What is the 'awrah between husbands and wives?

Question: My husband often wants me to be totally naked when he is at home. What is the 'awrah between husbands and wives?
Answer: Yes, it is permissible for spouses to look at each others' 'awrah (private parts), e.g., when totally naked.
The Qur'an says that guarding private parts is a general rule that has only two exceptions; wives and right-hand possessions:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ
And those who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.
— Surat Al-Ma'arij 70:29-30

'Ā'isha, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, said that they used to do ghusl (take a bath) together from one vessel:

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ كُنْتُ أَغْتَسِلُ أَنَا وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ، صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْ إِنَاءٍ - بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُ - وَاحِدٍ فَيُبَادِرُنِي حَتَّى أَقُولَ دَعْ لِي دَعْ لِي . قَالَتْ وَهُمَا جُنُبَانِ
'A'isha reported: I and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) took a bath from one vessel which was placed between me and him and he would get ahead of me, so that I would say: Spare (some water for) me, spare (some water for) me; and she said that they had had sexual intercourse.
— Sahih Muslim, Book 3, Hadith 54

It is understood by anyone who performed ghusl before that this could only be done while one is not wearing any clothes. Furthermore, from the hadith of Haida ibn Mu'āwiyah ibn Qushair:

عَنْ بَهْزِ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ، قَالَ قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عَوْرَاتُنَا مَا نَأْتِي مِنْهَا وَمَا نَذَرُ. قَالَ:  احْفَظْ عَوْرَتَكَ إِلاَّ مِنْ زَوْجَتِكَ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ
Narrated through Bahz ibn Hakim said that his father told on the authority of his grandfather: "I said: 'Messenger of Allah, from whom should we conceal our private parts and to whom can we show?'" He replied: "Conceal your private parts except from your wife and from whom your right hands possess (slave girls)."
— Sunan Abi Dawud, Book 33, Hadith 9

This hadith stipulates that one need not conceal one's 'awrah (private parts) in front of one's spouse.
Based on the above

Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni 7/101 said that it is permitted for spouses to enjoy each others' private parts, including looking and touching, as is the rest of each other' bodies.
Ad-Desouki in Hāshiyat Ad-Desūqi 'ala Ash-Sharh al-Kabīr 2/215 said that it is permitted for either spouse in a valid marriage may look at a part or all of the other spouse's body, including private parts.
Ibn Hazm in Al-Muhalla 9/164-165/1875 said that it is permitted for the man to look at his wife's and his right-hand possessions' private parts, and likewise, they are also permitted to look at his private parts.
Ibn Hajar in Fat'h al-Bāri 1/364 in his commentary on the hadith of 'Ā'isha bathing with the Prophet said that Ad-Dawūdi used it to indicate that a man may look at his wife's 'awrah and vice versa.

There are other hadiths that point to the contrary, i.e., that a husband and wife should not fully don their clothes in each others company. None of these hadiths go above the grade of da'īf (weak); therefore, they do not apply as a prohibition. For your reference, these hadiths are:

Sunan Ibn Majah 3/9/1921 "When anyone of you has intercourse with his wife, let him cover himself and not be naked liked donkeys."
Musnad Al-Bazzār 16/215/8628 "When one of you goes in unto his wife, let him be covered, for if he is not covered, the angels feel shy and depart, then if they have a child, the Shaytaan will have a share of him."
Jāmi' at-Tirmidhi  5/41/2800 "Beware of nakedness! For indeed there are with you, those who do not part from you except at the place of defecation, and when a man goes into his wife. So be shy of them and honor them."
Comment: @qdinar I suggest you first read about istidlal both dhanni and qat'i, and about ijmal vs. bayan, ta'mim vs takhsis, itlaq vs taqyid, then about grading of hadith for istidlal vs hadith science before doing a search and assuming jurisprudential deductions can be made based on its results.
Comment: what about hadithes about awrahness of thigh? : https://sunnah.com/search/?q=thigh .
Comment: @qdinar, which one in specific? What are its context and grade?
Comment: your question is strange. the hadithes 1-7, 9, as they are listed now, are about awrahness of thigh. i have not searched/looked much below/deep for such hadithes there. context and grade? what is it? you can see grade of some of them if you open them on their own page, every hadith.


How to Copy CD+Graphics / Karaoke CDs?

Question: Is there any good software to copy CD+Graphics (aka Karaoke CDs) for Windows 7?  Preferably free.  I can copy the audio portion just fine, but for some reason I keep looking the karaoke lyrics / graphics portion.  It used to be that a lot of the software supported these specifically, but now I am having a hard time finding any mention of this feature, and the ones I have tried didn't work.
Comment: Nero afaik supports this if you read all subchannel data
Answer: Have you tired the Power CD+G Burner by Power Karaoke?  The website says it supports Windows Vista so it should work with Windows 7.
Its not free, but they have a trial version.
Answer: I'd expect any software that does a bitwise copy of the disc should work. If not you could try creating an iso file from something like cdburnerxp and burning that back to a disc.
Answer: The open source cdrdao copies disk-at-once on Linux, BSD, MAC OSX, and Windows.  DAO is required to get the subcode graphics.
cdgtools takes that and can burn to another CD or rip it apart to mp3 and G.   Play directly off the hard drive via pykaraoke.
When CDG is ripped to two case-sensitive files - .BIN and .TOC, the files have-to-have the exact same name except for the filename extension.
Comment: Now, we just need the python modified to rip to HTML5.

How to Copy CD+Graphics / Karaoke CDs?


Is there any denomination that fully embraces Dispensational Premillennialism?

Question: I'm not a fan of dispensational premillennialism, but I don't know of any denominations that specifically hold to it. I'm just fairly curious. I've met individual people that believe it, but never an entire denomination that supports it. Do any such denominations exist?
Comment: the Plymouth Brethren do
Answer: Dispensationalism tends to be most prevalent in baptist, charismatic, and non-denominational churches.  However, the largest baptist and charismatic denominations (like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God) do not take a firm stance on a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.  Still, there are sizable denominations and associations of churches that specifically hold to this doctrine.
A full list is beyond the scope of this site, but one major charismatic denomination holding to this is the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (3.5 million members).  Its statement of faith reads:

The second coming of Christ will occur in two stages; the first for the purpose of catching away His saints who are prepared for the Rapture before the Great Tribulation period; and the second at the end of the Great Tribulation, when He shall come back with His saints to destroy the armies of the Antichrist, to judge the nations of the world, and to inaugurate the millennial reign. (source)

Another group, perhaps not meeting your definition of "denomination," is Calvary Chapel, an association of churches with about 25 million members in total.  It, too, clearly describes dispensational eschatology in its statement of faith:

We believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church through which all believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and be taken out of the world prior to the Tribulation that will then come upon the earth. (source)

So yes, not all denominations influenced by dispensationalism avoid clearly stating dispensational doctrine in their statements of faith: there are significant denominations and associations that specifically hold to the doctrine of a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.
Answer: In addition to most Baptist groups, many non-denominational associations of churches, and the church groups of the more recent charismatic movements since the early 1960s which hold the doctrine, the two largest and most prominent Pentecostal denominations in both Canada and the USA also hold to the doctrine. In their statement of beliefs, under the heading "The End Of Time" and the sub-heading "The Rapture," the Pentecostal Assemblies Of Canada hold that:

The rapture, the blessed hope of the church, is the imminent coming of the Lord in the air to receive to Himself His own, both the living who shall be transformed, and the dead in Christ who shall be resurrected. This event takes place before the wrath of God is poured out during the tribulation.

Clearly held above are the doctrines of Dispensational/Pre-Tribulational Premillennialism. And in the U.S., the Assemblies Of God word it this way in their belief statement:

The 'imminent and blessed hope' of the Church is its rapture preceding the bodily return of Christ to earth. The rapture of the Church will be followed by the visible return of Christ and his reign on earth for a thousand years.

The belief of imminency in this latter statement necessarily requires an espousal of Pre-Trib Premillennialism as well.
However, the fairly large Vineyard Fellowship network, both in the USA and in Canada, one of the more recent charismatic groups to appear, has left it vague in its beliefs statement as to which variety of premillennialism it holds to, if any at all, though it certainly expresses a premillennial view.
Comment: Welcome, and nice answer! Thanks for contributing. If you haven't already done so, I hope you'll take a minute to take the [tour] and learn [how this site is different from others](https://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1809/21576).
Answer: Although this is not a denomination proper, Bible churches also tend to stick to premillenial dispensationalism.  I am a member of one, and we hold to it, mostly.  However, I do not know what you mean by fully embracing it.  Dispensationalism has at least a couple of forms.  A more strict dispensational form has a corollary that says we are in a dispensation which is different than the one given to the apostles and very early church, so some of the gifts of the Spirit are no longer in play in our dispensation.
However, it seems that dispensationalism has shifted more and more to a recognition that there is nothing in the New Testament to indicate that those gifts are no longer applicable.  While I would consider myself a premillenial dispensationalist, I would say, with many others in the same camp, that all gifts of the Spirit are still possible, within the confines of how Scripture dictates their their purpose and manner of use.
Comment: Welcome to Christianity.SE. For a quick overview of what this site is about, please take the [Site Tour](http://christianity.stackexchange.com/tour). Thanks for offering an answer. Does your church have any affiliation, even if loose, with others that hold similar views? And can you provide links to doctrinal statements from your church relating to the question? If so, that would greatly strengthen your answer here. See: [What makes a good supported answer?](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-makes-a-good-supported-answer)
Answer: Look up Dr Andy Woods from Sugar Land Bible Church www.slbc.org also Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries. Be warned if you really desire to mature in Christ these people really have been raised by God in these last days to further reveal biblical truths that have been concealed until these times. Remember in scripture certain truths are further illuminated by the Sprit as we draw closer to the day of the Lord. Hope this helps and God Bless
Comment: That looks like a single church, not a denomination. Is it part of a denomination, and do they fully embrace dispensationalism?


Where are all the `alternatives` stored?

Question: As far as I understand, /etc/alternatives stores only currently selected alternatives. Where are all the variants and all the metadata stored? I have accidentally removed an alternative with galternatives and want to add it back as it was manually (as galternatives functionality is very limited).
Answer: This data seems to be in /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives, also check man update-alternatives for more information.
Answer: The command-line update-alternatives tool should help you here.
This command should take you through all alternatives one at a time:
update-alternatives --all
There are some more examples at this wiki page which can show you all manually-set alternatives and even (use with caution!) reset all those to their defaults.
A more detailed description of how the alternatives system works, including where it stores all its configuration, is available in the update-alternatives manpage (note that this version for Debian and Ubuntu contains more functionality than the update-alternatives from redhat).


How far do I have to place torches so that mobs will not spawn near me?

Question: Since torches prevent mobs from spawning, is it possible to place enough torches within a specific radius to ensure safety during the night? I'm thinking of a situation without any shelter built, more along the lines of a flat plain. If it is possible, how many torches/how far out do I need to go to make that area safe?
Comment: See also this related question (and answers): http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/15959/how-far-should-i-place-torches-in-a-planar-huge-room
Comment: Best to make sure by using F3 to show the light level of the block you are standing on. If it's 7 or lower, you need your torches/lanterns/glowstone to be closer together.
Answer:
Learn about light:

Sunlight gives 15 luminance to the blocks it hits directly, or through half steps.

Lava gives 15 luminance.

Glowstone gives 15 luminance.

A Jack-o-lantern gives 15 luminance.

A Torch gives 14 luminance to the otherwise empty block it occupies.

A Redstone torch gives 7 luminance to the otherwise empty block it occupies.

Every tile that isn't a light source has a luminance of one minus the luminance of its neighbors. For example, if you had a 6 and a 4 luminance sources close to each other, attached to a wall, you'd have this distribution:
                 1
                121
           1   12321
          121 1234321
         1232123454321
        123432345654321
         12┴─────┴4321
          1     12321
                 121
                  1

...except this works in three dimensions instead of two!

Learn about spawning:

The following applies to any difficulty, except for Easy.

Every tile within 24 distance of the player is not eligible.

Every tile outside a 144×144 square centered on you is not eligible.

Every non-glass, non-half step surface in the outer world with 7 or less luminance is eligible for spawning.
Every non-glass, non-half step surface in the Nether is eligible for spawning.

Mob spawners cause mob to spawn at a high rate in any surface within 5 distance of it.

In practice:

Here's what I try to do to ensure a luminance of 7 consistently along a line:

Place the first torch. Pardon my hexadecimal one-sided luminance graph:
   EDCBA98765432100000000000000000
   ↑

Proceed until you find two tiles looking exactly like the next, then go back one.
   EDCBA98765432100000000000000000
                ↑

Plant a torch there. Lo and behold, minimum luminance there will be 8!
   EDCBA9889ABCDEDCBA98765432100
                ↑

GOTO 1

You can adapt this algorithm to your necessities with ease. Just plant a torch in the darkest area when in doubt. (Duh.)
Also:

Put torches directly onto surfaces for best results.

In your mining, be aware that any surface is good enough to spawn...
    ↓↓↓ ↓↓    All positions marked with an arrow are valid
    ███ ██↓   spawning points, to the best of my knowledge,
    █     █↓  and they all can lead to the just spawned mob
    █      █  to reach you.
    █     ↓█
    █↓↓↓↓↓█   Be vigilant and don't mine caves from the
    ███████   bottom up :(

Learn how to keep mob that has spawned outside: make traps.

Mobs can only jump up one tile. Make pits deeper than that and, once in, they will be trapped (skeletons are still dangerous and spiders can climb out).
Mobs cannot deconstruct. Make walls. (Be aware creepers do explode, if they get close enough.) Use cobblestone: they have high explosion resistance and can't catch fire.
Mobs cannot use items. Protect your entrance with a wooden door. Plant it from the outside, or skeletons will be able to hurt you with their arrows!
Mobs' path finding is somewhat dumb. Protect your spawn point with water and liberal amounts of cactus (arrange them in a chequered pattern.)
Comment: @cyclops Light is additive in frequency certainly. If you wish to discuss this any further may I suggest physics.stackexchange.com? I unfortunately lack formal education in optics, or human perception thereof ;)
Comment: @badp, ah, yes, actually, light *is* additive in the real world :) Also, trains *can* reach velocities higher than 8 m/s, and leave piles, sadly, do not instantly decay. :)
Comment: The algorithm gives you the least amount of torches you can possibly use to get 8 minimum luminance in a row. That's the bare minimum, and it is useful to know: anything more than that will keep you safe.
Comment: I'm interested in what you said about glass and half-steps -- if I build a fortress out of these two materials, I'll be spawn-free even if I miss a torch or two? Also, does that only count half-steps that make a half-block-high surface, or can I stack two half-steps for a clean white floor (or as the step between a half step and a block+half-step step) and remain mob-free?
Comment: One question, just to confirm - so light from two sources is *not* additive? I would have thought that the light next to the "4" square would also be "4", from 3 + 1 from the "6".
Comment: @Cyclops Light is not addictive indeed -- and it isn't in "real life" either :) Lighting a torch under direct sunlight doesn't actually accomplish anything.
Comment: Just one thing: why goto? https://xkcd.com/292/
Answer: Torches Provide a light level of 14. Note that this is to the block that they are in.  Adjacent blocks have a light level of 13.  Mobs require a light level of 7 or less to spawn.
This means that mobs can't spawn within 7 of a lit torch. So placing a torch every thirteen tiles will keep a hallway lit.
T____________T
01234567890123

You can expand this to two dimensions by placing a second line of torches 7 to one side and offset by seven.
T____________T______
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
______T____________T

See this post
Answer: In a straight hallway torches placed on the floor can be 13 spaces apart safely.  But in an open area they should be 12 spaces apart, then offset 7 spaces and then 6 spaces, not 7 and 7.
This is confusing until you draw it out.  In my examples below the grid on the left is the previously recommended and incorrect 13/7/7 offset; notice how it results in squares with 7 luminance that trigger mob spawns.  The grid on the right is the correct 12/7/6 offset resulting in minimum 8 luminance across the board.  The green bordered area shows how both 12 or 13 spaces apart are fine for a straight line.

This assumes a level area.  YMMV on uneven terrain or elevation changes, so you'll have to double check darker squares' luminance using F3.  Once it gets level again you can resume the righthand pattern above.
Likewise the 13 spaces from torch to torch (for 12 lighted spaces between) in a hallway assumes a straight line and torches placed on the floor.  Torches placed on the wall are not as efficient, requiring 11 spaces torch to torch (for 10 lighted spaces between).  Any turns affect the count.
For an extreme example, torch performance in diagonal/zigzag hallways also depends on where you place the torches.  Torches placed on the floor are most efficient by far, illuminating their floor square at 14 and safely lighting 12 intervening spaces between torches.  Torches placed on the walls are dimmer and must be closer together, only illuminating the floor squares under them to 13, and safely lighting only 9 intervening spaces!  So if you're short on torches place them on the floor.
Answer: Mobs will spawn in areas of light 7 or lower. Source
Torches provide a light of 14, with the light value being reduced by 1 for every tile away.
14   13   12   11   10    9    8    9   10   11   12   13   14

Consider the line of light values above. The 14's are torches. If you put the torches no more than 12 squares away, you will prevent any monster from spawning in a straight line; do note however, that if you go with a strictly grid based system, you will have dark "centers" made from the torch squares. I recommend a staggered grid, each line "shifted" 6 squares from the other, so that the light values prevent the centers from getting to dark.
Comment: @Nick - No. Light (aside from sunlight) only affects mob spawning. Once the mob spawns, it can happily move into the light. You have to prevent spawning in the first place.
Comment: I'm looking for a way to make sure that no mobs will exist anywhere in my vicinity by just using torches. If I just stand still with a circle of torches with a radius of 11, will it prevent mobs from walking into the area, or to an extent towards me?
Comment: @Nick - I misread your question. I apologize. Fallacious comment retracted.
Comment: no problem. I'm having trouble phrasing things today, so it's more likely to be my fault.
Answer: First, some mob spawning science:

Spawns occur in a 144x144 square around you (assuming a perfectly flat surface), but not within a 24 block radius of you.
Hostile mobs spawn at light = 7 or less
A torch provides 14 light to adjacent blocks and one less light per block of distance.

Using these measurements, it looks like you would have to make a grid of torches 13 squares apart that covers a 144x144 block area (excepting the no spawn circle around you, if you like).
Answer: All surfaces that are either not a full block (like dirt or stone etc),are leaves or glass of any color or if their are any redstone components that arent full blocks. There is also a "mob cap" where the amount of monsters is so great that the game wont attempt to spawn any anymore, there are ways you can abuse this(nametags, shulkers, and enderman and some others) you wont need to worry about this unless your doing some weird stuff with mob farms or something along those lines. Spawners have a area around them that they check for to see if they can spawn mobs. for example if you have a zombie spawner and their are numerous zombies within the 8x8x3 area they wont spawn. There are alternate sources of light like nether portals and mushrooms but these are mostly impractical.


Are the legendaries Prince Malchezaar adds to my deck all different?

Question: Are the 5 legendary minions which Prince Malchezaar adds to my deck all different or can two or even more be the same minion? Can I e.g. rely on Reno to heal me up?
Answer: Prince Malchezaar follows the Deckbuildung rules, which means that

no legendary that is already in your deck is added
five differerent legendaries are added
no legendaries of other classes are added

Source
As @CobaltZorch mentioned in the comments, Prince Malchezaar adds the cards after the mulligan. This makes it possible that a legendary that you already have in your hand is added to the deck. The legendaries in your deck will stil be unique though, so Reno etc. will still work without surprises.
Comment: Small note, he can add legendaries you have in hand, as they aren't in your deck.  I got hit today by a very unexpected and game losing Alexstrazsa double from a warrior.
Comment: I might be mistaken, but the cards are added after mulligan, so you have the original 3/4 cards in hand before Malchezaar procs and adds the extra 5
Comment: @CobaltZorch Are you sure about that? His effect triggers before any cards are drawn, so this should not be possible.
Comment: @CobaltZorch Just tried it, you are right, the cards are added after the starting hands are drawn. Gonna add it to my answer, thanks!
Answer: Prince Malchezaar will not add duplicate legendaries to your deck, so it is safe to play Reno in your deck. It will also only add neutral and the same class legendaries to you deck.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/4vm13p/reveal_2_new_cards_revealed_by_ben_brode_in_s/ (Reddit post about Ben Brode announcing the card)


Is it worth saving HSA funds until retirement?

Question: I recently discovered that there is no lifetime limit to contributing to an HSA account - provided that you don't contribute more than the limit per year. Assuming that an individual makes a decent salary that covering their max-out-of-pocket for health insurance is not an issue, would it make sense to save and delay using HSA money until retirement when income is more limited? Are there pros and cons from a tax perspective?
Comment: @smci, I think you misread my comment.  Can you provide a link to an account of this type that does not allow you to invest the money?  Because I can provide links to several that offer mutual funds.
Comment: @smci Some HSAs do not offer investing options, perhaps only paying a small amount of interest, similar to a savings account. Other HSAs, however, allow you to invest your money in mutual funds, just as you would in an IRA. This question is about investable HSA accounts.
Comment: @smci, I don't recall ever seeing an HSA that doesn't have an investing component to it.  Do you have an example of one?  I'd be curious to see it.
Comment: Huh? HSAs don't pay interest or dividends, unlike IRAs, 401Ks, etc. So, are you assuming you first max out those?
Comment: @WesleyMarshall: that's what I'm saying: they **don't**, so what's the rationale of this question? That HSAs make medical expenses tax-free, as opposed to tax-deferred retirement savings? The rationale only makes sense if you're close enough to retirement that the tax-free savings exceeds the foregone interest/dividends. It won't make sense if you're under 40, for sure.
Answer: Yes, absolutely.
The HSA, when used for medical expenses, allows you to essentially pay for your medical expenses tax free. Even if you don't have extra room in your budget, you can fund the HSA as you incur medical expenses, then withdraw money to pay the expenses, and you'll see an immediate tax benefit at tax time.
However, let's say that you have plenty of room in your budget and you don't have a lot of medical expenses. You already contribute the maximum to your 401(k) or IRA, and you want to do more. The HSA acts like a retirement account in this case, allowing you to contribute before-tax money and let it grow untaxed.
The HSA does have a huge benefit that no other retirement account has. If you choose not to reimburse yourself for medical expenses, but you keep track of the unreimbursed expenses you incur, then you can reimburse yourself for these expenses at any point in the future completely tax free. Essentially, your contributions are treated like a traditional IRA, but your withdrawals are treated like a Roth IRA, and can be done at any age. If you don't acquire enough medical expenses, you can still withdraw whatever is left at age 65 and those withdrawals will be taxed like a traditional IRA.
The HSA provides for tax-free contributions and growth if used for medical expenses, and tax-deferred growth if withdrawn after age 65 without medical expenses.
Comment: Assuming you do not max your IRA, isn't it "better" to withdraw from your HSA as expenses occur and deposit it into a Roth IRA? None of the answers so far mention this common case.
Comment: @VBCPP Yes, if you aren't already maxing out your IRA contributions, you certainly can take your reimbursed medical expense money and put it in your Roth IRA.  However, there is a trade-off there.  The pro to the Roth is that your earnings can be withdrawn tax- and penalty-free for any reason at age 59.5 (5.5 years earlier than the HSA).  However, with the HSA, you might be able to withdraw some of your earnings even earlier, if you accumulate more medical expenses.
Answer:
Is it worth saving HSA funds until retirement?

Yes

Are there pros and cons from a tax perspective?

Mostly pros.
This has all of the benefits of an IRA, but if you use it for medical expenses then you get to use the money tax free on the other side. Retirement seems to be the time you are most likely to need money for medical expenses. So why wouldn't you want to start saving tax free to cover those expenses?
The cons are similar to other tax advantaged retirement accounts. If you withdraw before retirement time for non-medical purposes, you will pay penalties, but if you withdraw at retirement time, you will pay the same taxes you would pay on an IRA.

I should note that I put my money where my mouth is and I max out my contribution to my HSA every year.
Comment: What would happen to the money if you die? Does your estate withdraw it at the regular tax rate?
Comment: Beneficiary spouse uses it like any HSA. Otherwise it's more complicated worthy of an entirely new question.
Comment: It passes to a named beneficiary, if that beneficiary is a spouse it's their HSA, if it's not a spouse it is cashed out at fair market value and treated as taxable income to the beneficiary.
Comment: Your answer is good and succinct, but you overlook a large benefit, in that you can defer reimbursement for medical expenses. Pay out of pocket now, get it reimbursed in 20 years, which offers significant tax-free growth potential.
Answer: If you can afford to max out an HSA and cover out of pocket expenses without withdrawing from it, it makes sense to do so.
It might sound initially risky to tie too much money to healthcare expenses, perhaps you'll enjoy exceptional health and not need those funds. However, the annual contribution limit ($3,350/year for an individual) is low enough that it's unlikely you'd overfund your HSA, but even if you didn't need it all for healthcare, after 65 you can withdraw HSA funds without the 20% withdrawal penalty that you're hit with if under 65, so best case it's tax-free, worst-case it's like an IRA.
From a tax perspective, your contributions are a tax-deduction like a traditional IRA, there's no tax on the gains, and you withdraw it tax-free as well, so long as you have healthcare expenses.
The tricky bit is you can get reimbursed for your expenses at any time. If you pay out of pocket now, in 20 years you can get a reimbursement from your HSA:
From HSA Bank's FAQ

Can I use my tax-free HSA savings to pay for — or reimburse myself for
  — IRS-qualified medical expenses from a previous year?
  Yes, as long as
  the IRS-qualified medical expenses were incurred after your HSA was
  established, you can pay them or reimburse yourself with HSA funds at
  any time. Just be sure to keep sufficient records to show that these
  expenses were not previously paid for by another source or taken as an
  itemized deduction in any prior tax year.
Comment: I'm wondering if one does a rollover of a prior HSA into a new one, if the date of the HRA being established is the original date or is reset to the new date.  In other words, does rolling over invalidate reimbursing expenses that occurred before the rollover?
Comment: @TaylorEdmiston Good question, I'm not certain. I know HSA's are portable, so I wouldn't think moving them around has any affect, but probably best to check with individual HSA administrators on that.
Comment: @TaylorEdmiston - the law allows you to have more than one HSA account. Therefore, the only date that matters is the date in which the first account was established, with the caveat being that from that first day on at least one HSA account was always open since.
Answer: There are some points not covered in the other answers that I feel are important to address:

Eligibility to contribute to an HSA

In order to be eligible to contribute to an HSA, you must be enrolled in a High Deductible Health insurance Plan (HDHP).  In general, I think this is a great idea for most people (who are responsible enough to save up for medical expenses), but for a small portion it may cost more money to enroll in this type of plan, due to high recurring medical costs.  You should always weigh the costs of the related insurance plans against the benefit of an HSA.
Note that once you open an account and contribute, you can use the funds at any point after that.  The eligibility described here is only regarding making new contributions to the account.

Administrative costs

This may no longer be true, but when I first started using an HSA several years back, I noticed that the fees and costs administered by the providers  were higher than I'd come to expect from, say, my IRA administrator.  At least, this was true for the accounts I found – perhaps I missed a better option.
Furthermore, there was a much smaller selection of investment options available in those HSAs than in other brokerage accounts.  If you are not maxing out retirement already, it's worth comparing fees and historical returns versus those accounts rather than assuming that the tax benefits will make the HSA a better deal.
In my book, if it passes these two checks, then the HSA is a tremendous deal that is highly under-utilized.
Comment: One additional thing that seems less significant, but still noteworthy.  I have also seen a stipulation on some accounts that a certain amount in the account be held in cash reserves, rather than invested.  I think it is typically a few hundred dollars, but YMMV.


Definition of capitalism

Question: Does the discipline of economics have an accepted rigorous definition of capitalism?
 I.e. not something like "some economists would quote Hayek and say that so and so constitutes capitalism" but an if and only if definition that most economists would agree on.
Comment: [Oooooooooooops](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/16699/what-are-the-defining-features-of-capitalism?rq=1)
Comment: Private ownership of the means of production. I'm not sure that satisfies your standards of rigor though.
Comment: To those who closed Luchanacho's question and would perhaps also endeavour to close this one I'd like to point out that the capitalism tag has 11 questions, most of which use the word capitalism without any explanation. IMO either those questions are all unclear or Luchanacho's and mine are not too broad. (Mine will be a duplicate if we agree to reopen the other one, which is fine.)
Comment: @EconJohn And your reasoning for closing this question?
Comment: @MichaelGreinecker I am afraid it does not. (What is the difference between [state capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism) and communism/[planned economy](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Planned_economy) with this definition?) I would also insist on a source.
Comment: Would vote to close, however that would mean that I close the question unanimously
Answer: Though there may not be a set definition of "capitalism" chisled in stone somewhere, there are general principles that economists agree are implied in capitalism and that capitalism implies.
Take, for example, the two below definitions of "capitalism":

[A]n economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy. -- Investopedia

Both definitions provide two elements necessary for "capitalism":
(1) private individual / corporate business ownership of capital goods and
(2) private decisions based on the given market's supply and demand curves (and the factors influencing those curves).
Comment: I like this answer (because it starts by saying there is no set definition), but I feel it dances around the main issue a bit: what level of state involvement (or ownership of the means of production) can you have in an economy and still call it capitalism? E.g. there is some contrast between your answer and [this one](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/20610/what-metrics-can-be-used-to-distinguish-between-capitalistic-and-socialistic-eco).
Comment: @Giskard and what level is **required** - I think most would agree that it's not capitalism unless the state is enforcing property rights primarily for investors! If the state were to turn around and enforce that the workers own the means of production, or that nobody owns them, it would not be capitalism.
Comment: @Giskard I believe that is a different question from the original one, but it goes back to not having a "set" definition. Like any word/phrase, a definition details the "if and only if" points. "Capitalism" is a broad term with only the 2 parameters of private ownership and private decisions. For more precise information on the level of state involvement, we need to use the sub-definitions of "capitalism" (i.e. definitions for crony capitalism, state capitalism, etc.). However, the above definition seems to allow any state involvement as long as private ownership and decisions are allowed.
Answer: The dictionary definitions of capitalism (currently the most upvoted answer) have been critiqued as inadequate, in the sense that they are too broad, by Geoffrey Hodgson in his treatise, Conceptualising Capitalism (University of Chicago Press, 2015).

Definitions proliferate. Most dictionaries stress private
  ownership and markets; many add the profit motive. The entry in The
   New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1998, 2:831) is typical: "Capitalism, also
  called free market economy, or free enterprise economy: economic system
  . . . in which most of the means of production are privately owned
  and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation
  of markets."
But, if we consider systems based largely on private ownership, the
  profit motive, and markets, we can find many examples before the medieval
  era. [...] trade has existed for tens of
  thousands of years, markets may have appeared as long as five millennia
  ago in China, and they were evident in several locations in the eastern
  Mediterranean and the Middle East around 600 BC. Private ownership,
  the pecuniary calculus, and the profit motive have similarly played
  a prominent role in leading economic regions for thousands of years.
  Hence, prominent dictionary definitions of capitalism make it a system
  that has lasted for multiple millennia. If we adopt such definitions, then
  we need to find another word to describe the institutional structures that
  were consolidated in the eighteenth century and gave rise to spectacular
  economic growth and ongoing technological innovation.

And he does have his own definition (which I will not try to argue that is mainstream); its premise is that:

Capitalism [...] requires special forms of state that cannot confiscate property arbitrarily at will, that are effectively restrained by laws, that have internal
  checks and balances, and that are faced with countervailing (democratic
  or other) powers that help protect a relatively autonomous legal system.
  Such states are necessary to legitimate and protect property rights and
  to enforce contracts. They required peculiar circumstances and a long
  time to evolve. Foreshadowed in the Italian city- states, they did not appear
  on a national scale until the seventeenth century, in Britain and the
  Netherlands. [...]
I argue that, while markets are central to capitalism, capitalism is not
  simply a market system: unavoidably it contains different subsystems of
  governance, production, distribution, and exchange. Furthermore, capitalism
  cannot in principle have markets for everything or bring everything
  within the orbit of commodity exchange.
  In particular, under capitalism there can never be a complete set of
  markets for future labor power. For there to be full futures markets for
  labor, all workers must enter into contracts for their expected working
  life. This would be tantamount to voluntary bondage, limiting the freedom
  of workers to quit their employment. Paradoxically, pushing markets
  to their limits would mean the return of slavery for the workforce.

He goes on to semi-formalize a list of tenets that constitute capitalism first according to [his interpretation of] Marx and then similarly for Schumpeter

M[arx]-capitalism

A legal system supporting widespread individual rights and liberties to own,
  buy, and sell private property
Widespread commodity exchange and markets involving money
Widespread private ownership of the means of production by firms producing
  goods or services for sale in the pursuit of profit
Much of production organized separately and apart from the home and
  family
Widespread wage labor and employment contracts

Most dictionary and encyclopedia definitions emphasize conditions
  (1), (2), and (3), albeit often without emphasis on the legal system. More
  than Marx, the notion of M-capitalism emphasizes the legal system and
  individual rights. Regarding condition (4), the separation of much production
  from the family and the domestic sphere was emphasized by Weber
  (1968) and is implicit in Marx's writings. Weber rightly argued that
  this separation was important to subject production to systems of rational
  accounting and pecuniary motivation. Marx emphasized condition
  (5) because it flows from the nature of capitalism as generalized commodity
  production and encapsulates the driving antagonism between
  the employing class and the working class. [...]
A problem [...] is that the addition of
  condition (5), widespread wage labor, to the preceding four does not effectively
  demarcate modern industrial capitalism from the four preceding
  centuries when wage labor was widespread in rural England.
  M-capitalism, as specified above, gives us a better-than-average definition,
  but not one that is sufficiently sharp in terms of historical specificity.
Further problems of historical demarcation arise with the first four
  conditions. As noted in section 4.4 above, the idea that secure property
  rights were first established in England in the seventeenth century is a
  myth. Furthermore, money, markets, and private ownership have existed
  for millennia. The fourth condition is helpful but hardly sufficient as an
  explanation of massive expansion of capitalism around 1800. The five
  conditions are inadequate to demarcate historically the explosion of capitalist
  productivity even if they are necessary for that system.

As for S[chumpeter]-capitalism, he argues that it contains all of the above, except for #5, but that additionally it has

A developed financial system with banking institutions, the widespread use
  of credit with property as collateral, and the selling of debt

The addition of condition (6) takes seriously the monetary definition
  of capital and institutions promoting collateralization and the salability
  of debt. Capitalism is thus marked by "the predominance of 'capital'"
  (Sombart 1930, 196). This definition points to the development of institutions
  of clearer historical specificity. According to this definition, the
  emergence of capitalism in England is marked by developments in financial
  institutions in the eighteenth century.
Note that condition (1) in the definitions of M-capitalism and
  S-capitalism rules out (at least widespread) slavery. Consequently, both
  M-capitalism and S-capitalism involve missing futures markets for labor.
  With S-capitalism, there may be self-employment or worker cooperatives
  but not extensive slave labor. M-capitalism rules out an economy
  with predominant self- employment or worker cooperatives.

As you can probably guess, by synthesis, he argues that the definition of capitalism should include the superset of 1-6 from both M- and S-capitalism (which already have a lot in common).

But there is a cost to the exclusion of condition (5) from this definition. [...] the advantage of retaining
  the employment contract in the definition of capitalism is that it demarcates
  the system from economies involving self-employed producers or
  worker cooperatives. Furthermore, the introduction of wage labor gave
  important incentives for labor-saving innovations and led to increases in
  productivity. Consequently, the definition of capitalism that is favored
  here— and described simply as capitalism, without any prefix— involves
  all six of the above conditions. [...]
Conditions
  (5) and (6) serve as fuzzy historical bookends, together demarcating
  capitalism from preceding systems and possible successors. [...]
Explicit reference to social class is also absent from the definition offered
  above. In his review of different definitions of capitalism, Michael
  Merrill (1995) argued that capitalism is much more than simply a market
  economy. He was right about that. But he wanted to define capitalism as
  "a market economy ruled by, or in the interests of, capitalists" (322). A
  problem [...] is that the basis of class itself has to
  be defined, and Marx and Engels were obliged to use legal terms such as
  ownership to do so. Being a capitalist or a worker is not a congenital attribute:
  it is the occupation of a social role that is determined in part by
  legal relations. Class-related legal terms appear in all points above, except
  condition (4).
Marxists have abused class-centered definitions of capitalism. They
  see class struggle, where the destiny of one class is to seize control of the system from another. But, notwithstanding the power of capitalists over
  workers, capitalists do not control capitalism: it is more the other way
  round. Such large and complex systems cannot be fully controlled, as if
  from a single chamber of power.

And while he disses that idea that capitalists control capitalism itself as a caricature, he nevertheless argues that it is an integrated economic and political system (and in this he is not that original, as he acknowledges):

The central role of the state within capitalism means that we must
  address politics as well as economics. [...] Douglass C. North, John J. Wallis,
  and Barry R. Weingast (2009, 269) argued: "The seeming independence
  of the economic and political systems on the surface is apparent, not
  real. In fact, these systems are deeply intertwined." I also concur with
  Bruce R. Scott (2009, 4) in his claim that capitalism is both "a political
  phenomenon" and "an economic one" and that "specifically it requires
  the visible hands of political actors exercising power through political
  institutions." Capitalism always involves legal and political institutions:
  pure "anarchocapitalism" is an unrealizable fantasy.

And since the Austrians (Hayek actually) got mentioned in the question, Hodgson has this to say about their approach to defining capitalism:

The Austrian economists had
  little to say about the sphere of production—conditions (4) and (5)—
  including the employment contract. Although they mentioned money
  many times, they paid insufficient attention to the use of property as collateral
  or to the selling of debt—condition (6). Their theory of money
  downplays the vital constitutive role of the state. At best, they stressed
  three of the six conditions only. The first three conditions are insufficient to identify the institutions of the capitalist system that were responsible
  for the explosive production of wealth in the last three hundred
  years.

While this may not be any sort of consensus statement, it is at least a comparative analysis of various definitions (from fairly prominent sources).
Answer: CORE is an open-access economics course put together by a group of experts (including colleagues of mine).
This page covers their definition of a capitalist system. From there, this figure 1.8 visualises one aspect of it:

They go on to say:

The distinctive hallmark of the capitalist economic system is the
  private ownership(1) of capital goods(2) that are organized for use in
  firms. Other economic systems are distinctive because of the
  importance of privately owned land, the presence of slaves, because
  the government owns capital goods, or because of the limited role of
  firms. Capitalist economies differ, too, from earlier economies in the
  magnitude of the capital goods used in production. Massive power looms
  have replaced spinning wheels; a tractor now pulls a plough to do a
  job once done by a farmer using a hoe.
Capitalism is an economic system that combines centralization with
  decentralization. It concentrates power in the hands of owners and
  managers of firms who are then able to secure the cooperation of large
  numbers of employees in the production process. But it limits the
  powers of owners and of other individuals, because they face
  competition to buy and sell in markets.
(1) the right to use and exclude others from the use of something, and
  the right to sell the thing that is owned
(2) The equipment, buildings, and other durable inputs used in
  producing goods and services, including where applicable any patents
  or other intellectual property that is used
Comment: I'm not convinced most economists would agree that firms are needed for capitalism. The figure seems to conflate some issues... i.e. it seems to define what others call corporate capitalism.
Comment: This definition is too broad/vague. It could be applied to economies before the era of Adam Smith et al.
Comment: See for example https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177297 which contrasts "classical capitalism" with "corporate capitalism".  The latter is "based on a diffused private property regime.
The great corporation supersedes the small family company. Its ownership
is structured in the form of a joint stock company with a dispersed
shareholding, while internal control is implemented through huge and
complex hierarchies of command." [continues]
Comment: "The firm is no longer a thing that
belongs to a person or a group of persons endowed with residual
control. Rather, it is itself a person, i.e. a social entity with a legal personality,
able to enter into contracts and transactions with all the other social
actors (Iwai, 1997). The entrepreneurs are managers who act as both
agents of the shareholders and functionaries of the company. Their objective,
in the former role, is the value of the firm, in the latter, company
growth. In principle there is no contradiction between the two goals [...]"
Comment: Alternatively, corporate capitalism is called "managerial capitalism" https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100129827?rskey=NfaMcF&result=42
Comment: Other authors like  Hodgson do exthort the corporation as core feature of capitalism as we know it. (So you have my upvote) Also, Hodgson (see my answer for more details) tries to differentiate between capitalism as a post-18th century system and broader definitions that cover [parts of] lots of other systems. So the CORE textbook is probably trying to do this too, although it isn't as explicit.
Answer: While "economics" doesn't have a definition, what I find most important is recognizing that there are at least 2 substantially different definitions of capitalism in wide circulation. Clarifying (or simply avoiding the use of the word entirely) is often critically important to having productive discussions.

Captialism when spoken by advocates of it generally means "a system of market economics where property rights are secure and the action of private individuals determines what happens in the market."

Capitalism when spoken by detractors of it generally means the same as "cronyism". I might define it as "a system where those who control most of the capital are given or take political advantage."

There are similarly two different primary meanings for "socialism":

Socialism when spoken by advocates of it generally mean "a system where the welfare of the common person is respected and given fair treatment, often involving government social safety nets of various kinds"

Socialism when spoken by detractors of it generally means "a system where the government controls production of goods and services"

One simply can't have a productive conversation across the aisle without understanding both of these definitions and how to avoid confusion around them. My method is usually to talk about command economies vs market economies and make sure to distinguish cronyism as a separate thing.
Comment: You seem to not realize that words very often have *multiple* definitions. The answer is not always to consult a dictionary and find the "one true definition", especially when there isn't one.
Answer: Capitalism is

considering money capital, i.e., considering money itself productive
"control over economic life in the name of the unrestricted and unlimited acquisitive interests of those who own capital." (Heinrich Pesch, S.J., Ethics and the National Economy p. 159; cf. these quotes from it)
"state-sponsored usury" (E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury)
"means of production […] being concentrated in the hands of a few owners" (John Médaille)
a "dictatorship" of "those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money" and "regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives" (Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno §106)
Austin Woodbury, S.M., True and False Capitalism: A Catholic Analysis, § Forms of Investment: "capitalism is nothing else than the name for the act of investment." He distinguishes 2 types:

natural capitalism (investing in productive goods)
spurious capitalism (investing in order to impede production; e.g., a competitor buying his competition in order to form a monopoly)

Julio Meinvielle, Concepción católica de la economía, p. 5:an economic system that seeks the unlimited growth of gain through the application of mechanistic economic laws.un sistema económico que busca el acrecentamiento ilimitado de la ganancia por la aplicación de leyes económicas mecánicas.
Comment: @Giskard Also, why is #1 not disparaging?
Comment: Except for the first one, these all seem like disparaging comments rather than exact definitions.
Comment: Good point! However, in most (objective) intertemporal models there is good reason to assume that money/wealth/savings may be productive.
Comment: @Giskard These definitions distinguish capitalism from other market economies such as those that existed before Adam Smith's era.

Definition of capitalism


Clone existing G Suite account into the same organization

Question: Is it possible to clone a G Suite account from one domain to the same domain? I need to preserve a full copy at a given point of one account (including emails, Google Docs, calendar, etc.) that I can access in the future.
Answer: AFAIK G Suite doesn't include a built-in feature to "clone" G Suite accounts but you could use the export organization's data and transfer features to make a copy of several account files and data. For details see

Export your organization's data
Transfer data between G Suite accounts

Note: There is a service called Vault that:

... lets you retain, hold, search, and export data to support your
  organization's archiving and eDiscovery needs

but it doesn't include all the account data.


XOR secret sharing scheme

Question: I was wondering how we can get a secret sharing of $a+b$ from the sharing of secrets $a$ and $b$ themselves by using an XOR secret sharing scheme, where $a_1,...,a_n$ and $b_1,...,b_n$ are the shares for $a$ and $b$ respectively. Can anyone give me any suggestion?
Comment: if $a=a_1\oplus a_2\oplus\dots\oplus a_n$, if you have less than $n$ shares you **cannot** reconstruct $a$. Are you sure you aren't wanting [shamir secret sharing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir's_Secret_Sharing)?
Comment: What do you mean $a_1, ..., a_n$ are the shares for $a$?  Do you mean that you want someone to be able to reconstruct the ultimate secret $a+b$ if he have enough $a_i$ and $b_j$ shares?  If not, what do you mean?
Comment: $a_1,...a_n$ are the shares distributed to players 1 to $n$ for the secret $a$, and $b_1,...b_n$ are the shares distributed to players 1 to $n$ for the secret $b$ @poncho
Comment: I don't think you can with xor sharing. You could with additive secret sharing or shamir secret sharing. You can certainly get the xor of a and b.
Comment: What are you trying to solve?  If player $i$ has both share $a_i$ and $b_i$, then the same subset of players with shares can reconstruct both $a$ and $b$ individually; with both $a$ and $b$, we can recompute $a+b$.  Or, are you asking "how can each individual player construct a share for the secret $a+b$ (and, if so, why)?
Comment: @poncho at least t out of n players are needed to reconstruct $a + b$
Comment: with xor secret sharing $t=n$, no?
Comment: @mikeazo $t\leq n$
Answer: The answer is almost definitely no for what I think you want (question is still unclear). I was hoping someone else could give a definite no, but since they haven't I figured I'd write this up.
Your exact secret sharing method probably needs to be fully described in the question. I'm going to assume that $a=a_1\oplus a_2\oplus\dots\oplus a_n$ and similarly for $b$. Party $p_i$ is given $a_i,b_i$ and you want the parties to be able to compute shares, say $c_i$ of $c=a+b$ without reconstructing $a$ or $b$. I'll assume we are working in some finite field $\mathbb{F}$ and that $a_1,\dots,a_{n-1}$ are chosen randomly from the field and $a_n=a\oplus a_1\oplus\dots\oplus a_{n-1}$. The shares of $b$ are chosen similarly.
Note that this is basically additive secret sharing in a field of characteristic two. But, when you say you want to compute shares of the sum of $a+b$, I'm assuming you don't mean field-of-characteristic-2 addition (which is just xor). If that is what you mean, then the answer is simple (each party $p_i$ simply computes $c_i=a_i\oplus b_i$). I'm assuming you want something like 32 bit addition (i.e., addition mod $2^{32}$ or something very similar like addition in $\mathbb{Z}_p$ where $p$ is possibly the next prime after $2^{32}$).
To see why I don't believe it is possible, lets use $n=2$.
So, $p_1$ gets $a_1,b_1$ and $p_2$ gets $a_2,b_2$ where $a=a_1\oplus a_2$ and $b=b_1\oplus b_2$.
Therefore, the problem reduces to the following, we need some operation, say $\boxplus$, such that $(a_1\boxplus b_1)\oplus(a_2\boxplus b_2) = a+b$
So, what are the possibilities for $\boxplus$. If we allow for communication to take place between $p_1$ and $p_2$, then the answer is yes, it can be done. In this case, we can do multiparty computation in the characteristic 2 field and construct a 32 bit adder circuit. This should be possible as far as I understand MPC.
Now, assuming you do not allow communication between the parties after the shares are distributed (which I'm guessing is what you wanted), I just don't see a way to do it (though I haven't been able to fully prove it, if nothing else hopefully my answer will bring some good discussion). If we take the approach of MPC, all we can do on the shares is compute the xor and multiply by a constant. Given those operations I don't see how you would construct an adder.
Another temptation might be to simply add $a_i,b_i$ using regular addition. In which case you get $(a_1+b_1)\oplus(a_2+b_2)$ which will not be $a+b$. Really we need an operation $\boxplus$ which is commutative and associative with $\oplus$ in which case you could do $(a_1\boxplus b_1)\oplus(a_2\boxplus b_2)=(a_1\boxplus b_1)\oplus(b_2\boxplus a_2)=a_1\boxplus (b_1\oplus b_2)\boxplus a_2=a_1\boxplus b\boxplus a_2$. It is unclear where to go from there. This is where I ended up and couldn't go any further and why I believe the answer  is no in the case of no communication.

XOR secret sharing scheme


Remove "TRIM" in a column field?

Question: Referring to the question above, I have a problem when I'm trying to display my database in datagridview. I have a field "Items" but when I call it to the grid, the field will be name "TRIM(Items)". The "TRIM" comes from my sql statement :-

SELECT TRIM(Items) FROM others2

I need the TRIM so that there is no space when I called my data to the grid.
Anyway, how to remove the word but still it will trim my data?
Answer: Try SELECT TRIM(Items) As Items FROM others2.

Remove "TRIM" in a column field?


Why the Anet A6 can't do .05 layer height

Question: So like I sayed in the title, Why can't the Anet A6 do .05 layer height? I found that some printers can do .05 layer heights, but the Anet A6 can't? I am interested to know if it is the stepper motors or the threaded rods or something. Maybe this is something I can do a small "test print" on?
Comment: What do you mean by "but the Anet A6 can't?".
Comment: What size nozzle do you have? Some slicers don't support layer height larger than nozzle diameter.
Comment: @mac just going off the spec sheet. And I am slightly worried that if I tried I might screw something off. But the spec sheet say it can go as low as .1mm layer height, and I want to know why it can't go lower than that.
Comment: @Davo I am using right now a .4mm but I would just like to know in general if the Anet A6 can pull off a .05mm layer height.
Answer: I'm not familiar with the Anet A6 specifically, but as many other things in a 3D printer, the minimum layer height is co-determined by a number of factors.  For the Z-axis the factors I am aware of are:

The number of steps in the stepper motor
The geometry of the lead screw
The tolerance with which the lead screw has been machined
The microstep settings
The quality of the stepper drivers
The amount of play and flexibility of the X-axis gantry
The ration between filament and nozzle diameter
The precision of the extruder's stepper motor
...

Many printers that claim to have ridiculously low minimum Z-layer height do so by relying on the mathematical model only.  It goes something like this: the lead screw has an offset of 1mm per revolution, the stepper motor makes 200 steps and is set for 32 microsteps per step so the minimum resolution should be...
<code>1mm / (200 * 32) = 0.0002mm
</code>
The reality is however different.  For example: the lead screw may have been machined with a tolerance of 0.002mm, so to make sure a layer has a thickness >0mm its heigh should be >0.004mm (20 times the theoretical limit computed with the microsteps).  But to make sure layers have the same height ±10% you would need to increase the minimum layer heigh of an order of magnitude, bringing it to 0.04mm.  A similar reasoning applies for the amount of play in the gantry, while the ratio between filament and nozzle influences the minimum volume of plastic that can be extruded per step (for very thin layers you want to be able to extrude a minimal amount of it).
At the end of the day this is a typical case of "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link": the minimum layer height of a printer is affected much more dramatically by the limitations of the most imprecise component in the printer than by the performance of its best one.
As for your question about breaking the printer by issuing g-code with very thin layers: should you issue gcode that requires layers below that limit, the firmware will simply print at the same z-height (see comments, credits to Tom).
I'm unaware of people having permanently damaged their machines by issuing code with too thin Z-layers.  But given how the firmware operates, I'd expect the quality of the print to be negatively affected, the filament to be possibly chewed by the cobbed wheel and in extreme cases cloggig of the printer head.
Comment: `but my understanding is that manufacturers encode in the firmware a sensible minimum layer height, and the firmware itself has strategies to cope with gcode that requires layers below that limit (like throwing an error or simply ignoring some layers altogether).` This is incorrect. Firmware generally is *dumb*, and it will try to print the file you throw at it to the best of its abilities. A "0.1mm printer" will print a 0.05mm file just fine, but if you throw a file at it with layers thinner than the minimum Z-step, it will simply print over the previous layer without moving the Z-axis.
Comment: @TomvanderZanden - thank you for the correction! :) I modified the answer to reflect your input. Am I correct in thinking that in your second scenario the gantry will move up only when the delta between the _computed_ absolute Z position and the current _physical_ one will be above the minimum Z step? (e.g.: min z-step is 10, layers are 5 --> the gantry will move up every second layer, printing two layers on top of each other)
Comment: @mac Yes, that is what would happen. `manufacturers encode in the firmware a sensible minimum layer height` is still incorrect. The firmware doesn't know anything about layers. All it knows is that sending a single step pulse to the stepper driver will result in the Z-axis moving by 0.0xxxmm.
Answer: Your question is based on an incorrect premise. Just because the specifications list "minimum layer height: 0.1mm" does not mean the printer is unable to print thinner layers. It just means that the manufacturer is willing to guarantee that printing 0.1mm layers is possible, or that - for whatever reason - the marketing department decided to list 0.1mm in that table. 0.1mm is a nice, round number and seems to be the "gold standard" for 3D printers, but rarely is 0.1mm a limit that is inherent in the printer design.
The theoretical precision of the Z-axis is usually at least an order of magnitude better than the advertised minimum layer height. Of course, the precision of the Z-axis is not the only limiting factor (at a certain point, you need to extrude so slowly that you start to be limited by the resolution of the extruder stepper), but often even impractically thin layers print just fine.
In many cases, printers are capable of printing layers far thinner than the manufacturers officially advertise. More often than not, minimum layer height is limited by your patience and the fact that doing a print with thinner layer heights takes much longer for a rather limited gain in quality. Just give it a try and try to print 0.05mm layers, and you might be pleasantly surprised by the results!
(Note: it is advisable to choose a layer height that is a multiple of the distance for a single (full) step of the Z-stepper. For my printer (which has a very coarse leadscrew on the Z-axis), this is 0.02mm so - for me - it would be better to print with 0.06mm or 0.04mm layers than with 0.05mm layers).
Answer: I have an Anet A6 and once you get your settings dialled in, bed level accurate and belt tensioner correct you can do 0.05 mm very well (although I for some reason went with 0.06 mm and never tried the extra 0.01 mm lower but it shouldn't have an issue). Note: I did this using all the stock parts so 0.4 mm brass nozzle.
I highly recommend you print and install a front Y axis frame brace and a Y axis belt tensioning mod as well as an X axis belt tensioner. It will allow you to print at these layer heights much more accurately if you can adjust the tension correctly.
The kit out of the box makes it almost impossible to get good/correct tension on the belts.


Will a trumpet mute work in a cornet?

Question: I have a cornet and would like to purchase a mute for it. However, the majority of mutes are trumpet mutes. Will a trumpet mute work properly in a cornet? My main reason of concern is that the trumpet has a cylindrical bore while the cornet has a conical bore. Should this be a concern?
Answer: Conical vs. cylindrical bore instruments should not be a concern. The bell sections of all brass instruments are conical and the valve sections of all brass instruments are cylindrical--the differences between them are more subtle and occur elsewhere in the instrument.
You really just need to try the mute on your cornet. Even within the same family of instrument, different designs work with some mutes better than others. The one example that comes to mind is the Martin Committee trumpet. The bell on this instrument has a wider throat than many other trumpets, so using a harmon mute with it requires that you add a layer of cork to the outside of the mute so that it seals properly.
And by that same token, a mute can always be adjusted to fit your particular instrument. Most cornet bells are very similar to trumpet bells, so you'll probably find that the trumpet mute fits your cornet just fine, but it may be better in tune with the addition or subtraction of some of the cork on the mute. In fact, some mute manufacturers (Tom Crown is one) ship their mutes with LOTS of cork, expecting them to be filed down to fit the instrument it will be used with.
Comment: As long as the cornet and trumpet are in the same key (especially Bb or C), a mute from one will generally (but not always) work in the other. The main issue with fit is the rate of the bell flare. A mute designed for an Eb trumpet or soprano cornet is often noticeable smaller than one for a larger horn, like the typical Bb.  Same thing with mutes specifically for piccolo trumpets.
Answer: No you'll be fine. I don't think I've ever found a trumpet mute to be un-usable in a cornet. You may find that you prefer the sound and feel of different mutes in different instruments though. This of course will vary depending on the instrument and the player.

Will a trumpet mute work in a cornet?


GTA V and the GTA V iFruit app

Question: I got the iFruit app for GTA V and I was wondering, for the Chop training on the app to carry over to the game, do you have to be connected to the internet on your console or will it also take affect without an internet connection?
Also will the car modifications work without an internet connection or do you need a connection to get the message from Los Angeles Customs?
Basically what I'm asking is will the modifications you make on your car and the training done on Chop from the app take affect on offline single player on GTA V without having an internet connection or gold membership?
Answer: No. Nothing will be able to be sent to your Xbox if it is not connected to the internet. So offline singleplayer will not be affected.

GTA V and the GTA V iFruit app


Trying to Mirror Screen on HD TV

Question: Trying to connect my laptop to an HD tv screen via an HDMI cable. It works for about 5 seconds and then the picture disappears on the tv and it turns black. Not only this but when the screen does show some parts are clipped off from the tv (including the start menu). How do I change the resolution, as under "Display" only one resolution is available for the SAMSUMG tv.
 Thanks
Answer: Not sure why your screen goes black, but the clipping is due to overscan. Most HD TVs produce a picture which is larger than the displayed area so they don't get a black border when showing normal TV. When using as a monitor, this needs to be adjusted. I use 2 nettop PCs (1 Ubuntu, 1 Debian) with HD TV's as monitors to record and watch TV. The display adapter is NVIDIA which has an application (nvidia-settings) which can change the overscan. Depending on your adapter there should be a similar application to reset it.

Trying to Mirror Screen on HD TV


What's different between canned beer and bottled beer?

Question: Beer produced by large breweries has long been sold in cans, but I've noticed recently that more craft beers are appearing sold in cans as well. Why might they be choosing cans over bottles? Is there a taste or shelf-life benefit to canned beer? Or is it just ecological or marketing concerns?
Comment: You can take aluminum cans to parks for picnics, beaches, etc, and can't take glass bottles. I know that's a big reason why Harpoon releases their IPA and Summer Ales in aluminum cans over the summer.
Comment: I've made a fairly substantial edit to your post to try to make it pretty specific and on-topic - hope it still essentially asks what you were trying to ask!
Comment: @lemontwist : there are a lot more places  that have bans on bottled beer (eg, NASCAR tracks, sports stadiums).  I remember talking to a person who made crafts out of cans ~10-15 years ago, and asking them where they got a bunch of things that I hadn't ever seen in cans, and they said some breweries starting doing runs in cans just for stadium sales because of the bottle bans.
Comment: On the ecological concern -- aluminum is one of the most recycled materials ... but I prefer 'em because camping, it's easier to bring back crushed empty cans than bottle.  (but that's why a consumer might choose them, not the brewery)
Answer: Cans have a lot of advantages over bottles: they don't allow light in (light spoils beer), are easier to stack (and take up less space when arranged tightly), the materials for each can are cheaper, and so on. From the consumer perspective, this results in cheaper and higher-quality beer, all else being equal.
The reason craft breweries have been using glass bottles rather than cans is largely historical and aesthetic. Some hip craft breweries started using cans recently, and it led to a trend.
Comment: Cans have a lot of advantages, but I've heard that a canning line is much more expensive for a brewery than a bottling line.
Comment: @user5561, many of the craft breweries contract out their canning to another facility. I know that Harpoon uses a larger brewery in Utica to get their canned beer.
Comment: As an upcoming craft brewer myself, I've been considering canning for all these reasons. +1
Answer: Zach makes a good case for the benefits of cans over bottles...but there are just as many benefits of bottles over cans.
In general, I'd say that, if the beer is kept out of the light, bottles are a better choice as far as flavor is concerned.
For one, glass is completely nonreactive, and does not contaminate the beer, but aluminum does leech into the beer, even from lined cans. For an example of research on this topic, see this article.
Additionally, with lined cans, the plastic liner also contaminates the beverage; while, due to the small volume of plastic involved, this is likely less of a problem than in plastic bottles, it's still likely more of a problem than in glass bottles, where only the lid is lined with plastic, and (assuming the bottles are kept vertical at all times) the beverage has little contact with the plastic, reducing leeching.
With regard to longer-term storage, I've also heard pop bottle collectors say that cans eventually develop pinhole leaks, so the contents can't be kept in a can for decades, as they can be in a bottle.


A Jew hired a worker to work for him on Shabbat, forgetting that he'd be working on Shabbat. What should he do?

Question: Suppose someone hires a worker through an online intermediary such as Fiverr to do a discrete project, such as building a website, and inadvertently sets the deadline for project completion to Shabbat, such that the worker will likely actually do the work on Shabbat. Must the hire-er try to stop the worker from working on Shabbat? What is the proper thing to do, according to halachic sources? Does it make a difference if the worker is likely to be a Jew or a non-Jew?
Comment: Welcome to MY! Your post was put on hold because it is asking for practical Halacha, which is not a question we field here; those are best asked to a competent Local Orthodox Rabbi.
Comment: welcome to Mi Yodeya Leg !
Comment: [Welcome to MiYodeya](https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3887/11501). Great to have you learn with us. This site is not handling requests for halachic decisions - which is why the question was edited to make it broader. You can always [edit] it further or rollback the edits. Welcome again.
Comment: VTC as it seems to ask for p'sak halacha.
Answer: If you can stop him from working on shabbat, you should do so and require that no work be done on shabbat if he's Jewish. If he is Jewish and already finished the site after the fact, contact your local orthodox Rabbi about whether it is permitted to benefit from the site.
If the worker is not Jewish, there is no need to stipulate such if he is paid per job and it was awarded to him prior to the start of shabbat and he could theoretically finish before shabbat. If the case was such that he did finish it on shabbat, it is permitted to benefit from the site since the non-Jew undertook to finish the job for his own benefit to receive payment and could have finished before shabbat(the fact that he actually finished it on shabbat was due to his own comfort and decision and not because you told him to do so on shabbat itself). See Yalkut Yosef Shabbat part 1 pg. 29 and part 2 pg. 628, and Halichot Olam part 4.

A Jew hired a worker to work for him on Shabbat, forgetting that he’d be working on Shabbat. What should he do?


Restore a windows 7 image to different PC's

Question: We run an office full of laptops that are all different ages/configurations with lots of different hardware. Basically we want to upgrade every laptop to windows 7, the classic ghost deployment wouldn't work as far as I am aware, as the varying hardware would cause a range of issues.
I have been investigating sysprep and also the possibility that you can simply ghost the images across to new hardware with no issues since vista was deployed. Can anyone confirm/deny this? or provide some insight on how to copy a windows 7 image to new hardware with minimal issues?
Answer: The recommended way is to use the WAIK, but at the very least you should be using sysprep on the "master" image before capturing the image and deploying it.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd349343(WS.10).aspx
Answer: Maybe just easier to upgrade all of the machines to one standard brand, model and configuration and which comes preinstalled with the version of Windows that you're looking for. Once you do that, you can just create an image of the installation, and when a replacement is needed, take the new machine and just re-image it with the master image.
Good luck and hope this helps some.
Answer: As of Ghost Solution Suite 2.5 (the product which actually contains Ghost, since the "Norton Ghost" product is a consumer tool based on different code these days) Ghost deployment actually can work across diverse hardware, even without using Sysprep.
In GSS 2.5 an extra tool is included called "Deploy Anywhere" which can help install certain critical types of driver into a recently-deployed Windows install (this tool itself runs from Windows PE rather than DOS; Ghost Solution Suite 2.5 changes the default OS from which managed Ghost operations run to Windows PE largely as a consequence of this, although the Ghost Boot Wizard can also build DOS or Linux boot media for you for traditional styles of Ghost deployment without DeployAnywhere).
In the main, what running Sysprep does on a machine is two things; arrange to trigger Windows Setup the next time the machine is rebooted, and change the mass storage driver loaded for the next boot to be a reasonably generic one rather than a hardware-specific one. This is done by Sysprep before the image is taken, so that the image is generic. Lots of other options in Sysprep do exist, which mainly revolve around scripting what the Windows Setup wizard ends up doing on that next boot aside from re-detecting all the installed hardware.
DeployAnywhere in GSS 2.5 works somewhat similarly, except that you don't need to run Sysprep ahead of time to generalise the image; it can adjust the target Windows install after deployment to trigger the hardware redetection, and can also adjust the storage driver to ensure that the next boot succeeds. It arranges to directly install a replacement hardware-specific driver in the newly deployed OS rather than a generic one, and so for this it works with a library of storage and network drivers (which the Ghost Boot Wizard maintains) to which you can add additional ones.
Whichever toolchain you use, you should be able to get things to work; the choice between DeployAnywhere and Sysprep really depends on what kind of overall process you want to set up. The main thing that the GSS toolchain (particularly the managed deployment in the GSS console) is set up to let you do is get away with making arbitrary adjustments to what happens after you've captured your baseline image without requiring too much up-front preparation, whereas what Sysprep does is driven by scripting the Windows Setup system via XML files - but once you've got those scripts right, you're not dependent on any third-party toolchain.
Answer: Windows Vista and 7 overcame the major issue with deployment on different hardware by removing the need for the chipset and disk controller to be identical (or compatible) between source and destination; this allows them to properly boot when moved to different hardware, and then do what Windows has always been doing since '98: do some plug&play and discover what hardware it's actually running on.
This doesn't mean you won't have to provide drivers if needed: there could still be some device on the new system which your image doesn't have drivers for. But it will not crash with INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE anymore.
Also, SYSPREP is still a must, otherwise you'll end up with a bunch of computer with the same SID, which will wreak havoc on your network.
If you want more control on your deployment, you should definitely have a look at the Windows Automated Installation Kit and the Microsoft Deployment Toolkit.
Comment: Actually according to sysinternals having multiple computers with the same sid is not a problem. http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2009/11/03/3291024.aspx
Comment: But it still *can* cause troubles, and not doing it is plainly and simply *not supported*.
Comment: true Sysprep is needed for mass deploys, but not for the SID issue you mentioned. It also does other things which do make a difference. The SID issue just isn't one of them.


What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti?

Question: What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti? Are they the same? What are the distinctions between them?
Answer: Phalasamapatti is a meditative state in which a person is absorbed in Nibbana itself. In this attainment there is a special kind of consciousness present called Lokuttara-citta.
In contrast to this, in Nirodhasamapatti there is no consciousness at all. In Chapter 8 section 42 of the Abhidhammatha Sangaha it describes it like this:

Having proceeded, thus, up to the base of nothingness, one then
  attends to the  preliminary duties such as the resolution, etc., and
  enters the base of neither-perception- nor-nonperception.    After
  two  occasions  of  javana  in  absorption,  the  continuum  of
  consciousness  is  suspended.    Then,  one  is  said  to  have
  attained  cessation  (nirodha- samāpatti).

Another difference is in who can attain them. Phalasamapatti is attained by each of the four kinds of noble beings just after attaining the knowledge of the path, and it can be cultivated and extended by them as well. Nirodhasamapatti however, can only be entered by non-returners and arahats.
Comment: Path to Nibbana by Ajahn Jodok says there are 3 samapatti (trances, i.e. states of unconsciousness) in vipassana: jhanasamapati (side-track), phalasamapatti (fruition) and nirodhasamapatti. Experientially, they are can not be different (unconscious). What is the theoretical reason to introduce lokuttara-citta?
Comment: @eudoxos.  I beleive they are unconscious in the sense that consciousness = vinanna.  And vinanna = split (vi) knowing (nanna).  It is what happens as the result of knowing/perceiving arisen objects.  So magga/phala (being the pinnacle of the unification of nanna) is simply knowing.  As opposed to the knowing of arisen phenomena (aka vinanna).

A total lack of awareness is called oblivion and should not be mistaken for magga/phala.  This is according to Mahasi Sayadaw's Manual of Insight.  (You can search the glossary for the term oblivion to find the relevant pages)
Answer: Here is what the Nirodha Samapatti is defined as
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm
Here is the Phala Samapatti progessions
http://www.palikanon.com/english/practice_insight/characteristics_of_forgetting.htm
Here is a discussion of if this kind of discussion is fruitful
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18101
I am not a strong supporter of discussion as a fruitful path to cessation as much as practice but I respect the right of all to choose for everyone may have a different path. It is not for me to say.
Answer: The 8 Jhanas(absorption's) are required for such attainment; the three mentioned in another post, co-inside with: stream entry, once returner, non-returner/arahant.
The five physical aggregates and mental aggregates are not self, the attachment to them are signs of attainment on the path from gross to subtle forms of clinging through desire/craving.
Nirodha samapatti is the extinction of the three poisons; greed, hate, and delusion; the 8th jhana absorption of total emptiness or extinction without remainder, kamma is what forms the gross or subtle body that others experience as form; through their attachment, albeit that attachment is one of ignorance and not one of loving kindness, compassion, or equanimity.
Since that attachment others have is not thus? Then that is what then becomes one's path having attained nibbana, and is the difference between a corpse and a monk... such attachments others have, are then the only cause for further becoming, for them their cause if not fully liberated; is further birth in the cycle of samsara.
One cannot walk the path nor liberate another; it is the duty of oneself to walk the path of the rightly self awakened one.
With Metta;
Jim
Answer: Nirodha-Sanna-sampatti is highly meditative steps where the practitioner first aware of neighther perception-nor non perception. It's a base for Nirodha. This state was attained by Udraka muni as said he never leaves place instead silent inside without uttering any word or movement. So, even he has attain this state he is still not succeed in eliminating perception altogether. Why? Because he had not then the Samma Ditthi. The ditthi is where even the perception is not there and also there is no one who actually ceased. Buddha then realised that what stopped udraka ramputta from cessation of perception that he attached to it. Buddha succeeded when he also got detached from this neither perception-nor non perception. And when done he realised 4th noble truth, the vision of Absolute and then back to perception. He realised, there is nothing in individual we can call own. Not body, feeling, perception, sensation nor counciousness. One who attach to it is seed for becoming and who have vision of 4th noblest truth, five khanda ceased to be. He do action but doer remain absent. He lives on until end but there is no one who is living. The conclusion can be put in example as: When a boy who is sweet but people call him ugly, with sadness in his heart by their treatment, goes to lake with distress, see his own face in clearer water and see his face. But after a while he jumped in joy that, I am not ugly, I am bright and sweet. This is like nirodha-sanna-sampatti. The face of boy in water can be termed as state of neither perception -nor non perception and the face of actual boy is that of nirodha sampatti or 4th noble truth or vision of absolute. So phala sampatti is attaining the fruit and niridha sampatti is frution. In 2nd example is like this": A student cried "master, master, open the door!" then Master says "The door is already opened, you are the one who is holding that!". The boy at the door is neither perception nor non perception. It's also called Maya or covering veil in Vedanta. A real fruit immortal is not sectarian and unfathomed is it's depth. So, wise accept any teaching or thought that is contain the fruit Immortal! Be transcendentalist. May all being attain it.


Best books on philosophy of mind and/or consciousness?

Question: I'm looking for a book that isn't too dense and that is usually recommended for someone who wants to learn of the mind/consciousness but doesn't know where to start.
Comment: I'm not sure that book recommendations are entirely on-topic here, but do you want a historical view of what philosophers have thought about mind and consciousness in the past (and therefore what the important questions are thought to be), or a modern account of how (some) philosophers view mind and consciousness in light of recent research in neurobiology/cognitive science?
Comment: Cool, yes. Accurate, not very. Useful to understanding philosophy of mind with regards to consciousness- not at all.
Comment: I don't see why we shouldn't have book recommendations here, but that's a discussion probably better left to Meta.
Comment: anything by Malcolm Gladwell is cool
Comment: I haven't read David Chalmers *The conscious mind*, but I have the impression its a useful one on this topic.
Comment: "What is Life?: with 'Mind and Matter'" by Erwin Schroedinger
Comment: +1 for Swami's choice. I have read Chalmers 'Conscious Mind' mentioned above and would not recommend it. I have no recommendations from philosophy of mind.
Answer: I would wholly recommend Susan Blackmore's Consciousness. It's part of the Very Short Introduction series, not as expensive as Blackwell's, and takes you through just enough history to help you understand what the relevant issues currently are. If you're interested in reading further, just check her citations and go from there.
Also, a good essay to start with is always Thomas Nagel's "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" which you can easily find online. Hume and Berkeley are worth reading, but they're a little removed from the current state of the debate on minds and consciousness. If you want something that's not dense, but you're not afraid of a longer read, there's also Stephen Pinker's How the Mind Works. It's a fairly strong Functionalist account of mind, but it doesn't pretend to have all the answers.
Answer: To be honest, it is hard to recommend a single book. If you really want to understand philosophy, you must read many books. So you might want to start with Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Berkeley's Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Descartes' Meditations and Discourse on the Method, as well as Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. These are by far the best epistemology/metaphysics books I have ever read. It might seem obvious recommending such well-known books, but they are well-known because they are truly phenomenal. Also, if you are interested in the development of mathematics, and in particular analysis, I would recommend The Analyst by Berkeley -- a remarkable book. If however, you do not have time to read them all, start with Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Berkeley's Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, and avoid Kant' Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, and any of Kant's books because they are very difficult to read. You need to read each book at least twice to understand Kant.
Comment: Not to demean your selection, but he asked specifically for works that aren't **dense**. I'm rather sure that Kant falls well outside of his request in that respect. Moreover, if it was consciousness he was after, and density wasn't at issue, why leave out Brentano, Frege, and Husserl?
Comment: You could include those also, but in my opinion one has to start with the books I included, and perhaps Frege. Note that I mentioned avoiding Kant because his books are very difficult to read. Overall, it is hard to ask for something that is not dense in philosophy.
Answer: For an easy to read theory of consciousness I recommend Biocentrism by Robert Lanza.
Engaging, accessible to the layperson, and, IMO, incredibly compelling.
Answer: The most accessible book I have read on consciousness was The Mind's I, by Dennett and Hofstadter.  It was a series of science fiction short stories that illustrated various thought problems in consciousness, followed by the two authors discussing the implications of the story. For someone just getting their feet wet in philosophy, it is a great easy introduction.
The best single book on philosphy of mind I have read is Blackmore's A Very Short Introduction to Consciousness.  It is VERY SHORT, with very clean writing. It is also focussed on compiling the evidence that has a bearing on the viability of consciousness theories.  Blackmore takes one through this evidence, and with a general dialog between dualism, materialism, and her preferred delusionism viewpoint.  Blackmore would probably be best read after one has at least skimmed a general overview book on philosophy of mind, although one could read her first, then the overview second.
Answer: I have been studying (in my on spiritual quest) the topic of consciousness for more than a decade and I find that most of the stuff on consciousness severely lacking for two reasons. 1) it is too scientific and 2) it is too New Agey. I stumbled across a book last year that was a free download by an unknown author and the book just blew me away. The book is called "Demystifying the Mystical" by Endall Beall.
A few months back I saw that this author has created a series called the Evolution of Consciousness and I immediately purchased the books through Amazon. The first book is good and it takes on Philosophy and brings a new light to the field. The second book is called Willful Evolution and it makes so much sense and is more practical, not scientific or New Agey. Actually and the Demystifying the Mystical book (which demystifies what most people think of as mystical) so it kind of tears the New Age apart (with good reason). There are more books to the series that I am looking forward to reading.


Password manager bug with Firefox 3.6.13

Question: I'm having trouble with the latest Firefox (3.6.13) password manager. For a website I'm working on, it doesn't fill the password field for any login credential saved. I've looked into the options "Saved passwords" list and they are all there with the correct passwords. I thought at first that the website was blocking this feature in some way, but the password managers in Chrome (on the same Windows 7 machine) and Iceweasel (in a virtual Debian 6 machine) work well. Any idea about what could cause this problem?
Answer: It occurs with me for some websites... Try using Saved Password Editor addon and edit passwords stored for your page (in the list of saved passwds). Then, see if the field names match or if stored info is ok.
Answer: I've finally added a submit button to that form and Firefox password manager now work. It was using only a link that submitted the form via JavaScript before.
Answer: Yeah, you should use a proper form with normal username (text) and password fields and an action that submits normally rather than submitting it with a script. Otherwise it can't be recognized as a login form. If you use Saved Password Editor, you can see what information Firefox stores for forms; it's more than just the host, username, and password.


How do I force dhclient to use last known IP?

Question: This is for fault tolerance in a client/server app. The business says that when the network is unavailable, the app must still run.  And it will, provided it doesn't lose it's IP address. The problem is that I'm losing the IP address as soon as I unplug the NIC. Can I force it to use it's last known IP address?
/etc/dhclient.conf
<code>option rfc3442-classless-static-routes code 121 = array of unsigned integer 8;

request subnet-mask, broadcast-address, routers,
    rfc3442-classless-static-routes,
    interface-mtu, host-name, domain-name, domain-search,
    domain-name-servers, nis-domain, nis-servers,
    nds-context, nds-servers, nds-tree-name,
    netbios-name-servers, netbios-dd-server,
    netbios-node-type, netbios-scope, ntp-servers;

require subnet-mask;

timeout 60;
retry 60;
reboot 10;
select-timeout 5;
initial-interval 2;

lease {
    interface "eth0";
    fixed-address 10.59.139.21;
}
</code>
Relevant system log output is here:
http://pastebin.com/XdyeRLdg
Answer: Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, as happens from time to time, but isn't this the very thing static IP addresses assignments are for?  Instead of using dhclient, set the IP to a static IP and be done with it.