How can anyone who hasn't realised the truth claim that Mahatma Buddha or any other person in history realised the God or Truth?

Question: Isn't it possible that whatever they have realised is just a psychological effect? Doing continuously hard practices leads to affect their mind and they tend to believe that, yes, this is the truth. They started lying to themselves that they know the truth? I just want to know the truth.
Comment: I have a friend who is a Doctor in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), a field that I am unfamiliar with. I am *sure* he knows about HCI. After all, he has a Doctorate in the field. But I myself knows nothing about HCI. Am I wrong in believing he is an expert? So while your question claims to be about religion, it really is about how to judge the expertise of an individual without having any expertise himself. I'm reading your question as saying: "How can anyone who haven't realized [FIELD_OF_KNOWLEDGE], claim that [PERSON] realized [FIELD_OF_KNOWLEDGE]?"
Comment: @TariqAli your reasoning applies to science since it is objective and reproducible. You trust your doctor friend because you also know that other doctors in his field will tell you the same thing about HCI. But in the case of religious and spiritual statements - there is no objective knowledge to validate the authority's claim on. It's like someone saying that they know X is going to heaven. How can you verify a claim like that? They themselves have never been to heaven so how can they claim to know that someone went there ?
Answer: You write:

Isn't it possible that whatever they have realized is just a psychological effect? Doing continuously hard practices leads to affect their mind and they tend to believe that, yes, this is the truth. They started lying to themselves that they know the truth?

It is indeed possible and even surely the case for some people who claim to have realized "truth" or God. Some people indeed mistake psychological states or other external circumstance for a realization of said "truth".
However, some people speak of something entirely different — a dimension of consciousness that transcends psychology, words, ideas, logic, and change. The beauty of it is that it transcends all of our ideas of what a spiritual realization might look like, as well.
Miraculously it can be witnessed but cannot be comprehended, nor even conceived.

I just want to know the truth.

That is the only way — wanting to find out the truth for your self.
But there is an unfair catch — there is no way to prove such people are wrong. You can only try to see for your self that they were right, by following their practice, or even your own path.
The good news is that many paths lead to that same place. Underneath the distinct structures, philosophies and cosmological nonsense of most religions, you will find people who speak and preach the same thing. See here for example: What is god for religious people?
Comment: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg94.htm not sure what discourse this is tho, even if it is one ha "be a lamp unto thyself"
Answer:
Much investigation has therefore been done in finding out what in
  matter of fact Buddha says when he says "Be a lamp unto yourself" (old
  rendering), or "Be an island unto yourself" (new rendering).
We find this exhortation in a number of texts throughout the Small
  Vehicle canons of the Theravādin (the Pali canon), the Chinese (the
  Āgama), and the Tibetan (the Kanyur).
The best known instance is that of the Dhammapāda (238) of the Pali
  canon where it says: Be an island unto yourself!
... We find a slightly different rendering in the Pali Mahāparinibbāna Sutta where it says:
  "Therefore, Ānanda, be islands unto yourselves,
... In years gone by the Pali word dīpa used to be rendered as "lamp" following such passages as "extinguish the lamp of disease (ignorance)!" (telappadīpo āropito.) which we equallly find in the above Pali Mahāparinibbāna Sutta. Walpola Rahula, in his 'What the Buddha taught' points to this discussion.

You also have Nietzsche's aphorism, translated as:

The hypocrite who always plays one and the same part ceases at last to
  be a hypocrite.

Human All Too Human, 51.
So that's a dilemma: how can we be a lamp unto ourselves -- if our self deception can transmute into "fact".
Wittgenstein asks at the beginning of his Tractatus:

This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have them-
  selves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it—or
  similar thoughts

Perhaps (all) this amounts to (is) the idea that to know the Truth is to conform to someone else's expression of it. e.g. the Buddhist text, The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana, which is an early expression of "original enlightenment" begins with the dedication:

May all sentient beings be made to discard their doubts, to cast
  aside their evil attachments, and to give rise to the correct faith in
  the Mahayana, that the lineage of the Buddhas may not be broken off.

I'd conclude that Truth is best reached by doubting what we believe and then finding out who else agrees with what's then left. Nothing is fool proof, and you could always try the opposite, but I reckon it's a good way to understand or learn any philosophy. Afterall, original thinking does tend to depend on prior knowledge.
As to "hard practices", I think these have some use, or they would've died out. Even if that use is just intersubejctive
Answer: Yes! It is absolutely possible that they are deluded. It is possible the Buddha was deluded. Or that there never was any Gautama Buddha. Deluded persons, pretty much by definition, don't realize they're deluded. So anybody who tells you she, the directors of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, or Jesus Christ, discovered the Ultimate Truth, might be a deluded person speaking from ignorance. Or you might be deluded, and misunderstanding what you hear. If there is objective truth, there surely isn't any objective human knowledge. Only a subject knows things, and only subjectively
Answer: Truth is a tricky concept in that our various descriptions of 'truth' are bound up in the inter-dependencies of the language and concepts we use to describe it.  Countless philosophers have debated what it means for something to be true, yet ultimately the contingency of our conceptual model on fallible perception (perhaps even positing thoughts themselves as a kind of perception) means we cannot ever fully describe truth independent of those conceptual limitations.
So, suppose then that there is such a thing as objective transcendental truth.  Such a thing, were it to have any meaning at all, must be beyond and prior to our descriptions of it, immediately accessible and overwhelmingly self-evident.  Perhaps that's amazing, but it's also wholly mundane, since that's exactly what this, just this, is.  Make of it what you will.
Comment: On a side note, looking at my phrasing here, I suspect I've read too much Nietzsche.
Answer: As related to the buddhism part of your question, self-delusion is always a risk in any system of practice. And with awareness of these risks Siddhartha Guatama instituted two epistemological checks built in the framework of his thinking. One designed for external sources and the other the types of delusion that arises within us because of our own minds.

The necesity of self-verification (ehipassiko) as a check on appeals to authority; and
The necesity of constant self-awareness of Avidyā --which can be translated as a type non-congnitiveness or delusion based on things like emotionality which dulls our ability to see clearly-- and it's sub-category Moha --ignorance of cause and effect.

The principal of ehipassiko teaches that you are to believe nothing on authority. You verify for yourself if something is true or not.
The principle of Amoha (a negation of Moha) teaches now that we've avoided external delusion, be vigilant of those varieties of delusion which rise from within.
So to answer the question posed (as it relates to buddhist practice), yes it is a continual possibility. But going through (not around or above) that tension, or the working with what are called the "unwholesome roots" of kamma (Lobha, Dhosa, and Moha) are inextricably part of the the buddhist practice, at least as I'm aware of it from Theravadan and Vajrayanan teaching. It's not an external concern, but one central to the "truth" being sought, insofar as that truth is individual.
Comment: Excellent answer, however, there is one item missing: the truth which is self-evident -- or that which *must* exist for one to have the question and the thought at all.  In other words:  Who is the seeker?  These types of "truths" which arise need a name, perhaps *a priori*.  For the Jews, God is one such truth -- for they saw him create them, without which they could not exist to have the doubt.  For them (and all from that history), the Tree of Knowledge and the serpent started the process of (self-)doubt.  Nakedness (the shame of self), for example, was the first act of it.
Answer: Yes, it is certainly a considerable and plausible explanation that what they have experienced is entirely a psychological effect. Tho, what then is the psychological or neurobiological cause of this effect and how might knowledge be obtained regarding such a claim or explanation?
As to your question:

How can anyone who hasn't realised the truth claim that Mahatma Buddha or any other person in history realised the God or Truth?

I am not sure what you mean by either "realised the truth" or "realised the Truth".
Truth is simply a condition of statements which is satisfied what what is said is corresponds to (matches, fits) what is (the world, the case, states of affairs, etc.)
Given this condition, it is useful in cases of adjudicating knowledge claims to distinguish what is true (correspondence of utterance and what is empirically verified) from what is "true to [you; me; us; or, them."
While it may be "true to [you; me; us; or them]" that "[you; I; we; they] have been divinely [inspired, contacted, communicated to; revealed to; et cetera]" such claims are epistemically limited to their status as self-knowledge.
For example, a mystic or a lay person may describe an experience as "God spoke to me" and for all intent and purpose this description may be sincere and the experience meaningful to them. It is, however, impossible for the claim to be verified by anyone else (much less falsified - how would you demonstrate that God had not spoken to them?) Such is a distinction of self-knowledge from empirical and axiomatic knowledge claims.
So, to answer your question, "How can anyone who has not X claim that someone else has X" it is worth considering the mundane answer to "how?" that people use their words. Of course, if someone who has not X and has spent a long time trying to X it may be psychologically advantageous to claim that someone else has X.
As for your stated intention to "know the truth" consider that truth is not a statement of what is. That is instead what true statements are. Truth is rather the state or condition of correspondence between what is and what one says is what is. And that is all it is. The phrases "truth of tomorrow", "one truth" and "truth of the physical world" etc. are thus epistemically vacuous. Rationally assessing a statements truth value requires logic as well as sense perception. To know the truth value of a sentence requires the empirical verification of what is said is. Knowledge is in fact empirical verification of what is (else how do you know what is?) Descriptions of what is admit of degrees, but truth value is exclusively either true or false.
For example, the following statements can be empirically verified:

the moon is roughly 239,000 miles from the Earth.
the moon is more than a mile away from the Earth.
the moon is closer to the Earth than the Sun.

All three statements are true. Not a single statement purports the exact distance between the two spheres perigees. All three statements can be falsified and empirically verified. When you empirically verify the statements of what is, you know the content of the statement. And this is the point: the distinction between truth value (exclusively true or false) and knowledge of the statements content.
So, what to make of the claim that "God spoke to me"? The person who makes the claim sincerely and has a memory of the time "God spoke to them" can only describe the case and claim it as "true to them". There is simply no way to also know that "God spoke to them" except if "to know" is used to mean "agree". There is, however, a vast epistemic difference between agreement and verification. Hence, statements of self-knowledge - even mundane statements such as "I feel glad" - are not rationally assessable as either true or false and empirical knowledge may not be claimed in instances of self-knowledge.


Creating pages dynamically through code?

Question: First thing is first, I'm doing this in Sharepoint 2013.
I'm not exactly sure what the best approach is to be, so I'm explaining my problem and hopefully people can throw around some terms or ideas that I can look up.
Basically we want to have a very cliched setup where there's regions/divisions and a project structure, so ultimately there's going to be Pages that represent a Project, a Project resides under a Region/Division.
Each project would have webpart sections displaying filtered data from a shared List, i.e. that List would have a Region/Division fields so that we can filter it down to those records to show on the Project.
But the issue here is I'll need to author a custom Administration Page that lets people generate a new Project on demand, and consequently it will create a new page.
Firstly I can't find much information with generating an actual Sharepoint Page dynamically through code, is this common or even possible?
Also, is it the correct way to author this Administration Page through the Sharepoint 2013 Designer?
Thank you in advance for everyone's help.
Answer: You can use SharePoint API : PublishingWeb (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.sharepoint.publishing.publishingweb_methods.aspx) with the method "AddPublishingPage"
if you need to customize this page after creation (i.e. add webparts on it), simply use SPWebPartManager (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.sharepoint.webpartpages.spwebpartmanager.aspx)
Using those APIs assume that your Web has the publishing feature activated.
hope that helps


What are the statuses of Silicene and Graphene for real world circuit production?

Question: A lot of hype is out there about both of them (especially the latter) and I was wondering if there is more concrete information about them other than the news IBM posted on a circuit 2 years ago and the patent war about Graphene transistors involving Samsung and IBM among others. Also, what's up with Silicene? Is it of any importance or is the hype there only because it is based on Si?
Answer: When silicene is buckled on the substrate it has a substantial band gap or in other words it can be turned on or off thus making it appropriate for digital applications. Graphene doesn't have a band gap so it isn't so good for digital circuits. Although techniques have been developed to produce a band gap and transistors have been made, they say that the processes are too expensive to be practical for at least for the next 20 years. The first p and n materials necessary for transistors were only made in November of 2012 out of silicene so it is still in the baby stages.  It is so promising because it is compatible with existing cpu and memory chip production technology which suggests that it could be turned into chips much sooner than graphine.  If you want the references just google silicene and look for the research papers after July 2012.


Account Management extension for Joomla

Question: Suppose I am operating share trading business and have thousands of clients. Is there any extension that helps me take care of accounting needs as well in addition to functions of customer relationshop managemnet (CRM) like name of clients, address, phone no etc.
Answer: Hope this can help Joomla Book Keeping. You can Google Php based open source scripts which you can implement and integrate into Joomla
Comment: Joomla Book Keeping is project that made me really excited but appears that the same is no more active. Could you suggest few alternatives?

Account Management extension for Joomla


Firefly sound (stylized)

Question: I am designing sound for a game in which the player deals with fireflies on the game board. I realize that real fireflies don't make sound, but does anyone have any suggestions for how to create a "hum" or such that would suit? Thanks
Comment: It is not my answer but just sharing. I read in a novel (in Telugu language), in which a character listens to the song of fireflies in the forest. I was wondering if the fireflies make any sound at all leave alone singing. Now I know. They don't. :-)
Answer: An idea for the wings:
Try grabbing a pair of gloves (any kind will do as long as they make noise when you flap them). Put them together palm-to-palm and grib the wrist part in your hands. Record yourself shaking the fingers back and forth rapidly. This is a fairly well-used technique for the sound of bird wings, if it sounds familiar...
Take these recordings and pitch them up (a lot) until they have more of a buzzing sound. You'll need to set your pitch shifter so that as the pitch goes higher, the duration becomes shorter—for instance, in the pro tools pitch shifter plugin you would disable 'Time Correction'. I tried this trick as a part of a guerilla sound design challenge (had to make the wings of a fairy) and the result was very cool. It still had the feeling of individual wings but the speed of the buzz of an insect.
Just my $.02. Enjoy!
~Matt
Answer: Coincidentally, I'd asked a similar question of one of my teachers - in particular I'd wanted to do the sound of wings.  His suggestion: load some/any sounds into kontakt, loop a portion, play em high and add square wave LFOs to volume or pitch, control the LFO freq with pitch bend. You might want an envelope on volume with a 1.5 sec release
Worked pretty well for me.
Comment: Thanks for all the help. I was eventually able to create an approximation of the bioluminescent, shimmery sound I had in mind by using a combination of the synths and FX in Ableton. It can be heard at: http://www.mediafire.com/?b43xlvgcnk66f7e. Thanks again!
Answer: Don't know what kind of game it is, but that sound you uploaded to mediafire sounds good, but pretty static. If it's being played for a long time you might want to add some volume and filter modulation to it.
Also if there is a chance to do distance attenuation I'd add the very high pitched wingflaps (as suggested by others) with very steep volume curve so that they can be only heard when camera is straight next to fireflies.

Firefly sound (stylized)


Using my photos of a US branded product to print on fabric panels for sale

Question: I design fabric panels for quilting that are based on photographs.  If I have photos I've taken of a vintage John Deere tractor, significantly modified but the word John Deere is still visible from the 1950's, is that copyright infringement? Same for a panel designed from multiple photographs of Harley motorcycles.  There are many photographs taken and sold of vintage Ford and Chevrolet cars and trucks evidently without issue as it is a common practice.  I understand the company owns the logo and name but I own the photograph.  Another example I photographed vintage John Deere tractor toys outdoors for the same purpose.  Don't want to infringe or get sued.  Thank you.
Comment: Your question seems more about Trademarks than Copyrights. I'm reasonably sure different laws would apply, even if I don't know what they are.
Comment: You should ask this question on the Law SE site.
Answer: Springs Creative Products Group currently holds the license for John Deere products, and have done for many years. If you are a quilter, you may well have seen their quilting fabrics. Their John Deere tractor fabric is very popular (I used to sell it). If you want to stay on the right side of the law, I would suggest that you contact either John Deere or Springs directly.
They are unlikely to object to the use of your own photographs of John Deere tractors, but they are likely to object to use of the John Deere logo outside of a photographic context, or use of the John Deere colours (yellow and green) as part of your fabric design. They will also object if you use the words "John Deere" in your product's name and/or description.
Answer: Copyright law is complicated and varies greatly depending on many important factors, it only gets more complicated when you start dealing with intellectual property and trademark law on top of it.
Your best option is to consult a copyright lawyer in your jurisdiction to advise you.
IANAL, but based on my limited understanding. Ownership of the copyright of a work does not necessarily grant you the right to freely sell said work, only to restrict others from doing so. For example, in some countries it is illegal to publish or sell any image that contains a person unless you have obtained a model release from that person. You cannot publish or sell the image because their likeness is in it, and they cannot reproduce the image because of your copyright.
Conversely, in New York, this is based on expectation of privacy. For example, I can take and sell a picture of someone sitting on the street, but if they are in a sidewalk cafe with any type of barrier—even though I can see them from the street—I cannot sell the image because they are not considered to be "in public."
When you move from a person's likeness to a brand (which one could argue is the public likeness of the group of people the corporation represents) many additional considerations apply. In fact, the answer could be completely different for different brands because each will have their own policies and licensing practices for their brand.
I hope that gives you an idea of the complexity of some of the issues at play, and I'm drastically oversimplifying things to demonstrate the point. Again, if you are concerned about copyright, contact a lawyer to advise you.


Siblings marrying siblings

Question: Can two siblings in one family marry two siblings of another family?
Comment: I know a case of four brothers and a sister who married four sisters and a brother. However, two couples got divorced, and at most, four couples were married simultaneously.
Answer: Yes. Many Mishnayos in Yevamos are premised on that very situation. See for example chapter 3 mishna 1.
Answer: Some have a custom to allow such marriages, but to have the siblings live afterwards in different cities. (This is sort of a compromise between the two positions that Shalom mentioned.)
The Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l writes in one of his letters (Igros Kodesh, vol. 3, p. 182) that his father R' Levi Yitzchak Schneersohn and his uncle R' Shmuel Schneersohn were advised by the then Lubavitcher Rebbe, R' Shalom Dovber Schneersohn, to do exactly that when shidduchim were proposed for them with two sisters.
(To clarify, this applies only when two brothers are marrying two sisters. The question mentioned "siblings," which could also be a case of a brother and sister marrying a sister and brother from another family. There is no objection to that, as far as I know, and thus no reason to have them live in different cities.)
Comment: Why would their being in different cities be a compromise? What good is that?
Comment: @msh210: it avoids the potential issue of ayin hara. (I think I've also seen an idea somewhere that it makes less likely the possibility of inappropriately close relationships between the couples.)
Answer: Yes.
The Sefer Chasidim says not to, but the Noda Bihudah observes that the Talmud says it's fine.   (See Barry's answer.)
The Noda Bihudah concludes that the Sefer Chasidim must have been talking about some special case.  (Marrying someone with the same name as your parent is a similar case -- Talmud says it's fine, Sefer Chasidim says it's a problem; there, the Noda Bihudah suggests that the Sefer Chasidim knew through divine inspiration that any such marriage among his offspring would not be a happy one.)
(The above heard on a yutorah shiur from Rabbi J. David Bleich shlit'a.)
Regarding the same-name-as-parent issue, someone asked R' Moshe Feinstein.  He said it's the kind of thing that if it doesn't bother you, don't worry about it, and if you're asking me whether to worry about the Sefer Chasidim, that means it doesn't really bother you, so go for it.
Comment: In the letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe that I cited in my reply (Hebrew text at http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/admur/ig/3/522, with a followup at http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/admur/ig/3/534), he quotes Mekor Chessed (a commentary on Sefer Chassidim), who points out that while indeed the Gemara speaks of such marriages (Berachos 44a, which the Noda Bihudah cites), we find elsewhere that one or more of them indeed ended in tragedy, r"l (see Yerushalmi Taanis 4:5 and Bava Basra 12a). So it's not so straightforward to ignore SC's warning.
Comment: R Moshe has a son-in-law with his name, R Moshe Tendler. And I believe I heard that R Moshes father-in-law was also named Moshe.

Siblings marrying siblings


What exactly is "Gestell" in Heidegger?

Question: I've been reading up on Heidegger's Concept of Technology but for the life of me I can't quite grasp the idea of Gestell, would anyone care to explain in simple terms what he means by Gestell (enframing) please? I've read some research papers with the authors trying to explain it but the way they explained the concept it's still a little to abstract for me. Thanks :)
Comment: Can it be identical to the notion of habitus in Bourdieu?
Answer: It's not just you
First of all, any difficult you face in understanding what Heidegger meant is more likely Heidegger's fault than yours. He is an infamously unclear writer.
Gestell in ordinary German means a physical framework, frame, structure, chassis, rack, stand, trestle, etc. But Heidegger is obviously not using the ordinary meaning of the word.
Heidegger's translators sometimes translate Gestell as "enframing" (a word that is not in any standard English dictionary).
What makes Heidegger's usage of Gestell especially annoying is that he never offers a really clear explanation of exactly what he means. This is the best we get:
"Enframing ['Gestell'] means the gathering together of that setting-upon which sets upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal the real, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve. Enframing means that way of revealing which holds sway in the essence of modern technology and which is itself nothing technological." ("Question Concerning Technology") [1]
Not super clear.
It's tough to find scholarly work that offers a clear and convincing explanation of what Heidegger meant. A lot of the articles written on the subject are almost as obscure as Heidegger's original writings.
How to interpret Gestell
An author of an entry about Heidegger's aesthetics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote that Gestell is the "name for the technological understanding of being that underlies and shapes our contemporary age." [2] This is a good start.
Heidegger expressed concern that people in the modern world were thinking about ourselves, other people and nature in general as things to be used (and used as efficiently as possible). He didn't like the way people adopted similar mindsets when using a machine and interacting with a person or nature. "Enframing" is best understood as that way of thinking about and engaging with the world.
You might say that the naming of "human resource" department at your company or the "natural resource" agency of your government is a result of enframing (i.e. viewing people and nature as resources to be used).
EDIT: I should clarify that the sort of technological enframing described above is only one type of enframing. You can interpret "Gestell"  not just as the specific way of thinking I described, which Heidegger thought was inauthentic, but also more generally as any way of structuring our experience, attitudes, values, and manner of engagement with the world.
[1] Heidegger, Martin. 1977. Basic writings. Ed. David Ferrell Krell. New York: Harper. Page 302.
[2] Thomson, Iain, "Heidegger's Aesthetics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/heidegger-aesthetics/.
Comment: Virmaior: I actually am inclined to agree, for the most part.

Heidegger definitely seems to view enframing as a fundamental feature of human thinking. And this makes sense on the minimalist interpretation of "Gestell" -- i.e. any way of structuring experiences, attitudes, and values. On this definition of enframing, a non-enframed outlook will be hard to come by. We can't help but use some way of structuring our experiences, attitudes, and values.
Comment: I'm not sure that *Gestell* must always be inauthentic. I take Heidegger to view it as a necessary feature of human thinking. At the same time, any *Gestell* that isn't being-towards-death or being-before-Being (which is the same) is going to be inauthentic.
Answer: I understand by the term Gestell in Heidegger the framing of our world. I take it to be a protean reference to hermeneutics as the idea that we have "horizons." To word it another, Gestell is Heidegger's way of saying the Kantian point that we have no epistemic access to the thing in itself.
One thing that is confusing is that in the "question concerning technology," Heidegger mentions Gestell in a negative light as the thing that frames our experience and orients it towards the technological. But it's important to see it as doing more. I would say technology is one Gestell, but there can be others.
For Heidegger any framing that is different from our authentic frame (being towards our own death, i.e. the question of being) is going to prove negative. But in the later Heidegger, we might say it is necessary.
The fourfold is also a (en)framing for him and thus a Gestell.
The nature of our beings is that we need something to organize experience.
Comment: What's the 'four-fold' for Heidegger? I don't suppose it has any connection to Schopenhauers use of it - I think he used it as in Aristotles division of causes.
Comment: I haven't read it, but the picture seems right: https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/heideggers-fourfold-das-geviert/
Answer: By comparison with what's said in Deleuze & Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus about the State or Apparatus of Capture, I would suggest the heuristic & practical-oriented use of the following definition:
Gestell: the built system of thought channelling human actions - a flow's forced movement & direction via a conduit as opposed to its clinamen (aleatory encounter & turbulent self-complexifying) - compulsory labor not free action.
Answer: My simple interpretation is this. Gestell, translated as Together-Forced-Ness
behaves as if it were a Spritual Being interacting with human individuals.
Remember some 20 years ago when cellphones were appearing? People said: I'll never get one of those, never needed before, why now? (They even had a derogatory nickname, implying pet for the rich, remember?) Got one now? That is Gestell.
Comment: I think this to be not completely wrong, but not getting the point: Gestell as the factual circumstances defining the hermeneutical space available by providing the structural necessities (Gestell = structure carrying weight) for a certain understanding of the world and at the same time limiting us to these means of understanding. Therefore, mobiles are part of the *Gestell*, but the together-forced-ness in Heidegger is one of understanding, not social pressure.
Answer:
I've been reading up on Heidegger's Concept of Technology but for the
  life of me I can't quite grasp the idea of Gestell, would anyone care
  to explain in simple terms what he means by Gestell (enframing)
  please? I've read some research papers with the authors trying to
  explain it but the way they explained the concept it's still a little
  to abstract for me. Thanks :)

The ordinary meaning is that science works in terms of effects. Whereas all human and animal thinking happens in terms of means to an end. One keeps seeing what some effect can cause, storing up all the possible things that can happen as though putting things on the shelf of a storeroom.
So long as we see it in this ordinary way, "ordinary" is a cipher for a kind of captivation by the current average outlook of man as man. We have enough of the explanation as soon as we hear it. Effects? OK, understood, now let's go read the latest ideas of the Speculative Realists--much-more interesting by far! Therefore, in the work called Heidegger, one can not stay with the plain description which, this work says, is deadly to philosophizing.

What exactly is "Gestell" in Heidegger?


Does the allegorical approach to the Song of Solomon do the text justice?

Question: Through two millennia the Song of Solomon was interpreted by most Jewish and Christian scholars as an allegory of God's relationship with Israel, or Jesus' relationship with the church.  Only lately has the scholarly opinion shifted toward the literal approach.  Do the many detailed physical descriptions in the Song of Solomon prove that it was meant literally, or is there another explanation for them?  Or are there any other arguments against the allegorical interpretation?
Answer: The traditional allegories are anachronistic. So, if you accept the text as a product of human effort, it's not one of them. I'm unaware of anyone who has ever argued that it was written (in the ordinary sense) by a person intending an allegory -- that is, an allegory that made sense to someone reading at the time. The Christian version wasn't going to emerge without divine assistance from the pen of Solomon, for example.
Thus, I don't think your question is answerable in the frame of discussion here. The allegory arises as a doctrinal interpretation, not in response to the internal evidence of the text, or comparable texts from ancient Near East.
'Prove' is about truth, and this site isn't about truth. None of us 'critics' can prove that G-d didn't dictate the text, and none of you non-'critics' can 'prove' the contrary, if by 'prove' you mean 'by adducing evidence other than the evidence of things unseen'.
There is, however, some ambiguity as follows. The text walks, talks, and quacks as a set of love poems. Period (textually speaking). However, someone, some persons, decided to canonize it. In point of fact, some Jewish persons. We can't know what they were thinking; they've left no evidence. Did they canonize because these poems were attributed to Solomon, and that was good enough for them? Or did they canonize because an allegory had been traditionally attached to them at some point in the past? Or did they canonize because they thought of the allegory on the spot? We don't know. So a sort of middle ground is that some (more or less divinely-inspired person(s)) took these poems, edited them, and canonized them with allegorical intent.


Have you guys ever tried Chinese beer? How would you rate it?

Question: I am a Food & Beverage industry analyst from China and I'd like to know if other overseas consumers know Chinese Beer and how do you guys rate it? Also, which brands do you know of (Tsingtao)? And any other opinions.
Personally I prefer German beer and don't like Chinese beer.
Comment: What does [tag:3.2-beer] mean?
Comment: @MonicaCellio The tag doesn't really apply to this question, but 3-2 beer is the term for reduced alcohol beer that is all some states allow to be sold by a supermarket or convenience store type retailer.  The name comes from the fact that these laws have typcially specified that only beer with an ABV of 3.2% or less may be sold by these licensees.
Comment: I updated the tag to reflect its meaning. It probably shouldn't be on this question now (unless chinese beers are all especially low gravity?)
Comment: You can find Tsingtao for sale in Italy, typically in Chinese, Japanese or Asian fusion restaurants. I think this is also due to compliancy to some western or EU standard of production (but this should be double checked)
Answer: Most Chinese Beers are pale lagers or pilsners - bland, tasteless, and topped with glycerin as a stabilizer which gives people a pounding headache.
Many of my Chinese and foreigner friends would drink Carelsberg at the bar - a danish bland and tasteless beer.
When we had the money for it, everyone bought German or Belgian beer,
even my friends in the far western provinces of Sichuan and Yunnan.
Answer: Not really a Chinese beer, but in what I assume is Chinese style... I've enjoyed a couple lucky buddha's. Maybe it's similar in that it's rice based. It was very light and easy drinking.
I've heard of a Chinese beer called Snow and heard that it's extremely popular and well rated. I don't know how I can get any (probably can't) but would love to try it.
Answer: I visited China last year and tried some of the local beers, including Tsingtao.  I was a bit surprised at the lack of variety (almost everything was a pilsner style larger) and that most beers were mid-strength at most.
None of them tasted bad, but nothing really stood out.


Use Canon T3i as a HD Webcam

Question: I am looking to be able to use my Canon EOS Rebel T3i as a webcam on a computer, both Mac and Windows based. Some uses for this would be a HD live stream or the ability to record video directly to my computer. I know I would need to use an HDMI cable to connect my T3i to my computer. Since there is no HDMI in on the computers I will be using (or any computer that I know of) I would need a way to connect my T3i's HDMI out to my computer. I am looking at the Blackmagic Design Intensity Shuttle for USB 3.0 and the elgato Game Capture HD. It needs to be able to work with USB 2.0, as that is the only port that I have on both of the computers I would be using this with. The elgato runs from USB 2.0 and where the Intensity uses 3.0. I need to know 100% that the Intensity would work on 2.0. I also need to know if they would show up as a webcam on the computer. The apps I would be using would be Skype, EasyWorship, and an Twitch.tv.
Answer: You can probably do it directly through the EOS software.  It is possible to get a live video stream from the camera over the USB connection.  Note that USB2 is not going to be able to carry a full quality HDMI stream though.  This is why the Intensity is USB3.  It requires USB3 because the bandwidth requirements for the quality level it is working at require USB3 data rates.  If you have a firewire port on both, that would be an alternate option.
There are systems that have HDMI capture, but they are due to having an encoder card like the internal version of the Intensity.  If it is a desktop that doesn't have USB3, it may be possible to get a USB3 card for that system.  I personally have used an addin card for USB3 support on my desktop (a first gen i7) and it works great.
No matter what you do, there is a good chance you are going to have to hack your way to getting it to show up as a webcam.  It would likely show up as a capture device though, which should work with EasyWorship or ProPresenter.  (Personally I'm an old MediaShout fan that is looking at swapping to ProPresenter since Media Shout went pretty awful with version 4, but I've used all 3.)
One other option you haven't considered is that there may be a way to use the USB connection to pull the LiveView feed that EOS Utility uses, but it still wouldn't be as good of quality as something like an Intensity, but free is good and it would likely support USB2.
Comment: What frame rate can you achieve with usb 3.0 and liveview?
Comment: I don't know of any DSLR bodies that support USB3 yet.  If maximizing quality is a concern, you should really get an HDMI capture card such as the Black Magic Intensity and then use a DSLR with clean HDMI output.  That's the more professional way, but the cost goes up too.
Comment: It seems that the T3i (the DSLR I have) has clean HDMI output, it turns SD when the record button is pressed, so streaming with Black Magic would work right?
Comment: If you have a clean HDMI output, then you could capture via the Black Magic devices and then should be able to use any streaming software that supports a video capture device.

Use Canon T3i as a HD Webcam


Quantitative Real Estate Investment Finance

Question: I'm wondering if there is an application of quantitative finance to real estate investment? Specifically I'm wondering about models for pricing small neighborhoods (or even single houses) that take into account things like price, average rent, taxes, interest rates, etc. A preliminary google search showed a few basic models, for example geometric brownian motion. Is there a good reason why quantitative finance methods might not be as useful for real estate pricing?
Comment: Zillow does a lot of this on the back end.  Would be interesting to see the models they use.
Comment: Perhaps *The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics* would be a good place to look?
Comment: There is a large amount of quant research on the behavior of mortgage borrowers, for example on the decision to refinance or not (so called prepayment models). Not sure if you are interested in that or not.
Answer: Quant finance is about finding prices of illiquid assets in terms of more liquid assets.
So if you have the the data for liquid small house prices you should be able to come up with a reasonable guess for less liquid larger houses, for example.
That's basically what's been done all the time - replication of complicated derivatives wrt more liquid assets.
I wouldn't worry about brownian motion and think more along the lines of regression for now.
Comment: Quantitative finance encompass more than pricing illiquid assets as evidenced by the diverse questions on this site and many definitions available on the web.
Answer: In fact there is at least one application, namely in the pricing of reversions. The simplest case of a reversion is where there is no ground rent, and where exclusive possession (including the right to sell the property, or to rent it out) is deferred to some future date.
Practically, this means foregoing any income from the property until the reversion date. There is some dispute about how to price reversions, and, weirdly, the discount from spot is set by expert witnesses and judges. Google 'Sportelli judgment' for an insight.
Logic suggests that the rate should be determined by the present value of the expected foregone rent.  More difficult than it sounds, since 'voids' (periods where property not let) and expected depreciation have to be taken into account. Short term rental is effectively a floating rate that can be reset periodically, with legal permission, whereas a lease (the opposite of a reversion) effectively fixes the long term rental value, analogous to the way that we can fix interest rates.
Note that reversions are settled in cash, rather than deferred settlement, unlike a forward, so everything is present value.


What is the difference between a P-51 Mustang and an A-36 Apache?

Question: Both were made by North American Aviation and the planes were almost twins - the A-36 having a ground attack role while the P-51 was a fighter. Are there any noticeable differences between the two?
Comment: You probably meant Piper (Apache).
Answer: They were largely the same aircraft but the first line of the A-36 wiki sums it up nicely

the ground-attack/dive bomber version of the North American P-51
  Mustang, from which it could be distinguished by the presence of
  rectangular, slatted dive brakes above and below the wings

later in the article they go on to list some more features

The contract for 500 A-36A aircraft fitted with bomb racks, dive
  brakes, and heavier-duty wing, was signed by Kelsey on 16 April
  1942,[6] even before the first flight of the first production P-51 in
  May 1942.

This website also lists the same mods as well as some other fun facts.
This website lists two other features noteably the vent window which is not mentioned elsewhere.

...and the installation of small vent windows in the windscreen side
  panels. In addition, two Browning M2 .50 caliber machine guns were
  mounted in each wing, and two more .50 cal. guns were mounted in the
  lower nose to fire through the propeller.
Answer: Please ... the A-36A has to have more wrong "information" on it both in print (as in books and magazines) and online in articles, photos and videos, than ANY other WWII aircraft.
First it is NOT a "derivative" or "version" of "variant" of the P-51A Mustang.  It's actually the other way around.  The P-51A is an offshoot of the A-36A - the last of the 500 A-36As rolled out of NAA Inglewood before the first P-51A was built.
Next, and THIS one is, for some reason, the most-repeated mistake of them all:  It's called the "Apache" in books, magazines, the Internet and on videos (and, as a result, in conversations between warbird nuts in person and in social media). The National Museum of the U. S. Air Force even had their A-36A "mislabeled" on the sign in front of it, until after I contacted them.  They corrected it to the only official name that it ever had, "Mustang," in September, 2018.
Here is an article that I wrote earlier this year.  Right after it was published, I received even MORE documentation from the Boeing Historical Archivist that, while it was superfluous (as in, "not really needed"), it verified beyond ANY shadow of a doubt, that "Mustang" is the only official name that the A-36A ever had.
Check it out: http://www.thehangardeck.com/news/2019/3/16/the-a-36-by-any-other-name
OH, and the only armament on the A-36A was the .50 Cal Browning Machine Gun - two were mounted in the nose/cheek position, and two in each wing. The 20 mm cannons were installed ONLY on the NA-91 aircraft, the first aircraft actually designated "P-51" (no suffix letters or numbers at first).  THEIR official name, in the USAAC/USAAF from late 1941 until 13 July, 1942 was "Apache."  After that date, anything made by NAA that even "looked like a Mustang" was called "Mustang," officially.  The A-36A came along AFTER that date in July, so it was a "Mustang" from "birth."
emphasized text strong text
If I knew HOW to attach images of documents to this post, I'd gladly do it.  The "Images" thing above seems to be only for images that are online, and my images are on my hard drives.
I will state that my documentation includes: scans of North American Aviation documents and newsletters and a Telegram from Dutch Kindelberger to Col Ennis, dated 13 July, '42, before the first A-36A was built;  references from the most-respected "Mustang Authors" (Robert Gruenhagen and Ray Wagner); references from the US Government.
I'm actually a humble person, so if someone would tell me how to attach MY images (without first getting them online, but directly from my HDDs), I'd be most appreciative.
My only goal here is to help my fellow warbird nuts be as correct as possible when talking about our beloved warbirds - REALLY
Comment: This would be a far better answer if it read less like a rant and more like wisdom from an expert.
Comment: Both this answer and the linked article (very interesting!) would be far better if they sited and linked or reproduced some of the sources for the claims. I'm not implying you're wrong (I wouldn't know it if you were), but if you're going to contradict "conventional wisdom" it's often considered helpful to show some evidence to backup your claims.
Comment: This doesn't _actually answer the question asked_ but is instead what appears to be a personal attack on other answers/comments. The OP asks what are the differences between the P-51 and the A-36. Instead of deriding 'wrong information', how about specifying the differences between the two aircraft?
Comment: TJL, FreeManand and CGCampbell ... thank you for  your comments.

I did not intend that ANYONE would see this as a "rant."  In the limited time that we all have for our "hobbies," we cannot be singularly "devoted" to one point. I apologize if my writing style seemed to HINT that I was ranting.  I'm a retired hospital pharmacist and I can type as fast as I can think - it came from being in that profession since the early 1970s.

I have < 160 characters left in this "Comment" but if anyone is interested, I can EDIT the above and attach more documentation that what is really necessary.
Comment: @TomGriffith To add an images just click the "image" button in the editor's toolbar. A little window will appar in which you can simply drag-and-drop your local image or hit the "browse" button to locally browse for your images. Maybe you want to read [the help page](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/help/formatting), section **Images** at the bottom.
Answer: The A-36 was a P-51A configured for ground attack with minor add-ons like the dive brakes and bomb racks (and 20mm cannon on some).  Both had the Allison engine which was not suitable for high altitudes.  The P-51 B and later had the RR Merlin.  Lots of other detail differences, but the engine is the main one when thinking of the A-36/P-51A vs P-51B and subs.
Comment: I'll try to NOT be a "rant" due to any perceived "sensitivity" on my part:  The P-51A was a derivative of the A-36A, if we're going to call the next aircraft the series a "derivative."  The A-36As finished production runs before the P-51As began to be manufactured by NAA.   It's even indicated in their NAA Model Numbers:  These numbers are consecutive, chronologically.  The A-36A Mustang was "NA-97" and that of the P-51A Mustang was "NA-99."

BTW, the "P-51A" designation is NOT a designation of all Allison Mustangs that were NOT A-36As.  It was the 5th production model of this "family."
Comment: @Tom Griffith, The A-36 is technically a variant of the P-51. It is heavily modified but remains extremely similar. Also, contradicting your claim, the first P-51A flew on October 26th, 1940. The A-36A apache, on the other hand, was first flown in 1942, meaning that the P-51 was actually built before. Also, have you ever heard the saying "outrageous claims need outrageous evidence"?, I recommend backing your answer with evidence.
Answer: The A-36A's main differences from the P-51 or Mustang 1 are the dive breaks, reinforced wings, nose mounted browning 50 cals, and others. The A-36 is technically a variant of the P-51. It is heavily modified but remains extremely similar. Also, contradicting @Tom Griffith, the first P-51 flew on october 26th, 1940. The A-36A apache, on the other hand, was first flown in 1942, meaning that the P-51 was actually built before. The later models of the p-51 (B,C,D,k, H...) used the merlin engine, the apache however retained the allison.
Comment: J Lopez, et al.  I am "spread too thin" I guess, and I have not had a chance to come back to this website to talk about the A-36 story, the P-51A story and other more "general" Mustang stories.
I don't know why my works seem to seem like "rants."  The only thing I can say is that when some folks (such as I) state something that goes against the most-often-repeated "story" or "concept" or "idea" --- whatever --- it may sound like a rant.
The aircraft that  flew in Oct, 1940 was not a P-51 at all.  I was the concept aircraft built by NAA, to demonstrate to the RAF as a P-40 replacement.
Comment: @TomGriffith, the aircraft that flew in October 1940 was a prototype, there is a difference between a concept and a prototype. And that prototype was the P-51s prototype and was designed as a fighter. The A-36 prototype first flew in september 1942. The P-51 entered service with the RAF in April 1942. The A-36 entered service in June 1943, according to the national museum of the USAF, and many other websites. This proves that the P-51 was designed and built before the A-36, because it was first flown first, and entered service first.
Comment: J Lopez...I tried to send a reply, and this comment box said it was too long, even after I "trimmed" it to the point of ridiculousness.

I feel that YOU really want to know the facts - the truth as it were - about the designations and the order of production of the various production Mustangs.

I really want to help you with this.  I've done it wit a number of folks that I've met through Facebook.

Get back to me, please.   We have much to share and learn (I admit that I'm still learning after > 50 yrs of seriously LOVING Mustangs!
Comment: you're "splitting hairs."  I used the term "concept" a year and a half ago (I need to come here more often!) for this reason:  the NA-73X aircraft was built as a "civilian" aircraft - it had NO USAAC (or other government's) serial number.   Indeed, it had a CAA registration number, equivalent to a "Tail Number," but it was a CIVIL aircraft.

Once again - the Mustang Mk I that entered RAF service was NOT a "P-51" at all.  "P-51" was a USAAC/USAAF designation for the  third NAA aircraft of the Mustang family to be built, and the RAF's first Mustang is an earlier aircraft.
Answer: I have a link to my article from almost 2 yrs ago at TheHangarDeck.com.  I shall try - TRY - to attach scans of images of Primary Source Documents that firmly establish the "Mustang" name for the A-36A, that are actually ADDITIONAL documents that substantiate my point that the A-36A was never called "Apache" officially - EVER - during the WWII years.  Certainly, the pilots and groundcrew of the A-36A in the 27th Fighter-Bomber Group serving in the MTO called the A-36A "Invader" and actually petitioned NAA to change the official name to "Invader," but THAT name was already given to Douglas Aircraft Company for their A-26 Attack/Light-Medium Bomber.  I've reread the above and I do NOT see anything insulting or condescending --- if anyone's offended, then I did NOTHING to try to do so.
Let me try to attach those two images - scans of an NAA document in the form of a Telegram directly from Dutch Kindelberger, HIMSELF, to the USAAF's Chief of Public Relations, and the cover of the Parts Catalog for the A-36A.
Note that the first A-36A was not built until 2 or 3 months after the date of this Telegram.  The first P-51A was not built until after the A-36As had been rolling out the doors at NAA Inglewood.  The last A-36As, the first P-51As and strangely enough, the first P-51Bs had production dates that overlapped each other. THAT is an interesting fact.

Left Side:  Telegram dated 13 July, 1942       Right Side:  Cover of A-36A Parts Catalog
(Both supplied by The Boeing Company, owner of both images and all credit due to them)
Comment: I agree with you about the fact that the A-36's official name is the Mustang. Some pilots and ground crews called it Invader, others even called it apache, but the official name is Mustang. I have changed the name of this question to "What is the difference between a p51 mustang and an a-36 mustang" instead of A-36 apache. However someone needs to review and approve it, and nobody has done that yet.
Comment: However you incorrectly stated that the first P-51 was not built until after A-36 were being built for some time. This is inaccurate because the first P-51 entered service with the RAF in April 1942, and the first flight of the A-36 Mustang wasn't until September 1942.


raw code vs wordpress

Question: I am currently a CS student and an aspiring programmer/web developer. I am wondering whether it is worth taking the time to master html and css to make websites when CMS services/wysiwyg like wordpress and various others seem to be becoming more and more functional. Does anyone think these publishing services might eventually make the need to design websites from raw code unnecessary? If not, please explain why. If designing a website eventually becomes as simple as using Photoshop I would much rather invest my time in programming languages.
Answer: Absolutely not. While Wordpress and other CMSs allow for some powerful websites you still need to know the code behind it to really unleash their true power. For example, you could never make a theme for Wordpress without knowing HTML and CSS. It always helps to have an understanding of the architecture your platform runs off of as well, in WPs case PHP/MYSQL. I personally always end up making various modifications to the base code of my WP installs and make my own themes for it. So no, I don't think they will ever go away.
Answer: I think your question conflates design and development, though they're not even close to the same thing. Sites are rarely "designed from code"...they're designed in Photoshop by designers and translated into code by developers (of course, there are exceptions to this, but it's usually the case).
But I'll assume you're just saying, "since WordPress does a lot of the work for me upfront, do I really need to know how it works?"
Wordpress is a great framework to build on top of, but the system itself is made of "raw" css, php, html and JavaScript. If you don't understand all of these things (at least at a basic level), you'll never be able to develop your own themes and plugins, or even to customize existing ones. And in general, you won't be able to translate finished designs to functioning sites.
Because WordPress is so full-featured right out of the box (and because awesome support communities like this exist!), a lot of non-professionals get by as "copy-and-pasters"; never really understanding the code, but able to hack their way through issues as they pop up. This is fine if you're running a single, personal website. But if you plan to develop WordPress sites for other people (ie. professionally), you cannot get by without a solid understanding of php, html, css and JavaScript.
In fact, there's even MORE stuff you need to know. SQL, XML, JSON, AJAX, http protocol basics, apache configuration, SEO techniques, basic *nix commands, domain configuration...the list gets longer every day, not shorter.
So in short--yes, you need to have at least a basic understanding of how all of that stuff works if you plan to make websites for a living. No WYSIWYG or RAD tool will (in the foreseeable future, anyway) come along to replace the expertise of professional web designers and developers.
Answer: Simply put - site that runs on WordPress has just as much CSS and HTML as any other site.
If anything you need better CSS and HTML skills to produce design for CMS, because resulting markup will be dynamic and would be mixed with lots of third party code as well.

raw code vs wordpress


How does Google Analytics calculate Absolute Unique Visitors?

Question: I understand the basics of this - there's a cookie, some javascript, and so on.
But Google Analytics appears* to calculate Absolute Unique Visitors over an arbitrary time period. To see this, run the Absolute Unique Visitors report over a period of about a month.
It looks to me like Google Analytics might be getting total Absolute Unique Visitors over an arbitrary time period by just adding up the absolute unique visitors from each day, which is clearly not going to give the right answer.
Other people have pointed out that calculating unique visitors over an arbitrary time period is actually quite a hard problem.
Am I misunderstanding whats going on? Can anyone shed light on this?
(* = In my Google Analytics report, over any given time period, the total unique visitors (from the Absolute Unique Visitors report) is always higher than the total visits for the same period. Which is impossible. Other people report the same observation.)
Answer: According to Webopedia:

In Web analytics, including Google Analytics, absolute unique visitor is a "visitor type" report that will count each visitor to your website only once during the date range you have selected. If the visitor was on your site prior to the date range selected this visitor would be sub-classified as a prior visitor. If the visitor did not land on your site prior to date range selected for the report they are classified as a first time visitor.


How did Voldemort get his wand back?

Question: We know that Voldemort had the exact same wand in book 4 that he had from his beginning into Hogwarts. Problem is, it seems like his wand is unaccounted for after the Potter's death until the end of book 4. What happened to the wand?
Comment: It is a great question but I do not think that there is a definitive answer for this.  I can not ever recall any part of the book detailing how he got it though he definately had it when he was reborn in the cemetary.  I would presume it was entombed with his other possessions.
Comment: Accio Accio Accio!
Comment: Strictly speaking, it seems to me that Voldemort was in possession of his wand (or, at least. ***a wand,*** and whose else but his own would it have been?) by *the beginning* of book 4: «… Frank … opened his mouth and let out a scream.  He was screaming so loudly that he never heard the words the thing in the chair spoke *as it raised a wand.*  There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumpled.  He was dead before he hit the floor.»  – *Goblet of Fire*, Chapter 1 (The Riddle House)  [emphasis added]
Comment: @PeregrineRook We know it was already his wand since Frank appears just before Harry's parents during the Priori Incatatem in the graveyard :
"an old man Harry had seen only in a dream was now pushing himself out of the end of the wand just as Cedric had done... and his ghost, or his shadow, or whatever it was, fell next to Cedric's, and surveyed Harry and Voldemort, and the golden web, and the connected wands, with mild surprise, leaning on his walking stick...
"He was a real wizard, then?" the old man said, his eyes on Voldemort. "Killed me, that one did... You fight him, boy...""
Comment: @Cartolin: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I guess that you are supporting my comment, and affirming that the wand Voldemort had at the beginning of book 4 is the same one he had at the end of book 4. Right?
Comment: @PeregrineRook Yes, I am confirming that it's definitely the same one. And it's also definitely the one he had before he went into hiding when he killed Harry's parents, since we also see James and Lily coming out of it during the Priori Incantatem !
Comment: See also https://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/13425/4918 "Where Did Wormtail Hide Voldemort's Wand?"
Answer: As per J. K. Rowling,

Wormtail, desperate to curry favour, salvaged it from the place it had fallen and carried it to him. I admit that would have been a bit of a feat for a rat, but they are highly intelligent creatures!

Source : Rowling's web chat transcript
Answer: Basically, Voldemort's wand was last seen at Godric's Hollow at the time that he died. Voldemort got his wand back in the summer of 1994 when Peter Pettigrew brought the wand with him after retrieving it from Godric's Hollow in order to gain his favor in exchange for protection.
Below I have expanded on the reasoning I have behind this point of view as well as providing the material I based my answer off of. I also provided a couple of reasons why I believe Voldemort's wand stayed at Godric's Hollow until it was found years later after Peter left to find Voldemort.
The following is a timeline of important events related to Peter bringing the wand to Voldemort. It also shows when the different deaths occurred using Voldemort's wand.

6 June 1994:  Peter escaped from Hogwarts (Prisoner of Azkaban Page 452)
Circa June 1994: Peter found Voldemort's wand at Godric's Hollow J.K. Rowling's Bloomsbury Live Chat Interview
Circa Late June 1994: Peter brought the wand to Voldemort
Circa July 1994:  Peter found Bertha, bringing her to Voldemort. She had her mind searched and was killed afterward (Goblet of Fire Page 9)
19 August 1994:  Frank Bryce died (Goblet of Fire Pages 11, 13-14)

The largest piece of evidence for when Voldemort possessed his wand is the spirit shadows that emerged out of his wand in the order that they were killed in as a result of the Priori Incantatem effect. Thus we know the order these people were killed was: Cedric Diggory, Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, Lily Potter and James Potter (Goblet of Fire Pages 429-432).
The spirit shadows that appear from Voldemort's wand tells the reader that Voldemort had to have had his wand at the time the Potter's were killed and that the next time he had his wand was when Bertha Jorkins was killed. This means that Voldemort had to have had his wand as far back as July 1994. I don't believe that Voldemort had his wand before that since his defeat in 1981 reduced to "mere shadow and vapor". Voldemort told Harry that he has a form only when he shares another being's body (Sorcerer's Stone Page 236).
All of this leads me to believe that Voldemort was given his wand by Peter after he escaped Hogwarts and located Voldemort in Albania. One reason I don't believe Voldemort had the wand before this point is that he did not appear to use it when we saw him possessing Querril.

This leads to the question of how Voldemort got his wand back and where Peter got it from. The idea I believe is most likely is that Peter went to Godric's Hollow to get the wand in the summer of 1994.
When Wormtail escaped at the end of The Prisoners of Azkaban we see that he is extremely frightened that Sirus and Remus would kill him. I think this is the reason Peter chooses to return to Voldemort instead of hiding again. However, Peter knows that Voldemort would not be pleased that he hid away while doing nothing for so many years. This makes me believe that Peter would want to bring something that his master would value. In this case Voldemort's wand.
There are many possible places where Peter could have located the wand. However, the places I find to be the most likely are in the Ministry storage, in a place that Peter hid the wand, or it could have been left at Godric's Hollow.
To me, the Ministry of Magic feels like it would be too secure and possibly also hard to locate the exact place the wand could have been secured. As for the second possibility of Peter hiding Voldemort's wand; the main reason I doubt Peter hid Voldemort's wand before trying to run is that he was probably too scared of being caught by Sirus to consider that Voldemort's wand might be useful later.
So, this leaves Godric's Hollow as the last place I considered that Voldemort's wand would be found. Ordinarily, I would not consider this as a logical place to find Voldemort's wand since I would have thought the Ministry would have located it.
The reason I believe this to be the place Peter got the wand from is because of a quote made by J.K. Rowling in a live chat interview on Bloomsbury.com. As you can see below, J.K. Rowling states that Peter "salvaged [the wand] from the place it had fallen and carried it to [Voldemort]." This makes it sound very much like the wand was left at Godric's Hollow after Voldemort was defeated and never found until Peter came looking for it 13 years later.

Christiana: How did Voldemort get his wand back after he was in was
exile?
J.K. Rowling: Wormtail, desperate to curry favour, salvaged it
from the place it had fallen and carried it to him. I admit that would
have been a bit of a feat for a rat, but they are highly intelligent
creatures!
accio-quote, J.K. Rowling and the Live Chat, Bloomsbury.com, July 30, 2007 (2.00-3.00pm BST).
Comment: Welcome to SFF! This is a very nice first answer, of course if all of the information you have in here is relevant to the question it would be best to provide evidence for that too.
Answer: Presumably it was recovered by one of his supporters, likely Malfoy - he had a few of Voldemort's other personal possessions, after all.
Comment: Of course, there's always the chance that Voldy had retrieved his wand and stashed it somewhere before book 4.  He DID possess Quirrel for quite a while.  One of the things he did then could have been finding and stashing the wand.
Comment: i remeber the only two followers he had at that time where wormtail and bartie jr. both would have had a hard time having the wand for that long. all the other death eaters where unaware from his new rise to power.
Comment: It couldn't have been Malfoy, unless Wormtail stole it... Maybe Barty kept it at his home as a reminder?
Comment: @Pearsonartphoto Barty did live with his father, under the impirio(sp?) curse. it is possible that he and belatrix acquired the wand after the potters death, and hid it at some place before being sent to azkaban. the book and movie don't agree on barty his release but the book never states what wand Voldemort uses before liberating barty.
Comment: @Jeff: But you think the ministry wouldn't leave an unprotected want laying around. Hmmm...
Comment: @Pearson: I think the Ministry isn't competent to protect a Trapper-Keeper (do the kids still have those?), let alone a death-stick sought by many of the most powerful bad guys.
Comment: @Pearson: Building on Jeff Not to mention there were death eaters in the ministry would could have actively obstructed any efforts to affect reclaiming the wand.
Answer: I think it is implied as one of the things Wormtail does for Voldemort after they are re-united between the third and fourth books, because Voldemort definitely has the wand at the beginning of the fourth book (known from the dream).
Answer: This is just speculation based on the events of the book:  The last time he had a wand between books 1 and 4 was at the Potters'.  Someone removed it from their house that night.  I have a feeling Dumbledore would have wanted it, he would not have let the Ministry get their hands on it.  He just needed someone to get it for him.  My guess is Hagrid (as we already know he was there to get Harry) or possibly even Snape (If JKR intended him to be there like he was in the movie, she might have made them place him there for those scenes).  They both would have given it to Dumbledore, who would have kept it hidden in plain sight at Hogwarts so on Voldemort's return he would have been able to get it.  (He especially would have wanted Voldemort to get the exact same phoenix wand after Harry bought its brother)  So I think that Wormtail, while he was wandering through Hogwarts during Ron and his brothers' school years, found it and hid it somewhere, realizing he could use it to get back Voldemort's protection.  Then when he broke free from the Ron he took it to Voldemort.
Answer: Well remember, Wormtail was the Potter's secret keeper, he was the one to tell Voldemort where they were hiding so he was probably at the scene, maybe not in the house, but nearby. He probably heard what happened and went inside to check it out. I'm guessing he took it then and stashed it somewhere before Sirious Black caught up to him.
Comment: Do you have any evidence to support this?
Comment: What does this answer add that others have not already covered?
Answer: Many people say that Wormtail could have had it the 14 years, or may have gotten it later... sometime in the middle...
I agree that somebody had the wand, and the possibilities were Wormtail and Barty Jr... (since the rest of them didn't even know Voldemort was alive)
But I think you were forgetting a very important "character" helping Voldemort at the beginning of book 4....
What if after Hagrid took Harry from the house, Nagini came in and kept the wand until it re-encounter his master... by the time Voldemort attacked harry for the first time, Voldemort had all the horrocruxes finished.
Comment: Voldemort came across Nagini in Albania. She wasn't hanging around in the UK, picking up random wands.
Answer: When Mrs. Rowling made her statement in 2007, she didn't say when Peter retrieved the wand.  It makes much more sense to me that Peter just followed Voldemort to the Potter's home to see what would happen.  Peter was not in any trouble at this time.  When the place exploded Peter made his way in, found the wand, and took Voldemort's less-than ghost to the forest of Albania (Alba now Scotland).  Peter knew where Voldemort and the wand was all along.
Comment: She's Mrs Rowling, btw.
Comment: Hi, welcome to SF&F.  Do you have any evidence for your theory?  Answers should be based on things we know, not pure speculation.
Answer: I absolutely agree with @dason's comment; what happens to the wand after Voldemort codswallops is still a mystery.
We can guess that Wormtail, Hagrid or Snape may have taken the wands. But Wormtail was busy running away from the scene, he created a fiasco and made Sirius go to Azkaban so I do not think he might have taken the wand then.
Hagrid and Snape both were in dilemma after the Potters were killed, so they might have not thought about Voldemort's wand either. And even if they would've picked his wand then there should've been some mentioning about it in the Chapter 'The boy who lived' from book 1, where Hagrid and Dumbledore meet for the first time after the attack.
Or if Snape had taken the wand then something should've been mentioned in Chapter 'The prince's memory' from book 7, where in the pensieve in Snapes memory, there's a scene when Snape comes running to see Dumbledore after Lily is killed. However, in both the cases nothing like that is mentioned.
The only possibility then left is that, Voldemort still possessed certain powers to retrieve his wand. Because it was also mentioned that he was possessing the body of other animals in the forest of Albania. If this required some kind of magic then it would mean that he still had the wand with him when he was in the forest of Albania.
Comment: This answer isn't really backed up by any facts from either the canon or JK Rowling. While this may be okay when no other evidence exists, there is already an answer (see post by ykombinator) which has a quote from JK Rowling that answers the question. If you have any evidence you can cite as to why Wormtail was not the one to remove the wand from the scene I would suggest editing your post to include that. Otherwise your logic is contradicted by what JK Rowling said.
Comment: Are you using 'codswallop' as a verb?!? Almost tempted to +1 for this alone!!! Gandalf'sFISTS is right, though. The accepted answer has a JKR quote which contradicts this answer.
Answer: Hagrid took the wand. Peter petigrew then found the wand in hagrid's hut whilst hiding from Sirius and returned it to Voldemort. This is the only explanation that matches the facts as given in the books.
Then the question is... is Hagrid a supporter of Voldemort?
Comment: Do you have any source for this? Or is it just speculation?
Comment: This doesn't make much sense, and is probably not the most logical explanation. In addition, if you're saying Pettigrew stole the Dark Lord's wand from Hagrid, why would that mean Hagrid might support Lord Voldemort?
Comment: What doesn't make sense? Who else could have retrieved the wand from the potter's house? Surely he ministry would have been on the scene shortly after Hagrid and Sirius... The murder weapon would then have been found and taken by the Ministry if not picked up earlier. Then ask yourself...why would Wormtail hide out in Hagrid's hut...

How did Voldemort get his wand back?


Driver's License Renewal

Question: My Georgia Driver's License has expired, and Georgia regulations specify I need to take a vision test if I am 64 or older, which I am.  I fly in to California on the 14th of June 2016 and I plan on driving cross country to Ga.  Does anyone know a way I can get a temporary license and also apply for insurance on my automobile ?
Comment: Possible duplicate of [How to renew a US driver's license when living abroad](https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/172/how-to-renew-a-us-drivers-license-when-living-abroad)
Comment: I don't think that this has anything to do with expatriation.
Comment: @Karlson I infer from "I fly into California" that Tim resides somewhere other than the US. Tim: if you don't live in Georgia, you're almost certainly ineligible to renew your license.
Comment: @phoog Flying to California implies not living in California. If it is outside the US it is more than likely that a person would have a drivers license from the country where he or she lives. Moreover a person living ouside the US would say flying to the US and than mention the the port of entry rather than a state.
Comment: @Karlson we've had at least a couple of questions from Americans who have been renewing their US licenses while living abroad, or who want to know how to do that, and I suspect that's the case here.
Comment: @Tim, Do you hold any valid driver's license at all from any country?
Answer: To the first part, it may be unlikely that you could be issued a temporary US drivers license. If you live outside the US (since you posted on the Expat site), are you in a position to acquire an international driving license? That would solve the issue of driving while in the US. As for insurance, rental car agreements offer that as an add-on option.
Before you make the very long drive across country to renew your Georgia license, note that the state now issues a license that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005. It now requires that you present two documents verifying your residency in the state (e.g., bank statement, utility bill(s), rental agreement).  In addition, you need a document proving your identify (original or certified copy of a valid US passport, birth certificate or citizenship certificate), and a document proving your social security number (original Social Security card, W-2 form, social security annual statement).
If your license expired more than two years ago, you would have to repeat all the tests (road signs, road rules, driving) along with the eye test. Georgia has made the process much easier, providing a tool to check-list your documents www.dds.ga.gov/secureid/index.aspx
You can expedite the process by creating an account and completing an online form (a questionnaire) no more than 30 days in advance (bring your confirmation number with you): https://online.dds.ga.gov/onlineservices/account/login.aspx
Should you have to take the road test, you can book an appointment in advance using the online tool.
At the end of your visit to a service center, you receive a temporary Xerox-type copy of the new license; the actual license is mailed to the address for which you provided proof of residency.
Using these tools, my experience at the Norcross service center took all of 35 minutes and the new license arrived in the mail eight days later.
Comment: You can't get an international license unless you hold a government-issued license. International licenses serve only to certify the authenticity of a "normal" license.
Comment: And in almost every state in the US the IDP isn't necessary, only the foreign license is. Unfortunately an exception is Georgia, where the IDP is necessary if the license isn't in English. See [here](https://voyage.caaquebec.com/en/before-leaving/permis-de-conduire-international/) for the comment about Quebec licenses in Georgia.
Answer: Since your entry to the US seems to be California an alternative, if you have a California address you can use, might be to apply for a California driver's license. Information about applying can be found here, while the requirements for a license are here. You will need to produce an identity document (e.g. passport) and provide them with your social security number, but I don't think there is a requirement to document your address (ignore the "AB60" stuff, that is for people who can't prove legal presence). You will need to take the written test and an eye test, but they will waive the driving test if you have had a California license in the past or possess an out-of-state license now; an expired out-of-state license is acceptable, though I'm not sure if there's a limit on how long it can be expired.  Once you've done this they'll give you a paper version of the license to use until they deliver the card.
Having obtained this there shouldn't be an issue insuring your vehicle and driving it. Once you get to Georgia you can move the insurance and swap the California license back for a Georgia license. The latter may require waiting for the California card to arrive (at the California address) and having whomever is there to receive it forward the license to you.
I wouldn't bother with all of this if you have a valid foreign license and IDP you can use for the drive back to Georgia. You'll need a valid license from somewhere for the drive, however, and you'll need to apply for that in person, so a California license will avoid the need for a trip to Georgia and back to renew that license.
Comment: The answer above says "...I don't think there is a requirement to document your address..." This is incorrect; the second link above (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl05) contains a bullet highlighting the "residency document" required by California DMV. A drivers license applicant must be a resident of California, and must present documentation to demonstrate this.

Driver's License Renewal


If the good deeds are erased due to Kufr or Shirk, is there any means of getting them back?

Question: As per Qur'an or Sunnah, once the good deeds are erased, can they ever be brought back? Or are they lost forever? I know it is entirely Allah(SWT)'s will, to return them or not. But, I want to know if any evidence exists that a certain deed or action can return the lost good deeds.
Answer: God Almighty said:

Except for those who repent, and believe, and act righteously. These will enter Paradise, and will not be wronged in the least (Surat Maryam:60)

and said:

God does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives anything less than that to whomever He wills. Whoever associates anything with God has devised a monstrous sin (Surat an-Nisa':48) (association means shirk)

and said:

Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves: do not despair of God's mercy, for God forgives all sins. He is indeed the Forgiver, the Clement (Surat az-Zumar:53) (My servants  establishes the concept that men are the servants of Allah alone, and its whole message revolves around the point that they should serve none but One Allah alone. The Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) himself was Allah's servant. Allah had sent him not as rabb (sustainer, providence) but as a Messenger so that he should himself serve Him and teach the other people also to serve Him alone)(serving God (Allah in arabic) means worshiping him only, that includes doing good deeds and having good manners but all these good deeds are worth nothing if one has worshiped other than God)

and said:

Say to those who disbelieve: if they desist, their past will be forgiven. But if they persist—the practice of the ancients has been going (Surat Al-Anfal:38) (the ancients practice: Which they have sinned and denied God's messengers, and so they were tormented)

Prophet Muhammad said:

The Almighty God extends his hand at night to repent sinner of the day, and extends his hand during the day to repent sinner of the night until the sun rises from its sunset (sun rising from its sunset is a metaphor of Judgment Day)

Prophet Muhammad also said: "Allah accepts the repentance of a servant unless he is dying"
Your question is focused mainly on repenting, from the Koran we know that one of the names of Almighty God (Allah -in Arabic-) is The Repentant, and the repentant is the one who accepts the repentance of his servants (worshipers) changing their paths from dark to light, any worshiper who has disobeyed and reached his extent of disobedience and then wanted to repent to God only, God will open the doors of his mercy, and rejoicing in his worshiper return and repentance, unless he died before that or the sun rises from the its sunset.
But if someone has gone into the path of polytheism, infidelity or even atheism (shirk or kufr) that means his belief in God was weak or fake because if the belief was strong and real he wouldn't go this way after believing and knowing the truth.Therefore the repenting require the will to not go back to such great and dangerous sins.
and God knows everything.


BitMinter Hash rate

Question: I checked on BitMinter (https://bitminter.com/) and it says my computational power is 2058Thps, is that a good thing for bitcoin mining, i'm rather new to the mining community and am uncertain. I would also like to know what software would be best to use on my computer, i am using a MSI GE62 Apache Pro.
Answer: That 2058 Thps is not your hash power, it's the total hash power of that mining pool.  And even if you have a super-fast computer, it's not worth mining. More info: In the ASIC-age, is it worth starting mining Bitcoin at home?

BitMinter Hash rate


Formating Windows XP

Question: Is their a way to format windows xp in a way that keeps all the service packs/drivers? I really dont wanna re-install everything....
Comment: You don't give any reasons why you think you need to format your copy of windows xp. Is it possible for you to do a repair install of windows instead of a clean/formatted Windows install? That would redo the install of the Windows OS without requiring you to reinstall your apps.
Answer: You can create a new installation cd with nLite.  It's somewhate involved because you need to download all the service packs and have your xp disc handy but the utility will combine all your service packs and updates (called slipstreaming) along with other files that you add so that the post install setup time is greatly reduced.
I work in a small non-profit and we often receive older machines that I set up in this way.  No more "install...reboot...install...reboot...check for updates...install...reboot...check for updates...install..reboot... you get the idea.
Answer: If you are talking about formatting your hard drive and then re-installing Windows then no, that's not possible. You will have to re-install all the service packs and drivers.
Comment: I dont want to reinstall windows just wanna wipe all data from windows.
Comment: Define what you mean by "wipe all data"?
Answer: If you want to delete all data so that it is not recoverable, then you need to completely and thoroughly wipe the drive using a tool like Darik's Boot and Nuke (DBAN).  There are programs that claim to shred the data (most frequently by repeatedly overwriting just those files you want deleted).  I'm not intimately familiar with these.  If simply removing the data so that the AVERAGE user isn't going to find it, I would suggest creating a new user account with admin rights and logging in to the machine.  Then use the System Control Panel to delete all user profiles except the one for the current user.  While this should wipe out MOST data, it's always possible a user stored a file (or many files) in another location on the drive, in which case, you can spend hours hunting for it... or you can wipe the disk with a format (somewhat recoverable) or use DBAN as mentioned before.
Any time you get rid of machines, I recommend DBAN wipes on them.  Then for reinstalls, create a new install CD/DVD using nlite as suggested above.  You can make the nlite install on another system and maintain a reasonably up-to-date installation media - if you update the media quarterly, you'll never have more than 3 months of Windows Update data to deal with.
Answer: When you format a disk, you wipe it. There is NOTHING (in effect) left on the disk. As mennes said nLite would be a good choice for creating an XP image with SP2/3 and all the updates if you dont want to have to go through tonnes of updates.
I could also point out AutoPatcher which works in a smilar way to Microsofts WSUS (updating services) in the way that you can download updates for XP, Server 2003 and whatnot and it istalls them all at the same time. You might need the odd prompt to accept a license agreement but it's easier than doing it through windows updates. You can store them updates on a shared disk and/or a CD and run the patches from a disk. Very useful and highly reccomeneded.

Formating Windows XP


How many notes are played (on a piano) at the same time at the maximum?

Question: Hey everyone :) I'm planning on building a piano/keyboard which plays its notes by controlling old electronic devices, to make them move at a certain frequency. But my question is, how many devices will i actually need in order so play good songs on that piano? What's the maximum amount of notes that have been used in a song by a piano at the same moment? I'm not that skilled in playing piano (yet).
Comment: Related [question](https://music.stackexchange.com/q/15789/2600) concerning number of simultaneous sounding channels.
Comment: Just out of curiosity, what kind of "electronic devices"? Is this like one of those things made of spinning platter hard drives?
Comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPdX85cv_D8
Comment: If your instrument isn't going to *sound* like a conventional piano, the question might be irrelevant. The more complex, and less "perfectly tuned", the sounds are, the fewer simultaneous notes your ears will tolerate. Try some experiments with your sound-producing devices, then decide for yourself.
Comment: That's a great point. A very large chord where all the notes are out of tune—I'd imagine tuning a printer or hard drive or whatever is … tough— will probably sound worse than a triad. It's the same way with distortion effects in that large complex chords tend to sound worse as you increase the gain.
Comment: Have you ever seen "arm-bar" chords played?  I have, and by accomplished soloists performing slightly off-the-wall pieces.
Comment: I'm planning on playing well-known classical tunes (Mozart, Beethoven etc) and making covers of modern rock music. movie soundtracks may be played on it too.
Answer: If you depress the damper/sustain pedal, you can play every note on the keyboard and have them sound simultaneously.  A digital piano might also be able to sound multiple voices from one keystroke.
I have seen a performing piano player run the back of his hand/fingers up/down the keyboard at the end of a song, so playing most of the white keys or most of the black.  The TV didn't show what his right foot was doing to the pedals.
My digital piano has 256 note polyphony and 88 keys.  I think it can play 3 voices simultaneously from the keyboard.  So this level of polyphony accommodates 3 voices played simultaneously (e.g piano, choir and harpsichord voices) with the damper/sustain pedal down.
Comment: Good point: these aren't struck simultaneously, but the sound exists simultaneously due to sustain.
Answer: I have seen some tone clusters implemented by using the forearm. It's not common. I suppose one could use both forearms. It's a very "modern" idea.
Comment: Have you any examples to share? I'm intrigued.
Answer: Well that's an interesting question.  The answer depends on the context I think.
If there is only one player, and he is only using his hands then I think the maximum that could be struck at the same time will be something like 12,13 or 14, although you rarely see this in most "regular" music.  I can play six notes with one hand fairly easily and perhaps seven if I try hard.
Of course if we are using the sustaining pedal then we can get many more notes sounding at once, even though they have not been struck at the same time.
Some more modern pieces call for the performer to strike the keyboard with some sort of aid - usually a shaped board which fits over the keys.  I seem to recall that there was supposed to be a piece which required one of these things that played every note at the same time (I might be mis-remembering that though).
Finally if there is more than one player - a duet for instance - then you can easily have 16+ notes simultaneously.
Comment: For one-handed piano chords with 6 or more notes, the maximum interval between notes should still only be around an eleventh, IMO. Tenths seem reasonable for men/stride/etc., but my maximum hand span is only a ninth, and I'm female.
Comment: But you can play 6 separate notes within an octave can't you?
Comment: Correct, as long as two of them are adjacent (I recommend adjacent white or black notes, not a white note-black note pair).
Comment: I've seen some videos about R&B chords where the guy's playing 6-7 notes in a hand on the piano. Pretty crazy stuff, and it sounds all right too!
Answer: 8-voice polyphony will get you a basic piano imitation.
32-voice polyphony may not be enough if you want to use the sustain pedal idiomatically!
You need to be wary of published specs.  '64-voice polyphony' is not so impressive if each note uses 4 voices.    'Voice' and 'note' can get muddled up in advertising-speak!
If we move focus away from 'piano' to 'keyboard instrument', we managed to play a lot of music on the Prophet 5 (5-voice) and Yamaha DX7 (16-voice).
Answer: The practical maximum is 10 because that's how many fingers you have. Yes you can use your palms and arms or lay a finger across two keys and some pieces call for an extreme amount of notes. Some other answers seem to have taken that word maximum to heart a bit too much considering that you're building a physical, electro-mechanical instrument where each extra voice comes at a premium.
So maybe the answers should focus more on this part:

But my question is, how many devices will i actually need in order so play good songs on that piano?

…rather than focusing on what are largely exceptional cases (smears, the songs with the absolute most simultaneous notes, etc).
One thing Emma touched on is the sustain pedal. I'd assumed you probably weren't using one given how I'm envisioning your project—it sounds similar to art projects where people have wired up hard drives and printers to vibrate. But if you are building in sustain that definitely changes things and you'll want more polyphony.
Lastly the ask yourself what genre you'd like to play because some will require more voices than others. But I think you'd be ok with 10 assuming no sustain pedal.
Also just about any tune could be simplified to fit whatever number of voices that you settle on. And since it sounds like you'll be the one playing it, it's only a problem if you mind having to do that.
Comment: Can't you cover more than 10 by using your outstretched palms sideways on the keyboard? Or Thelonious Monk , for example, would sometimes use his whole forearm and his elbows on the keyboard to achieve certain sounds - you will cover far more than 10 keys that way. _what genre(s) are you planning to play?_ - that's probably the best question.
Comment: Sure, yeah. But I'd consider that into exception territory rather than helpful for OP given that it sounds like each voice will require it's own hardware. And for (hammond) organ players, it's not even really an exception because things like smears are common technique.
Comment: I agree - just mentioning it. I didn't downvote.
Answer: At a lower limit, if you can't have more than six, it's not going to be useful. Piano players can easily and often do play chords with three notes per hand or more. Additionally, there are some chord types, namely 13th chords, that will have six notes (if excluding the eleventh). An absolute minimum would be six, because five or lower cripples the capabilities of the instrument to make music. On the higher limit, for pop genres generally six is the upper limit anyway. Other genres, especially jazz, which uses many extensions at once, and neo-soul, whose chords double notes and pretty much add every note of a scale and then some, tend to break 10 notes simultaneously without a second thought. So I'd say that depending on genre, a minimum of 6-polyphony, and at most probably 20-polyphony to be safe.


Mirrored Contours from DEM in QGIS

Question: I am trying to create contours from a DEM in QGIS 3.4. I used the GDAL raster extraction contour tool. The contours are drawn correctly, but they are mirrored along the north line of the DEM (see image). Is there a setting that I missed when generating the contours? Both the CRS of the DEM and the CRS of the project are UTM NAD83 Zone 10 North.
Here is the output log:
Processing algorithm…
Algorithm 'Contour' starting…
Input parameters:
{ 'BAND' : 1, 'CREATE_3D' : False, 'FIELD_NAME' : 'ELEV', 'IGNORE_NODATA' : False, 'INPUT' : 'C:/Users/talldrin/Documents/Northstar/18-057 Cal Park Lakes/Support Docs/Lidar/Merged_DEM.ovr', 'INTERVAL' : 1, 'NODATA' : None, 'OFFSET' : 0, 'OPTIONS' : '', 'OUTPUT' : 'C:/Users/talldrin/AppData/Local/Temp/processing_a23c4b552e994e69b31a00e2657e2022/378e907d22c44a6f9c1389afc43c00ec/OUTPUT.shp' }
GDAL command:
gdal_contour -b 1 -a ELEV -i 1.0 -f "ESRI Shapefile" "C:/Users/talldrin/Documents/Northstar/18-057 Cal Park Lakes/Support Docs/Lidar/Merged_DEM.ovr" C:/Users/talldrin/AppData/Local/Temp/processing_a23c4b552e994e69b31a00e2657e2022/378e907d22c44a6f9c1389afc43c00ec/OUTPUT.shp
GDAL command output:
0...10...20...30...40...50...60...70...80...90...100 - done.
Execution completed in 1.35 seconds
Results:
{'OUTPUT': }
Loading resulting layers
Algorithm 'Contour' finished
Comment: Welcome to GIS.StackExchange @Tim Alldrin! Can you [edit](https://gis.stackexchange.com/posts/314903/edit) your post to include the output log of the [Raster Information](https://docs.qgis.org/testing/en/docs/user_manual/processing_algs/gdal/rastermiscellaneous.html#raster-information) tool?
Comment: what format is your original DEM in? Some formats handle the y axis differently resulting in flips/mirrors like this. See [this question](https://gis.stackexchange.com/q/133054/55203) for a related example
Answer: Ok, so I figured it out. The DEM I was using was generated using ArcMap. When I brought it in to QGIS I had to assign the spatial reference and calculate the extent. For some reason the extent that it calculated had the NW corner of the DEM at 0,0 which resulted in the southern end of the DEM having negative coordinates. So I re-exported the DEM from ArcMap and brought it in to QGIS and reassigned the Spatial Reference and extent. This time the calculated extent was the same as the original DEM in ArcMap so all values were positive. After that the Contour tool ran fine. Thanks for your help!

Mirrored Contours from DEM in QGIS