How to discourage micromanagement in strategy games?

Question: When designing a strategy game (or one in a similar genre), how do you avoid having your players focus almost entirely on micromanagement? What should be done and what avoided in gameplay mechanics?
Comment: Quick answer: make the units smart enough that they don't need micromanagement.
Comment: Strategy & Tactics:  http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/tactics-strategy-do-you-know-the-difference.html
Comment: Is there any particular reason you want to avoid micromanagement? Also is there any particular place you want them to focus, like combat, building, or research? Some games like Majesty do this by not letting you control units, only create them and off encouragement to go somewhere eventually. Others like Evil Genius and Dungeon Keeper let you build a base and your critters have AI to do whatever they please. Personally I like games like AOE where you have to do some degree of management but then can automate stuff from there (like auto renewing farms or move and attack).
Answer: From left field:

Don't allow the player to give direct orders to his units

The idea is that you give the player's troops the same AI capabilities as the enemy, and then provide him with a goal setting system and a state toggle system.
The player can set goals/objectives attached to enemy units or map locations, such as:

Destroy this
Guard area
Clear out area

These "objectives" can be more sophisticated, and can be revealed to the player progressively during the game so that she isn't overwhelmed by new options.
Then, allow the player to switch the state of the units:

Aggressive
Defensive
Reserve
etc...

The unit AI then decides how to act. For example, reserve units might decide to spontaneously reinforce a failing defense objective, or patrol areas that the player marked as "To Guard", without the player having given any orders.
You could also set up a threshold system for units (for example, defensive units could have a low "repair damage" threshold, meaning that they return for repairs when they lightly damaged, whereas attack units would have a high threshold, exiting from a fight only when in a critical state.) Giving the player the option to customise states based on these threshold would give great re-playability and strategic depth. The player could then create new unit states to suite her gameplay.
This would eliminate the following complaints:

my troops won't kill weak units before targeting stronger ones, they won't target high dps units before lower dps units, they won't concentrate fire to take out individual units

Since those would be customisable thresholds and preferences.
A good analogy to what I am proposing is that in conventional RTSs, the player gives order to units on a battlefield, whereas in this system, she sets the doctrine of combat and the objectives, leaving the immediate tactics to subordinates (AI, in this example). In essence, she is teaching the AI her command style so that she doesn't have to make immediate tactical decisions.
Comment: Customising behaviour of units *is micromanagement*...
Comment: We fond in a game that implemented it it doesn't really work. Micromanagement became fine-tuned timing of state changes to manipulate the state AI into the exact formations desired, which in turn would mean the difference between winning and losing as often as not.
Comment: @Anko Individual units? Sure. Classes of units? Armies? Not really. You could even have saved "kits" that allow you to quickly choose from a few strategies prepared in advance... there's actually a huge amount of depth *without* frenetic micromanagement. You still want to make the game, you know, a game. The player must have something to do - and most importantly, something to learn, to improve upon, to play around with :))
Comment: +1 a more detailed and implementation-oriented answer than mine, though covering the same concept
Comment: @Joshua is correct. If toggling between attack/retreat is enough to kite an enemy your game innately has become broken for someone who can achieve less losses via micromanagement
Answer: Don't allow it. Give the player a specific role, and that's it. The guy who gives the orders to attack a group of enemies to the north isn't sitting there at the fight telling each guy who to shoot, he's back at base giving more orders to other soldiers.
For a more realistic/immersive experience, and to discourage/prevent micromanagement, allow the player (to choose(?)) a well-defined role, and don't allow actions that aren't part of that role.
Comment: If a player has the ability to do something and it can confer any amount of advantage, they will do it. If you reduce it's efficacy to the point that it is not useful, now it is just a useless feature that will confuse less experienced players, who will think that since they have the capacity to do it, it might be useful.
Comment: @JasonMorales I'm not sure how your comment relates to my answer. I'm not suggesting reducing the effectiveness of an action, but removing an action altogether. If you're job is to divide big-picture tasks across several teams, that's what you do. You give each team a task, but babysit them while they do it and make their decisions for them. Likewise, if your job is fighting to take over a settlement, you do the fighting, but likely don't decide *which* settlements to take/not take, or decide what other teams goals are.
Comment: I disagree. While it is true that a [micro]management that goes too deep will ruin the game, the same can be said about a management that is too shallow. Too many options, and it will be too confusing to new players, making it not become popular; Too few, and experienced players's ability to create unique strategies gets limited, making the game have a short lifespan due to a low "replay" factor.
Comment: My OP is that for an RTS, an 4x4-6x4 chart of options is best: 1=Basics [Move, Attack, Defend, Patrol] --- 2=Mode: [Aggressive (seeks and pursues indefinitely), Patrol (seeks/pursues temporarily or up to certain distance), Hold (holds and does not retreat), Defensive (holds and retreats)] --- 3=Withdraw (back-to-base // repairs): [When lightly damaged, When damaged, When critical, Never] --- 4=Target [Strongest, Weakest, Furthest, Closest] ... Additional: 5=Formation ["I", "V", "O", "U"] and 6=Group-targeting [Concentrate (1 target), Distribute (even), Priority (Even + T. type), @_Will (none)]
Comment: I guess it wasn't clear from the comment, but it was meant to be in support of your "don't allow it" reply
Answer: I agree with thedaian but would like to expand upon his point. Most micromanagment is done to make up for the AI being inefficient. When I micro its usually because either: my troops won't kill weak units before targeting stronger ones, they won't target high dps units before lower dps units, they won't concentrate fire to take out individual units (kind of goes back to the kill low hp units before high hp), or they block other units from entering the fight.
The last point is my biggest gripe and the source of most of my micromanagment in Starcraft. Darn buggies will make an impenetrable ring around the enemy units that doesn't allow my shorter ranged and slower units though. As a result I'm having to move buggies 10 feet forward to let my infantry though.
There's simply no point in micromanaging if the AI is efficiently utilizing the available units.
Answer:
Our life is frittered away by detail . . . simplify, simplify. (Henry David Thoreau)

My answer is similar to those that suggest picking a clear role for the player.  What they're really saying is to simplify I think.
The reason micromanagement happens is because there are very many choices to make during play, and in general they only really matter in aggregate, if at all.  "Strategy" as a game genre doesn't mean "an almighty pile of things to fiddle with," it means "making decisions with consequences that don't arrive for awhile."
I'll give two very classic examples.  Chess and Go are known for very deep strategy but both in both cases it results from very simple rules and very simple mechanical decisions.  The state of a chess game can be summarized into, what, thirty-two pairs of very small integers?  And your turn is to change the value of one of those pairs!
And yet, Chess and Go are both very well-loved by real military strategists, and have been for a very long period of time.  Surely that's saying something important to us armchair generals with our gee-whiz digital chessboards.
Another big problem with strategy gamers is that they have no understanding of how large groups of fighting units actually work together.  I've heard an aphorism, that "armchair generals talk tactics, real generals talk logistics."
Think it over.  Say I can position a particular starfighter in a space 4X game.  Starfighters work in squadrons, and breaking them up to has dramatic logistical and organizational consequences.  So why does the game let me move around an individual starfighter?  That'd be like the President of the United States calling your math teacher to give her suggestions about the day's lesson.  I'm the grand admiral of a mighty space fleet, so my units to move about the board should be task forces and battle groups.
There are ways to let players work on organizational choices though.  For instance, paper war games use "operational turns" which only come around once every several "tactical turns."  I can't recommend paper wargames enough for understanding good strategy game design.  James F. Dunnigan has written extensively on this kind of thing; his Complete Wargames Handbook is very insightful, provided you're willing to see past the datedness of some of the discussions.
Answer: If you want players to just focus on managing resources, economy, etc. you can do what Startopia did. Which is, the player recruits or produces units and then builds structures for them which they'll inhabit automatically. As for combat, player can set up points of interest for the troops to gather at or attack (if it's an enemy unit or building) and assign values to these points so the AI can decide which unit goes where.
If you're making a "hardcore" RTS like Starcraft, then it comes down to "either you learn to manage your economy or you'll get overrun", it's a matter of balancing the difficulty level, you won't stop 20 Hydralisks with 5 Marines no matter how good you are, etc. In multiplayer it's survival of the fittest, either you macro or you lose, so i wouldn't worry about that part.
Comment: +1 If you don't want to disable *micro* completely, then make **macro** more important. If you can kill 5 units with 4, but can't kill 2 with 1, then it's better to produce 6 units against 5 and 3 against 2. *Micro* is for when you're doing a final fight or you're as good that you can do both perfect **macro** and a little *micro*.
Answer: Instead of click-speed limiting how many orders a player can send, make it an in-game resource. Click too fast and you run our of orders and have to wait to accumulate new ones. Order single units and you can only afford to move a few per minute, but make big group moves and you can keep your entire army moving. There would still be a benefit to micro-manage, but it would be much more expensive in terms of leaving all other units without orders for a long time.
The in-game limit could be some abstract command-point counter (as used in several board wargames) or you could make it more part of the game world, eg by having messengers running/riding/flying to deliver orders. When all messengers are busy the player simply has to wait for one of them to return before being able to send a new order. Depending on theme it could be more or less difficult to make the limit fit in nicely.
Comment: +1 I like the idea to limit number of actions (e.g. APM)
Answer: Consider dividing the player's focus such that micromanagement is only available at a level of extreme focus.  In Starcraft or like games, the interface is the same whether you're building buildings or directing units.  However, if there were a context shift between resource management, camp development, large-scale strategic unit deployment, and small-scale tactical unit management, then staying too focused on any one of those areas could be detrimental to the others.
In short, make it so that when a player is engaging in micromanagement techniques, or when those actions are afforded by the UI, other (vital) information isn't visible.  This would give your player the opportunity to squeeze the most out of their combat units when they wanted to, but would make such micromanagement untenable over a long period of time.
Comment: I'm no expert, but IMO, the UI should always be meant to fulfill the player's needs, not restrain them. Challenge should only come from gameplay.
Comment: There's a difference between restrictions that are hostile to the player, and those that are meant to guide the player into which actions are appropriate for the context that they're in.  It's tough to find an example that can be expressed succinctly, so I'll just recommend Chapter 16 of [The Art of Game Design](http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Game-Design-lenses/dp/0123694965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332691867&sr=8-1).
Answer: The common suggestion seems to be to not allow the player to directly control the units at all. However, if you want the player to still have some control over the units, you can take some people's advice of making the AI good enough that micromanagement isn't necessary, or you can try my initial idea, which is to make units that just don't have a lot of micro potential. Some examples of this in StarCraft 2 would be the siege tank, and of course, the colossus.
Answer: Make Unit-Orders have a cost per order - regardless of unit size.
Let's say you give the player 10 "tokens" of something per turn - then giving orders to an individual unit costs one token, and giving orders to an entire squad also costs one token. If they have 10 squads, they can give every squad a group-order - or they can give 3-4 single units precise orders, at the cost of some squads getting zero orders.
In other words: let the player balance the decision on when to micro-manage, and when to not. If the AI is good enough for most squads, most of them time, then the player will use that - until a situation calls for finer-grained control than the group AI, then they can give individual units specific orders, at a cost.
This basically turns player Focus, into another resource to be managed.
Answer: Give them too many units. If you have a hundred units in a battle, not even a skilled RTS player can micromanage all of them. And secondly, make macromanagement more important. For example, in Warcraft 3 micromanagement was very important because macro was weak- low food cap and that upkeep malarky. This is what you want to avoid doing if you want to keep a focus away from micro.
Comment: That's actually a VERY bad advice. If you give the player too many units to micromanage, but do not take away the possibility/desirability of micromanagement, you'd just make her anxious and frustrated. She'd feel that she *needs* to micromanage all units to play well, but *can't*.
Comment: More units just means that you're microing 10 units at a time instead of 1. Same thing really.
Comment: @Nevermind: That's not true at all. Needing to micromanage is when your opponent can micro successfully and you can't. If neither player can micro, then neither player needs to micro to win. If you give someone 100 units to control, they will notice that it is more efficient to not micro each individual one. Supreme Commander used this exact tactic and it worked absolutely flawlessly.
Comment: @Nevermind: No. If you have 100 units and you can only micro about five of them, then that's only 5% of your army you can micro. If you can micro 5 units and you have only 5 units, that's 100% of your army you can micro.  That's a big drop in effectiveness in micro.
Comment: Fact: Players will play whichever way is best to win. If you give them 100 microable units, then a player will be unable to micro every single one of them, true. But if microing 5 of them is enough to win most battles when the opponent doesn't micro, then people will micro. Then by definition you fail the design goal of removing micro. Simple as that. The way to go is to make the benefits of micro so small that the player's attention is best spent elsewhere, namely eco and grand strategy. You do that e.g. by giving units smart AI and no player-activated abilities.
Comment: @Pubby: Not really. You can only issue so many independent orders per second- and you also need to be back at your base issuing orders to make more units, for example.
Comment: @DeadMG 100 units by themselves do nothing to make micromanagement less effective - only more difficult. You got it the other way round: it's not that having lots of units makes micromanagement ineffective; it's that *only* when micromanagement is ineffective you can have 100 units and not overwhelm the player.
Comment: @Hackworth: Except the more units you have, the less overall impact you have on whether a battle is won, which achieves the exact goal of "the benefits of micro so small that the player's attention is best spent elsewhere", because micro now has much less impact.
Answer: Use squads, as in Dawn of War or Company of Heroes. Micromanagement will still be required, but the fact that you only need to micromanage 5-10 entities will give the player more time to develop their macro.
Answer: Don't make a game in such a way that you need to tell your players to not play it a certain way. The controls you give them are there for them to use, and they will assume they are supposed to be using it. Decide what you mean by 'micro', and ensure that players do not control their game units on that level.
Comment: +1 I'm not sure the concept is clearly expressed here, bimut you seem to make a great point about deciding what exactly  "playing the game" means.
Answer: You could give short, but noticeable, and random, time-delays for each order given to a unit before it reacts. You could also add a longer transition time for units to switch from one order to another, making them vulnerable to enemy attacks while they prepare to follow a new order. That would also be a bit more realistic than units reacting in an instant to every click
Comment: Chris Crawford On Game Design has a section discussing (very) delayed orders. He also discuss delaying information that reach the player so that the outcome of far-away actions are not shown until a message gets back to the player. That would make micromanagement very difficult.
Comment: You would fit right in at Nintendo.
Comment: OK, you like micromanagement then, but how is it a bad answer to the given question? Besides my inspiration comes from more hardcore (historic) simulation wargames. Random order-delays is nothing new or unusual in that niche of strategy games. It is about as far as you can get from casual Nintendo-style games.
Comment: This is intentionally gimping input to prevent people who are better at inputting input from being better then those who are not.  Also if Mr. Crawford made any good points while discussing this why not include them in your answer? If you can convince me intentionally gimping the input is a good design decision I'll change my vote.
Comment: There is an edit button.
Comment: @ClassicThunder I think you can see it work very well in Starcraft 2 - tanks need time to go into siege mode and vice-versa. This prevents you micromanage a tank the way it is in a siege mode when a unit is far and in a normal mode when a unit is too close to be hit from the siege mode. +1
Comment: @MarkusvonBroady you could see a tank taking a random amount of time to siege up being a good thing in SC2?
Comment: @ClassicThunder No. Starcraft 2 is both e-sports and micro focused strategy game. But still, even there, Pelle's idea (except this random thing, that was only a part of his suggestion) works just fine. The idea may turn out to be good or bad in a game, but it is one worth of considering.
Answer: Making the player's army reasonably self-sufficient will help with this. If the army already does what you want, you don't need to micromanage it. For example, special abilities might be 'auto-casted' by default, preventing the player from spending too much time worrying about triggering each ability usage, and more worried about making sure they have the right mix of units to achieve the goal. Strong AI will also be extremely helpful here.
On the engine level, it would help to have units be able to move AND attack at the same time. This means players have much more trouble playing using micro-heavy harassment and animation-cancelling styles well seen in games like Warcraft III (and by extension, DotA) and Star Craft/Star Craft II.
Answer: Make the units disposable. If a player doesn't feel the need to keep his/her units alive than they'll likely not waste time managing them as much when they could be doing other things.
Make them cheap in resources. The cheaper units are the less likely a person will spend time trying to keep them alive if they know they can just reproduce them easily. Similarly, make them quick to build. The faster units are being produced the more time a person has to spend actually producing them as opposed to giving them orders. Especially if they're cheap units, this turns the overall strategy of trying to keep units alive to out producing your opponent.
I also agree with automatizing your units as best as possible. Applying general orders of what to do. For example, if an enemy unit comes into range, should they attack? Hold position, should they use any special abilities they have, etc. This, of course, can get pretty tricky, so it could even just be a simple, hold, defend something, or attack. The only issue with this is how far back does it go aggroing units.
Another problem that arises and causes people to micro is path finding. Design your boards to be more linear and open. You can still have elevation but try to avoid cliffs and things that would prevent units from moving in a straight line whenever they're told. A lot of them time in RTS games when units are given a command to move somewhere that is blocked or up a hill they get confused. Path finding has gotten much better recently but it's still an issue in almost every RTS game I've played. This way people can give orders are know that their units are going directly to where you told them.
I'd also suggest making it easy to give general orders without having to turn your attention towards the units. A rallying system would be a sufficient place to start but it'd need to be expanded upon. Perhaps incorporating the passive commands into it so units that spawn automatically are given an order, such as defend or hold position when they get to where they were told to go.
One last thing I'd suggest is making it easy to give general orders without turning your attention away from whatever it is you're doing in the game. Make it possible to give orders to all the units on the board at once, make it easy to select all the units of a given type on the board very easily, etc. Maybe even tie this in to the structure that's building the units. Instead of giving all the orders by selecting the units, select the buildings that make them to give orders to all the units of that type.
Comment: +1. The first Supreme Commander game is a good example of these principles in action, IMHO.
Answer: Giving the ai all the micro decisions tasks would be the best way. Think about how guerrila fighters work in cells. A leader gives a general order, send the closest cell to x to do x, and then the cell does the actual planning and execution of the task in the way that best suits it's own members and skillsets. Tell a squad or team of units to assassinate a target, and a group of trooper types with machine guns might storm the building they are in, or they might wait till they are on their drive home, be standing in the road, and fire away, but the AI decides that. A cell composed of say, more subtle types, might approach it another way, and a team that has an explosives expert might just explode his house in the night or something. But all the player has ordered is "make that dude dead." And the team that got the order decides how to approach that very general task.
The player is a commander, a leader of a greater force, that level of planning doesn't happen with him. The general just tells his captains to take hills and so on, then the captains tell the soldiers in their squads more specific orders based on the situation on the ground right? And the commander in chief is commanding the generals just to go accomplish a general goal with the forces they command. So...decide where in the hierarchy the player is, and only give them the tools that a person in that position would have. Then say, have a "general" ai give troop movement and general orders, and "captain" ai's managing each squad(take that house, lay mines here defend this location, set these traps, dig a trench and so on), and "individual" ai handling a unit's special abilities (say, deciding to throw a grenade, fight on, flee in terror, go into hiding if his squad is destroyed, to make it back home safe, make a last stand, or whatever)and how to interpret the captains orders. So...layers of Ai that put the player in the position of a SINGLE part of the command chain. So, depending on the command structure your units are in, determines what kinds of ai and how they interact.


Cannot determine which breaker has my 3 dead outlets on

Question: My wife cut through the extension cord while hedge trimming outside in front. It cut power to that particular GFCI outlet. There is another GFCI outlet in back also dead as well as standard receptacle in garage dead. There are no visible tripped circuit breakers. I reset (flipped off then on, making sure breakers are snug in the slots) ALL breakers in my panel. Did not help. Tried to reset the Test and Reset buttons on both GFCI receptacles, but pushing the reset buttons do not make test button pop back out. How can I find which breaker controls these outlets? Could all 3 outlets all be dead?
Comment: You might also search for yet another GFCI outlet.  You won't be able to reset an outlet that is not receiving power.  It sounds like this circuit was wired with GFCI's in daisy chain, since they have all tripped they must be reset in order.  Try and guess the wiring pattern or route and reset devices as the wire moves away from the panel--you must power them up in order.  Try to locate yet another GFCI in the circuit that is preventing these two from receiving power.  If you find this is the case you might want to rewire the circuit or have it done so that this won't happen again.
Comment: You nailed it Tyson! Who would have ever thought of something called a daisy chain!  I found an obscure out of the way GFCI adjenct to the panel, re-set it and then went to my original problem GFCI and was able to re-set that one along with the third GFCI. NICELY DONE! I have now marked the appropriate breaker along with the sequence so when my wife saws off the extension cord again a year from now I will remember the solution. Thanks so much!
Comment: I'll turn that into an answer so you can accept it.  It will be a few minutes until I can do that, because I'm going to rewrite it and add a little.
Comment: Funny, I had nearly this same problem last week... Only my SO pulled the extension through the pool rather than cutting it
Answer: It's possible that your GFCI outlets are mis-wired in a daisy chain.  What happened then is that when the cord cutting event occurred all the GFCI's on the circuit tripped.  While you found two there is likely another.
GFCI's must have a power feed to bevreset. If they are improperly daisy chained they must be reset "in order", as the first one provides the power feed to the next.  They can not be reset out of order.
If this is the case you can choose to live with the situation as it is and just "know" the secret to resetting them.  Another choice is re-wire the circuit so that the GFCI's are no longer daisy chained and each can be reset on its own accord.  If that route is taken the circuit should be carefully evaluated so that GFCI protection is not eliminated at a location requiring GFCI protection (such as that standard outlet in the garage that you mentioned in the question).
Comment: And then, convert all the outlets downstream of the first GFCI,  to regular outlets.  Now you have a pile of redundant GFCI's.  Install them where they'll be useful protecting other circuits.
Answer: There are devices you can buy that plug in to your receptacle(s) and send a RF signal up the wire where it can then be detected at the circuit breaker.

And YES, an upstream problem could interrupt power to all 3 outlets if they are on the same circuit.
Comment: The problem with this type they don't have a battery in the transmitter so finding a dead outlet breaker it won't work.
Comment: @Ed Beal you are right, my bad. There are testers that work on dead circuits, I think they are like $300-500. Might be best to hire an electrician (who has the tool) for an hour.


What is protected under this patent?

Question: What exactly is protected under patent application US 2013/0001878 A1 (US 8,770,586 B2). I have built a similar product but it's fill mechanism is automatic in nature.
Comment: Nothing is actually protected by this document. It is *not* a granted patent but only the publication of a patent application.
Comment: FYI Patent was granted to this application on 8th july 2014
Answer: Any patent protects what is listed in the claims -- no more -- no less.
The best way to start is to compare "Claim 1" word-for-word and see if your product matches the description -- if your product differs in just one matter of what is described in the first claim, then it is likely not covered.
Also, making something "automatic" could be an innovative enhancement and patentable in it's own right.
Answer: Patent granted on application covers
A target game with a fluid indicator, comprising:
a container capable of containing a fluid indicator;
the container having a top and a bottom;
the top of the container oriented above the bottom of the container;
the container assembled below a horizontal bar;
the bottom of the container having a fluid indicator escape opening;
an actuation housing assembled with the horizontal support bar;
the actuation housing having a top vertical opening, a bottom vertical opening, a left horizontal opening, and a right horizontal opening;
the bottom vertical opening located inside the container;
an actuation rod passing through the top vertical opening and emerging from the bottom vertical opening;
the actuation rod having a cap on an end emerging from the top vertical opening;
the actuation rod assembled with a spring;
the actuation rod having a valve on an end emerging from the bottom vertical opening and the valve suspended inside of the container;
the valve removably engaging with the fluid indicator escape opening;
the valve moving between an engaged position and a disengaged
position;
wherein in the engaged position, the valve obstructs the fluid indicator
escape opening; and wherein in the disengaged position, the valve
unobstructs the fluid indicator escape opening;
a swing arm assembled above the actuation housing and applying
pressure to the cap; the swing arm connected to a target;
such that when the target is struck by a projectile, the swing arm releases the applied pressure on the cap causing the spring to release potential energy and disengaging the valve from the fluid indicator escape opening.
hope it helps.

What is protected under this patent?


When experimenting just isn't enough?

Question: As a fairly new photographer who is interested in learning more about the advanced settings on my Canon 7D, and less about Green / CA modes, can you share the areas of photography which forced you to put the camera down, and head to the book or the web?  Are there elements of photography which simply can't be learned through experience?  What pushed you to read more about it, rather than shoot until you got it right?
Answer: I'd flip your question, as in what aspects that you picked up from a book or website really enabled my photography.
Fundamentally, I think you need to read the manual that came with your camera. Its boring, but do it anyway. Read it all, like a novel with your camera in your hands. Then periodically read parts of it, in depth, again.
I had a lot of experience shooting with available/natural light, and I really disliked the results when I used a flash/strobe. This changed when I started reading books and websites from folks like David Hobby, Joe McNally, and Zack Arias. I found that for a modest amount of money, far less than a lust-after lens, I can get lighting gear that greatly improves my photos of people.
Comment: Well... my take on camera manuals is that they are rather like the user manual that comes with your car. It tells how how to use the airconditioning and radio and how you turn on the engine, but does not tell you much about how to actually drive a car! I'd suggest that you go and buy an introductory book about photograhy, instead. It is not much good knowing how to change the aperture on your camera if you do not know what it is or what it does.
Comment: Thanks Pat - exactly the kind of answer I was looking for.  I've been reading the manual and editing every setting, while shooting something stationary, so I can see how simple changes impact the photo.  I'll stick with it.
Comment: I agree @Staale, they don't cover why you should do something. And man, are they boring. But even after two years, I find nuggets when I read mine.
Answer: Not sure this question can have a definite answer. I'd say it depends on your personality.
Mine makes me avoid experimentation! I prefer learning and knowing what to do rather than trying. So when I see something that I do not know how to do, I read up as much information as possible. This is how I started photography.
However, there comes a point when I was reading more books and essentially getting zero new information, so I moved on to other forms of learning: Seminars, classes and workshop. At one point, I had to see how people were doing things which is where the workshops gave me the most improvement.
It is important to focus on those books, classes and workshops from the people who have a style and subject matter similar to what you are striving for. For me this meant I hated Joe McNally's The Moment It Clicked (which Amazon took back easily) and loved National Geographic's Photography Field Guide series. A must read for anyone wanted to improve composition is The Photographer's Eye.
Ten years later, I teach photography in group and private classes. My students usually are looking for answers. Most have done very little experimentation because they would not have known where to begin.
Answer: With unlimited amount of time and resources, experimenting will get you everything you can find in books and more… one day. I think for most people, not reinventing the wheel is the faster and easier path.
Answer: Experimenting is the best way to learn - if you know what to experiment with.
Experiments let you understand how specific small details work but they don't let you discover new techniques and effects you don't already know about.
For example: aperture size changes the look of (in focus) light sources, large aperture makes them glow and small aperture creates starbursts - the best way to really learn how this works is to point the camera at a light and take pictures at different aperture sizes - but if you don't hear/read about this how do you know you should experiment with pictures of a light source at different apertures?
Same goes for soft vs. hard light, to really understand the difference you need to take pictures in soft and hard light and look at them - but if you don't know what soft/hard light is or how to create a soft/hard light source you can't do this experiment.

When experimenting just isn't enough?


What specs to keep in mind when buying a digital camera for art (paintings)?

Question: I am looking to buy a digital camera to primarily take photos of my artwork that deals mainly with acrylic paintings. A previous question has helped me determine that a digital camera is the way to go. Is there any specific brand that is the best or I should keep in mind to stay away from? What specifications should I look for and are important in a camera for this use case?
Comment: It is vital to know what you want the image for. If you are making prints from the image there is a limited upp er size that you can acheiev at fine art quality. In a question within the last month or so I demonstrated that at A3 print size you are better off using an A3 sanner than any 35mm DSLRavailable (including the D800).
Comment: @RussellMcMahon I want to make prints from the image. I am thinking about getting a Canon T3i with either a 55-250mm lens or a macro (but not sure what), Is this good?
Comment: Though in addition some of my paintings have a 3D element that would have issues scanning
Comment: How large do you want to print them?
Answer: It is vital to know what you want the image for.
 If you are making prints from the image there is a limited upper size that you can achieve  at fine art quality.
In this questionWhich image sensor format for photographing oil on panel?
I demonstrated that at 38 x 28.5" print size (!) from an ~A3 original you are better off using an A3 sanner than any 35mm DSLRavailable (including the D800). That may not apply in your case, but you need to check.
Megapixel image needed = height x width x dpi^2 / 1,000,000
height = print size in inches.
 width = print size = inches.
 dpi = pixels per inch in output.
 This assumes that printer aspect ratio = camera or scanner aspect ratio.
Example: 16 x 10" (= A3) x 200 dpi.
 megapixel = 16 x 10 x 200^2 / 1000000 = 6.4 megapixel.
 So printing at A3 and 200 dpi a 6 mp imager is OK.
 Push that to 300 dpi = 14.4 mp.
 If you want 600 dpi (and you actually don't) at A3 you need a 58mp imager
 A D800 cutteth not the mustard - the more so if you have less than top class glass on it.
In reality a good 12 mp camera will work well enough in most cases.
 Lots of light is essential if  sensor sizes are small.
 I once did a large billboard photo starting with a 7 mp image - but that was extreme and really too low.
Answer: Not really I'd say.   You need a camera with a decent macro lens.  But I assume and interchangeable-lens camera system includes a decent macro (personally I really like the Nikon 105mm, but there are many other manufacturers who are no doubt good enough [and the 105 may be too long for your use case])
More important will be the tripod you use, the arrangement you use for holding the artwork, and the illumination.    The answers to your previous question provide some good pointers for those, I think.
The macro lens is important not for high magnification but because they usually have a very flat plane of focus.   Since your artwork is also flat, this is important for getting all of it properly in focus.   Most tilt/shift lenses also have very good flatness of field (better than macro lenses, often) but they also include features you will likely not need, and are therefore more expensive.
I'm not sure what you would propose to do with the digital mages.   If you plan to print them very large (say more than 60cm on a side) then resolution may be an issue; otherwise not.


CMV goto widget

Question: I have a problem with Goto widget, it doesn't display anything, the error displayed is that proj4.js is not found, I copy and paste the folder Goto in my project and it keeps giving me the same error.
Comment: I have not used the "Goto" widget, but my "Projection" widget has similar functionality: https://github.com/tr3vorm/cmv-projections-widget
Answer: You need to configure a path to proj4 in your dojo config. Otherwise, dojo will not be able to find proj4 library and will throw the error you are experiencing.
If you are using the latest version of cmv, you will have a file, config/app. If you're not using the latest version of cmv, your dojo config will be located in the index.html file.
In the dojo config, look for the packages section. Add the proj4 package using the following code:
packages: [{
    name: 'proj4js',
    location: 'https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/proj4js/2.4.3'
},
//......other packages
]

This should make the error go away.

CMV goto widget


Do centaurs suckle from horse nipples or human nipples?

Question: This has been puzzling me, because if the human half needs human nutrients, then suckling from the human nipples makes sense. But the horse half needs different nutrients, so which set of nipples makes most sense?
Comment: they will use the centaur nipples no ?
Comment: +1 I'm seeing all these questions about how to set up worlds, and self driving cars.... then I come across this title.  Threw me for a loop!
Comment: FWIW, horse gestation is longer than human gestation, and the feebleness of a newborn human is in part dictated by the need to get our absurdly large heads through the human pelvis. Human newborns are under-cooked. A larger centaur pelvis could accommodate a better-developed newborn. Whether you could get it to the dizzying heights of human development required to support its own head, I'm not sure. Maybe homo habilis centaurs would be a bit better off in that respect than homo sapiens centaurs.
Comment: For that matter, what does a baby mermaid do?
Comment: http://mythology.stackexchange.com.
Comment: Another interesting question: how are baby centaurs born? fredsbend below suggests that maybe centaurs are born as foals and later metamorphose into the centaur. This would make sense, given the horse gynaecology of the mother, and its a bit difficult to imagine how the classic right-angled spine of a centaur is going to fold up in the womb.
Comment: Reminded me of this: http://thepegosaurus.tumblr.com/post/64278749288/the-trouble-with-centaurs-so-you-know-how-colts
Comment: @Vincent neither! they drink water also have you seen infant centaur?
Comment: Wikipedia notes "Philip Jose Farmer's [World of Tiers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Tiers) series (1965) includes centaurs, called Half-Horses or Hoi Kentauroi. His creations address several of the metabolic problems of such creatures—how could the human mouth and nose intake sufficient air to sustain both itself and the horse body and, similarly, how could the human ingest sufficient food to sustain both parts.". Maybe that work is worth looking into.
Comment: @Gaurav Pretty much that exact image crossed my mind. Funny depiction. [In my answer](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/18252/458), I offered that infant centaurs are born fully horse or fully human then metamorphose into the centaur shape.
Comment: @Mikey - surely that's not even a question given that fish don't have nipples?
Comment: @Pyritie Okay, let's make it "baby hippogrif". If those kids suckle at all, I feel bad for the mammas.
Comment: @Pyritie but mermaids *do*.  Are they hatched from eggs or what.  Separate question...
Comment: @Paul Johnson: The spine is quite flexible, if we assume it has a lot in common with the horse neck.  A horse can lower its head to the ground, or raise it to the point where the neck is nearly at right angles to the back.  (And horizontally, can reach to the hind legs.)
Comment: @Mikey - that was my point. Fish don't have nipples, therefore there's only one pair (the human ones), therefore the "what does a baby mermaid do" question doesn't make sense
Comment: I thoroughly expect a follow-up question by the OP regarding where the "you-know" of a male centaur is located as well.
Answer: The answer is clearly the "human" nipples.  Horse necks evolved so that they could reach the teats while standing up.  Human necks just don't have the necessary range of motion to be able to do this.

via Wikimedia
Did you know that horses can stand/walk around within minutes of being born?
Comment: I can not even picture what contortions you think are required for this. I think you might be imagining yourself bending over to suckle a horse, which admittedly would not be comfortable. But for a centaur infant, [I don't think it would be anything like that](http://blogs.babycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Sisters-in-Flaw-centaur-646x650.jpg).
Comment: @cimmanon Oh, well Centaurs are impossible creatures, so we're well within the bounds of the question :) I'll explain it for you, the image clearly displays a feasible situation where a baby centaur could suckle without needing to break its back. This is fantasy, not mathematics; there isn't proof, only feasible ideas.
Comment: The picture is certainly illustrative of this single point, but I think there is more to consider than just the position of the equine teat.
Comment: Now show a picture where that baby horse is easily reaching the top of its mother's neck, where human nipples would be on a centaur. It might turn out to be easier for the baby to bend over a little...
Comment: @Samuel How do you figure bending over a little is going to help?  A human is going to need to be able to either tilt their head back about an extra 20 degrees or be able to turn their head almost completely around.  Even if you argue that centaurs could have evolved to do this, it may be impossible to reach the teats with their flat faces.  I've never seen a nursing mare's teats, but a non-nursing mare's teats are about the length and size of the first knuckle of your thumb.
Comment: @Samuel Yeah, I can draw all sorts of impossible things too, I don't see how that picture proves anything.
Comment: Laying down is an option.
Comment: @WadCheber Not from an evolutionary perspective, no.  Laying down and getting back up for a horse is a liability.  Horses and other herd animals (cows, goats, zebras, etc.) rely on being mobile in order to survive.
Answer: This depends on a few things and with some considerations, baby centaurs would probably be best suited to nurse from the human teats, rather than the equine teats.
The first thing to consider is whether the offspring is full Centaur or not. Will your story contain a race of centaurs, complete with families, culture, cities, etc.; or will the story contain a small selection of centaurs or possibly just one, as a magical/mythical being?
If the centaur(s) in your story are mythical, then there is a high likelihood that any offspring of the Centaur's is half of something else too (i.e. human, horse, god, faun, minotaur, gorgon, etc.), in which case, the mythical nature of the scenario can allow you to forgo answering the question entirely via a number of interesting ways, the easiest being the spawn is born mature.
If the centaurs are a race and have an obvious biological component, then the offspring is likely not a mix breed and you must indeed answer this question.
Pros and cons of the human teats: A centaur baby will have a human head and a human mouth. An infant mouth and a mother's teat are very much like a lock and key in most mammals. The teat is correctly sized and adapts temporarily to each infant's nuanced differences. However, being half horse, we can consider that the infant supports itself much, much sooner than an human infant, so the mother would not be carrying around a baby for months, but rather weeks or even days. The human teat would be too far to reach easily.
Pros and cons of the equine teats: An equine teat is far too big for a human mouth, especially an infant's. Also, an equine teat would deliver far more flow than an infant would want. But, it is conveniently positioned; the infant could reach it quickly and easily without much burden to the mother.
Some have noted nutritional differences, but I think that's an odd distinction if we already assume these centaurs are a biologically natural species. If they are, then the milk is biologically suited for centaurs regardless of which teat it comes from.
So with this in mind, the human teat makes the most sense, but considering centaurs are neither human nor horse, there's no reason to assume that they behave or develop similarly. What makes the most sense to me is that Infant centaurs are weaned relatively quickly from the human teat. I would say about a week. They also develop rapidly, growing the human equivalent of four or five years in only a few months. The equine teats are never used and you could even say that they do not exist.
Another, albeit creepier, option that I thought of is that infant centaurs metamorphose into their adult shape. They could start as human infants, but then quickly or in an odd cocoon develop their horse half. Or they could do the opposite, which sounds more enticing to me because it could leave it mysterious why your centaurs have young foals nursing from their teats. Allow their culture a high integration with actual horses and no one will actually think that some foals become centaurs "spontaneously". This avoids all the problems with infants depending heavily on their mothers compared to foals.
Comment: How quickly do horses wean? Random internet search says 4-6 months, although that's for domesticated horses. Obviously Centaurs can wean faster than horses if you like, but if they can somehow survive on other food after a week then it seems to me it would be more efficient for the species not to bother suckling at all, pull their fingers out, and make the "extra effort" to survive on other food from birth.
Comment: What about something like human-sized teats but on the horse half? Much easier for the babies to reach and you eliminate the size problem that the horse ones would have.
Comment: @SteveJessop That's certainly an option too. I think it depends on how human you want these centaurs to be. There's nothing more loving and human than a caring mother nursing her baby. However, if these centaurs are crazed or monstrous, then it might be better to forgo any humanity at all. Makes them easier to hate. Further, if they don't nurse then female centaurs have no biological reason to have breasts. That might be a problem for some stories, especially if it's going to involve human lusts for centaur women (which seems inevitable if the centaurs are featured).
Answer: Clearly they suckle from a centaur's nipples. Both sets.
Centaur females have both human and horse nipples. I feel silly saying it only because it seems like such common knowledge.
As with any other mammal, they might be able to suckle from another animal's nipples alone, but won't receive the complete nutrition they need. In this case suckling on either only the human nipples or only the horse nipples would not, as you point out, be complete nutrition.
Side note:
Suckle is a bizarre word in that both the act of feeding the baby is suckling and the act of the baby eating is suckling. It could lead to some ambiguity.
Comment: A centaur is no more half human/ half horse than a platypus is half duck/ half otter. a Centaur is it's own unique creature that has one set of nutritional needs. Thinking they would need to suckle at 2 different sets of teats is silly. Besides they only have 1 mouth, so all the "horse" nutrients has to go through the human portion anyway and would be absorbed by the human part before ever getting to the horse part if they needed separate food supplies.
Comment: Such common knowledge: citation?  Were they depected in Greek/Roman art that way? Why would you think it's common knowledge?
Comment: Plus, I don't think a human infant's mouth can make good use of an equine teat, size being the most obvious problem.
Comment: We should all be taking this seriously. Levity is a useful tool to illustrate specific points, but if a writer is going to take the time to ask a question, we should take it seriously. Even comedic writers take their jokes seriously. Just because the topic is silly on the surface doesnt mean it is undeserving of our respect and full attentive answers. How'd you like it if you asked a question about your world building project and all you got were joke answers in response? All questions are serious questions to someone.
Comment: @fredsbend Centaurs are horses on the bottom and humans on the top. All their other characteristics appear to be divided this way, why do you assume the milk from either half would somehow be a blend of the two?
Comment: Sorry, let me address the larger meta question. I think it's silly that there would be a biological reason for an animal to have to suckle from two different teats. If there were multiple teat locations, they would produce the same milk, or at least at very different times for different reasons.
Comment: @Samuel Let's try to be constructive.
Comment: I'm starting to think you guys are trying to be serious about this.
Comment: @MC_Hambone My answer is serious. My replies to some comments here are not serious, because they don't deserve it. Centaur nipples aren't worth getting upset about. Also I can't take your name seriously, no offense.
Comment: Fair enough, and My name isn't meant to be taken seriously... it's the name of my Aquabats Cedt faction alter ego.... i came up with it when i was like 14 hahaha. Plus if I ever become a rapper i have a rap name XD
Answer: This is complicated. Depending on choice baby centaur will either die or die.
But let's dig a tad deeper.
Quick search reveals that human and lawnmower milk is rather different (and here is horse).
Most notable entries are:

Vitamin C - There is none in horse milk. Humans lost ability to
produce it so it must be acquired from outside (via mother in this
case, but some fruits had to be sacrificed). Lack of Vit. C is very
bad for humans, so by rule of thumb, even worse for baby. (Hint: do
not google for "scurvy babies"). Theoretically horse part could supply Vit. C to human part if blood circulation would be shared.
Calcium - Horse have four times more! Hypercalcaemia sounds
scary, but so does Hypocalcaemia... ARGH!

Using two highly different milks would be very problematic (yeah, like anything is simple in realistic centaur design), slight imbalance in diet wold result in crippled baby (calf? calfby? balf?). Realism comes with evolution. Both two-milk and single-milk centaurs would die off without modern civilization for died supplement.
So yeah, evolution...

Some crazy drunk god creates centaurs. I bet he was one of horny Greek ones.
High rate of death among infants due to dietary problems.
Evolution! Mares whose human milks are more similar in content have more adult babies to pass their balanced genes.
Evolution! Horse part can provide more milk, and is easy access for hungry balfs. Human breasts slowly became evolutionary artifact.
Success! Horse part provide perfect milk for balfs!

So about those human breasts... I do not like idea of flat-chested centaurs, but evolution can save us again! How can useless, but surely eye-catching, human breasts be of any evolutionary advantage? Ask Indian peafowl, useless body part works fine for them (which made Darwin sick).

Big human breasts = healthy, well fed, mare! Best for breeding.
Please wait... Breeding takes a while...
Human breasts role degrade from baby feeding to sexual selection.
Milk flow from human part stops, horse part keeps providing modified mixture.

All ends well after few dozen thousands years... Better pray to god of evolution.
Comment: I don't understand the nutritional aspect. If the centaurs are a natural species than the milk has everything infant centaurs would need to grow and develop. Unless the story makes centaurs some kind of "drunken god's jest" then it's kind of a silly notion that the milk from the equine teat is different than the milk from the human teat, unless there was a biological reason for it.
Comment: @fredsbend There is no reason for milks to be different, hence evolution should take care of it (or species would go extinct).
Answer: Neither - Centaur nipples would be located elsewhere.
I'm making the assumption here that your centaurs are natural creatures that just happen to resemble both humans and horses.  This doesn't apply to the traditional human-torso-replaces-horse's-neck, which has many other biological issues (as others have pointed out).
Given this assumption, centaurs would have evolved so that their nipples would be easy to reach for their colts without too much inconvenience for the mother.  Mares can nurse their colts while they continue to graze and slowly walk around, and the colts' necks can turn to suck on a dangling nipple.  Human women can nurse their babies while walking around and supporting the baby in one hand (or a sling, to free up both), and the baby's flat faces don't get in the way.  So a centaur female should likewise be able to gently move around without disrupting the child's ability to nurse.*
Horse nipples don't work: As cimmanon's answer shows, a centaur would have to have a neck that's far longer and more flexible than a human's in order to get under its mother to nurse.  This would make the "seeming like a human" part much harder.
Human nipples don't work: If the mother has to bend over, it's the same problem as with horses.  If she picks up the child, she has to be strong enough to hold it for long periods of time, and presumably it grows similarly to a colt (and so gets heavy).
Centaurs would need outward-facing nipples relatively low to the ground.  Outward rather than downward, to support flat(human)-faced offspring.  Low to the ground to support independently mobile four-legged offspring.  Where would these nipples be placed?  I see two possibilities, depending on how much you want to stretch the resemblance to humans and horses, although both are kindof weird.
One option, which borrows more from the horse side, is to have the nipples on either side of the horse torso, probably on the lower side.  By putting them on the sides, you don't require the children to contort nearly as much, while still maintaining the general behavior of horses.  I don't know how much supportive tissue (breasts/udders/etc) would be necessary, but it would almost certainly be something that grew out during pregnancy and got out of the mother's way after weaning.
The other option is to have more human-like nipples, but have them located approximately where a human crotch would be.  This would provide the same general posture for the children as with the other option, but would require less deviation from a classic horse torso.  The children would stand in front of the mother to nurse, which would make it awkward for her to move, but she would be able to reach them with her arms while they nurse (which a horse can do with her neck, but a centaur wouldn't be able to do with the side-nipple option).   This has the bonus of not having sensitive parts of anatomy competing with harnesses, and (if society demands it) can be covered by a wrap similar to a human loincloth or skirt.
* Disclaimer: I have little-to-no experience with babies or colts.  I may be totally off-base about nursing behavior.  I'm just going based on what little I think I know combined with what makes logical sense to me.
Comment: So, Centaur women have sagging boobs. Probably right. Aside from "nursing with one arm" I think you've portrayed breastfeeding accurately.
Comment: Crotch position was my conclusion, too, and it should be two teats since both, humans and horses, have no more than that, but depending on the height of the baby/colt it may actually be reasonable to "hang them higher" or have two or three sets for growing infants. Note that A colt-sized humanoid, probably after more than ten months pregnancy, should be more developed than a normal human newborn, e.g. it may have to be able to stand and walk almost instantly.
Comment: Thinking about it a bit more, centaur mothers could possibly also sit or lay down or bend over to nurse their offspring. That depends somewhat on the safety of the social environment. If a species usually can guarantee sufficient food supply and doesn't have to fear predators, its children can get away with being slow or even immobile, needing a lot of help and attention. Humans do this with strong social bonds and intelligence, other animals build shelters or are the biggest (individuals or herds) or meanest around.
Answer: Short Answer: Human Nipples
Long Answer:
A centaur is no more 1/2 human 1/2 horse than a platypus is 1/2 duck, 1/2 otter. The centaur assuming it evolved that way would produce milk that nourishes its offspring completely.
Now the question is which teat the newborns will go after. Now if we assume the horse part does what foals do it will be up and walking almost immediately. At that point the human part will be sticking up in the air and their faces will be positioned quite well for suckling at the human teat. Would you want to bend over and try to turn your head around backwards to suck the nipples on the underside of a horse? Probably not, especially if there is a convenient source of food in a much more comfortable position.
Comment: Baby centaurs aren't tall enough to reach the human nipple any more than a baby horse could reach the top of its mother's neck. Your argument is entirely based on how **you** would want to suckle a centaur. Also you don't need to post your answer as a comment on my answer.
Comment: @Samuel I don't think that's necessary. The answer originated as an objection to a different answer. Having answered doesn't mean the comment is invalid. In this case, MC's comment on your answer still stands. He doesn't see good reason to argue that baby centaurs would need to nurse from both sets of teats.
Comment: @Samuel Without the time index, it might be safer to assume the comment came first. I know I've commented *then* realized that I had enough for an answer at least five times.
Comment: @fredsbend Then you delete the comment.
Comment: In my opinion, based on how the SE communities usually work, this whole question ought to be closed. there is NO definitive answer to the question, there is no evidence from the classical centaur mythology that addresses nursing of the children. So its all opinion and conjecture. and @Samuel Fred is right, i commented first, *then* answered, and he is right again in stating that my comment is still valid on your answer.
Comment: You shouldn't be answering questions that you think should be closed, that would only encourage low quality questions.
Comment: @Samuel: Foals are quite a bit taller than you may think, if you've never been around them.  They are precocial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocial ), with legs nearly as long as an adult's, since they need to be able to keep up with the herd pretty much from birth.  So a young centaur could easily reach nipples located in roughly human position, especially if mom bends forward a bit.
Answer: Human Breasts.
Because it is very implausible for a newborn whose spine is curved in the way that a centaur's must be, and who can't possibly have more developed Motor skills than that prime example of mammalian precocialness that is a horse foal, to bend down /curl around to reach the udder.
Assuming the centaur Baby is the same size in relation to the mother, as a horse foal, the Standing offspring would not quite reach the nipples at birth and either require the mother to kneel, or use a Kind of step stool. And then they would be tall enough to comfortably reach the breast after a few weeks, and would know when to wean when they grow so tall they would have to bend down... again with the spine
Also, suckling from the upper Body is just cuddly and nice and allows for eye contact and hugs, so I feel that would be more appropriate for a species that has both eyes in front and participates in somewhat human-like social interactions (If that's what you're going for).
Comment: +1 for noting the human sociological aspect of breast feeding. It would help the centaurs be more human in a story. However, that might not be what you want in a story.
Answer: Are centaurs altricial or precocial? If they are altricial (as humans are), then they are born basically as helpless as human babies. If they are precocial, like horses, then they should develop certain abilities much more quickly than humans: in particular, they should be able to walk within a few hours after birth.
Horse-like nursing is logistically much easier, if the babies are capable of it: the mother stands, the babies stand, and everything works out. But in order for this to work, centaurs would have to be precocial: a horse-like trait, rather than a human one. This is certainly doable, but the consequences can be far-reaching: much of human culture is organized around the logistics of raising altricial young. Precocial centaurs would not face this issue, and might organize their culture along very different lines, making them seem more alien to humans. This might be desirable for your setting, or it might not.
If centaurs are altricial, however, then human-like nursing is the only real option. If the babies can't stand, then they can't nurse like a horse. This is not to say that carrying a centaur baby in one's arms is a particularly easy task: centaur babies would be larger and heavier than human babies, and their body shape would make the task more awkward. But this may be all that is practical, and you've got to do what you've got to do.
All of the above assumes evolution by natural selection, or something very like it. If they were created relatively recently by some artificial process, then the answer to your question probably reflects their creators. Human-like creators would likely engineer a reproductive process as human-like as possible, including nursing, because that's what they relate to. Horse-like creators would instead probably favor a horse-like process.
Comment: +1 for the new words. Linking to a dictionary because of their uncommon nature would be a boon to all readers I think.
Comment: @fredsbend I linked Wikipedia articles, but there's hardly more to learn than what The Spooniest explained.
Answer: There are a lot of good answers here, but they are missing something very obvious - humans have nipples because they need them to feed babies. They have two nipples, because humans very rarely have more than two babies at a time.
So ask yourself: If the baby centaur suckles from the horse part, then why does the human part have nipples?
So, I can think of two cases:

Centaurs evolved, therefore only have a single set of functioning nipples, and the babies suckle from those. Stick them wherever you want.
Centaurs were magically created, and the babies suckle from whichever nipples the wizard/god/plot that created them told them to.

Given that this is worldbuilding, the answer to your question will become obvious once you answer this one: What purpose in your world do the nipples server? Are they a necessary plot point to the story/game/whatever? Is this something that will actually be relevant to anything, or can you just hand-wave it?
Answer: I think that both are viable. Why not make it so that it depends on the culture of the centaurs?
For instance one culture of centaurs likes to upbring their babies by giving them the human teats while another culture likes to give them the horse teats. And yet another one that combines both according to the maturity of the offspring!!
That would be pretty interesting, even develop it further by making certain behaviors according to what milk they received (although theoretically both milks would be the same assuming they are biological beings)
Answer: The human nipples
I'll assume that the human breasts provide the right nutrition because I think of them as one complete organism, rather than most of a horse and much of a human.  After all, if they really were part of a horse and part of a human then, depending on the genitalia involved in mating, wouldn't you either get a human baby or a colt instead of a little centaur?
The human nipples are better suited for a human baby's mouth.
And while it could well be that a baby centaur couldn't reach the mother's nipples while both were standing, centaurs are tool users and don't have to worry about running from wolves at a moment's notice.  The mother can lay down to suckle her child.
Answer: Here is yet another argument for the human nipples: arms, horses don't have them. Horses nurse standing which present problems for centaurs because of necks. (Cows, goats, and sheep also nurse standing.) As a comparison cats dogs and pigs nurse with the mother lying on her side. Horses on their side is a sign of a sick animal. Humans and primates nurse holding their young. This solves the height and position problems and works well with latch issues.
The only remaining problem is how many nipples does a centaur have? Would any be on the udder? Would there be an udder? If there was an udder I would argue for it being placed forwarward so that it could be more easily reached by the mother's hand, but I think the better solution is that if the centaur had more than two nipples that it would be best if each was on it's own breast to allow ease of reach and to prevent/minimize being front heavy given the increased demand for milk due to larger infant body mass.
Comment: I'm pretty sure a foal would be way too big to lift to the human nipple: a quick Google search indicates horse foals are about three feet tall, plus the human torso.
Comment: Re " Horses on their side is a sign of a sick animal": Not always true, they often lay down to relax, or just to sun themselves.  They will also roll on their backs and kick their legs in the air.
Comment: @jamesqf I would bet he means that a horse that makes a habit of laying down is the sign of a sick animal. And if it's not sick it soon will be. The pressure on the frog of the hoof plays a big role in circulation. We had a horse that would lay down all the time, so we had to put a special rubber plate under the shoe to keep constant pressure on the frog, so that circulation problems could be averted. It was a very old horse and probably should have died ten years before it actually did.


Does a computer use fewer resources when programs are minimized?

Question: When programs are minimized in Windows 7, do they use less memory and CPU than leaving them maximized?
Answer: Yes. According to MS Support, the working set for a minimised application is trimmed. You can check this yourself with Process Explorer.
Here's a test of a single instance of Firefox 5.0 in Windows 7 x64 with a single tab of the ESPN.com website loaded. Values were read using Task Manager.
type                 not minimised  minimised     diff
------------------------------------------------------
working set               165,752k   163,768k  -1,984k
peak working set          169,624k   169,624k      N/A
mem (private working set) 121,600k   119,576k  -2,024k
commit size               135,576k   133,504k     -72k
paged pool                    396k       397k      +1k
np pool                        82k        81k      -1k
handles                        504        483      -21
threads                         34         31       -3
user objects                    40         44       +4
GDI objects                     71         75       +4

Here's a test of a single instance of Paint.NET in Windows 7 x64 with a few small images open. This app was written in Microsoft .NET unlike Firefox which is almost certainly C/C++.
type                 not minimised  minimised     diff
------------------------------------------------------
working set               125,904k   125,256k    -684k
peak working set          217,836k   217,836k      N/A
mem (private working set)  61,844k    61,844k       0k
commit size               102,388k   102,384k      -4k
paged pool                    542k       541k      -1k
np pool                        59k        59k       0k
handles                        741        741        0
threads                         19         19        0
user objects                   276        273       -3
GDI objects                    489        491       +2

Comment: This doesn't apply to modern versions of Windows (7, Vista). On a modern OS, if the memory is needed for something, the operating system will trim the resident working sets of *all* processes, minimized or not (based on how recently they've accessed the memory pages). And if the memory is not needed for any reason, it would be foolish to trim it -- why gratuitously drop the performance of an application when memory is plentiful?
Comment: Wow, this is interesting and you have a KB to back it up. +1
Comment: Wow so people don't like an answer... Does anyone have any proof of the opposite? The way I see it Kinokijuf actually has some proof, you guys say it doesn't apply to windows 7 and vista but offer no source... You guys don't even test it :\ working set and allocated memory are two different things. Process explorer is the only way to test this.
Comment: It seems worth noting that the reduction in the use of system resources is trivial: in the example given, by minimizing the application, the working set is only reduced by about 1.2%.
Comment: Notice the lack of Win32 devs in this comment thread.  There are a number of Win32 events that skip over minimized applications. Even if there is not a noticable memory savings, there sure is a CPU usage savings.
Comment: @Jon: it doesn't state it doesn't apply to Vista. It was simply written before Vista.
Comment: As @DavidSchwartz said, there is no proof that this applies to Windows Vista and above. As the KB says, it only applies to Win200 and XP. Unless you can find a similar KB for Windows 7, as this answer explicitly states, this is not the correct answer.
Comment: This also makes the other answers just plain wrong...
Comment: I can confirm on my Vista machine (with Process Explorer) that the working set does indeed drop.
Comment: I hate doing that to people, but I already am... I suppose it's just the nature of the site at work.
Comment: -1 As this is misleading for the majority of Windows operating systems being used today. As @DMan said, it likely doesn't apply to Windows Vista or 7. Besides, just test it with the Task Manager. So far I can see no difference between minimized windows and maximized.
Comment: I don't think it applies even to Windows XP with recent service packs. It may never have applied to Windows XP, since Windows XP has proper page recency tracking, it would make no sense for it do that. (Though it's possible Microsoft simply forgot to remove it even though it makes no sense.)
Comment: -1: Bad citation and having something that is misleading highly voted is bad for anybody viewing the question.
Comment: @Kyle the linked KB article says that it doesn't apply to Windows 7 or Vista: "Applies To: Microsoft Win32 Application Programming Interface, when used with:
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0
Microsoft Windows 2000 Standard Edition
the operating system: Microsoft Windows XP"
Comment: @kinokijuf The differences are very small and not unitlaterally in favor of minimization. I am seriously questioning if these results are statistically significant.
Comment: @Jeff Attwood: The effect is even more apparent with Notepad.
Comment: I'd like to point any developers to this chunk of code I wrote over three years ago which mimics this functionality: http://stackoverflow.com/a/263459/3312 .  Feel free to write an app that does that on a button click or what-not and measure the memory statistics before and after.
Comment: And as others have pointed out: Working set size (Mem usage in TaskMgr before Vista) is automatically trimmed as needed and not means Windows uses less memory. It just means more if it is written to the slower disk (page file).
Comment: @Peter Olson: Try it With Notepad. The results will be more significant.
Comment: @LarsTruijens: I think that's the whole point of the discussion, does a minimized program are given lower priority for staying in RAM. It is not possible for an outside entity (e.g. Windows, the OS) to be able to safely reduce the memory usage of a program (except by terminating the program altogether); only the program itself can safely release memory.
Answer: Yes and no. They will use less resources on your GPU - less need for screen refreshes - but not on your main system memory or CPU.
The working set size shown in the task manager is not the actual amount of memory consumed by an application. It is more of a ceiling of how much it could use at a given point in time.
If another app requests memory allocated to one process's working set that is not in active use this number can be driven down without changing the amount of memory the app is actually using.
Comment: @Kyle That KB article is 5 years old. It doesn't apply to modern memory management schemes. (And if you see my comment to kinokijuf's answer, you'll see why it was a bad idea in the first place -- except on operating systems that can't track recency of page usage.)
Comment: And I can confirm on my Vista machine (with Process Explorer) that the working set still does drop.
Comment: @Lieven the offending line, for me at least, and why the downvote stands: "They will use less resources on your GPU - less need for screen refreshes - but not on your main system memory or CPU." The question explicitly states: "do they use less memory and CPU than leaving them maximized" which the answer is, according to MS at least (And I'll trust MS here since they did write it), yes it uses less resources. He doesn't ask anything about the preformance of the application while minimized, just if it will use less resources.
Comment: The footnotes state that it apples for NT4, 2000 and XP. I doubt anything has changed since then.
Comment: I really hate down voting answers but this is just wrong... If you asked me 10 minutes ago I would have thought you were right.
Comment: @Kyle - you are right about the error concerning memory but I could *assume* the CPU rising as a result of resolving memory faults and reading pages back into memory.
Comment: @Kyle, well, I believe he *is* right (at least after the edit). If you read the KB, it states `As a result of this trimming, a process may experience significantly poorer performance because its memory pages are being faulted back into RAM.` so in effect, it is using less memory but performance *might* suffer from it.
Answer: "Working Set" is NOT the same as "Memory Usage"
If a program needs a chunk of memory, it will always need it. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. Minimizing the program doesn't suddenly make the program 'not require' the memory. "Trimming" the working set is simply paging out the memory from physical memory onto the disk, or simply removing the page if it is available elsewhere on the disk. (In the latter case, the OS does it anyway if there is shortage of memory, so it's just a caching issue, not a 'usage' issue.) In either case, it does not reduce what the program uses; it merely relocates the data elsewhere.
That said, regarding CPU usage: there is something called a priority boost given by the OS in certain conditions, which can indeed cause a foreground application to use more CPU. See here for details.
Answer: It really depends on the application that you're talking about and the way that the application is coded; however for comparison sake lets say that the program is coded in a way that it will run the same functions when maximized and minimized.
We would therefore expect the program to use the same amount of CPU when minimized if the same underlying functions are being called by the application.
However, your system processes will certainly use less CPU when the programs are minimized as there will be less graphics to be rendered for the application viewing, probably now just a system tray icon.
That is unless upon minimizing the application you cause a more graphical application to be brought into view and therefore rendered instead, now the CPU load could increase due to the extra graphics work load.
All in all the changes we are talking about here are probably going to be negligible unless your on a very low spec machine.
Comment: Didn't realise assuming was a bad thing when made clear and covering both possibilities.
Comment: -1, for irrelevancies. For any comparisons you always had to assume [Ceteris paribus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus)
Comment: certain assumptions are irrelevant, therefore useless, even if made clear. If the program are written in such a way that minimization would terminate the program, that would obviously make the computer uses much fewer resources; that assumption is totally useless for the discussion.
Answer: Rarely.  For an interactive program that recognizes when it's minimized, yes it will use less CPU power.  For programs like Microsoft Word, there won't be a decrease in CPU ussage.
For graphics intensive applications (ex. World of Warcraft or Call of Duty 3) there would be a significant decrease in GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) usage.
Comment: An interactive program doesn't have to "recognize when it's minimized" to be using less CPU due to simply not having any keyboard/mouse window messages to respond to.
Comment: @Random832 I'm not sure what you mean entirely, however I meant to convey the type of program (like a game) that pauses when it looses focus.  These games generally use less CPU power when minimized.
Answer: I'd say it does use less resources because it does not update its window.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd145193(v=VS.85).aspx
Answer: While it is not available in windows 7 to the best of my knowledge, in Windows 8, programs that are minimized are suspended.
Comment: Is that for classic programmes as well? Its necessary for metro since you cannot actually close software
Comment: Yes, at least that is what I have seen in the beta. (example used was internet explorer, the non-metro version)
Comment: best to wait until Win8 is released rather than speculating on what may or may not carry forward from very early betas.
Comment: Well the suspension part for the metro apps cannot go away, so I would be relatively confident in the rest of the suspension system staying in place. It is also part of current win7 system, though it is not automatic.


What is a good native french dictionary and grammar book?

Question: I would like to buy a French dictionary and grammar book written for native speakers. What are some good ones?
Comment: Please read this blog post: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/
Comment: "Good ones" is to imprecise and different people will have different interpretations for it. If you want to turn your question into a constructive one, please indicate what you will use this dictionary for—not that I doubt you will make "good" use of it ;-)
Comment: I think the description below is self-explanatory. As Stéphane said, it's not only imprecise, it's subjective. What I find to be a good dictionary, someone else will find it's terrible. There is no one answer, and the SE network is about questions that are objectively answerable.
Comment: Same as Stéphane Gimenez and Kareen. I find that this type of question is not about French **Language and usage**, and besides, I am not at all convinced that FL&U should promote commercial products by the means of its questions ans answers. The cc-by-sa attribution would allow the publisher to use any content for the promotin of its product. I would feel more comfortable if this type of question was asked on the chat.
Comment: If this close is a point of contention among users, it may be better to discuss it on Meta than in comments here.
Comment: Thanks for taking the time to explain why this is a bad question. I do agree that chat is a better place for this.
Comment: I think the information you ask for is constructive and could be useful to FL&U users, even if commercial promotion don't belong on FL&U... maybe there could be a more objective formulation ?
Comment: J'ai voté pour une réouverture car il s'agit d'un retour d'expérience des utilisateurs du site. La question de publicité commerciale n'est pas posée, d'autant plus qu'il s'agit d'éditeurs qui n'en ont pas besoin. Cela permet à ceux qui ont envie d'acheter un dictionnaire de connaître les différences et de choisir en fonction de l'utilisation qu'ils comptent en faire.
Comment: The most known are, to me, _Larousse_ and _Le petit Robert_. So they _might_ be the most appropriate. I don't really know any others though.
Answer: You have the choice between the rival compact dictionaries Petit Larousse and Petit Robert. I prefer the Petit Larousse since it is far more precise, and its famous "pink pages" contain common expressions, Latin phrases used in French, proverbs etc. Both Larousse and Robert have good conjugation and grammar sections.
However, my preferred dictionaries are:

The Hachette Encyclopédique which is a little bigger (although there is a very practical pocket edition I used in highschool). It contains a lot of encyclopedic information about places, people, cities, etc and also has good conjugation and grammar sections. It is widey used by cruciverbalists, arrowords enthusiasts or Scrabble players.
The Petit Larousse
The Littré is a normative dictionary that gives a lot of information about the words themselves. It might too advanced for you (and it is difficult to find a good modern edition), but if you see it in a library while looking for advanced information it can be really useful.
The Bled / Bénac grammar guide is a small (pocket-size) book that contains every complicated rule of the French language. It is not a dictionary, but it is of great value each time you forget a rule or its exceptions, or if you don't know which tense to use. Bled was born in 1899 and wrote so many grammar books and exercise books for schools that nowadays a lot of books written in his particular style are called "Bled".
The Larousse du XXème siècle is an old (1920-1927) dictionary in 6 books that had a great success. You might find it in some libraries. It is not modern, but when you need a very precise definition of an old word (example, an old tool or architecture style) it's very good.

Although I recommend the Hachette, I agree with cl-r's answer. The Robert is a good learner dictionary and well suited for an everyday use, even if I was sometimes disappointed by its lack of precision for such a big dictionary.
Comment: "I was sometimes disappointed by its lack of precision for such a big dictionary." That's funny, because I usually have the same complain about Larousse. I'm going to assume you have issues when you look for encyclopedic information in Robert (which makes a point of being a purely lexicographic work with almost no encyclopedic information, so not exactly surprising). Me I tend to find that Larousse is shamefully lacking on the lexicographic aspect. But then it's half the size of the Robert (the other half being proper nouns), so...
Answer: Le petit Robert a ma préférence pour refléter et définir le français contemporain, par son amour des mots, plus que des définitions.
Les définitions sont adaptées aux mots : tous ont leur transcription phonétique, certains ont leur histoire, les idées associées, les synonymes ou contraires, les variations.
Plus qu'un distributeur de définitions, il permet d'abord d'appréhender un mot tant par l'intuition que l'on peut en avoir selon l'environnement dans lequel ils évolue, que par les définitions et citations elles-mêmes.
Pour formuler une phrase de qualité, il permet de varier ou de préciser son vocabulaire  pour la bonne expression des idées.
C'est plutôt un dictionnaire littéraire, qui ne référence pas forcément tous les termes techniques, scientifiques, médicaux que l'on peut trouver dans Le petit Larousse, mais, à mon goût, c'est le plus francophone.
De plus il donne les conjugaisons, et annexe les datations principales des mots, et les noms et adjectifs relatifs aux personnes et au lieux.
... et c'est grâce à lui que j'ai pu répondre judicieusement quelquefois sur ce site.


Ratio of horizontal to vertical kinetic energy in ocean

Question: What is the ratio between horizontal and vertical kinetic energy in the ocean and what is the scale dependencies of this ratio ?
Comment: a tag oceanography would be nice
Answer: The question is simple but the reason why it probably has not been answered yet is that the answwer is extraordinarily complex.
Basically if you consider a steady state with a velocity field V(x,y,z), you are asking to :

find the horizontal and vertical components Vh(x,y,z) and Vv(x,y,z)
integrate Vh².dV and Vv².dV all over the globe

This is a matter of oceanic circulation and the answers have the size of textbooks. For a more comprehensive understanding I suggest to read just 1 chapter about Ekman layer transport (http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap10.pdf)
Now with the caveat given, I will give you an estimate of an order of magnitude for the global integrals mentionned above.
Considering that the upwelling/downwelling cycles concern 10 % of the ocean surface and having the average depth of the oceans 3800 m this allows to estimate the mass contributing to the vertical movement.
The vertical velocities of the thermohaline circulation are 1 to 0.1 mm/s depending on location.
Taking the conservative value of 0.1 mm/s, this gives  a "vertical" kinetic energy of 700 GJ.
The horizontal movements are slightly easier because they concern the whole surface and reach only a limited depth. However as this circulation is wind driven and the wind velocity field is highly anisotropic and chaotic, the variability is high.
Considering that only the highest and lowest 100 m participate on the horizontal circulation (conveyor belt model) and that the average velocity is 0.1 m/s we obtain a kinetic energy of 300 millions GJ.
Despite large uncertainty margins due to very simplified estimations, it is clear that the "horizontal" kinetic energy is about 6 orders of magnitude higher than the "vertical" kinetic energy.
Comment: Interesting answer. I guess that apply to the large scale part of the spectra.


Is it permissible for men to carry gold, golden objects, or equipment coated in gold?

Question: For men, is it permissible to carry gold or golden objects or equipment or tools or such coated in gold? To carry it daily, even though he may not need it, but just in case he does.
Comment: because carrying golden jewelry is forbidden- it could be said that watches too are "tools" for telling time, but nonetheless, it is forbidden to carry them.
Comment: if you use a mobile phone, you are most likely carrying gold within it, if it's a laptop or a tablet or even a smartwatch(the gold inside it isn't wearable(inside the electronics), however if the watch is gold itself that is forbidden as it classifies as jewelry. Anything else isn't a problem
Comment: I am failing to see why that should be forbidden? Can you elaborate why you are in doubt?
Answer: Gold or other metals are prohibited for man to wear not to carry. Anything which circles around body part is come under the definition of clothes and jewellery. Ring, garland or other things are jewellery because they circle around your body. if a man wear gold is forbidden but not to carry it up. if the tool is in round shape and you put it on your fingers or arm, this would come under definition of jewellery now it is forbidden.