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in
  itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

Now you may not agree on how completely we can achieve this, but the central idea here is that compassion relaxes the boundaries of the self, expands our sense of one-ness, and to the extent we can express compassion, we are liberated.
Answer: "Hatred is unskillful, but why should one develop compassion instead?"
Compassion (karuṇā) and loving-kindness (mettā) help one overcome obstacles:

Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed by a bhikkhu when it arises in him. What are the five?
Loving-kindness can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed: this is how annoyance with him can be removed. Compassion can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. Onlooking equanimity can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. The forgetting and ignoring of a person with whom you are annoyed can be practiced; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. Ownership of deeds in a person with whom you are annoyed can be concentrated upon thus: "This good person is owner of his deeds, heir to his deeds, his deeds are the womb from which he is born, his deeds are his kin for whom he is responsible, his deeds are his refuge, he is heir to his deeds, be they good or bad." This too is how annoyance with him can be removed. These are the five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed in a bhikkhu when it arises in him.
-- AN 5:161

Also, there are fruits associated with compassion and loving-kindness:

Bhikkhus, when the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness is maintained in being, made much of, used as one's vehicle, used as one's foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed, then eleven blessings can be expected. What are the eleven?
A man sleeps in comfort; he wakes in comfort; he dreams no evil dreams; he is dear to human beings; he is dear to non-human beings; the gods guard him; no fire or poison or weapon harms him; his mind can be quickly concentrated; the expression of his face is serene; he dies without falling into confusion; and, even if he fails to penetrate any further, he will pass on to the world of High Divinity, to the Brahma world.
-- AN 11:16
Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu cultivates loving-kindness for as long as a fingersnap, he is called a bhikkhu. He is not destitute of jhana meditation, he carries out the Master's teaching, he responds to advice, and he does not eat the country's alms food in vain. So what should be said of those who make much of it?
-- AN 1:53-55, 386

"Why is "not hating" not enough?"
Now, the absense of loving-kindness may not be enough to properly protect one's mind from defilements:

Here, friends, a bhikkhu might say: "When the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness is maintained in being and made much of by me, used as my vehicle, used as my foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed, ill-will nevertheless still invades my heart and remains." He should be told: "Not so. Let the worthy one not say so. Let him not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not express it thus." Friends, it is impossible, it cannot happen, that when the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness is maintained in being and made much of, used as one's vehicle, used as one's foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed, ill-will can invade the heart and remain; for this, that is to say, the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness, is the escape from ill-will.
-- DN 33
Comment: +1 for the last quote: without goodwill as a foundation, one just waits until ill will has already arisen to remove it.
Comment: At the end: loving-kindness is sufficient to escape from ill-will, and/but an absence of loving-kindness might not be.
Answer: The central belief in Buddhism is that we are not who we naively think we are. The central question is, well, who are we then?
In the Mahayana version, a hard to follow discussion leads to the us that nothing is causally independent and as a consequence, we should reframe the question of liberation (from what ever problem brought us to seek the answers that religion provides) to how do we solve this problem for everyone. No one is enlightened until we all are enlightened.
In the various paths of liberation, it the Mahayana version, re-orienting the goal to include everyone (dealing with everyone's problems, not just your own), is the first (or first of two) steps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation#Lam_Rim
So to raise the motivation to reach liberation via the liberation of all, it helps to dwell on the misery of others & to follow through to act on that.
Answer: The Buddha showed compassion: that's stated in the Ayacana Sutta,

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with etc.

"Not hating" may be enough: the fifth verse in the Dhammapada says "non-hatred" not "compassion",

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There is an article Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas
by
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi which mentions different views of compassion within different schools of Buddhism.
Its last section is titled "Breaking down old stereotypes" and says that there are two negative stereotypes:

(1) Arahants, and Theravādin Buddhists, are concerned exclusively with their own salvation as opposed to the benefit of others; they have a narrow fixation on personal liberation because they are "fearful of birth and death" and therefore have little compassion for others and don't undertake activities intended to benefit them.
(2) Followers of the bodhisattva ideal, and Mahāyāna Buddhists, are so much involved in social projects aimed at benefiting others that they don't take up the practice that the Buddha assigned to his disciples, namely, the taming of the mind and the development of insight. They have overwhelmed themselves with social duties and forsaken meditation practice.

Saying that the first of these stereotypes is untrue:

The example established by the Buddha's great arahant disciples has been the model for the followers of the arahant ideal throughout history. While those who pursue this ideal do not make such lofty vows as do followers of the bodhisattva ideal, they are inspired by the example of the Buddha and his great disciples to work for the spiritual and moral uplift of others to the best of their ability: by teaching, by example, and by direct spiritual influence, inspired by the Buddha's command to "wander forth for the welfare of the multitude, for the happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and human beings."

It says that "giving" is important:

Those who seek the goal of nirvāṇa do not wait until they become arahants before they start helping others. Within this system, giving is regarded as the foundation for all other virtues; it is the first basis of merit and the first of the ten pāramis.

For a beginner, I guess that compassion might help:

Harmlessness (if you feel compassion then you don't want to cause harm)
Equanimity (if someone annoys you then feeling compassion for them is an antidote)
Non-attachment (compassion could cause generosity, practising generosity might help to develop renunciation, patience, and other virtues)
Answer: In the Mahayana, the standard reason is that compassion is a step on the way to Bodhicitta, which is itself a necessary precursor, as motivation, to attaining full enlightenment, the state of a Buddha, the goal of the Mahayana and state of maximum benefit to sentient beings.
Unpacking that a little...
To develop Bodhicitta, one first meditates either on the kindness of others or on their essential similarity to oneself in wanting happiness, or both. With those realizations, one next nurtures compassion for others, and ultimately great compassion wherein you simply cannot bear to see anyone suffering. In that state, you not only wish others to be free of suffering, you resolve to free them yourself. Combining that with your understanding of the Four Truths, you realize that freeing others from suffering really requires that they attain liberation, and that the best way for you to help them do so is for you yourself to gain the unlimited insight and skill of a Buddha.
Hence, your motivation to attain Buddhahood is driven by great compassion and gains the intensity needed to achieve the goal. This is what is known as Bodhicitta and one who attains is it called a Bodhisattva, a being fully devoted to the welfare of others and on the way to Buddhahood.
Of course, this is a schematic account of the process -- in practice you spiral among levels of these stages, increasing your compassion, motivation, insight and skill all the while until attaining the goal.
As you can see, compassion is thus intimately intertwined with this process, as both cause and effect. And at the goal, you simultaneously attain both perfect compassion and perfect wisdom together and see them to be simply two sides of the same coin.
That all sounds a bit exalted and beyond everyday experience, though the manifest compassion of accomplished masters is evidence that it is possible. But I like to think of it this more visceral way...
I am aiming ultimately to deeply, transformationally realize emptiness or equivalently dependent arising. Having and acting from compassion behaviorally strengthens my grasp of interdependence and undermines my false sense of independence, or as it's called, inherent existence. Or even more succintly, compassion undermines the sense of an inherently existent self set against others and this promotes my grasp of emptiness.

Why should one develop compassion?


Changing Apple ID on iPad to match Apple ID on iPhone

Question: My daughter bought a new iPad and gave me her old iPad.  However, her old iPad has her Apple ID associated with it.
I want to change that ID to the same Apple ID I use on my iPhone. Is that possible?
Comment: Did my answer work for you? If not, let me know how I can change it to suite your needs.
Answer: What part of the iPad do you want to add a new Apple ID to? There are several different places to enter an Apple ID.
Messages
Settings > Messages > Receive at:

App Store
Settings > Store > Apple ID:

Alternatively, you can go to the App Store, click on "Top Charts" at the bottom. Scroll to the bottom and you can sign out and enter a new Apple ID.

iCloud
Go to Settings > iCloud > Account:
Answer: You don't say which Apple ID you want to change. The iTunes Store, iCloud and Messages all use Apple ID, and they can all be different. But yes, you can change, one, or all, according to your needs. Most of these changes are made in various Settings on the iPad.
Answer: Since there are two different Apple ID - you are in a situation where you can use both on one device but you cannot merge the two purchases and have only one account with the contents of both.
Hopefully, one account will be full of free purchases and you can just leave it behind. If not - try to make all future purchases on one account and only use the second account to load those past purchases you need.
This invokes signing in under the old account on each device. Downloading the apps and songs (authorizing that device for the "old" account). Then signing out and in to the new account for the rest of the songs and apps.
Just use care when asked to update apps - you'll need to remember both passwords when asked for each one needing an update.


What is the real story behind movie Badlapur?

Question: During the interviews makers said that Badlapur is based on true events happened in central Europe in 1980s. Some say these events actually happened in Pune itself. Does anybody know the exact real events happened.
Comment: The plot of *Badlapur* is based on Massimo Carlotto's book *Death's Dark Abyss*. Whether the *book* is based on a true story is a mystery to me; all I know is that Carlotto was wrongfully imprisoned himself and [claims](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/15/AR2006101500884.html) that his stories are based on real life.
Comment: Thank you very much for your response. It has satisfied a part of my question. But the makers have said (quote) "Badlapur is based on a real-life incident that took place nearly 25 yers ago in Central Europe". Massimo was imprisoned for totally different reason.He must have taken inspiration from some events for this novel. I am looking for those events. Thank you again.
Comment: Almost every entry I see about it says something to the effect of: "*Badlapur is based on a real-life incident that happened decades ago. It's a story of a family man who sets out to take revenge after being wronged.*" It happened in Europe. That's all they are *really* saying. I wonder if it's actually to help sell the movie. As a true to life story, it becomes a human interest thing. People want to know. Because of that, it's usually out there. Since it's not (as far as I can tell), it makes me wonder.
Answer: In a Reuters interview, the director Sriram Raghavan was asked about the film's background:

Q: What is "Badlapur" based on?
A: Basically it is an account written by a person (author Massimo
  Carlotto) who spent a lot of time in jail. He's written quite a few
  stories, but many of his stories are actually about people he met in
  prison. The account he wrote is true but it happened elsewhere in the
  world. But some stories are universal, and I felt that this was a
  revenge story with a difference.

So although in interviews Raghaven frequently refers to his movie being based on real-life events, it appears he means based on the novel, which itself was supposedly based on real-life events. The implication in Raghavan's quote is that Carlotto met a prisoner whilst behind bars and Raghavan's movie is based on their story.
So now we move on to the key question - whilst Raghavan claims the novel is based on true events, is it really or is simply fiction?.
In an interview with The Guardian, Carlotto said:

'I have never once made up a killing,' he says. 'Every single death in
  everything I have written relates to a real killing, one for which I
  have read the autopsy report. I have seen the documents, I have
  carried out one-to-one interviews with murderers. This is my way of
  recording what is happening in present day Italy.
'The Noir writers talk about the social and political situation right
  now; they react very quickly to changes in the criminal world. In
  Italy, Mediterranean Noir is called the literature of reality. I even
  have journalists calling me when they are writing about crime, to ask
  me what is going on. The world of journalism has changed. There is no
  investigation now. Italy has lost any real sense of truth, because
  nobody believes the official "truths".
'It is very rare now for crime writers [in Italy] to invent stories.
  Most of them are real. Only the names are changed. That's why these
  books are so popular.'

And of course we now reach the problem. With the names changed, and without access to all the various autopsy reports and public records, it's impossible to verify whether the people in the book are actually real, are mostly real with fictional embellishments, or entirely fictional creations of Carlotto.
Carlotto hasn't given any interviews where has has proven the events - largely I suspect because he doesn't need to. And whilst the story is riveting, I doubt it's so unique that it would be easy to identify if it had really occurred.
Answer: The movie is based on real incidents that happened in 1990. The incident that happened is just known to have happened, there hasn't been an actual recording of the exact events. The film's story, however, follows those events closely, do just watch the film you'll get an idea of what happened. The book Death's Dark Abyss, just inspired the movie's theme and overall emotion, not the story.
Comment: Sorry but this does not exactly answer my question; Also, I have reached to a conclusion that movie was entirely based on Death's Dark Abyss (i have read the novel). If the events happened in reality or not must be asked to author (Massimo Carlotto) himself. The "events happened" gimmick was used by makers just to publicize the movie and I don't think they also knew anything about it. Thank you for the response though.


Evolution of an intelligent prey species

Question: I just wanted to know something relatively simple. What evolutionary factors could lead to an alien prey species to develop human like intelligence, and by prey species I mean a species like bunnies.
Comment: So when homonids started evading cats *far* better than other apes, why didn't the cats become smarter, too? We should have hyperintellegent sabertooth tigers today.
Comment: Wait, what does "intelligent" in your context mean after all? The ability to calculate the burrows maximal corridor height in order to not make it cave-in, or to create fine statuettes of carrots by nibble pieces of wood into shape? Do you request intelligence or the ability to shape their environment? Somehow I feel like answers might differ for these...
Comment: If bunnies developed intelligence I doubt they would remain prey for long.
Comment: I think we know enough about biology to answer this one.  Welcome to the site btw.
Comment: Their biology is similar to a prey species like a bunny.. eyes to the side of the head etc.. If you're asking what chemistry they're based off of, Lets just say they're based off a biochemistry similar to Earth life.
Comment: lol I thought you were asking about biology, my mistake. I have noticed after awhile of studying animals that prey tend to be not as intelligent as predators this might actually be a big problem for this question :/
Comment: Co evolution will negate any advantages; intelligent bunnies will be hunted by hyper intelligent predators.
Answer: A better example might be parrots.  I've seen books for pet owners repeatedly point out that parrots are behaviorally different from dogs  because they are a prey species rather than a predator species.
Now don't forget that being a predator doesn't mean you're the apex predator.  On science shows I've seen it shown that earlier hominids were "still prey" to other wildlife.
It is quite plausible that animals like birds (some birds are definitely predators now: I mean small omnivores and scavengers) will continue to find intelligence to be a competitive advantage for evading predation, finding more food sources, and finding roosting and nesting sites.
That summarizes the evolutionary factors: it confers advantages.  There are also disadvantages, including the metabolic expense.
Why did it take off in hominids?  Perhaps because the software can change faster than evolving new traits, and this allowed the spread into new niches and ability to cope with rapidly and repeatedly changing niches.  E.g. learning to make clothes can happen overnight, while growing a coat takes thousands of years.  Look at rapid, repeated changes to the environment or availability of food sources as a factor that encourages intelligence as a solution.
Answer: There are several factors that could lead a species to evolve to a human like intelligence:

complex and big social structures
prehensile limbs in order to handle tools
highly nutritive food or efficient digestion for fuelling a bigger brain
education is required to transmit skills through generations
widened hips to be able to give birth to babies with larger head
a safe zone like a burrow, where the animal can shelter to educate the youngest and stop always being in a prey way of thinking, focused on present

None of these factors exclude a prey species.
Answer: Predators don't necessarily co-evolve; predators that used to prey on our species are proof.  There are no super intelligent lions...if one type of prey becomes difficult, and/or dangerous, to hunt...You just eat something else.  The real question is, why would the bunnies keep getting smarter after they were smart enough to evade or kill their predators to the extent that the predators no longer exerted any significant evolutionary pressure.  They would probably develop simple tactics to evade 99.9% of predation long before reaching human intelligence.  Humans kept getting smarter and smarter long after we became the apex predator for one simple reason: we were competing with each other, so we were the threat to each other that drives continuing evolution.  Bunnies would probably have to be a threat to each other, even indirectly, or they may have predators that remain a continuing threat even against human-IQ prey.
Answer: The Will To Survive
Humans are hunted by lions and other large predators sometimes. I think it would be feasible to have a prey species become intelligent, even if you disregard that. (Because I don't really know how truthful it is.) If the prey has to continually become smarter to avoid being eaten by the prey species, at some point it might develop human-like intelligence, especially if the stupid ones meet death.
The problem with this situation is that the species co-evolve. Just like @Thucydides said, your human intelligence bunnies will be hunted by probably even more intelligent wolves. This could lead to problems if you intend them to become spacefaring, because you'd have the more peaceful bunnies and the ruthless predator wolves.


Back up from windows to ubuntu

Question: I've recently installed Ubuntu along side of win7 on a netbook. I want to back up all my information from Windows, so I can switch to Ubuntu only.
Any advice?
Comment: your question is not clear as to what information you are speaking of.. are you talking your documents and specific files and folders ? please be more specific.
Answer: You may want to look into this answer if your Windows partition doesn't automatically mount itself in Ubuntu.
How to mount NTFS drive at startup
Once it is mounted, drag and drop your files to Ubuntu and then erase Windows. Very simple.
Answer: Well, it's basically as easy as clicking on the windows file system on your file manager(it should automatically mount itself), locating your files, and draggin them over to your corresponding directories in linux.
Answer: Did you back-up your Windows data anywhere before installing Ubuntu (on a flash drive or on another machine, maybe)?  If so, you can just copy it from there to your Ubuntu partition.  Otherwise, your Windows partition should be visible from within your file manager.
And by the way, it's a good idea to back-up your data anytime you're messing with your disk partitions or installing another OS (or both).
Answer: Well although it isn't an usual backup method, if you have a fairly recent computer that supports hardware virtualization,you might want to consider making what is called a P2V copy of your windows installation.
What this does is create a virtualized copy of your entire physical windows installation that you can then replay for inside a VM player/manager software.
And yes both the P2V converter and the VM player software are free,although not opensource.
So first thing you need to do is go into windows and install the converter from this address http://www.vmware.com/products/converter/
(Click on download and log into your account or create one just for that)
 When you're done downloading and installing run the standalone converter and choose powered-on Machine and this local machine as the source,then click next.
At the next screen select vmware workstation as the machine type and select also vmware workstation 8.x as the product.. Then give it the location of an external hard drive to which send the copy to when doing the conversion.
Then click next twice and go do something else for a while.. It can take a few hours to copy all your data to an external hard drive.
When this step is done you can shutdown and reboot into ubuntu.
In ubuntu you now have to install the vmware player from this page http://www.vmware.com/products/player/overview.html
Yes virtualbox is great but i don't know if a vmware machine can be used from it.
There are ways most probably,but it is beyond the scope of my answer.
Now you can run the vmware player and open the VM you have on your external drive.
You can then proceed to copy files from your VM to your ubuntu desktop and see how to delete your old windows partition.

Back up from windows to ubuntu


Could the Moon sit on the Earth?

Question: Let say that the Earth's Moon was knocked out of orbit and landed on the Earth with some damage but not world ending. Would Earth's atmosphere envelop to include the Moon? Would the moon sink into the Earth? What would happen?
Comment: One theory of Earth's formation is that the Moon and Earth are the result of a collision of two early planets in the solar system.  If the collision of those two planets created the Earth and Moon, it seems likely that Earth and Moon colliding would result in two new bodies being formed, although the devil is in the detail.  Planetary sized bodies don't have gentle collisions. :-)
Comment: At sizes like moon and earth, these objects have roughly the stability of piles of toothpaste in the bathroom sink.
Answer: It can't happen. The moon is quite big and can't get knocked out of orbit easily.
If it were somehow knocked out of orbit and collided with the Earth, the energy released would melt the entire crust. Huge amounts of matter would be knocked into space. After everything had settled down, you would get a lifeless world, still spherical but now slightly larger.
The moon can't get knocked out of orbit.  If it did, It can't "land". If it did "land" it would be crushed by its own weight, and all life would end in one way or another.
Comment: Okay,   the moon is not knocked of of orbit in the scenario
Comment: Let say a comet or asteroid of size missed the Earth but hit the moon in the direction of orbit?
Comment: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/12220/could-an-asteroid-knock-the-moon-out-of-its-orbit?rq=1
Answer: This is a highly improbable scenario, since the Moon has a lot of momentum. However, let's say you teleport the Moon onto the surface of the Earth. Then Moon can't just sit on the Earth, and it will collapse under its own weight, probably killing everyone on Earth. The two would probably merge into a spherical shape (as most massive objects do).
Comment: @CarlWitthoft As another user said, at large scales solids aren't really solid, and are more like big balls of sand.
Comment: This is speculation.  You should at least consider the total pressure imparted directly under the Moon and decide whether it's sufficient to, say, break the local mantle.
Answer: At the scale of the Earth or the Moon there are no solid objects. The Earth does not behave like a solid, nor does the Moon.
You have to think of these objects as more like piles of sand, made round by their own gravity. So if one round pile of sand touches another round pile of sand, they just merge and make a bigger pile of sand, also round.

the Earth's Moon was knocked out of orbit and landed on the Earth with
  some damage but not world ending

That's essentially impossible. I can't think of any mechanism that would allow the Moon to gently touch the Earth. Regardless, both the Earth and the Moon would be severely bent out of shape before they even begin to touch - they would look more like eggs, or a teardrop shape, then they merge, and that's the end of everyone and everything on this planet.
Comment: Probably true but perhaps some references to the largest (theoretical ) chunk of rock that would not collapse or deform into a 'fried-egg' shape over some region of the Earth.
Comment: @CarlWitthoft -- Mountains on earth get as high as the crust can support.  Asteroids are probably not as rigid as rocks in the crust.  A 100 m asteroid somehow brought to a soft landing would collapse into a hill shape but probably wouldn't do much to the crust underneath.  A one-km asteroid in a "soft" landing would still liquefy the crust underneath and sink deep into the ground; you'd still end up with something like an impact crater with a central peak.

Could the Moon sit on the Earth?


Where to pay taxes?

Question: I am a Croatian citizen residing in Spain. I got a job offer in Germany where I would be working from Mon - Thu, and rest of the days I would be back in Spain. I would be working with a company as a freelancer under a contract. Croatia recently applied a new law which lowers the taxes for people under 25 and 30. I'm curious if I could register as a freelancer in Croatia (To pay the lower taxes compared to registering in Spain)? Considering that I reside in Spain, but I am a Croatian citizen. Would that possibly cause the problems?
Comment: The answer is probably "everywhere relevant, then rely on tax treaties where available, usually ending up paying just the jurisdiction with the heaviest tax load", but I'm not qualified to say this definitively.
Answer: There are multiple elements in play here, but at the end you pay taxes in Germany or are at fault of tax evasion.
Taxes have to be paid at place of residence, but INCOME earned in one country MUST be taxed in that country. As you stay in Germany Monday-Thursday and work there your income from that freelancer job is due German taxes. It would be different for remote work, when your country of residence - NOT citizenship - would be relevant. But the fact that you work IN Germany (out of offices of a company) means the income is earned in Germany.
Citizenship is irrelevant in most cases - exceptions being one African country and USA, iirc. If you do not reside in a country, you pay no taxes there. Spanish residence is irrelevant as double taxation applies - and the income from Germany is already taxed in Germany. Not financial advice, you MUST talk to some tax advisor specialized in international taxes (have fun paying that fees) because there are a TON of edge and special cases.
And yes, that can mean paying taxes in multiple places. I personally pay in 2 countries and I knew a freelancer once paying in three. Funny enough I earn MOST of my money in Germany but do not pay German income tax on that because I WORK out of my offices in Poland (so polish taxation applies), but I pay German income tax on rental income made in Germany. The situation gets quite complex quite fast.
And yes, this may mean higher tax rate. Alternatively work out of Croatia and live there ;)
Answer: Article 9.1 a) of the personal income tax law of Spain provides for you to argue that you are exempt from paying the personal income tax in Spain.
However, article 107.1 of the general taxes law makes a big provision for the revenue services of Spain to demand you pay taxes in Spain, when combined with different articles of each tax law.
The combination of those two and annex articles make easy for them to create a case for them to demand you pay them personal income tax, specially if you are married (with or without children) and they (or them all) live in Spain. In this last case, you are required to prove what article 9.1 a) of Ley 35/2006 writes about, even without the need to resort to Ley 58/2003.
So in fine, I'd go with:

If you are single, pay then do your taxes in Germany. It's unlikely that you are going to have a problem, if you have your German paperwork well done.
If you are married and your significant other undeniably fiscally lives in Spain, either:
a. Pay then do your taxes in Spain (and then I don't know what sort of thing you have to do in Germany, but I don't think that's going to be easy).
b. Pay then do your taxes in Germany, and be prepared to prove job travels to Germany (WRT article 9.1 of Ley 35/2006) to the revenue service of Spain when/if they demand you pay the personal income tax to them.

In this case you are required to pay yet another different tax only if you also happened to do occasional works for a Spanish employer or contractee.

Hope that helped.
DISCLAIMER: This is not your tax advisory, it's a vague (yet informed) entry level reference in order to guide you. Here's no responsibility for any damages caused. If on doubt, always choose to go to the tax advisory office or to the revenue service office, depending on the cases.
Answer: I don't know anything about tax law in Croatia, Spain, or Germany.
Having said that, in general, you pay taxes in the country you live in and/or work in.
It sounds like you will be splitting your residence between Spain and Germany, so I don't think you can arbitrarily choose to only pay tax to Croatia just because the taxes would be lower, even if you are a Croatian citizen.
Comment: For abstract income, yes, but not for income earned in one country. Croatia is totally out, though ;)

Where to pay taxes?


Could a ship take off from Earth using ion thrusters?

Question: If you had enough ion thrusters, could you take off from Earth's surface into low Earth orbit?
If not, why not?
Answer: I believe the strongest engine in this class is the VASIMR VX-50 -- which produced a whopping 0.5∓0.1 N (0.11∓0.02 lbf) of thrust in a test stand for a very short time.  That's less than the weight of the engine itself so I suspect we are a ways away from launching anything with an ion drive.
I think these drives also need to be operated in a vacuum.
Comment: I don't think that a VASIMR engine really counts as an "ion engine", does it? Isn't it using thermalized plasma?

(Also, that doesn't even begin to include the mass of the power plant)
Answer: Ion thrusters of current designs would short out the charged grid in surface level atmosphere.
Current generation ion thrusters rely upon a difference in charges ionizing and then attracting the reaction mass. Since the electrical voltage difference between the charged grids is extremely high, and needs to remain so to operate, the presence of atmosphere could, and probably would, result in air arcing between them, and discharging the grids.
Further, as an example, the NSTAR Ion Engine masses 8.2kg, and produces a peak of 92millinewtons, which, before accounting for anything else, would be about 11mm per second per second...  about 1/1100th the thrust needed to lift itself. Just the drive, power, and digital controller unit is about 25.5kg... for about 3.6mm per second per second... actual performance of the DS-1 probe, massing 373kg, was about 0.25mm per second per second... highway speed (88kph, or 24km/s) takes 97777.8 seconds or so... just over 27.1 hours (and almost 1200km).
It has been estimated that, at best, ion drives will peak at around 100 times the thrust to weight ratio they are currently at. (In part, this is because one can only accelerate the ions to just shy of light speed...) which would still leave them well below the performance shown in certain science fiction settings. After all, 1.1 N on a 25 kg package would still be only 4cm per second per second... far short of the 9.80665 Newtons per kg needed to attain the 9.80665 meters per second per second to merely hold against surface gravity...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/future_propulsion.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/90s/nstar.htm
Comment: Forget "electric arcs shorting out the electrical potential drop", you're also going to be straight-up flooding the acceleration chamber and possibly destroying the ionizer. It's a more general problem of "ion thrusters don't work except in a vacuum".
Comment: @ikrase not true - some very low thrust versions can be used for moving air itself.
Comment: I'm aware of "ionocraft" or "lifters", though they have the same "not even approaching lifting the power plant" issue.
Comment: I didn't claim they were useful thrusters -  that's your strawman.
Answer: The answer depends on how you define 'enough ion thrusters'.  Per some of the discussion on this question the key at launch is, can you generate more thrust, than your vehicle masses.  Else you sit still on the launch pad.
So the Shuttle uses SRB's that have awesome amounts of thrust (14.7 MN (3.3M lbs) at sea level, vs the F-1B which is in theory 8.0 MN (1.8M lbs)) but crappy ISP.
Ion thrusters (accelerate a charged particle out the back very fast, and live off the momentum gain) have awesome ISP, but crappy thrust levels.
So can you get 'enough' ion thrusters to generate enough thrust to exceed the mass of your vehicle? Today? No.  Tomorrow?  Who can know?
This is known as thrust to weight ratio.  Since you cannot exceed 1.0 you will just sit on the pad.
It does seem like it will take a radical change in the technology to increase the thrust for this to ever work, but stranger things have happened.
Answer: Once we have a Vactrain loop big enough.
Levitating on magnetic field, it could accelerate to nearly arbitrary speeds, before being allowed to leave the vacuum tubes, shoot through the atmosphere diagonally and head towards the orbit. The trick is enough of launch track without air and changing the horizontal acceleration vector to vertical.
Yes; plain maglev propulsion would be much more efficient in these conditions but that doesn't make using the ion drive impossible.
Until then... well, others said it.


Spot meter indication point when in "auto" autofocus mode with Nikon cameras

Question: I want to use the spot meter but in addition the completely automatic auto focus mode with a Nikon DSLR camera. Is there a way to make the spot meter position visible? I see it in "group mode" and "single sensor" mode since it is identical to the focus sensor. But I want to see it for the "auto" mode as well. Nikon says it is the position in the center that is relevant for spot-metering, but it is difficult to meter if one does not see this sensor.
Answer: Short Answer: No, I do not believe you can force the camera's spot metering point (which is the focusing array's central focus point, proved below) to become visible while spot metering and using the auto-area AF mode.
To find out more about how I came to this conclusion, continue reading.
Long Answer: I was recently wondering how spot metering worked with auto-area AF as well. According to page 139 of the D750 manual, available here, I came to the same conclusion as you: when using auto-area AF, the camera will spot meter off of the center focus point of the entire focusing array. In Nikon's words:

Spot: Camera meters circle 4 mm (0.16 in.) in diameter (approximately 1.5% of frame). Circle is centered on current focus point, making it possible to meter off-center subjects (if non-CPU lens is used or if auto-area AF is in effect, camera will meter center focus point). Ensures that subject will be correctly exposed, even when background is much brighter or darker.

That last section in parentheses is what we're interested in here. To test my hypothesis/understanding of this passage I took the test shots below.
In this first image I tested to see how the camera metered a shot while using auto-area AF and spot metering. To check this, I made sure to place the camera's center focusing point in the shadow cast by the horizontally positioned pillow, and allowed auto-area AF to focus on the on the horizontal pillow. If the camera is indeed metering off the array's center focus point as I suspect, then the image should come out over exposed, since it is attempting to meter the deep shadow. If instead it is metering off of the center of the focus point group which the camera has selected, then the horizontal pillow should be relatively properly exposed.

As you can see from the overexposure in the above image, it appears that the camera is indeed using the entire array's central focus point to perform its metering. To confirm this though, let's see what happens if we change to single-point AF and place that focus point on what would be considered the center AF point of the group of AF points that auto-area AF selected to see how the camera chooses to meter the shot this time.

That image looks much more properly exposed for the area under the focus point, so I feel good that our interpretation of the manual is correct. To get back to the question at hand though, can we force the camera to show us the central AF point while using auto-area AF?
I have my camera set so that when I click the select button, the one in the center of the directional pad, the AF point will return to the center position. So, to test if the central AF point will highlight in auto-area AF I set the camera to that focusing mode and clicked the select button; this had no impact on the position of the locked AF points. I then set the camera to both single-point AF and group-area AF, moved the focus points away from the central position, and then clicked the select button; in both modes the focus points jumped back to the center of the array. Given these tests, it does not appear one can force the camera to highlight the central AF point in auto-area AF mode.
Based on our understanding of how spot metering works with auto-area AF, and our inability to force the camera to highlight the central focus point in auto-area AF, I am forced to conclude that we cannot get the camera to show us the position of the spot metering point while using auto-area AF. It seems you will simply have to estimate the center of the array's focusing points.
I would be really interested in finding out if there is some setting I have missed that would allow this functionality though.
Answer: From the D7000 manual page (link to manual), you can read page 105 :

Spot: Camera meters circle 3.5 mm (0.14 in.) in diameter (approximately 2.5% of frame). Circle is centered on current focus point, making it possible to meter off-center subjects (if non-CPU lens is used or if auto-area AF is in effect, camera will meter center focus point). Ensures that subject will be correctly exposed, even when background is much brighter or darker.

So with spot metering and auto AF, your camera will select the best AF point and use it. It should normally show you this point in the viewfinder, as you can read on Nikon Area-Mode AF page :

The area of the frame that the camera will use for autofocus is shown by focus points in the viewfinder.

So you might have an issue, which origin may be one of those given on this page :

AF point illumination is switched Off in the custom menu
Camera is in manual mode (either on the body or on the lens)
Lens is not attached correctly
Is Auto AF Area mode set? AF points will only show when the camera achieves focus - rather than in single point or dynamic AF area modes where the camera shows the chosen AF point in the viewfinder once the camera is on
Non Nikkor lenses are being used, some other brands of lenses when used on Nikon D-SLRs do not show the focus points under any conditions
AF-ON only is activated and AF from the Shutter release is deactivated. Despite depressing the shutter release half way, focus is not being activated.


Which is the most seen play in Esperanto?

Question: I know there are plays shown during Universala Kongreso, for example. I'd like to know which one had the most viewers.
Comment: I remember that in the 100th esperanto congress were two plays, Felicxas Cxiuj and Viro-Semo, which seemed extremely appreciated (I couldn't attend the later, even coming half an hour before, thought I've tried three times in a row). They probably had a great number of viewers, considering the number of people who came to Lille this year. However I couldn't say if they had the most.
Comment: This might not be too helpful but you can look at the plays in on this site: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Esperanto_(Bookshelf)
Comment: Would you count watching a recording of a play? Because the EAB sells a recording of _La Graveco de la Fideliĝo_ and I bet a lot of people have seen that.
Comment: A difficult question. Does the new film "Gerda malaperis" still count as play?
Speaking about local plays in theaters or at Esperanto arrangements I would suggest to find out
* which players or theater groups actually exist
* how often they perform
* how often the actual play was performed and
* how many people took part in the arrangement
later do some statistical calculations and assumptions that lead to "La Kredito" by Jordi Galceran, played dum UK 2016 by Saŝa Pilipovic kaj Georgo Handzlik. (I liked it.)
"Which is the most sung song in Esperanto"? This question is way easier...
Answer: The most seen play would probably be Gerda Malaperis since it is available on Youtube, which gives it a large reach.
In terms of a live theatre plays, it is hard to know because it is difficult to dig up records of attendance. But maybe this will help:

A play written by Carmel Mallia in the international language Esperanto, entitled Najbaroj (Neighbours), won first prize in a drama competition held annually by the Universal Esperano Association.
  http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120819/social/Esperanto-congress.433453


Can cancelled released movie scripts be put back in production?

Question: I was wondering if it would be possible for movie scripts that have been released for the public to be be put back in production. For example a few years ago when the potential for a new Friday the 13th movie was cancelled, the script was released to the public. So would it be possible for whoever gets the rights to the franchise to take that script and turn it into a movie?
A similar situation happened in 2015 when a script for a new Halloween movie was released.
Comment: I don't see why it can't, it become basically the same as when a book is adapted as a movie. (I don't have any example). Ultimately, it's a legal question. Even if it is officially released to the public, the script is still not public domain. So the owner of the script can do whatever he wants with it. Even if it makes no sens.
Comment: Your title and your question currently ask two slightly different things. It's not clear how cancallation of a production and public release of a script are related and which of the two cases your question is more concerned about (or only the combination thereof).
Answer: Your question is based on an inaccurate premise. Film studios are not in the habit of "releasing" unused scripts "to the public." There is no business reason for them to do so. In the example you cite, Paramount did not "release" Nick Antosca's script. The script was leaked. It was posted online by someone who had access to it, which amounts to illegal distribution of Paramount's intellectual property. Nevertheless, even though the script can now be found online, it remains Paramount's property.
If they chose, Paramount could indeed dust it off, spruce it up, and put it back into production. If Paramount were to give up the rights to the franchise, and those rights were picked up by another studio, those rights would be limited to the characters and trademarks of the franchise only. They would not include the use of Antosca's script. If the new studio was committed to that specific script, they would have to option that in addition to their purchase of the franchise rights.
Answer: It all really depends if the script has any proper copyrights and project seems like it is profitable enough to risk it even with the script leaked to the public.  But if the project was cancelled but seems like it is profitable at a later date then there is nothing stopping them from restarting the project.  It happens all the time in the movie business.   But if the gap becomes too great from the previous movie than the new project typically does not do so well as the previous movies.


Did Logical Positivism fail because it simply denied human emotion?

Question: Did the denial of human emotion lead to the death of logical positivism?
Comment: No. The main problem was that the positivist criterion for meaningfulness of statements, which they used to argue that metaphysics is meaningless, could be turned on positivism itself, aside from more technical issues like the analytic/synthetic distinction. In fact, emotions fit with positivism rather nicely. Their ethics of [emotivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism) explicitly relies on their prominence in human behavior, and [behaviorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism) is a biological incarnation of positivism.
Comment: Putnam on The Fact Value Dichotomy and Bad Philosophy https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLJfEVu3kbY
Answer: Logical positivism does not deny human emotion. It simply reassigns its role. Ethical, aesthetic, or religious judgments, for example, fulfill the role of expressing or eliciting emotion - and not, emphatically not, of truth-bearing. Since ethical, aesthetic, and religious judgments occur and since, equally definitely for logical positivists, they cannot be truth-bearers since they are incapable of verification, they are reduced to an emotional function.
This is clear from AJ Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic, 1936, ch.6.
I am not endorsing logical positivism, only explaining it and setting out how it regards the emotions - those, at least, relevant to ethical, aesthetic, and religious judgment.
Answer: Logical Positivism did not fail because it denied human emotion. LP failed because it tried to reduce the concept of meaning to the process of verification, and it became increasingly clear that this was an impossible task (as the later Wittgenstein, among other, pointed out quite clearly). Logical Positivists would look at a scientific proposition — such as the laws of gravity — and note that such theories are meaningful precisely because they can be used functionally in ways that verify them. They wanted to extend that kind of apparent rigor to philosophy more broadly put, and at the same time restrict philosophy more broadly put to questions that could respond fruitfully to that kind of verification. But they could never solve what later came to be known as the demarcation problem: how to simultaneously retain those things they thought should be part of philosophy and exclude those things they thought should not be part of philosophy. The result was an assortment of conflicts and paradoxes that fragmented the movement.
The issue with emotions was an outgrowth of this thinking, not the root of it. Subjective experience (including emotions) is in many ways the converse of metaphysical propositions. One cannot verify a feeling about something, and so from the LP perspective feelings are not proper subjects of philosophical analysis.
Answer:
Everybody  knows  nowadays  that  logical  positivism  is  dead. But
  nobody seems to suspect that there may be a question to be asked
  here—the question "Who is responsible?" or, rather, the question "Who
  has  done  it?". (Passmore's excellent historical article [note  110]  does not raise this question.) I fear that I
  must admit responsibility. Yet I did not do it on purpose: my sole
  intention was to point out what seemed to me a number of fundamental
  mistakes.  Passmore correctly ascribes the dissolution of
  logical positivism to insuperable internal difficulties. Most of
  these  difficulties  had  been  pointed out in my lectures and
  discussions, and especially in my Logik der Forschung.  Some members
  of the Circle  were  impressed  by  the  need  to  make changes. Thus
  the seeds were sown. They led, in the course of many years, to the
  disintegration of the Circle's tenets.

This is from the famous chapter "Who killed logical positivism" (17) of Karl Popper's autobiography, The Unended Quest. The motto for it is from John  Passmore's  article  "Logical  Positivism"  in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Paul Edwards, Vol. V, p. 57: "Logical  positivism,  then,  is  dead,  or  as  dead  as  a  philosophical movement ever becomes."
Comment: Can you elaborate on what issues Popper is referring to?
Answer: Karl Popper refuted logical positivism in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (LScD).
One problem with the logical positivist position was that the positivists wanted to get rid of metaphysics in favour of science, but their proposed way to distinguishing between them was useless. They wanted to say science consisted of verifiable statements, but an experimental observation doesn't show that a scientific theory is true since any set of observations is compatible with an infinite set of theories. So their proposed criterion of demarcation between science and metaphysics would class every scientific theory ever invented as metaphysics. See LScD Chapter 1, Section 4.
The positivists usually took the position that they could work out what constitutes science by observing scientists and using their observations to work out what counts as science. This position has a couple of problems. First, it will tend to entrench the positions taken by those who are deemed to be scientists regardless of whether their positions can stand up to criticism. Second, it doesn't provide any means of deciding who counts as a scientist. See LScD chapter 2, Sections 9 and 10
Answer: Several good answers here. As Geoffrey Thomas points out, LP doesn't "deny" human emotion. It simply tries to remove emotion ("emotion" is used here in the most general sense of the word - i.e. including questions of ethics, values, faith, etc...)  from the process of elaborating philosophical statements and results.
I would like to point out though, that some sources consider W.V.O Quine "The Destroyer of Logical Positivism" (paradoxically he is also known as the last logical positivist).
From this point of view, it is neither Karl Popper's views on verfication vs. falsification, and on metaphysics, nor the seeming inconsistency of the verification principle, that brought down Logical Positivism. Several members of the Vienna circle tried to deal with those challenges.
It was Quine's dissolution of the Analytic/Synthetic distinction which doomed the LP program. Quine showed that no matter how hard we try, we cannot separate empirical statements from theoretical constructs.
A purely empirical statement is impossible, since there will always be some theoretical assumptions being made when trying to describe empirical facts.
Conversely, all statements of logic and ideas must rely on definitions, and definitions cannot be always abstract, sooner or later they must be tied to some real world experience or document. (Consider trying to define the number "2" - no matter how hard you try, eventually you will have to simply point to a real world example or document).
This pretty much made LP's separation of statements into either empirical statements or logical statements impossible, and was the true nail in the coffin of LP.
Comment: @sand1 I don't know. Popper seems to place himself in opposition to LP, but I see more similarities than differences. You can easily replace verification with falsification and still recover most of the logical positivist program (in fact I think some of the Vienna circle did do exactly that, but I can't find the reference). Quine on the other hand, destroyed the very foundation of LP. This is attested to the fact that after Quine's results, several members of the LP movement themselves conceded that they were wrong. You know a movement is "dead" when its own proponents give up on it.
Comment: "Quine's dissolution of the Analytic/Synthetic distinction  doomed the LP program." *Doomed* sounds nice but it was announced in 1950, nearly 20 years after Popper's early work, done, btw, when Quine was staying in Vienna. Popper's wording looks like a literary device to disguise a rather impressive claim; however he does not say that LP died on spot - perhaps he poisoned it?
Comment: I think it's fair to say that Quine was, like others before and after him, someone who thought LP consequently up to its paradoxes, similar to what Marx did with the labour theory of value. What is really different between Quine and Popper is that the former kind of started a new school of thinking - mostly in acknowledging opposition to his work - namely the new pragmatists (Sellars, Putnam, Rorty). They constructively answered LP by offering an alternative while Quine rather stopped at critically highlighting its shortcomings and missed original positive accounts. That's just my take anyway.
Answer: Logical positivism was an approach to philosophy with aspirations to new heights of strictness and rigor. Most famously, it initially endorsed the "verification principle," which states that all meaningful statements must be either based on empirical evidence, or be "truths of logic" (or a combination of the two). However, the verification principle itself is self-defeating, since it itself is neither based on empirical evidence nor is it a truth of logic. Therefore, the verification principle would technically have to judge itself as meaningless.
As with other ambitious analytic projects, such as Russell's attempt to reduce mathematics to logic (proved fatally paradoxical by Godel), logical positivism was influential and arguably productive, but ultimately unsupportable under its own terms, and doomed by the impossibility of its ambitions.  This was the proximate cause of its demise.
It's possible to speculate that, in the larger picture, it was too much in thrall to visions of mechanical perfection, and too contemptuous of "fuzzy" human characteristics human such as emotion, but it would be difficult to draw a direct connection between that and its infamous failure as a philosophical movement.


Questions of Faith

Question: Which sects or schools of Buddhism make the least reference to reincarnation and memories of past lives ?, also the least likely to talk about deities ? Which texts are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught ? Thanks
Answer: Theravada is a common name for the conservative tradition that preserved fairly accurate records of what the Buddha taught. The thing is, other lives are mentioned a lot in the original texts.
The conservative tradition insists on literal interpretation of the texts, while various liberal schools (known under umbrella name of Mahayana) allow reading between the lines and various non-literal interpretations, including didactic and metaphorical interpretations of "other lives". They even allow (gasp!) development of ideas from the seeds present in the original texts, as well as from practice. Mahayana schools claim to have better preserved the spirit of what the Buddha taught.
Of all Mahayana schools Zen/Chan(Chinese)/Seon(Korean) are probably least likely to talk about past lives etc. Modern "Secular Buddhism" explicitly rejects any supernatural teachings.
Finally, if you want to get into Buddhism, you have to realize that within all schools without exception there are teachers & students who uphold literal interpretation of other lives and deities, and there are those who have a more comprehensive view of these things.
For example, within Tibetan Buddhist schools such as Nyingma and Kagyu - there is a lot of talk about past lives for beginners, but at advanced levels there is barely any mention of them. The deities do play important role but they are not taken literally.
Even Theravada teachers with all their traditional literalism, do not spend too much time talking about past lives and instead place a lot of emphasis on everyday practice. And when you practice enough in any tradition you arrive in more or less the same place of wisdom where all schools agree with each other.
Answer: I think you are looking for the same thing I've been looking for in the past years.
What I do is read lots of different texts from many different Buddhist traditions, and extract what I consider "pure wisdom" not influenced by religious beliefs. Currently I'm listening to an audio book: the Diamond Sutra interpretation by Osho, and it's pretty great and free from religious distortions.
You can also adopt a skeptical point of view when reading Buddhism. For example, when past lives are mentioned, you can interpret it as your past defilements. Rebirth is enlightment. Etc.
An additional way I've found to acquire true wisdom is to study texts from many religions, and just abstract yourself from the fancy religious artifacts. You can get snippets of wisdom from Christians, Muslims, etc.
Comment: The Buddha did not teach about "past lives" but exactly what you said, namely, "past dwellings/abodes" or "past adherences". Refer to this sutta, which explains recollecting past abodes is recollecting when in the past the mind wrongly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as 'self': https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.79
Answer: In reality there are no schools, only the Dhamma. The Dhamma is about the true nature of things, the nature of reality.
In this day and age where there are many schools, traditions, contradictory views and opinions, it can get complicated for people who have not yet experienced much of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha-Dhamma.
I would not rely on any schools if I were you. Also, there are suspicious suttas and even contradictory ones. Nonetheless, the original Nikayas are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught.
But since the Buddha is not here to teach us anymore, the second best option is to listen to advice from wise teachers who have true experiential wisdom. Who they are? that will be for you to decide.
Personally, I would recommend that you read from such venerable ones.
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, Ajahn Chah, Pa Auk Sayadaw , Mahasi Sayadaw.
- http://www.dhammatalks.net/
And these books

Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree: The Buddha's Teaching on Voidness, by Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Food for the heart, Collected teachings of Ajahn Chah
Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw
Answer: Which texts are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught ?
You may be looking for the "sutras" a.k.a. "suttas", which exist (were written and preserved) in Pali (see Sutta Pitaka), and in Chinese (see Agama).
The Vinaya is said to be original, too, but it is (if I can say so with all due respect) less interesting than the suttas unless you're a monk.
Some people would include the Abhidhamma too (see Buddhavacana); and there are later Turnings of the Wheel as well; but I think I recommend the suttas: to start with, and as an answer to this question.
For more about the Pali suttas (as written and translated texts), see also the answers these topics:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

Even only the (collections of) suttas are long (see also Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?), though IMO it's beneficial to  study even one sutta. So, an alternative is to read a modern introduction, perhaps one which is structured as an anthology or summary of selected suttas, for example:

In the Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi is often recommended on this site
I found The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity remarkable in its focus on suttas for laity.
Answer: The most accurate records of what the Buddha taught are the Pali suttas however it is these very suttas that are subject to different interpretations.
For example, the idea of "past lives" is a combination of mere interpretations of what the Buddha reportedly taught in the Pali suttas plus later literal teachings introduced into Buddhism, such as the Jataka Tales, written hundreds of years after the Buddha. For example, the Pali sutta SN 22.79 is the only sutta that explains what is meant by recollecting past "nivasa" (often translated as "lives") yet this sutta obviously does not refer to past lives but to past states of egoism/attachment.
Similarly, the idea of "other-worldly-disembodied-deities" is a mere interpretation of the Buddha's teachings about "deities", which can be simply regarded as the rich, powerful (eg kings & queens) or meditation mystics & psychics of other religions.
If you wish to learn about how to interpret or understand the language of the Pali suttas, without falling in materialistic religious superstition, I recommend books by the old Thai monk Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, such as:

Two Kinds of Language

BUDDHA-DHAMMA FOR STUDENTS

ANATTĀ & REBIRTH

Nibbana for Everyone

Handbook for Mankind

Paticcasamuppada

Heartwood From the Bo Tree

Four Noble Truths (audio), particularly lectures 2, 3, 4 & 5

The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I,"
"myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed.
The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical
birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching. Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching.
Another Kind of Birth
Comment: Could you change the first two paragraphs slightly to answer the question more literally, i.e. "Which sects or schools of Buddhism etc.?" Currently these paragraphs state a doctrine or an interpretation of a doctrine, but do not quite identify the "school or sect" of Buddhism associated with this doctrine (which is what the OP asked for).
Comment: You do cite Bhikkhu Buddhadasa later, maybe that reference at least helps to answer the OP.
Comment: I think my entire answer is helpful & answers the question thoroughly, including for your good self. With metta
Comment: It's just that the OP is asking "which school?" ... not "how can the text be interpreted without reincarnation?" (which is what you answered), but "which school or sect has a doctrine without reincarnation?". I guess they're looking for a school: not necessarily for an interpretation of the text, but for schools or sects which interpret it that way. Not saying yours is the worst answer, just it would be more obviously on-topic if its doctrine were associated with some identifiable school or sect.
Answer: It is fundamental to Buddhism, to believe in certain factors.

"Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other worl>

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn60
Comment: Please see [Answers vs Advice](https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/61/254) and [Sectarian shout downs should be dealt with](https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/100/254). This doesn't seem to answer the question ... I think it's saying (instead of answering) that the OP is asking a wrong question or asking a question which has no answer.

Questions of Faith


Witr salat with isha and tahajud

Question: If I performed witr salah during isha prayer, can or do I need to perform witr salah with tahajut prayer  as I read tahajut prayer should be odd 9 or 11 rakha.
Answer: walecum assalam
Isha prayer is one of the Fard prayers and you have to pray witr with isha only. Tahajjud has no direct connection with Witr prayer. So if you prayed Witr with isha, thats all you need to do. you dont need to pray witr with tahajjud prayer again.
But in case you're sure that you would pray Tahajjud prayer, you can pray witr at the end of the Tahajjud prayer(but its not fard), and thereby making it odd.
And yes, according to hadith, witr can be 1 or 3 or odd numbers.
Here are some hadith to cover this issue:

Ali (bin Abu Talib) (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Witr
  prayer is not obligatory as the prescribed Salat (prayers), but the
  Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) observed it as his
  regular practice (Sunnah). He (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said,
  "Allah is Witr (single, odd) and loves what is Witr. So perform Witr
  prayer. O followers of Qur'an, observe Witr (prayer).'' [At-Tirmidhi
  and Abu Dawud].
`Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Messenger of
  Allah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) observed Witr prayer in every
  part of night at the beginning, middle and at the last part. He
  (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), however, would finish his Witr prayer
  before dawn. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Witr salat with isha and tahajud


Baseball runner called out but still runs like he was safe drawing a throw allowing another runner to advance

Question: Here is the situation. Runners at first and second nobody out.  Grounder to second throws out the runner going to second. Called out clearly by the umpire.  The relay to first for the double play is not in time.  The runner to second who was called out continues his run towards third base dugout....however the first baseman tries to throw out the runner on third who was off the bag a fair bit but the ball gets past the third baseman. The runner on third will score but then the out runner who was jogging towards home decides to try and deke out the third baseman by touching the bag and breaking for home.  It works. The third baseman throws home and throws that away allowing the runner on first to advance.  What's the right call???
Answer: The runner that has been put out can continue to run the bases as long as he does not interfere in the play.  It is up to the defense to know that he is out and forget about him.  As rule MLB Rule 7.09 d) states,
Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has
  been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as
  confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

As Paul states, in MLB Rule 5 the umpire will put the ball into play and stop the play.  However with runners on base and continuing to advance there would be no situation where the umpire would stop the play.  The only way the play would be stopped is if the defense was in complete control of the baseball and the runners on base.  Meaning the runners are not advancing or trying to advance.  Usually in this situation the defense would then ask for time to be called unless the umpire calls time to change balls, clean home plate, etc.  If the defense does not call time, the play may remain live through the next pitch/play.
This situation is the same for high school (NFHS) and NCAA.  I am not sure how it would apply to lower levels.  It is a classic example of the defense throwing the ball around and not being aware of the situation.  The offense should not and will not be penalized for that (under correct enforcement of the rules).
Note
If the player that is put out at second base interferes with the play according to MLB Rule 7 then the play will be stopped and the correct punishment will be enforced.
Also note that if the player is put out, continues to the next base and the defense tries to put him out again, if the player is struck with a throw it is not interference so long as he does not make an attempt to get hit.  It is the defensive responsibility to leave that runner alone
Answer: That could possibly be considered interference. The initial throw to the third baseman was legal and just a bad throw, with a legal run scoring. On the second throw to home, however, play should have been stopped by the umpire. Once a player is called out they are to return to the dugout directly, but his continuation on the base path was not necessarily an interference (stated below). This means that play should have been stopped and the batter should have been at first. Section 5.02 reads:
"5.02 After the umpire calls "Play" the ball is alive and in play and remains alive and in
play until for legal cause, or at the umpire's call of "Time" suspending play, the ball becomes dead. While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an over- throw, interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field)."
Although, section 7.09 Paragraph e states:
(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored,
hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall
be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put
out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing,
hindering or impeding the fielders."

In the situation you describe, according to the MLB Official rules, the runner cannot be considered an interference on that alone. It does, however, fall to the responsibility of the Umpire to determine when play should be stopped for any reason.


Connection Pooling in .NET/SQL Server?

Question: Is it necessary or advantageous to write custom connection pooling code when developing applications in .NET with an SQL Server database?  I know that ADO.NET gives you the option to enable/disable connection pooling -- does that mean that it's built into the framework and I don't need to worry about it?  Why do people talk about writing their own connection pooling software and how is this different than what's built into ADO.NET?
Answer: The connection pooling built-in to ADO.Net is robust and mature.  I would recommend against attempting to write your own version.
Answer: I'm no real expert on this matter, but I know ADO.NET has its own connection pooling system, and as long as I've been using it it's been faultless.
My reaction would be that there's no point in reinventing the wheel... Just make sure you close your connections when you're finished with them and everything will be fine!
I hope someone else can give you some more firm anwers!
Answer: My understanding is that the connection pooling is automatically handled for you when using the SqlConnection object. This is purposefully designed to work with MSSQL and will ensure connections are pooled efficiently. You just need to be sure you close them when you are finished with them (and ensure they are disposed of).
I have never heard of people needing to roll their own myself. But I admit my experience is kind of limited there.
Answer: With the advent of ADO.Net and the newer version of SQL connection pooling is handled on two layers, first through ADO.Net itself and secondly by SQL Server 2005/2008 directly, eliminating the need for custom connection pooling.
I have been informed that similar support are being planned or have been implemented in Oracle and MySQL out of interest.
Answer: Well, it is going to go away as the answer to all these questions will be LINQ. Incidentally, we have never needed custom connection pooling for any of our applications, so I am not sure what all the noise is about.

Connection Pooling in .NET/SQL Server?


Can a hidden service operator specify a certain tor relay to always be one of its introductory point

Question: Is it possible to modify hidden service configuration to always include a certain tor relays ip to be its introduction point given the relay has HSDir set.
Answer: Introduction Points do not need to be a Hidden Service Directory.
In theory, you could manually pick introduction points but there is no configuration option to do this, since it's not helpful for anonymity, security or availability.
You may wish to read up on the specifics of the Rendezvous Protocol to better understand what goes into creating a circuit to an onion service.
Answer: There's no way to do this, because it will damage the consensus of the network and it's algo's, by the very same reason you can not filter out middle nodes in any way in instance-wide config. Even more - let's say that somehow you've managed to do so, then your service - in a matter of time and number of requests made for it - will be relatively easy fingerprinted, traced and observed(=censored/blocked).
The HSDir role - as the other flags so far - makes absolutely no connection with the way HS and it's client are communicating, because it is just a replica of HS directory, an address book of some kind. So even being able to select the points with HSDir flag will make no difference at all as selecting nodes without the flag specified: the path's are selected by consensus, yes, but by another and completely different algorythms, i.e. it's not influentional at all.