What is the significance of the Olympic Village?

Question: During the Olympics, I know that athletes stay in the Olympic Village At the 2008 Olympic Games, Beijing built an Olympic Village.
What is the significance of Olympic Village? Couldn't athletes stay at local accommodations?
Comment: I think Olympic athletes honestly just [have a good time there](http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/story/_/id/8133052/athletes-spill-details-dirty-secrets-olympic-village-espn-magazine)
Comment: Exactly the article I thought you linked to. Considering golf is an Olympic sport come 2016, I expect Tiger Woods to [dominate](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/tiger-woods-confessed-bedding-120-women-elin-nordegren-angry-left-neighbor-list-mag-article-1.163194).
Answer: The Olympic Village is a complex of accommodations used to house athletes, trainers, and officials during the games.
In early Olympic games, organizers had to rent rooms all over the host city to house athletes and trainers.  This was expensive and inconvenient.  In the 1924 Paris Summer games, some cabins were built near the Olympic Stadium, which they called the Olympic Village, to house some athletes.
For the 1932 Summer Games in Los Angeles, a full Olympic Village was constructed, housing 1,836 male athletes. (The 126 female athletes stayed at a hotel.)  This first Olympic Village featured dining halls, a fire station, a hospital, a post office, a movie theater, and other amenities.  This Olympic Village has served as a model for the Olympics ever since.
An article in the Los Angeles Times after the 1932 games reveals the concern some had about the Village:

"Never," was the general opinion. "You can't pen men of all nations together; men from countries, perhaps, who believe they have age-old hatreds; young men whose races, beliefs and ideals conflict." But Los Angeles did it. They were not penned, these men from all over the world; they were offered a beautiful home that became more than home to them.

Besides the practical advantages in cost and transportation of having all the athletes housed together near the venues, the Olympic Village is seen as encouraging the Olympic Spirit, allowing athletes from around the world to spend time together away from the competition.  At the closing ceremonies in Sochi 2014, IOC president Thomas Bach said to the athletes:

By living together under one roof in the Olympic Village you send a powerful message from Sochi to the world: that of a society of peace, tolerance and respect. I appeal to everybody implicated in confrontation, oppression, and violence to act on this Olympic message of dialogue and peace.

Different host cities have found different solutions for the Olympic Village.  Often new buildings are constructed, some intended as temporary buildings, others with plans for use after the games.  For some games, the organizers have chosen to utilize existing buildings (for example, university student housing) rather than build new buildings.
Since the massacre at the 1972 Munich Games, security at the Olympic Village has been very tight.  Only athletes, trainers, officials, and guests with credentials are allowed in; the media is barred from the Village.  For many of the athletes, this is seen as another advantage to staying at the Village.
Some of the bigger name athletes in recent times have chosen not to stay in the Olympic Village, choosing instead to make their own housing arrangements.  John Stockton, who played in the 1992 American men's basketball team (the Dream Team), in choosing not to stay in the Village, said, "We don't intend to make a whole lot of friends here. The Olympic spirit is beating people, not living with them."
For the Sochi 2014 Olympics, three different Olympic Villages have been constructed: the Coastal Olympic Village, for athletes competing in events at the Olympic Park; the Mountain Olympic Village, for alpine skiing and track events; and Endurance Village for cross-country skiing and the biathlon.
Sources:

Wikipedia: Olympic Village
KCET: The First-Ever Olympic Village
Answer: There certainly is a convenience factor in having space for the athletes close to the facility, when local hotels are likely to be crammed full of spectators.
There are also security considerations that favor a concentrated location that can be isolated from crowds.


How can compounds like XeO4 form tetrahedral structures despite having double bonds?

Question: Xenon tetroxide is tetrahedral despite having double bonds. Is it something to do with $d$ orbitals? Also things like sulfur trioxide (trigonal planar with three double bonds but the sulfur is hypervalent). Is it possible for the $\pi$ bond to be formed from overlap of $d$ orbitals from the central atom with $p$ orbitals of the oxygen?
Comment: $\ce{XeO4}$ does not have double bonds. Each $\ce{Xe-O}$ bond has order 1.
Answer: $\ce{XeO4}$ has a tetrahedral structure as you noted, but $d$-orbitals are not involved in explaining its geometry or hybridization. The central xenon atom in $\ce{XeO4}$ is best described as simply $\ce{sp^3}$ hybridized.  We have 8 xenon electrons so we need 4 orbitals to put them in.  The 4 equivalent orbitals are formed by mixing the $s$- and $p$-orbitals (just as we do with carbon) to form the equivalent $\ce{sp^3}$ orbitals pointing towards the vertices of a tetrahedron (which minimizes electron-electron repulsions between the 4 bonds).
The molecule can be represented by several resonance structures and I've drawn two of them (A and B) below.  I've only drawn the lone pairs on one of the oxygen atoms for each resonance structure, but they are the same for all oxygens in each resonance structure.  So the resonance structures tell us that the xenon-oxygen bonds in $\ce{XeO4}$ are some mix of single and double bond character.  In resonance structure A, the xenon and oxygens are neutral; while in resonance structure B, the xenon has a charge of +4 and each oxygen has a charge of -1.

The $\ce{Xe-O}$ bonds in $\ce{XeO4}$ are very weak. In resonance structure A the pi overlap is very poor due to the different atomic sizes of xenon and oxygen. In resonance structure B we just have a simple single bond connecting the oxygen and xenon and it contains 2 electrons, both from xenon and shared by oxygen, oxygen does not contribute any electrons to this bond. The single bond resonance structure B probably contributes more to the description of this molecule than resonance structure A. The bonds are so weak that $\ce{XeO4}$ is unstable and explosively decomposes around -36 C.
In summary we can say that

the xenon in $\ce{XeO4}$ is $\ce{sp^3}$ hybridized
the $\ce{Xe-O}$ bond is a partial single-double bond with the single bond probably being a more accurate description, and
the $\ce{Xe-O}$ bonds are extremely weak because of the poor pi overlap in resonance contributor A; and oxygen does not contribute any electrons to the xenon-oxygen bond in resonance contributor B.
Answer: Xenon is $[\ce{Kr}]4d^{10}5s^25p^6$ which, in its excited state, becomes $[\ce{Kr}]4d^{10}5s^15p^35d^4$. Now the $s$ and $p$ mix to form the hypothetical $sp^3$ hybridised orbitals which form $\sigma$-bonds with each electron in $p$ orbital of oxygen. The rest $4$ electrons in $d$ orbital form $\pi$-bonds with each electron in $p$ orbital of oxygen. (Oxygen has two unpaired electrons in $p$ orbital.)
In the case of $\ce{SO3}$, sulfur excites to $[Ne]3s^13p^33d^2$ where $sp^2$ forms $\sigma$-bonds and the remaining three orbitals, the $\pi$-bonds.
The $\pi$-bonds are ignored in determining the shape of the molecule. The $\pi$-bonds shorten the bond lengths but do not affect the shape. This approach explains the $\sigma$-bonding and the shape of the molecule, but the explanation of $\pi$-bonding is unsatisfactory. This is better explained by MOT (Molecular Orbital Theory.)
Comment: This is incorrect.


Where is this piece in LDD?

Question: I'm looking for a certain piece for building my set in LDD. I've already looked through the extend theme, but I can't find it. If anyone knows where to find it, it would be super cool.
Answer: I assume you are talking about Lego Digital Designer since you mention "extend theme". Also assuming the design ID is correct (6163991) according to your screenshot and also the brickset database, searching for it in LDD in the search bar with updated bricks database and indeed in extended mode does not produce any results. I think it safe to conclude that the element is not present in the LDD bricks database. This happens, perhaps this will be corrected in a following database update but those only happen very sporadically anymore. Could be that the design ID is incorrect, which could be figured out by using the "Replace parts" service of lego, but this service isn't available this time of the year.
Comment: That's a rather new piece (from 2017), so it's really not surprising that it's not in LDD.
Answer: This piece is available in the 4.3.11th version of LDD in 10th set category

Where is this piece in LDD?


Source of Ramban's famous debate

Question: Where can one find the 'disputation of Barcelona' between Pablo Cristiani and the Ramban?
Answer: The best (English language) source, in my opinion, is Hyam Maccoby's Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1982; later adapted as a play viewable here). In it you will find a translation of the Ramban's Vikuach, and of the official church account of that disputation, together with an extensive introduction and commentary. The Ramban's Vikuach is also translated by R' Dr Charles B. Chavel, and published as The Disputation at Barcelona (Shilo Publishing House, 1983).
The original Hebrew text is found in Kitvei haRamban I, pp302-320 (ed. Steinschneider, 1860).
Answer: It's in the Kisvei HaRamban. Volume 1, I think.
Comment: Correct, the Ramban's account can be found in volume 1 of R' Chavel's *Kisvei Ramban* ([cited here](https://books.google.com/books?id=PerLtdiAKx0C&pg=PA326#v=onepage&q&f=false)). It can also be found in *Otzar Vikuchim*, [here](http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/haramban-2.htm).
Answer: The first publication of the Vikuah is found in Tela Ignea Satanae (Altdorf, 1681), a book with polemics edited by a xtian hebraist named Johann Christoph Wagenseil followed by a latin translation of the dispute.
Its text has interpolated expressions by jewish copyists, however this gives a sense of what occurred in the jewish mentality given the missionary efforts in those times.
See the edition here in pages 24 ff.
Answer: The disputation was also included by J.D. Eisenstein in his anthology "אוצר ויכוחים", "Polemics and Disputations.
The Ramban's debate can be found on pp.86-94.

Source of Ramban's famous debate


heating ham at 200 degrees versus 325 degrees

Question: If I am heating a fully cooked ham that directs me to cook at 325 degrees F for 20 minutes per pound (ham is 3.38#) and I want to heat it through at a 200 degree F temp. How long should I put the ham in the oven for?
Comment: @Robert Safely cooked food can still become unsafe if held long enough in the danger zone. It presumably takes quite a while for 200F air to get a refrigerated or room temperature ham above 140F. I'm not saying it's *definitely* unsafe, just that it's headed in that direction, so it's worth asking what the goal is. (And sure, slow cookers do hold below boiling like that, but the idea is to get up to that temperature reasonably quickly.)
Comment: Why do you want to heat it at 200? That's really low, to the point that it seems likely to stay at an unsafe temperature for quite a while.
Comment: Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Do you mean that you want the final temp to be 200°F, or the oven temp would be 200°F?
Comment: @Jefromi Why unsafe? It's already fully cooked. Slow cookers and some slow roasting dishes can be prepared at even lower temperatures.
Answer: Not knowing what kind of oven you have or what cut the ham is, bone in or bone out etc., I would recommend that you simply buy an inexpensive meat thermometer (less than $10 in most places) and check the ham's internal temperature every two hours or so.
Answer: Glaze the Ham. Put in oven at 170f at 9pm. Turn heat up to 350f at 5 am. Let brown. Remove & have some for breakfast. At 6am nice & hot.
Answer: Place ham on a rack in a shallow uncovered pan with the fat side (skin side) up so the ham will baste itself. 6) Roasting time is 30 minutes per pound of ham at 200 Degrees F. However it is recommended to use a meat thermometer and cook until the internal temperature reaches 155 Degrees.
Answer: You can cook it at 200 and you'll be just fine. If you've ever eaten smoked Foods they are cooked at a low temperature between 200 and 250. The weight determines the length of time that it takes.
Comment: Hi Chris. Welcome to the site.  We appreciate your input and look forward to more.  However, your answer to this question does not directly provide an answer (How long will it take?).  If you can either edit it to address the specific question (that's our goal here), or delete it, that would be appreciated.


Are there any holidays in Middle Earth, except Yule, Lithe, New Year in Gondor and Durin's Day?

Question: Does any species, in any age, in any of the works by Tolkien have designated days of celebration, except birthdays, besides the holidays mentioned in the article about the Middle Earth Calendar on Wikipedia?
Answer: Appendix D to The Return of the King lists the holidays from the article you linked above, namely three Lithedays (roughly Midsummer) and three Yule days (Midwinter).  It goes on to mention that during the reign of Elessar the calendar was reordered, to commemorate the fall of Sauron on March 25th, and September 22nd, Frodo's birthday, "was made a festival, and the leap-year was provided for by doubling this feast, called Comare, or Ring-day." (Return of the King pg 447)
However,

There is no record of the Shire-folk commemorating either march 25 or September 22; but in the Westfarthing, especially in the country round Hobbiton Hill, there grew up a custom of making holiday and dancing in the Party Field, when weather permitted, on April 6.  Some said that it was old Sam Gardner's birthday, some that it was the day on which the Golden Tree first flowered in 1420, and some that it was the Elves' New Year.  In the Buckland the Horn of the Mark was blown at sundown every November 2 and bonfires and feasting followed." (Return of the King, pg 447-448)

It is worth noting that April 6 is listed in Appendix B of the same book as being when "The Ringbearers are honored in the the Field of Cormallen" and the next year as when "The mallorn flowers in the Party Field."  November 2 is when Gandalf and the Hobbits "come to Bywater and rouse the Shire-folk." (Return of the King, pg 430-431)
Comment: I'm going to take the silence about further holidays as if Tolkien never invented any, setting this answer to accepted.
Comment: From *Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin* (Silmarillion): "for the morrow was the great feast that they named the Gates of Summer".  There's another.
Comment: Rural communities often celebrate their own holidays; whatever they choose to call them they're really "everyone needed a break" days.
Comment: @itpastorn yes, but I think you can also take the ones that are described as evidence that there generally *are* holidays, probably many different ones in many different communities, and we just don't get to hear about them.
Answer: On the island of Tol Eressëa, Elves celebrated a winter festival called Turuhalmë or "Log-Drawing". This festival is only mentioned in The Book of Lost Tales, so may not be considered canon.
Here are the relevant quotes:

Twill be a fitting day,' saith Lindo, 'for the sports of the morning in the snow and the gathering of the logs from the woods and the songs and drinking of Turuhalmë will leave us of right mood to listen to old tales beside this fire.' [...]
At length the day of Turuhalme was come, and the company from Mar Vanwa Tyaliéva went into the snowy woods to bring back firewood on sleighs. Never was the Tale-fire allowed to go out or to die into grey ash, but on the eve of Turuhalmë it sank always to a smaller blaze until Turuhalmë itself, when great logs were brought into the Room of the Tale-fire and being blessed by Lindo with ancient magic roared and flared anew upon the hearth.

~The Book of Lost Tales, History of Middle-earth volume 1
Comment: @BMWurm I've expanded on this section. When I originally wrote it, I was only concerned with the geography of the main continent. Thanks!
Comment: Despite the books canonicity, since the question asks about Middle-Earth it could be debated that *Tol Eressëa* is not a part of it. (Still a great find, so +1)
Comment: @BMWurm [Technically speaking, it is](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/148886/48975).
Comment: @isanae Huh, interesting. But when the world was made round, it was no longer even a part of Arda, almost just as removed as Aman, kind of like a halfway point, wasn't it? So how can it be a part of Middle-Earth yet lie outside Arda? Then again, the question asks about "any age", and with the information of the link you provided it was at least at one time a part of one of the possible definitions of Middle-Earth.


What are signs of a prophet mentioned in Tanach

Question: Does the tanach provides us some guidelines to Identify a future prophet?
Comment: @DovF: It ignores the [oral law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah). It also likely indicates a lack of Googling. That said, I haven't downvoted it, myself.
Comment: Somewhat similar: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/22913
Comment: Why the downvote? There is nothing wrong with this question.
Comment: Ali, do you mean to ask whether Jewish tradition provides guidelines to identify a future prophet, or are you only concerned with tanach?
Comment: Ali, the reason Judaism places so much emphasis on the Oral Law, (well, other than the fact that we believe it was given in conjunction with the Written Law) is because the Torah often gives commandments without clear application or detail for the specifics. In this case, (and many other cases) much more has been written in the Oral Law than the Written Law. And the rest of TaNa"Ch does not really give us laws.
Comment: as the asker clearly knows the textual reference to identify a future prophet (as indicated in the comments to the answer) is this question a sincere request?
Comment: i am asking about generic rules that qualify a prophet
Answer: As it is currently written, your question asks specifically about guidelines mentioned in Tanakh.  The only one I can think of is Deuteronomy 34:10, which says:
And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom
the LORD knew face to face.

So if any prophet claims to be greater than Moshe Rabbeinu, he must be a false prophet.
Edit
Thanks to msh210 for pointing out Deuteronomy 18:22
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor
come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet
hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This is another way of identifying someone who is not a true prophet: his prophecies do not come true.
Ali, you have mentioned 18:18.  That verse doesn't really help to answer your question because it does not provide any guideline for determining whether someone is a prophet.  It is simply a promise that a prophet (or really prophets) would come to help lead the Jews after the impending death of Moses.
Comment: @Ali In Tanach, there are multiple instances of phrasing like "and nothing the likes of such-and-such ever happened again." Since the Torah is the word of G-d, and G-d knows the future, these statements include all future history. The fact that the Torah was written very shortly after some of these events (such as Moshe's death) makes it obvious that the Torah was not saying something like "and in the past few days, no prophet like Moses has ever risen again!!!"
Comment: "There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face. " This explains that up till the time when this verse was written there was no prophet like Moses, it does not predict the signs of future prophet
Comment: @Daniel, consider 18:22.
Comment: @Ali, Judaism does not consider the Quran or the Hadith to be truth. Therefore, we cannot say for sure that these prophecies actually occurred. Even if they definitely did occur, the verse quoted above only tells us how to disqualify a prophet, not how to positively identify one. Non-prophets may still make accurate predictions. Anyway, Judaism does not consider Mohammad to be a prophet, and any additional discussion trying to say otherwise is off-topic for this website.
Comment: God Almighty speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
Comment: Not greater just claims to know God face to face.
Comment: @Ali, as far as I know, there is no method identified in Tanakh to positively identify a prophet.
Comment: @Ali, I think that should be a separate question.
Comment: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Comment: @Ali, see my edit to my answer.
Comment: THANKS @Daniel does this link contain valid prophecies? http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/379/
Comment: how to positively identify one?
Comment: So assuming a real prophet comes , dont jews risk of loosing him or at worst causing to break their covenant of Bani Israel with God
Comment: How do we know that Yimeryahu, Ezekiel, etc. are prophets. Maybe they're not. Maybe their prophecies are lucky guess. How do we know?


Why don't they try to change the past?

Question: I always saw Twelve Monkeys as being centered around the fact that the past cannot be changed. But why is that? Is it a physical law that makes it impossible to change or is it just the scientists that don't want to change it for any reason?
Comment: I always interpreted it being a central law of nature (in the movie) that the past cannot be changed as it already happened the way it does, which made the movie in my eyes one of the very few time travel movies that don't have a problem with causality. However recent discussions about this movie here on this site have slightly shattered my believes in this fact. Still it could be both of your possibilities. While it could be a physical law that the past is unchangable, the scientist may still have had their own intentions not to try it at all.
Comment: In the same way that "Back to the Future" is the canonical "changeable timeline" time travel story, 12 Monkeys (to me) is the canonical "fixed timeline" time travel story (although I've recently discovered that the first Terminator movie, if you ignore the sequels, is also a fixed timeline).
Comment: Just to address the subject of this question - they did, in fact, try to change the past, when one character gave James a gun to try and shoot the man responsible for spreading the virus. However the laws of nature (with respect to time travel) intervened and James failed
Answer: Caveat: Looking for logic in time-travel movies is an exercise in recursive futility.
The idea in 12 Monkeys is that the past is, in many ways, read only. You can go back and "read" all you want, but you won't be able to "write" anything that will (meaningfully) change the timeline. Alternatively, you can attempt to change an event, but since the timeline is already set, it accounts for your "hack" and adjusts events to reconcile the "new" timeline to the original version.
Keeping the above in mind, the scientists in the future are content to send people into the past to get information and communicate it back to them in the future. The scientists are aware of the paradox that if they could change such a catastrophic event in the past, then they wouldn't be considering doing so at all (in their present). Presumably they have tried to change things in the past and know that it's something impossible to do. They are, therefore, happy to use time travel purely as an archaeological avenue to find out enough information about the virus to allow them to synthesise a cure in their present.
This subject is tackled to an extent in an IMDb FAQ:

Why can't the future be changed, as Cole says?
There are roughly two major schools of thought on the subject of time travel in (science) fiction. One is that a timeline is 'flexible' and can be changed. When a certain outcome is undesireable, one needs to travel back to a point in the past, and change whatever caused the undesiarable outcome to happen. For instance, in order to save your mother from being run over by a car, you travel back in time so that you can push her out of the car's way and save her life. Most popular movies about time-travel adhere to this principle (e.g. Back to the Future (1985), Donnie Darko (2001), The Terminator (1984), and The Butterfly Effect) (2004).
Another theory is that the timeline is 'fixed' and can't be changed. The present is already the result of the past plus all attempts to try and manipulate the present. This implies that whatever you try to prevent by traveling back in time will be unsuccesful, or, worse, instrumental in causing whatever you tried to prevent. In case of the mother example, according to this theory, you can travel back in time to a moment before she was hit, but any action you might take will not be succesful in saving her. Possible scenarios are that you don't make it in time for some reason: perhaps in your hurry, you are hit by a car yourself, or you could shout at her to watch out for the car, thereby distracting her from the traffic, and thus causing her death. Movies following this principle are Sphere (1998), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), The Time Machine (1960), and Twelve Monkeys.
Cole says that the future can't be changed, which proves to be true. Throughout the movie we see and hear about things that are said to happen in the future, and they all inevitably happen. Of course, the main event is that the global virus infection occurs. Cole's mission is not to prevent it, because the scientists know he can't; the very fact that the infection happened is evidence that it could not be prevented anyway. Furthermore, by traveling back into the past, Cole sets in motion a chain of events that lead to the very future he comes from, e.g. the mysterious recording by Kathryn to the future, in which she identifies the Army of the Twelve Monkeys as the source of the virus. Cole and the scientists hear the recording and Cole is sent back in time to investigate; however, because of Cole's interactions with Kathryn Railly, he causes Kathryn to make this recording. In essence, the events that trigger him to travel through time actaully cause them, which is known as a time paradox.
The fact that the future is set does not prevent Cole from trying to change it anyway. It is in his nature to try, simply because he does not know the exact details of what caused that particular future to happen and what his failure in trying was. For instance, it is known in the future that there was an outbreak of a virus, but not who or what started it. After the Army of the Twelve Monkeys appeared to be a dead end, Cole and Kathryn identify the real perpetrator at the airport, and try to stop him. This ends in Cole's death, which is witnessed by the young Cole, explaining the strange dreams he always had. It had never occurred to the young Cole that he actually saw himself dying, so the adult Cole never knew what fate would await him if he would try to prevent the virus outbreak.
Comment: Sorry but because of your Caveat I feel this is no longer the best answer
Comment: @MaurizioIndenmark Seriously?
Comment: @faintsignal Of course! Looking for logic in this time travel movie is the core of my question. And a question that define that as futile, does not cover the basic requisite of the question. ;)
Answer: There are two approaches to time travel science fiction:

That time is ONE fabric and continuous. Which makes it sort of a physics law that the past cannot be changed.
Time is something like a dimension. Which means that there can be alternate realities, parallel realities, well take your pick.

In 12 Monkeys, no matter what the actions are, the consequences are always the same. E.g. Red Army herring, Releasing the virus, Cole appearing in various books. So it is more like the first time function. Cole may go in his past, but in no way shall his actions change the present. What that can be interpreted as is that what has happened, will happen. No matter what actions you might try to take to prevent it. His being shot in front of his younger self is explainable as it is something the adult Cole has lived with his entire life. He remembers the Woman's eyes in his adulthood even though he was a kid and saw her just once. Thus, these events has already happened in Cole's past. And hence, it was impossible to change that past. This is also why Cole was sent on a recon mission, to observe and to report.
Also, I would like to point out to you that Cole was given the gun at the airport. At that point of time, Cole had defected and could not be contacted. So why did they give him a gun? They had other people in the past who could have stopped the guy just as well... Just a point to ponder upon. Had Cole not tried to shoot the guy, would his younger self have seen the shooting and the Young Woman? That's the time-paradox, which cannot happen at all in such time lines. Hence the linear consequence of the timeline and the unchanging past.
Comment: answering "why did they give Cole a gun" I think it was to see who he would go after. See this Q&A: http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/4216/something-i-dont-understand-about-the-ending-of-12-monkeys
Comment: So Jose could have simply asked Cole about it. Giving a gun seems extreme to me - just to see who he would kill would be putting everything into risk. They were supposed to do things without attracting attraction.
Comment: They also needed Cole to end up dead, so someone had to kill him -- presumably not a time-traveler. Hence the gun was some ancient pistol that probably wouldn't work effectively -- but would still cause security to shoot Cole.
Comment: if they made a non time-traveler kill Cole, that would also be altering the past. And I don't they would want Cole to end up being dead after being so useful in finding who released the virus.
Comment: The scientists wanted to kill Cole because he was rebelling, trying to stay in 1997. They also wanted to know who spread the virus. They suspected Cole was holding that info from them, so they tried to trick him into pointing a gun at that person. Actually Cole didn't know, but then Railly ran up and told him it was redhead guy. Jose heard Railly say it, and immediately faded away into crowd. Within minutes, the gun Jose gave Cole caused security to shoot and kill Cole.
Answer: From what I gathered:
Our protagonist was unable to change the past because it was part of his present. He could have changed everything had he been told by someone else sent to him. This person would have to have gone to a timeline where the same big event ocurs, found out the truth and then go back to our progagonists timeline to let him know
The people in charge could have changed things (I think) but didn't as it's likely they wouldn't be in charge in the altered reality. They were in a  position of power that was too beneficial to them to care about everyone else.
Comment: but what about the fact that our protagonist remember seeing himself being killed when he was a child. Isn't that proof that everything already happened and can't be changed?
Comment: I thought he only saw a woman being killed? It's been a while since I've seen the movie tbh.
Comment: have a look at the accepted answer in this post: http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/12513/what-does-the-smile-in-railley-lips-signify. Railley realized that if what he says was true nothing can be changed so everybody will die.
Answer: Physicists who research the theory of time-travel generally conclude that only two results are physically possible: (a) A single fixed timeline [already discussed]; (b) A variant of Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - in this case changing the past means creating an independent alternate timeline.
If arrival of the time-traveller ALWAYS creates an alternate timeline (with him/her on that timeline), time-travel would be useless to the senders [it would be like disintegrating the traveller].  But it need not do so: If each choice made by the time-traveller leads to a different timeline for each outcome, maybe one outcome stays on the original timeline.
I.e we could end up with an original timeline of type (a) combined with multiple alternate timelines branching off at various points in history following the arrival of the time-traveller.  Note that this is the only way the time-traveller can stay on the original timeline and so be able to return to his/her original time - there is no 'cross-talk' between timelines.
BUT NOTE: For the ones who sent the time-traveller, EITHER (a) or (b) looks like (a).  If 'changing the past' means 'creating an alternate timeline', then 'changing the past' is useless to them.
Answer: As I think no answer is right on the spot I will answer my own question with big thanks to the others from where I got the useful info to do so:
Answer: it is a law of nature
From: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/faq?ref_=tt_faq_1#.2.1.8

A "theory is that the timeline is 'fixed' and can't be changed. The
  present is already the result of the past plus all attempts to try and
  manipulate the present. This implies that whatever you try to prevent
  by traveling back in time will be unsuccesful, or, worse, instrumental
  in causing whatever you tried to prevent. [...] Movies following this
  principle are Sphere (1998), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
  (2004), The Time Machine (1960), and Twelve Monkeys."

Why don't they try to change the past?


Nitrous oxide gas leak when charging ISI whipping cream dispenser

Question: When I charge my relatively new ISI cream dispenser, the N2O gas leaks around the top and body seam, resulting in failed whipped cream.  I've tried everything to tighten the seam, including adjusting the gasket and tightening the top very hard.  The demonstration videos show the cook lightly tightening the top and they seem to have no trouble.  What am I doing wrong?
Answer: Is it clean? it does not take much pressure to properly seal an iSi. Either it is dirty or it is defective. I have had the issue you describe, the issue was not actually in the gasket around the top of the container, but instead in the gasket around the nozzle. It must be completely clean to hold pressure.
Answer: You need to know exactly which place the gas is leaking from. Charge it in a sink full of water and see where the bubbles escape from. Visually inspect the gasket and clean it, if it still leaks you'll need to get a replacement.


load balancing IIS7.5 server by geolocation

Question: I have one web site and 3 servers in different location Asia, Europe, US. I am new in this things but what I want to do is implement ARR load balancing by geolocation (like CDN). Anyone know tutorial how to achieve it or from where to start?
Answer: Please see the bellow tutorial http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/486/http-load-balancing-using-application-request-routing/ and for more information you could go here http://weblogs.asp.net/owscott/archive/2012/04/19/google-and-geo-location-cnds-dns-load-balancing-week-50.aspx where it's explained exactly what you want to accomplish and for the whole series (it free! ) you can go here http://dotnetslackers.com/projects/LearnIIS7/ .
Hope this helps .
Answer: Geograpic load balancing (sometimes called "Global Server Load Balancing" or GSLB) as traditionally done has little to do with web servers, and everything to do with DNS. You need a DNS server that will give people the IP they want based on their geography. See pGeoDNS for a simple example written in Perl that will run on most systems, and uses a free database of IP locations. There are lots of commercial solutions as well, including appliances from people like F5, or outsourced services from folks like DynDNS.
Now, another option would be to do the redirection at the IIS layer. You publish "www.example.com" in DNS with all three of your locations as possible answers. Then, when a user connects, you do a redirect to "www.us.example.com" or "www.eu.example.com" based on a quick lookup in a Geo-IP database hosted on each web server. You should probably set a cookie or something to prevent having to do that lookup every time. You will also need monitors that will not do the redirect if say "www.eu.example.com" is down. You could use the information in the vistors "Accept-Language" header as well, perhaps creating a composite score with their IP which indicates where the user should be redirected.
You can of course combine the approaches, or do something even sexier, like anycast for DNS or even HTTP, but it sounds like that is too complicated and expensive for your needs.
Comment: +1 for pGeoDNS, that looks interesting


Are cashiers required to check a credit card for a signature in the U.S.?

Question: So on the back of many US credit and debit cards, there is a signature area that says something like "not valid unless signed."  I notice many retailers and anyone who takes cards rarely ever checks the card for this.  As an experiment, a new card I got recently, I delayed signing the back.  I have yet to ever be questioned about this.  Are card accepting businesses required to check for that signature or does no one really care as long as its a valid card and the purchase goes through.  I get asked for ID many times, which is good that they are verifying that I am the owner of the card. Maybe asking for ID suffices in their book?
Comment: As an illustration of the difference in policy, I got a new credit card here in Canada two years ago and forgot to sign it. Nobody complained until a month ago when I went to the UK. The very first place I used it told me I hadn't signed it and asked for photo id.
Answer: The signature actually harks back to the days before every business checked every transaction online. When charge cards were introduced modems didn't exist. Nowadays, stolen credit cards are usually reported within 24 hours and the card won't work.
Businesses that face low fraud rates don't bother checking. They probably figure that a certain percentage of charges get charged back because the cardholder claims that they didn't make them, and the credit card company usually just passes the cost on to the merchant, so it's really the merchant who should be worried about fraud since he or she is going to pay for it.
The real question for the merchant is whether checking signatures actually reduces charge backs.  If the credit card is stolen, how hard would it be for thieves to practice the signature on the card a few times until they can reproduce it well enough to fool someone?
Businesses that face high fraud rates are often more careful. In New York City, try buying some Nikes on 34th Street, and you'll get your signature checked, your driver's license checked, and they'll call up your 5th grade social studies teacher.
Comment: Seems like gas stations and any stores in high crime areas always prompt for the card holder's billing zip code these days. Makes sense...
Answer: I'm not sure if they're required to do so, but I have been neglecting to sign my cards for some time now.  If they do check, that triggers an ID check, where they'll find my signature.  I know of at least one person that writes "see ID" instead of signing their cards.  He began that practice over 10 years ago.
Comment: By not signing your card, though, you leave yourself open to whomever finds your card signing it themselves, if you lose it.
Comment: Merchants accepting Visa and MasterCard and following the rules should not accept an unsigned card or one that says "See ID".
Comment: I generally both sign and write"demand ID". Usually they don't, but that seems to be starting to change.
Answer: Per their merchant agreements, Visa and MasterCard say that the signature on the back of the card is the proper way to identify the card holder.  If a card is not signed, the merchant is supposed to check your ID and make you sign the card before accepting it for payment.  Merchants are not allowed the require an ID for paying with a signed card.
Of course, store employees rarely know all these things.  Some will gladly accept an unsigned card.  Some will try to make you show your ID.
Comment: `Merchants are not allowed the require an ID for paying with a signed card.`  Seriously? I am not sure how I feel about this.  Do you have a source for it?  (I know, the merchant agreements, but I would rather not go spelunking for the info you have it readily available.)
Comment: Policies are changing now.   This used to be true for every card, but not any longer.   Discover can let a merchant demand ID for a charge before accepting.  Mastercard insists that the merchant can NOT demand ID for a charge to go through. [Consumerist Sept 2010](http://consumerist.com/2010/09/mastercard-confirms-walmart-should-not-have-demanded-id-for-purchase.html)
Comment: http://consumerist.com/2007/12/stores-cant-force-you-to-show-id-with-your-credit-card.html
Comment: http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Alert-FS15.htm
Comment: I wish the Rules for Merchants PDF was still available online.  I've been unable to find anything  current on the Visa website.
Answer: It depends on the business. Some ask for ID and check against the signature (rare); some ask for ID but barely glance at it; some check just that it's signed (also rare); some ask for me to input my ZIP code on the card reader (KMart); and some don't do anything (most common). What they do doesn't seem connected to whether I put the card in the reader myself, or hand it to the cashier for them to scan.
It does seem silly to check IDs, etc., as there are places such as gas stations where I never even see an employee, and can spend just as much there as at WalMart, KMart, or the grocery store, all places that tend to do more checking.
Answer: Working retail myself, I do not accept an unsigned card without verification.  If I received one I would ask for ID and verify the photo with the Name.
I would also let the buyer know it was unsigned and remind them that anyone finding it can sign it and use the card without issue.
Putting on the back of the card "SEE ID" is the way buyers have protected themselves from thieves as long as people are actually looking at the cards.  How does this protect?  1- a lost card cant be signed by a complete stranger as there is already writing on the card.  2- It provides a photo identification for use.
I know with today's technology that this is going away and fewer people are actually checking but shame on those companies who handle the cards and don't look.
Obviously this process does not apply to self checks, but safety protocols there require a pin of some form that only the authorized user should know.
Answer: So my wife was at work today and got yelled at by both a cop and her managers for simply LOOKING at the card. I don't understand I also work in retail and of course I must see the card to ensure it is a real card, it is a very strict policy that we must have a valid physical card to run any credit/debit transactions. People put skimmers everywhere you use your card and can pick up the info off the strip and put it onto another card and use it without you noticing right away. With the right equipment they can put their name on it or the name on their fake I.d. so the only red flag would be them trying to use several different cards
Answer: Who cares? If your card gets stolen, most cards provide you with 100% liability protection. Just sign the thing!


How to remove honking noise in room for voice over recording

Question: I am making some video tutorials on some programming topics. An outside honking noise is interfering with the recordings. The windows and doors are packed, but even then the problem persists.
Comment: Depending on who you're recording for, your fellow authors can be a great resource. If it's Pluralsight, for example, there is a TON of useful info awaiting you.
Comment: Maybe a directional mic would work?
Answer: When recording, as soon as you hear a honk or another noise, stop and go back to the beginning of the sentence you were saying. After your done, go back through your recording in a programme like Audition or Audacity and remove all the half-sentences that were interrupted by a honk, so only complete sentences remain.
Comment: I tried audacity but my voice tones changes and its horrible.
Answer: This is an issue for me too. You need a multi-pronged technique:

Choose the quietest room. If street noise is an issue, which room is furthest from the street? Many people have offices and desks, but record in a child's room while that child is at school.
Arrange yourself facing into a corner (for echo reasons) and surround yourself with soft stuff as much as possible. A bedroom is quieter than the basement. Buy thick muffly curtains as an investment in what you're doing. Putting them over windows keeps out noise and soaks up noise that gets into the room. You can also buy canvas covered foam panels that look like art but soak up noise.
Choose the time to record. Less traffic at night? Airplanes stop landing at midnight? Neighbours mow the lawn every Sunday? Take all that into account
As Wouter says, if there's a noise, do that sentence over. That's how I handle ringing phones, footsteps overhead, and toilet flushes by people who forgot I was recording. Just take a breath, wait for quiet, and do the sentence again from the beginning. Then edit away the first try and the noise.
Use a product that does some sort of noise reduction. For background irritations like rain or wind this can really help
Know when to switch tasks for the day. After the tenth time you try to cheerfully say the same two lines but that dog next door barks or a car horn sounds, let it go. Work on writing the material for the next few things so that when you get a quiet time, you can record a bunch at once.
If none of that works and moving isn't an option, you can make a recording booth or even arrange to go to a studio for a day and do it all at once. But that's getting out of life hack territory.
Answer: There are a few possible solutions.

Script the dialogue, and record the audio as an overdub during a time frame when there's no traffic outside.

If this is not possible ...

Re-record the audio, repeating every sentence that is interrupted by honking, and then cut-n-paste the good takes together in an audio editor.
Record the audio somewhere else.
Move. ;-)
Answer: After you remove as much external noise as possible from the room, consider your microphone selection. You want one that rejects off-axis sounds, such as a cardioid. Keep the back of the microphone pointed towards the strongest noise source. This Shure article gives a nice refresher on microphone types. http://blog.shure.com/multi-pattern-microphones-what-where-and-how/
Check your gain settings and stay close to the microphone to keep the signal to noise ratio good.
Apply a gate to your audio so that it's muted when you're not talking.
If your audio is too sensitive, and you're noticing every defect, mix some room or white noise in at a low level to soften up your audio.
Comment: I tweaked with gain settings. There is less echo now and less noise. But as you can imagine, India is full of traffic noises. Getting a clean noiseless environment is only between 12 am to 6 am. Will have to sacrifice my sleep then. Was looking forward if there is some other tweak i can work on. I think FOAM is a good option.


Can I ask any Question?

Question: Before finding this TEX.sx site, I used to search all LaTeX documentations I had in my computer and use search engines looking for the answer all around the Internet. Even I did that investigation for my questions answered here so far. It looks to me that I can get many answers promptly here without that effort. Well, I have to modify the answers for my own usages but it is much easier than those exhaustive searches. Does the community believe that it is a good practice to forward immediately any question hence arises directly to this site; searching the TEX.sx and then asking if not found, rather than using other search engines? I believe it is correct. It looks lazy, but it makes the TEX.sx richer and more fruitful for younger "LaTeXers" who might be at the beginning of the job.
Comment: The way I see it, every time we ask a question on TEX.sx, we are asking a favour from others to help us get unstuck with a problem we are already working on -- but asking a favour if we can't even be bothered to do our homework first seems taking a little too much for granted.
Answer: I think you stand to annoy people if you are perceived as asking questions whose answer can easily be found in e.g. the documentation for a package. The strength of the site is that a wide range of experts are willing to share their knowledge with you, but that willingness will weaken if the site seems to be the place where people just ask questions without doing any background research on their own.
There are a couple of related questions that also bear on the issue:
Should SO's "50 questions per month" limit be enabled at tex.sx?
policy on "how do I draw this?" questions
These questions aren't the same as yours, but they are in the same realm of "types of questions that may disaffect experienced users" (and therefore have potentially a negative impact on the site.)
Answer: I think the questions here should relate to real problems you face, or help you to figure out things you were puzzling about.
If you want to ask a problem-related question that you answered yourself but that you think it would be helpful for others to ask, then I think these questions are OK.  Asking made-up questions that aren't well-motivated, though, I think injures the quality of the site and it would be better if they weren't posted.
It's worth noting that a poor-quality site may have more answers, but the signal-to-noise ratio will be lower for most queries.
Comment: Content of my above question shows that I mean real questions. "I used to search all LaTeX documentations I had in my computer and use search engines looking for the answer all around the Internet" Otherwise, I would not do such an exhaustive search. When You are using AMS templates, combined with something such as TexnicCenter, they do lot of the job. Then from the point that you start to impose some personal taste, questions arise. I used to use free documentation and different university sites. Now TEX.sx seems very straightforward, having so many eager helping hands.
Comment: @Peter: I should perhaps have said that I thought that was what you meant, but the broad scope of the question headline demanded a similarly broad answer.
Comment: My question, therefore, could be: "Can I ask a real question promptly without trying to solve it personally?"

Can I ask any Question?


What is the cheapest form of public transportation from Amsterdam to Northern Ireland?

Question: I'm looking for the cheapest way to travel by public transport from Amsterdam to Northern Ireland (Belfast). I don't care about the time to reach the destination, I just don't know how can I reach Belfast without park in London first.
Comment: I'm assuming walking is out of the question,so I have edited your question to ask only about public transportation options. If I'm wrong, and walking or hitch-hiking are realistic for you, please edit your question accordingly.
Comment: Stowaway on a ship?
Comment: Ryan Air, if you trust their advertised prices. But, then you'd have to fly with them (and the advertsied prices are garbage).
Comment: Ryanair flies neither to Amsterdam not Belfast. It would have to be Eindhoven to Dublin. And, for this month there are still 23 euro tickets available on that route, with 18 euro tickets for next month.
Comment: Add €27 for the bus Amsterdam to Eindhoven.  Better check out the flights from Amsterdam.
Answer: On megabus.co.uk, you can find an Amsterdam - London ticket for 17.50 pounds. Then, a London to Dublin ticket can set you back as little as 15 pounds.
Both connections include a ferry.
Occasionally, Megabus offers deals of 10 pounds for each of the above legs. But, note that trying to book the whole journey as one trip is almost always (if not always) more expensive.
Dublin to Belfast can be had for 8 euros via Bus Eireann.
This is certainly not the most pleasant method of travel, but it's damn cheap. If you're lucky, and flexible with your dates, you might get a Ryanair flight from Eindhoven to Dublin for as little as 18 euros. But then you still need to do some peripheral travel.
Comment: I somehow missed that the trip was supposed to get OP to Belfast, edited my answer.
Comment: Just to add, once you're in Dublin, you can get a train up to Belfast for another €15 (about £11), Dublin is about 100 miles away from Belfast
Answer: Your cheapest option is probably a flight, but this is not certain.  Easyjet appears to have cheap flights between Amsterdam and Belfast, although I'm not sure how many hidden fees are added to their advertised price.  If not flying, between Amsterdam and London, a cheap option is the Dutch Flyer, which will set you back £49:  Dutch Flyer connects you from any train station in The Netherlands to any in East Anglia including/as well as London Liverpool Street station.  Flying may be cheaper but not usually when counting all additional fees and transportation to and from the airport.
Between England and Ireland, Seat61 has a rather complete listing.  Apparently, fares start as £39 from London to Dublin by train+ferry, or 53£ to Belfast.  It appears Busbud has tickets from 42£.
You might find cheaper options using buses, as per the answer to the Amsterdam-Paris question, although it seems Eurolines does not serve Belfast, National Express does (but not Amsterdam).  So by bus you'd need at least two different tickets, which makes finding the cheapest option considerably more difficult.
Comment: @pnuts True, although in Europe train stations are almost always downtown and cheaper to get to than airports, and I've never paid extra to take luggage on a train.  So one really needs to look at those costs and check carefully where airports are located, in particular with discount airlines.
Comment: @MaxFerreira Within the EU (or is it just within the UK?), airlines must include all taxes and mandatory fees in the headline ticket price. And the part that is tax isn't within the airline's control anyway.
Comment: gerrit, do you know if the same works from Paris to Ireland? I agree with you, sometimes the EasyJet taxes are most expensive than pay for a train (because of luggage and taxes/fees)
Comment: @MaxFerreira I guess Eurolines may be the cheapest between Paris and London.  I think there are also ferries between France and Ireland but I suspect they're not cheap, as one probably has to sleep on them.  On the other hand, if that saves a hotel/hostel night it could still help your overall travel budget (ferries from France will bring you to the far south of Ireland, still far from Belfast).  You might want to check out busbud, [Ferrylines](http://www.ferrylines.com/), and [Seat61](http://www.seat61.com).
Comment: I'm confused if it's best I visit Paris first and then go to London (to reach Dublin/Belfast) or if it's best I go straight to London from Amsterdam and then see what can I do to reach Belfast/Dublin.
Looks like the best way to make it cheap is go to London first. Right?
Answer: I just checked several flight options.
EasyJet, if you do not need to bring luggage, starts from €32, a few months from now. That is including all taxes but excluding all extras you can avoid, like luggage and from Schiphol, so €2.10 for a bus ticket needs to be added. Not sure how much extra for the Belfast end, Belfast International.
Eurolines London to Belfast on the day I tried is already £30, which is quite a bit more than the basic price for EasyJet Amsterdam to Belfast. And you need to get to London first.
Megabus does not seem to include Belfast these days.
But when booking on short notice the price do not get much higher while flights do get more expensive at the drop of a hat.
In short, search all options, the final price depends on the day you book more than on the actual mode of travel.


Lottery on Shabbos

Question: Is one allowed to buy a lottery ticket if the lottery will be held on shabbos? Is it a problem of possibly making money on shabbos even though his chances are slim?
Answer: Very interesting article here regarding the permissibility of lotteries in general:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/michlol/pais.htm
Opinions of interest brought:
Shiltei Giborim - says games of luck (mitzchakei kibuiyah) are not allowed on Shabbat.
Shimshon Pobino  (Pachad Yitzchak; not Rav Hutner's of course) - all games should be prohibited on Shabbat (!)
Shabbat 149: - It's prohibited (even on a weekday) to make a lottery to determine who is to receive a large vs. small piece of meat, for instance
Rav Hadaya of the Beit Din in Jerusalem reports of a case where a Jew in Singapore lost all of his possessions while gambling and then proceeded to gamble what was left -- his wife! (He lost and she was forced to become the other man's wife!)
Rav Ovadya Yosef rules that the lottery is not permitted.
Ashkenazim in Israel are lenient in this matter and permit participation in the lottery.

While there's no problem due to a Gentile performing prohibited work (since the Gentile is doing it for the sake of all the other participants), there is obviously the issue of earning money on Shabbat. We could compare it to similar cases where Jews are allowed to earn money on Shabbat, such as working as a waiter, babysitter, madrich, etc. in which case we require that preparation work be done before Shabbat and we say that the money being earned is as a result of that preparation work. Similarly, we can say that choosing the lottery numbers and buying the ticket are the work required for earning money and the decision of whether you earn lots of money or little ($0) happens to simply be determined on Shabbat.
Comment: Please cite full sources.
Answer: My rabbi would often buy a lottery ticket on friday for the "friday night" drawing with the hopes of finding out that he won some time after Shabbos.
Comment: Your answer would be much improved if you'd identify your rabbi.
Answer: Rabbi Peretz Moncharsh says it is permitted.
https://www.shulchanaruch.com/rabbinical-faculty/rabbi-peretz-moncharsh/

Rabbi Peretz Moncharsh was born and raised in Minneapolis, MN and
  learned in the Yeshivos of Philadelphia, Brisk- R Dovid, Mir and
  Kollel La'asukei Shmaytsa.  He currently lives in Beitar and is a
  Moreh Horaah on both the Ashkenazi and Sefardi Batei Horaah as well as
  the Rosh Kollel of Kollel Shaarei Horaah. Rabbi Moncharsh received
  Semicha from R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, R' Yaakov Tufik (the
  Sefaradi Rav of Beitar) and the Rabbanut.

Lottery on Shabbos


cannot install ubuntu using dual boot......main problem is with partioning the system after entering into ubuntu using flash drive

Question: I have made partition of my  hard drive and created a bootable pendrive with Ubuntu 12.04 i386 then rebooted my system using pendrive...........then Ubuntu started but......... I want to install permanently along with windows 8 but I have difficulty in partitioning the things after this in Ubuntu...for example how to create swap area etc., ..........I followed the video in YouTube in which after entering into the Ubuntu system he has give a double click on the "free space" after that he created everything.......but in my system I can't find the tag called "free space" to click on that but there is one more thing called "unusable" on which the double click wont work to do partition......so please help me to partition the things.....and one more thing is that I have give a sufficient hard disk space for that i.e. 70 gb for Ubuntu ..but this partition is made from f drive in windows not from c drive.....
thank you
Answer: I got your problem. You can install Ubuntu along with windows 8. Better check this site and follow the steps mentioned over there.
Install Ubuntu on windows 8
This will certainly help you with your problem.
Answer: You probably have too many partitions.
You will be able to install Ubuntu if you have less than 4 partitions on your disk (windows 8 will probably create a "loader" partition along the ones you already have).
Also be sure to check that you do not have the disk partitioned as a dynamic disk.
In that case you will have to transform it back to normal.
It does not matter what the letter is, but be sure when installing not to overwrite MBR with Ubuntu as it will probably mean you will not be able to boot into Windows.
You have to install Grub onto Ubuntu partition.
Then you will have to install EasyBCD in windows (do not forget to install NeoGrub inside the app), and everything should work fine.


Perform FindRoots on Function Evaluation Containing RootSearch

Question: I am using Ted Ersek's RootSearch function in Mathematica 9.0 (http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/Demos/4482/) to create a function that I am using for graphing. Now, I'd like to use this function inside of a FindRoots call to find specific solutions.
To begin, we have a function f[t_, Rb_, N2_]:
 f[t_, Rb_, N2_] =(4.22153*10^6 (45.5182 + 5.226*10^-6 N2^2 + Rb) (0.106 -
                     0.106 E^(-9.43396 t) - Sin[120 \[Pi] t]/(120 \[Pi])))/N2^2

Then we define the tsat2[Rb_, N2_] function using Ersek's RootSearch function to find the t values where f[t,Rb,N2] = 0.94 and return the minimum value.
tsat2[Rb_, N2_] := N[60*Min[t /. RootSearch[f[t, Rb, N2] - 0.94` == 0, {t, 0, 1}]]]

The above RootSearch function works great, it's this next step that's the trouble. We play a little trick to turn tsat2 into a function of only Rb to satisfy some other conditions to obtain tsat2[Rb,97.65*Rb] Here's the problem: I need to find find f[Rb,97.65*Rb]==1.5 using numerical methods. Before I go and write my own numerical solver, I'd like to see if I can get FindRoots to work:
FindRoots[tsat2[Rb, 97.65*Rb] - 1.5 == 0, {Rb, 10}]

However the problem is Mathematica doesn't even seem to evaluate this ambitious function call and only returns:
FindRoots[-1.5 + 60. (t /. $Failed) == 0, {Rb, 10}]

I suspect that somehow the tsat2 function is not actually being evaluated inside the FindRoot statement, or more specifically, the RootSearch function isn't being passed the values from the higher FindRoots function call. I have tried this also using the RootSearch function (so we essentially have a nested RootSearch) and received the same error:

In[203]:= RootSearch[tsat2[Rb, Rb 97.65] - 1.5 == 0, {Rb, 10}]
Out[203]= RootSearch[-1.5 + 60. (t /. $Failed) == 0, {Rb, 10}]

My question is: How do I get the tsat2 function to act like any other function evaluation inside the FindRoots call?
Thanks in advance!
Answer: It turns out that this problem is solved using the solution here.
The answer is that FindRoots needs to have the option Evaluated->False to ensure that the nested RootSearch is evaluated before the FindRoots[expr] takes place.


Brine added made sauerkraut too salty

Question: I make my sauerkraut in a big crock. I do about 20-30lbs at a time. I usually can it, but this time I just wanted to pack in jars and put in fridge. Unfortunately I didn't have enough brine in the original batch so I had to add more to each jar. Now the good sauerkraut I made is really salty. What can I do?
Comment: Welcome to Seasoned Advice SE. :) Doesn't the cabbage "cure" in salt? Can you give us more information about what was different between the first batch of brine, and the second? Also... is the sauerkraut finished, or still in progress?
Comment: Very fresh Sauerkraut must be salty. It turns sour during the fermentation process. Maybe the fermentation takes longer this time because there are less beneficial bacteria in the fresh brine.
Answer: If you feel that your brine, and the resulting kraut is too salty, once your kraut is fermented, you can rinse it before you use it.  In fact, there are recipes for sauerkraut (Julia Child's choucroute garni comes to mind), that rinses the kraut several times before braising.

Brine added made sauerkraut too salty


Why are there inverted repeats in response elements?

Question: The following picture shows an inverted repeat sequence in a response element. Response element sequences for glucocorticoids, estrogen, and thyroid hormone show that they all contain inverse repeats. Why do these inverted repeats exist in so many response sequences? In other words, what advantage do they pose to the function of the response element?
Answer: Starting with prokaryotic (i.e., bacterial) transcription factors--which were the first to be characterized in depth, this type of pattern was noted.  Even for the "classic" Type II Restriction Endonucleases used for molecular cloning have palindromic recognition sequences.  In all three cases the answer is that the sequence-specific DNA binding protein binds as a dimer, and so each monomer is recognizing a "half-site" (one of the inverted sequences).
Comment: Thanks for your answer. We do [encourage](https://biology.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer) links to external sources to support assertions in answers. That way the poster or interested readers can check whether or not they are correct, and learn more about a topic than may be appropriate to include in an answer. You can edit your answer at any time.
Comment: @RosieF In that case, is it essential that the repeated sequences be inverted? Wouldn't the DNA binding proteins still be able to bind as a dimer if it were just a sequence repeated without inversion?
Comment: I think the most important concept here is that by having multiple binding sites concentrated in small region then this will effectively increase the concentration of the transcription factor.  The more sites, the more specificity, and therefore more biological regulation is possible (e.g., ON vs. OFF).  The location of the dimerization interface on the monomer will change if the recognition sites were direct repeats instead of inverted repeats.  There are probably (?) examples of both.  Certainly the first ones characterized were inverted.


What is the current state of affairs of SpellJammer?

Question: Is there an expectation of anything happing with it in the future?
Answer: There's been nothing announced from WotC, so my guess is that we won't see much. It's entirely possible that they'd be interested in publishing a Dungeon article on the setting, though.
Answer: Spelljamming ships have appeared in Living Forgotten Realms adventures (I think there's a sunken one that the players can rescue in Core2-2, Rising of the Dark) as well as the Plane Above and the Plane Below sourcebooks. The Rock of Bral itself is still one of the tears of Selune.
There's still no official word on a return of the Spelljammer setting or not.
Answer: As far as I know they are holding on to the licencing agreement at WotC which may mean that they want to do something with it some day.  But since they've announced that Ravenloft is going to be their next campaign setting (released summer 2011), the best we can hope for, at least for a couple of years, are web enhancements and sidebars in publications.
I assume the reason we haven't seem more SJ is because of the Gammaworld release that is right around the corner.  SJ is the closest thing D&D has to sci-fi and I can see how they wouldn't want to put too much more energy into non traditional fantasy, especially with the Dark Sun release this summer.


Before entering WW II, why was the US so against Japanese aggression in China but did nothing about Germany in Europe?

Question: The US was very vocal against Japanese aggression in China in the 1930's and early 1940's but said nothing against German aggression in Europe.  The US finally placed an embargo on sending oil and iron ore to Japan as a protest but did nothing against Germany.  Yet it would seem that China at that time was not a vital interest of the US but Europe, with friendly nations like England and France, was.  The embargo finally caused Japan to look for other sources of these vital materials which eventually led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.  We declared war on Japan as a result but not on Germany.  My question is why did we put up with Germany's actions but not Japan's? I know that we aided England with Lend Lease and such, but we maintained diplomatic relations with Germany and did not protest their actions the way we did with Japan.
Comment: Seriously? The US began selling vast quantities of arms to the Allies in September 1939 ('Cash and Carry'), bartered 50 warships to the British a year later ('Destroyers for Bases'), and finally just started _giving_ them vast quantities of munitions in March 1941 ('Lend-Lease'). In Summer 1941 American troops relieved the British in Iceland, and US naval forces began an undeclared but very real war against U-Boats in the North Atlantic. Strange way to do "nothing!"
Comment: While others will probably be able to give a complete answer, my guess is that it was partly because Japan had already started a major and brutal war against China (early 1930s) whereas German aggression before the attack against Poland had not been military.
Comment: Are you sure you know your facts? First of all, US maintained diplomatic relationships with Japan, till Perl Harbor. There were actual negotiations about restoring relationship, but Tojo rejected any compromise. Second, the US wasn't concerned only about China, but Japan had clear expansion plans all over Asia, including Indochina's occupation in '40. From political point of view, an embargo on military supplies was much subtle tool than exporting enormous amount of weapons to the enemy, like in the case of Germany.
Comment: @Sid Annexation of the Czechoslovakia was also backed up by a military threat.
Comment: @Sid Germans would have been brutal, had the Czechoslovakian government resisted.
Comment: "The China lobby."
Comment: @quant_dev: True but threatening military action and actually waging a brutal military war are two very different things.
Comment: @quant_dev I agree. I'm sure there were several people back then who knew this too. Nevertheless, there's significantly more pushback if you actually take military action vs just threatening it.
Answer: There was considerable political opposition to the US becoming involved in European affairs again. Perhaps the most influential of these was Charles Lindbergh and the America First organization he was affiliated with. When you read through his speeches and other non-interventionist, you'll see that their main focus was on Europe. These groups fell silent for the most part after the German declaration of war against the US following Pearl Harbor.
There was less concern about Japan in the general public. For the most part, up until Pearl Harbor, people didn't think an Asian power would pose a threat. They considered the aggressive, yet diplomatic, moves to be sufficient to curb Japanese aggression in Asia. It wasn't seen as a prelude to war as much as things like Lend-Lease and proposed arms sales to Britain were.

As I noted above, Lindbergh's and America First's opinions were the predominate ones when it came to non-interventionism in Europe.
From America First on the Charles Lindbergh site:

America First Committee Original Four Principles:

The United States must build an impregnable defense for America
No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America
American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
"Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.

The above principles expressed the general thoughts of the movement. The attack on Pearl Harbor shattered the first 2 points, weakened the 3rd and made the last one moot.
Before that attack followed by the German declaration of war, with the memory of WWI and its aftermath still fresh in the minds of middle age and older Americans, many did not want to become entangled in what they saw as another European war. Most were concerned about the rise of Germany as a power in Europe again although there was much division about the way to deal with it. Lindbergh's idea of "impregnable defense" competed with FDR's limited interventionism.
Polling data from the era isn't as accurate as today's polls but they indicated that about 2/3's of the public supported FDR's policies but that America First was gaining support quickly in some regions of the country, enough that the 1942 mid-terms could have caused a switch in opinions in Congress.
Comment: It's still not clear to me why Germany's actions were not as vigorously opposed by the US as compared to how Japan's were.   The US knew that its strong rhetoric and actions such as the embargo were going to lead to war with Japan (Pearl Harbor was a surprise because the Philippines was expected to be the initial target).  Once Germany declared war on the US, the "Greatest Generation" suddenly was very eager to stick it to them.  What's not clear is where were these emotions before.  Was it just due to isolationism or the desire to have the Germans fight the Russians, or something else?
Comment: @quant_dev - There has always been a significant portion of the US population that had a moral indignation about racism and related problems. This was on the increase in the 1930's. The extreme and brutal racial dogma of the Axis regimes increased this trend.
Comment: @Barry - I'll add some additional info that addresses it.
Comment: @Barry Another reason is that Hitler had many supporters in America (e.g. Henry Ford).
Comment: @quant_dev - I'm not sure about the "many" part. The German American Bund was relatively small as compared to the more mainstream America First. They also often offended a lot of the general public with their rhetoric. As you noted, some industrialists and companies favored Nazi Germany to some degree, either for ideological reasons (Ford) or simple business opportunities (IBM).
Comment: @jfrankcarr Given how Americans treated their own racial minorities (esp. Blacks), it would be weird if they had a lot of moral indignation about Nazi racial ideals.
Comment: Henry Ford hated jews?
Comment: @user4951 Yes, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
Comment: @Barry It's a mistake to try and treat "the US" (or any country for that matter) as if it were a single monolithically thinking entity, instead of what it really is: millions of people with different viewpoints, with different political factions that sway policies in different directions at different times.
Answer: Two Problems
There are really two issues you raise:
1) The contrast in the American voice (I limit myself to diplomatic and political, since the press was arguably equally anti-Japanese and anti-German) of condemnation of Japanese aggression, versus the lack of same against Germany
2) The apparent contrast in severity of provisions against Japan (in case of the oil embargo) and Germany.
The Illusion of Neutrality: Spring-Summer 1941
Let us begin with the second: as you point out, with the US embargo on export of gasoline and oil in July 1941, there remains only an illusion of neutrality. Japanese nationalists today usually hang their entire narrative of the road to war around this singular act (or the broader story of "ABCD encirclement") to the exclusion of other important elements. It is true that earlier embargoes on aircraft and aviation fuel, scrap steel, and metal ore were interpreted by Japanese diplomats as "unfriendly" acts they are nothing in comparison to the importance of the openly hostile seizure of assets and the economic impact of the termination of all fuel supplies, which at one point made up 80% of Japanese imports. It was a huge blow to the Japanese, and surely played a role in the emperor finally signing off on plans for the attack on Pearl Harbor (begun months before the fuel embargo) finally in November, 1941.
However, US neutrality was even more obviously an illusion in Europe months before the July Japanese embargo, in secret with the commencement of military coordination between the US and the British in early 1941, and in public through the Lend Lease program in March which, in terms of impact, is the closest equivalent to the Japan oil embargo. German U-boats were already targeting US merchant ships since the previous year and in April 1941 the USS Niblack attacks a german U-boat, marking the first hostility between the two military forces in the Atlantic. Consulates in US, Germany, and Italy are mutually closed in June. But why, you ask, not also a full embargo on fuels to Germany as they did with Japan?
I don't have an empirical answer in the form of any contemporary source, but this would simply would not have had more than a symbolic effect. While the US embargo against Japan had immediate and a powerful effect on the Japanese economy, the US was a marginal player in the supply of ore and oil to Germany by 1941. The US dominated supplies of oil to Germany up to 1939 but this was mostly blocked by the UK after 1939 which made Germany depend on Romania and synthetic sources. The German invasion of Norway in 1940 helped secure Swedish ore supplies, while other key metals were coming in through the Balkans. Between 1940-1941, Germany's Soviet ally was a huge supplier of oil under the terms of the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement, and of course, after Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in June, Soviet oil fields became a major target of the 1942 campaign year.
Problem of Perception and Historiography
At the heart of your question is an understandable perception, reproduced in much of what we read in general histories of:
1) intense American economic and diplomatic pressure on Japan dating back at least as far as 1931, but intensifying gradually, especially after the Panay Incident in December 1937 fortified the political resolve to oppose Japan (helped along with reports on the massacres in Nanjing after its fall earlier that month).
2) An almost exclusive focus in general histories on US policy in Europe as focused on the Congress vs. President debates over US neutrality and isolationism.
So, the easy answer to your question of contrast of treatment is: a neutrality policy pressed by Congress, and an isolation policy which is founded upon an understanding of a particular European historical context - as distinct from a Pacific environment in which US-Japanese naval competition has unfolded without the burden of a WWI precedent to generate powerful cautionary rhetoric. Such an answer would emphasize the need for FDR to temper his personal hatred for the Nazis and secret pressure of friendly nations against the Germans with a public voice that was more in synch with the isolationist rhetoric of congress, and to an ever decreasing level, public opinion. It would focus on his efforts to revise the Neutrality Act or work around it to provide help where he could prior to the spring of 1941.
However, that should not leave you satisfied. The problem is that the historiographical emphasis found in (2) means that we come away with the impression that the US "said nothing" against German aggression, but this is true only if we focus entirely on the word "German"

A browse the FRUS records will show the US challenges to German policies, including against Jews well before 1939.
The word "Germany" is not found in the January 4, 1939 speech to Congress but it was widely interpreted as aimed at Germany, and invited rebuke from Goebbels.
Again no mention of Germany but the June 10, 1940 "stab in the back" speech condemning Mussolini's joining in the invasion of France, was included at the last minute over the advise of his advisors who were concerned with the political (among isolationists) and diplomatic reaction to inflammatory language. There is little doubt that the tone of the entire speech was, like so many others of his during this period, preparing US opinion for joining the coming conflict.
The Dec 29 1940 fireside chat (the "arsenal of democracy" speech ) eliminates all ambiguity about who the enemy is, "The Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world."
The "Four Freedoms" speech of January 6, 1941 may not mention the word of "Germany" in its condemnation of aggressor nations, but directly mentions victims such as Norway and Belgium - clearly targeting Germany.

In other words, the historical debates over the obstacles FDR faced due to isolationism and neutrality provisions clouds the issue somewhat. By the beginning of 1941, at the latest, FDR is increasingly bold in his (verbal) challenge of Germany, with or without the mention of them specifically. You have correctly identified a contrast in the language used in the rhetoric, but it is important to see how these speeches were interpreted and received in the contemporary press, and by European powers who saw merely a veneer of neutrality on top of speeches that were preparing a country for war.
The Three Threats
One last note on the broader context. You have posed the question as one of policy towards Germany vs. Japan, but historians would point out that the policy towards the Soviet Union is a third leg in the tripod that helps us understand the challenges of US foreign policy at the time and one reason why it was harder to unify public opinion, say, in 1939, rather than in 1940-41: public opinion and American strategists saw all three totalitarian states as potential radical threats to the current geopolitical stability (peace). With the alliance between the Germans and the Soviets (1939-1941) made obvious in the wake of the invasion of Poland, not to mention the Soviet invasion of Finland, a sense of moral clarity in Europe was lost for Americans in a way that for the British (tied closely to European powers through alliances) was less critical at this moment. As Akira Iriye puts it:
"The trouble was that by [1938-9] American official and public opinion had become antagonized against all three...Roosevelt wanted to keep his options open so as to prevent collusion between Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan" (Iriye, 173)
Sources
I'm not up to date on the most recent material but relevant secondary sources on this:
Tansill, Charles Callan. Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941: Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-41. New ed of 1952 ed edition. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1975.
This early work sparked a debate around the issue you are raising the argument, much contested and debated since, that FDR - blocked from open confrontation with Germany, sought Japan as a "back door" For the purposes of your question, the key chapter is the final one, 26 (XXVI) which makes the argument for the shift in US policy towards Japan.
Divine, Robert A. The Reluctant Belligerent: American Entry Into World War II. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.
Iriye, Akira. The New Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Good for the general overview, most specifically chapter 11 on the road to Pearl Harbor. Iriye has long been an expert on the US-Japan side of this story (see his "End of Uncertainty" chapter in Power and Culture: The Japanese-American War 1941-1945 for another nice background on the pre-Pearl Harbor overview).
Dallek, Robert. Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945: With a New Afterword. 2 edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Rhodes, Benjamin D. United States Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period, 1918-1941: The Golden Age of American Diplomatic and Military Complacency. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001.
Comment: You might also mention FDR's "quaratine" speech of October 5, 1937, which was equally (if indirectedly) aimed at Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Comment: This is a good answer, I'm just not sure that OP is able to make the distinction between "FDR" and "The US".
Answer: Germany was not a DIRECT threat to the United States. There were two reasons. First, Germany had no navy to speak of (unless it captured the British fleet). Second, the U.S. was counting on Britain and France to contain Germany (until May/June 1940).
Japan was a much clearer threat to the United States. First, because there was no counterweight in Asia to Japan. Second, Japan had a real navy, one that actually more powerful than that of the United States BEFORE Pearl Harbor. That disaster was a consequence, not a cause, of U.S. naval inferiority. (Japan overbuilt, and the U.S. underbuilt the 3-5 ratio prescribed by the Washington Naval Treaty.)
If the United States had been able to defend Britain against Germany, it needed only to defeat Japan in order to be "safe." The combined U.S. and British fleets would have deterred an invasion across the Atlantic. On the other hand, an Axis victory scenario would probably have involved a Japanese fleet convoying a victorious German army from Siberia across the Pacific to Alaska and British Columbia.
Comment: "On the other hand, an Axis victory scenario would probably have involved a Japanese fleet convoying a victorious German army from Siberia across the Pacific to Alaska and British Columbia." -- This army would be doomed. I can't imagine successfully supplying such an invasion army across an OCEAN.
Comment: I don't think the distance from Siberia is really an issue, unless Siberia had some kind of large agricultural or manufacturing capabilities I'm unaware of. I do agree with your first two paragraphs, but the bit in question seems rather unlikely to me. More likely the'd have happily settled for hegemony over the Old world. I'm not a fan of the Axis, but I don't think they were truly bent on world conquest like they were playing Risk or something.
Comment: "It's something like 55 miles from Siberia across the Bering Strait to Alaska." - Were there ports which didn't freeze in winter in both Eastern Siberia and Alaska?
Comment: @quant_dev: It's something like 55 miles from Siberia across the Bering Strait to Alaska. If the Japanese fleet had maintained parity with ours (with the help of the Germans) this could have been a threat. (But the Japanese fleet DIDN'T maintain parity.)
Comment: WInston Churchill would beg to disagree with the above objections. "If we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we've know and cared for, will fall into the abyss of a New Dark Age."
Answer: I don't know where you got the idea that the US was more "vocal against" Japan than the Axis powers. I picked a random week in 1938 (July 15-21) and looked at all the stories on page 1 of the New York Times. There were 8 negative stories on the Axis and 3 negative stories on Japan. And remember this was a time when Japan was actively attacking China, but Germany was not attacking any country.
The US declared war on Japan because they blew up Pearl Harbor and killed over 2400 American citizens, not because we didn't like what they were doing in China.
Answer: The US had no formal embargo against Germany, but instituted the Cash and Carry modification to the Neutrality Acts on September 21, 1939.  The new rule that was a belligerent could buy anything from the US, as long as they paid cash or the equivalent and carried away on their own ships.  Britain had lots of available money at the time (the institution of Lend-Lease was a reaction to British cash reserves being drawn down), and the Germans were hardly going to be able to ship anything from New York to Hamburg.  In essence, this meant that the Allies could buy US war materiel while Germany couldn't.  It was an embargo, even though couched in neutral language.
The destroyers for bases deal was the first violation of the rights and duties of neutrals that I could find, in September 1940.  The US became openly involved in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1941.
US neutrality was very definitely on the Allied side.
Answer:
Question 1
  My question is why did we put up with Germany's actions but not Japan's? I know that we aided England with Lend Lease and such, but we maintained diplomatic relations with Germany and did not protest their actions the way we did with Japan.

America didn't think Japan was much of a threat.  Some of this was conceit some of it was ignorance as Japan exceeded expectations in their destruction of the American Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.  Some of this though was based in reality,  Japan was not an existential threat to the United States that Germany was even after Pearl Harbor.  Japan's entire war plan for the United States was to hit hard and sue for peace locking in place their newly acquired expanded empire in the Far East.   When the United States didn't enter into peace talks with Japan after Pearl Harbors even their top naval strategists only gave them six months before the United States adapted and put Japan on the defensive.  Nearly to the day, June 7th 1942 the Battle of Midway began.  This battle marked the end of Japan's dominance in the Pacific.  The change of initiative came from the loss of the backbone of their naval forces including 4 fleet aircraft carriers and 248 aircraft and pilots.  Losses from which Japan never recovered during the rest of WWII.
In Europe it was a different game.  While the formidable US navy would lead the fight against Japan a war against Germany would be lead primarily with a non existent US Army.   In 1939 when WWII began the US army was about the size of Portugal or Belgium's army.  Even in late 1941 it was far from ready for war with Germany.  FDR needed to play for time.  Yes in Europe Roosevelt had to contend with a strong anti war movement which would tie his hands.   Roosevelt's challenge was to stay neutral while lending arms and aid to Britain to keep them in the fight while building his own army.  The appearance of neutrality required continued diplomatic ties with Germany.


Can I apply Expertise to a skill proficiency granted by background or racial?

Question: Specifically related to 5E, can I use the Expertise ability granted by Rogue class ability to increase my proficiency in a skill that is granted by racial or background?  Specifically, I am making a Criminal (Enforcer) Half-orc Rogue.  Can I use Expertise to double the proficiency bonus for those skills if I didn't take the proficiency with the class?
Answer: The rogue's expertise reads

Expertise
At 1st level, choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your
skill proficiencies and your proficiency with Thieves' Tools. Your
proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses
either of the chosen proficiencies. At 6th level, you can choose two
more of your proficiencies (in skills or with thieves' tools) to gain
this benefit.

It doesn't specify that it has to be obtained from the class, so you can pick any of your skills that you are proficient with. Do note however, that the only tool proficiency you can apply it to is with thieves tools.
Comment: I juat happened to be on the right place and right time. *rides into sunset*
Comment: Thank you for the quick answer.  That was where my train of thought was heading, just wanted some confirmation that I was on the right set of tracks.  Granted, this character is going to be used for a single session run as a gauge for a couple of my DM's friends, so probably won't use the skills that much, but could come up in the future.
Comment: @melvang one of the running 5e philosophies is: "If it were that way, it would be written so". If the expertise feature were limited to rogue skill proficiencies it would say so. Notice that it says that it applies to thieves tools, but it doesn't say "one of your tools", so the conclusion by PnP is right on the money. "If it would apply to other tools it would say so". But I am being repetitive already.
Comment: I actually don't know if this applies to backgrounds, due to PHB 11-13. The step-by-step character building guide says: "1. Choose a Race. 2. Choose a Class. 3. Determine Ability Scores. 4. Describe Your Character [Choose a Background]". At the time when you gain your first Rogue level (and select expertise) you don't yet have proficiency in any skills offered by your background. At level 6 when you choose ***additional*** expertise, now you do have proficiency in those skills. This could just be an oversight of the creators, though.
Answer: Rules as Written
There's actually a weird quirk that I discovered while looking into this (which caused me to Google the bug and find this thread)
According to the Player's Handbook pages 11-13 (Chapter 1: Step - by - Step Characters):

Once you have a character in mind, follow these steps in order
PHB 11 (emphasis mine)

Then the steps:

1. Choose a Race
...
2. Choose a Class
...
  On your character sheet, record all the features that
  your class gives you at 1st level.
3. Determine Ability Scores
...
4. Describe Your Character
...
  A background gives your character a background
  feature (a general benefit) and proficiency in two skills,
  and it might also give you additional languages or
  proficiency with certain kinds of tools. Record this
  information, along with the personality information
  you develop, on your character sheet.
PBH 11-13 (summarized)

Following these steps in order (as directed), you will record your class feature (including expertise) before you have selected a background. Therefore at level 1 a Rogue can apply expertise to their racial skills, but not to their background skills
Rules as Interpreted
Reading the chapter on Backgrounds:

Every story has a beginning. Your character's
  background reveals where you came from, how you
  became an adventurer, and your place in the world.
  Your fighter might have been a courageous knight or a
  grizzled soldier. Your wizard could have been a sage or
  an artisan. Your rogue might have gotten by as a guild
  thief or commanded audiences as a jester.
  Choosing a background provides you with important
  story cues about your character's identity. The most
  important question to ask about your background is
  what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your
  background describes and start adventuring? Where
  did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or,
  if you come from a wealthy background, why don't you
  have more money? How did you learn the skills of your
  class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who
  share your background?
PHB 125 (emphasis mine)

It's written as though your background takes place chronologically before level 1. You're effectively "level 0" during this part of your life, and when you give up whatever you were doing before is when you take your first level in an adventuring class. This suggests you should pick a background before you pick a class - or at the very least that any skills or features of your background should apply at the time of initial level up.
It also seems odd that Rogue's two most signature skills (stealth and sleight of hand) would be barred from gaining expertise unless a Rogue foregoes the two backgrounds that sounds like they were made for Rogue: Charlatan and Criminal.
Taking these two facts into account, it seems reasonable to assume that background skills can also receive expertise.
When in doubt, ask your DM. DMs have the final authority on how they choose to interpret the rules.
Comment: The PHB states that if a character "would gain the same proficiency from two different sources [they] can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead." Which complicates your answer a bit (in that they can choose stealth / slight of hand from their class and choose a different proficiency to get from their background)
Comment: "Man discovers one weird quirk. Rogues hate him."
Comment: @illustro Can you link the page for that? That sounds like a really interesting little rule since it could theoretically grant access to skills you would never have available. For instance, a Wizard can normally only learn two from a selection of six skills. By picking a background that overlaps with one of the two you pick, could you learn ***any*** skill on a Wizard?
Comment: @stevendesu sure: PHB pg 125 Backgrounds > Proficiencies
Comment: It's the section immediately after the one you quoted in your answer.
Comment: Also see this answer: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/129565/36850


Copay Log in Problem

Question: I bought a new phone and when I enter the account recovery phrase and password it tells me it is incorrect, is there any way I can contact someone at copay to help me log on?
Comment: You can try opening an issue here: https://github.com/bitpay/copay/issues. However, if your recovery information is noted down incorrectly, there is little anyone can do to help you
Answer: Official BitPay/Copay support can be reached here:
https://help.bitpay.com/requestHelp
Below are a few tips you can try to make the 12 word recovery phrase work:

Are you sure that the recovery phrase was written in the correct order?
Did you use all lowercase letters and no punctuation?
Did you add a password to your recovery phrase?
Do you have the QR code or text/file backup?
Did you separate each word with a single space (no commas or any other punctuation)?

Please also ensure that your words are all contained in the following list of possible words:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/english.txt

Copay Log in Problem